qbit³ - Whitepaper.pdf
I should clarify the development aspect of this, I am not an engineer, my specialty is in system design, what i am submitting is the front end that will enable end-users to easily grasp the value of the currency as it relates to major currencies, all while maintaining the value and stability of the currency in light of market conditions. Like all good design, this is done in simple form as outlined below. Should another creative mind have solutions to backend problems like efficiency, resiliency, and scalability, these two solutions could be merged to form the next cryptocurrency.
Steps to produce a positive end-user experience throughout the course of the currencies life:
1. Remove the 21million limit.
2. Set the currency decimal place to .001.
3. Set the block reward at .001, and then to scale linearly past 1 Terahash to 1qbit @ 1 PetaHash, and so on.
Theory:
Other stable-value currencies that toy with the idea of money destruction, time penalties, or free handouts dont address the reality that penalties will never be desirable nor practical in controlling supply and demand, nor will free handouts or any exchange-related action by the protocol. As we can see now it is not shortage of supply so much as it is the perception of this shortage that satoshi created to help fuel adoption of his currency through speculation. In the same way, a system destroying or shaving off coins would be perceived as a currency that automatically loses value, so would freely distributing new currency without anything to back it. This is why i propose that mining is the all essential mechanism to validating the price of a currency, and that to free it from the bonds of artificial scarcity we simply have to remove perceptual limits, and allow the currency to scale with the market. Its as simple as that. No need to unduly reward or penalize users for simply doing what they're supposed to do.
Proof:
I would like to offer proof that the most recent bubble was not the result of 'hoarding' (lets call it 'saving', what we use to do in the prosperous 20th century), but it was in fact the result of (among other socio-political factors) the increased cost of creating a restricted supply:
Hash Rate Vs Market Price (USD), matched by date. The increased cost of producing a Bitcoin preceded the upswing in price by over a month in the beginning of the curve and by a week in the end. Had the cost of producing a bitcoin stayed the same despite network conditions, miners would have been less incentivised to hold on to them in the first place, which would have quelled the price war that led to the extreme volatility that followed.
