The case for an ”Orgcoin”

[steffen]

According to https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/altcoin/ the word “altcoin” is an abbreviation of “Bitcoin alternative,” and thus describes every single cryptocurrency except for Bitcoin. I suggest we need a new word, an Orgcoin. An Orgcoin is a coin that sticks to the original vision as laid out by Satoshi Nakamoto. The dominant Bitcoin Core implementation (or should we call it Bitcoin Blockstream) is getting further and further away from the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto. Not only has the major road block (the 1 MB block size limit) not been removed in due course. See https://bitcoinism.liberty.me/economic-fallacies-and-the-block-size-limit-part-1-scarcity/ for more information.

Recently the security of zero confirmation transactions have also started being severely undermined by the replace by fee commit. See https://medium.com/@octskyward/replace-by-fee-43edd9a1dd6d#.abil8429z and https://shapeshift.io/site/blog/2015/12/01/note-ceo-erik-voorhees-appeal-zero-conf for more information.

I would like to do a small survey. If you agree the world might soon need an Orgcoin please send me a PM and I will ask you a few questions.

 

[VeritasSapere]

I could argue that most altcoins can be described as an Orgcoin, according to your definition. So if you are proposing the creation of a new altcoin I would question whether you are actually being innovative compared to alternative cryptocurrencies that already exist.

I want Bitcoin to reflect the principles of its founding, this is what Bitcoin unlimited is about as well. Worst case scenario is that Bitcoin will split, in that case we would still have the Bitcoin we want. There is no need for another clone of Bitcoin. Do not get me wrong, I like altcoins but we already have innovative cryptocurrencies like Dash, Monero, Etherium, Bitshares ect.

 

[steffen]

How will Bitcoin technically be able to split?

The four coins you mention are all different from what I consider the traditional Bitcoin. Dash and Monero are very much about anonymity. Etherium is for a broader purpose. Bitshares also introduces new concepts.

 

[VeritasSapere]

How will Bitcoin technically be able to split?

The four coins you mention are all different from what I consider the traditional Bitcoin. Dash and Monero are very much about anonymity. Etherium is for a broader purpose. Bitshares also introduces new concepts.

Bitcoin can be split if there is a fundemental enouth disagreement to justify such an action. You are correct in your observation, though I could argue that Dash has very similiar goals compared to Bitcoin. However for the sake of accuracy, I suppose Litecoin is more similar to Bitcoin however far less interesting in my opinion.

If you do plan to create a new altcoin, I question what features you will be adding that make it more interesting compared to alternatives that already exist.

 

[steffen]

If you do plan to create a new altcoin, I question what features you will be adding that make it more interesting compared to alternatives that already exist.

A leadership made up of people with a shared vision and a solid understanding about (Austrian) economics, monetary history, politics etc.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I believe Bitcoin already has that, because its investors should be composed largely of such people by now (and increasingly so as more and more non-understanders get bucked off by volatility, tantalizing altcoin investments, "blockchain tech," and other silliness while the few who do get it steadily consolidate their wealth), and the investors are the true leaders.

Right now we have a temporary situation where some devs who fail to understand these things threaten to move Bitcoin in a counterproductive direction, but I don't think they will be allowed to do that. The Bat signal for alternative development talent has been sent out and is shining ever more brightly against the dark sky of Blockstream's tiny-block dystopia.

 

[steffen]

Right now we have a temporary situation where some devs who fail to understand these things threaten to move Bitcoin in a counterproductive direction, but I don't think they will be allowed to do that.

I fear it is not a temporary situation.

If any developer/person who reads this wants to give me an estimate how much (time and/or money) it would require to develop a piece of software we could call "Newcoin Unlimited" I would be very glad to hear about it. I imagine the software should resemble Bitcoin Unlimited but be intended to for a completely new startup coin.

EDIT:
The domain name wrightcoin.com was registered in 2012 so someone else appears to think that could be a good way forward.

 

[VeritasSapere]

You are talking about just creating a clone of Bitcoin. If you do not know how to do it yourself. You can find a service or another person to do such a thing for 0.1-0.2 Bitcoin. I would not pay someone more then that for such a simple job.

I do not think that this altcoin would do well in the cryptomarket presently. The altcoin market is very competitive, clones of Bitcoin already exists. So in my opinion this idea is not particularly interesting at this time. Especially considering that Bitcoin is also capable of splitting while preserving its original distribution.

I also agree with Zangelbert Bingledack, that there are already a large enough group of people within Bitcoin that have such an understanding. I am hoping that over time more people will come to realize these things as well.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

@steffen

If it's not temporary, there would be a major problem with Bitcoin's viability because it would mean the market is not able to wrest control from such people even though it wants to.

 

[steffen]

If it's not temporary, there would be a major problem with Bitcoin's viability because it would mean the market is not able to wrest control from such people even though it wants to.

Yes, the original Satoshi plan was brilliant with respect to the technical parts of bitcoin but the concept didn't prepare for the gradual subversion of the project through mass deception etc.

"We must have consensus or we cannot raise the block size limit" is one such element of the mass deception going on. Lets say consensus means 90% approval. Then the reality of requiring consensus is that the 10% will have a veto right. Not a veto right over what direction the 10% choose to go but a veto right over where everyone goes. Another word for that is monopoly. Monopolies are destructive. We therefore need some way to break away from the Bitcoin Core leadership. Attempting an ordinary (hard) fork will probably not succeed. To many people believe all the deception crap or are otherwise corrupted. We must SHOW that the Bitcoin Core folks are wrong. Arguments are probably not enough. To show what works best we need for both visions (small block and big blocks) to actually exist in the market place. To get to a situation where both visions can truly compete for users we need either a permanent split of bitcoin or we need to start a new coin. One of those option will be necessary I believe. Otherwise we might just all end up like the frog in the boiling frog anecdote. I know the frog anecdote has been proven wrong with respect to frogs but I think history has also shown that a lot of people can be deceived again and again by the powers that be.

As I wrote yesterday the domain name wrightcoin.com was created in 2012. I believe that means Craig Steven Wright who I am very certain is Satoshi Nakamoto also believes we (might) need a bitcoin competitor.

Dr. Wright, if you read this I have a message for you at http://bitcoinsteffen.com/a-personal-message-to-dr-craig-steven-wright-the-inventor-of-bitcoin/

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I think it's just a matter of how soon you want Core dethroned. The default is that Core gets dethroned after setting Bitcoin back by a few months or maybe up to a year due to the inertia against contentious hard forking, but valuable immunization and momentum for dev decentralization would be gained along the way. They may even manage to pull (legitimately value-enhancing) rabbits out of their hats to maintain control for much longer, but in that scenario Bitcoin does quite well thanks to all those value-enhancing rabbits.

What would have been shown is that an outside company *can* direct Bitcoin to its own ends, but *only* if they add enough value to compensate. Then it's win-win, except for dev decentralization of course.

Now in the case where they are a net value drain, there may be a way to avoid even the several months of inertial setback, though, and maybe a plan like yours will be the ticket for that. If it only several months saved it may not be worth it, but if it's a year then it probably would be.

 

[steffen]

I think it's just a matter of how soon you want Core dethroned. The default is that Core gets dethroned after setting Bitcoin back by a few months or maybe up to a year due to the inertia against contentious hard forking

The increase of the block size should have been prepared years ago. We don't know how much this lack of necessary action has already cost. I guess it is already a lot.

They may even manage to pull (legitimately value-enhancing) rabbits out of their hats to maintain control for much longer, but in that scenario Bitcoin does quite well thanks to all those value-enhancing rabbits.

Some of the perceived value-enhancing initiatives might not be truly value-enhancing. For example faster confirmations on some side chain may be value-decreasing because a negative side effect is that they take away transaction fees from Main Chain (MC) miners. Earning large transaction fees (by including a large number of transaction in each block) is necessary for miner profitability when block reward decrease. Without miners earning these transaction fees, miners will be less profitable which will result in gradually fewer and fewer miners. That will make bitcoin less secure.

EDIT:
Other perceived benefits of side chains like cheaper transactions or safer transaction will only be benefits because the block size limit will increase MC transaction fees and because RBF will make 0-conf transactions on MC insecure. All is part of the deception.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Yeah as I said the trick rabbits must be truly value-enhancing. I trust the market to discern the difference, even if it takes a while.

On your first point, the Fidelity Effect is something I did have in mind when writing the above. It's hard to tell for sure, but I get the impression is has only come into play fairly recently as the "Bitcoin doesn't scale" meme only became part of the popular narrative fairly recently.

 

[Bagatell]

I believe that means Craig Steven Wright who I am very certain is Satoshi Nakamoto also believes we (might) need a bitcoin competitor.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/satoshis-pgp-keys-are-probably-backdated-and-point-to-a-hoax

https://np.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3w5ro9/wright_not_only_isnt_satoshi_but_hes_pretending/

 

[steffen]

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/satoshis-pgp-keys-are-probably-backdated-and-point-to-a-hoax

https://np.reddit.com/r/Buttcoin/comments/3w5ro9/wright_not_only_isnt_satoshi_but_hes_pretending/

Satoshi Nakamoto has had to live a double life for many years no matter who he is. One part of him wanted to not be found. The other part of him wanted to continue to do everything he could to make bitcoin a success. Of course that creates a huge number of dilemmas. To improve his chances of making attractive arrangements with potential business partners he could show his enormous knowledge about bitcoin. That naturally leads to questions about where his experience came from. Of course that situation required some deception from Satoshi / Dr. Wright.

One witness in the first article is Greg Maxwell. I consider him to be one of the people in charge of the mass deception. He can not accept that big blocker Craig Steven Wright is Satoshi Nakamoto.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I agree the secrecy has to get to you after a while. People can't resist confiding in someone. Eventually they get jealous of their own legend. Wright's comments to that effect ring quite true to me.

However, all that would still be true if he were merely connected with the real Satoshi or part of a group that was Satoshi. My money is on Wright not being Satoshi himself but rather having close connection with the origins of Bitcoin and likely with Satoshi. For example, Satoshi didn't seem like a Rothbardian to me, but that he had libertarian leanings and economic ability. He may have had many long conversations with Wright, and agreed to be the voice of their venture because of course he is more even-keeled and a careful writer, unlike Wright. Kleiman seems a strong possibility to me, and him being dead makes it understandable why he hasn't signed anything with his keys, why his email would he able to be hacked, etc.

 

[steffen]

Satoshi didn't seem like a Rothbardian to me

I haven't read much of Satoshis small talk on forums and mailing lists but if he wanted to remain anonymous it makes good sense to present the personality of Satoshi a little bit different than the personality of the real person behind Satoshi. I have based my guessing on his personality and values entirely on what consequences I believe the bitcoin system was supposed to have. So I expected him to be a Rothbardian like myself.

Kleiman seems a strong possibility to me

A guy working only in only one field (computer forensics analyst) would not have the necessary overview and vision. It is Dr. Wright who also knows history and economist. That gives an overview.

 

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

I bet being confined to a wheelchair for 13+ years gives one a lot of chance to learn new fields, perhaps even through extensive conversations with people like Wright.