Divisibility is more important than supply.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Quote from: bytemaster on December 02, 2013, 09:59:05 PM
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?

This is true and the same thing could be said for gold as well, the supply also expands.  However, too low of a supply wouldn't be meaningful to anyone.  What if there was only 1kg of gold for the whole world?

Quote from: freeworld on December 02, 2013, 09:42:16 PM
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?

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: phoenix on December 02, 2013, 02:46:01 PM
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?

Yup.

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: bytemaster on December 02, 2013, 07:28:43 AM

Quote from: super3 on December 02, 2013, 06:43:46 AM

Quote from: bytemaster on December 02, 2013, 05:49:51 AM

Quote from: super3 on December 02, 2013, 05:47:26 AM
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.

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

Perhaps 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.

Basically just Bitshares v0.1, just because of ease of implementation. I say fill the market gap till BitShares arrives.

Quote from: super3 on December 02, 2013, 06:43:46 AM

Quote from: bytemaster on December 02, 2013, 05:49:51 AM

Quote from: super3 on December 02, 2013, 05:47:26 AM
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.

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

Perhaps 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 AM

Quote from: super3 on December 02, 2013, 05:47:26 AM
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.

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

Perhaps 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 AM
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.

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 inflation.

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.

Quote from: Lighthouse on December 02, 2013, 05:42:19 AM
Show both - the actual numerical amount of currency you have AND the % of the total money supply you represent in some sort of understandable format

I 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.

There is a difference between implementation and user experience.   Users will experience this just like actual dividends, this just simplifies my under-the-hood implementation.   

Show both - the actual numerical amount of currency you have AND the % of the total money supply you represent in some sort of understandable format

I 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.

Quote from: HackFisher on December 02, 2013, 04:51:31 AM
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

When people think of Bitcoin they think of a unit of something.  When they think of this system it is still a unit of something and will not be displayed as 'percentages'.  They will just see that they gain or lose some of their balance very day due to dividends or mining tax.   They will simply call them shares. 

I do think that a flexible GUI would be a nice alternative for existing crypto-currencies for people who want to deduct inflationary gains from their taxes.  Eventually people may start trading in these percentage units rather than bitcoins... but it is like the debate between BTC and mBTC vs %BTC and people will have a hard time adjusting for old DACs.  New DACs how ever it will just be viewed as the money supply. 

Quote from: HackFisher on December 02, 2013, 04:55:55 AM
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

This is a good consideration.   Ultimately there are still shares and a money supply under the hood.   The rate of change in the money supply would make the change inconsequential for the order book.   What would you do with your 'dividends' earned while you had an open order?   Markets would function at the 'share level' and the display would just show you the percentage level.   Thus dividends will accrue to your bids and asks equally and thus be irrelevant.