Pages:
Author

Topic: Flaw in the reward structure of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies? - page 3. (Read 4013 times)

sr. member
Activity: 294
Merit: 250
You are a geek if you are too early to the party!
I can fully understand the concerns of the OP. Its just a shame its becoming taboo to suggest that Crypto coins are in some way flawed!

However, People will sell out as they reach their personal version of super rich.  Eventually, the owners of the majority of bitcoins will be those same rich people who are currently on top of the hill!

There is an old saying that if all the money in the world was equally divided, it would only take a week before we would be back to where we are today! Wink


member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
Bitcoin today is not about mining, but if the reward structure was reversed it could've been. Perhaps the official client would've mined for you by default, strengthening the network at the same time to survive 51% attacks (opt-in of course).

Think about it, we've had an exponential increase in number of people getting into bitcoin, but the biggest chunk has already been generated. We're probably at 0.1% of total global potential as far as bitcoin is concerned, but more than 50% of the coin is already out there.

While the number of adopters is exponentially increasing, the supply is potentially exponentially decreasing. While this is a good thing for hoarders, I don't consider it healthy. Would've been a lot healthier if the two curves were heading the same direction rather than battling head to head.

Yet, Bitcoin is proving you wrong. Did you ever stop to think that to get to where we are today, the distribution curve needed to look like it did? Perhaps the early adopters needed some kind of motivation to build the infrastructure we have today. Profit is fantastic motivation to make something work. If the opportunity for such profit wasn't available, would we even be having this conversation?



Yet, you're wrong. The distribution curve didn't need to look that way, people got into it anyway because of the same reason they compete for high scores in Facebook games. It was play money as far as they were concerned, otherwise they wouldn't have bought pizzas for 10 000 BTC. Note that WoW gold cost more than BTC for a long time.

However, even though things panned out this way they would've still been rich now, simply because there would've been more BTC/person mined in the early days than there are now. See my earlier post:

Quote
100 people competing over 500 coins per day is still better than a million people competing over 50000 coins per day.

 It's simple math.

Edit: I should've said 7200 coins per day for greater impact (at max 50 BTC per block reward), not 50000. So yeah, think 7200.
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
It would've kept mining feasible for a longer time for the average Joe, possibly helping boost interest.

But bitcoin is not about mining.  People today should find a different way to earn their bitcoin income.

Bitcoin today is not about mining, but if the reward structure was reversed it could've been. Perhaps the official client would've mined for you by default, strengthening the network at the same time to survive 51% attacks (opt-in of course).

Think about it, we've had an exponential increase in number of people getting into bitcoin, but the biggest chunk has already been generated. We're probably at 0.1% of total global potential as far as bitcoin is concerned, but more than 50% of the coin is already out there.

While the number of adopters is exponentially increasing, the supply is potentially exponentially decreasing. While this is a good thing for hoarders, I don't consider it healthy. Would've been a lot healthier if the two curves were heading the same direction rather than battling head to head.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm
It would've kept mining feasible for a longer time for the average Joe, possibly helping boost interest.

But bitcoin is not about mining.  People today should find a different way to earn their bitcoin income.
legendary
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1002
If anyone has over 300k bitcoin, please sell em off and crash it to $1!!  I would eat em up.

yum yum. I'll outbid your dollar @1.1

Exactly. If someone successfully crashed the market by dumping their many thousands of bitcoins it would mean a buying opportunity for many, while the market recovered resulting in a wider distribution of those coins which is what the OP wants in the first place. Next question.
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
Google had the same problem early on. Its early adopters could have sold all of their shares at any point and dropped the price drastically.
but until all the wealth distributes more or less evenly with no single entity holding a large amount, this will be a problem for the foreseeable future.

Like the dollar?

No, not like the dollar because someone wouldn't have held a huge amount in the early days. They would've held a lot less. Because -> inflation.

Well, the Fed prints out billions of dollars and gives it to their banker buddies before inflation hits. Then those buddies use that money for investments before inflation hits. Then as it trickles down to you and me the money is inflated.

As for the way Bitcoin was created in order to award early adopters, it allowed people who may have otherwise just tried it out to have a large stake and incentive to make Bitcoin succeed. The risk was also higher early on to put in any time or money because it was an unproven technology.

To go the opposite way of awarding latecomers and not awarding early adopters would have had people waiting to adopt Bitcoin until the incentive was there, which would have led to Bitcoins early demise.

The early comers would've still been awarded more, because they'd have been fewer.

100 people competing over 500 coins per day is still better than a million people competing over 50000 coins per day.

It would've kept mining feasible for a longer time for the average Joe, possibly helping boost interest.
legendary
Activity: 3598
Merit: 2386
Viva Ut Vivas
Google had the same problem early on. Its early adopters could have sold all of their shares at any point and dropped the price drastically.
but until all the wealth distributes more or less evenly with no single entity holding a large amount, this will be a problem for the foreseeable future.

Like the dollar?

No, not like the dollar because someone wouldn't have held a huge amount in the early days. They would've held a lot less. Because -> inflation.

Well, the Fed prints out billions of dollars and gives it to their banker buddies before inflation hits. Then those buddies use that money for investments before inflation hits. Then as it trickles down to you and me the money is inflated.

As for the way Bitcoin was created in order to award early adopters, it allowed people who may have otherwise just tried it out to have a large stake and incentive to make Bitcoin succeed. The risk was also higher early on to put in any time or money because it was an unproven technology.

To go the opposite way of awarding latecomers and not awarding early adopters would have had people waiting to adopt Bitcoin until the incentive was there, which would have led to Bitcoins early demise.
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
WTF???
If anyone has over 300k bitcoin, please sell em off and crash it to $1!!  I would eat em up.

yum yum. I'll outbid your dollar @1.1
hero member
Activity: 924
Merit: 1001
Unlimited Free Crypto
1 Bitcoin alone can be divided up into millions of decimals.

Only 8 decimals man. Calm down please..... You meant millions of Satoshies.
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
Google had the same problem early on. Its early adopters could have sold all of their shares at any point and dropped the price drastically.
but until all the wealth distributes more or less evenly with no single entity holding a large amount, this will be a problem for the foreseeable future.

Like the dollar?

No, not like the dollar because someone wouldn't have held a huge amount in the early days. They would've held a lot less. Because -> inflation.
sr. member
Activity: 291
Merit: 250
If anyone has over 300k bitcoin, please sell em off and crash it to $1!!  I would eat em up.
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10

What is your margin for slightly over? If you double that number you won't be able to bring the price to 0. But maybe double does mean slightly. You'll have to confirm that as well.

Ok, you're right. I originally meant to put 1 there, as in the previous sentence, I mistakenly rounded it off without digits to 0. My apologies. That is hardly the point I'm trying to make here so  stop trying to sound so superior over minor details.
legendary
Activity: 3598
Merit: 2386
Viva Ut Vivas
Google had the same problem early on. Its early adopters could have sold all of their shares at any point and dropped the price drastically.
but until all the wealth distributes more or less evenly with no single entity holding a large amount, this will be a problem for the foreseeable future.

Like the dollar?
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
Google had the same problem early on. Its early adopters could have sold all of their shares at any point and dropped the price drastically.

That is public information though, and there are regulations. None of that data is available to us.

Look, I'm not saying that Bitcoin will fail because of this, but until all the wealth distributes more or less evenly with no single entity holding a large amount, this will be a problem for the foreseeable future. This problem could've been avoided with a reversed reward structure.
legendary
Activity: 3598
Merit: 2386
Viva Ut Vivas
Google had the same problem early on. Its early adopters could have sold all of their shares at any point and dropped the price drastically.
sr. member
Activity: 476
Merit: 250
Bytecoin: 8VofSsbQvTd8YwAcxiCcxrqZ9MnGPjaAQm
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.

There's a FAQ on this.
hero member
Activity: 504
Merit: 500
WTF???
It takes someone selling 311k coins to crash the price to $1

Someone with just 311k+ coins could simply make the price go to 0.

Maybe I went to a terrible University but my understanding is that 1 > 0. If, however, this is wrong, please let me know. No wonder I have bugs pop up in my code if this is incorrect.

Not to argue with the rest of the idiocracy, but just that specifically.

Notice the +... That means slightly over in most circles.

What is your margin for slightly over? If you double that number you won't be able to bring the price to 0. But maybe double does mean slightly. You'll have to confirm that as well.
legendary
Activity: 1540
Merit: 1000
Quote
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.

My logic applies either way, Bitcoin itself isn't as affected by peoples spending or saving habits as drastically as hysterical people here are claiming.
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
It takes someone selling 311k coins to crash the price to $1

Someone with just 311k+ coins could simply make the price go to 0.

Maybe I went to a terrible University but my understanding is that 1 > 0. If, however, this is wrong, please let me know. No wonder I have bugs pop up in my code if this is incorrect.

Not to argue with the rest of the idiocracy, but just that specifically.

Notice the +... That means slightly over in most circles.
member
Activity: 91
Merit: 10
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.
Pages:
Jump to: