It won't work, but thanks for the entertainment.
If you double the quantity of coins in existence you instantly cut the value of the bitcoins that EVERY individual holds in half. You've just doubled the supply with no change to the demand.
Furthermore, suddenly realizing that their money isn't worth what they expected it to be worth, you have destroyed everyone's faith in the currency causing a sudden drop in demand.
This is just as bad (probably worse) than the single individual selling off what they are holding. At least with the sale, everyone knows that the individual is holding less coins and can now do less damage. Furthermore, they had to drive the price up while buying them all, so the sale ends up being more of a correction after a bubble.
By the way, when the total coins is suddenly doubled, who receives them? If you give them all to the person that is already holding a significant percentage, their share just increases.
Topic: Possible change to Bitcoin? (Read 973 times)
After a bit of research, we think we need to change the bitcoin protocol, or make a new coin.
Who the fuck is WE? Define "a bit" of research.ROFL! So subtle! Lol!
No need to apologize. We were all noobs at one point. Even BurtW was once a noob 
He's right though - it is easy to misunderstand a lot of the basics. Read. Learn. Welcome to the community.
He's right though - it is easy to misunderstand a lot of the basics. Read. Learn. Welcome to the community.
I apologize for how silly this proposal was. It was an idea I had recommended to me by a friend, and I didn't pay enough attention to what already existed, I guess. I apologize profusely, and I will follow BurtW's advice. I thought it would be a good idea, but I guess it didn't turn out that way.
ANYWAYS,
I thank everyone for their responses, and I will continue to browse the forums and learn more about my mistake.
ANYWAYS,
I thank everyone for their responses, and I will continue to browse the forums and learn more about my mistake.
I guess it is just human nature to try to "fix" things when you have not studied them, you do not understand them and they are not broken. We see it here all the time. Someone learns 10% or less about Bitcoin and then writes up some big proposal of how to fix it.
I have been here for years, I know a lot about this subject from the ECC used in the protocol to the economic arguments about its viabliity. Yet, I still learn new things every day and still do not consider myself an expert to the level of some of the brilliant minds who hang out here. I hope you hang around and read. You have to sift through a lot of total horse shit, like protocol change proposals by total noobs, but the gems of understanding are here for those who take the time to find them.
Welcome to the community. Keep reading and learning and someday you will realize just how silly your proposal is.
I have been here for years, I know a lot about this subject from the ECC used in the protocol to the economic arguments about its viabliity. Yet, I still learn new things every day and still do not consider myself an expert to the level of some of the brilliant minds who hang out here. I hope you hang around and read. You have to sift through a lot of total horse shit, like protocol change proposals by total noobs, but the gems of understanding are here for those who take the time to find them.
Welcome to the community. Keep reading and learning and someday you will realize just how silly your proposal is.
But what about those who had purchased it at a higher price? Not trying to prove you wrong, but would those people be a LOT more cautious when dealing with crypto-coins from then onwards? And no I am not trying to make an alt-coin. It is simply an idea.
Who cares about the cautious. The wise hope for a price plummet because we see the end game. Let anyone dump a bunch of coin. There are buyers out here
Why do people want to make mining "fare?" It's a business. If it's no longer worth your time and money do a different business. There are many many types of businesses that Bitcoin (or the world for that matter) needs. Go find someone to serve in a way they are willing to pay and you'll make money. We don't NEED more Bitcoin miners.
First, Your title is a little bit aggressive!
Yes there are a lot of problems with bitcoins,
But the chance for them to happen are way too small, that we don't need to care about them.
Fixed.Yes there are a lot of problems with bitcoins,
But the chance for them to happen are way too small, that we don't need to care about them.
And I can understand your standpoint.
First, Your title is a little bit aggressive!
Yes there are a lot of problems with bitcoins,
But the chance for them to happen are way too small, that we don't need to care about them.
Yes there are a lot of problems with bitcoins,
But the chance for them to happen are way too small, that we don't need to care about them.
Go.
Create you alternate coin.
Market it.
See if it works, how many people like and accept it, how much it gets valued at, etc.
Mostly go and read a LOT more before you even think about trying to suggest a possible change to the Bitcoin protocol.
Thanks for the belly laugh. I needed that.
Create you alternate coin.
Market it.
See if it works, how many people like and accept it, how much it gets valued at, etc.
Mostly go and read a LOT more before you even think about trying to suggest a possible change to the Bitcoin protocol.
Thanks for the belly laugh. I needed that.
Cynical.
(Probably correct though)
so someone could make Doge seems like scarce resource compared to your coin by continous buy. Easy to kill the coin at the beginning, while the market still below the 1000's.
