1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
|
Return-Path: <pshirkey@boosthardware.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B0AF8D8C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:15:00 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from boosthardware.localdomain (boosthardware.com [88.198.122.139])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E0DF61BF
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:14:59 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by boosthardware.localdomain (Postfix, from userid 48)
id 8036716401F; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:14:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from 178.73.210.16
(SquirrelMail authenticated user pshirkey@boosthardware.com)
by boosthardware.com with HTTP; Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:14:56 +1100 (EST)
Message-ID: <44382.178.73.210.16.1457000096.squirrel@boosthardware.com>
In-Reply-To: <20160302230213.GA888@muck>
References: <201603021456.15820.luke@dashjr.org>
<201603021542.29609.luke@dashjr.org> <56D71488.4080607@gmail.com>
<CAE-z3OWA0sn+=+qqs8BtiBe7T9Qdb4G8XAS_bX4hScq225iZQQ@mail.gmail.com>
<00e101d174b5$f2659060$d730b120$@voskuil.org>
<20160302230213.GA888@muck>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 21:14:56 +1100 (EST)
From: "Patrick Shirkey" <pshirkey@boosthardware.com>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.8-5.el5.centos.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Importance: Normal
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 14:58:11 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Hardfork to fix difficulty drop algorithm
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Mar 2016 10:15:00 -0000
On Thu, March 3, 2016 10:02 am, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:36AM -0800, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>> > A 6 month investment with 3 months on the high subsidy and 3 months on
>> low subsidy would not be made…
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, this is the essential point. All capital investments are made based
>> on expectations of future returns. To the extent that futures are
>> perfectly knowable, they can be perfectly factored in. This is why
>> inflation in Bitcoin is not a tax, it’s a cost. These step functions
>> are made continuous by their predictability, removing that
>> predictability will make them -- unpredictable.
>
> You know, I do agree with you.
>
> But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that
> strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change
> any rule currently in Bitcoin.
>
> It'd be perfectly reasonable to create an altcoin with a 22-million-coin
> limit and an inflation schedule that had smooth, rather than abrupt,
> drops. It'd also be reasonable to make that altcoin start with the same
> UTXO set as Bitcoin as a means of initial coin distribution.
>
> If miners choose to start mining that altcoin en-mass on the halving,
> all the more power to them. It's our choice whether or not we buy those
> coins. We may choose not to, but if 95% of the hashing power decides to
> go mine something different we have to accept that under our current
> chosen rules confirmations might take a long time.
>
>
> Of course, personally I agree with Gregory Maxwell: this is all fairly
> unlikely to happen, so the discussion is academic. But we'll see.
>
Bitcoin is a success.
The success has forced various hardfork discussions.
Hard forking is contentious. If a softfork cannot be achieved the
alternate to a hardfork is creating a new bitcoin. ex bitcoin 2.0
Similar to silver, gold, palladium, etc...
Bitcoins success partly stems from it's brand awareness. Any new
officially supported bitcoin will also benefit from this brand awareness.
If the market values the new improved bitcoin they will put their money
into it. This doesn't require any consensus.
Let the market decide which option has the most value. If everyone
switches to the new bitcoin then the old bitcoin miners will follow.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
|
