Quote from: stan.distortion on June 28, 2014, 12:49:12 PM

Quote from: Cassius on June 28, 2014, 12:42:37 PM

Quote from: aminorex on June 28, 2014, 12:00:11 PM

Quote from: altsay on June 28, 2014, 11:42:39 AM

Always keep one of your eyes on alternative cryptos that offer innovation.

While many p2p protocols are useful, cramming every app into a freaking currency is asinine.

To be good enough as a currency to compete for the monopoly position of liquidity provider requires a laser focus on that specific end. Any added functions create a tax on the economy of the whole market. Liquidity abhors friction.

There are other far better, far more efficient, far more honest ways to incentivize the maintenance of a block chain for your bittorrent or twitter or whatever.

Any " innovations" that amount to embedding a tiny little lobotomized robotic Ben Bernanke into every computer on the Internet are quite unlikely to add any value. Like lifetime of the universe unlikely.

You aren't going to improve chopsticks. You aren't going to improve the core function of liquidity - just make it efficiently usable. Any " innovation" that makes it less efficiently usable is a SCAM.

Does this not beg the question? Or words to that effect.
If you create a P2P currency and pile on lots of other features that restrict that function, that's a Bad Thing.
If you create a platform for a digital economy and cash transfer happens to be one of the features that is leveraged for that ends, why is that a Bad Thing? Especially as useful functions are going to attract different people, thus bringing greater liquidity.

That's the point of a programmable currency, the core system can stick to the KISS principle while allowing any amount of complex functions to be added externally. Some (a very few) of the alts have innovative features but nearly all of them can be implemented on top of Bitcoin and its by far the toughest network.

This makes sense but I'm not familiar enough with the protocol to know whether including certain features would make building particular applications easier or more effective. It seems inelegant, for example, to build an application to enable instant transactions and real-time trading on top of the bitcoin protocol, due to the 10-minute block time. I'm still on the fence on this one, though in practice I suspect people will use the option that works out-of-the-box. There's the friction that occurs within the protocol/system itself and the friction that occurs between user and protocol.

Your sig quote is one of my favourites, but sadly it's not one of mine. I've no idea where it comes from - couldn't find an original source.