The inflation actually tends to zero, and in concept, I like that, which is why I had once proposed it. That coin could be created today, and it may very well be a "better" coin. But it won't get popular, and won't get adopted.
What I had underestimated at the time I first proposed it was that the simple notion of "There Will Never Be More Than 21,000,000 Bitcoins" is such an important part of the appeal. It is far more attractive than "There Will Be Inflation Forever, But At Least It Won't Be That Much".
Topic: Introducing Treazant - Bitcoin Without Reward Halving - page 3. (Read 4833 times)
Only limited resources have value. Infinite resources worth nothing.
Here's your homework: suppose 50 coins are mined each block, forever.
What is inflation for year x?
Only limited resources have value. Infinite resources worth nothing.
Inflatacoin FTW
Inflatacoin FTW
I proposed this in the past and there was an overwhelming consensus that there is no demand for it.
I learned that the 21 million limit is a HIGHLY VALUED feature and that Bitcoin without it is far less appealing. I gave up. Good luck with this.
I learned that the 21 million limit is a HIGHLY VALUED feature and that Bitcoin without it is far less appealing. I gave up. Good luck with this.
"Inflatacoin?" I still like the idea
I proposed this in the past and there was an overwhelming consensus that there is no demand for it.
I learned that the 21 million limit is a HIGHLY VALUED feature and that Bitcoin without it is far less appealing. I gave up. Good luck with this.
I learned that the 21 million limit is a HIGHLY VALUED feature and that Bitcoin without it is far less appealing. I gave up. Good luck with this.
Now that I've had some time to think about it, the solution which I mentioned should be pretty simple to implement and I will definitely have it done before I can get my hands on ASIC hardware. When the client starts up, if there is a Bitcoin wallet, it will open the wallet in read-only mode and for each of the Bitcoin addresses it will generate a new public/private key pair address first using a yet to be determined cryptographic algorithm, which may either be the same ECDSA algorithm that Bitcoin uses or a different cryptographic algorithm that will produce the same length address and then afterwards it will sign the transaction again using the original Bitcoin private key. The order is critical to guarantee that when the currency is eventually sent, the transactions will not be incompatible with Bitcoin. Afterwards the client could either continue to use twice signed addresses or just use single signed addresses. Please let me know if you have a recommendation for which cryptographic algorithm I should use or if you know or if you can think of a more elegant solution. Thanks!
A bunch of coins have had fixed rewards that never changed as I recall. Didn't make a difference. All dead.
Oh I just read other posts. Neutered idea. But interesting.
Oh I just read other posts. Neutered idea. But interesting.
Cool idea. Definitely following this one.
Another shitcoin born. Congratulations! Best of luck with this.
He wanted to create a permanent fork of bitcoin that did not reduce the block reward and allowed people to keep their current bitcoin holdings while not usurping the current main chain....
Actually from what he wrote in edit it is apparent that he wants to make a separate currency "initialized" from bitcoin.
Difference between a fork and a separate currency is that spending money in fork will also spend it on bitcoin network, however spending separate currency won't affect your bitcoin wallet.
Edit: Party's over. It was fun while it lasted. It just occurred to me that transactions on the bitcoin block chain could be rebroadcast on the treazant block chain not only by the sender, but by anyone. And the opposite is also true, treazants produced before the block chain split which are spent after the split, could be rebroadcast on the bitcoin block chain. This wouldn't always be true, eventually divergent confirmation paths would stop the double receiving, but only after much potential harm. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Thanks for all your support. We had a good run. 
Why does it bother you?
Quote
Edit 2: It could still work if the encryption method was changed or a salt was added at and after block 210,000. Doing so would be good practice in case Bitcoin were ever close to being compromised in the distant future.
Perhaps you should make two chains: one with bitcoin-compatible transactions and another with incompatible. Let's see which one wins!
Of course the idea of constant generation is already old. What's new here is a block-chain forking effort, aka revolt against the bitcoin protocol.
However in order to organize a revolt against the protocol, it's best not to totally rename the coin and post only in altcoin forum. I think it might have gained some minor support if op named it 'bitcoin unlimited' and posted the plan a month ago in the general forum instead.
However in order to organize a revolt against the protocol, it's best not to totally rename the coin and post only in altcoin forum. I think it might have gained some minor support if op named it 'bitcoin unlimited' and posted the plan a month ago in the general forum instead.
I find it strange that nobody did it.
Perhaps difficulty is the main barrier. I doubt that revolt would work unless difficulty is reset OR major mining pool joins revolt.
Also people are probably too loyal to bitcoin, which is spooky. (Cryptocurrency should work even if majority isn't loyal, right?)
Heh, if people are so altruistic that they don't even bother to attack than PoS-based coins like PPC can work too.
I totally don't get it, LOL! 
He wanted to create a permanent fork of bitcoin that did not reduce the block reward and allowed people to keep their current bitcoin holdings while not usurping the current main chain....
Just a thought/suggestion, this could be relatively simple in a new *coin if you feel that passionately about it. Solidcoin2 somehow figured out a way to take the block chain and "compress" the current holdings from the Solidcoin1 chain. Also Devcoin uses the same address format as bitcoin thus the private keys in both work for either but you can't send dvc to btc or vice versa (as far as I understand it).... You could combine the 2 concepts in your new *coin .... just pick a better name for it :-)
Incidentally this has the advantage that you can compress at the last block before the halving and the wallet conversions etc. should be easier I would think... since that is essentially a snap shot which will be unaffected by transactions after, the users of the new coin should just have to import their private key(s) they had at the time of that block.
How many blocks will be pre-mined? How long we have to wait for win32 package?
209,999 blocks have already been pre-mined. If you had bitcoins before the reward split and if you haven't thrown away your wallet, then you have treazants.Edit: Party's over. It was fun while it lasted. It just occurred to me that transactions on the bitcoin block chain could be rebroadcast on the treazant block chain not only by the sender, but by anyone. And the opposite is also true, treazants produced before the block chain split which are spent after the split, could be rebroadcast on the bitcoin block chain. This wouldn't always be true, eventually divergent confirmation paths would stop the double receiving, but only after much potential harm. If I'm wrong, please let me know. Thanks for all your support. We had a good run.
Edit 2: It could still work if the encryption method was changed or a salt was added at and after block 210,000. Doing so would be good practice in case Bitcoin were ever close to being compromised in the distant future.
Of course the idea of constant generation is already old. What's new here is a block-chain forking effort, aka revolt against the bitcoin protocol.
However in order to organize a revolt against the protocol, it's best not to totally rename the coin and post only in altcoin forum. I think it might have gained some minor support if op named it 'bitcoin unlimited' and posted the plan a month ago in the general forum instead.
However in order to organize a revolt against the protocol, it's best not to totally rename the coin and post only in altcoin forum. I think it might have gained some minor support if op named it 'bitcoin unlimited' and posted the plan a month ago in the general forum instead.
Actually it has existed for a long long time already, it is called groupcoin.
DeVCoin is similar, but uses coins 1/1000 the size because some people used to be really worried about having to move the decimal so devcoin created it already moved by three places from the start.
-MarkM-
DeVCoin is similar, but uses coins 1/1000 the size because some people used to be really worried about having to move the decimal so devcoin created it already moved by three places from the start.
-MarkM-
Finally, bitcoin without all the supply side economic incentives
Treazant is for folks who prefer for the Bitcoin reward to stay constant forever. Block chain confirmations will resume once ASIC hardware starts to arrive. The client only requires a few very trivial modifications to work. The one piece of the puzzle which would be useful, but is not required, is functionality to export wallets from Bitcoin and import them to Treazant and vice versa. If you haven't sent any outgoing transactions after the reward halving yesterday, then a simple copy and paste backup and restore should work fine. Minor modifications to accommodate the larger supply of currency will occur at block 420,000 and as needed at each subsequent 210,000 blocks.
Jump to: