pull down to refresh

One week after publishing his whitepaper Satoshi says this.

If there was some clever way, or if we wanted to trust someone to actively manage the money supply to peg it to something, the rules could have been programmed for that.
Let us analyse the thought process of Satoshi nakamoto one week after posting the bitcoin whitepaper
Is it possible to figure out how Satoshi would have made bitcoin if he made it in 2023 in todays world, using the latest technologies available today reading through his own original thoughts share in his ning posts?
What happens if that solution which was previously impossible in 2009 is possible now due to advances in technology?
On february 11th 2009 Satoshi posted bitcoin whitepaper on the P2P foundation on ning
Link to the satoshi original post publishing bitcoin whitepaper on the p2pfoundation on ning
1 week later Sepp Hasslberger on February 18, 2009 had posted the following question to Satoshi Nakomoto to which the above reply was made.
Link to the Sepp Hasslberger original post on the p2pfoundation on ning

Sepps Question

I have two questions, Satoshi.
the first one ties in with Joerg's doubts about the trusted supply of tokens/coins.
As far as I understand, there will be a limit of the total amount of tokens that can be created, and a changing gradient of difficulty in making the tokens, where the elaboration gets more and more difficult with time. Is that correct?
It is important that there be a limit in the amount of tokens/coins. But it is also important that this limit be adjustable to take account of how many people adopt the system. If the number of users changes with time, it will also be necessary to change the total amount of coins.
Is there a formula to decide on what should be the total amount of tokens, and if so, what is the formula?
If there is no formula, who gets to make that decision and based on what criteria will it be made?
I will keep my second question for later. One thing at a time...
On the same day Feb 18th of 2009 Satoshi Nakomoto answered as follows.
Link to the original answering post by Satoshi to Sepp Hasslbergers question

Satoshis Answer

It is a global distributed database, with additions to the database by consent of the majority, based on a set of rules they follow:
  • Whenever someone finds proof-of-work to generate a block, they get some new coins
  • The proof-of-work difficulty is adjusted every two weeks to target an average of 6 blocks per hour (for the whole network)
  • The coins given per block is cut in half every 4 years
You could say coins are issued by the majority. They are issued in a limited, predetermined amount.
As an example, if there are 1000 nodes, and 6 get coins each hour, it would likely take a week before you get anything.
To Sepp's question, indeed there is nobody to act as central bank or federal reserve to adjust the money supply as the population of users grows. That would have required a trusted party to determine the value, because I don't know a way for software to know the real world value of things. If there was some clever way, or if we wanted to trust someone to actively manage the money supply to peg it to something, the rules could have been programmed for that.
In this sense, it's more typical of a precious metal. Instead of the supply changing to keep the value the same, the supply is predetermined and the value changes. As the number of users grows, the value per coin increases. It has the potential for a positive feedback loop; as users increase, the value goes up, which could attract more users to take advantage of the increasing value.
The clever way to determine the value of real world things came into being with Chainlink. Ampleforth team precisely utilised this opportunity to act as a central bank to 'adjust the money supply' against a 'fixed peg' as mentioned in Satoshis Answer as the population of users grows. Ampleforth built it in a way that was previously not possible at the time when satoshi proposed bitcoin. Though i am not very sure the idea of ampleforth is inspired from these original posts by satoshi.
In case of AMPL Instead of the value changing to keep the supply the same, the value is predetermined and the supply changes
So in case of AMPL if the demand keeps increasing the market value will go higher than the predetermined value of 2019 CPI adjusted value for 1 USD,( 1.14 USD as on the day of writing this article) then the total supply is increased ( rebasing ) and the increase in total supply is equitably distributed amongst all the AMPL holders proportionate to their previous holdings. Unlike the Fed or central banks the increase in money the supply dilutes the valuation of all existing holders. And leads to `Cantillon effect' where corporations, banks etc more closer to money are most benefited This means as the demand increases the total quantity of ampl in your wallet keeps increasing along with price going above the peg to say like 1.5 or 1.7 USD. The positive rebasing keeps increasing the quantity of AMPL in the wallet to go higher as long as the price remains above the Peg Value. As the demand for AMPL decreases the total quantity of AMPL in your wallet decreases proportionately.
For example if someone buys and hold AMPL for an investment of 1,000 USD in AMPL made when AMPL market cap is at 100 million will be valued at 100,00 USD if the market cap touch 1 billion. ( Because the 1000 AMPL bought at 1 USD would have rebased to 10000 AMPL by the time the market cap is at 1 billion )
Is AMPL at 50 million USD market cap is AMPL an opportunity like in the early days of bitcoin? In order to commit a long term farming contract etc paid in half now and half after 6 months on harvest the payment in bitcoin or satoshi may not be widely accepted because of the volatile nature Does AMPL Spot - a derivative of AMPL which is pegged to USD value of 2019 - and inflation resistant stable coin become the currency of choice for such trade contracts? Will AMPL volume become comparable to that of USDT in future? Only time can answer these questions.
NOTE: Not an investment advise. Do your own research
100% shitcoinery
reply
Why not refute the article point by point?
Than a blanket statement?
reply
Debating with shitcoiners is wasting time. HFSP
reply
I agree that most of the cryptos out there are useless. But there are few with real world use cases.
reply
Lets try that once.
reply
It's not "once".
Bitcoiners have been debating with shitcoiners for at least since 2013 (Ethereum).
reply
what happened to all the bitcoiners who allocated 10% of their portfolio to ethereum in 2013?
reply
50 sats \ 1 reply \ @IHL 6 Mar 2023
Another user I'd like to mute. The content is fine in principle but I just don't come to SN for this kind of "multi-coin" discussion. It just pushes Bitcoin content I actually want further down the list.
reply
There should be option in stacker to follow and block users.
reply
More thoughts...Assuming your analysis was completely accurate, what would prevent bitcoin from incorporating these characteristics if there was consensus? Why make the leap to ampleforth?
reply
It is much more likely that Ampleforth team will build on top of bitcoin and integrate than bitcoin team incorporating these characteristics.
What matters is who believes in the vision and who works towards the goal.
reply
I agree, but the problem with ampleforth is that it is very centralized, and the shady way the forth "governance" token was dropped was a complete money grab by the founders. If I am not mistaken, they are now dropping another ridiculous mint coin which will likely result in a big payday for the founders.
reply
Forth is a governance token. distributed to all holders of ampl based on their holdings as an airdrop. Some unclaimed forth went to the AMPL dao. What is the third mint coin. I am not aware.
reply
AMPL is going multichain - Hopefully they will integrate with platforms like NOSTR as well
reply
This is a well thought analysis, and then your conclusion is that chainlink's oracle function makes ampleforth the next bitcoin? I assume because it is tied to something like the value of a 2019 US dollar? That seems like a bit of a leap.
reply
A transition period will be there where lot of people will start stacking satoshis and bitcoins But there will be some long term contracts which will have to be tied to something thing pegged to commodity price index ( preferably without inflation )
We can say that lot of people will invest on bitcoin for long term But lot of traders who cannot comfortably trade because of volatility will prefer a stable coin for at least the next few years.
The market demand in countries hit with inflation will be very high for something like AMPLEFORTH SPOT a derivative of AMPLEFORTH
USDT having a volume of 80 billion daily - The credibility of the asset backing is under question will require a competitor like AMPL which is algorithmic coin and does not require asset backing.
If AMPL volumes start picking up and demand goes higher, the market capitalisation can go very very high.
AMPL is having a multichain vision - if they come up with something on bitcoin ( like the colored coin of BISQ on top of bitcoin chain ) and which can be transacted in similar way to lightning network zaps - Real world commerce as and when it happens in crypto it will require something like AMPL
This is aligned with the original views of satoshi.
So I am not a bitcoin maximalist. Personally i keep a portfolio where 80% is in bitcoin and 20% is allocated into other cryptos. Its also best to hedge bitcoin with gold and silver coins as well to be on the safer side.
reply
So I am not a bitcoin maximalist. Personally i keep a portfolio where 80% is in bitcoin and 20% is allocated into other cryptos. Its also best to hedge bitcoin with gold and silver coins as well to be on the safer side.
You're still early
reply
early into what?
reply
Now that USDC is depegged and may be USDT also in future. What is the most likely replacement for the need of stablecoins?
reply
We need algorithmic coins. Non backed. I am designing one.