Quote from: Ulysses on June 01, 2011, 12:07:49 AM

1) OP have 25000 BTC.
2) OP wants to destroy some part of BTC mined.
3) OP won't destroy his BTC.
4) The less total BTC we have, the more they are valuable.

Conclusion?

Let's see if I can recast this in Ayn Rand terms...

1) OP can afford a Ferrari.
2) OP wants a Lear jet (go OP!)
3) OP is insightful, daring, and innovative (my hero!)
4) The cloud of seigniorage threatens the market value of OP's portfolio.
5) OP wants to create and profit from something of greater value than all the world's BTC.

Does that look better?

Getting back to the "antidote" that this post is about, I really don't see the need to support BTC destruction as a way to create BCP. It is complicated and probably controversial, as it seems to attack BTC in an unfriendly, not to say unfair way. A little patience with minting the new currency would, in my opinion, pay off better in the long run. A BTC<->BC2 exchange would be very straightforward to set up (technically, not to say legally) and would be the way to distribute the new currency to non-miners.

I also no longer feel the need to "poll" miners prior to working on a genesis block as I outlined in another thread. The initial difficulty should be on the order of 10,000 to 100,000 (or 2-20% of BTC difficulty at the time). And the project (and supporting software) should be widely advertised among Bitcoiners, so anyone who might be interested can make a conscious decision whether to join at the outset. Apart from that, we do not have to regulate the generation speed of the first blocks.

In a few years' time, assuming ASIC mining or quantum mining overtakes GPU mining, there may arise a perception that yet another startup currency would hold more value than BC2. And that would be fine.