Topic: Spin-offs: bootstrap an altcoin with a btc-blockchain-based initial distribution - page 18. (Read 53616 times)

@cryptohunter

You are not alone in you're view your understand may even be the dominant view.
The spin-off proposal can be used however anyone wants, it's an open idea.

In my view your objections may be valid but this idea is not about directing or redistribution of wealth but about maximizing the innovation in crypto coins.

unfair , fair, words each person will attribute different meaning in terms of crypto distribution.

However it is totally obvious that it is MORE fair to distribute new crypto through fair launch POW protocols we can implement now.

How can one even possibly attempt to argue the fact that if you are bitcoin rich now it should entitle you to be alt rich in every single alt released now.  Hehe you would have better hoped this stayed in the BTC section. Here in the alt section the vast majority hold few BTC and lots of alts. You are telling more people here they are going to be ALT poor as well as BTC poor in the future compared to the big BTC holders. That is of course not going to wash.

This is the most stupid thing i ever heard on here yet.

This is an attempt to stamp out anyone else gaining some crypto wealth. The main message here is clear.

If you are not already BTC rich you will remain crypto poor for ever now.  Hmmm how is this unfair?  i wonder?

I don't agree with it, let's find a coin with a less concentrated centre of wealth and model on their block chain.

The only persons that could possibly want this are those that are btc rich. Everyone else would be crazy to go for it.


IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF BTC WE WILL GIVE YOU A LOT OF ALTS IN FUTURE

IF YOU HAVE NO BTC YOU GET NO ALTS IN FUTURE




hehe how could that possibly be seen as unfair. I have no clue perhaps i just see the world in some strange way lol.


Buying coins in a public transparent way would even be way more fair. Sure the BTC whales could afford a lot more but then they are using up their BTC not just getting free advantage just for holding on to it.


POW with a fair protocol launch is still the fairest and best way to distribute coins other than a fully verified personal ID way of doing it with years for people to claim.


This entire thread should have stayed in the BTC section ...even in there they would probably see the folly of it.

A coin will eventually be successful or not depending on it's merits. If a coins community pushes it into the public domain further and harder than any other alt and has services and places to use it then demand will dictate so long as the coin is tech sound it will be the dominant force for that period which those factors remain true.

I believe the outcries about "fairness" and the outpouring of proposals for new "better" schemes that we've seen in this thread add credibility to my theory. 

As smooth said below, there is only one straightforward way to replace "greenbacks" with "orangebacks"; schemes that propose re-distribution will result in endless battles against other re-distribution schemes and it isn't clear whether any would ever be accepted.  This thread is already evidence of that.  The blockchain, on the other hand, is already perceived as legitimate. 



There's a new f*** word in town and it ain't fuck. 

The blockchain will be preserved.

no, he wouldn't dump his altclones b/c he has the same % of them as he does with Bitcoin.  he's richer, remember?

which nicely dovetails with your argument that ALL human beings are greedy.  which includes Satoshi, i presume?

i think you are making a value judgment here (which we've already agreed has no place here) and cloaking it with FUD as "decreasing risk to the system".

why?  b/c you can't prove:

1.  Satoshi hasn't already destroyed all his private keys or lost his keys.
2.  even if he hasn't, you can't even document how much he owns.
3.  his hoarding has hurt Bitcoin. one could easily argue that it has helped Bitcoin tremendously by keeping those coins off the market and supporting the price as a result.
4.  he doesn't "deserve" them.  he only created an entire new global currency revolution by his lonesome  
5.  he will dump them onto the market irresponsibly.  he's not an idiot.  if he wants to cash out, he will do so slowly sometime in the far future when the liquidity is high and he won't perturb the market so as to maximize his profits.
6  he hasn't already died.

all those things eliminate your concerns.

The big opportunity here is redistribution of the wealth that has been disproportionately manipulated by fractional reserve banking. Many of the Bitcoin wealthy have made Bitcoin a success because they have risked there capital by investing in the idea. Alt coins represent 2 opportunities. 1 innovation. And 2 adoption of crypto coins.

Alt coin success is dependent on Bitcoin success, capital invested in Bitcoin is still at risk, the wealth redistribution many fear in Bitcoin is unsupported as the liquidity in Bitcoin isn't there to support that wealth extension.

With the 350 odd alts how do you now best encourage innovation without undermining the investment already made in Bitcoin, I thinks many alts are more innovative than Bitcoin but one can't realistically invest in them as the innovative ones are copied as soon as they become successful.

The rate of altcoin development is growing exponentially the innovation is at risk because it of it. The overwhelming plan is plan B for the world economy, and if I have to make a few visionaries rich to make crypto succeed in undermining the existing banking system count me in.

sure, peter will do it, because it is a clone of etherium; he wont have any real sweat or hard work in the game.  Ill admit it will be a nice experiment.  But no real coder with novel code will do it that way though, simply because then if his coin takes off, SN may decide to protect BTC by dumping his reserves of the new coin and crashing it.  that is the point which you refuse to address.

and as to SN showing up to complain, did you not see my response:

it should be all about true decentralization and a core that can operate with no trust required.

who's being hysterical?:



look, i don't care that there's a disconnect btwn us, b/c to me, you're ignoring all my attempted answers to you.

hence, i'll say it again:  PLEASE, PLEASE start your altclone minus Satoshi.  and Peter will start his.

then, we'll just see how it goes.

why are you starting to be hysterical/rude?  Im responding vehemently?  It not like I called your mother a whore or insulted you in any other fashion.  you seem to take my reference of a disconnect as a strike upon your honor when Im just pointing out that we may be talking past each other here in an attempt to start discussing the same thing, because I think we may not be.  Ive run into situations like this before, and the other party's native language was not english.  Is this the case here?

So back to the discussion...

I keep telling you, it wouldnt be trying to "market it as a Bitcoin blockchain distribution thats fair"  because fair has NOTHING to do with this.  it has everything to do with a novel new cryptocurrency being resilient to flooding in the event SN *does* own all BTC we suspect.  Even you have conceded that point previously here when you said "what if our actions piss off SN and so he decides to flood BTC and crash the market.  none of us want that"  that may not exactly have been the phrase but it was something very close along those lines.  You now cannot go back and say "oh well you have to prove it now or your argument is invalid"  My point is that an ideal cryptocurrency will not inherently exhibit the trust issue

Can you tell me what you mean by me putting words in your mouth?  I honestly dont understand, another reason I think there is a disconnect here.

Im not talking about "fair" at all here.  Im talking about long term viability of a novel cryptocurrency and its distribution.  And given that SN was so concerned with creating such a decentralized structure in the first place, Id believe that if he DID own all that BTC out there, how could he not argue that it is a bad idea for one person to control so much?


you are absolutely right here.  these things are possible.  but you have to admit that it is not a REQUIREMENT for some altcoin to want to help and not hinder bitcoin?  That is the big discussion point between us, I think.

Altclones based on The Peter Principle are easy, simple, cheap, and fast to implement as he has proposed it.

any deviation from that introduces expense, time, difficulty, bias, and potential errors to the distribution.

it's not my project.  Peter and i have never spoken directly about it.  i don't stand to make anything from it other than my share of the distribution as everyone else.

i just happen to think it's a brilliant and devious idea to clamp down on the altcoin space and separate out true innovation that will help, not hinder Bitcoin.  one that i can get behind that doesn't involve any change to the Bitcoin Protocol whatsoever.

There's an argument that if the alt-coin is inflationary, then the allotment for bitcoin addresses should be in proportion to the number of alt-coins that exist when they are claimed. That's if you don't want to penalise bitcoin owners for waiting (as has been mentioned in some posts). There is also an argument that they should be penalised for waiting.

In practise I'd expect most bitcoin owners to ignore the alt-coin launch, either through shear ignorance (not seeing launch publicity), or else feeling they can't be bothered to track every alt-coin that comes along. If, after a few years, the alt-coin succeeds and comes to their attention, that's when they might claim their new coins. Unless you address this, you will find you are actually rewarding those supremely indifferent bitcoin holders.

You may also find it is a source of instability for the alt-coin. The effective number of alt-coins could suffer large increases at any time, due to previously passive bitcoin owners making alt-coin claims and then dumping them to buy more bitcoin. Even if they don't dump, and hold onto their claimed alt-coins, the currency would surely be very inflationary due to these influxes. Of course, we might hope they would manage their claims so as not to crash the currency they are acquiring, because that would devalue their own new holdings; but people aren't always smart, and anyway they might see the alt-coin as a threat and want to disrupt it. In particular, if the alt-coin uses proof-of-stake, I wonder if this could be a source of 51% attacks.

So for these reasons it might be best to make the proportion of alt-coins per bitcoin reduce over time. Give the biggest rewards to those who support the alt-coin earliest.

I'm not advocating this; just putting the idea out there. One drawback is that it's more complicated. Another is that it diminishes one of the virtues of the spin-off idea, which is that it reduces the threat of the alt-coin to Bitcoin. Spooking Bitcoin investors and venture capitalists by destroying its value could poison the well for all crypto-currencies; a fantastic alt-coin that caused a bitcoin crash could make everyone unwilling to trust any crypto-currency as a store of value in case the same thing happens again. So the way spin-offs preserve bitcoin value is important.

Also, when a new user adopts the alt-coin and becomes active with it, they necessarily increase demand for it, and the coin's value goes up. This deflationary effect may offset the inflationary effect of the new alt-coins generated when they claim, so it the inflation might not be as bad as I thought above. This is only true if their behaviour is broadly the same, and spend/hold the alt-coin in similar proportions to their bitcoin; and it won't be true if they dump and return to bitcoin.

Well, rather than targeting Satoshi personally, you could limit claims to coins from recent transactions. For example, with a hard cut-off you could only give alt-coins to bitcoin users who had been spent or bought in the previous year, in proportion to their spending/buying. These active users are arguably the people who will most benefit the new alt-coin. Or, you could use a softer approach, by awarding more alt-coins to the newer transactions with some more or less complex formula. You don't need to know or care who owns the coins.

(Again, not advocating this, just pointing out some more possibilities if you don't keep a fixed proportional premine.)

please read Peter's Principle in the OP and tell us why the current market-based blockchain distribution is wrong or unfair.

so hold on....

If you are BTC rich (like most early BTC adopters) you will now automatically become rich in any other altcoin that maps to the bitcoin distribution?

Is this the idea?

The other ludicrous assumption here is that you know exactly what addresses Satoshi owns.

Please provide a list and amounts with proof. don't get it wrong though or else there could be a lot of angry people showing up making the accusations of you stealing.

The Peter Principle (like that one?) is that it's elegant and easy to do. Yours, not so much, as there could be many errors.

Lol.  The only disconnect here is your putting words in my mouth and ignoring what I've plainly said multiple times.

Go right ahead and create your altclone minus Satoshi and try to market it as a Bitcoin blockchain distribution thats fair. Peter will then release his version with Satoshi.

I think you lose (not will lose) because of all the principles Peter has already delineated.  And yes, I'd publicly make the argument against your altclone that Satoshi could show up claiming your scheme was an attempt to more greatly enrich yourself and other Bitcoiners. You'd respond just as vehemently as you have. Who cares? Let the market decide.

You made the argument that people are greedy. Well that applies to Satoshi himself I presume. Therefore, by your logic, he should show up publicly to accuse you of stealing his distribution, right? And not only do I think you have not given me a satisfactory answer as to what you would say to him but I think that would be enough to tank the credibility of your altclone.

there is still a disconnect here between us.  For some reason you are under the assumption that SN is entitled to some particular portion of any altcoin just for the sake of his being SN.  Your stance indicates that some altcoin creator is not free to choose an distribution method he desires, and to let the free market prove if his method was sound or not.

If SN showed up Id tell him its neither right or wrong.  you are asking the equivalent of, say, if the color orange was right or wrong.  it is neither.  it is just orange.

Lets say that you were a genius coder/mathematician/crypto scientist, and you were coding a brilliant new cryptocurrency that had novel new code and some other chain-esque structure that was superior to the BTC blockchain.  This new system had the capability to compete HARD with bitcoin.  YOUD BE OUT OF YOUR FUCKING MIND to give, of all people, SN, the creator of bitcoin, the ability to wreck havoc in your new cryptocurrency.

Also, you are operating under the illusion that the free market happily and conscientiously decided they could trust SN, when in fact this is not the case because when BTC is the only game in town, you either play it or play nothing at all.  its not until up until recently have the altcoins really come out hard.  playing the game may be trusting SN, but in no way is it happily and conscientiously deciding to trust him.

Can you answer my question as to what is it about the distro method with satoshis accounts that would win out over the one without?

Spin-offs/sidechains are great for the development of Bitcoin, but IMO killing alt coins is a fantasy. As much as I love Bitcoin, it is not a system without flaws. And though I believe BTC will be the established leader for a long, long time there will always be groups of people building and supporting new crypto-currency if they believe it offers something over Bitcoin.

Say hello to alternate protocols. There are already functioning examples of crypto-currency protocols not based on the Bitcoin code. Regardless of this news, I expect the alt market to mature into something more interesting than 10,000 versions of the Bitcoin codebase and I'd wager in a few years time there's more than one big player unrelated to Bitcoin.

So, umm, what if we end up in a situation where, whenever somebody releases
some innovative code, umpty-ump spin-off clones with different distribution models
start to compete for attention?

Sounds a little like the altcoin scene right now, doesn't it?

There are a few hundred altcoins, none of which, as far as we know, has Satoshi owning 10%. Some of them probably don't have anyone else owning 10% either, and all of them are quite similar to bitcoin. If the risk of Satoshi dumping his coins were a major factor in success, one of those coins would have eclipsed bitcoin by now.