I'm thinking this won't crash anytime soon either. Unless some early-on bitcoiner wants to check out hard. Even if that happens the recovery will be quick enough. And why would mister early bitcoiner check out now? That'd be stupid. Regarding LTC/PPC/MC2: 2) memory-hard/anti-dedicated circuit algorithms: Who are you shitting here? Right now mining is dominated by those whom invested specifically into Bitcoin mining. That's good, they're heavily vested exclusively in Bitcoin. Who are you helping with this? Not the layman, he still can't compete with the pro's (that will revert to just buying specialized PC's). Instead the botnet owner is made happy, the botnet will do comparatively a lot better than it does now (note: this is bad). I appreciate the notion of making coin generation more distributed, but it is fundamentally incompatible with anonymity and therefore with digital cash. also 2) (numbering error caused by self-publishing) PoS (Proof of Stake) Given 2 removed proof of work as proof of stake, we now introduce some bullocks that will favor people that already have money through a really nontransparent scheme. The idea being you should get money if you have money. This PoS will cause a bloated blockchain that improves it only through some diversity of Proof mechanisms. Additionally it promotes hoarding coins even more than Bitcoin (and friends) already does. Did I mention it isn't very transparent why one would want this? (don't get me wrong, it has some interesting factors. But it just isn't a good idea to require coin for these transactions. It's oligarchical in nature.) 3) About block rewards Block rewards in Bitcoin are used as a trick to mint coins. Mining incentive should switch mostly to transaction fees. Although I think too that they can be used to affect the system positively, it is hard to make sure it is a positive influence. It has already been extremely controversial, even though it is so simple. Someone even went so far as to say that not halving the block rewards causes Bitcoin to "stop being Bitcoin". The control over inflation given here is.. Bullshit. Again. The inflow rate decreases 8% per bityear until after 27 (why 27?) years after which it will be up to 1% increase or 1% decrease in inflow. Somehow the author thinks anyone that mines (is invested or has coin) will vote to have less inflow (thus causing said miner/coin owner to earn less next year given most people don't mine or own a lot of coins). Why is 1% a limit either way? It's insignificantly small. The author also says this amounts to a "democratic" system, whilst it is a totally elitist's vote. There is absolutely 0 reasons to believe this is the next Bitcoin. I predict proof of stake will never make it to the mainstream. I also predict that whatever alternative follows Bitcoin, it will not lower the value of Bitcoin significantly. Bitcoin will become the gold standard. Just as it has been designed. And it fits its role because it's design is free of additional rubbish, less is more. And less takes a lot of effort. -- -- Zero State mailing list: http://groups.google.com/group/DoctrineZero --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Doctrine Zero" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to DoctrineZero+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE