3 ms·
5% < 10%, last time I checked. Also, "Bitcoin did something fishy" should be a reason to invent some thing less fishy, not more.
by tom_mellior 10y ago
5% < 10%, last time I checked. Also, "Bitcoin did something fishy" should be a reason to invent some thing less fishy, not more.
- earlz 10y agoIf I recall correctly, it's not 10% of the entire supply, but rather 10% of the first 2 years worth of supply. After that, the 10% cut from miners is stopped and their 10% of the supply will slowly decrease as the overall supply increases
- tromp 10y agoNo, it's 20% of the first 4 years' reward, which is equal to 10% of all time's reward.
- zanny 10y agoThe only way I could foresee a cryptocurrency where, by its nature, the early adopters would not have a significant amount of money in the eventual economy, is to make the rate of money generation grow with participation and / or transaction rates. The former is effectively impossible to judge, unless you use the block difficulty as a measure of popularity, and the later seems like it doesn't accurately reflect the market cap - coins like doge had much higher velocities than btc at unique times despite being a fraction the size. The other option might be a blockchain that doesn't do time based payouts but does volume based payouts. Rather than having blocks issued on fixed intervals you could have them dynamically issued and computed based on the previous blocks time to reach a calculated size threshold to hash. Unless you were psychic and could guarantee your coin would take off, investing the electricity to generate bogus volume would be a tremendous gamble in resources to try to beat the market.