OROBTC notes his name taken in vain (reply #233)
Thanks for posting. How so in vain? Perhaps I misunderstood what you intended by that word. Perhaps you mean you can't offer "expert" feedback.
And netgold is conceptually what I believe the store-of-value ("tin foil hat", hard money, "sound" money, or anti-central banks) folks such as OROBTC et al and perhaps rpietila want.
Any way just in case you thought I was accusing you of being a "tin foil hat", I wrote that "I believe" (meaning not an assertion of fact but "afaik") that OROBTC adheres to one "or" more of the following demographic categories: "'tin foil hat', hard money, 'sound' money, or anti-central banks". Meaning that I think there a market of men who believe in concepts such as those and they are prevalent in the Bitcoin ecosystem. I did not necessarily assume you are a "tin foil hat", but yet I do see you appear to at times write affirmatively to those theories from GATA et al about how the gold market is manipulated. Btw, I used to trade emails daily with Bill Murphy from GATA. They are no where near Armstrong's league. Any way, it is not my role here as a marketer to determine the facts of the gold market. I am merely identifying and targeting preferences of different market segments.
A "Store of Value" coin would be interesting for me to look at, but TPTB is going in other directions. SoV coins would be attractive only to a small minority with mind-sets similar to my own. And Asian young girls (young latinas as well) just aren't on my wavelength. Nor would I even have a clue how to design a crypto to even BE a Store of Value.
* * *
I would note that "Bitcoin" to me sounds like a great name to me. Very snappy, *crack*! Digital, yet money.
You may not realize I am proposing to have two currencies, netcodes and netgold. The latter would be conservative and a debasement rate similar to gold and thus be a "store-of-value" marketing concept (similar to the 21 million coins hard limit concept for Bitcoin).
I think you will find it is not a small demographic (w.r.t. to Bitcoin's current demographics, yet maybe small relative to the 6 billion) and many, many people demand that Bitcoin's 21 million coin limit not be violated.
The netcodes currency would be separate and is intended to be more of a transactional currency.
Bitcoin of course doesn't mean just digital money, because nearly all fiat is digital money these days.
What you mean is that Bitcoin is some form of autonomous code (some binary bits) that you can control autonomously, i.e. the private key codes are held in your control.I am thinking netgold could capture that same concept while also indicating that it is intended to mimick gold for the network.
Bitcoin can't decide if it wants to be a transactional currency or a store-of-value, e.g. if you scale up the block chain to support high TX/s, then the mining becomes more centralized so it loses it's autonomous, permission-less security (especially given Bitcoin's design is subject to selfish mining and 51% attacks). There is a fight on going about keeping Bitcoin for hobbiest miners and letting all the scaling to happen in side-networks such as Lightning Networks, but this belies technical understanding because LN still requires block chain scaling. Thus netgold would be a more certain demarcation from netcodes and the (so far) hapless Bitcoin technical quagmire.