3 ms·

> The only problem with that approach is how to bootstrap the value of such an alternative currency The problem of "bootstrapping the value" of a centralized,

by runeks 10y ago

> The only problem with that approach is how to bootstrap the value of such an alternative currency The problem of "bootstrapping the value" of a centralized, digital currency is that no one wants it, because of the reason I mentioned (too easy to change history). Working hard in order to earn an entry in some database, that can be deleted in a second, makes little sense for people. Bitcoin had no bootstrapping problem because it can be used tustlessly (deleting past transactions is simply not possible), while your solution is just another type of credit. Why would I ever, voluntarily, start using your credit as money? It makes no sense from my perspective; hence the "bootstrapping problem". In short: reducing the energy consumption of Bitcoin while reducing security is easy (use credit). It's keeping the trustless property while reducing energy usage that's the challenge.

nhaehnle 10y ago
I'm not sure what you mean by centralized, digital currency, but it's probably not what I was talking about, which involves a publicly distributed Merkle DAG. Also, it's disingenious to pretend that Bitcoin had no bootstrapping problem. Bitcoin existed for a long time without significant value, and it seems stunts like spending what would now be millions of dollars for pizza were necessary pieces of solving the bootstrapping puzzle.
- runeks 10y ago
  I'm referring to your solution to the double-spend problem, which is the problem Bitcoin solves in a trustless manner. > This problem could be solved much more cheaply than in Bitcoin by using signatures by a trusted (e.g. elected) well-known council. This is a centralized solution, where a group of -- albeit elected -- officials have complete control over the history of all balances. I'm arguing that no one is interested in such a system. No one wants democratic money, when it comes down it, is what I'm arguing. They want trustless money. I'm also arguing that Bitcoin has monetary value in and of itself -- because it has use value -- and that its dollar price is a symptom of that, not the other way around. Even with zero dollars bidding on bitcoins, Bitcoin can be used for spam prevention -- out of which it was derived in the first place (Hashcash).

by runeks 10y ago

nhaehnle 10y ago

I'm not sure what you mean by centralized, digital currency, but it's probably not what I was talking about, which involves a publicly distributed Merkle DAG. Also, it's disingenious to pretend that Bitcoin had no bootstrapping problem. Bitcoin existed for a long time without significant value, and it seems stunts like spending what would now be millions of dollars for pizza were necessary pieces of solving the bootstrapping puzzle.

runeks 10y ago
I'm referring to your solution to the double-spend problem, which is the problem Bitcoin solves in a trustless manner. > This problem could be solved much more cheaply than in Bitcoin by using signatures by a trusted (e.g. elected) well-known council. This is a centralized solution, where a group of -- albeit elected -- officials have complete control over the history of all balances. I'm arguing that no one is interested in such a system. No one wants democratic money, when it comes down it, is what I'm arguing. They want trustless money. I'm also arguing that Bitcoin has monetary value in and of itself -- because it has use value -- and that its dollar price is a symptom of that, not the other way around. Even with zero dollars bidding on bitcoins, Bitcoin can be used for spam prevention -- out of which it was derived in the first place (Hashcash).