Topic: Innovation in the alt chains - page 2. (Read 6237 times)

So if I send if I have 100,000 coins, I send you 99,999 and I send 1 coin to change address then the fee is 1 * 1% = 0.01 coin?


1% of a tiny transaction volume = tiny fees.  So the network large enough to avoid 51% attack will be paid from a negligible amount of transaction fees.  You seem to forget the subsidy exists for a purpose.  It allows the network to be large enough to avoid attack while the transaction volume is too small to support a strong network.  Today Bitcoin could have a ~10TH network with no block rewards.  Of course it would require a ~7% transaction fee.  However it is a catch22.  A 7% transaction fee would prevent the transaction volume from growing to ever reduce that fee to a modest sum.  The subsidies (which you seem to have blind irrational hatred of) bridge that gap. 




No reason to comment because it has no relevance.


Neither is Bitcoin.  Also if you think inflation rate is 10% a year in USD well that explains a lot in your failed macro economics.

I think a sufficiently innovative altchain wouldn't be recognizable as a bitcoin derivative. For example, a crypto-currency that doesn't use a blockchain at all, or a currency based on per-demand computational power, storage, bandwidth and credits.

a) The network should know the fee.  Blockexplorer shows the transaction, fee, and size.  The fee would charged based on the smallest of the to (amount).

b) 1% fee transactions are very large compared to 0.01 fee transaction which the bitcoin network is eventually going to have to deal with.  By making this comment you are saying in the long run bitcoin will never work since the mining fees will be too small in the future.  This is nonsense, as owners of large amounts of coins have vested interest to protect the network.

c) When you buy an item say alpaca socks for 5 btc.  The owner is already going to have to pay income tax on that sale.  A 2% sale would show up as a familiar sales tax.   5 btc plus tax or 5.10 btc.  Or the seller will most likely just say tax included.

d) Because the currency is not a fiat currency that is stolen at a rate of 10% a year by congress every year so Obama can fly to Hawaii denying 5000 workers of the U.S. the same trip and Gingrich can give a $1.6 million history lesson to Freddie Mac.  The tax is not wasted it goes to miners and deflation which should attract more people to the coin.  Current owners will advertise for more businesses so the value of their coins go up.  Miners will advertise for more business so they can get more mining fees.

Gavin said innovation like OP_EVAL would be implemented in the alt chain first, but nothing happend, sadly.

Blockchains seem as if they ought to be just the kind of thing that robust distributed storage systems should be good media for. Like GNUnet, Freenet, stuff like that. Systems that let the data reside in a decentralised cloud...

I don't mean a berkely-DB version of a blockchain though, I mean the blocks, retrievable by hash, height, addresses and so on.

-MarkM-

Sometimes I wonder Satoshi is an ET, he is/was so far ahead of everybody else.
 

yes.

Maaku, are you guys still working on blockchains using folding@home etc.?

Guys, let's stay on topic. If you want to debate that, start a new thread.

With only 8 decimal places, wouldn't this eventually lead to 100% eradication of all coins operating under this fee system?

Block time has nothing to do w/ inflation.

Problem with faster blocks though is that you end up with a very high inflation rate. Remember what it was like when TBX/FBX/LTC first came out and you were getting blocks every half minute? Well when BTC first came out it took an hour or so on a standard PC to find a block. The problem is the amount of coins minted is so fast that you can't find investors to buy them all. SC2 dealt with this by cutting the miner subsidy which was a gamble but it appears to have paid off. The other coins that still have the same subsidy have been going down in value. Unless they can find a niche that causes people to buy them up they will just become worth less and less over time. The other problem is of course botnets. Botnet owners don't pay for electricity and just dump the coins.

I think it just has become obvious this alt-coins aren't going to fragment Bitcoin.  None have gotten more than 1% of the support Bitcoin has (not just hashing power but exchange volume, developer support, alternate clients, mechant acceptance, 3rd party services, etc).

Personally I think any coin which is "based" on
a) shorter blocks
b) you can't use a GPU (until someone eventually makes a GPU w/ enough cach rendering the GPU hostility futile)

has any niche to fill.  Other than namecoin none have done anything else. 

There is this belief that a silver is needed to Bitcoin's gold.  The reality is Bitcoin is Bitcoin's silver.  Silver (and Copper) was used in coinage because discrete units of gold smaller than a gram are very cumbersome.  Small units of Bitcoin aren't cumbersome.  Transactions in bit pennies work just as well as transaction in thousands of Bitcoins.

So are people more comfortable with the idea of alt-chains now?

I remember when namecoin first came out some people (probably just those that held a lot of bitcoin) were protesting about that. IXcoin created an obvious shitstorm then Solidcoin even more so.
By the time LTC had come out people were mostly pretty chilled. Now we have a lot of different coins. I guess they all need to find their niche markets.

The worst part is he has never responded to analysis the first dozen times posted.

Like
a) how do you have a fee based as a % when the network has no idea the transaction size?

b) how do you encourage mining if that mining is a negligibly amount of money?

c) what does sales tax have to do w/ a rational on the fee cost?  US Income tax is up to 38% so is a 38% fee a good idea too?

d) why would anyone want to use a blockchain w/ a 2% fee?  Paypal isn't much more.

How much longer are you going to keep suggesting these ideas with no action on them?  Go  make your own coin and stop flooding the forums with the same ideas...

if...

Well if you end up with 1 billion DVC and their worth 0.1 cents each then theoretically you have a million bucks.

I haven't any complaints so far about Unthinkingbit's management of the DeVCoin project.

Maybe a get rich quick mentality tends to drive a lot of altcoins into rush rush rush, I rather like the more relaxed / sedate pace that DeVCoin has been progressing at, and wonder if the lack of hype might be part of why it has been sailing along so smoothly so far.

-MarkM-

@BP, yes it's the same company, but that post is not representative of our current projects.