Topic: Would you support moving to a system with controled inflation? - page 2. (Read 13187 times)

Silver, copper? 

so, not inflata-coin, just a different block bounty distribution over time, i see.
the idea of indexing it to the difficulty is actually quite an interesting one, i think.

as long as you keep the chain separate from the main block chain (so that the mainchain clients don't have to deal with the extra traffic from your fork that would be treated as invalid), i see nothing wrong with you giving it a try to see what happens.

i still foresee some difficulty in attracting miners away from the main bitcoin chain and into the new one. early adopters need to be able to expect a higher compensation than the later adopters, in order to be convinced to put their effort in, at a time when the risk is highest. on this metric, main bitcoin still has you beat. but compared to inflata-coin, it's a lot better in this respect

if, while you are at it, you also put in some other improvements (or things that some people would perceive as improvements), e.g., more decimal places of divisibility, etc., it may have some future.

For physical money there is nothing but gold.

I too, have also devoted some thought to the probability of success with the use of BitCoin. For short term transactions, in and out of the market, the BitCoin provides some attraction for use. However, we will not be able to get away from our nature and reasoning of the system.

People will want to "stuff their mattresses" with BitCoin. This is not possible. There is no physical representation of the BitCoin, a lack of security and accountability. If someone steals your BitCoin, you may never reacquire it. If someone steals your IRL wallet, you have a chance of recovery. (someone to look for and/or towards)

People deal in the physical, we want to touch, feel, and see objects of worth. However, we also like the private. We like to conduct transactions in private.

So, I see the BitCoin as becoming a transitory monetary system into and out of the physical. We will buy bitcoins to make a transaction, use them, and then get out of the market.

This will give the advantage to the Exchanges. The first exchange able to extend the privacy of transactions will succeed.

I don't know what your goal is, but whatever you want to do, do it separately from the current network.
If your actions will start supplying invalid blocks to the current network, then that may be seen as an attack on Bitcoin by some people (me included).

BTW,
I don't recall any situation in history where increasing inflation would solve any problem, especially currency stability.
So i still don't understand what are your motives in this.

It is not so easy to become rich by hoarding or even cornering a commodity.  First, there is a competition between hoarders.  The less greedy gets his profit first, and reduces the price of the commodity, and thus destroys any hope for others to get rich.

Second, even if you manage to corner the commodity, your profit is not guaranted.   See the story of the Hunt brothers with silver.

I dare you to try anyway.  You'll see it's not that easy.

Actually if you use any currency you agree to its definitions, by definition. If you're so titchy about changes in software you might be more heavily invested than you should be, it does still say BETA on the front page of the thing.

The whole thing sounds kind of ironic coming from guy with pyramid scheme offers in his signature. Easy come, easy go.

Yeah, but my goal is to create a sustainable medium of exchange, not get rich into the stratosphere by mining coins and having them go up in value exponentially.

There is nothing wrong with a coin being worth 2 cents if that's it's value as determined by uninhibited supply and demand.

Not per the license agreement.  Bitcoin is free to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell, without deference to the chart.


Where would all that demand go?  Does that demand even exist at the current price?  It can't be both ways.

I could personally clean out all the open visible buy orders at MtGox three times over with my BTC, and I'm one guy, with 0.5% of the total BTC out there.  In a panic, where would the other 99.5% of the BTC in circulation get sold?

Casascius, whatever you are proposing, please just do it.

It would be quite a relief if we could redirect people complaining about the constant final amount of bitcoins.

I’m talking about changing any of this. If you use Bitcoin, you agree to it.

I can assure you that any changes to it would destroy Bitcoin due to enormous panic sells and very little demand. Also, it would make it impossible for me to trust any future currency of this kind – and I’m sure I’m not alone.

Okay, how do we tell what is "changing the very foundations" and what isn't? I'm not trying to be funny here, you are proposing some kind of subjective boundaries about what can and cannot be discussed in "polite" bitcoin company ... correct?

There are probably unknown unknowns type weaknesses being let into the protocol every time a change is made but who's not talking about that?

PS: I'm partial to any formula with a natural log function in it, so I might be biased.

Me damage Bitcoin's trust?  Trust with whom?

This wouldn't sound so ironic if, for example, Bitcoin.org would stop using a self-signed certificate on its website even though I have brought it up repeatedly over the past four months.


Am I proposing inflacoin?  I thought I made it pretty clear that I'm not, really.  Read posts 106 and 109 in detail, just in case it's not clear exactly what I am proposing.

The government doesn’t encourage you to make your own system if you don’t like theirs. They want to force it upon you.

I want you to make your own blockchain instead of tampering with Bitcoin. If you ever damage Bitcoin’s trust in this way, I can assure you they will be worthless the next day.

My Bitcoin wealth is private, but I have enough to be concerned. Still I appreciate your input, because now I’m pretty sure that inflacoin wouldn’t succeed.

That's what the government says when you challenge the status quo and start proposing ideas that ruin whatever good shell game they got goin' on.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suppression_of_dissent

While we're talking about my interests, what about yours (not addressed to anyone in particular)?  How many BTC do you have, and how much mining are you doing?  It would just help with perspective.

Full disclosure, I have about 26,000 BTC and have eight 5970's mining full time.

Changing the very foundations on which a currency was built is an attack, no matter what.

Hang on, how do we tell the difference between "Community Infiltration Attack" ... and someone merely proposing ways to improve bitcoin?

Isn't that like a "terrorist attack", but using nice language?  You know, how they went from "Immigration and Naturalization Service" to "Department of Homeland Security"?  It sounds so much more, you know, homely, when the word "home" or "community" is slapped in the middle of it.

Though, I'm interested in hearing a plausible scenario as to what "in my favour" could be.  Kind of like, fill in the blanks:  I am a ___A___ who will be ___B___ if the suggestions I'm proposing were accepted by the community.

A) waiting in the bushes with a fistful of cash, B) eager to see BTC at 0.06 so I can buy it up?

A) someone with lots of BTC, B) happy to see it drop in value?

A) B)

I think you're about 10 posts behind.  A quick Cliffs Notes summary of my various points: the disparity between coins issued (25%) and community at the table (0.1%) is a danger to public acceptance and compromises the "fairness" that Bitcoin supposedly promotes.  Several solutions exist, one of which is permanent 50BTC (eliminates the 25% aspect), but is by far not the only solution.  Read carefully and look for the forest between the trees: I am not advocating for a perma-inflation currency, just any solution that makes any progress at bringing those two percentages close together for as long as sustainable.

Yep, but have some sort of minimum network-mandated fee that allowed both miners and payers to exert some sort of force on the going rate so as to permit an equilibrium to form.  Some random ideas:

1 - A default recommended fee generated by the system is one that would be based both on the blocksize and difficulty, such that it would pay the same as B=100% when exactly filling a block, but the minimum fee should be no more than 1% of a transaction.

2 - A minimum fee imposed by the system MOST of the time would be a function of what minimum fees have been accepted by MOST miners in the last 100 blocks that were at least half full.  That way, the majority of miners can exert upward pressure on the fees, but not by refusing to process transactions at large.

3 - Special case, if someone is willing to generate a block whose own SHA256 hash ends in 00, the current block may be exempt from minimum fees imposed by the system.  Maybe such a block can get a special name, like a sludge block.  These blocks would serve as exceptions to the minimums.  This block would allow miners to exert significant downward pressure on the price, but would be 4 times as difficult for them to create.

So transactions with no or insufficient fees have a chance as to when they might eventually get through.  So if the mining community at large is pushing for a fee that's too high, payers can start offering lower transaction fees.  If enough low-fee transactions start piling up and look desirable, someone can start mining for sludge blocks - which will have 4 times the difficulty, but might be more profitable if payers are both unwilling to pay the minimum fee and willing to wait for the next sludge block to be mined to make a point of it.

Why this might work:

* people can still get free or name-your-price transactions but will be forced by the network to wait a while
* miners of normal blocks can optionally exert upward pressure on the transaction price, but too high of such a price will incentivize sludge mining
* sludge mining would exert a downward force on the minimum transaction fee and would be a windfall for sludge miners, but only when the normal miners are asking too much so as to make it worthwhile and the payers are willing to vote for that with how long they wait for transactions.