Search content
Sort by
Showing 16 of 16 results by Heaviside
Re: ** The REAL Reason Quark is the MOST Popular Coin now & Why it's Under Attack **
...
One good way is to invest in Quark Coin.
Wow, that was really insightful. I think another reason of Quark's popularity is the intelligent community behind it (one doesn't usually see any kind of coherent analysis from other coins fanboys, who are just trying to pump their alts). I will buy some QRK immediately. Fight the system!One good way is to invest in Quark Coin.
Hey guys,
Why does the number of bitcoins in circulation follow a log-curve, and not linear (or perhaps of another shape)? What are the advantages of this approach?
Why does the number of bitcoins in circulation follow a log-curve, and not linear (or perhaps of another shape)? What are the advantages of this approach?
If you have unlimited supply, Bitcoin would be priced at 0.01$ and not 1000$....
I then scanned the same document that was refused again and to my delight it was accepted the next day.
+1,if refused, print and scan your phone bill, they should accept.
Thanks everyone,
so I see that the general consensus is that Bitcoin mimics a precious mineral. From your explanations it does seem natural, but why is it better than a linear distribution?
With a linear distribution the demand/supply ratio would still grow as Bitcoin would gain popularity (and thus difficulty would increase), so the price would still go up and bitcoins would remain scarce and difficult to obtain. Early adopters would still be decently rewarded. And since bitcoins are divisible, I don't see a problem with whether there a a lot / a few coins already in the circulation.
But a log-distribution benefits the early adopters even more and makes it less and less probable with time that a newcomer will mine, thus compromising the decentralization, doesn't it? I mean, this probability would already be dropping with the difficulty rising, and they half it every 3 years on top of that...
As I was typing this, I thought that perhaps this is designed to soften the transition from free transactions to necessary transaction fees? Perhaps they were afraid that an abrupt change would shatter the network in some way? (though not a good enough for me reason still...)
What do you think?
so I see that the general consensus is that Bitcoin mimics a precious mineral. From your explanations it does seem natural, but why is it better than a linear distribution?
With a linear distribution the demand/supply ratio would still grow as Bitcoin would gain popularity (and thus difficulty would increase), so the price would still go up and bitcoins would remain scarce and difficult to obtain. Early adopters would still be decently rewarded. And since bitcoins are divisible, I don't see a problem with whether there a a lot / a few coins already in the circulation.
But a log-distribution benefits the early adopters even more and makes it less and less probable with time that a newcomer will mine, thus compromising the decentralization, doesn't it? I mean, this probability would already be dropping with the difficulty rising, and they half it every 3 years on top of that...
As I was typing this, I thought that perhaps this is designed to soften the transition from free transactions to necessary transaction fees? Perhaps they were afraid that an abrupt change would shatter the network in some way? (though not a good enough for me reason still...)
What do you think?
So it seems we have to waste everyone's time with 5 useless posts before we post a useful one?
Exactly.