|
|
|
|
|
|
by nosuchthing
3059 days ago
|
|
|
The question purposed is "are cryptocurrencies a worthy alternative to existing mediums of exchange". While future iterations may change, we can examine existing implementations. Upon investigation of the math/economics/game theory behind Bitcoin and most other existing altcoins it becomes evident that the longer a cryptocurrency has existed, incentive to opt in decreases due to the work economics baked into the code. Old users expend low capital costs to produce a product (in this case an alternative money token), and then the rules change for new users who exert the same work energy to receive less payment. (early users were paid in larger block rewards for less effort, i.e. a user with a CPU on day 5 will be paid signifigantly more than a user with the exact same CPU on day 500, and by day 5000 the same work is worthless) An economic model that pays some people more for the exact same work is exploitative. If all users are paid a consistent amount for the same work, this particular disincentive for new users would not be a problem. |
|
|
The question was never posed by the story submitted. It was asked as a segue into a missive against cryptocurrencies and the alleged unfairness of those with foresight to mine early getting rich as a result of the market value of what they mined rising.
>>and then the rules change for new users who exert the same work energy to receive less payment.
Like I said, not only is this inaccurate (e.g. the rules never change in mining), this is a major diversion from the topic of the story, and is going to turn this into another cryptocurrency debate, which you seem intent on having.