I have a solution. We should attack the other altcoins. And keep attacking if any new alt pops up. Not sure most of bitcoiners will support this though.
Are you serious about that?
take a cup herbal tea
Topic: "There can be only 21,000,000 bitcoins" is myth => How to secure the blockchain? - page 2. (Read 8979 times)
April 13, 2013, 05:04:08 PM
Are you serious about that?
take a cup herbal tea
April 13, 2013, 03:13:32 PM
You're getting excited about nothing. The "problem" you mention won't occur until a few decades, and you want to "attack" honest monetary competition. Chill out.
Let me explain. We are strong when we united. Altcoins separate us. I propose attacks on altcoins not coz I'm a bad guy. If I were the state I would launch a lot of altcoins and promote them.
No. It seems like you know what is best for not only yourself but for others. In this case you are wrong.
I will let the free market decide what is best in the coinspace. So far it has been working quite well.
Don't think bitcoin security is good enough? Don't use it or help make it better in an honest fashion.
April 13, 2013, 03:06:54 PM
Let me explain. We are strong when we united. Altcoins separate us.
They don't. They merely give people choice. I stick to bitcoin but if someone wants to switch to an altcoin who am I to think this is wrong?
You're being Procrustean.
April 13, 2013, 03:04:16 PM
You're getting excited about nothing. The "problem" you mention won't occur until a few decades, and you want to "attack" honest monetary competition. Chill out.
Let me explain. We are strong when we united. Altcoins separate us. I propose attacks on altcoins not coz I'm a bad guy. If I were the state I would launch a lot of altcoins and promote them.
April 13, 2013, 03:02:01 PM
I need a solution.
Well, Satoshi gave us one (transaction fees), but you are not convinced it will work. Or worse: you seem convinced it won't work.
That's fair enough, but we have nothing else to give you, I'm afraid.
I have a solution. We should attack the other altcoins. And keep attacking if any new alt pops up. Not sure most of bitcoiners will support this though.
You're getting excited about nothing. The "problem" you mention won't occur (if it does) until a few decades, and yet you want to "attack" honest monetary competition *now*. Chill out.
April 13, 2013, 02:58:33 PM
I need a solution.
Well, Satoshi gave us one (transaction fees), but you are not convinced it will work. Or worse: you seem convinced it won't work.
That's fair enough, but we have nothing else to give you, I'm afraid.
I have a solution. We should attack the other altcoins. And keep attacking if any new alt pops up. Not sure most of bitcoiners will support this though.
EDIT: After we sort out altcoins we should switch to https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/anti-fractional-reserve-day-108411
April 13, 2013, 02:57:35 PM
Everyone who thinks that there will be not more than 21,000,000 bitcoins IS WRONG.
1. Fractional Reserve Banking. For example, MtGox, they do FRB. (I'm wrong? They don't do it? C'mon, even small kids know that MtGox loves FRB.)
2. Altcoins. Litecoin, Bytecoin, whatever. (I'm wrong? These are other currencies? C'mon, it's Bitcoin with other names, look at their source code.)
What do these 2 points mean?
Bitcoin is not deflationary => One BTC will never be $1,000,000 => When the block reward becomes too low, miners will switch to other currency, because fees won't cover burnt electricity
So, how are we going to secure the blockchain in the future?
Bitcoin does not need to be $1,000,000 to cover electricity. Right now mining with GPU's most peoples electricity is only 25% of cost. Far less for people with ASIC and FPGA. Enough mining for security would happen with a block reward of 6 right now. As the value of BTC rises this number will drop. 1. Fractional Reserve Banking. For example, MtGox, they do FRB. (I'm wrong? They don't do it? C'mon, even small kids know that MtGox loves FRB.)
2. Altcoins. Litecoin, Bytecoin, whatever. (I'm wrong? These are other currencies? C'mon, it's Bitcoin with other names, look at their source code.)
What do these 2 points mean?
Bitcoin is not deflationary => One BTC will never be $1,000,000 => When the block reward becomes too low, miners will switch to other currency, because fees won't cover burnt electricity
So, how are we going to secure the blockchain in the future?
SATOSHI GOT IT RIGHT.
And now imagine that EVERYONE has an ASIC. How much coins will u get? I'm not sure it will be enough to cover the electricity.
Right. When I no longer make profit I shut down or upgrade. Free market. More efficient miners provide the security.
April 13, 2013, 02:54:19 PM
I need a solution.
Well, Satoshi gave us one (transaction fees), but you are not convinced it will work. Or worse: you seem convinced it won't work.
That's fair enough, but we have nothing else to give you, I'm afraid.
April 13, 2013, 02:52:24 PM
Everyone, their mom, and their mom's watch do not all have to be Bticoin miners. Bitcoin only needs enough security to protect against attackers, and no more, to be "secure".
I need a solution. Stop feeding me with "relax, there is no problem".
April 13, 2013, 02:50:05 PM
Everyone, their mom, and their mom's watch do not all have to be Bticoin miners. Bitcoin only needs enough security to protect against attackers, and no more, to be "secure".
April 13, 2013, 02:49:08 PM
And here I don't understand at all what you are talking about.
We need a plan to secure the blockchain. Miners won't do it when we switch to fees instead of subsidy, they'll just jump to other altcoin. That's what I'm talking about.
Then the difficulty will decrease, and other people will mine. Problem solved.
Then the difficulty will decrease, and someone will attack Bitcoin. Problem solved (no Bitcoin - no problem).
Well, I doubt the difficulty will decrease that much as to make bitcoin being weak. But that's a fair concern, I give you that.
The truth is that nobody really knows if the fee-model will be enough to replace the subsidy model. But that's no big news. That's part of the reason why bitcoin is still considered as an experiment, I guess.
April 13, 2013, 02:47:00 PM
And here I don't understand at all what you are talking about.
We need a plan to secure the blockchain. Miners won't do it when we switch to fees instead of subsidy, they'll just jump to other altcoin. That's what I'm talking about.
Then the difficulty will decrease, and other people will mine. Problem solved.
Then the difficulty will decrease, and someone will attack Bitcoin. Problem solved (no Bitcoin - no problem).
April 13, 2013, 02:45:28 PM
And here I don't understand at all what you are talking about.
We need a plan to secure the blockchain. Miners won't do it when we switch to fees instead of subsidy, they'll just jump to other altcoin. That's what I'm talking about.
Then the difficulty will decrease, and other people will mine. Problem solved. Also, you seem very sure of what will happen. It's not so obvious at all. We'll see.
April 13, 2013, 02:34:02 PM
And here I don't understand at all what you are talking about.
We need a plan to secure the blockchain. Miners won't do it when we switch to fees instead of subsidy, they'll just jump to other altcoin. That's what I'm talking about.
April 13, 2013, 02:30:57 PM
See? When we add altcoins into the scenario we see that "price" of BTC becomes lower. And we can add infinite number of altcoins. We just need some PR to get people involved.
Of course, but if you add more altcoins, then your reasoning applies to previously created altcoins as well (not just bitcoins). So it's not proportional. Basically, you can indeed add as many altcoins as you want, but they won't have as many supporters and their price will therefore not be infinite.I agree. Anyway we should think about ways to secure the blockchain.
And here I don't understand at all what you are talking about.
April 13, 2013, 02:30:11 PM
Again, there is a convention in bitcoin which states that the valid chain is the one which has the most enclosed proof-of-work. All altcoins have lower proof-of-work and are therefore dissmissed as inferior by all true bitcoiners. You can create as many altcoins as you want, this will not change.
but isn't that exactly like saying 'bitcoin is inferior to gold because it's not shiny'?The correct analogy is: gold is superior to silver because it's shiny. And it is. The fact that gold is yellow matters a lot for the value of gold as a currency. That's why gold is still more important a currency than platinum, for instance. Yet platinum is more precious.
I don't compare bitcoin to gold on such a criterium because it would not make sense. I compare bitcoin to gold by the fact that bitcoin can be transferred directly via internet, while gold can't.
April 13, 2013, 02:29:12 PM
See? When we add altcoins into the scenario we see that "price" of BTC becomes lower. And we can add infinite number of altcoins. We just need some PR to get people involved.
Of course, but if you add more altcoins, then your reasoning applies to previously created altcoins as well (not just bitcoins). So it's not proportional. Basically, you can indeed add as many altcoins as you want, but they won't have as many supporters and their price will therefore not be infinite.I agree. Anyway we should think about ways to secure the blockchain.
April 13, 2013, 02:23:54 PM
Again, there is a convention in bitcoin which states that the valid chain is the one which has the most enclosed proof-of-work. All altcoins have lower proof-of-work and are therefore dissmissed as inferior by all true bitcoiners. You can create as many altcoins as you want, this will not change.
but isn't that exactly like saying 'bitcoin is inferior to gold because it's not shiny'?
April 13, 2013, 02:21:42 PM
See? When we add altcoins into the scenario we see that "price" of BTC becomes lower. And we can add infinite number of altcoins. We just need some PR to get people involved.
Of course, but if you add more altcoins, then your reasoning applies to previously created altcoins as well (not just bitcoins). So it's not proportional. Basically, you can indeed add as many altcoins as you want, but they won't have as many supporters and their price will therefore not be infinite.
Indeed when people prefer to use altcoins rather than bitcoins, it does reduce the value of bitcoin, but same as when people prefer to use gold, silver, freshly printed dollars or whatever. Just creating altcoins does not ensure any success selling those altcoins. And I doubt PR is that effective in making people think as you would like them to think.
Again, there is a convention in bitcoin which states that the valid chain is the one which has the most enclosed proof-of-work (I simplify). All altcoins have lower proof-of-work and are therefore dissmissed as inferior by all true bitcoiners. You can create as many altcoins as you want, this will not change.
April 13, 2013, 02:16:31 PM
Everyone who thinks that there will be not more than 21,000,000 bitcoins IS WRONG.
1. Fractional Reserve Banking. For example, MtGox, they do FRB. (I'm wrong? They don't do it? C'mon, even small kids know that MtGox loves FRB.)
2. Altcoins. Litecoin, Bytecoin, whatever. (I'm wrong? These are other currencies? C'mon, it's Bitcoin with other names, look at their source code.)
What do these 2 points mean?
Bitcoin is not deflationary => One BTC will never be $1,000,000 => When the block reward becomes too low, miners will switch to other currency, because fees won't cover burnt electricity
So, how are we going to secure the blockchain in the future?
Bitcoin does not need to be $1,000,000 to cover electricity. Right now mining with GPU's most peoples electricity is only 25% of cost. Far less for people with ASIC and FPGA. Enough mining for security would happen with a block reward of 6 right now. As the value of BTC rises this number will drop. 1. Fractional Reserve Banking. For example, MtGox, they do FRB. (I'm wrong? They don't do it? C'mon, even small kids know that MtGox loves FRB.)
2. Altcoins. Litecoin, Bytecoin, whatever. (I'm wrong? These are other currencies? C'mon, it's Bitcoin with other names, look at their source code.)
What do these 2 points mean?
Bitcoin is not deflationary => One BTC will never be $1,000,000 => When the block reward becomes too low, miners will switch to other currency, because fees won't cover burnt electricity
So, how are we going to secure the blockchain in the future?
SATOSHI GOT IT RIGHT.
And now imagine that EVERYONE has an ASIC. How much coins will u get? I'm not sure it will be enough to cover the electricity.
Jump to: