There *are* other block chains. Go hunt them down and maybe even set up more exchanges between them all so they can more readily reach their relative market values.
It would be fun to have an exchange featuring hundreds of them a like a penny stock stockmarket game kind of thing in effect.
-MarkM-
Topic: Satoshi's spare change? (Read 8891 times)
Or if you alternate BTC is gonna be really great I'll be buying with both fists .... I don't see what this big objection to the "early adopters" is all about. The forum archives are full of all the evidence you need that this wasn't some masterful conspiracy to accumulate great wealth and power .... basically nobody wanted the stuff 18 months ago and before that hardly anybody had heard about it, let alone assumed it was a road to riches ... go read the posts for yourself ... begin with the 10,000 BTC for 2 pizzas. How's that for a conspiratorial early adopter?
Minute, I think you get me wrong. I don't think the early adopters with lots of BTC aspire to huge wealth and power. I think he/she/they did it for reasons that I would approve of. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Satoshi himself would like to see a new chain outcompete BTC.
But I do not know these things with enough certainty for comfort.
BitterTea, on this we are in violent agreement. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=violent%20agreement
If you suggest, further, that this forum is inappropriate for seeking interest and discussing how to go about starting it, well, I would like to hear about that from a moderator. Perhaps a new topic or section, once it becomes more than an idea.
If you suggest, further, that this forum is inappropriate for seeking interest and discussing how to go about starting it, well, I would like to hear about that from a moderator. Perhaps a new topic or section, once it becomes more than an idea.
I was responding to the idea (not necessarily yours) that BTC is "unfair" and should be changed to suit those who did not or could not enter the market until now. Since nobody is forced to use it, I don't see how it could possibly be unfair, and those that think so should start their own block chain. Your post seemed to imply that early adopters think that alternate block chains should be repressed, but I think you will find the truth to be the exact opposite. It is entirely possibly I read too much into your post, but it seems to be a common belief, becoming more common as the USD/BTC exchange rate rises.
I don't think discussion of alternate block chains should be banned in any way. I do think it is disingenous and bordering on fraudulent to make claims that the bitcoin economy is controlled by a small number of participants, to the detriment of all the rest. In fact, it is because of the early adopters that bitcoin has such value today.
Thanks!
So jontobey253 outlines a way of "rebooting" the currency. Fortunately, people supporting this move can already achieve the same effect unilaterally using transaction "shunning" as outlined in http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=3441.msg50075#msg50075
If you think that people who were mining when the difficulty was low have unfairly acquired their bitcoins and you wish to take them out of the economy for some reason you could check that any payments you and your supporters accept (and obviously make) have never used any of the coins mined during the "too easy" period. If someone tries to pay you using these old coins or any transaction which was derived from the old coins then you return them and explain why they are not acceptable.
If sufficient people agree with you to shun certain coins then they are effectively unspendable and are removed from the economy even more effectively than if the associated private keys had been lost.
ByteCoin
If you think that people who were mining when the difficulty was low have unfairly acquired their bitcoins and you wish to take them out of the economy for some reason you could check that any payments you and your supporters accept (and obviously make) have never used any of the coins mined during the "too easy" period. If someone tries to pay you using these old coins or any transaction which was derived from the old coins then you return them and explain why they are not acceptable.
If sufficient people agree with you to shun certain coins then they are effectively unspendable and are removed from the economy even more effectively than if the associated private keys had been lost.
ByteCoin
I don't like this idea for three reasons. One, the difficulty of choosing a set of coins that enough people would agree on. Two, headache in demultiplexing messages about the two chains. Three, Bitcoin address overlap. A new chain would have a different network identifier and, hence, addresses beginning in a character other than '1', and could coexist with BTC on the current network.
Quote from: johntobey
In brief: BTC has value, as judged by the market. Some of its value derives from some people's belief that BTC may one day dominate world trade, largely replacing USD and the rest. Some of us (apparently a minority--but that's okay!) value BTC less than if those early blocks had been generated at higher difficulty and/or appeared to be in circulation. In our global, industrial culture, money can be leveraged into power (and often back into more money).
You're being overly paranoid IMO. In any speculative venture, there are always early adopters that are rewarded big for their initiative. The early adopters not only discovered it, but in the case of Satoshi, created the technology. It's fair that they are rewarded.
I think you also have an economic misconception that a sum of money equals permanent control of a percentage of the economy denominated in that currency equal to the percentage of the currency someone holds, in perpetuity. In reality, each dollar or bitcoin is traded numerous times. Having a certain percentage of currency at any given time only gives one a tiny slice of all wealth over a long time frame.
Also, the 20% that the early adopters have now will only be 7% once bitcoin has expanded to 20 million. They can only spend it once. After they've spent it, it will be spent over and over again by others.
I'm pretty sure this is what we have been telling you to do. If you don't like the Bitcoin blockchain for whatever reason, feel free to start your own block chain. Just don't try to make us change ours.
BitterTea, on this we are in violent agreement. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=violent%20agreement
If you suggest, further, that this forum is inappropriate for seeking interest and discussing how to go about starting it, well, I would like to hear about that from a moderator. Perhaps a new topic or section, once it becomes more than an idea.
sending .01BTC to satoshi is the new sending .02USD to kidpoker on pokerstars (when that was legal).
As far as the bitter people, i mean 'make bitcoin more fair people' - please start your own blockchain. When others who share your view join, and accept the new coins for goods and services, and it becomes stronger than the original bitcoin chain - I will be the first to congratulate you. Seriously.
As far as the bitter people, i mean 'make bitcoin more fair people' - please start your own blockchain. When others who share your view join, and accept the new coins for goods and services, and it becomes stronger than the original bitcoin chain - I will be the first to congratulate you. Seriously.
You need to give those items the proper weighting:
- a concern troll
- economically ignorant
- jealous
So if I end up with 50 BTC that satoshi generated, I will be unable to spend it? Fuck that!
I think it's hilarious that these guys are worried about early adopters, rather than the huge conglomerations of power and wealth that exist in the real world. The only way this viewpoint makes any sense to me is if you are one of the following:
I think it's hilarious that these guys are worried about early adopters, rather than the huge conglomerations of power and wealth that exist in the real world. The only way this viewpoint makes any sense to me is if you are one of the following:
- a concern troll
- economically ignorant
- jealous
It seems reasonable that the first block chain (BTC) should acquire a sort of "beta" status, and now that the concept is (somewhat) proven, it is time to prepare the "production" currency with a high starting difficulty, perhaps 5% of the BTC difficulty.
So jontobey253 outlines a way of "rebooting" the currency. Fortunately, people supporting this move can already achieve the same effect unilaterally using transaction "shunning" as outlined in http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=3441.msg50075#msg50075
If you think that people who were mining when the difficulty was low have unfairly acquired their bitcoins and you wish to take them out of the economy for some reason you could check that any payments you and your supporters accept (and obviously make) have never used any of the coins mined during the "too easy" period. If someone tries to pay you using these old coins or any transaction which was derived from the old coins then you return them and explain why they are not acceptable.
If sufficient people agree with you to shun certain coins then they are effectively unspendable and are removed from the economy even more effectively than if the associated private keys had been lost.
ByteCoin
Some of us might want to implement the bitcoin concept with a chain other than BTC and see that chain compete with BTC. I see no principled objection to this. You are all free to ignore us if we actually do it.
I'm pretty sure this is what we have been telling you to do. If you don't like the Bitcoin blockchain for whatever reason, feel free to start your own block chain. Just don't try to make us change ours.
kjj, shackra, minute_of_angle, amincd, Shortline, allinvain, Quantumplation,
I don't feel the need to show each of you the risk that mcdett, syn, and I seem to agree about. I accept that people have different world views, and diversity is great. Of course, I do enjoy meeting someone who thinks like me. If that's not you, no problem! Maybe we have something else in common, like biking or chocolate! Maybe not!
In brief: BTC has value, as judged by the market. Some of its value derives from some people's belief that BTC may one day dominate world trade, largely replacing USD and the rest. Some of us (apparently a minority--but that's okay!) value BTC less than if those early blocks had been generated at higher difficulty and/or appeared to be in circulation. In our global, industrial culture, money can be leveraged into power (and often back into more money). Some of us might want to implement the bitcoin concept with a chain other than BTC and see that chain compete with BTC. I see no principled objection to this. You are all free to ignore us if we actually do it.
I don't feel the need to show each of you the risk that mcdett, syn, and I seem to agree about. I accept that people have different world views, and diversity is great. Of course, I do enjoy meeting someone who thinks like me. If that's not you, no problem! Maybe we have something else in common, like biking or chocolate! Maybe not!
In brief: BTC has value, as judged by the market. Some of its value derives from some people's belief that BTC may one day dominate world trade, largely replacing USD and the rest. Some of us (apparently a minority--but that's okay!) value BTC less than if those early blocks had been generated at higher difficulty and/or appeared to be in circulation. In our global, industrial culture, money can be leveraged into power (and often back into more money). Some of us might want to implement the bitcoin concept with a chain other than BTC and see that chain compete with BTC. I see no principled objection to this. You are all free to ignore us if we actually do it.
Or if you alternate BTC is gonna be really great I'll be buying with both fists .... I don't see what this big objection to the "early adopters" is all about. The forum archives are full of all the evidence you need that this wasn't some masterful conspiracy to accumulate great wealth and power .... basically nobody wanted the stuff 18 months ago and before that hardly anybody had heard about it, let alone assumed it was a road to riches ... go read the posts for yourself ... begin with the 10,000 BTC for 2 pizzas. How's that for a conspiratorial early adopter?
kjj, shackra, minute_of_angle, amincd, Shortline, allinvain, Quantumplation,
I don't feel the need to show each of you the risk that mcdett, syn, and I seem to agree about. I accept that people have different world views, and diversity is great. Of course, I do enjoy meeting someone who thinks like me. If that's not you, no problem! Maybe we have something else in common, like biking or chocolate! Maybe not!
In brief: BTC has value, as judged by the market. Some of its value derives from some people's belief that BTC may one day dominate world trade, largely replacing USD and the rest. Some of us (apparently a minority--but that's okay!) value BTC less than if those early blocks had been generated at higher difficulty and/or appeared to be in circulation. In our global, industrial culture, money can be leveraged into power (and often back into more money). Some of us might want to implement the bitcoin concept with a chain other than BTC and see that chain compete with BTC. I see no principled objection to this. You are all free to ignore us if we actually do it.
I don't feel the need to show each of you the risk that mcdett, syn, and I seem to agree about. I accept that people have different world views, and diversity is great. Of course, I do enjoy meeting someone who thinks like me. If that's not you, no problem! Maybe we have something else in common, like biking or chocolate! Maybe not!
In brief: BTC has value, as judged by the market. Some of its value derives from some people's belief that BTC may one day dominate world trade, largely replacing USD and the rest. Some of us (apparently a minority--but that's okay!) value BTC less than if those early blocks had been generated at higher difficulty and/or appeared to be in circulation. In our global, industrial culture, money can be leveraged into power (and often back into more money). Some of us might want to implement the bitcoin concept with a chain other than BTC and see that chain compete with BTC. I see no principled objection to this. You are all free to ignore us if we actually do it.
I think you're all missing the point. There hasn't been this lopsided holding of equity since kings. 2% holding 50% of the wealth is far more desirable than 0.00000002% holding 25%. I know you can all do the math.
This situation is a despot megalomaniacs wet dream. Never in the history of human kind has one person controlled 25% of the economy.
I think we all WANT to believe that Satoshi is some humble quite person who only wants his bitcoins to go to helping poor kids down on their luck, but maybe, just maybe Satoshi gets corrupted (power corrupts), the point being is that there is tremendous amounts of risk piled into this one person.
I do think early adopters should be rewarded and this isn't some sort of jealousy thing.
Think of it this way. If you want to believe that one day btc could represent the financial foundation of the world economy, then be VERY afraid of the person who controls 25% of it.
This situation is a despot megalomaniacs wet dream. Never in the history of human kind has one person controlled 25% of the economy.
I think we all WANT to believe that Satoshi is some humble quite person who only wants his bitcoins to go to helping poor kids down on their luck, but maybe, just maybe Satoshi gets corrupted (power corrupts), the point being is that there is tremendous amounts of risk piled into this one person.
I do think early adopters should be rewarded and this isn't some sort of jealousy thing.
Think of it this way. If you want to believe that one day btc could represent the financial foundation of the world economy, then be VERY afraid of the person who controls 25% of it.
I think YOU'RE missing the point.
Tell me, what sinister things can he do with this 20% of bitcoins? They don't grant power over your money. They don't grant super powers. Bitcoins, in and of themselves, are absolutely useless. I could control 99.9999% of the economy, and they themselves would be useless. I can't use them to alter the block-chain. I can't use them to kill your unborn children or force you into slavery. The worst I can do with them is spend them on some commodity, (and it's not like there are bitcoin-hitmen out there) or exchange them for another currency, which is limited by peoples willingness to do so.
I think you're all missing the point. There hasn't been this lopsided holding of equity since kings. 2% holding 50% of the wealth is far more desirable than 0.00000002% holding 25%. I know you can all do the math.
This situation is a despot megalomaniacs wet dream. Never in the history of human kind has one person controlled 25% of the economy.
This situation is a despot megalomaniacs wet dream. Never in the history of human kind has one person controlled 25% of the economy.
What economy? Despot megalomaniacs wet dream aside, there isn't a "situation;" there actually isn't much of anything.
If you think the current distribution of bitcoins is a problem, you have three choices - buy more, mine more, convince the rest of the world to stop using them. Start btc2, bitcoins are no longer your problem! Brilliant.
mcdett, I share your concern. I don't think most posters here have thought it through, or their world view clouds their perception of the risk.
I'll admit, my worldview has been carefully constructed to isolate me from realistic risks. I rarely think about the possibility that our solar system exists in a false vacuum, that a dormant megavolcano could go off suddenly, that kind of thing. Sometimes I even think about the small stuff, like bitcoin. So I'm interested: what specifically are the risks that you refer to?
(IMO, it should have been left in as an opt-in feature.)
Agreed. Of course, it should be voluntary, but it can come in handy in case things really get out of hand with the network for some reason, or an exploit is found in bitcoind.
It only prints a message. It used to shut off RPC, but this was removed. (IMO, it should have been left in as an opt-in feature.)
Personally, I find this more worrying. One person has access to a kill switch, huh? Was that in the wiki?
See here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=898.0
I don't know what state it currently is in (whether it prints a message or shuts off the RPC interface).
As I already said, I just looked at the source code, and all I see is "print a message".
So not a "kill switch" ... what does it do exactly? (not being a programmer recently)
Edit: don't answer ..... thanks "doublec", just saw your link to the alert key actions now ....
Edit2: okay, it is a beta safety switch ... when does it get removed ... at the Jan 03 2013 party?
Personally, I find this more worrying. One person has access to a kill switch, huh? Was that in the wiki?
See here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=898.0
I don't know what state it currently is in (whether it prints a message or shuts off the RPC interface).
As I already said, I just looked at the source code, and all I see is "print a message".
Personally, I find this more worrying. One person has access to a kill switch, huh? Was that in the wiki?
See here: http://forum.bitcoin.org/?topic=898.0
I don't know what state it currently is in (whether it prints a message or shuts off the RPC interface).
Jump to: