Why are you replying to a post from 2011
2011, the time was not ripe for such a thing. 
Topic: Ideas for a Bitcoin 2.0 (Read 5291 times)
About the "ideas": NO
@mpfrank
Everything you say just makes me think your only concern is making (lots of) money off of bitcoin.
Everything you say just makes me think your only concern is making (lots of) money off of bitcoin.
Or that he's YASAT (yet another something awful troll)
It does seem likely.
It is not standing very well... If it wants to become a major currency, it needs to keep increasing in price by leaps and bounds, like 10x per quarter, or at least 100x per year, otherwise there will not be enough total value in the currency to have much of a global-scale impact any time in the next few years.
Instead, for the last quarter the price has been falling, not rising... On the log chart the former rising trend has clearly plateaued...
Instead, for the last quarter the price has been falling, not rising... On the log chart the former rising trend has clearly plateaued...
If the price is falling, that means people who are interested can buy in at lower prices, and people who aren't interested are giving up their coins. If in fact those always-scary early adopters are cashing out now, all the better, as their "hoarded" bitcoins will be distributed to new blood.
No, the price does not need to keep increasing by leaps and bounds. That's not for you to decide, but the market. If you think the point of Bitcoin is to constantly rise in price, why the hell should we listen to what you think Bitcoin 2.0 should be?
If Bitcoin does not rise in price at a fairly good clip, then it will not become a significant player in the world economy any time soon.
You like most pump and dump get rich quick types have it completely backwards.
Bitcoin doesn't need to rise in price to be adopted by global commerce.
An increase in adoption of bitcoin for global commerce will result in a rise in price.
@mpfrank
Everything you say just makes me think your only concern is making (lots of) money off of bitcoin.
Everything you say just makes me think your only concern is making (lots of) money off of bitcoin.
Or that he's YASAT (yet another something awful troll)
@mpfrank
Everything you say just makes me think your only concern is making (lots of) money off of bitcoin.
Everything you say just makes me think your only concern is making (lots of) money off of bitcoin.
It is not standing very well... If it wants to become a major currency, it needs to keep increasing in price by leaps and bounds, like 10x per quarter, or at least 100x per year, otherwise there will not be enough total value in the currency to have much of a global-scale impact any time in the next few years.
Instead, for the last quarter the price has been falling, not rising... On the log chart the former rising trend has clearly plateaued...
Instead, for the last quarter the price has been falling, not rising... On the log chart the former rising trend has clearly plateaued...
If the price is falling, that means people who are interested can buy in at lower prices, and people who aren't interested are giving up their coins. If in fact those always-scary early adopters are cashing out now, all the better, as their "hoarded" bitcoins will be distributed to new blood.
No, the price does not need to keep increasing by leaps and bounds. That's not for you to decide, but the market. If you think the point of Bitcoin is to constantly rise in price, why the hell should we listen to what you think Bitcoin 2.0 should be?
If Bitcoin does not rise in price at a fairly good clip, then it will not become a significant player in the world economy any time soon.
The same thing could be said about Bitcoin itself.
What? Bitcoin does stand on its own. You propose to hijack it.
It is not standing very well... If it wants to become a major currency, it needs to keep increasing in price by leaps and bounds, like 10x per quarter, or at least 100x per year, otherwise there will not be enough total value in the currency to have much of a global-scale impact any time in the next few years.
Instead, for the last quarter the price has been falling, not rising... On the log chart the former rising trend has clearly plateaued...
LOLZ. 100x per year?
So value of bitcoin in USD = $2.5 * 100^(years)
In 7 years 1 bitcoin = $20T USD (roughly global monetary supply). We could erase the other 21M bitcoins and just use a single bitcoin to run the world economy.
In 20 years 1 bitcoin = or $30 septillion dollars each (roughly equal to number of stars in observable universe)
If you goal is 100x increase annually you will be sadly mistake. You are aware that the actual global economy hasn't ever expanded at 100x annually, nor has global net asset value, or global monetary supply. It simply isn't going to happen. Hell bitcoin adoption likely won't increase by 100% at height of adoption.
It did increase at that rate for a time - it went from $0.20 to $20 (a 100x increase) in about 6 months, in the first half of '11 - that was a rate of increase of 10x per quarter or 10,000x per year!
Anyway, obviously it would have to plateau when it reached the size of the world economy, but I was hoping it might get there sooner rather than later.
The same thing could be said about Bitcoin itself.
What? Bitcoin does stand on its own. You propose to hijack it.
It is not standing very well... If it wants to become a major currency, it needs to keep increasing in price by leaps and bounds, like 10x per quarter, or at least 100x per year, otherwise there will not be enough total value in the currency to have much of a global-scale impact any time in the next few years.
Instead, for the last quarter the price has been falling, not rising... On the log chart the former rising trend has clearly plateaued...
LOLZ. 100x per year?
So value of bitcoin in USD = $2.5 * 100^(years)
In 7 years 1 bitcoin = $20T USD (roughly global monetary supply). We could erase the other 21M bitcoins and just use a single bitcoin to run the world economy.
In 20 years 1 bitcoin = or $30 septillion dollars each (roughly equal to number of stars in observable universe)
If you goal is 100x increase annually you will be sadly mistake. You are aware that the actual global economy hasn't ever expanded at 100x annually, nor has global net asset value, or global monetary supply. It simply isn't going to happen. Hell bitcoin adoption likely won't increase by 100% at height of adoption.
It is not standing very well... If it wants to become a major currency, it needs to keep increasing in price by leaps and bounds, like 10x per quarter, or at least 100x per year, otherwise there will not be enough total value in the currency to have much of a global-scale impact any time in the next few years.
Instead, for the last quarter the price has been falling, not rising... On the log chart the former rising trend has clearly plateaued...
Instead, for the last quarter the price has been falling, not rising... On the log chart the former rising trend has clearly plateaued...
If the price is falling, that means people who are interested can buy in at lower prices, and people who aren't interested are giving up their coins. If in fact those always-scary early adopters are cashing out now, all the better, as their "hoarded" bitcoins will be distributed to new blood.
No, the price does not need to keep increasing by leaps and bounds. That's not for you to decide, but the market. If you think the point of Bitcoin is to constantly rise in price, why the hell should we listen to what you think Bitcoin 2.0 should be?
The same thing could be said about Bitcoin itself.
What? Bitcoin does stand on its own. You propose to hijack it.
It is not standing very well... If it wants to become a major currency, it needs to keep increasing in price by leaps and bounds, like 10x per quarter, or at least 100x per year, otherwise there will not be enough total value in the currency to have much of a global-scale impact any time in the next few years.
Instead, for the last quarter the price has been falling, not rising... On the log chart the former rising trend has clearly plateaued...
The same thing could be said about Bitcoin itself.
What? Bitcoin does stand on its own. You propose to hijack it.
It sounds like you want to create a fork of the block chain with different rules. Why do you think it necessary to call your rules Bitcoin while the original rules (what is essentially Bitcoin)
die or go by a different name? If it is not necessary, then all you have to do is say that at some block in the future, you will create a fork of the block chain. This fork will enforce the rules you propose, but will go by a name other than "Bitcoin".
die or go by a different name? If it is not necessary, then all you have to do is say that at some block in the future, you will create a fork of the block chain. This fork will enforce the rules you propose, but will go by a name other than "Bitcoin".
Well, it's a somewhat bigger deal than that, because for the new rules to make sense, there would have to be a process to verify the real-world identities of users signing the price-floor contracts, so that the contracts could be potentially enforceable in the courts. Setting up such a process requires a fair bit of new infrastructure, and so it is probably not going to happen unless a large share of the community gets behind it.
I'm saying that we should all get behind such a system, because if we don't, then I'd say it is likely that interest in Bitcoin will continue to just gradually peter out, as it seems to have been doing since June...
One of the benefits of bitcoin is the pseudo-anonymous nature. If you tie each address to a real world identity, anybody can inspect the block chain and see where my money goes or comes from. No thanks, that's even less privacy than the current banking system!
If your idea cannot survive on its own, then it is not meant to be.
The same thing could be said about Bitcoin itself.
I want the last 5 minutes of my life back 
It sounds like you want to create a fork of the block chain with different rules. Why do you think it necessary to call your rules Bitcoin while the original rules (what is essentially Bitcoin)
die or go by a different name? If it is not necessary, then all you have to do is say that at some block in the future, you will create a fork of the block chain. This fork will enforce the rules you propose, but will go by a name other than "Bitcoin".
die or go by a different name? If it is not necessary, then all you have to do is say that at some block in the future, you will create a fork of the block chain. This fork will enforce the rules you propose, but will go by a name other than "Bitcoin".
Well, it's a somewhat bigger deal than that, because for the new rules to make sense, there would have to be a process to verify the real-world identities of users signing the price-floor contracts, so that the contracts could be potentially enforceable in the courts. Setting up such a process requires a fair bit of new infrastructure, and so it is probably not going to happen unless a large share of the community gets behind it.
I'm saying that we should all get behind such a system, because if we don't, then I'd say it is likely that interest in Bitcoin will continue to just gradually peter out, as it seems to have been doing since June...
One of the benefits of bitcoin is the pseudo-anonymous nature. If you tie each address to a real world identity, anybody can inspect the block chain and see where my money goes or comes from. No thanks, that's even less privacy than the current banking system!
If your idea cannot survive on its own, then it is not meant to be.
It sounds like you want to create a fork of the block chain with different rules. Why do you think it necessary to call your rules Bitcoin while the original rules (what is essentially Bitcoin)
die or go by a different name? If it is not necessary, then all you have to do is say that at some block in the future, you will create a fork of the block chain. This fork will enforce the rules you propose, but will go by a name other than "Bitcoin".
die or go by a different name? If it is not necessary, then all you have to do is say that at some block in the future, you will create a fork of the block chain. This fork will enforce the rules you propose, but will go by a name other than "Bitcoin".
Well, it's a somewhat bigger deal than that, because for the new rules to make sense, there would have to be a process to verify the real-world identities of users signing the price-floor contracts, so that the contracts could be potentially enforceable in the courts. Setting up such a process requires a fair bit of new infrastructure, and so it is probably not going to happen unless a large share of the community gets behind it.
I'm saying that we should all get behind such a system, because if we don't, then I'd say it is likely that interest in Bitcoin will continue to just gradually peter out, as it seems to have been doing since June...
(C) Each user of the reference client, which is copyrighted in every country, is required to first register their real-world identity with a central service, and sign a legally-binding contract promising that, in exchange for a perpetual license to use the reference client or any other software derived from the reference client, they will, in perpetuity, accept 1 BC2 from anyone in place of at least US$1 worth of any existing sovereign currency that is owed them (based on the exchange rates on the date that the BC2 block chain was started). International patents are also secured, to ensure that other clients following the protocol but not derived from the reference client and not subject to its licensing agreement cannot be distributed.
...
Any thoughts?
Kill it with fire.
I returned a $200 printer, possibly a $400 dollar printer sold "at cost", because the box claimed that by using the printer I was subject to a patent license (which required using the print catridge exactly once, then mailing it back to Lexmark). I now avoid the store I bought the printer at becuase they are willing to sell products that impose unreasonable conditions on their customers.
Bitcoin is still experimental. If bitcoin really is good, a pyscological price barrier won't last long. If you think there is such a barrier and that bitcoins are undervalued, you should be buying them up cheap.
I'm saying the psychological barrier is currently preventing Bitcoin from growing as much as it otherwise would be able to. If we redefined the standard BTC unit to a smaller one, it might indeed help the situation. It's the same reason why companies do stock splits - because a stock priced at $200/share looks frighteningly "expensive" to the casual observer at first glance, regardless of whether it is actually overvalued in terms of fundamentals like market cap or earnings per share.
They do stock splits because stocks are not commonily divisible. You own 1 share or more or you don't own any. Not a problem with bitcoin. If the price get to high I can just say "I'll buy that there rolex for 100 milli-BTC".
Be sure to name it Ripoffcoin so that everyone knows what they're getting into in advance.
It sounds like you want to create a fork of the block chain with different rules. Why do you think it necessary to call your rules Bitcoin while the original rules (what is essentially Bitcoin)
die or go by a different name? If it is not necessary, then all you have to do is say that at some block in the future, you will create a fork of the block chain. This fork will enforce the rules you propose, but will go by a name other than "Bitcoin".
die or go by a different name? If it is not necessary, then all you have to do is say that at some block in the future, you will create a fork of the block chain. This fork will enforce the rules you propose, but will go by a name other than "Bitcoin".
@OP
It sounds like you want to change bitcoin to not be what it was meant to be just so you can make money. Go to the alt crypto sub-forum if you want to try to get your own one started up.
It sounds like you want to change bitcoin to not be what it was meant to be just so you can make money. Go to the alt crypto sub-forum if you want to try to get your own one started up.
As I said in an earlier post, these changes could be implemented within the existing Bitcoin framework (and even on top of the existing block chain) by making small tweaks to the standard client that automatically take effect after a certain block number - so it would not necessarily even need to be a new currency, just a new release of the existing one. As long as the changes were accepted by the major pools, they would become the new de facto standard as to what Bitcoin itself is.
As I see it, without some way of enforcing a price floor in terms of existing currencies, Bitcoin will remain too risky for most people, and too small to have much of an impact on society - unless, of course, all the existing currencies collapse on their own. (This might still happen, but I'm not as worried about that happening in the near future as I was a few months ago.)
Jump to: