Quote from: Skinnkavaj on September 10, 2014, 02:51:08 PM

Quote from: dga on September 10, 2014, 02:42:30 PM

http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/

Indeed - why settle for a 1% ongoing dev fee when you can instead own more than 5% of the total number of coins that will ever be created?

I'd suggest looking to Linux as a better example of an alternate: Most of the core kernel development work is done by people who work for companies (Intel, IBM, Google, etc.) that have collectively decided that Linux is so useful they want to make sure it stays around by subsidizing its development. This isn't a bad model for Bitcoin either -- if, e.g., the exchanges all paid for one full-time developer. But it doesn't work for a "startup" coin that doesn't have a well established ecosystem.

Perhaps rpietila's MEW is good enough - or better. But coding takes money, because most coders like to eat and feed their families.

Satoshi mined the coins himself, everyone had equal chance to mine. So there is nothing wrong with his stash at all. He had to pay for mining to obtain the coins and so he did.

The Bitcoin Core developers have discussed bounties many times, and come to conclusion it leads to people stressing out bad quality code just to collect the paycheck.

(a) The ecosystem difference between 2009 and now is huge. An altcoin cannot necessarily do what Satoshi did. For example, fluffypony and tacotime did not mine substantial fractions of the XMR output in its early days. Some annoying miner unrelated to the project did.

(b) Ongoing 1% dev fee is very different from a bounty. It incents longer term goodness. I *think*.

But - gotta get back to real work. I think we're starting to go in circles and agree to disagree.