I can't think of a decentralized way to measure demand, though, so maybe this is not possible.
I think if you're going to be successful, you'll have to find a different set of early adopters. Bitcoin is as much ideological as anything, and while some people don't want to see another alt currency because of their level of investment, others just generally don't believe there's anything wrong with the system today.
Anyways, i'd love to actually develop the idea... but I didn't want to spend time on "just another altcoin" unless I had faith it might get some adoption.
I wonder if there is another community that would be more interested in such a currency's adoption.
Any coin that tries to adddress the problem of deflation right now will also have to go through a cycle of gaining widespread adoption before we know whethre or not the monetary policy built into the coin works. PeerCoin if it ever gains wide adoption will almost certainly seem just as volatile as BitCoin as it becomes more widespread. And we wont know until it becomes widespread if it successfully combats deflation.
You want inflation, not deflation. The value of the currency should decrease at a 2% clip per annum.
This would make it into a realistic currency, where people get annual raises in their salary, prices gradually climb making merchants happy, etc.
You need to conform to basic human psychology for wide adoption. And don't worry about the miners, they will mine regardless, even if it's worth less and less each year ... now the speculators? Those will be gone and good riddance.
I don't think inflation is a part of basic human psychology.
If its harder to mine then its harder to transfer. At some point you're stuck with something worthless.
The same could be done for other parameters (like the targeted time between blocks) or maybe even for more complicated things, like what kind of digital signature algorithms are acceptable.
I'd call it "votecoin".
I wouldn't mind a distributed currency with this property, but you really should be aware that this is the basic operation of the banking system.
With a commodity like gold, when its value increases, people mine more of it because people want more. This increased supply reduces its value.
To me, the ideal currency is one in which you can get paid for performing a service, and 20 years later, the payment is still worth exactly the cost of that service. A long-term store of value, a way of remembering the value of everything.
Edit: I'm not trying to criticize your ideas; I almost completely agree with you.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=171539.msg1862790#ms...
Although at the beginning it should not be stable , but rising to get people involved with the coin., and at some pre defined point become stable.
Are you sure of what you're saying ? Because bitcoin doesn't seem to work in a very simple fashion already, it's decentralized and it's already a miracle if it's working as the programmer intended.
I often see it compared to the advent of the early Internet in the 1980s, when nobody really knew how big it would get, just that it was "revolutionary" and would become huge.
This may be an overestimation caused in part by bitcoin stakeholders trying to promote the idea. But a very similar thing happened in the 90s when everyone was buying tech stocks.
I think most people don't generally go to the source when learning about something, though, even today when it's easily possible. Usually what people do is learn what is fed to them from whatever outlets they prefer (TV, news websites, reddit, etc.) and hear about stuff in passing.
That said, I owned some, and I recently sold some. Going through bitstamp (in slovania) was a pain. Getting the coins in was a breeze. However the international wire transfer took days, and cost about $60. Global transactions using bitcoin seem very lucrative here. Credit cards are another way, but they're expensive to the merchant. Bitcoin makes commerce on the web pretty nice in a lot of ways.
He was well aware: he posted a short essay to bitcoin.org explaining how Bitcoin is a general solution to the Byzantine Generals problem, and if you read his early cryptography/p2presearch ML threads, he specifically says that digital money is but the earliest and most obvious application, and that far more could be built on top of it, and he hoped there would be, and included the dangerously-complex scripting language specifically to support more complex functionality than simply a global ledger.
It's not his fault if everyone else was more interested in applying Bitcoin to financial transactions than exploring approaches like Namecoin.
This idea of the Bitcoin protocol as a decentralized, secure, and transparent storage system has all kinds of applications, whether Namecoin, smart property or something else.
I played around with using Namecoin as a more consumer-friendly form of drm.
Ultimately I think this level of efficiency would probably destroy most developers who used it (especially games).
The trick was to line up economic incentives so that securing the network and accepting transaction fees are the same thing.
The fact that bitcoin serves as a centralized document store is one of the biggest defects in bitcoin as it stands now, and when bitcoin does fall, it will fall to a system that treats the transfer of currency units as a first-class citizen rather than a side effect of a script.
Suppose it's 15 years from now. Many cars can drive themselves.
Suppose someone designs a mechanism that allows you to control your vehicle (remotely) only if you own a specific "ownership item" (colored coin, whatever people are calling it) on the bitcoin network. You prove this to the vehicle, and it goes to wherever you tell it to. The item on the bitcoin network means you "own" the vehicle.
Now you can tell your vehicle to go to a public place where someone might inspect it with the intent of purchasing it. That person tells you "OK, I'll buy it for 0.1BTC" and you perform an exchange of your ownership document for 0.1BTC over the bitcoin network.
You don't have to trust anyone with anything. The exchange happens atomically. You don't even have to go anywhere to perform the exchange.
(and once you have that, escrow service anyway becomes cheap)
When I say that a transaction is not a first-class citizen, I mean things like the fact that the question "I have this address, how many bitcoins do I have" is not really answerable; redeeming existing incoming transactions may rely on information outside of your key pair.
You're correct that as it stands, 1:1 transactions are pretty much all we have to deal with, so long as IsStandard doesn't change. The fact that the script language exists is worrisome, as is the fact that IsStandard only applies to relying of transactions by clients, not transactions in blocks.
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/bitcoin-and-the-three-laws-of-rob...
http://letstalkbitcoin.com/dacs-that-spawn-dacs/
The use of the word "corporation" is kind of wonky to me and the whole concept took me a little time to wrap my head around it, but these are the types of things we can expect to see with blockchain technology and hopefully IMO eventually the abolition of states worldwide.
These kinds of comments do nothing to help promote bitcoin as a legitimate technology and only increase the risk that cryptocurrencies become generally illegal to use. I'm really disappointed with the anti-government garbage spouted by so many people in the community.
You still have to trust SHA-256 and that no one can afford to do a 51% attack, for instance.
This article describes the usage scenarios in detail: http://hackingdistributed.com/2013/06/20/virtual-notary-intr...
"Restricting transactions to such a simple form would restrict Bitcoin to exactly the possibilities traditional currencies had (though decentralized). However, Satoshi saw the potential to allow it to do more, and introduced a script system. He wasn't around anymore to bring it to practice, but Mike Hearn wrote down some of the things Satoshi had in mind on the Contracts page of the Bitcoin wiki."
Why oh why must every mention of Nakamoto imbue him/them with certain politics? We're led to believe Nakamoto is a subversive anarcho-capitalist libertarian who wants to overthrow governments.
There are certainly hackers driven by ideals and politics (e.g. rms), but there are plenty more who solve a problem just because they can. The Morris worm wasn't published in order to promote anarchy. Quicksort wasn't invented as a metaphor for classism. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=358561
It seems far more likely that Nakamoto saw an existing problem, solved it in a clever fashion, and published the result.
>This was probably intended as proof that the block was created on or after January 3rd, 2009, as well as a comment on the instability caused by fractional-reserve banking.
I've noticed this on a few sites, and I'm wondering if the problem is on my end, or if it's a problem with the website.
So, Aaron was a brilliant dude, who did a lot of cool stuff. I just don't think the personality matches up, at all, with whoever created Bitcoin. If Swartz created a cryptocurrency, which I don't think he would have, I doubt it would look like Bitcoin. (There's also several people much higher on the list of "might be Satoshi".)
http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/squarezooko
...you can see his thoughts were more focused on censorship-resistance (a major interest of Swartz) than on stateless money.
