Topic: Reward Payout vs World Population - page 2. (Read 6034 times)
Was there any reason that the number 210,000 was chosen as the block reward reduction?
If you want a coin that does not reduce rewards over time, use DeVCoin and/or GRouPcoin.
Bitcoin does reduce reward over time, and has not need to change since anyone who does want rewards not to drop can simply use DeVCoin and/or GRouPcoin, without even interfering with their ability to continue mining bitcoin, namecoin, i0coin, ixcoin etc at the same time.
-MarkM-
Bitcoin does reduce reward over time, and has not need to change since anyone who does want rewards not to drop can simply use DeVCoin and/or GRouPcoin, without even interfering with their ability to continue mining bitcoin, namecoin, i0coin, ixcoin etc at the same time.
-MarkM-
Since chose to ignore the threat and even ignored my suggestion on how to deal with it I wish you the best in dealing with the trolls in December...
If you want a coin that does not reduce rewards over time, use DeVCoin and/or GRouPcoin.
Bitcoin does reduce reward over time, and has no need to change since anyone who does want rewards not to drop can simply use DeVCoin and/or GRouPcoin, without even interfering with their ability to continue mining bitcoin, namecoin, i0coin, ixcoin etc at the same time.
-MarkM-
Bitcoin does reduce reward over time, and has no need to change since anyone who does want rewards not to drop can simply use DeVCoin and/or GRouPcoin, without even interfering with their ability to continue mining bitcoin, namecoin, i0coin, ixcoin etc at the same time.
-MarkM-
Shouldn't it be possible to merge mine another bitcoin blockchain which doesn't have the blockreward reduction?
Call it TrollCoin or whatever... idk
Call it TrollCoin or whatever... idk
At least read the frikkin posts if you are gonna pretend to be responding to them. Sheesh.
-MarkM-
I did, I think my suggestion is possible and just wanted to check.
No reason to get mad.
For the umpteenth time: there are already at least two blockchains that do not reduce mining reward over time and that are merged-mine-able: DeVCoin and GRouPcoin.
-MarkM-
I didn't know that they don't reduce the block reward. Still it might be worth to do it for the laughs. And they are not bitcoin you know people tend to get somehow what they want.
The alternative is to ignore it, in which case the trolling will probably continue till it peaks just before the reduction. Worst case people actually use a patched version of BTC and try fork the blockchain. We wouldn't want that...
Shouldn't it be possible to merge mine another bitcoin blockchain which doesn't have the blockreward reduction?
Call it TrollCoin or whatever... idk
Call it TrollCoin or whatever... idk
At least read the frikkin posts if you are gonna pretend to be responding to them. Sheesh.
-MarkM-
I did, I think my suggestion is possible and just wanted to check.
No reason to get mad.
For the umpteenth time: there are already at least two blockchains that do not reduce mining reward over time and that are merged-mine-able: DeVCoin and GRouPcoin.
-MarkM-
Shouldn't it be possible to merge mine another bitcoin blockchain which doesn't have the blockreward reduction?
Call it TrollCoin or whatever... idk
Call it TrollCoin or whatever... idk
At least read the frikkin posts if you are gonna pretend to be responding to them. Sheesh.
-MarkM-
I did, I think my suggestion is possible and just wanted to check.
No reason to get mad.
Shouldn't it be possible to merge mine another bitcoin blockchain which doesn't have the blockreward reduction?
Call it TrollCoin or whatever... idk
Call it TrollCoin or whatever... idk
At least read the frikkin posts if you are gonna pretend to be responding to them. Sheesh.
-MarkM-
From a system level perspective anything that can inflate in an infinite manner requires regulation of some sort. But as a decentralised system it is incredibly difficult to find a single source that can reliably regulate the currency, hence it is up to the holders of Bitcoin and the market to regulate itself, (surprise surprise) .There is simply no other simple way it can be done. I think Satoshi understood that if Bitcoin were to succeed it needed to be based on a community that strongly supported it as an integral, useful, valuable tool, no more, no less. This is no bunch of suits switching numbers on a computer, nor is it regulated by an algorithm, it is the visceral market of supply and demand that regulates Bitcoin. Stop trying to fuck with it.
Lost coins are not really a problem, there are already so many chains all of which can be merged-mined at once that losing a few coins on each chain really doesn't amount to much, especially if you also take into account the fact that the number of chains you can merged mine at once is not yet saturated; mining a few more is still easy, we have not hit a point yet where the sheer number to merge is too many to do it practically. (We have however found that ten second block time chains are not practical to merged mine alongside more-normal blocktime chains.)
-MarkM-
Shouldn't it be possible to merge mine another bitcoin blockchain which doesn't have the blockreward reduction?-MarkM-
Call it TrollCoin or whatever... idk
Lost coins are not really a problem, there are already so many chains all of which can be merged-mined at once that losing a few coins on each chain really doesn't amount to much, especially if you also take into account the fact that the number of chains you can merged mine at once is not yet saturated; mining a few more is still easy, we have not hit a point yet where the sheer number to merge is too many to do it practically. (We have however found that ten second block time chains are not practical to merged mine alongside more-normal blocktime chains.)
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
Not really - you forget the impact of lost coins. Assuming a 0.5%/year loss rate, a permanent 10.5 million BTC per four years would amount to an ultimate fuzzy cap of 525 million coins, while Bitcoin's current strategy would peak the currency at 18.9 million in 2028 and then have it slowly come down and be all the way down to 13.6 million at the end of the century.
I neglect it because I don't think anyone has come up with a good way to model it yet. We're coming out of a regime where wallets have been lost because the software is immature and the coins in them are largely worthless, this clearly won't keep happening at the same rate. I also expect the loss rate to decay exponentially as people innovate in this space. But I worry about what happens when retirees are holding bitcoin and die without divulging their private keys.
Realistically the loss rate just moves around the finish line a bit, it doesn't change the nature of the race too much.
This is crazy, miners can already merged-mine both DeVCoins and GRouPcoins alongside BiTCoins, so they can mint two of these always same number of coins per block coins right alongside their bitcoins almost free; there is thus absolutely no point whatsoever screwing around with actual bitcoins in such a way.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
yes it's pointless.... but it would be sure awesome to witness the drama it would bring with it
The trolls trolling about it are full of crap anyway, they don't even bother to mine the coins that do feature the very feature they claim to favour, so they are just noise, trolls, crap, waste of bandwidth.
-MarkM-
Just imagine if there are enough idiots gullible enough to do this, it would result in a cozy low difficulty to continue mining the main fork after the block reward reduction before they give up on it.
This is crazy, miners can already merged-mine both DeVCoins and GRouPcoins alongside BiTCoins, so they can mint two of these always same number of coins per block coins right alongside their bitcoins almost free; there is thus absolutely no point whatsoever screwing around with actual bitcoins in such a way.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
yes it's pointless.... but it would be sure awesome to witness the drama it would bring with it
The trolls trolling about it are full of crap anyway, they don't even bother to mine the coins that do feature the very feature they claim to favour, so they are just noise, trolls, crap, waste of bandwidth.
-MarkM-
i really object to describing Bitcoin as a "deflationary currency". not only does it scare the avg Joe and reminds them of the Great Depression, i don't think its technically correct. the assumption here is that there will be a mild but negligible loss of coins.
i think its more appropriate to describe what it will be in 2040 and beyond when the vast majority of coins will have been mined and we're finished with its inflationary distribution phase. if we focus on that timeframe i think it is appropriate to describe it as a "stable currency" which is much less objectionable by the uneducated and more technically correct.
inflation, as defined by those of similar mindset to our own, is the growth of the money supply + credit.
deflation, is the decrease of money supply + credit.
clearly, Bitcoin will neither increase or decrease the supply of money + credit.
thus it is a stable currency.
edit: "fixed supply currency" would also be acceptable.
i think its more appropriate to describe what it will be in 2040 and beyond when the vast majority of coins will have been mined and we're finished with its inflationary distribution phase. if we focus on that timeframe i think it is appropriate to describe it as a "stable currency" which is much less objectionable by the uneducated and more technically correct.
inflation, as defined by those of similar mindset to our own, is the growth of the money supply + credit.
deflation, is the decrease of money supply + credit.
clearly, Bitcoin will neither increase or decrease the supply of money + credit.
thus it is a stable currency.
edit: "fixed supply currency" would also be acceptable.
AThis is crazy, miners can already merged-mine both DeVCoins and GRouPcoins alongside BiTCoins, so they can mint two of these always same number of coins per block coins right alongside their bitcoins almost free; there is thus absolutely no point whatsoever screwing around with actual bitcoins in such a way.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
yes it's pointless.... but it would be sure awesome to witness the drama it would bring with it
IMO changing the block reward to continuous linear expansion wouldn't greatly affect the economics of bitcoin in the (extreme) long term, but it also wouldn't satisfy anyone's desire to have an inflating money supply either, so I don't see why anyone would want to make the change.
Once you had trillions of bitcoin in circulation, the 2 million newly minted coins a year would presumably be noise on the scale of the overall money supply, and injecting this would have no tangible impact to the "new" population created that year. This is essentially the same case we run in to (much sooner) when we start sub-dividing satoshis and block rewards of these sub-satoshis continue to accrue ad-infinitium; block rewards continue to be released forever but they become meaningless scraps for the miners to fight over, hopefully while sustaining themselves on transaction fees.
Once you had trillions of bitcoin in circulation, the 2 million newly minted coins a year would presumably be noise on the scale of the overall money supply, and injecting this would have no tangible impact to the "new" population created that year. This is essentially the same case we run in to (much sooner) when we start sub-dividing satoshis and block rewards of these sub-satoshis continue to accrue ad-infinitium; block rewards continue to be released forever but they become meaningless scraps for the miners to fight over, hopefully while sustaining themselves on transaction fees.
Not really - you forget the impact of lost coins. Assuming a 0.5%/year loss rate, a permanent 10.5 million BTC per four years would amount to an ultimate fuzzy cap of 525 million coins, while Bitcoin's current strategy would peak the currency at 18.9 million in 2028 and then have it slowly come down and be all the way down to 13.6 million at the end of the century.
This is crazy, miners can already merged-mine both DeVCoins and GRouPcoins alongside BiTCoins, so they can mint two of these always same number of coins per block coins right alongside their bitcoins almost free; there is thus absolutely no point whatsoever screwing around with actual bitcoins in such a way.
-MarkM-
-MarkM-
inb4 somebody posting a forked version of bitcoin to do just that when the block rewards reduction is up.
ENTERPRISE LEVEL TROLLING
ENTERPRISE LEVEL TROLLING
Besides, a constantly increasing world population is NOT sustainable, so let's not base our systems on the idea that it is. Sound good?
Define "world". As a proponent of space exploration, I see things a bit differently.
Although making Bitcoin work over a one hour latency is a rather interesting task...
Though the answer to this question seems obvious to a bitcoin holder, miners may have a different opinion - and it's their vote that counts.
There is a tension between people who hold bitcoins and want deflation, and miners who want to earn more bitcoins.
The allure of more bitcoins per block is a delusion, but if enough miners agreed, then there is the slight possibility of a fork that could develop momentum - especially if bitcoin was floundering somewhat.
I suspect miners faced with a fork like this would simply choose to drop out and wait for low difficulty rather than pursuing an inflationary model - or maybe they'd mine both and wait for the winner.
There is a tension between people who hold bitcoins and want deflation, and miners who want to earn more bitcoins.
The allure of more bitcoins per block is a delusion, but if enough miners agreed, then there is the slight possibility of a fork that could develop momentum - especially if bitcoin was floundering somewhat.
I suspect miners faced with a fork like this would simply choose to drop out and wait for low difficulty rather than pursuing an inflationary model - or maybe they'd mine both and wait for the winner.
Any miner that chooses a fork with perpetual inflation is cutting off his nose to spite his face and will soon realize this when no one purchases coins on their fork. Also, I'd guess many miners are also holders.
I agree - Inflation is appealing to the people who print the money (the miners), though bitcoin's decentralized nature means that the holders will stick with the miners who support the Satoshi model.
Jump to: