Is this the reason the bitcoin price is not exploding right now?
-
It’s (way past) time for the money printing to stop. The inflation rate that comes with it is killing FTC.
Take a look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inflation_rate
At FTC’s current rate the only country in the world that is worse seem to be Venezuela. A little inflation is generally desired by economists but nowhere near the around 50% we’re at now on a yearly basis.
Perhaps the current model could work in a time of scarcity and high demand (like during the crypto hype 2013) but it was a long time ago since any of those two were true.
True, we HAVE TO change emitting model to SURVIVE.
Stop listening to repeated lies of this type:
“Changing emission model might damage coins name etc.” << this is complete garbageFast and radical change is only suitable and sustainable solution.
Stop emitting coin. There is to many of them already.
0% reward and pure POS after few weeks of hybrid POW+POS is the solution.
-
It’s (way past) time for the money printing to stop. The inflation rate that comes with it is killing FTC.
Take a look at this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_inflation_rate
At FTC’s current rate the only country in the world that is worse seem to be Venezuela. A little inflation is generally desired by economists but nowhere near the around 50% we’re at now on a yearly basis.
Perhaps the current model could work in a time of scarcity and high demand (like during the crypto hype 2013) but it was a long time ago since any of those two were true.
Yes. I’ve proposed a comprehensive solution to deal with this problem, and the blockchain security problem, and the ACP centralization/hackability problem.
It’s been rejected for dogmatic reasons. Literally: “You can’t change the inflation model. It just isn’t done.”
All cries for appeal have gone unanswered, and people get banned from posting if they say the emperor isn’t wearing any clothes. My advise is tread lightly when making such heretical assertions.
-
I’m not even sure that’s true. I agree in principal with what he said I just disagree with the idea that 600m must be invested into Bitcoin per year to maintain the price. As I’m not sure there are any facts that can back that up. All that he knows is that 600M $ worth of BtC is created each year. He can’t know what people will do with them. Although I guess you could guess using past history. Which would just state that when confidence is high more people buy in and when its low more people sell out.
You still missed the point though, which is that amount of value was generated (it was, given the price assumption), and some amount of value had to be expended to do so (it was transformed to heat). That SECOND figure is the purchase cost, and it’s basically fixed regardless of the first figure which doesn’t actually depend on if they sold the coins or sat on them: That amount of value was still generated. No one said the second figure was the cost to maintain the price, simply that it was the cost of the amount of decentralization that was purchased. It doesn’t matter what people do with them, that will always be the purchase cost and it really was spent (transformed to heat waste, presumably with no additional gain from that heat like turning a turbine to offset said cost).
You’re still confusing market cap with purchase cost, and they’re not the same at all.
-
True, we HAVE TO change emitting model to SURVIVE.
Stop listening to repeated lies of this type:
“Changing emission model might damage coins name etc.” << this is complete garbageFast and radical change is only suitable and sustainable solution.
Stop emitting coin. There is to many of them already.0% reward and pure POS after few weeks of hybrid POW+POS is the solution
There is a number of coins with low or very low inflation rate, e.g. Peercoin (5%) or Quark (0,5%). And it is not saving them, price is hammered just like FTC one. The fact is that lower inflation rate is not the ultimate way for coin to success. On the other hand changing rules of the game would generate institutional risk. If we have changed the rules once where is the guarantee that we will not do the same again? Credibility and trust are much more important than short-term price movements and losses.
The reasons for a major bear action in altcoins are more complex and fundamental than inflation rate. Basically, we don’t have any mechanism of altcoin price discovery. We can’t estimate demand for any altcoin. Why use dollars to trade – because only for dollars you could buy and sell oil and other raw materials. Why use other local fiat currencies – because local authorities ban trading with others on their territory and send men with guns to harm you if you don’t comply. Why use bitcoin – because for bitcoin you could buy drugs, order a virus or hire a killer… well, you could do it more efficiently and anonimously than conventional way. Why use litecoin – just in case something bad happens to bitcoin. Why use peer, feather and others – no answer. And if there is no answer to that, there is no answer to how much 1 FTC should cost - 1 dollar or 1 cent.
The proper way to improve the market share of FTC lays through providing the public a genuine reason to use it. It could be an app which turns smartphone or tablet into a PoS-terminal (shop-in-your-pocket solution) or a remittance system or even dark grey market. We could start even with a tiniest reason for people to use feather. If you’re selling something like a hardware on your local market, do a little remark that you would accept feathers at a little discount (5% or something). Thus you provide a reason to learn how to use it and eventually use it. AFAIC, i will do it for an analythical platform which I’m building right now.
But please don’t ruin credibility of the coin. It’s very important, particulary now.
-
There is a number of coins with low or very low inflation rate, e.g. Peercoin (5%) or Quark (0,5%). And it is not saving them, price is hammered just like FTC one. The fact is that lower inflation rate is not the ultimate way for coin to success. On the other hand changing rules of the game would generate institutional risk. If we have changed the rules once where is the guarantee that we will not do the same again? Credibility and trust are much more important than short-term price movements and losses.
The reasons for a major bear action in altcoins are more complex and fundamental than inflation rate. Basically, we don’t have any mechanism of altcoin price discovery. We can’t estimate demand for any altcoin. Why use dollars to trade – because only for dollars you could buy and sell oil and other raw materials. Why use other local fiat currencies – because local authorities ban trading with others on their territory and send men with guns to harm you if you don’t comply. Why use bitcoin – because for bitcoin you could buy drugs, order a virus or hire a killer… well, you could do it more efficiently and anonimously than conventional way. Why use litecoin – just in case something bad happens to bitcoin. Why use peer, feather and others – no answer. And if there is no answer to that, there is no answer to how much 1 FTC should cost - 1 dollar or 1 cent.
The proper way to improve the market share of FTC lays through providing the public a genuine reason to use it. It could be an app which turns smartphone or tablet into a PoS-terminal (shop-in-your-pocket solution) or a remittance system or even dark grey market. We could start even with a tiniest reason for people to use feather. If you’re selling something like a hardware on your local market, do a little remark that you would accept feathers at a little discount (5% or something). Thus you provide a reason to learn how to use it and eventually use it. AFAIC, i will do it for an analythical platform which I’m building right now.
But please don’t ruin credibility of the coin. It’s very important, particulary now.
I used to think that this was true. But the FTC Market, which seems to have disappeared, proved that wasn’t the case. People were unwilling to use a coin with a rapidly plummeting value because the holder always gets screwed and the cost is always increasing from the customer’s perspective as the number of coins needs to increase constantly.
The credibility of the coin was ruined a long time ago with UNOCS, ACP, repeated moves away from market inertia, and a total lack of innovation in a rapidly moving market. Creditability isn’t just about not making the wrong moves (plenty of those have been made), but also about making the right moves. Take BitShares for example. They do things differently and have established their dominance as the #4 most valued alt-coin.
Look at this chart: http://coinmarketcap.com/
Presently FTC is valued 78 against literally 76 coins that came after it (Litecoin cloned Bitcoin, and Feathercoin cloned Litecoin). It’s had the most opportunity to really demonstrate how credibility is done, yet it’s fallen way behind. The only way you can ruin credibility further is by refusing to entertain good suggestions and and not producing innovate solutions for the problems being faced.
The coin has been delisted from BTC-e for lack of volume, pools are shutting down because of the NeoScrypt change, mining is centralized more than ever, blockchain security is at an all time low, inflation is through the roof, and the only one who’s committing code is a very smart volunteer in China, not the main developer… what credibility exactly?
-
I think this was where the original poster was going. In this direction. And to top it off, Im mining it faster. Seems Neoscrypt stratum is slow or something. http://theotherbitcoin.com/ If this takes off, maybe we dont need Bitcoin to rise up…
-
I was only make a case for DPoS.
I’m not suggesting changing the inflation model, I tried that, it didn’t go down so well…
I’ll be launching my own coin soon using the diffusion of innovation as the coin release schedule. It’s also gonna have a few other unique features too.
I’ll be able to experiment with inflation model stuff soon, but I did try push to kill ftc’s production and realised very quickly that some of the biggest investors of ftc are actually relying on that inflation model to stay the same.
I have no qualms with changing it and no qualms with keeping it the same. I’ll just add that theres a very good chance that ftc might loose its biggest investors and then the price could really fall through the floor.
We probably have more to loose then to gain, BUT, with that said, this is crypto’s.
Anything could happen.
-
This is a very lively debate…
Some new and some old voices, I like that.
Ok, so lets just entertain the idea of stopping the inflation. (As mentioned above we will drive away our No.1 investor potentially by changing the Inf Mod (Inflation Model / Coin Distribution rate))
Here’s the scenario…
I’m assuming a 0%DPoS solution with TX fees and also a change in the way TX fees are calculated. The higher the TX size, the lower the tx fee is proportionally [1ftc tx induces 0.1% fee | 100000 ftc tx induces 0.05% fee]
So, hypothetically, it would induce instant scarcity. Those who wish to generate ftc, will need to do so by means of collecting TX fees via delegation. Cost to mint becomes trivial but the right to mint becomes a privilege that can be taken away and given to the next inline.
Dumping would slow to a near halt and people buying would have to start paying a higher rate if they want to buy sooner rather then sitting on a buy order that may never fill.
Logically I believe this would push the price up without a doubt in my mind provided it is also coupled with some innovative tools. SX, Multisig, Escrow.
Feathercoin lacks what 99% of all coins lack. Intrinsic value. There is no use for the alts as Bitcoin is doing a damn fine job of been money, for now…
The biggest question we need to be asking ourselves is this though.
If we are trying to be money, what makes you think that we wont be dropped in a heartbeat when another coin comes along to assist in yet more wealth creation?
Are we aiming for a world with money and government, or are we looking to achieve an autonomous society built on the blockchain where money and government actually loose their meaning and value?
Are we trying to perpetuate the current paradigm and wedge ourselves at the top of the newly created “top 1%”?
Don’t get me wrong, I want to make a lot of money too, but what are your plans when you get your 50 Million dollars?
I’ll tell you what i’ll be doing with mine, but I think it would make me a target amongst 90% of all crypto “enthusiasts”…
So on a final note, “Money” and “Government” will end this century.
Yet all the Alt’s are relying on the fact that in 50 years, everything will still essentially be the same, but they hope that crypto’s will replace fiat…
I feel like I’m a Killer Whale swimming amongst a school of hypocritical hipster Hammerheads. (Referring to the cryptosphere as a whole) -
This is all heading towards Contracts. We are confident that by the end of the year, we could have a decentralised escrow service built into the BC/Qt.
The plethora of tools been introduced soon will enable us to pull all of this off. There’s just 1 missing piece to the puzzle and I think that is op_checklocktimeverify
But yes. The focus is on usability in my opinion as well. I can’t keep pushing the idea of stopping production of coins or even modifying the inflation rate/model as it caused a lot of grief even just talking about it in the background.
That drama then spilled out into the public domain here. I really don’t know to be honest. What I do know is that our primary dev Lizhi, see’s promise in DPoS. Once he is done researching the topic he will report back and give us an idea of what he thinks is best.
The problem here, is gaining consensus, much like like how Mr Todd pointed out with btc and checklocktimeverify.
If someone pushes out a version of ftc that stops inflation, we could very well fork the coin potentially and that’s no good.
I’ll need to speak in depth with the primary holder about all this again if the community starts to lean on the side of stopping inflation as there are a few on the team who believe changing inflation will destroy trust. A lot of us argue though, that trust was already lost multiple times.
It’s a very sensitive and touchy subject but in time, we will arrive at some sort of consensus I’m sure of it.
-
-
It’s a very sensitive and touchy subject but in time, we will arrive at some sort of consensus I’m sure of it.
-
I’m torn. The inflation model is wrong, but a ‘group’ of people changing the inflation model sets a precedence. it’s central bank like. Handing the reins over to maths and having it entirely automated is the beauty of crypto. We would have to tread carefully IMO
-
The dress is clearly Pink… I don’t know what all the fuss is about…
-
I’m torn. The inflation model is wrong, but a ‘group’ of people changing the inflation model sets a precedence. it’s central bank like. Handing the reins over to maths and having it entirely automated is the beauty of crypto. We would have to tread carefully IMO
There’s a difference between been a central bank and not learning from the past.
-
I live by that philosophy. It’s always better to stand up and say you got something wrong. But it’s a much bigger issue than I encounter in everyday life.
-
I’m torn. The inflation model is wrong, but a ‘group’ of people changing the inflation model sets a precedence. it’s central bank like. Handing the reins over to maths and having it entirely automated is the beauty of crypto. We would have to tread carefully IMO
You actually got the argument backwards: A ‘group’ of people breaking away from the ‘main currency’ and changing the inflation model by creating an ‘alternate currency’ which is traded along side is exactly the opposite of being ‘central bank like’.
With a central bank, groups of people aren’t allowed to do that, because the central bank is the only authority sanctioned to do so. What you’re describing is a free market where people are free to create competing currencies and allow them to vie for popularity.
And the time for ‘treading carefully’ has long past us. We should have ‘treaded carefully’ with UNOCS, we should have pushed back against ACP, we should have denied NeoScrypt… and we should have ‘treaded carefully’ when accepting direction from someone so horribly unqualified to lead us it’s the point of regular jokes.
Now is the time to be bold, empowered, and show strength, not hide in the corner and be afraid. MrWyrm has made it clear he’s not a fan of disruption or controversy, but that’s exactly what’s required here if we’re going to upset the status quo and make some serious waves moving forward.
Come on, let’s explore together! I don’t want to tread lightly, I want to make a tsunami, and those who remain treading on the beach will wish they had decided to ride the wave!
-
I wish I could unedit my post and undelete the other one. I feel as though I made a really good point but rage censored myself.
If anyone managed to snag a copy of my posts in your email, I would like it if it could be pasted in here as a quote.
I would like it if I could no longer edit my posts or delete my own posts. If someone can take all my access away it would be awesome.
-
I’m going to lock this thread. I made it so I can lock it :P
Points were made and things are going in the direction they always have been. We have Core to testnet still and after that we can begun the livly debate of PoS/DPoS/*shudders*inflation
-
Oh no you don’t haha
-
Fair game
Its a hot topic.
I bet this will bring randoms to the forum I suppose.
