Topic: Handle the 21M Limit - page 2. (Read 10378 times)

No, if the seller doesn't want BTC, simply won't select it when creating the deal.
And this platform is meant to allow both end business; selling or buying. If you want to buy something, let's say a pair of pants, you start it by saying your maximum budget for it is 10 USD. A offers to sell it at 9, B at 8... reason why I said "the seller OR the buyer", depends on what end the deal was started.
As it goes maybe I'll give your idea some thought, but that would depend on a stable BTC... otherwise I would be playing Russian roulette by intermediate such trade.

So if the seller wants Paypal USD and the buyer wants BTC, you will perform the clearing trade on their behalf.  Sounds pretty cool.

I will give the choice to the seller to set it to be in bitcoins, paypal, wire or cash.
The site just provides the trading "platform". If a fiat is selected it will display the BTC equivalent for either conduct the trade in BTC, if is one of the ways of payment accepted by the seller or buyer, or BTC promotion purposes.

Your site looks interesting.  So on your bcommerce site, if a merchant lists an antique for $100 USD approx 320 BTC, how do they get paid when it is sold?  Only BTC?

I've thought of the idea of handling all of this for merchants, then paying the merchant through ACH transfer or some other means.  I'm not sure it's worth my while right now to pursue, especially since it would be a regulatory nightmare.  Yes, there are hurdles right now.  Accepting bitcoins is either a novelty or a necessity right now.

I wasn't going to disclosure this project so soon, but this project of mine @ http://www.bcommerce.biz/ already does it. And to prevent "go check" on every 5 minutes it does the conversion by the following formula, once a day it collects fiat currencies value at Google and USD-> BTC at Mt. Gox, it then sets BTC value by the following formula:

Mt.Gox high + Mt.Gox low / 2

It is designed to operate with fiat currencies plus bitcoin. As bitcoin alone (my first sketch) would be hard to penetrate on its own.

Tom,

Even if you implement such "convert to bitcoins" (and two of my sketches already do it) you still have an issue, with it being so bumpy either you go sell your coins right after the sale or take the risk of holding them, as it bumped on Dec/10 to 1USD, Fev/11 to 0.7, Mar/11 0.6, Apr/11 1... to boom the last week up to 4, now on 1st week of May down to 3 and probably will end the week at 2. Those 200K moved was probably the gathering for a high payment which made BTC to climb this much.
Rather complicated to settle prices within this system.

Stability is still an issue.  The merchant will want to convert back to fiat as soon as they can because they do not want to lose money.  They are coffee makers not currency traders.  As soon as the BTC receive verification is "mature enough" it will need a feature to automatically execute on Mt Gox as well. Now the merchant also needs an account on Mt Gox and trust the trades will clear and get paid.  It is adding a lot of hurdles.

I still like the tomcollins "request price" feature, even if the community goes with fixed rate for x:1 you still want to be able to see fiat conversions right in your console.

Growth is definitely needed.  Need to consider what feature will promote it best.

 

"Request Price in BTC" -> go see what it costs.

It's trivial to implement.  I've already done this.  You could CRON if you wanted to as well so you wouldn't have to do it on request.

You are correct there is not much flow.  But it's because it just started and not many people use it.  Why?  Because there's not a good reason to (except in niche markets).  It has zero to do with stability.  We need growth.  That will bring stability and make a bigger reason to use it.

There are two ratios to set:
(1) Exchange rate of silverBTC:goldBTC = x:1
(2) number of silverBTC generated per CPU cycle : goldBTC = y:1. 

y will decrease over time naturally, and y:x will fluctuate up and down.  We can choose to make x a fixed value in the user console, and by everybody agreeing to use this version of the user console it would get enforced.  Or we can let x float as tomcollins proposed.

I  am leaning towards BCEmporium's view that letting x float has some technical challenges.  I also think it has many psychological challenges as the ratio can be volatile throughout the day. Who wants to stop making coffee and go and execute trades to lock in a favorible rate after each cup?  The coffee merchant would prefer to do it once at night and trade all their BTC take for the day, or even better once a week.  They could lose a significant amount before they sell it to volatility.

We could rather just fix the rate in such a way as to stronlgy encourage silver mining.  That is the behavior we are after, motivating more people to get into mining to increase the BTC supply and stabilize prices.

You can change your prices... is it? How? By setting them up in a fiat currency and a CRON to check BTC last on Mt. Gox every 5 minutes?
Question is: There's no money flow in BTC, without flow all "growth" it represents is illusory. Again: Trading money for money is a process of erosion and self-consuming. Which means in the end BTC will "break" when no more "fresh blood" gets in as in any Ponzi scheme where "the money" and "the good" are one and the same.

Yes CoinOperated, I do think that it has to be a way to contain either deflation or inflation. A secondary block chain if connected with the main chain would be less appealing to the current speculators and therefore potentially more stable.
Also the ability for some newcomers to mine would encourage more people to enter into bitcoin, expanding its market.

The whole current trend starts to look after the fate of e-Gold, Pecunix or other "most people didn't even heard about" e-currencies.

I just don't see how to set the x:1 proportion with this one, at least at the beginning.

Why is it impossible?  It's certainly possible.  You change your prices.  I wrote code to do this in 15 minutes.  It's super easy.  Once the economy grows large enough, things will stabilize quite a bit.  But it needs to grow to support this.

That's what happens when something moves from being valueless (BTC at the beginning) to somewhat valueable (now).

But the bi-metallic standards failed.  This is because there always is a natural price between things, and there is a legal price.  If you fix the trade ratio rather than just let it float, then you end up with no one accepting the overvalued metal and everyone wanting the undervalued one.

What's the difference between adding a 10:1 currency and just moving the decimal place over a digit?

Please clarify - you are saying you want stable BTC prices?  IE a pizza should cost maybe roughly 10 BTC, and in 6 months time it should still be fairly close.  Maybe 9 BTC, maybe 11, but not 0.0001 or 10,000? 

That was my point earlier, if prices change too much too quicly (either up or down) the currency becomes unusable.  Do you like the bimetallic idea? goldBTC and silverBTC?

Back on the time when people buy pizza for 10K, I bough cards for nearby values, I don't bother with it, and BTC flowed without much interruption.
Now... as this one gets to this price, BTC is stuck. Nobody can do business with BTC, it's simply impossible. So I feel the need, as a supporter of an economy of goods, not an economy where "money" is the "good", for a more worthless kind of BTC, one that is usable, and this one ain't.
Hard to understand?

He is trying to increase the money supply because we are experiencing severe deflation.   I completely agree the problem (severe deflation) needs to be addressed or it will threaten bitcoin's long term future.  The idea of a bi-metallic currency is worth exploring.  Traditionally it was set at a ratio of 12:1 or 15:1 silver:gold.  Few people are aware this power was one of the few explicitly enumerated in the US constitution (Article I Sections 8 and 10).  To stick to round numbers, we could start a second chain and fix the ratio at 10:0 silverBTC:goldBTC.  The users console would just see "BTC" unless they asked for a breakdown.  Initially all the miners would rush into silver since the rate of silverBTC would be more than 10x goldBTC.  As all the CPU resources switch over to silverBTC, one day it would drop to just under 10x easier to mine silverBTC, and they would start mining goldBTC again.  That is exactly how it works with bimetallic currencies, and they did it for the same reason: increase the money supply in an orderly way.

I still don't understand the point.  What problem are you trying to solve?  That someone doesn't want to "break" $100?  What need does this actually fill?  Stabilization?  It does the opposite.  Name something and describe how it actually helps rather than just rambling.

I'm thinking of it as a technically separated, the both block chains are independent, with inter-op by human side. So it will be up to the market to say how many silver you need to get a gold. The most important point is to get them together at the user's eyes, means that the client that handles "goldBTC" must also be able to handle "silverBTC".
Having this secondary currency you get some point of stabilization, maybe however not just yet with silver due to the high demand of gold (so some gold investors may move to silver or diverse their investment wallets by put some silver too), but let's say in 1 or 2 years time it's started the bronze block chain and up to this moment you'll have a tertiary and basically stable currency, as the demand for the "bullion" doesn't quite engage this last chain, at least there's no reason for that to happen.
You can always inter-op them by the market, but those two lesser chains being less interesting to the speculators would become expendable exchange, increasing its velocity, whereas BTC (gold) remains as investment and savings.
Not as simple as the currencies as 100 cents = 1 usd I don't believe it would be possible to determinate 100 silver = 1 gold with the same linearity.

Basically is to move part of the real World to BTC reality, you tend to save an 100USD bill, to expend more easily 1 buck and not even to think much about expending 1 quarter.

As for the "gold rush", I didn't missed it and I wouldn't be investing in hard GPU's - nor do I've them, I'm not a miner -, don't bother. Generated some thousands by CPU back on the beginning, up to late July.

Makes more sense, you missed the gold rush and want easy money.

Fork the code and start your own version.  Get 21 million worthless "SilverCoins".  No one will care.

I do think that the original distribution of the 21 million coins might have been too fast.  Perhaps it would have been better to spread it out over 100 or 400 years, with fewer coins given per block initially or something.  But what's done is done.  Some people were lucky enough to get involved early (not me ).  They had no guarantee it would be worth anything and it was just cool.  Some people spent 10,000 BTC on a pizza.  Such is life.