Imagine if Satoshi were paid in Devcoins instead. If Satoshi had millions of Devcoins, or even billions, it just would not work because there is no reason to mine Devcoins when 90% of profits go to the developers. Ethicoin has the advantage here in that it's fairly distributed 50/50 which to me makes a lot of sense.
Actually i suspect it makes less sense.
I think it might make more sense to limit each group/category to 10%, not jsut the miners.
Like maybe 10% for miners, 10% for writers, 10% for coders, 10% for businesses, 10% for media presences (e.g. websites), 10% for hardware 9the chips and circuit boards and 3d printers and spaceships and so on), etc. not sure of 10 good categories offhand so maybe a few floating tithes, used to add focus to one or more of the categories at times when a specific category is temporarily needing more work than the others?
Half for merged-mining, half for everyone else seems way too miner-centric, but I guess that is why they don't plan to merged-mine: they are struggling to come up with the next major pump and dump coin so obviously need the miners to get lots of money fast and to get the lion's share, and merged mining would too clearly undercut the "importance" of the pump and dumpers er I mean miners...
-MarkM-
Mining at this time and probably into the future is the best way to actually distribute the coins and money initially. Without miners how exactly do you distribute coins / profits and how do you keep the hash rate up?
I don't know what is going to happen with Ethicoin, but I do agree that 50% for miners and 50% for everyone else is fair. I sense you just have a bias against miners but that is based on your emotional disgust at pump and dump coins. I don't admire pump and dump coins any more than you do, but I also recognize that mining is the best way to distribute coins initially. There could be better ways but right now mining is the best way to get Bitcoins or Litecoins or any other kind of coins. How else are you supposed to get some?
You're referring to speculation and savings, which are not the sole foundations of a currency.
I agree, but neither is credit and debt. I prefer speculating and saving over credit and debt and this is why I promote deflationary currencies like Bitcoin. We simply don't need big spending anymore in a world which is becoming so high tech but also too polluted and potentially over populated.
Facebook was free, Bitcoin is not. No comparison anyhow as amongst other things bitcoin is not claiming to be a fad.
How is Bitcoin not free? Anyone can send you some mBTC in a tip. It's not completely free because someone pays for it with electricity, but neither is Facebook. You pay for Facebook by giving up privacy which turns privacy into a commodity to be bought and sold for a price.
Don't mistake a network effect and the luxury of risks taken with existing wealth by an already comparitively wealthy subset, to the ability to shoehorn ordinary people from their hard-earned money. I'm not at all negative on cryptocurrencies in general, in fact I'm incredibly optimistic, only making the point that the winner will not be bitcoin as is.
Bitcoin is money, and what stops people from earning Bitcoin and not wanting to give up their hard earned Bitcoin money for fiat? The same dynamic can work in reverse where Bitcoin wealthy wont ever want to go back to fiat and will do everything in their power to grow Bitcoin and bait people into it. I think with enough sales, rebates, points, Bitcoin exclusive products, music, films, that over time people will have to go to Bitcoin for Bitcoin exclusive content.
That is why I'm all about content. The content is what attracts people to Facebook after Facebook became big and it's what keeps people there. Bitcoin will grow by network effect but also by exclusive content. Right now unfortunately that content is only stuff on Silk Road but in the future it will be many kinds of products and services which only make sense to buy with Bitcon which will force people to buy Bitcoins.
Right this is where we really part company. You would be absolutely correct, except you’re missing the pivotal point that any transaction requires two sides, including for Bitcoin. And to achieve any of the things you refer to beyond saving somebody is going to have to take the shitty side of a hoarded deflationary asset.
I don't know what you mean by the shitty side. All you will have to do is work for Bitcoin instead of dollars and suddenly you have Bitcoins. You're telling me that I can't set up a website right now which streams movies only to people who pay in Bitcoins? The benefit of this streaming site is that it would be completely anonymous for the users which means by using Bitcoins they would achieve privacy. The benefit for me is that I'd get to host the site and make a profit charging a small fee for each stream or even a monthly fee similar to Netflix. You're telling me that people wont pay for multimedia? Of course they will, they already do. When you can see what you want to see streamed to you whenever you want to see it without a contract, without a name, without any strings attached, just pay the Bitcoin and presto, this alone would grow the market cap on both ends. The viewers would pay to see the films or amateur movies, the hosts would take their cut for streaming it, the film makers would get their cut to make it.
(a) Why and how any borrower or anyone on the shitty side of bitcoin credit would choose to borrow in bitcoins when they can instead elect to borrow in stable or inflationary currency.
I don't know what you mean by the "shitty side" of Bitcoin credit. Are you saying why would the Bitcoin have nots choose to borrow Bitcoins vs dollars? Maybe if you are poor you shouldn't be borrowing in the first place, but if you are going to borrow then it wont make a difference in the future if you borrow from coinlenders or from somewhere else.
I don't think we should encourage poor people to borrow though, even if they can make margin trades or go to coinlenders.
(b) If (a) is a problem, how the Bitcoin infrastructure persists without consistent interest in that side of the balance sheet
I don't understand what you're saying here.
(c) If you don’t think (a) is a problem, how Bitcoin would support both the asset and liability sides of transaction, borrowers and lenders, buying and selling with credit/upfront/assured future goods and services delivery etc.
I don't think (a) will be a problem because Ripple will solve the problem and OT may solve it also.
Yes there will be other coins. Bitcoin does not have to be a niche but it will be when it's quite a straightforward proposition to establish ones own blockchain, call it Wallmartcoin or VisaCoin or Devcoin etc with a foundation that better serves the needs of all users (i.e. that there are more of them).
Let them try. But when the majority of businesses accept Bitcoin it isn't going to work. The reason it wont work is because people today are becoming millionaires from Bitcoin and eventually there will be billionaires. These billionaires will control the cryptocurrency industry, not random newcomers with new coins. I'm saying the early adopters in Bitcoin will be established, organized, and will be the big players in the cryptocurrency industry and the little coins will have a very difficult time changing the landscape. The old guard will have benefited from the deflationary aspects of Bitcoin and you're not going to be able to change the minds of people who became billionaires because they bought thousands or mined tens of thousands of Bitcoins in 2010 or 2011. These people will own hundreds of ASICminer shares and will own stocks in many other companies as well and as the shareholders these individuals may decide they like the deflationary aspect.
What will make matters even worse for you is that people right now are following the same path, buying Bitcoins, learning to appreciate the deflationary aspects of it, and in 2016 these people could be millionaires as well. What will happen is journalists are going to start interviewing more and more Bitcoin millionaires and billionaires and do you think these people who grew up poor or working class and through Bitcoin became rich are going to decide suddenly that Bitcoin has a flawed design? It never happens. And people who get in at 2016 will see what happened for people who got in at 2013, or 2011, or 2010, and they'll choose Bitcoin merely because by choosing Bitcoin they'll be better off.
I don't think anything can stop that trend from happening except making Bitcoin illegal. if Bitcoin is legal and people start becoming millionaires and billionaires overnight, then there can be other more stable coins, coins with better technology, stuff like Ripple with establishment support, but ultimately a billion dollars is cooler than a million. A thousand is cooler than a hundred. A hundred is cooler than ten. Ten is cooler than one.
