3 ms·

Tone is very tribalistic and low level. "If it's not Bitcoin it's not crypto". Irrational dismissiveness of innovation because their investment is at risk from

by flarex 6y ago

Tone is very tribalistic and low level. "If it's not Bitcoin it's not crypto". Irrational dismissiveness of innovation because their investment is at risk from competition. Like the saying goes "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." Similar dynamic here.

sparkie 6y ago
If it's not bitcoin, it does not inherit the fix for inflation. If you have a useful innovation, it is possible to deploy it as a bitcoin sidechain, or colored coin on bitcoin, which retains the fix for inflation (no need to create new tokens), whilst enabling whatever developments you've created. There's one, and only one reason why people prefer to do the print your own token strategy: to generate lots of low cost tokens early on with the expectation of exchanging them for real wealth later on when an exchange market with some liquidity arises and you can market your product to naive investors. If it's not bitcoin, it's a money grab. It really is that simple.
- tromp 6y ago
  > the fix for inflation. Bitcoin is a fix for unpredictable and arbitrary emission. But its finite supply, said to be modeled after Gold's, is questionable. Gold may have a finite supply, but it's been mined for millenia and has slowly increased its supply rate over time, and will likely continue to do so in our lifetime. In contrast, Bitcoin's emission which ranges from 2009 through 2140 is heavily tilted to the first few years. Its final century from 2040 through 2140 accounts for only about 0.5% of emission. The only point of the halvings is to be able to claim "finite supply". A constant reward would still have the yearly supply inflation rate (stock to flow ratio) going to 0, albeit more slowly. So crucially, supply would still be scarce, would be more predictable (time independent), more fair to late adopters, and be much closer to Gold's emission over our lifetime. It would also avoid the inherent instability [1] of mining rewards dominated by transaction fees. If we further consider the fact that coins inevitably get lost, then even a constant reward will yield a softcap of supply, where yearly emission merely serves to balance the yearly losses. Unfortunately, practically all cryptocurrencies subscribe to the notion that early miners must receive greater rewards, even when they often already enjoy lower difficulty. [1] https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CC.. https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CC....

by flarex 6y ago

sparkie 6y ago

If it's not bitcoin, it does not inherit the fix for inflation. If you have a useful innovation, it is possible to deploy it as a bitcoin sidechain, or colored coin on bitcoin, which retains the fix for inflation (no need to create new tokens), whilst enabling whatever developments you've created. There's one, and only one reason why people prefer to do the print your own token strategy: to generate lots of low cost tokens early on with the expectation of exchanging them for real wealth later on when an exchange market with some liquidity arises and you can market your product to naive investors. If it's not bitcoin, it's a money grab. It really is that simple.

tromp 6y ago
> the fix for inflation. Bitcoin is a fix for unpredictable and arbitrary emission. But its finite supply, said to be modeled after Gold's, is questionable. Gold may have a finite supply, but it's been mined for millenia and has slowly increased its supply rate over time, and will likely continue to do so in our lifetime. In contrast, Bitcoin's emission which ranges from 2009 through 2140 is heavily tilted to the first few years. Its final century from 2040 through 2140 accounts for only about 0.5% of emission. The only point of the halvings is to be able to claim "finite supply". A constant reward would still have the yearly supply inflation rate (stock to flow ratio) going to 0, albeit more slowly. So crucially, supply would still be scarce, would be more predictable (time independent), more fair to late adopters, and be much closer to Gold's emission over our lifetime. It would also avoid the inherent instability [1] of mining rewards dominated by transaction fees. If we further consider the fact that coins inevitably get lost, then even a constant reward will yield a softcap of supply, where yearly emission merely serves to balance the yearly losses. Unfortunately, practically all cryptocurrencies subscribe to the notion that early miners must receive greater rewards, even when they often already enjoy lower difficulty. [1] https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CC.. https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/mining_CC....