Assuming you broadcast it as that it will follow what I am saying. I also mean xx% of ALL coins in that crypto-currency that will EVER exist, not as the small portion that exists at the beginning. Go.
Create you alternate coin.
Market it.
See if it works, how many people like and accept it, how much it gets valued at, etc.
Mostly go and read a LOT more before you even think about trying to suggest a possible change to the Bitcoin protocol.
Thanks for the belly laugh. I needed that.
Create you alternate coin.
Market it.
See if it works, how many people like and accept it, how much it gets valued at, etc.
Mostly go and read a LOT more before you even think about trying to suggest a possible change to the Bitcoin protocol.
Thanks for the belly laugh. I needed that.
+100
Bitcoin = Bitcoin, the first crypto and the only that will survive in the longterm.
---> Never change something that is already working perfectly fine! <---
so someone could make Doge seems like scarce resource compared to your coin by continous buy. Easy to kill the coin at the beginning, while the market still below the 1000's.
if selling 50%, then yes the price will plummit
but thats the same for anything in life. even the OP's altcoin.
what he fails to realise is that after selling, the price will recover and the 50% one person owned, is now owned by the many. meaning its a self healing problem that solves itself
But what about those who had purchased it at a higher price? Not trying to prove you wrong, but would those people be a LOT more cautious when dealing with crypto-coins from then onwards? And no I am not trying to make an alt-coin. It is simply an idea.but thats the same for anything in life. even the OP's altcoin.
what he fails to realise is that after selling, the price will recover and the 50% one person owned, is now owned by the many. meaning its a self healing problem that solves itself
After a bit of research, we think we need to change the bitcoin protocol, or make a new coin.
Who the fuck is WE? Define "a bit" of research.Go.
Create you alternate coin.
Market it.
See if it works, how many people like and accept it, how much it gets valued at, etc.
Mostly go.
I am not attempting to make an alternate coin. I am suggesting something to the community, and I am interested in seeing what people think about it. Create you alternate coin.
Market it.
See if it works, how many people like and accept it, how much it gets valued at, etc.
Mostly go.
if selling 50%, then yes the price will plummit
but thats the same for anything in life. even the OP's altcoin.
what he fails to realise is that after selling, the price will recover and the 50% one person owned, is now owned by the many. meaning its a self healing problem that solves itself
but thats the same for anything in life. even the OP's altcoin.
what he fails to realise is that after selling, the price will recover and the 50% one person owned, is now owned by the many. meaning its a self healing problem that solves itself
Go.
Create you alternate coin.
Market it.
See if it works, how many people like and accept it, how much it gets valued at, etc.
Mostly go and read a LOT more before you even think about trying to suggest a possible change to the Bitcoin protocol.
Thanks for the belly laugh. I needed that.
Create you alternate coin.
Market it.
See if it works, how many people like and accept it, how much it gets valued at, etc.
Mostly go and read a LOT more before you even think about trying to suggest a possible change to the Bitcoin protocol.
Thanks for the belly laugh. I needed that.
After a bit of research, we think we need to change the bitcoin protocol, or make a new coin.
Who the fuck is WE? Define "a bit" of research.
EDIT: I apologize if this comes across as an attempt to de-rail Bitcoin or that I am trying to make my own alt-coin. This is simply an idea brought forward by a friend of mine that I manifested into a larger idea. This is an idea. Period.
TL;DR at bottom.
After a bit of research, we think we need to change the bitcoin protocol, or make a new coin.
The change we propose: a BTC/CC doubling protocol, and standardised mining system.
Our reason, you can almost control bitcoin by owning a large majority of it.
"But Bitcoin is decentralised!" "Owning =/= controlling" "Trolling"
We will explain our reasoning:
Why we think a doubling system is needed:
If we owned 12,000,000 BTC, that would be about 50%, give or take. Now what would happen if we sold all of it at once? According to the law of supply and demand, if we sold 50% of any one thing in existence, the price would plummet drastically, and could create a crypto-depression. This would chase possible users away from crypto-currencies, and would cause a possible demise for all crypto-currencies alike. Thus, governments could claim that crypto-currencies were a dad and will never be anything and we should only use fiat due to its "minimal" volatility.
What if the governments did this to take down all crypto-coins alike?
Due to this ever-likely possibility, we suggest that if the BTC/CC protocol ever deduces that a single or multiple inter-connected wallet system ever owned 45% or more of the BTC/CC in question (Traceable via public transaction), the coin would automatically double itself. Thus, the owner would own 1/2 of the percent they owned at the time (50% down to 25% in theory), but the doubling would not be public. To preserve value, it would not be announced, and would be done as discreetly as possible. Mining difficulty would remain at the amount it was at, at a certain limit, or would decrease the difficulty, again at a certain limit. This would prevent BTC from ever being possibly controlled, and would possibly allow a larger adoption of CCs, since miners could possibly get their feet wet as the difficulty would decrease if it ever was halved. This could also eventually bring the amount if coins to a nice psychological level, where it wouldn't be uncommon to own 123.72848105 BTC, although not necessarily preferred by anyone.
The drawback is that the value would decrease over time, if anyone owned xx% or more, but would probably not be a massive problem, unless xx% was being constantly purchased. If that happens, dump the coin, forcing the owner of that amount to lose their investment. Then, if needed, move to a new coin.
This brings us to point two; a standardised mining system.
During the gold rush, did miners have to buy seven different and unique pick axes to get to the gold, that couldn't be used again accept for that one task?
We propose a standard mining system, as we know how miners are not interested in shelling out $300 for a low-powered ASIC for a new coin, that uses a weird mining algorithm and has no clones that the hardware can be grandfathered to.
A standardised mining system would assist all miners, and would by FAR increase the possibility of new miners getting into crypto-currencies. As related to point two, if a coin switch is required, then miners can use their current hardware. This allows for a continuos economy, and makes it so miners can more freely trade equipment without having to meet so many qualifications.
We cannot recommend a algorithm at this time, but we hope that crowd-created attempts can narrow down candidates.
Once this is standardised, CCs CAN become the currency of the future. But it NEVER will if we cannot make it simple for the majority of the populace.
We also propose a standardised mining system that has a push-button start, as to also assist a majority of the populace with mining.
TL;DR: We need to have a coin doubling system to prevent control and a standardised mining style to assist the populace and get more people in crypto-currencies.
TL;DR at bottom.
After a bit of research, we think we need to change the bitcoin protocol, or make a new coin.
The change we propose: a BTC/CC doubling protocol, and standardised mining system.
Our reason, you can almost control bitcoin by owning a large majority of it.
"But Bitcoin is decentralised!" "Owning =/= controlling" "Trolling"
We will explain our reasoning:
Why we think a doubling system is needed:
If we owned 12,000,000 BTC, that would be about 50%, give or take. Now what would happen if we sold all of it at once? According to the law of supply and demand, if we sold 50% of any one thing in existence, the price would plummet drastically, and could create a crypto-depression. This would chase possible users away from crypto-currencies, and would cause a possible demise for all crypto-currencies alike. Thus, governments could claim that crypto-currencies were a dad and will never be anything and we should only use fiat due to its "minimal" volatility.
What if the governments did this to take down all crypto-coins alike?
Due to this ever-likely possibility, we suggest that if the BTC/CC protocol ever deduces that a single or multiple inter-connected wallet system ever owned 45% or more of the BTC/CC in question (Traceable via public transaction), the coin would automatically double itself. Thus, the owner would own 1/2 of the percent they owned at the time (50% down to 25% in theory), but the doubling would not be public. To preserve value, it would not be announced, and would be done as discreetly as possible. Mining difficulty would remain at the amount it was at, at a certain limit, or would decrease the difficulty, again at a certain limit. This would prevent BTC from ever being possibly controlled, and would possibly allow a larger adoption of CCs, since miners could possibly get their feet wet as the difficulty would decrease if it ever was halved. This could also eventually bring the amount if coins to a nice psychological level, where it wouldn't be uncommon to own 123.72848105 BTC, although not necessarily preferred by anyone.
The drawback is that the value would decrease over time, if anyone owned xx% or more, but would probably not be a massive problem, unless xx% was being constantly purchased. If that happens, dump the coin, forcing the owner of that amount to lose their investment. Then, if needed, move to a new coin.
This brings us to point two; a standardised mining system.
During the gold rush, did miners have to buy seven different and unique pick axes to get to the gold, that couldn't be used again accept for that one task?
We propose a standard mining system, as we know how miners are not interested in shelling out $300 for a low-powered ASIC for a new coin, that uses a weird mining algorithm and has no clones that the hardware can be grandfathered to.
A standardised mining system would assist all miners, and would by FAR increase the possibility of new miners getting into crypto-currencies. As related to point two, if a coin switch is required, then miners can use their current hardware. This allows for a continuos economy, and makes it so miners can more freely trade equipment without having to meet so many qualifications.
We cannot recommend a algorithm at this time, but we hope that crowd-created attempts can narrow down candidates.
Once this is standardised, CCs CAN become the currency of the future. But it NEVER will if we cannot make it simple for the majority of the populace.
We also propose a standardised mining system that has a push-button start, as to also assist a majority of the populace with mining.
TL;DR: We need to have a coin doubling system to prevent control and a standardised mining style to assist the populace and get more people in crypto-currencies.
Jump to: