cryptodogemoon

zk proofs supposedly resolve that issue.

monereo, zcash, and eventually ethereum

the concept seems to make sense but I'd be curious how to audit such an obfuscated system

this assumes trusting a 3rd party wallet to not generate weak keys or backdoors, as has happened many times already

if you're concerned about security just use the official client

It's clearly malicious.

Satoshi could have used a linear growth curve. Instead he used a log curve, giving himself and the smallest user group possible (first users to run the software within the limited timeframe where the hyperinflation took place) control of the majority of the supply for the least amount of work possible.

All users entering the system late beyond users before them are needlessly exploited.

Production costs of 50BTC per every 10 minutes has historically been a fractions of or a few pennies. Only for later users has the cost gradually increased.

The way you and many others approach Bitcoin as a tool to horde and sell to other rubes is indicative of the manipulative design where unsuspecting new users don't understand the history.

Bitcoin is inflationary until the year 2140, and assuming no fork changes that sooner.

If you actually understand Satoshis algorithm and history you'll take notice at how the supply was intended to benefit the first few users to run the software during the brief phase of hyperinflation and production for minimal work, while later users are punished merely for running the same protocol and offering the same computational work equivalent to prior users.

If you consider how easy a linear curve could have been chosen by Satoshi instead of the reverse log curve, you'll understand the manipulative nature of how Bitcoin exploits new users.

The supply inflates every 10 minutes, this by definition is inflation.

It's forever part of Bitcoins orgin story that it begin as hyperinflationary and has since slowed the minting of more BTC.

The irony is the mythos of bitcoin being "deflationary" is not historically accurate and the supply is inflating every 10 minutes.

What Bitcoiners conveniently omit from explanation in Satoshis protocol is the initial "dump" of the supply to the first few users who ran the software. This is a malicious design decision intended to control the supply early.

Any user who joins the network must than attempt to psychologically exploit new users by selling their asset previously generated for less effort/work/watts as the protocol increases in difficulty to any new user.

Fun fact: Bitcoin is designed as a hyperinflationary currency that begins to slow down inflation as more users join and time passes.

Why?

To control the supply early and exploit later speculators.

A linear distribution curve that matches work/watt input. This modestly levels the playing field, although it simply allows existing capital to match the input/output. Satoshi style curves are both capital dependent and skewed disproportionately to the first to arrive within the tiny timeframe.

Anti-sybil attacks would be immensely beneficial. Encouragement of honest economic activity. Scaling of bandwidth and fees.

The ideal solution is a PoW that is computationally useful and desirable, BOINC, folding@home. Ethereum almost does this, but PoW algos as they exist now are anti-scale by design, where increasing computational power does not improve the network at all.

The foreseeable longevity of PoW is ungodly waste, when a world wide distributed computing network has potential far far beyond brute force hash puzzles.

Not with Bitcoin.

Satoshi designed the supply to rapidly mint the majority of coins to the smallest group of users for the least amount of effort/capital/work input.

It's designed to manipulate any user who joins the system after you.

Satoshi could easily have chosen a linear curve to align with time, user growth, and increase in work input yet instead the manipulative log curve was chosen.

Old users are now incentived to attempt to psychologically exploit new people by selling the asset for far more than the cost of production or acquisition.

Banks safeguard your deposit and offer significantly more services than Bitcoin.

A better comparison to energy usage would be other distributed computing systems.

Bitcoin is insanely wasteful by design because it's requiring clients brute force guess the hashes in increasingly rising difficulty.

Computational work in cryptosystems of the future would ideally provide useful work that provides value other than brute force hash resistance.

For such an extensive academic course it's interesting the economic model of Satoshis mining algorithm isn't explained.

Satoshi used a production model that produced the most amount of coins for the lowest amount of work/capital input, to reward the smallest user group.

Satoshi could just as easily have used a linear growth model knowing more users and more hash power should match the production output. Instead, Satoshis algorithm exploits new users.

Old users than have incentive to manipulate new users and psychologically propagate the myth of rarity when in fact the abundance of the supply was taken early easily and users are attempting to sell for more capital than it takes to acquire or produce, often simply by hording these low effort counts coins.

ecash should not exploit new users.

New cryptocash systems can easily be started.