Topic: Would you support moving to a system with controled inflation? - page 4. (Read 13187 times)
No matter what, wealth distribution follows a power law.
Being an early adopter is only a benefit if Bitcoin actually succeeds. What you're calling "guilt" is actually concern that Bitcoin won't actually succeed with the current model, if potential adopters are turned off by the fact that most of the wealth is already spoken for.
Here is another way to put it: Would you want to buy a penny stock promoted by pump-n-dumpers? Of course not. You know you'll lose money.
You'll lose money because the pump-n-dumpers possess most of the outstanding stock. That stock sits somewhere, so as their victims buy in, the price goes up. As soon as they dump, they make off with all the money brought in, and the price quickly drops through the floor.
While a penny stock can't be sent through the Internet like a BTC can, and can't be used to buy socks like a BTC can, one can get ripped off the same way with both.
It's not that I think one of us early adopters will intentionally set out to crash the BTC. But when only a small fraction of the currency is circulating, it doesn't take a rogue pump-n-dump villain, just takes a couple regular people wanting to cash out.
It's not that I want a "second chance" to buy BTC at 6 cents. It's that I want to hold BTC that has an honest value, whatever that is, rather than one that is propped up merely by speculators anticipating a 100000% return and which may pop at a moment's notice.
Right now, selling 10,000 BTC (0.2% of the whole BTC circulation) will bring MtGox down to 0.60 USD based on open orders, and erode 25% of the total value of Bitcoins in a flash. How is that much better than suffering a few percent of inflation per year at the hands of Bernanke?
I'm not talking about now. Obviously most of the bitcoins are not yet spoken for.
In 2014, most of the bitcoins will be mined, but "mined" is not "spoken for." There will still be an easy way of getting them: perform a service and charge for it. I'm not talking about what is really going on, I'm talking about perceptions. Speaking for myself, I only started looking at Bitcoin because of the potential near-term gain from mining. This is far from the most useful thing about it, but a point that draws people in is not a point to ignore.
In 2014, most of the bitcoins will be mined, but "mined" is not "spoken for." There will still be an easy way of getting them: perform a service and charge for it. I'm not talking about what is really going on, I'm talking about perceptions. Speaking for myself, I only started looking at Bitcoin because of the potential near-term gain from mining. This is far from the most useful thing about it, but a point that draws people in is not a point to ignore.
...if potential adopters are turned off by the fact that most of the wealth is already spoken for.
Please stop spreading this misconception, fellow bitcoiners. The vast majority of bitcoins are yet to be issued--there is still plenty of time to be an early adopter. The fact that we have a 12,000 view video on youtube, plenty of exchanges to buy coins at, ample instruction on how to run a bitcoin miner, great community members who will explain parts that you don't understand, etc. adds up to a pretty fair opportunity for people to get involved.Yeah, yeah, everybody wishes they bought thousands of BTC at .06 cents just like they wish they bought shares in Google. I certainly do (in both cases). But there's no reason here for any potential adopter to cry foul--only to get on board. If Bitcoin takes off there will be a much higher valuation of bitcoins in the future than there is now, and anybody who buys in now will be sitting quite pretty. My frequent advice to friends and relatives is to put a small amount you're completely willing to lose into bitcoins NOW. Most of them take me up on it. None of them complain that they didn't get to buy in 9 months ago.
Being an early adopter is only a benefit if Bitcoin actually succeeds. What you're calling "guilt" is actually concern that Bitcoin won't actually succeed with the current model, if potential adopters are turned off by the fact that most of the wealth is already spoken for.
Anyway, as I said, the difference between 'linear vs. exponential' and 'asymptotically constant vs. exponential' is really not worth concerning myself with. In the long run, ordinary and "inflationary" bitcoin will be nearly equally deflationary. I think 50 BTC forever would be better in several ways (simplicity of calculation, simplicity of understanding for newcomers, increased incentive to contribute to the network) but I think the system in place now is good enough and forking the project at such an early stage would just cause problems.
Anyway, as I said, the difference between 'linear vs. exponential' and 'asymptotically constant vs. exponential' is really not worth concerning myself with. In the long run, ordinary and "inflationary" bitcoin will be nearly equally deflationary. I think 50 BTC forever would be better in several ways (simplicity of calculation, simplicity of understanding for newcomers, increased incentive to contribute to the network) but I think the system in place now is good enough and forking the project at such an early stage would just cause problems.
I'm not sure what to think about this early adopters guilt, remorse thing we got going on around here .... it truly stands in stark contrast to the antics of the banksters who have just bust existing fiat monetary systems and lined straight up at the tax-payer trough to draw bonuses from the dosh that was fire-hosed over them to prop up their failed enterprises. they were waving notes out the window to protesters in London, they have no shame, remorse, regret just entitlement.
Think of big money center banks as being the early adopters of fiat currency, they get access to cheaper money from e.g., the Fed. Res., than everybody else. It is why fiat/fractional reserve banking is such a racket, and a rigged game, that shovels wealth around in an unfair, undeserved, inefficient manner. They are a parasitical force that are a drag on society, causing progress and net wealth creation to be sub-optimal, call it sub-prime if you like. This is a broken, dysfunctional monetary system that the market is puking up.
Now contrast this with a group of basically technologists who have come up with a clearing system that performs this wealth-transfer, price-discovery payment-clearing, etc function of money in a more efficient and we hope robust manner. Do you think the banksters would be trying to figure out a way of building into the system something that does them out of the benefit from being an early adopter?
You could just go and donate whole chunk of BTC to bitcoin faucet so that later adopters get a bigger slice to play with, or start up your own faucet that will dosh out even more in increasing amounts to later adopters ... I know how well that will go.
At present, the system is working and providing incentives in the right places for it to grow, quite rapidly in the bigger scheme. Supplementary businesses are springing up so that you can cash in and out of the bitcoin economy, if you cash out now to pay for something real, boat, car, land, shares that will put more into BTC circulation for the current adopters in the way of cheaper BTC. Money flows where it is needs to in an unfettered free market, amazingly efficiently as scholars have noted for centuries.
I say, be thankful that you are alive in such an "interesting time" where dangers and opportunities abound. Great fortunes are being made and lost, the wealth power is shifting ... and just don't forget that you can't take your BTC with you. They are just a nice token that are of this world but a great idea to leave behind for future generations who were staring down the bankster's barrel of indebted servitude for decades, imho.
Think of big money center banks as being the early adopters of fiat currency, they get access to cheaper money from e.g., the Fed. Res., than everybody else. It is why fiat/fractional reserve banking is such a racket, and a rigged game, that shovels wealth around in an unfair, undeserved, inefficient manner. They are a parasitical force that are a drag on society, causing progress and net wealth creation to be sub-optimal, call it sub-prime if you like. This is a broken, dysfunctional monetary system that the market is puking up.
Now contrast this with a group of basically technologists who have come up with a clearing system that performs this wealth-transfer, price-discovery payment-clearing, etc function of money in a more efficient and we hope robust manner. Do you think the banksters would be trying to figure out a way of building into the system something that does them out of the benefit from being an early adopter?
You could just go and donate whole chunk of BTC to bitcoin faucet so that later adopters get a bigger slice to play with, or start up your own faucet that will dosh out even more in increasing amounts to later adopters ... I know how well that will go.
At present, the system is working and providing incentives in the right places for it to grow, quite rapidly in the bigger scheme. Supplementary businesses are springing up so that you can cash in and out of the bitcoin economy, if you cash out now to pay for something real, boat, car, land, shares that will put more into BTC circulation for the current adopters in the way of cheaper BTC. Money flows where it is needs to in an unfettered free market, amazingly efficiently as scholars have noted for centuries.
I say, be thankful that you are alive in such an "interesting time" where dangers and opportunities abound. Great fortunes are being made and lost, the wealth power is shifting ... and just don't forget that you can't take your BTC with you. They are just a nice token that are of this world but a great idea to leave behind for future generations who were staring down the bankster's barrel of indebted servitude for decades, imho.
For the crowd who's saying "fork the project or shut up", I can't imagine that that would be a good idea. Given the poll, clearly I do not have the majority support and wouldn't get very far, and for the time being, I pretty much give up.
Those few of us who are tooting the "early adopter" horn aren't the majority. We are just saying that the next million people who arrive here might conclude what we're saying, and then they will be the majority, and might ditch our block chain for us.
If anyone would like to guess where my interests lie, I have purchased and mined a good deal of BTC that I couldn't possibly spend at the moment (not enough goods and services for sale that would be useful to me, you can only do so many drugs, look at so much porn, wear so many alpaca socks and get online through so many VPN's)... I would not like to see them vanish in value if the public decides to overthrow the block chain because my BTC claims their goods and services in a vastly greater proportion than what I paid for them and diminishes the value of theirs as I cash them in.
Those few of us who are tooting the "early adopter" horn aren't the majority. We are just saying that the next million people who arrive here might conclude what we're saying, and then they will be the majority, and might ditch our block chain for us.
If anyone would like to guess where my interests lie, I have purchased and mined a good deal of BTC that I couldn't possibly spend at the moment (not enough goods and services for sale that would be useful to me, you can only do so many drugs, look at so much porn, wear so many alpaca socks and get online through so many VPN's)... I would not like to see them vanish in value if the public decides to overthrow the block chain because my BTC claims their goods and services in a vastly greater proportion than what I paid for them and diminishes the value of theirs as I cash them in.
You will always win when you save bitcoin. Any savers who comes later are just less fortunate.
Even if there is an inflationary cryptocurrency, they would just convert their inflatecoin into bitcoin for long term storage or just use bitcoin outright.
Inflatecoin supporter: I'll pay you in inflatecoin?
Merchant: Ok!
Merchant then turn inflatecoin into bitcoin.
While what you say is correct, grondilu, it is also wrong. Since it still uses the same genesis block and the same network it will enter in conflict with everyone else.
I mean, sure if they mine a block they could say the block before them also got 50 BTC while the majority says he has 25. It would still need some tweaking in other parts.
As of FOSS goes, go ahead and create your own version that constantly inflates. No one is going to stop you, however that doesn't mean you will get support.
I mean, sure if they mine a block they could say the block before them also got 50 BTC while the majority says he has 25. It would still need some tweaking in other parts.
As of FOSS goes, go ahead and create your own version that constantly inflates. No one is going to stop you, however that doesn't mean you will get support.
Your point about forking the software is just the process of creating other groups within democracy. The rules for forking the software are still there, there is a process that must be followed.
There is no complicated process to follow, really. In case of bitcoin, if someone wants to create a version of bitcoin with a constant reward for miners, all he has to do is to comment one line in the code:
For the crowd who's saying "fork the project or shut up", I can't imagine that that would be a good idea. Given the poll, clearly I do not have the majority support and wouldn't get very far, and for the time being, I pretty much give up.
Those few of us who are tooting the "early adopter" horn aren't the majority. We are just saying that the next million people who arrive here might conclude what we're saying, and then they will be the majority, and might ditch our block chain for us.
If anyone would like to guess where my interests lie, I have purchased and mined a good deal of BTC that I couldn't possibly spend at the moment (not enough goods and services for sale that would be useful to me, you can only do so many drugs, look at so much porn, wear so many alpaca socks and get online through so many VPN's)... I would not like to see them vanish in value if the public decides to overthrow the block chain because my BTC claims their goods and services in a vastly greater proportion than what I paid for them and diminishes the value of theirs as I cash them in.
If that is all that is done, the two sets of clients will each be trying to claim the current blockchain for their own after the reward drops to 25 BTC. This will force an ongoing blockchain split, causing other network problems. If anyone wants to do this, they need to build a separate network like 'testnet' is now. Otherwise, I would be more than willing to participate in a direct attack of nodes that used the 'other' client.
Others have argued that this is a "good" thing, which will eventually work itself out and force a consensus.
(Not that I believe that however)
There exists no rational economic incentive to continue mining beyond the minting of new coins, because miners have no way to compel payers to pay a fee that makes mining worthwhile. There is no way to achieve equilibrium.
I think that you are saying this only because you have certain interest in saying so.Oh, right. I'm the boogey man!
Maybe it is because I want the value of all my coins to go down?
Or maybe I am waiting in the bushes with a fist full of a zillion USD in wait to buy yours when I make yours go down?
Maybe I am really just the USA government, trying to infiltrate you "terrorists" who want nothing more than to "destroy freedom". LOL
Let's stay realistic. Jeez.
Maybe I am missing something but the code is exactly the same.
You are indeed missing something. One line is commented in the second version.
Ahh... OK.
Maybe I am missing something but the code is exactly the same.
You are indeed missing something. One line is commented in the second version.
Your point about forking the software is just the process of creating other groups within democracy. The rules for forking the software are still there, there is a process that must be followed.
There is no complicated process to follow, really. In case of bitcoin, if someone wants to create a version of bitcoin with a constant reward for miners, all he has to do is to comment one line in the code:
In main.cpp, replace:
Code:
int64 GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 4 years
nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
by:
Code:
int64 GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 4 years
//nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
That's all. Then all what one has to do is to run this and hope that other people will be interested in running the same thing.
Maybe I am missing something but the code is exactly the same.
Your point about forking the software is just the process of creating other groups within democracy. The rules for forking the software are still there, there is a process that must be followed.
There is no complicated process to follow, really. In case of bitcoin, if someone wants to create a version of bitcoin with a constant reward for miners, all he has to do is to comment one line in the code:
That's all. Then all what one has to do is to run this and hope that other people will be interested in running the same thing.
If that is all that is done, the two sets of clients will each be trying to claim the current blockchain for their own after the reward drops to 25 BTC. This will force an ongoing blockchain split, causing other network problems. If anyone wants to do this, they need to build a separate network like 'testnet' is now. Otherwise, I would be more than willing to participate in a direct attack of nodes that used the 'other' client.
Your point about forking the software is just the process of creating other groups within democracy. The rules for forking the software are still there, there is a process that must be followed.
There is no complicated process to follow, really. In case of bitcoin, if someone wants to create a version of bitcoin with a constant reward for miners, all he has to do is to comment one line in the code:
In main.cpp, replace:
Code:
int64 GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 4 years
nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
by:
Code:
int64 GetBlockValue(int nHeight, int64 nFees)
{
int64 nSubsidy = 50 * COIN;
// Subsidy is cut in half every 4 years
//nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
return nSubsidy + nFees;
}
That's all. Then all what one has to do is to run this and hope that other people will be interested in running the same thing.
I strongly disagree. I think it's pretty clear from the poll that the majority is for keeping the current system, so there's really no point in forking the blockchain.
Free software organisations are not democratic. When someone doesn't agree with the majority, he doesn't have to "obey". He can just fork the sotfware. Democracy is not freedom, it's dictatorship of the majority towards minority. Fortunately it doesn't prevail in FOSS.
The Democracy point you make is apropos, True Democracy is anarchy, in the process of forming groups before an inevitable separation.
Republics are a better system for unity. Democracy promotes individuals, which degrade into several groups, the group with the most power rules. It is in essence minority rule, until the ruling party pisses off a majority of the other groups.
Your point about forking the software is just the process of creating other groups within democracy. The rules for forking the software are still there, there is a process that must be followed. However, there is a feeling of freedom that has been lost IRL. And it does feel Good and Right.
Humans are a herd animal. The concept of a true democracy is impossible, because even if everyone truly could have an equal vote, there is always a significant minority of the voting public that seeks an alpha male.
I strongly disagree. I think it's pretty clear from the poll that the majority is for keeping the current system, so there's really no point in forking the blockchain.
Free software organisations are not democratic. When someone doesn't agree with the majority, he doesn't have to "obey". He can just fork the sotfware. Democracy is not freedom, it's dictatorship of the majority towards minority. Fortunately it doesn't prevail in FOSS.
The Democracy point you make is apropos, True Democracy is anarchy, in the process of forming groups before an inevitable separation.
Republics are a better system for unity. Democracy promotes individuals, which degrade into several groups, the group with the most power rules. It is in essence minority rule, until the ruling party pisses off a majority of the other groups.
Your point about forking the software is just the process of creating other groups within democracy. The rules for forking the software are still there, there is a process that must be followed. However, there is a feeling of freedom that has been lost IRL. And it does feel Good and Right.
Haven't read every post but some numbers I've been watching and pondering separately may add to the discussion:
Current coins in circulation 5.7mill, average 24hr transactions around 200-250K ... or about 1500BTC per block.
http://www.bitcoinwatch.com/
with current exchange rates to "real world" monies that people use to buy mining gear and electricity with it is currently profitable on 50 BTC per block.
So extrapolating out to 21mill BTC in circulation, with similar money velocity as now, is about 800-850K per 24hr, or about 5700 BTC per block on a rolling average. Interestingly, if you assume a sensible round number average fee of 1% you get 57BTC per block for fees in the mature bitcoin economy .... hmmmm.
Recall that due to the deflationary nature of the beast, and the divisibility (2.1e15 satoshis), 800K BTC per day in transactions could represent the combined wealth transfers and economic activity of who knows how many millions of people. So that even a 0.01% average fee (6BTC per block) may easily incentivise quite substantial future mining rigs.
Current coins in circulation 5.7mill, average 24hr transactions around 200-250K ... or about 1500BTC per block.
http://www.bitcoinwatch.com/
with current exchange rates to "real world" monies that people use to buy mining gear and electricity with it is currently profitable on 50 BTC per block.
So extrapolating out to 21mill BTC in circulation, with similar money velocity as now, is about 800-850K per 24hr, or about 5700 BTC per block on a rolling average. Interestingly, if you assume a sensible round number average fee of 1% you get 57BTC per block for fees in the mature bitcoin economy .... hmmmm.
Recall that due to the deflationary nature of the beast, and the divisibility (2.1e15 satoshis), 800K BTC per day in transactions could represent the combined wealth transfers and economic activity of who knows how many millions of people. So that even a 0.01% average fee (6BTC per block) may easily incentivise quite substantial future mining rigs.
I strongly disagree. I think it's pretty clear from the poll that the majority is for keeping the current system, so there's really no point in forking the blockchain.
Free software organisations are not democratic. When someone doesn't agree with the majority, he doesn't have to "obey". He can just fork the sotfware. Democracy is not freedom, it's dictatorship of the majority towards minority. Fortunately it doesn't prevail in FOSS.
Jump to: