📅 Original date posted:2016-03-03
📝 Original message:On Thu, March 3, 2016 10:02 am, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:36AM -0800, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev
> wrote:
>> > A 6 month investment with 3 months on the high subsidy and 3 months on
>> low subsidy would not be made…
>>
>>
>>
>> Yes, this is the essential point. All capital investments are made based
>> on expectations of future returns. To the extent that futures are
>> perfectly knowable, they can be perfectly factored in. This is why
>> inflation in Bitcoin is not a tax, it’s a cost. These step functions
>> are made continuous by their predictability, removing that
>> predictability will make them -- unpredictable.
>
> You know, I do agree with you.
>
> But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that
> strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change
> any rule currently in Bitcoin.
>
> It'd be perfectly reasonable to create an altcoin with a 22-million-coin
> limit and an inflation schedule that had smooth, rather than abrupt,
> drops. It'd also be reasonable to make that altcoin start with the same
> UTXO set as Bitcoin as a means of initial coin distribution.
>
> If miners choose to start mining that altcoin en-mass on the halving,
> all the more power to them. It's our choice whether or not we buy those
> coins. We may choose not to, but if 95% of the hashing power decides to
> go mine something different we have to accept that under our current
> chosen rules confirmations might take a long time.
>
>
> Of course, personally I agree with Gregory Maxwell: this is all fairly
> unlikely to happen, so the discussion is academic. But we'll see.
>
Bitcoin is a success.
The success has forced various hardfork discussions.
Hard forking is contentious. If a softfork cannot be achieved the
alternate to a hardfork is creating a new bitcoin. ex bitcoin 2.0
Similar to silver, gold, palladium, etc...
Bitcoins success partly stems from it's brand awareness. Any new
officially supported bitcoin will also benefit from this brand awareness.
If the market values the new improved bitcoin they will put their money
into it. This doesn't require any consensus.
Let the market decide which option has the most value. If everyone
switches to the new bitcoin then the old bitcoin miners will follow.
--
Patrick Shirkey
Boost Hardware Ltd
Patrick Shirkey [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f3…epw6v
2023-06-07 17:49:31
in reply to nevent1q…uz3h
Author Public Key
npub1f3znre4hmn4ra7kwlmeu47mhelj3vwrxqjw8dt9cnl6qhuwvdwgsgepw6vPublished at
2023-06-07 17:49:31Event JSON
{
"id": "c6b2e1d72280b9a257cc9568aa603b3da6af34769a61ab89f6397ac3428e8b0b",
"pubkey": "4c4531e6b7dcea3efacefef3cafb77cfe5163866049c76acb89ff40bf1cc6b91",
"created_at": 1686160171,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"c19c64d0621f34bc049688bdbd88cd48f1e91c193354087b0b32d42fce855169",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0d83fcc1e8934cce8880442735c2fc2077655737e61dcb6011ffdc8c13e4275f",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"a384795310cea1937dda4d01ee8f14ca734b9a7ab60c62114a5656706e15e47f"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2016-03-03\n📝 Original message:On Thu, March 3, 2016 10:02 am, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev wrote:\n\u003e On Wed, Mar 02, 2016 at 11:01:36AM -0800, Eric Voskuil via bitcoin-dev\n\u003e wrote:\n\u003e\u003e \u003e A 6 month investment with 3 months on the high subsidy and 3 months on\n\u003e\u003e low subsidy would not be made…\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e\n\u003e\u003e Yes, this is the essential point. All capital investments are made based\n\u003e\u003e on expectations of future returns. To the extent that futures are\n\u003e\u003e perfectly knowable, they can be perfectly factored in. This is why\n\u003e\u003e inflation in Bitcoin is not a tax, it’s a cost. These step functions\n\u003e\u003e are made continuous by their predictability, removing that\n\u003e\u003e predictability will make them -- unpredictable.\n\u003e\n\u003e You know, I do agree with you.\n\u003e\n\u003e But see, this is one of the reasons why we keep reminding people that\n\u003e strictly speaking a hardfork *is* an altcoin, and the altcoin can change\n\u003e any rule currently in Bitcoin.\n\u003e\n\u003e It'd be perfectly reasonable to create an altcoin with a 22-million-coin\n\u003e limit and an inflation schedule that had smooth, rather than abrupt,\n\u003e drops. It'd also be reasonable to make that altcoin start with the same\n\u003e UTXO set as Bitcoin as a means of initial coin distribution.\n\u003e\n\u003e If miners choose to start mining that altcoin en-mass on the halving,\n\u003e all the more power to them. It's our choice whether or not we buy those\n\u003e coins. We may choose not to, but if 95% of the hashing power decides to\n\u003e go mine something different we have to accept that under our current\n\u003e chosen rules confirmations might take a long time.\n\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Of course, personally I agree with Gregory Maxwell: this is all fairly\n\u003e unlikely to happen, so the discussion is academic. But we'll see.\n\u003e\n\nBitcoin is a success.\n\nThe success has forced various hardfork discussions.\n\nHard forking is contentious. If a softfork cannot be achieved the\nalternate to a hardfork is creating a new bitcoin. ex bitcoin 2.0\n\nSimilar to silver, gold, palladium, etc...\n\nBitcoins success partly stems from it's brand awareness. Any new\nofficially supported bitcoin will also benefit from this brand awareness.\n\nIf the market values the new improved bitcoin they will put their money\ninto it. This doesn't require any consensus.\n\nLet the market decide which option has the most value. If everyone\nswitches to the new bitcoin then the old bitcoin miners will follow.\n\n\n\n\n\n--\nPatrick Shirkey\nBoost Hardware Ltd",
"sig": "ba5885b6de414ff313312bea5129819ea43b89a0ad8935658dcd88d327fbdc2ea4c5604b992f42482be0e346d18cc2503889d1f28d68eaa8447068184a4e1245"
}