Topic: [StableCoin] Looking for inflationary cryptocurrency developer (3 btc bounty) - page 2. (Read 3531 times)

For one thing, you still have not addressed the problems such as the fact there is no such thing as annual since you do not know how many blocks that will be exactly; it varies.

If you try to use a network atomic clock or whatever there are apparently big problems with such ideas, which is why bitcoin has a big fudge factor on any attempts to guess what the actual real time was when a block was made.

Also you have not substantiated any reason for the totally abitrary (it seems) guess at how many percent will actually turn out many years in the future to be the ideal. Thus in effect you are pretty much motivating or calling for up to thousands of similar coins, each with a tiny tiny difference in the exact percentage as their "justification" for why your coin cannot serve the purpose and therefore their coin is justified - it corrects the incorrect percentage you chose way back in 2013 or so, or their crystal ball is better than yours or whatever.

Come some far future time when the inflation rate starts actually approaching the general range would be a much better time to determine what the exact percentage should be in order to actually be ideal by then. YOu have not shown any whitepapers or scholarly researchg etc that indicates 2% is better than, say, 1.99% or 2.01%, or even 1% or 3% or 0% or 5% or any other number.

In the mean time the coin might as well just keep on chugging along at 50 coins per block until the precisely ideal percentage at which to change that has been empirically determined or thoroughly derived mathematically or whatever, not just made up out of thin air.

There will be years to fine tune / measure / determine the exact best percentage, no hurry to plug it in right from the start when we have only seen about two years so far of how just the plain old 50 coins per block forever works out. (Hint: so far it is one of the least popular coins, and that is without it even being old enough yet that not halving the reward at 4 years has even actually hit, as it it not yet four years old.)

If you are correct that changing to doing the 2% thing will make it ideal, then, being a very unpopular coin without that added feature, it should seem very reasonable to add that feature when the time comes.

-MarkM-

I clearly stated in my original post my ideal coin, which is just an inflationary form of Bitcoin.  What is so hard to understand?

Etlase2, it is starting to sound like what is really meant is the guy wants in on the make your own new coin of the day, so even if your coin matched his proposal 100% in every detail all that would mean is he needs to modify a detail...

-MarkM-

Units in circulation has nothing to do with the supply of money.  You can move the decimal point wherever you want, it doesn't change anything.  I can chop a gold coin into 12 pieces, i still have the same quantity of gold.  Think of it this way.  If i owe you 10 BTC then some fool says 10 BTC is now 100 BTC, do i owe you 10 or 100?  It's not that complicated

Secondly, you made the point that lost coins are the equivalent of hoarded coins.  That is unequivocally false.  Hoarded coins, even if nobody knows you have hoarded them except yourself, affects the supply and demand of said coins.

The point point is that lost coins will be eclipsed by routine changes in the money supply--units in circulation. You have the wrong definition of money supply, and this is mostly the fault of the group-think and group-propaganda around here. The change of the total units added to the total supply or total units provably removed from the supply is irrelevant. There can still be an increase in the base money supply after the block chain award has gotten so small it no longer fits in 8 decimals. And there can be, will be, and are decreases when someone puts coins in an account intending to leave them there for a significant length of time.


Yes, with all of the incentives to treat bitcoin like gold--starting FR on digital IOUs or even paper IOUs could never happen.

His statement is basically irrelevant because the amount of inflation decreases to a negligible amount.

The second point is that lost coins are deflationary as much as taking dollars and burning them is.  In all practical terms, you have destroyed money.  Someone can buy bitcoins to intentionally destroy them, which is another flaw of a deflationary currency.  There's a difference between hoarded coins and lost coins because hoarded coins come into circulation every once in a while, while lost coins will never come into circulation.   And the fact that people know whether or not the coins were hoarded or destroyed would have an impact on the supply and demand.  Thus the two are not equivalent.

The other issue is that claiming lost coins are not lost is like claiming burned money can be recombined at the atomic level.  The only way the lost coins can be discovered is through brute force and if those lost coins are discovered the whole bitcoin protocol is rendered useless.

And the fractional lending you speak of is only a problem with fiat currency that is easily counterfeited.

Bitcoins that are lost still exist. The fact that more bitcoins are created means their amount of bitcoins is inflating for over 100 years.

When you refer to the money supply regarding inflation and deflation, it is typically taken to mean the units of account in circulation. Meaning, stuffing dollar bills under a mattress takes money out of money supply. So does hoarding bitcoins. Money supply deflation due to lost coins (or lost dollars) is generally irrelevant compared to the changes of the units in circulation.

Bitcoiners like to confuse the money supply vs price inflation/deflation terms for various reasons, mostly because Milton Friedman said that inflation is always a monetary phenomenon. They still don't even get what he meant--hint: it is only partly due to "gubment printing dollerz".

The gist of what Elwar is saying: "bitcoin will be inflationary for 100+ years but what I really mean is that while the total number of units increases at a predictable rate, we will cause massive price inflation for the next round of suckers when we bring large amounts of bitcoins back in circulation--oops look at how high the price is!"

I have discussed this at length and it simply isn't true.

Please read.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-deflationary-problem-12109

Bitcoin will be inflationary for the next 100+ years.

Stepping stone currencies do not advance the medium much if at all. Shouldn't cryptocurrency 2.0 be tried?

Seems fairly complicated.  What happens if a double spend occurs right before consensus block?

Yes, but I'm not interested in making your bitclone--sorry--because I have plans of my own. If you really want a stable coin with an unbound monetary base, the link for that and a lot more is in my signature.

Are you a dev?

I think people don't like the idea of a changing cryptocurrency because bitcoin is a pyramid currency and changing it threatens the bitcoin elite. Plus hard forks are a bitch.

Bump.

Bump.

Looking for devs.

Linked it. Thanks markm

DeVCoin also keeps generating the number of coins per block forever.

Lolcust recently informed me too that Tenebrix or GeistGeld or both also do, I think maybe it was probably Tenebrix he was talking about.

Groupcoin's thread is https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/grp-groupcoin-67991

-MarkM-