- Dec 16, 2015
- 2,806
- 6,088
Last edited:
The article is worth a read IMO.i don´t think it get much support from the bitcoin-users, if other projects starting there fork too
While not a comment on your overall argument, the CLAM example (one I've seen cited a lot recently) is quite terrible. CLAM did not use Bitcoin as its initial distribution. It awarded CLAMs to all BTC, LTC, and DOGE outputs, regardless of amount. That's more of an airdrop (and as an aside grossly subject to abuse), and quite different from what is being proposed here.I meant DOA as a bitcoin replacement. Certainly a new altcoin can be made, but I thought the former was the goal?
I do not see all the bitcoin based businesses just switching to an altcoin. Just my analysis and we can agree to disagree. Since all existing bitcoin users will get the new altcoin and still have their existing bitcoins, people will just treat this like CLAM. not saying it wont do well, but it doesnt get rid of the old bitcoin,so does not solve the issue
sorry
I do not think that this type of split is anything like inflation, what we are doing is splitting the currency, creating two separate currencies essentially. For instance you can not say that the Euro causes inflation on the Dollar. In the same way that Ethereum does not create inflation on Bitcoin. They essentially become separate currencies, each with their own twenty one million dollar limit. It would be wrong to equate this with inflation or quantitative easing.If you don't change the POW, then the fork will double the amount of existing coins like a QE (hash power and economy does not double, but pre-fork coins can be spent on both chains, equals to a 100% increase in money supply without any change in the size of economy), it will crash the coin price and confidence together: I heard that bitcoin has only 21 million coins, now I understand they also have QE at each fork...
However the objective should primarily be for Bitcoin users to have an alternative, for value to be pulled out of Bitcoin and into Satoshi's Bitcoin is exactly what we would want.However, if you switch to another POW and attract CPU and GPU miners, then the hash power and economy from alt-coin market will be attracted, thus maintain the value of the coins on the satoshiscoin chain.
Mining power will always match the value of the coin itself, there can be periods where the mining infrastructure is just catching up but for the most part you can expect most of the mining to be done by larger server farms, competition drives it to become a more professional and competitive industry, whether an ASIC resistant algorithm is used or not these basic economics remain the same, we saw the centralization of GPU mining in the altcoin world before the introduction of Ethereum, which has become so profitable to mine that we are now in this catch up phase in regards to GPU/CPU mining.Currently the total hash power on GPU mining are quite large, mining cost is enough to sustain a coin that is $100, this can give strong support to satoshisbitcoin's value, make it a strong branch with its own economy, forming a bitcoin tree.
Like I said before I do not think we can equate genesis forks to inflation. I also think that competing over the same PoW algorithms hashpower would be a good thing. Collectively it helps to create a better market for ASIC's considering the problem of centralization of manufacturing. It also allows for the alternative chain to become the longest chain again, with all of the benefits that having such massive hashing power bestows.In fact this could be a perfect method to future forking: You first see if there are potential extra hash power support, then build a fork to attract those hash power, it will not dilute existing hash power because of different POW, it just adds hash power to existing economy. When added money supply were matched with added economy activities, there will not be inflation.
I agree with you on this actually, I would also agree that the activation of segwit would also be a good trigger for any genesis forks as well.Still, I think an April activation time plan is just too rush. Although there are so many problems in bitcoin core devs and mining pools right now, we have not reached a crisis point that such measure must be taken urgently. I think more plan and test and advertisement is needed, get the words out. It is enough to have this option until there is a real measurable threat, like continuously full blocks or the activation of segwit
I will also be supporting Satoshi's Bitcoin and the non-PoW change genesis fork.I do intend to support both SatoshisBitcoin and a non-POW-fork.