Pages:
Author

Topic: Why the maximum of 21.000.000 bitcoins cannot be enforced - page 4. (Read 11661 times)

member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
But please do understand, I'm not speaking of a situation of two co-existent currencies. I'm speaking of the current block-chain being taken over.

Did you mention HOW the current block-chain would be taken over?

The only way this can happen is for a single individual (or group in collusion) to own more than 50% of the hashing power of the network, as that is the only way that forged blocks can be added to the legitimate block chain.

Even if that happens, it only gives you the power to double-spend your coins, as you can put new transactions in the block and then verify them yourself.

However, you have to also then decide which is more profitable, double spending your own coins, or making more, as with 51% of the hashing power of the network, you're also reaping 51% of the bitcoins being produced by adding legitimate blocks to the block chain if you stay legitimate.

Forged blocks can also be identified by the community by looking at previous blocks and showing that the coins were in fact spent twice.  That will invalidate your impartial status, and will most likely result in the loss of miners to your pool, which will drop it below 50% of the hashing power of the network.

Also, new pools will also constantly come online, offering better reward methods to miners, which will result in miners leaving more established pools, thus further distributing the hashing power of the network.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
And even if they do get their act together, how will they know merchants will accept their new bitcoin instead of the old one? If you are a merchant would you accept a currency whose supporters are inflationists or a currrency whose supporters want sound money?

None of these complaints require forks. None. This is what drives me up the wall about these threads.

Thank god ideas like this can wait until the OPs learn the problem is only perceived.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol
Would the situation the op proposes not result in the devaluation of BTC relative to the current value at that point?  How does one convince 50% of the users to adopt a policy which devalues their holdings?

Also difficult is getting them to do so all at once.  If they don't, their early generated blocks will invalidate, as they won't be able to maintain the longest block chain.



And that's the real issue... who plans on being first to make some attempt at forking the chain? Who wants to spend time and energy risking that the new blocks they generate may, eventually, perhaps, be recognized by enough other clients to matter? Even if you tried to organize a situation where thousands of agreeable miners have all promised to come online with the modified software at the same time, how does each of them know the others won't bail at the last minute? And if they have doubts, what's to stop them from bailing at the last minute?

And even if they do get their act together, how will they know merchants will accept their new bitcoin instead of the old one? If you are a merchant would you accept a currency whose supporters are inflationists or a currrency whose supporters want sound money?
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!
Would the situation the op proposes not result in the devaluation of BTC relative to the current value at that point?  How does one convince 50% of the users to adopt a policy which devalues their holdings?

Also difficult is getting them to do so all at once.  If they don't, their early generated blocks will invalidate, as they won't be able to maintain the longest block chain.



And that's the real issue... who plans on being first to make some attempt at forking the chain? Who wants to spend time and energy risking that the new blocks they generate may, eventually, perhaps, be recognized by enough other clients to matter? Even if you tried to organize a situation where thousands of agreeable miners have all promised to come online with the modified software at the same time, how does each of them know the others won't bail at the last minute? And if they have doubts, what's to stop them from bailing at the last minute?
hero member
Activity: 493
Merit: 500
Would the situation the op proposes not result in the devaluation of BTC relative to the current value at that point?  How does one convince 50% of the users to adopt a policy which devalues their holdings?

Also difficult is getting them to do so all at once.  If they don't, their early generated blocks will invalidate, as they won't be able to maintain the longest block chain.

legendary
Activity: 1222
Merit: 1016
Live and Let Live
50% Or more will not be early adopters -> 50% or more will have envy -> 50% or more will have 50% of the computer power necessary to create the longest chain

Please do tell me my mistake?

Sure... Bitcoin regards the longest valid chain as the correct version of the truth.  If you change bitcoin so the fees remain at 50 BTC forever, that would create a invalid chain for every bitcoin user that has not agreed with your modification.

Even if you had 100x the hashing power on your '50 forever' chain... that chain will still be rejected by every client that has not adopted your changed rules.
member
Activity: 98
Merit: 10
The idea might have been stated before, if you drop me a link I'll even say sorry.

But please do understand, I'm not speaking of a situation of two co-existent currencies. I'm speaking of the current block-chain being taken over.

None of the problems you are worried about need forks or even major changes. I already have a model involving angel miners for towncoins and they will stronger than mainline.

No redesign is necessary.
sr. member
Activity: 672
Merit: 258
https://cryptassist.io
topic creator: you don't understand the definitions of the words you are using.  please read any introductory econ text.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
lol... as soon as you change the rules you create a fork, it doesn't matter if the fork has a shorter or longer chain... The original block chain will remain intact, and will keep on going happily.

This. And the guy has written a whole paper about bitcoins and makes mistakes like this...

50% Or more will not be early adopters -> 50% or more will have envy -> 50% or more will have 50% of the computer power necessary to create the longest chain

Please do tell me my mistake?

Speaking of 'envy', mathematicians use 'envy-free' for the distribution I think is the only logical one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_division
legendary
Activity: 980
Merit: 1004
Firstbits: Compromised. Thanks, Android!
You are not very original, this has been discused and answered forever.

And then you will have two currencies. The old system and the new system. The new system is more inflationary and people wont trust it and it will die. I actually think that the miners will see this and wont even go for the change in the first place.

I would love you to make a compatible fork of bitcoin... That makes the coins I own TWICE as valuable as I can spend them on both block-chains!

The idea might have been stated before, if you drop me a link I'll even say sorry.

But please do understand, I'm not speaking of a situation of two co-existent currencies. I'm speaking of the current block-chain being taken over.

You missed his point.

Even if what you're proposing was possible, and it somehow made bitcoins more valuable, you would still be making the early adopters, those sitting on hundreds of thousands (millions?) of bitcoins that much richer.

And that's a bad thing, right?
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol
lol... as soon as you change the rules you create a fork, it doesn't matter if the fork has a shorter or longer chain... The original block chain will remain intact, and will keep on going happily.

This. And the guy has written a whole paper about bitcoins and makes mistakes like this...
legendary
Activity: 1222
Merit: 1016
Live and Let Live
You are not very original, this has been discused and answered forever.

And then you will have two currencies. The old system and the new system. The new system is more inflationary and people wont trust it and it will die. I actually think that the miners will see this and wont even go for the change in the first place.

The idea might have been stated before, if you drop me a link I'll even say sorry.

But please do understand, I'm not speaking of a situation of two co-existent currencies. I'm speaking of the current block-chain being taken over.

lol... as soon as you change the rules you create a fork, it doesn't matter if the fork has a shorter or longer chain... The original block chain will remain intact, and will keep on going happily.
hero member
Activity: 772
Merit: 501
The idea that early adopters are unfairly rewarded is ridiculous nonsense. I'm not an early adopter, but I can recognize that if someone acquires something when its value is low and no else is interested, and the value of that asset subsequently appreciates, they are absolutely entitled to the gain.

If it's so easy to get rich by contributing to a block chain when it's new, then why isn't every one mining namecoins right now?

If it's so stacked in favor of early adopters, then clearly every one will choose to be an early adopter.

The truth is there is no easy way to KNOW what the market will demand, and contributing to something that eventually does become valuable is a valuable contribution to the economy and should be rewarded.

member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
You are not very original, this has been discused and answered forever.

And then you will have two currencies. The old system and the new system. The new system is more inflationary and people wont trust it and it will die. I actually think that the miners will see this and wont even go for the change in the first place.

I would love you to make a compatible fork of bitcoin... That makes the coins I own TWICE as valuable as I can spend them on both block-chains!

The idea might have been stated before, if you drop me a link I'll even say sorry.

But please do understand, I'm not speaking of a situation of two co-existent currencies. I'm speaking of the current block-chain being taken over.
legendary
Activity: 1222
Merit: 1016
Live and Let Live
It's not about what I want, it's about what will unevitably happen.

I would love you to make a compatible fork of bitcoin... That makes the coins I own TWICE as valuable as I can spend them on both block-chains!

So what you are really creating is a HUGE and UNFAIR advantage to the early adopters.

(note) the coins in the bitcoin block chain will remain much more valuable.  Therefore, not twice as valuable... but you get the point.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1001
Radix-The Decentralized Finance Protocol
You are not very original, this has been discused and answered forever.

At the time enough latecomers realize how unfair the distribution is (and if at that time Bitcoin has achieved any economic significance), the "Fair Bitcoin Initiative" will be founded. They will bring out a bitcoin client that is completely compatible with the specification, except that it will award bitcoins linearly with the amount of work to find them, without an upper limit. (Yes, I know, that is not completely in line with the specification. But it's not so hard to imagine how it will be achieved.)

As soon as 50% of the bitcoin community has joined this initiative (promoted by hip webshops, mining pools with a yellow ribbon campaign), they effectively rule the distribution of bitcoins. They will adopt the only logical distribution scheme. Any early-adopter thinking this will not happen, that latecomers will accept the absurdly large early-adopter advantage, is wishful thinking.

And then you will have two currencies. The old system and the new system. The new system is more inflationary and people wont trust it and it will die. I actually think that the miners will see this and wont even go for the change in the first place.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
There are people out there that would not touch bitcoin with a ten foot stick right now (rightly so, just look these price jumps) and you want to award these people on the same level down the line when bitcoin becomes stable? Now THAT'S unfair. Besides, bitcoin is supposed to serve as a medium of exchange and not as an investment vehicle, these huge incentives are supposed to help bitcoin grow in its early stages.

It's not about what I want, it's about what will unevitably happen.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
There are people out there that would not touch bitcoin with a ten foot stick right now (rightly so, just look these price jumps) and you want to award these people on the same level down the line when bitcoin becomes stable? Now THAT'S unfair. Besides, bitcoin is supposed to serve as a medium of exchange and not as an investment vehicle, these huge incentives are supposed to help bitcoin grow in its early stages.
sr. member
Activity: 304
Merit: 250
Do your part for Bitcoin!
It's the inevitable issue of any currency. The ones entered early potential have the best outcome. It's the advantage of foresight and sometimes plain luck. But if it was just as easy to make money by someone who comes in really late as someone early, there would be no point in economics or currencies.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
Before I listen to anything you say, do you have any credentials that are worth noting?

Well, if it is about credentials here more than about what I have to say: I did graduate in IT at university.
Pages:
Jump to: