Re:Why I want Bitcoin to die in a fire
by DennisP on Wednesday December 18, 2013 @07:03PM
(#6931950)
Peercoin, for one, has a 1% annual growth rate forever, and is designed to be more energy-efficient over the long term because it relies partly on "proof-of-stake" instead of just proof of work. There are a couple other proof-of-stake currencies too, and some unimplemented ideas like proof-of-burn. Another interesting currency is Freicoin, which uses proof-of-work but has demurrage.
Proof-of is just a waste. Currency is a means of exchange rather than a store of value or an actual representation of value. Proving that you've burn't so much electricity is a fun idea for some stuff (spam prevention is the best one I've heard) but when it comes to currency, who cares?
All I really care is that someone else values it about the same as I do, so it can be exchanged freely.
I also don't really object to currency manipulation by central banks because they are a stabilising influence and (in theory) are there to stop the money supply from becoming a negative economic factor in times of recession etc.
I quite like the article, and I've made many of those arguments myself. I don't know that bitcoin will fail. It may be that there are enough people to keep it going indefinitely, people who buy in to the politics, who don't care about the politics, or don't know about the details. But I'd not be sad to see it go.
Crypto-currency is really cool. Next time I'd quite like one that isn't inherently deflationary and doesn't require burning millions of dollars worth of electricity to keep the system safe from attack. There has to be a more elegant way. But then I don't give a crap about decentralisation so there are multiple good schemes IMHO.