Spin-offs: bootstrap an altcoin with a btc-blockchain-based initial distribution - page 19.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: opticalcarrier on April 12, 2014, 12:36:53 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 12, 2014, 12:24:17 AM

Quote from: opticalcarrier on April 12, 2014, 12:20:10 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 12, 2014, 12:07:59 AM

let's say we distribute an altclone by your method today leaving out Satoshi yet claim we are distributing said altclone according to the Bitcoin blockchain.

those 2 phrases on either side of the 'yet' in your sentence are mutually exclusive. you seem to be under the impression there is some universal law that says that it is "wrong" for an altcoin creator to distribute altcoins in any arbitrary manner he so desires. This includes only distributing his clonecoins to satoshi and to no one else. Or he could distribute them all to himself. Or he could distribute it to everyone in the BTC blockchain except satoshi. or except to satoshi and any account holding more than 10000BTC. or any other arbitrary fashion.

I postulate that however he does distrib then your "free market" will determine if it is a good idea or not. But to say that because an altcoin distributor gave his altcoins out to everyone except satoshi, that some entity is "stealing" from satoshi, is just ludicrous. the altcoins were never satoshis to begin with

you misunderstand me. i said somewhere above that all issues of fairness, ethics, and morals don't belong here.

i'm content to let you start an altclone in any way you want. i'm just arguing for the method that i think will win in the marketplace. and it isn't the one you're advocating for which involves eliminating some perceived risk from Satoshi.

you are either backpedaling or changing goalposts. before, it was "its not fair to satoshi, he is being robbed." now its that you think that if you were to publish, at the same time, 2 altcoins that are technically identical, and with distrib schemes that are both based on BTC blockchain public keys except one doesnt include satoshi's accounts, that the one with satoshis accounts will win out.

Humanity's greed tell me that you are wrong. But I could be missing something here, and be mistaken. So tell me what is it about the method with satoshis accounts that would win out over the one without?

did you answer my hypothetical question above about Satoshi showing up publicly? would he be right or wrong in your book? what would you say to him?

just curious.

opticalcarrier

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 12, 2014, 12:24:17 AM

Quote from: opticalcarrier on April 12, 2014, 12:20:10 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 12, 2014, 12:07:59 AM

let's say we distribute an altclone by your method today leaving out Satoshi yet claim we are distributing said altclone according to the Bitcoin blockchain.

those 2 phrases on either side of the 'yet' in your sentence are mutually exclusive. you seem to be under the impression there is some universal law that says that it is "wrong" for an altcoin creator to distribute altcoins in any arbitrary manner he so desires. This includes only distributing his clonecoins to satoshi and to no one else. Or he could distribute them all to himself. Or he could distribute it to everyone in the BTC blockchain except satoshi. or except to satoshi and any account holding more than 10000BTC. or any other arbitrary fashion.

I postulate that however he does distrib then your "free market" will determine if it is a good idea or not. But to say that because an altcoin distributor gave his altcoins out to everyone except satoshi, that some entity is "stealing" from satoshi, is just ludicrous. the altcoins were never satoshis to begin with

you misunderstand me. i said somewhere above that all issues of fairness, ethics, and morals don't belong here.

i'm content to let you start an altclone in any way you want. i'm just arguing for the method that i think will win in the marketplace. and it isn't the one you're advocating for which involves eliminating some perceived risk from Satoshi.

you are either backpedaling or changing goalposts. before, it was "its not fair to satoshi, he is being robbed and so if you include any bitcoin accounts into an altcoin distro then you are morally required to make sure satoshis gets in there too" now its that you think that if you were to publish, at the same time, 2 altcoins that are technically identical, and with distrib schemes that are both based on BTC blockchain public keys except one doesnt include satoshi's accounts, that the one with satoshis accounts will win out.

Humanity's greed tell me that you are wrong. That, plus the fact that then satoshi could never crash the altcoin - no trust required. But I could be missing something here, and be mistaken. So tell me what is it about the method with satoshis accounts that would win out over the one without?

Ix

full member

Activity: 218

Merit: 128

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 12, 2014, 12:24:17 AM

you misunderstand me. i said somewhere above that all issues of fairness, ethics, and morals don't belong here.

Hello goalposts! Wait, where did you go?

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: opticalcarrier on April 12, 2014, 12:20:10 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 12, 2014, 12:07:59 AM

let's say we distribute an altclone by your method today leaving out Satoshi yet claim we are distributing said altclone according to the Bitcoin blockchain.

those 2 phrases on either side of the 'yet' in your sentence are mutually exclusive. you seem to be under the impression there is some universal law that says that it is "wrong" for an altcoin creator to distribute altcoins in any arbitrary manner he so desires. This includes only distributing his clonecoins to satoshi and to no one else. Or he could distribute them all to himself. Or he could distribute it to everyone in the BTC blockchain except satoshi. or except to satoshi and any account holding more than 10000BTC. or any other arbitrary fashion.

I postulate that however he does distrib then your "free market" will determine if it is a good idea or not. But to say that because an altcoin distributor gave his altcoins out to everyone except satoshi, that some entity is "stealing" from satoshi, is just ludicrous. the altcoins were never satoshis to begin with

you misunderstand me. i said somewhere above that all issues of fairness, ethics, and morals don't belong here.

i'm content to let you start an altclone in any way you want. i'm just arguing for the method that i think will win in the marketplace. and it isn't the one you're advocating for which involves eliminating some perceived risk from Satoshi.

opticalcarrier

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 12, 2014, 12:07:59 AM

let's say we distribute an altclone by your method today leaving out Satoshi yet claim we are distributing said altclone according to the Bitcoin blockchain.

those 2 phrases on either side of the 'yet' in your sentence are mutually exclusive. you seem to be under the impression there is some universal law that says that it is "wrong" for an altcoin creator to distribute altcoins in any arbitrary manner he so desires. This includes only distributing his clonecoins to satoshi and to no one else. Or he could distribute them all to himself. Or he could distribute it to everyone in the BTC blockchain except satoshi. or except to satoshi and any account holding more than 10000BTC. or any other arbitrary fashion.

I postulate that however he does distrib then your "free market" will determine if it is a good idea or not. But to say that because an altcoin distributor gave his altcoins out to everyone except satoshi, that some entity is "stealing" from satoshi, is just ludicrous. the altcoins were never satoshis to begin with

Ix

full member

Activity: 218

Merit: 128

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 11, 2014, 11:44:11 PM

no, the argument is that it's the fair thing to do given this whole concept. you just chose to ignore everything else i wrote in the preceding post and just focused on the possible consequences.

Why is it "fair" that we have to live under the threat of Satoshi? Why is the only definition of "fair" bitcoin? Anyone who owns bitcoins will be perfectly capable of buying altcoins--if Satoshi wants to diversify his holdings, he is perfectly capable of doing so.

Quote

we want all Bitcoiners to relax and fully support the altclone and not feel threatened by it taking over.

Who is "we"? Surely, the only ones who care are the bitcoiners themselves. Why shouldn't Bitcoiners feel threatened by altcoins? Should fiat not fear Bitcoin? You don't get to finish the first lap in first place and then stop and announce you've won. The free market will piss itself laughing.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: opticalcarrier on April 12, 2014, 12:01:23 AM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 11, 2014, 11:54:04 PM

Quote from: opticalcarrier on April 11, 2014, 11:47:46 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 11, 2014, 07:49:50 PM

I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.

nothing to do with "fair". a world with money will never be "fair". Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin. face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it. You just have to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC. This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency

the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins. he earned them, and rightfully so, by bootstrapping the system with his mining. you could've mined alot of coins as well if you'd found out about Bitcoin in 2009. not his fault.

you're missing the whole point of this proposal. no one can be accused of trying to steal someone else's coins, even Satoshi's.

thats a strawman. yes we agree that the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins. doesnt mean that it is a good idea for a cryptocurrency. you seem to be hung on a "people keep saying its not fair" thing by your 2009 phrase.

but I do miss the point of your last 2 sentences there. no one ever said anything about stealing anyones coins.

or are you saying that if someone did a distro method but left out satoshis public addresses that this would be "stealing" SN's altcoins? surely not...

let's say we distribute an altclone by your method today leaving out Satoshi yet claim we are distributing said altclone according to the Bitcoin blockchain.

then Satoshi shows up publicly and says, "hey, you guys stole my fair share of the altclones." would you say he is right or wrong? what would you say if we did that to your claim?

opticalcarrier

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 11, 2014, 11:54:04 PM

Quote from: opticalcarrier on April 11, 2014, 11:47:46 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 11, 2014, 07:49:50 PM

I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.

nothing to do with "fair". a world with money will never be "fair". Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin. face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it. You just have to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC. This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency

the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins. he earned them, and rightfully so, by bootstrapping the system with his mining. you could've mined alot of coins as well if you'd found out about Bitcoin in 2009. not his fault.

you're missing the whole point of this proposal. no one can be accused of trying to steal someone else's coins, even Satoshi's.

thats a strawman. yes we agree that the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins. doesnt mean that it is a good idea for a cryptocurrency. you seem to be hung on a "people keep saying its not fair" thing by your 2009 phrase.

but I do miss the point of your last 2 sentences there. no one ever said anything about stealing anyones coins.

or are you saying that if someone did a distro method but left out satoshis public addresses that this would be "stealing" SN's altcoins? surely not...

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: opticalcarrier on April 11, 2014, 11:47:46 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 11, 2014, 07:49:50 PM

I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.

nothing to do with "fair". a world with money will never be "fair". Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin. face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it. You just have to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC. This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency

the free market has already determined that they trust Satoshi and aren't afraid of him dumping his coins. he earned them, and rightfully so, by bootstrapping the system with his mining. you could've mined alot of coins as well if you'd found out about Bitcoin in 2009. not his fault.

you're missing the whole point of this proposal. no one can be accused of trying to steal someone else's coins, even Satoshi's.

opticalcarrier

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: smooth on April 11, 2014, 07:49:50 PM

I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.

nothing to do with "fair". a world with money will never be "fair". Its about removing the risk that satoshi could crash the new coin. face it, BTC has a vulnerability of satoshi crashing it. You are forced to trust him not to if you want to go with BTC. This trust should never be required in a cryptocurrency

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Ix on April 11, 2014, 11:38:09 PM

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 11, 2014, 10:53:36 PM

Satoshi, in the privacy of his home, gets pissed off that a bunch of late adopters have decided to dilute his share of the cryptocurrency coin space. and then he decides to start dumping his Bitcoin in retaliation. he is human after all and he hasn't died.

none of us want that right now.

So your argument is because Bitcoin has powerful actors that have far more power over the currency than the fiat wealthy elite, we should bow down like the good peasants we are? Boy, this is looking better all the time.

no, the argument is that it's the fair thing to do given this whole concept. you just chose to ignore everything else i wrote in the preceding post and just focused on the possible consequences.

opticalcarrier

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 11, 2014, 10:53:36 PM

Quote from: opticalcarrier on April 11, 2014, 10:38:58 PM

Create 2 identical clones with differing genesis, distribute 1 original and do the second without satoshis millions. Which one will be successful

Satoshi, in the privacy of his home, gets pissed off that a bunch of late adopters have decided to dilute his share of the cryptocurrency coin space. and then he decides to start dumping his Bitcoin in retaliation. he is human after all and he hasn't died.

none of us want that right now.

Satoshi was given no stake in any existing alt, and hes not crashed the value of bitcoin because of this fact. Why would he crash it from any other distro method to an altcoin? Especially if you assume the clone in question is just some vanilla no-frills clonecoin. Why would he crash BTC then, for some other shitcoin? Now what if it was an altcoin with new codebase and lots of features? The new coin is superior anyways. He crashes BTC, then the new coin takes over, was going to happen anyways. This possibility of a satoshi crash highlights a very big vulnerability in BTC in the first place.

Satoshi could become some James Bond -esque supervillian with plans on destroying the worlds economy by crashing BTC.

If you cantt do something in a decentralized currency w/o fear of 1 person crashing something like so, then its both not very secure and not a good idea in the first place (meaning BTC is not a good idea in the first place, not the altcoin or its distro method).

EditToAdd: Yeah, thats a NXT address in my signature. Even so, counterparty has the best distro method. It even helped out BTC holders by deflating the currency.

Ix

full member

Activity: 218

Merit: 128

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 11, 2014, 10:53:36 PM

Satoshi, in the privacy of his home, gets pissed off that a bunch of late adopters have decided to dilute his share of the cryptocurrency coin space. and then he decides to start dumping his Bitcoin in retaliation. he is human after all and he hasn't died.

none of us want that right now.

So your argument is because Bitcoin has powerful actors that have far more power over the currency than the fiat wealthy elite, we should bow down like the good peasants we are? Boy, this is looking better all the time.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: opticalcarrier on April 11, 2014, 10:38:58 PM

Create 2 identical clones with differing genesis, distribute 1 original and do the second without satoshis millions. Which one will be successful

Satoshi, in the privacy of his home, gets pissed off that a bunch of late adopters have decided to dilute his share of the cryptocurrency coin space. and then he decides to start dumping his Bitcoin in retaliation. he is human after all and he hasn't died.

none of us want that right now.

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

in case no one noticed, i just came up with a better name for these things than Spin-offs: Altclones vs. Altcoins.

the coming war.

opticalcarrier

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: cypherdoc on April 11, 2014, 10:29:58 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 11, 2014, 08:20:35 PM

Quote from: Peter R on April 11, 2014, 08:07:36 PM

Quote from: go1111111 on April 11, 2014, 06:59:26 PM

Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment.

Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;all

The short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin.

Thanks for the link. Indeed, bitcoin's shared ledger is where the value is stored. As long as we agree on the accuracy of this ledger, the value will be preserved.

I appreciate the depth of what this entails more each month.

Think of it this way. Imagine the US government proposed replacing "greenbacks" with "orangebacks." If they just swapped them out, one for one, there would be little to no objection, and the new currency would rapidly be widely accepted.

If, instead, they tried to come up with some new "fairer" distribution scheme for the "orangebacks" there would be a huge battle over it, and even the proposal were somehow adopted, it isn't clear whether "orangebacks" would ever be accepted.

you're exactly right.

the only way to do the distribution is to adhere to Peter's proposal of distributing the altclone in proportion to the Bitcoin blockchain on an agreed upon date in the future. one of the main goals of this brilliant strategy is to make the entire Bitcoin community comfortable with the project by only having to focus on the potential innovation of the altclone. and that includes Satoshi. to presume he's dead or lost all his keys is stupid. to presume he'll dominate every market is incorrect. he'll just have the same % of what we all have already.

we want maximum support of the Bitcoin community based on the distribution of the current blockchain. if for say, Peter decided to take half of Satoshi's portion as a bounty for his efforts that would immediately introduce an unhappy response from some Bitcoiners who would then not support the whole concept by calling it unfair. we want all Bitcoiners to relax and fully support the altclone and not feel threatened by it taking over. to Peter's credit, he ignored a suggestion in my gold thread about him doing just that; taking half for himself as some kind of payment.

let's hope he adheres to that.

Create 2 identical clones with differing genesis, distribute 1 original and do the second without satoshis millions. Which one will be successful

opticalcarrier

full member

Activity: 238

Merit: 100

Quote from: smooth on April 11, 2014, 08:20:35 PM

Quote from: Peter R on April 11, 2014, 08:07:36 PM

Quote from: go1111111 on April 11, 2014, 06:59:26 PM

Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment.

Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;all

The short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin.

Thanks for the link. Indeed, bitcoin's shared ledger is where the value is stored. As long as we agree on the accuracy of this ledger, the value will be preserved.

I appreciate the depth of what this entails more each month.

Think of it this way. Imagine the US government proposed replacing "greenbacks" with "orangebacks." If they just swapped them out, one for one, there would be little to no objection, and the new currency would rapidly be widely accepted.

If, instead, they tried to come up with some new "fairer" distribution scheme for the "orangebacks" there would be a huge battle over it, and even the proposal were somehow adopted, it isn't clear whether "orangebacks" would ever be accepted.

Not the same scenario as btc and an alt

Your scenario would be equivalent to an alt completely replacing btc

cypherdoc

legendary

Activity: 1764

Merit: 1002

Quote from: smooth on April 11, 2014, 08:20:35 PM

Quote from: Peter R on April 11, 2014, 08:07:36 PM

Quote from: go1111111 on April 11, 2014, 06:59:26 PM

Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment.

Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;all

The short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin.

Thanks for the link. Indeed, bitcoin's shared ledger is where the value is stored. As long as we agree on the accuracy of this ledger, the value will be preserved.

I appreciate the depth of what this entails more each month.

Think of it this way. Imagine the US government proposed replacing "greenbacks" with "orangebacks." If they just swapped them out, one for one, there would be little to no objection, and the new currency would rapidly be widely accepted.

If, instead, they tried to come up with some new "fairer" distribution scheme for the "orangebacks" there would be a huge battle over it, and even the proposal were somehow adopted, it isn't clear whether "orangebacks" would ever be accepted.

you're exactly right.

the only way to do the distribution is to adhere to Peter's proposal of distributing the altclone in proportion to the Bitcoin blockchain on an agreed upon date in the future. one of the main goals of this brilliant strategy is to make the entire Bitcoin community comfortable with the project by only having to focus on the potential innovation of the altclone. and that includes Satoshi. to presume he's dead or lost all his keys is stupid. to presume he'll dominate every market is incorrect. he'll just have the same % of what we all have already.

we want maximum support of the Bitcoin community based on the distribution of the current blockchain. if for say, Peter decided to take half of Satoshi's portion as a bounty for his efforts that would immediately introduce an unhappy response from some Bitcoiners who would then not support the whole concept by calling it unfair. we want all Bitcoiners to relax and fully support the altclone and not feel threatened by it taking over. to Peter's credit, he ignored a suggestion in my gold thread about him doing just that; taking half for himself as some kind of payment.

let's hope he adheres to that.

Adrian-x

legendary

Activity: 1372

Merit: 1000

Quote from: smooth on April 11, 2014, 07:49:50 PM

Quote from: Adrian-x on April 11, 2014, 06:37:38 PM

Still using this concept of Spin-offs for distribution, if you believe Nakamoto or other holders who haven’t moved there 10,000’s of coins since 2010 shouldn’t get any

I happen to think that believing SN (who invented the whole damn thing 10 years after the rest of the world had failed and given up) shouldn't get any is absurd. Believing this on the basis of "fairness" borders on clinical insanity.

About the only definition of "fairness" that excludes early bitcoin developers and adopters is the one where something is made fair by you getting more and others getting less. Come to think of it, that's probably is a pretty good working definition of what people really mean by "fairness" most of the time. I don't see it as an objectively useful concept.

My comments was directed at YarkoL, but yes I agree with you but I wouldn't go so far as to call it criminality insane. If that's the reason people are not adopting crypto coins I'd be happy to make the compromise. SN could always sell a few Bitcoin and buy some.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Peter R on April 11, 2014, 08:07:36 PM

Quote from: go1111111 on April 11, 2014, 06:59:26 PM

Cool, I look forward to the results of the experiment.

Here's a thread from several months ago with a slightly different spin on why any altcoin will be outcompeted by a clone which uses the bitcoin blockchain:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=367885.0;all

The short version is that the smartest devs and the most influential people in the cryptocurrency space are heavily invested in the bitcoin blockchain. They are also self-interested, and will prefer that altcoin-clones based on the bitcoin blockchain succeed rather than the original altcoin.

Thanks for the link. Indeed, bitcoin's shared ledger is where the value is stored. As long as we agree on the accuracy of this ledger, the value will be preserved.

I appreciate the depth of what this entails more each month.

Think of it this way. Imagine the US government proposed replacing "greenbacks" with "orangebacks." If they just swapped them out, one for one, there would be little to no objection, and the new currency would rapidly be widely accepted.

If, instead, they tried to come up with some new "fairer" distribution scheme for the "orangebacks" there would be a huge battle over it, and even the proposal were somehow adopted, it isn't clear whether "orangebacks" would ever be accepted.

Topic: Spin-offs: bootstrap an altcoin with a btc-blockchain-based initial distribution - page 19. (Read 53566 times)