Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VqA1K-00082Q-Ib for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:13:46 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of swipeclock.com designates 64.95.72.253 as permitted sender) client-ip=64.95.72.253; envelope-from=mcaldwell@swipeclock.com; helo=mxout.myoutlookonline.com; Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com ([64.95.72.253]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.76) id 1VqA1I-0006bm-Lu for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:13:46 +0000 Received: from mxout.myoutlookonline.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1EDF7556F6E for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:57:31 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: by SpamTitan at mail.lan Received: from HUB016.mail.lan (unknown [10.110.2.1]) by mxout.myoutlookonline.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01D55556F6F for ; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:57:30 -0500 (EST) Received: from MAILR023.mail.lan ([10.110.18.123]) by HUB016.mail.lan ([10.110.17.16]) with mapi; Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:57:29 -0500 From: Mike Caldwell To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 17:57:26 -0500 Thread-Topic: [Bitcoin-development] Monetary Authority for Bitcoin Thread-Index: Ac71LXAwPwXh/qbVSm6yZFmRhf12dQAArtQg Message-ID: References: <20131209221130.GA22556@shavo.dd-wrt> In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_B09A5DE3EF411243BB3328232CD25A5DABFF021E7AMAILR023maill_" MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [64.95.72.253 listed in list.dnswl.org] -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: wpsoftware.net] 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message X-Headers-End: 1VqA1I-0006bm-Lu Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Monetary Authority for Bitcoin X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 09 Dec 2013 23:13:46 -0000 --_000_B09A5DE3EF411243BB3328232CD25A5DABFF021E7AMAILR023maill_ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable For what it's worth, once upon a time I pushed this agenda on Bitcointalk. = I'd say early 2011 or so. The response I got was so strong and unanimous = in favor of this point being absolutely non-negotiable that if the money su= pply were anything other than fixed, Bitcoin may as well be pretend e-dolla= rs. I was not just persuaded against it, I was put in my place. I believe that if there ever becomes a consensus that Bitcoin's inflation p= arameters were a show-stopper for the Bitcoin economy, that the power to co= rrect it lies with merchants, who would vote for changing the rules. I bel= ieve they would do this not by changing Bitcoin, but by accepting, in paral= lel, a brand new alt coin that reflects the consensus as to how the inflati= on should be. I believe such an alt coin would have its genesis at around = the time that consensus moved toward accepting inflation, rather than adopt= ing the seignorage of some other alt coin out there today. Mike/Casascius From: Ryan Carboni [mailto:ryan.jc.pc@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 3:24 PM To: apoelstra@wpsoftware.net Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Monetary Authority for Bitcoin It is not a violation of the trust of those holding the currency. Many peop= le bought Bitcoin in the hopes that it's value in the relation of other cur= rencies will increase, not because there's a fixed money supply. The majori= ty of people using Bitcoin as a currency in exchange for real goods are usi= ng the exchanges. My proposal will still allow for 4.9% semi-weekly variations in the price = of Bitcoin, allowing for it to appreciate 11,800% per year. On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Andrew Poelstra > wrote: On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 02:01:07PM -0800, Ryan Carboni wrote: > This is no doubt probably a very controversial Bitcoin Improvement Propos= al > and is also a very rough draft of one. > Ryan, you can stop there already because any change to the inflation formula (supposing such a thing is even possible, which it's not) would be a violation of the trust of those holding the currency, who obtained it while believing that its inflation algorithm would not change. -- Andrew Poelstra Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net Web: http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew "If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen Dick Cheney worries about, I would have finished high school." --Edward Snowden --_000_B09A5DE3EF411243BB3328232CD25A5DABFF021E7AMAILR023maill_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

For what = it’s worth, once upon a time I pushed this agenda on Bitcointalk.&nbs= p; I’d say early 2011 or so.  The response I got was so strong a= nd unanimous in favor of this point being absolutely non-negotiable that if= the money supply were anything other than fixed, Bitcoin may as well be pr= etend e-dollars.  I was not just persuaded against it, I was put in my= place.

 <= /span>

I believe that if there ever becomes = a consensus that Bitcoin’s inflation parameters were a show-stopper f= or the Bitcoin economy, that the power to correct it lies with merchants, w= ho would vote for changing the rules.  I believe they would do this no= t by changing Bitcoin, but by accepting, in parallel, a brand new alt coin = that reflects the consensus as to how the inflation should be.  I beli= eve such an alt coin would have its genesis at around the time that consens= us moved toward accepting inflation, rather than adopting the seignorage of= some other alt coin out there today.

 

Mike/Ca= sascius

 <= /span>

 

From: Ryan Carboni [mailto:ryan.jc.pc= @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, December 09, 2013 3:24 PM
To: apoelstra@wpsoftware.net
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourcefo= rge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Monetary Authority for= Bitcoin

 

It is not a violation of the trust of those holding the currency. Many pe= ople bought Bitcoin in the hopes that it's value in the relation of other c= urrencies will increase, not because there's a fixed money supply. The majo= rity of people using Bitcoin as a currency in exchange for real goods are u= sing the exchanges.

 

 My proposal will still allow for 4.9% semi-weekly va= riations in the price of Bitcoin, allowing for it to appreciate 11,800% per= year.

 

On M= on, Dec 9, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Andrew Poelstra <asp11@sfu.ca> wrote:

On Mon, Dec 09, 2013 at 02:01:07PM -0800, Ryan= Carboni wrote:
> This is no doubt probably a very controversial Bitc= oin Improvement Proposal
> and is also a very rough draft of one.
= >

Ryan, you can st= op there already because any change to the inflation
formula (supposing = such a thing is even possible, which it's not)
would be a violation of t= he trust of those holding the currency, who
obtained it while believing = that its inflation algorithm would not
change.

--
Andrew P= oelstra
Email: apoelstra at wpsoftware.net
Web:   http://www.wpsoftware.net/andrew

"If they had taught a class on how to be the kind of citizen= Dick Cheney
 worries about, I would ha= ve finished high school."   --Edward Snowden

 

= --_000_B09A5DE3EF411243BB3328232CD25A5DABFF021E7AMAILR023maill_--