Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VqK2q-0007Ks-Fi for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:56:00 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.41 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.41; envelope-from=ryacko@gmail.com; helo=mail-wg0-f41.google.com; Received: from mail-wg0-f41.google.com ([74.125.82.41]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VqK2p-0006qL-Gv for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:56:00 +0000 Received: by mail-wg0-f41.google.com with SMTP id y10so4444861wgg.4 for ; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:55:53 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.180.188.175 with SMTP id gb15mr13268995wic.50.1386669353257; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:55:53 -0800 (PST) Sender: ryacko@gmail.com Received: by 10.194.156.194 with HTTP; Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:55:53 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 01:55:53 -0800 X-Google-Sender-Auth: OyemTtGD7MUQY25VwlgTfdei5OE Message-ID: From: Ryan Carboni To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c25ef838d06c04ed2b1e31 X-Spam-Score: -0.6 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (ryacko[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature X-Headers-End: 1VqK2p-0006qL-Gv Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Bitcoin-development Digest, Vol 31, Issue 25 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: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 09:56:00 -0000 --001a11c25ef838d06c04ed2b1e31 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > I believe that if there ever becomes a consensus that Bitcoin?s inflation > parameters were a show-stopper for the Bitcoin economy, that the power to > correct it lies with merchants, who would vote for changing the rules. I > believe they would do this not 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 believe such an alt coin would have its genesis at > around the time that consensus moved toward accepting inflation, rather > than adopting the seignorage of some other alt coin out there today. > Agreed Mike. The economic parameters of Bitcoin are fixed in stone forever. Adding a monetary authority to Bitcoin is impossible and undesirable because the implicit contract of Bitcoin is that there would finally be a currency in which no one could mess around with. It would betray all prior holders. But these are ideas everyone is free to experiment with in new altcoins. If the lack of inflation in Bitcoin ever becomes a problem in day-to-day usage, such a parallel chain could become the de-facto cryptocurrency for spending. Or just maybe fiat already works well enough there... Wladimir -------------- -------------- How do you propose to use Bitcoin on a week-long vacation or for life in general, when it's value constantly swings up and down? Or for the average person's paycheck to swing up and down in value every week? Awfully hard to budget. There is also a catch-22, no altcoin can gain acceptance because the infrastructure for Bitcoin already exists, but without infrastructure, no altcoin can gain acceptance. Furthermore, the average merchant or consumer lacks the idealism or knowledge to bring about such changes in Bitcoin. It's a lofty idea that the average person will bring about such change when they don't bring about such change already in their own lives. It is ironic considering that there's no Bitcoin "chamber of commerce," just a few programmers in a development mailing list who direct the future of Bitcoin, and thus these merchants you speak of have little to no voice what so ever, with a few exceptions of merchants who do subscribe to this mailing list. What I am proposing makes sound economic sense. It is the only way to fix the speculation crisis. Just ask an economist. And the economic parameters of bitcoin are not fixed in stone. If there needs to be a change, it will be messy but it could happen. Besides, using Austrian precepts of inflation blurs the fact that deflation will still be possible under my proposal. Although amusingly enough Austrian-defined inflation is still occurring within Bitcoin, in fact faster then desired since blocks are being processed every seven minutes now as opposed to ten, and it's quite likely when 28nm ASIC miners are released that blocks will be processed every five minutes before the difficulty is adjusted again. --001a11c25ef838d06c04ed2b1e31 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> I believe that if there ever becomes a consensus that Bitcoin?= s inflation
> parameters= were a show-stopper for the Bitcoin economy, that the power to
> correct it lies with merchants, = who would vote for changing the rules. =A0I
> believe th= ey would do this not by changing Bitcoin, but by accepting, in
> parallel, a brand new alt coin th= at reflects the consensus as to how the
> inflation = should be. =A0I believe such an alt coin would have its genesis at> around the time that consensu= s moved toward accepting inflation, rather
> than adopt= ing the seignorage of some other alt coin out there today.
>

Agreed Mike.

The economic pa= rameters of Bitcoin are fixed in stone forever. Adding a
monetary authority to Bitcoin is impossible = and undesirable because the
implicit contra= ct of Bitcoin is that there would finally be a currency in
which no one could mess around with. It w= ould betray all prior holders.

But these are ideas everyone is = free to experiment with in new altcoins. If
the lack of inf= lation in Bitcoin ever becomes a problem in day-to-day
usage, such a parallel chain could become the = de-facto cryptocurrency for
spending. Or ju= st maybe fiat already works well enough there...

Wladimir=
-------------- --------------
How do yo= u propose to use Bitcoin on a week-long vacation or for life in general, wh= en it's value constantly swings up and down? Or for the average person&= #39;s paycheck to swing up and down in value every week? Awfully hard to bu= dget. There is also a catch-22, no altcoin can gain acceptance because the = infrastructure for Bitcoin already exists, but without infrastructure, no a= ltcoin can gain acceptance. Furthermore, the average merchant or consumer l= acks the idealism or knowledge to bring about such changes in Bitcoin. It&#= 39;s a lofty idea that the average person will bring about such change when= they don't bring about such change already in their own lives. It is i= ronic considering that there's no Bitcoin "chamber of commerce,&qu= ot; just a few programmers in a development mailing list who direct the fut= ure of Bitcoin, and thus these merchants you speak of have little to no voi= ce what so ever, with a few exceptions of merchants who do subscribe to thi= s mailing list.
What I am propo= sing makes sound economic sense. It is the only way to fix the speculation = crisis.
Just ask an economist.

And the econo= mic parameters of bitcoin are not fixed in stone. If there needs to be a ch= ange, it will be messy but it could happen.

Besides, usin= g Austrian precepts of inflation blurs the fact that deflation will still b= e possible under my proposal. Although amusingly enough Austrian-defined in= flation is still=A0occurring=A0within Bitcoin, in fact faster then desired = since blocks are being processed every seven=A0minutes now as opposed to te= n, and it's quite likely when 28nm ASIC miners are released that blocks= will be processed every five minutes before the difficulty is adjusted aga= in.
--001a11c25ef838d06c04ed2b1e31--