Pages:
Author

Topic: Flaw in the reward structure of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? (Read 4013 times)

hero member
Activity: 931
Merit: 500
Sorry if this was discussed before, couldn't find a thread discussing the implications of having a small reward to start, that then increases over time.

I know this has been done before, but I'm too lazy to search for it right now. I remember seeing a really nice looking "S shape" (imagine if the bottom half of the current curve looked like the top half, just inverted across the X and Y axes), it might have been by jgarzik. This actually may be more to codro's liking, as it would have a more gradual build up initially.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.554717

Basically, an Ease in Ease Out curve would led us to poor adoption and network fragility, people are welcome to test this generation curve with any AltCoins out there (I suppose no one tried yet):




Because nobody would mine, since it is going to become easier with time anyway. And if nobody wants to start, you won't ever reach the later levels of the project. Early adopters _need_ to be rewarded, or there would be no early adopters at all, effectively killing Bitcoin before it even started. Remember, those coins were worthless when the project started. Yet people were spending electricity, buying hardware, buying coins with a _very_ uncertain future. Those who took those risks have to be rewarded.

This.
member
Activity: 158
Merit: 10
Nah. I dont see value of bitcoin in keeping it. I only make money when it sold. Why keep?
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
if I had 300k btc this is exactly what I would do. Sell it all , make 4.2 mil, buy 300k btc back at $1, wait 2-3 years , do it again.
This is thread is all about BTC vs. USD. We're early adopters ONLY motivated to mine, buy, and develop in bitcoin so they can profit relative to the USD? I thought the motivation was to change the global monetary system by inserting a disruptive technology? What do I know, I'm a bit of a newb.

Any 100k+ coin holders earned their coins building something, and I do not believe they will be easily motivated to decimate the price of btc just to gain a few million in fiat. Your hypothetical selloff scenario is wildly improbable.

The fact that an instant selloff of 300k would only tank the price to $1 is a great sign! Thousands of bitcoiners would grab all those coins back for $5, $10, $15, $20... within ONE DAY bitcoin would be at $25 again, and the 300k seller would've effectively screwed themselves out of a ton of value by selling into all of those stale buy orders at $10 or $20.

To think that bitcoin has become this widespread this fast, with as much media exposure, development, and growth as we're seeing, and an early adopter with 300k coins can only get a few million by dumping ALL of their coins! For me, this shows that the playing field is fair, that we're still early adopters, and that the balance of the reward structure must be working EXTREMELY WELL.
full member
Activity: 188
Merit: 100
Codro: In your scenario is possible to BTC to touch $1, but just because an idiot sells all his btc to $1 does not means the rest are going to do the same, in fact, there will be a lot of people buying. If the price go down but there are no bad news any person with brain will buy more, not sell.So the price will recover very very fast. You can see in the prevous days what happend when someone dump a ton of coin. The price go down but recover very fast.
member
Activity: 158
Merit: 10
if I had 300k btc this is exactly what I would do. Sell it all , make 4.2 mil, buy 300k btc back at $1, wait 2-3 years , do it again.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
A market order to sell 311000 bitcoins right now would net 4278841.7722 USD and would take the last price down to 1.0000 USD, resulting in an average price of 13.7583 USD/BTC.

I'm not religious but I pray every day this happens.


+1
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
Actually no, it takes two nodes to run a Bitcoin network. Bro, do you even lift?

One person, two nodes, right. Because one computer should be enough for everybody, I'm sure every serious miner only has one. Sounds legit.

Uhuh... so That would explain why it's falling like a stone then... http://www.ltc-charts.com/period-charts.php?period=6-months&resolution=day&pair=ltc-btc&market=btc-e

Short term gain != long term success.

As for your other arguments:
In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.

You trolled this topic long enough. Goodbye.
member
Activity: 113
Merit: 11
You do realize that only one person mining could've kept the network running, right? Try understanding the protocol first. And before you cry 51% attack, get real - securing the network was not the primary reason people mined, you're delusional - and any sort of attack would've been circumvented easily. http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

Actually no, it takes two nodes to run a Bitcoin network. Bro, do you even lift?

And lol @ that guy blowing 300k worth of coins, some "apostle" he was if he spent that much that early. We're in the what? 4th year of bitcoin? You have your values seriously screwed up if that's the kind of guy you're worshiping, considering everything.

Wow, it's like you are doing the heavy lifting lifting for me. I appreciate your dumbassery in print, but you're really not making this a challenge at all.

You're completely unfamiliar with how this started and what it was at first. You got here after it was already pegged to the USD.

This isn't even a challenge.

Litecoin has the same curve as Bitcoin, it has the same problem.

Uhuh... so That would explain why it's falling like a stone then... http://www.ltc-charts.com/period-charts.php?period=6-months&resolution=day&pair=ltc-btc&market=btc-e

Notice that Satoshi said "seems like the best formula". Doesn't sound like he was as convinced as you are, of course, in your own little world you must think you're smarter.

Moving the goalposts are we?

Lol, some source you quoted. That has no relevance to the fact that transaction fees were designed to be 0.01 and not 0.0005 as they are now. Blocks are already getting full as per the original design, so even 30 years from now, if the same limits were kept as now, miners would still only make 0.6 BTC from fees for every block they mine. They would've made 12 BTC otherwise, which would've been more than the subsidy a lot earlier than at the cutoff.

Yeah... you do realise you're full of it right? Remember those goalposts I mentioned? Funny how you make an absolute claim and then as soon as they look wobbly they become.... soluble.

Here you go again with the miner point, see #1. You're making miners look bad by defending them so much - seriously. I never accused miners of anything, I just pointed out how the system could've been designed to make more economic sense.

Backtracking, defending, justifying. You should do yourself a favour and just stop responding.

Go re-read all of your replies and see how you're attacking me while I'm simply pointing something out without attacking anyone (unless provoked). I haven't overreached my investment and I don't have problems sleeping at night. Calm down.

I'll let the post history speak for itself.
newbie
Activity: 47
Merit: 0
Someone sell bitcoins for 1$?  Shocked
I'd buy them! It's a hole in the market to sell BTC at $1 Grin
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
Bitcoin was never pegged at a price, this is precisely what price discovery does, on top of this only miners were rewarded with coins and it was ALWAYS proportional to their contribution to the security of the network. Do you get it yet? these guys were PAID to run the Bitcoin network. There was never a free lunch and never a monopolistic clique that planned it. Nor was if for "fun", it was a job, and these guys got compensated for their hard work, hardware, and electricity. The software was released January 2009, free, available to all. If they got paid more than the latecomers, it's because they propped it up long enough and well enough so that others could get on board and help bear the weight, we should be worshipping these people, KnightMB is a hero in my books, he accrued over 300k in Bitcoins, because he used a cluster of CPUs he borrowed from Amazon (a guy you'd probably deride as an opportunist etc. etc.) and he also was instrumental in helping fix early problems that Bitcoin had https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9524, he claims he already spent much of it but I sincerely hope he has a spare 50k lying around because he fucking deserves it.

You do realize that only one person mining could've kept the network running, right? Try understanding the protocol first. And before you cry 51% attack, get real - securing the network was not the primary reason people mined, you're delusional - and any sort of attack would've been circumvented easily. http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/05/neutralizing-51-attack.html

And lol @ that guy blowing 300k worth of coins, some "apostle" he was if he spent that much that early. We're in the what? 4th year of bitcoin? You have your values seriously screwed up if that's the kind of guy you're worshiping, considering everything.


Actually we did know, and most of us are still here. The "proof" is because you're pissy that a vast number of early adopters are "endangering" the value of the coins you own because they hold too many. Logic. Funny, it was never marketed as anything less than a digital cash payment system, they weren't marketed as "internet points", and the second I discovered Bitcoin I was treating it like a cash system too, because like everyone else I had to mine to get them and that meant work, when CPUs were only just still fashionable I actually went and BOUGHT a computer just for mining because I wanted Bitcoins, they certainly weren't passing them out like flyers at a store, I knew I was getting something of value that was difficult to get. So did a lot of other people like Hal Finney, http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09975.html.

You're completely unfamiliar with how this started and what it was at first. You got here after it was already pegged to the USD.

Price discovery and adoption will stabilise the market, not manipulation of the supply. How would that work exactly? Does the system know when the market is stable and when it is volatile so it can spit out the "right" amount of coins. Which markets? which currencies are more influential than others? Should we prioritise currencies based on their political stability?  Adoption follows sentiment, and sentiment can only be gauged by price discovery, not some trickle that will slowly turn into a damn flood. Even Satoshi saw that distributing most of the coins quickly was better than any other option , and 4 years is hardly a short amount of time I might add.

Notice that Satoshi said "seems like the best formula". Doesn't sound like he was as convinced as you are, of course, in your own little world you must think you're smarter.


"[Bitcoins will] be distributed to network nodes when they make blocks, with the amount cut in half every 4 years. [...] When that runs out, the system can support transaction fees if
needed. It's based on open market competition, and there will probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free." http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=21312004

When you speak of "Satoshi's Grand Design" you quote the source, otherwise you look like a fool.


Lol, some source you quoted. That has no relevance to the fact that transaction fees were designed to be 0.01 and not 0.0005 as they are now. Blocks are already getting full as per the original design, so even 30 years from now, if the same limits were kept as now, miners would still only make 0.6 BTC from fees for every block they mine. They would've made 12 BTC otherwise, which would've been more than the subsidy a lot earlier than at the cutoff.


"Meaningful" hu? All I've heard from you is the sound of a baby having a fit. Miners from two years ago ARE your betters that ensured Bitcoin survived long enough so you could enjoy it. I'm incredibly grateful, and I also hope Satoshi has a sizable portion of Bitcoins because he damned well deserved every one of them. So did the early developers that got on board, and the early testers, and the ones that helped stimulate the economy by beginning the first exchanges, and the ones that jumped in on mining with their CPUs, GPUs, etc. so that the network remained secure. They ALL deserved every skerrick of value that their Bitcoins now derive.

Here you go again with the miner point, see #1. You're making miners look bad by defending them so much - seriously. I never accused miners of anything, I just pointed out how the system could've been designed to make more economic sense.


Price discovery and greater adoption will spread more coins into more hands. Stop having kittens over the price, sounds to me you've overreached in your investment in Bitcoin so cash out to something that will allow you to sleep at night.


Go re-read all of your replies and see how you're attacking me while I'm simply pointing something out without attacking anyone (unless provoked). I haven't overreached my investment and I don't have problems sleeping at night. Calm down.
legendary
Activity: 1064
Merit: 1001
I didn't argue about someone buying coins now, but already having them from early rounds back when they didn't cost as much, or anything at all. This is a flaw in the reward system IMHO.

A year from now, $50 coins will seem cheap.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
I thought the making a profit by deliberate crashes myth was a myth?

Wasn't it argued that they would actually lose by attempting that since all they really do is give away their coins cheap?

On the other hand I have wondered since the $32 days of 2011 how the heck the price was being kept so low so long.

-MarkM-


It's not a myth. I know someone that sold during the mini crash a few nights ago at $42 and bought back at $35 and made 500 coins profit. This person was probably one of the main reasons for the crash as well, because he sold a sizable amount of coins (several thousands).

I personally sold at $42 and bought at $40 (gox lag...) and made several coins profit as well.

So a bunch of idiots threw away their coins cheap.

Changing the reward structure won't stop idiots from being idiots.

-MarkM-
donator
Activity: 668
Merit: 500
People like you who claim this flaw aren't thinking things over realistically, if someone buys up lots of Bitcoins or gains a lot of them the price will rise because of demand and the volume in circulation while the price in dollars will certainly crash Bitcoin itself will remain unaffected. People are still going to be able to trade with the small amount of coins left and of course as others have pointed out in threads I've seen without using search 1 Bitcoin alone can be divided up into millions of decimals.

In theory if the Bitcoin becomes that valuable then we will be dealing in 0.100000's of Bitcoins rather than in full Bitcoins because owning a whole Bitcoin will be like being a billionaire in conventional paper money, the difference between the paper money and Bitcoin of course is that the volume can't be increased. So to make a long and tiring argument short, yes, BTC/USD price can be crashed, but Bitcoin itself will be fine, it's a bit like when MTGOX was hacked, people panicked, but the reality is Bitcoin is still here and still being traded. We also had the GBLSE taken down recently and that hasn't drastically affected everything either and then there was that glitch with the MTGOX exchange too, while that crashed the price for USD, Bitcoin itself could still be openly traded without problems using the clients.

I am thinking realistically, please re-read my post. I didn't argue about someone buying coins now, but already having them from early rounds back when they didn't cost as much, or anything at all. This is a flaw in the reward system IMHO.
Umm, that reward system where they could dribble them out gradually at $40 and get $40 * n_coins, rather than crash it to $1 and get perhaps $20 * n_coins assuming an average fill at half the price?

Can you explain the flaw here again?  I missed it.
member
Activity: 113
Merit: 11
I feel like I'm wasting my time explaining, but it might be useful to others reading so here goes.

Your early incentives point makes no sense. What you fail at understanding in your reasoning is that the so called early incentives were not as big of a deal as you make them out to be. Bitcoin would've survived and slowly grown regardless - for the same reason people compete in Angry Birds and its market cap is as big as bitcoin's, or the reason they spend money on powerups in various pointless games - mining was fun.

Bitcoin was never pegged at a price, this is precisely what price discovery does, on top of this only miners were rewarded with coins and it was ALWAYS proportional to their contribution to the security of the network. Do you get it yet? these guys were PAID to run the Bitcoin network. There was never a free lunch and never a monopolistic clique that planned it. Nor was if for "fun", it was a job, and these guys got compensated for their hard work, hardware, and electricity. The software was released January 2009, free, available to all. If they got paid more than the latecomers, it's because they propped it up long enough and well enough so that others could get on board and help bear the weight, we should be worshipping these people, KnightMB is a hero in my books, he accrued over 300k in Bitcoins, because he used a cluster of CPUs he borrowed from Amazon (a guy you'd probably deride as an opportunist etc. etc.) and he also was instrumental in helping fix early problems that Bitcoin had https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9524, he claims he already spent much of it but I sincerely hope he has a spare 50k lying around because he fucking deserves it.

A huge majority couldn't have known that they would eventually trade for actual dollars - proof stands in all the coins lost in the early days. And if they did, as early adopters they would've still had amassed a lot more coins than the late adopters. Logic.

Actually we did know, and most of us are still here. The "proof" is because you're pissy that a vast number of early adopters are "endangering" the value of the coins you own because they hold too many. Logic. Funny, it was never marketed as anything less than a digital cash payment system, they weren't marketed as "internet points", and the second I discovered Bitcoin I was treating it like a cash system too, because like everyone else I had to mine to get them and that meant work, when CPUs were only just still fashionable I actually went and BOUGHT a computer just for mining because I wanted Bitcoins, they certainly weren't passing them out like flyers at a store, I knew I was getting something of value that was difficult to get. So did a lot of other people like Hal Finney, http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09975.html.

A more gradual build up of wealth, rather than majority controlling stakes from the get-go would've helped tremendously in stabilizing the market.

You want gradual buildup, go to litecoin, theres your out, use it. Liquidate your BTC into LTC and bask in the market stability such a system bestows upon it's users.

Price discovery and adoption will stabilise the market, not manipulation of the supply. How would that work exactly? Does the system know when the market is stable and when it is volatile so it can spit out the "right" amount of coins. Which markets? which currencies are more influential than others? Should we prioritise currencies based on their political stability?  Adoption follows sentiment, and sentiment can only be gauged by price discovery, not some trickle that will slowly turn into a damn flood. Even Satoshi saw that distributing most of the coins quickly was better than any other option , and 4 years is hardly a short amount of time I might add.

In "Satoshi's Grand Design" the transaction fees were supposed to be 0.01 not 0.0005.

This would've made each block generate an additional ~12BTC in fees at current volume and probably more going forward, which would've offset some of the problems of the curve. Sure, 0.01 would've been noncompetitive for transactions lower than say 1 coin - so perhaps we're not using the coin as originally intended, and it was never meant to be used for micropayments in its current design. The official website even states: "Bitcoin is an experimental new digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world."

"[Bitcoins will] be distributed to network nodes when they make blocks, with the amount cut in half every 4 years. [...] When that runs out, the system can support transaction fees if
needed. It's based on open market competition, and there will probably always be nodes willing to process transactions for free." http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=21312004

When you speak of "Satoshi's Grand Design" you quote the source, otherwise you look like a fool.

What I'm trying to promote here is putting some thought into all this, think about what we can learn from it. Try coming up with valid points so we can have a meaningful debate rather than defending early miners' ridiculous rewards - which make no economic sense.

"Meaningful" hu? All I've heard from you is the sound of a baby having a fit. Miners from two years ago ARE your betters that ensured Bitcoin survived long enough so you could enjoy it. I'm incredibly grateful, and I also hope Satoshi has a sizable portion of Bitcoins because he damned well deserved every one of them. So did the early developers that got on board, and the early testers, and the ones that helped stimulate the economy by beginning the first exchanges, and the ones that jumped in on mining with their CPUs, GPUs, etc. so that the network remained secure. They ALL deserved every skerrick of value that their Bitcoins now derive.

Not trying to diss Bitcoin in any way, I'd really love to see it succeed and I have significant stakes in it - but the fact that people with as few as 10000 coins (0.9% of total coins) can swing the BTCUSD price up and down by more than 10% could scare away the companies getting into it. 10000 is not that much, SatoshiDice makes more than that in profit each month, and someone holding that amount and selling easily triggers a crash and can then buy more than 10000 in the aftermath before it recovers.

Price discovery and greater adoption will spread more coins into more hands. Stop having kittens over the price, sounds to me you've overreached in your investment in Bitcoin so cash out to something that will allow you to sleep at night.

This rollercoaster isn't good for credibility. How can we prevent it?

See above. We are embarking on a huge experiment full of pitfalls, immense possibilities and unexpected side-roads. Expect volatility or get out while you can.
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/vcxUSD_depth.html

Here it only takes you 39BTC to crash the exchange rate to $1. Go ahead

Just so your comment doesn't look completely asinine (new favorite word in this thread) by itself, I'm going to help you out by saying that yeah, the fact MtGox is practically a monopoly is also somewhat detrimental. The rest of the exchanges are mainly only good for arbitrages as far as the actual big fish are concerned (if that).
legendary
Activity: 1792
Merit: 1111
http://bitcoincharts.com/markets/vcxUSD_depth.html

Here it only takes you 39BTC to crash the exchange rate to $1. Go ahead
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
I thought the making a profit by deliberate crashes myth was a myth?

Wasn't it argued that they would actually lose by attempting that since all they really do is give away their coins cheap?

On the other hand I have wondered since the $32 days of 2011 how the heck the price was being kept so low so long.

-MarkM-


It's not a myth. I know someone that sold during the mini crash a few nights ago at $42 and bought back at $35 and made 500 coins profit. This person was probably one of the main reasons for the crash as well, because he sold a sizable amount of coins (several thousands).

I personally sold at $42 and bought at $40 (gox lag...) and made several coins profit as well.
legendary
Activity: 2940
Merit: 1090
I thought the making a profit by deliberate crashes myth was a myth?

Wasn't it argued that they would actually lose by attempting that since all they really do is give away their coins cheap?

On the other hand I have wondered since the $32 days of 2011 how the heck the price was being kept so low so long.

-MarkM-
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
Your early incentives point makes no sense. What you fail at understanding in your reasoning is that the so called early incentives were not as big of a deal as you make them out to be. Bitcoin would've survived and slowly grown regardless - for the same reason people compete in Angry Birds and its market cap is as big as bitcoin's, or the reason they spend money on powerups in various pointless games - mining was fun.

A huge majority couldn't have known that they would eventually trade for actual dollars - proof stands in all the coins lost in the early days. And if they did, as early adopters they would've still had amassed a lot more coins than the late adopters. Logic.

A more gradual build up of wealth, rather than majority controlling stakes from the get-go would've helped tremendously in stabilizing the market.

In "Satoshi's Grand Design" the transaction fees were supposed to be 0.01 not 0.0005.

This would've made each block generate an additional ~12BTC in fees at current volume and probably more going forward, which would've offset some of the problems of the curve. Sure, 0.01 would've been noncompetitive for transactions lower than say 1 coin - so perhaps we're not using the coin as originally intended, and it was never meant to be used for micropayments in its current design. The official website even states: "Bitcoin is an experimental new digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world."

What I'm trying to promote here is putting some thought into all this, think about what we can learn from it. Try coming up with valid points so we can have a meaningful debate rather than defending early miners' ridiculous rewards - which make no economic sense.

Not trying to diss Bitcoin in any way, I'd really love to see it succeed and I have significant stakes in it - but the fact that people with as few as 10000 coins (0.9% of total coins) can swing the BTCUSD price up and down by more than 10% could scare away the companies getting into it. 10000 is not that much, SatoshiDice makes more than that in profit each month, and someone holding that amount and selling easily triggers a crash and can then buy more than 10000 in the aftermath before it recovers.

This rollercoaster isn't good for credibility. How can we prevent it?
member
Activity: 113
Merit: 11
The way I see it is if the inverse had occurred. With tiny amounts first, then ever greater amounts, this can easily be construed as a classic example of the already existing inflationary cycle in existing finance. It disincentivises adoption. Ask yourself this, why acquire and use a currency that will be at least guaranteed to be worth half it's value in 4 years as the subsidy doubling kicks in. And imagine the havoc 100+ years down the track when the doubling hit the 21mil limit. What then?

A doubling system of this nature, at every step, disincentivises risk taking, early adoption, and use in general. Bitcoin is already pushing against several hundred years of financial tradition, suspicion, and entrenched reasoning, when it attempted to create a completely new system of value exchange. It needed some huge carrots to get it going. Yes, I guess you could say some early adopters were "lucky", but they are also the evangelists that had a vested incentive because they wanted to not just spread their discovery, they were financially inclined to work for Bitcoin, so Bitcoin could work for them.

Selfish and selfserving? Absolutely.

A brilliant way to bootstrap a totally untested, brand new disruptive currency from nothing for the good of all that adopted it? Absolutely.

Punishing early adopters with this halfbaked, communist-like asshattery makes me feel like you guys are taking crazy pills.

You truly are clueless about what drives value. Please stay away from replying to things you don't have the mental capacity to understand.

In a real economy the population and adoption doesn't increase at the rate it does in a new economy/currency that becomes successful. Inflation in Bitcoin, for the short to medium term actually makes sense and is desirable. 100 people with 100 coins is the same as 1 million people with 1 million coins - it is not inflation. In a fiat inflationary economy, the number of coins arbitrarily increases without major population changes, the billion people with a gajillion dollars today are the billion people with two gajillion dollars tomorrow..

The way the wealth was distributed is plain wrong and leads to people controlling the market extremely easily. It could be argued that it's just an honest mistake however, Satoshi only had one shot at getting this right.

The flaw is that: You only need a few thousand coins to initiate a crash, have everyone else panic sell then buy back in at lower prices, essentially growing your portfolio every time and gaining more and more control. Basic economics and this is exactly what happened last night. A steady supply of new coins as adoption increases would have prevented that.

Regarding havoc in 21 years when the limit hit, there wouldn't be any - you fail at doing the math again. Assuming a generous 7200 coins generated per day and hundred of millions of users (at the very least), that's less than 0.000072 new coins per person per day being generated at that time.

You have to be extremely closed minded to not see the wealth distribution as a big problem for the foreseeable future, in regards to trading and market stability. I ensure you that I'm not crying here that I didn't buy in early, perhaps I did and am holding a sizable amount of coins - perhaps I didn't, that's not the point.

If there's one big flaw that has the potential of destroying Bitcoin's credibility and hinder its long term success, it's this. People control the market way too easily. Is there anything that can be done now about it? Probably not, which is the scary part.

Your appeal to authority is amusing. This carefully crafted scenario you've made up is completely and utterly baseless. It's also rather bemusing that you think the Bitcoin would've stood a chance without providing large incentives for early users. Additionally, do you honestly think people scatter like mice when trouble brews? In a free market there are those that take risks for gain, and there are those that are ready to maximise on others' losses. This in itself cushions against volatility if the market isn't tampered with. Messing with distribution of coins would just makes the effects worse. All you want to do is secure people's wealth (people already holding Bitcoins), you want to minimise risk by protecting the risk averse that step into the ring early and consolidate value first. You want a system that cushions those that are already using the system against any volatility. Funnily there is already a system that does this exactly, it's called the federal reserve, and it's "cushioning" (also called bailing out of wall-street, governments et al.) is about to launch itself over a cliff. Look up the 1907 crash, and what happened post-crash. Do some historical reading.

For all your bluster, hand-waving, patronising attitude, and doomsday scenarios, your depth of reasoning is rather shallow.


I shouldn't be too harsh though. I have a proposition for you, just like every other competing chain that has absolutely failed on it's own "merits", I would love to see you start an alt-chain with the properties you mention just so you can prove us all wrong here. You don't have any excuse, lots of people have launched their own. Litecoin did a bang up job pandering to everyone's doubts about Bitcoin's original parameters, they even pandered to your fears that the wealth was unevenly distributed and released the client to all at a specified time so as many miners as possible got on board at the same time. If you truly think your argument bears out, then I reckon your chain will be welcomed and adopted by the rest of the community. Healthy competition is good for everyone. Or if you are all just talk, move to Litecoin, I'm sure they'll be glad to have you.

Y'know, cos you're right and all... don't disappoint us now.
Pages:
Jump to: