Search content
Sort by

Showing 4 of 4 results by Akiron
Post
Topic
Board Bitcoin Discussion
Re: I'm the Bitcoin Roadtrip guy. I'm planning to live in Portland, OR on BTC alone.
by
Akiron
on 27/08/2011, 03:39:05 UTC
Yo guys it's been months since I've had the time to heavily post here, hi to all the new folks!

I crossed the country from Hartford to Los Angeles spending only Bitcoins. I left in April and arrived in June. Now I'm in Portland and my friend and I are thinking about setting up a household that only spends Bitcoins.

Some additional details on Reddit.

BTW, Props go to mpkomara and lyspooner on IRC for the idea!

Awesome Plato! When you have things going, PM me an address and I'll donate a few more BTC.
Post
Topic
Board Project Development
Re: Goldcoin and Stablecoin proposals
by
Akiron
on 08/08/2011, 21:48:19 UTC
I have a very similar idea, but much prefer to peg generation and destruction rates to difficulty growth rather than market prices.

My issue with pegging generation/destruction to market prices is that it requires a third party to supply accurate price information to the system forever. Two issues with this:
a) this is very centralized; take out the third party and you take out the coin
b) the third party could benefit from supplying inaccurate information.

An ostensibly attractive option is to allow users to vote on prices, but this does create incentives to supply truthful information. A voting system can ensure that everyone supplies similar information, but it cannot ensure that this information is truthful. There is no apparent economic reason why people will form a consensus around the truth instead of forming a consensus around a lie.

Pegging generation and destruction to difficulty growth (for example to achieve 50% annual difficulty growth) does not require the supply of outside price information. The relevant information is in the blockchain already. Linking coin generation and destruction to difficulty would ensure that the coin price approximately tracks the electricity price (I am assuming Moore's law will continue to hold).

There are certain features of this idea which would make it very difficult for anyone to profitably manipulate difficulty, but I don't want to go into the details because most people have short attention spans.



An alternative way to achieve this would be a method I call "one block, one vote". Under this system, everytime a block is mined, the miner may specify the amount of coins that will be received by a future miner a given number of blocks into the future. To prevent wild oscillations, the amount that can be specified would be limited to some range around an average of previous blocks. Under such a system, the price level would be determined by the equilibrium between new miner hash power trying to push up the inflation rate and existing wealth holders trying to push the inflation rate down. My hypothesis is that such an equilibrium would lead to roughly stable prices.

I am currently working on a patch for Multicoin ( http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=24209.0 ) to enable blockchains to use this method. Since I am neither a professional programmer, nor an expert on the bitcoin source code, I welcome help from those interested in this topic.
 


Post
Topic
Board Marketplace
Re: What's did mybitcoin walk away with?
by
Akiron
on 02/08/2011, 22:56:25 UTC
25 BTC... also since this may prove useful, my address was 13kDg6YLvK8eT2fkbdAARhFCZAPDRjJ9mR
Post
Topic
Board Beginners & Help
Re: Whitelist Requests (Want out of here?)
by
Akiron
on 14/07/2011, 15:45:23 UTC
I've been a member of the forum for two months. I have mostly lurked, but have posted (and started the wiki topic) on one subject of interest to me:

http://forum.bitcoin.org/index.php?topic=9300.msg151074#msg151074
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Bitcoin_Days_Destroyed

Set me free from these chains!   Cheesy