0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
In order to appease both sides, why not display both the actual money supply and the number of coins? I am having difficulty wrapping my head around buying something for X%.
Quote from: stuartcharles on December 06, 2013, 09:17:13 pmQuote from: bytemaster on December 06, 2013, 08:25:19 pmQuote from: stuartcharles on December 06, 2013, 08:15:03 pmI see there is a great benefit if this gets the idea to market quickly but given the choice with the same implementation date, i would by far prefer to see coins in my wallet that don't shrink if i don't participate. I think it would feel like i had to work to stand still.I fully understand the argument made and it is right, but, human psychology is a powerful thing and you will be making a gamble on the average investor's reaction.It would also leave room for someone else to put in the extra development time a come up with something more palatable to the human psyche.Lets face it who enjoys opening there freicoin wallet and watching coins evaporate?In BitShares you will watch your coins accumulate which is why I want this feature.So your bitshares will grow only your % ownership of the DAC will change?A BitShare is a percent ownership of the DAC... which will grow.
Quote from: bytemaster on December 06, 2013, 08:25:19 pmQuote from: stuartcharles on December 06, 2013, 08:15:03 pmI see there is a great benefit if this gets the idea to market quickly but given the choice with the same implementation date, i would by far prefer to see coins in my wallet that don't shrink if i don't participate. I think it would feel like i had to work to stand still.I fully understand the argument made and it is right, but, human psychology is a powerful thing and you will be making a gamble on the average investor's reaction.It would also leave room for someone else to put in the extra development time a come up with something more palatable to the human psyche.Lets face it who enjoys opening there freicoin wallet and watching coins evaporate?In BitShares you will watch your coins accumulate which is why I want this feature.So your bitshares will grow only your % ownership of the DAC will change?
Quote from: stuartcharles on December 06, 2013, 08:15:03 pmI see there is a great benefit if this gets the idea to market quickly but given the choice with the same implementation date, i would by far prefer to see coins in my wallet that don't shrink if i don't participate. I think it would feel like i had to work to stand still.I fully understand the argument made and it is right, but, human psychology is a powerful thing and you will be making a gamble on the average investor's reaction.It would also leave room for someone else to put in the extra development time a come up with something more palatable to the human psyche.Lets face it who enjoys opening there freicoin wallet and watching coins evaporate?In BitShares you will watch your coins accumulate which is why I want this feature.
I see there is a great benefit if this gets the idea to market quickly but given the choice with the same implementation date, i would by far prefer to see coins in my wallet that don't shrink if i don't participate. I think it would feel like i had to work to stand still.I fully understand the argument made and it is right, but, human psychology is a powerful thing and you will be making a gamble on the average investor's reaction.It would also leave room for someone else to put in the extra development time a come up with something more palatable to the human psyche.Lets face it who enjoys opening there freicoin wallet and watching coins evaporate?
Quote from: liberman on December 05, 2013, 09:39:04 pmIf you charge interest to short, the next day someone is going to fork the project and offer a "free interest" version that everybody will prefer.You aren't directly charged interest to short, but you do lose the rights to the dividends on your collateral
If you charge interest to short, the next day someone is going to fork the project and offer a "free interest" version that everybody will prefer.
The political currencies have to deal with that. These new currencies are decentralized and you don't know which one people will want but I highly doubt Bitcoin will remain in top demand. It's not like the dollar which could remain in top demand by force.
Quote from: bytemaster on December 03, 2013, 02:21:01 amBitUSD or BitApples solves this problem in a decentralized manner. Sure, it is good for speculators, but not for real investors.Imagine that around 70% of all transactions in our decentralized bank happens between Bitcoin and Bitshares. That could be perfectly the case because most people will enter with Bitcoins in order to obtain any other currency, or take loans in BitBTC.
BitUSD or BitApples solves this problem in a decentralized manner.
. It will happen the same that is happening in Wall ST right now. Because around 60% of all transactions in the world are made in dollars, when the dollar goes up and down, it affects secundary currencies that haven't got the strength to trade against anything which is not the dollar. Example: most currencies in South América trade against the dollar for importation/exportation. If the dollar goes down, they go down too.
maybe we have different concepts of inflation ,
Quote from: WaPTS on December 03, 2013, 02:41:32 pmQuote from: bytemaster on December 02, 2013, 09:59:05 pmQuote from: freeworld on December 02, 2013, 09:42:16 pmI don't believe it's fair to say that BTC has a 10% yearly inflation. The total supply is 21 million coins that's what Satoshi decided.If Satoshi released all 21 million coins right away (or at least within the first year), then we would have 0% inflation since the cap has been reached. What difference does it make if the 21 million units are released gradually or all at once (besides the fact that releasing all at once would be terrible).If I make another btc clone and flood the market with 21 million coins, is it even fair to say that my coin has zero inflation and BTC has 10% inflation?Your right, BTC has 12% yearly inflation All that matters is potential 'coins in circulation'. Every time a new coin is mined someone has financial incentive to sell to cover the cost of mining and this selling pressure devalues the coin. Imagine what would happen to BTC price if miners were not dumping on the market?I don`t understand why you say there is inflation in BTC, BTC is coin other than the shares of all BTC, 10000 BTC only can buy pizza four years ago ,but now 1BTC maybe can buy 100 pizza or more , it is deflation.if the inflation you say is ?1BTC is 1/2,000,000 of all BTC ( when the acount of created BTC is 2,000,000 ) ,1BTC is 1/12,000,000 of all BTC ( when the acount of created BTC is 12,000,000 now) You are not understanding what inflation is. Inflation is just the increase in money supply. Period.Because Bitcoin is still mined, it is inflationary. It will cease to inflate at some point, but not right now.What you really mean is that Bitcoin increases its VALUE at a much higher rate that its inflation.So you should separate the concepts of value and inflation, they are not the same.
Quote from: bytemaster on December 02, 2013, 09:59:05 pmQuote from: freeworld on December 02, 2013, 09:42:16 pmI don't believe it's fair to say that BTC has a 10% yearly inflation. The total supply is 21 million coins that's what Satoshi decided.If Satoshi released all 21 million coins right away (or at least within the first year), then we would have 0% inflation since the cap has been reached. What difference does it make if the 21 million units are released gradually or all at once (besides the fact that releasing all at once would be terrible).If I make another btc clone and flood the market with 21 million coins, is it even fair to say that my coin has zero inflation and BTC has 10% inflation?Your right, BTC has 12% yearly inflation All that matters is potential 'coins in circulation'. Every time a new coin is mined someone has financial incentive to sell to cover the cost of mining and this selling pressure devalues the coin. Imagine what would happen to BTC price if miners were not dumping on the market?I don`t understand why you say there is inflation in BTC, BTC is coin other than the shares of all BTC, 10000 BTC only can buy pizza four years ago ,but now 1BTC maybe can buy 100 pizza or more , it is deflation.if the inflation you say is ?1BTC is 1/2,000,000 of all BTC ( when the acount of created BTC is 2,000,000 ) ,1BTC is 1/12,000,000 of all BTC ( when the acount of created BTC is 12,000,000 now)
Quote from: freeworld on December 02, 2013, 09:42:16 pmI don't believe it's fair to say that BTC has a 10% yearly inflation. The total supply is 21 million coins that's what Satoshi decided.If Satoshi released all 21 million coins right away (or at least within the first year), then we would have 0% inflation since the cap has been reached. What difference does it make if the 21 million units are released gradually or all at once (besides the fact that releasing all at once would be terrible).If I make another btc clone and flood the market with 21 million coins, is it even fair to say that my coin has zero inflation and BTC has 10% inflation?Your right, BTC has 12% yearly inflation All that matters is potential 'coins in circulation'. Every time a new coin is mined someone has financial incentive to sell to cover the cost of mining and this selling pressure devalues the coin. Imagine what would happen to BTC price if miners were not dumping on the market?
I don't believe it's fair to say that BTC has a 10% yearly inflation. The total supply is 21 million coins that's what Satoshi decided.If Satoshi released all 21 million coins right away (or at least within the first year), then we would have 0% inflation since the cap has been reached. What difference does it make if the 21 million units are released gradually or all at once (besides the fact that releasing all at once would be terrible).If I make another btc clone and flood the market with 21 million coins, is it even fair to say that my coin has zero inflation and BTC has 10% inflation?
Quote from: Lighthouse on December 02, 2013, 04:36:21 amSo let me get this straight - transaction fees will be destroyed, so what is the incentive to process transactions and who is doing that now in this system?No, transaction fees still exist because there is limited space in the block chain and these fees will 'destroy' the currency.New blocks are created by all full nodes and anyone with a financial interest in the network will pick the largest value transactions with the highest fees (which are destroyed and thus show up as dividends).If you do not include transactions in a block then your mining difficulty will be higher (proof-of-stake) so those blocks will never make it into the chain.
So let me get this straight - transaction fees will be destroyed, so what is the incentive to process transactions and who is doing that now in this system?
Rather than considering the 'unit' of a currency to be individual shares, people should transact in 'Percent of Money Supply' and all balances should be represented as 'Percent of Money Supply'. As currency is created you see your balance shrinking due to inflation. When money is destroyed your see your balance increasing due to 'dividends'. You can shift the decimal on this percentage to create friendly numbers, but ultimately it is still a percentage. With a simple change to the user interface dividends can be implemented with ease.
Inflation in Bitcoin is not perceived because the real value of the currency in relation to goods and other currencies is increasing very fast on average. From a point of view of a today user, s/he only sees that his/her coins gain in value over time, perceiving that as a fake deflation.Infation is only a problem when you reach certain stability in real market shares, or when the decline starts. For example, what is happening to the dollar right now.In my opinion, the ideal currency is the one which is able to expand/shrink (inflate itself by increasing/decreasing money supply) in the same ratio as market/exchange adoption does happen. So if you have 1 dollar today and are able to buy 1kg of apples, the ideal is that 20 years from now you can also buy 1kg of apples with 1 dollar.This stability has many advantages. The first one being able to take loans and pay in a predictable way.Do you imagine taking a loan today in bitcoins at $1000, and having to pay it when it is at $100,000? You would fail to pay, and this happens because money supply (inflation) is just not enough to support the incredible demand.But how to implement this in a virtual currency? It is a problem if we don't want centralization, and centralization is precisely the biggest problem we want to avoid, for political reasons.
Divisibility is more important than supply. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Your right, BTC has 12% yearly inflation All that matters is potential 'coins in circulation'. Every time a new coin is mined someone has financial incentive to sell to cover the cost of mining and this selling pressure devalues the coin. Imagine what would happen to BTC price if miners were not dumping on the market?
So, is this just a way to help users more easily visualize their gains from dividends, and their losses from inflation? As well as make things easier for you to code?
Quote from: super3 on December 02, 2013, 06:43:46 amQuote from: bytemaster on December 02, 2013, 05:49:51 amQuote from: super3 on December 02, 2013, 05:47:26 amThis concept will work perfectly for Protoshares and onwards. I think other "more spendable" Cryptocurrencies will have problems this. Dynamically changing balances would perhaps make it very hard to price items.Actually pricing becomes easier because you will have more price stability by removing the inflation from the mix. For currencies like BTC the wallet would probably want to price things in USD because then they will still see their balance going up despite the 12% APR inflatiPerhaps you could use this in another way. Call them StableShares or CentralShares. Basically you have an algorithm or voting board that can create or destroy coins. The idea is to keep one share equal to some amount of agreed spending power. If we want move forward in the Cryptocurrency movement, we need to stop using USD as a crutch, and instead use our own analog. Perhaps you don't actually need a coin. Perhaps this could be reduced to an index. Although the DAC idea would of course fund itself. Pricing things relative to a known stable quantity, perhaps OZ of gold helps. BitShares handles the pegging against a known value so no point in creating a new system.
Quote from: bytemaster on December 02, 2013, 05:49:51 amQuote from: super3 on December 02, 2013, 05:47:26 amThis concept will work perfectly for Protoshares and onwards. I think other "more spendable" Cryptocurrencies will have problems this. Dynamically changing balances would perhaps make it very hard to price items.Actually pricing becomes easier because you will have more price stability by removing the inflation from the mix. For currencies like BTC the wallet would probably want to price things in USD because then they will still see their balance going up despite the 12% APR inflatiPerhaps you could use this in another way. Call them StableShares or CentralShares. Basically you have an algorithm or voting board that can create or destroy coins. The idea is to keep one share equal to some amount of agreed spending power. If we want move forward in the Cryptocurrency movement, we need to stop using USD as a crutch, and instead use our own analog. Perhaps you don't actually need a coin. Perhaps this could be reduced to an index. Although the DAC idea would of course fund itself.
Quote from: super3 on December 02, 2013, 05:47:26 amThis concept will work perfectly for Protoshares and onwards. I think other "more spendable" Cryptocurrencies will have problems this. Dynamically changing balances would perhaps make it very hard to price items.Actually pricing becomes easier because you will have more price stability by removing the inflation from the mix. For currencies like BTC the wallet would probably want to price things in USD because then they will still see their balance going up despite the 12% APR inflati
This concept will work perfectly for Protoshares and onwards. I think other "more spendable" Cryptocurrencies will have problems this. Dynamically changing balances would perhaps make it very hard to price items.
Show both - the actual numerical amount of currency you have AND the % of the total money supply you represent in some sort of understandable formatI dunno, if you can nail this it will be good but it could be very confusing and doesn't really feel like dividends in the same way although I know it is intellectually.
People may lack of knowlege you posted in this thread, so I suggest to give people choise to switch balance viewes on user interface, and teatch user there.The manner of people are hard to change, and peole may be confused by the new strategy, so UI might be the key to succuss.It's great to just point this simple true idea, missunderstood by people. And it's straightforward and simple mathematically.Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
Besides, how will trade be infulenced? If to show as percentages, the order list can not easily adjust, it may not easy for the market to accept it.Sent from my GT-N7100 using Tapatalk
So what is the first DAC we should expect to see this in? I'm ready for some of these ideas to make their way into a PTS derived DAC
Perhaps it would be a good idea to show a day-to-day and month-to-month % change. I don't think I would really appreciate very minor changes in my holdings relative to the entire user-base, but if the interface pointed out the specific change whether good or bad would be valuable.