Quote from: Serge on July 15, 2011, 05:45:51 AM

Quote from: cunicula on July 15, 2011, 05:32:44 AM

Yes, but afaik this system has never been tested. If the system is effective that should be demonstrated by putting it in use. Without a demonstration it seems like cheap talk to me.

It is already working fine. Or are you suggesting to implement some extreme radical changes and see how people will react to it?

About switching costs. Yes, of course this is correct in principle. Either bitcoin's combination of quality and network effects are already sufficient to discourage entry from competitors, or they are not yet sufficient. I vote for not yet sufficient. The protocol has serious deficiencies in the areas of i) incentives for adoption ii) provision of insurance against price changes iii) wallet security. The network is still small. Adjusting the merchant infrastructure is costly, but the existing merchant infrastructure is extremely small. Demand for coins is larger, but this comes from speculators and they can switch to a new speculative investment at very low cost. Thus, I don't see the argument for large switching costs. A judgement call is involved here. I can understand your POV, but disagree with it.

About wealth. I think that bitcoin should be set-up like a joint-stock company one coin, one vote. Coin holders, not client downloaders, have the best incentives to maintain the value of the bitcoin economy. There are theoretical problems with the expropriation of minority shareholders. I'm sceptical that bitcoin would encounter these problems, however, because minority shareholders also make up the user base. You can't expropriate them without destroying the value of bitcoin assets. I will not be discussing US politics with anyone in this thread.