Realistically, Bitcoin will probably end in a crash when too few entities control all the mining, and whoever are the last ones holding the grenades lose.
Is there any way to avoid this scenario, with a gradual winding down or transition to a better cryptocurrency? Let's assume the Best Case Scenario.
A reputable central coordinator of the transition announces a precursor period, say, a year, to establish which Bitcoins are actually in circulation with not-lost private keys. During the period, everyone who owns coins is required to do at least one transaction with them.
Then, the central coordinator starts a new cryptocurrency, granting itself a certain number of "New" Coins as part of a genesis procedure. It then offers a fixed rate exchange from Bitcoin to New Coins scaling between the number of of Bitcoin in circulation and the size of the initial grant. It might actually enforce that the Bitcoin were transacted during the precursor period.
Perhaps the central coordinator enforces a time limit to trade in Bitcoins, after which point the unclaimed New Coins are destroyed or given away.
Two difficulties: how do we convince all the miners to switch to the New Coin? By this point, all the mining will probably be mostly ASIC with considerable hardware investment. How do we reliably confirm the "exit" transactions if a great many miners leave?
Is there any way to design a cryptocurrency that a crash is not the only way it can end?
No comments :
Post a Comment