Quote from: Red on April 13, 2013, 06:01:12 PM

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 05:16:55 PM

I'm quoting this post because I'm worried you missed it the first time.

You wrote your post as if you were trying to make a rhetorical point.

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 04:27:41 PM

The problem with proof-of-work is that in order to make the ledger impeachable, people need to throw real-world value into a hole.

It turns out this is no longer true. Keeping an impeachable ledger is pretty trivial. Lots of industries do it with much less computing power. Preserving the illusion that all that computing power is important, is the primary use of that computer power now.

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 04:27:41 PM

The unfortunate result is that a lot of people early on in the project got a lot of coins...

The problem is not that they got "a lot of coins". The problem is that they got a large percentage out of a fixed set of coins. Had they gotten a large number of coins out of an unbounded set of coins there would be no problem at all.

Quote from: Qoheleth on April 13, 2013, 04:27:41 PM

So then... what? If this is a troubling result of the network rules, what rules would have worked better? How do you distribute newly created BTC in a "fair" way, when an anonymous system means that Sybil shenanigans are trivial? How do you incentivize mining, except via block rewards?

I'm sincerely interested in hearing your ideas.

Most of the "steady value" models involve generating and destroying coins on an as needed basis. None have been implemented yet (as far as I know) because there isn't a ground swell of interest in creating a currency in which the early adopters don't get rich.

However, for insights you might consider learning about Local Exchange Trading Systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_exchange_trading_system

Suppose Alice grows Apples, Bob grows Beans, and Charlie makes Cheese. But none of them have any money.
Now if Bob wants an Apple, but Alice doesn't want Beans, then in a LETS system they agree on a price $1 and Alice gives Bob an Apple. The transaction is accounted for using double entry book keeping. Alice + $1, Bob - $1. With LETS it is OK to have a negative balance (within limits)
Now Alice wants $1 worth of Cheese so Charlie gives it to her. Balances now are:
Alice = 0
Charley = +1
Bob = -1
Finally Charlie wants $1 from Bob so he gives them to him. That puts all balances back at zero again.
No currency exists at the moment, because no currency is needed.
When currency is needed again, it is simply created. A flexible currency supply is indeed a magical thing!

Compare that to Bitcoin.
Say I have a Ferrari and you want to buy my Ferrari but neither of us have Bitcoins.
It should be a transaction that only involves us, it shouldn't make anyone else richer. But with bitcoin, of course, it does.
How do we know how many Bitcoins is a Ferraris worth? Early adopters get to decide. Something about that seems fishy. :-)

This thread rocks

I liked most of your post red

However this LETS system yiu talk about is counter party or central counter party based

Without that book keeper it will fail

Also people have to be some how accountable...else that guy who has a minus 1 can refuse to pay and scr3w the system

Bit coin doesn't believe in that central counter party or minus one ...so has an advantage

The biggest problem I see in the bit coin theory is that early adopters get very rich easily and the rest are left languishing

That graph ... Line should have NOT have been so parabolic

After reading revans one start wondering about the reasons why it is parabolic

Regards