Quote from: kkaspar on February 27, 2014, 09:27:27 AM

Quote from: raid_n on February 27, 2014, 08:53:08 AM

c) I've told you before that Proof of Work is a robust way of building consensus in such an anonymous probabilistic consensus
Bitcoin is a protocol. If a better method comes along that is guaranteed to work it can be implemented trivially.

Proof-of-Stake is already better and could be implemented but there is no interest in doing that because even the very small decrease in deflation that is created, will put most people off. Most here want as much deflation as possible.
When looking at the past developments and the current discussions on possible developments, then I don't see any hope for important changes.

I disagree. Proof of Stake has not been formally proven to be robust to all attacks. When that happens the discussion becomes relevant.
The proof of work method bitcoin uses relies on sha256 hashing which has been investigated quite thoroughly.

Quote from: kkaspar on February 27, 2014, 09:27:27 AM

Quote from: raid_n on February 27, 2014, 08:53:08 AM

People need to wrap their head around the fact that bitcoin is what the majority of miners use as a protocol.
Anything can be changed, yes this includes the 21 million cap. If everyone adopts a protocol that changes this then
thats that. If some don't agree with this you'd fork bitcoin, effectively creating a new altcoin.

I myself find it funny that bitcoin is called as a protocol to some. Protocol needs to be something neutral without increasing unit price. You don't see e-mail being created in a way where the new adopters have to fill the pockets of the old adopters to join the game. If e-mail would have been created in this way, then people would have found a workaround to create an alternative where everyone can get a fair chance in using this protocol.
These are the wet dreams of bitcoin adopters, that everyone will start using bitcoin and will start filling their pockets in the process. But the world doesn't work like that. There are smart enough people to create alternatives, so people don't have to feed the leeches to use a piece of technology.

Roughly speaking a protocol is merely an agreed upon way of communication. It is neutral in the sense that the protocol is well defined
and you are free to implement code that is compliant with the protocol.

The unit price has absolutely nothing to do with this. In a system where you want to exchange ownership of something you need
to actually create that something. Either you put it all in at the start or you add it. To stick with the protocol concept.
Altcoins that are forks of bitcoin are merely modifications of the protocol where these aspects were changed.

I'll go as far as saying it is impossible to create a system of wealth exchange without having an "unfair" distribution.
Every single altcoin has this exact problem. Look at the discussions on wealth distribution in nxt for instance.

Quote from: kkaspar on February 27, 2014, 09:27:27 AM

Anyway, I like your post because you explained yourself in a calm and constructive manner. I still can't see how bitcoin could survive very long though.

Hey look, its refreshing to have a serious discussion with all the trolling going on these days. Even if we disagree Wink