SHOCKING: BU chief scientist: "We need Bitcoin's inflation rate to be non-zero" - page 2.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

Quote from: BillyBobZorton on March 24, 2017, 02:16:54 PM

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 24, 2017, 01:17:02 PM

OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.

What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.

No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.

Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.

Ridiculous denial. This effectively means that the total supply will be no longer 21 million coins, because BUcoin is in a dead end eventually.

It doesn't imply that, my friend. We do not need to perfectly strategize what's going to happen a century from now, to make a sensible
decision today. I even gave you an option we could do even if we reached that point and no other option could be found...and it does not involve
changing the 21M supply of coins. I know we all get worked up about Bitcoin (including me) but at least listen to what i'm saying. We both
ultimately want a successful Bitcoin.

Quote

Are you myopic enough to not see how a vast amount of BTC investors get on bitcoin precisely because of that certainty of the 21 million coin limit as they run away from inflationary currencies/assets and want digital certainty?

I'm in total agreement with you. I think any attempt to change the issuance/supply would have very little economic support.

lurker10

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Inflation rate has always been non-zero.
Every 10 minutes new coins enter circulation, increasing supply of coins is the definition of inflation.

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

Quote from: jonald_fyookball on March 24, 2017, 01:17:02 PM

OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.

What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.

No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.

Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.

Ridiculous denial. This effectively means that the total supply will be no longer 21 million coins, because BUcoin is in a dead end eventually.

Are you myopic enough to not see how a vast amount of BTC investors get on bitcoin precisely because of that certainty of the 21 million coin limit as they run away from inflationary currencies/assets and want digital certainty?

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

Quote from: Lauda on March 24, 2017, 01:11:26 PM

3) Inflation non-zero, a.k.a. remove the 21 million limit.

Whoever doesn't see something *seriously* wrong here, especially in point 3, you need to get a 'reality check'. If anything is going to kill Bitcoin (from this list), then it is most certainly point 3.

They've regrouped to BitcoinEC already though. jonald's already laying the groundwork.

I'm seeing both this and the new ECcoin hard-fork as acceptance that they're moving on, they know that the sock puppet army and VPS nodes didn't fool anyone this time either. They'll desperately cling to the falsehoods ("community is and always was in favour of blocksize hard forks" etc) they've tried to argue with, just as they've done with BU this time around

Is no-one wondering when they will stop talking softly and pull out the big stick? I expect that to happen in a way that takes everyone by surprise, prepare yourselves (yes, prepping, lol)

Jet Cash

legendary

Activity: 2828

Merit: 2472

https://JetCash.com

I vote we change unlimited's initials from BU to FU.

Quote

Inflation is the rate at which the general level of prices for goods and services is rising and, consequently, the purchasing power of currency is falling

Do we really want the purchasing power of Bitcoin to decrease.

jonald_fyookball

legendary

Activity: 1302

Merit: 1008

Core dev leaves me neg feedback #abuse #political

OP, you are spinning this and putting words in Peter's mouth.

What he said is when the mining reward goes to 0 (in the year 2140),, its unclear what happens with the natural fee market.

No one in the BU camp is saying "we need to change the social contract and have more than 21M coins" which is what
you are implying.

Bitcoin will have a non-zero inflation rate for the next 120 years. And we could always decide to re-introduce the protocol enforced limit at that time if no other solution
is available.

Lauda

legendary

Activity: 2674

Merit: 3000

Terminated.

Peter R charlatan seems more likely to be a government shill as we've speculated the first time he showed up on a Bitcoin conference. He looked phony from day.

BTU recap:
1) Emergent consensus -> more power to the miners -> more centralization.
2) President of BTU & BTU federation.
3) Inflation non-zero, a.k.a. remove the 21 million limit.

Whoever doesn't see something *seriously* wrong here, especially in point 3, you need to get a 'reality check'. If anything is going to kill Bitcoin (from this list), then it is most certainly point 3.

Itty Bitty

member

Activity: 138

Merit: 14

Quote from: Kevin77 on March 24, 2017, 12:54:07 PM

No I mean by next halving bitcoin will be having price levels around $10k to get same ratio of profits to miners.

Great. Guarantee this to Chinese miners and they will probably signal Segwit, and we can move on.

Carlton Banks

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 3080

^ >>> BU >>>>>>
^
>>>^ Shark

It's over

Kevin77

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 1057

Quote from: Itty Bitty on March 24, 2017, 12:27:31 PM

Seems like (Chinese) miners getting very worried about 6.25 BTC reward in 3 years, then 3.125 BTC looming in 7 years, they probably can't see viable financial future unless blocks get much bigger (more transactions, more fees) so are entertaining other ideas from all comers, sane or insane. Miner centralization can apparently lead to the tail wagging the dog, for awhile anyway.

Not seeming a appropriate reason why BCU wants no cap on total supply of bitcoins.
You completely ignored the possibilities of miners to have same level of profits through appreciated prices of bitcoin. I mean by next halving bitcoin will be having price levels around $10k to get same ratio of profits to miners.

I do think we do not need another inflationary coin after dogecoins as they are very much struggling to hold their fame among crypto users. Hopefully BCU may find same place in the case of breaking the 21m cap.

SONG GEET

hero member

Activity: 700

Merit: 500

CryptoTalk.Org - Get Paid for every Post!

No. 1 agenda : We need bitcoin's inflation rate to be non-zero
This is completely shit and i think they like to turn bitcoin into same money machine like Ethereum with high inflation/Issuance rate and some sort of foundation taking all those free money.

Itty Bitty

member

Activity: 138

Merit: 14

Seems like (Chinese) miners getting very worried about 6.25 BTC reward in 3 years, then 3.125 BTC looming in 7 years, they probably can't see viable financial future unless blocks get much bigger (more transactions, more fees) so are entertaining other ideas from all comers, sane or insane. Miner centralization can apparently lead to the tail wagging the dog, for awhile anyway.

Chris!

legendary

Activity: 1382

Merit: 1122

Thanks for sharing the video. I actually hadn't heard that with all of the recent FUD going around. It seems that it's more complicated than just wanting to increase the number of bitcoins from 21Million but it's definitely something else to think about with this whole debate.

thejaytiesto

legendary

Activity: 1358

Merit: 1014

BU has been proven to be technologically nonviable by a lot of people with good creed by now, it is clear that someone is benefiting by pushing this hell into the community, and definitely that isn't us, the users.
BU implies some nasty changes in the protocol, as you mentioned, the total supply cannot be static.
Of course, BU drones will never mention that or bullshit their way around it.

BillyBobZorton

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1028

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0Pjj_ms2k

So not only BUcoin wants to turn bitcoin into a political machine with a president and a secretary:

And not only they want to give miners full power to change the protocol unilaterally (since they can keep bribing miners into voting whatever they want)

But in order to make "Emergent Consensus" work (which will never work because it's a flawed concept anyway), since this assumes the currency must be inflationary (BUcoin's EC would require permanent inflation in order to have any chance of working. The potential of a block reward is the only economic reason to continue mining when the mempool has just been emptied by a previous miner's large block), they want to raise the limit of bitcoin beyond 21 million to make it inflationary.

WHY ISN'T EVERYONE TALKING ABOUT THIS?

BUcoin is pure madness. Everyone supporting this is either an idiot or is making money doing so.

Topic: SHOCKING: BU chief scientist: "We need Bitcoin's inflation rate to be non-zero" - page 2. (Read 1831 times)