Topic: What the Early Adoptors Don't want you to know (Read 8615 times)

Ha!

Dude, there isn't a debate.

Austrian economics is the equivalent of Phlogiston while Keynesian economics... is just science.
And, yeh, it is popular around gov't circles, despite being patently false, but that's because rich conservatives have business partners that, usually, want less regulation and less government intervention.

If you wanna hear a RELLY funny story about rampant deflation, search "The Great Depression" in Wikipedia.

Nothing is preventing this, it's open source. But it means splitting the chain and creating a new currency. So your starting a new project from scratch. You should be able generate interest in this project and "catch up" with BTC for, say, $5 million in advertising. At that point you could commit to buying the first $100 million worth at $15/. Now you are ready to compete with bitcoin.
Oh, and I still am not interested. I'll stick with Satoshi's idea.

This is a very interesting topic, will be cool to see what happens with bitcoins first hand

I imagine there'd be 51% of people with their new inflated coins with no value. Then there's be 49% of people with coins that have value.

If such an idea would get anywhere to 51% acceptance (doubtful) we would get a block chain split on our hands because remaining 49% will say "no way, we will keep our deflationary bitcoin but you boys have fun with your inflationary bitcoin without us". This would be a permanent network split.

Exchanges with have two crypto currencies, and there will be an exchange rate. I'll stick with good old deflationary bitcoin. Keynesians are welcome to sesspit of inflatocoin they desire so much, but not at my expense this time.

In fact, you do not have to wait for 51%. You can split the network right now. All it takes is to hire one of dev team guys (or any student who just read a book on C/C++) for a few hours to get inflationary version going. Go for it, finally! I beg you!.

Lots of people talk the talk and no one wants to walk the walk.

Yes, but why would 51% accept this rule, since it would be a bad idea? Inflation would skyrocket worse than any currency around now, including eventually the hyperinflation that Zimbabwe suffered.

I dont get it.. i'm a newb and I know all this. the deflation is controlled and well known and needed.

hmmmmmm

I don't get how that would actually work. If people are building deflation into the present value now, they will still be doing so in (say) a year, and the two will roughly cancel out.

That's only true if you can make use of the bitcoin now in a way that's worth more than just having a bitcoin in a year's time, though. It also implies nothing about the value of one bitcoin relative to goods and services now as opposed to in a year's time; the extra value comes from the ability to invest bitcoins in other things.

It's not a problem, nothing actually happens. People just build the deflation into the present value. When you buy a bitcoin, you get two things: the ability to have a bitcoin in a year, and the ability to have a bitcoin any time you would like it in exchange for giving up that bitcoin in a year. Thus a bitcoin today *must* be worth slightly more than the present value of what a bitcoin is expected to be worth in a year because it includes a bitcoin in a year plus an additional option.

I read through this whole thread and not once did truthcracker address a question that has been asked several times, what is "fair"?  What is an alternative method of distribution that you would propose that would provide incentives for adoption thus propagating the currency to general use? What is a "fair" way to start using a system of money?

I have however seen him repeatedly state that mysterious "others" are suppressing his arguments and controlling the conversation for gain.  I see multiple well-thought out rhetorical arguments addressing his points, but mostly ad-hominem attacks accusing the forum at large of a united conspiracy.  Heck, even the title reflects this.

People can purchase BTC on an exchange today with nationalized backed currencies.  They can also trade goods and services to receive BTC directly.  I have done both, and quite enjoyed direct barter trade.  This involves some "speculative faith" on my part, sure, but it also involves me bringing tangible value to the economy for the benefit of both myself and the person with whom I am trading.  The network effect of currency requires that we believe a system of money will give back stored value as well as that more and more people will continue trading in those goods in the future.  The design of the BTC system is quite elegant, and also quite novel.  By any metric, we are ALL still very early adopters in the technology life cycle, so nobody can say for certain what is going to happen. 

Truthcracker, you are free to take a short position in BTC and bet against it with money.  There can be no "bitcoin II" if there is not any serious thought given to potential weaknesses in the existing system.  However, you can be certain that there will be plenty of ideas that come along and will claim to be bitcoin II, whether it is successful or not, just given its current level of penetration into the public awareness.  These are growing pains, and any idea which can withstand the test of time, of speculators, of hackers, of challenges we are not yet aware of can be said to have gained confidence and acceptance at a wide scale. This takes time.  The current adoption curve of this entire idea is still quite early.

I'm long BTC, and likely to remain so.

There are already lots of anonymity programs for sale through bitcoins.  I'm sure many other programs and types of software will follow.  An economy based entirely on software, with a little black market, is fine for the time being.  As far as I'm concerned. 

I know bitcoin and I want bitcoin to buy a VPN access. And because it will be bitcoin it could be secret. The only interest of bitcoin is reliability and privacy. everything needed by the black market.

yah I agree, but I was talking about soccer mums and business people not buying into Bitcoins because they don't "trust" it yet (those who do know).

Compared to the number of people in the world, those who buy into bitcoin now are more or less doing a ninja strike.

Please note, effectively nobody in the world knows about bitcoin and among those who know, very few are willing to buy bitcoin or offer products and services for bitcoin.
 

Boatloads of BTCs 

Just for the fun
http://blockexplorer.com/t/3Cid9igPD7

If I understand the system of BTC. What prevent us of saying fuck the rules thought by Satoshi ? And say that mining will always create 50BTC (or more). If the most accept this rule, it will become the new rule. And we can change the rule whenever we want. Isn't it the spirit of BTC ? 

Because most responsible people fundamentally know that you can't get something for nothing, unless its a ninja strike and no one saw you come or go.