from @melvincarvalho (via Slack)
Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.
This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that a second version can capitalize on that.
CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )
The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .
I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back
Fucking scammer. You've dumped on us at 900 sats. This project is dead and dbkeys is a scammer! Quote
I was talking to someone about btm and commented about our 5 year anniversary. How we are 1/4 as old as the Euro. And I remarked, 'and we've had no QE'.
He replied, "I thought the fork was QE". In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM. We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals. This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us. We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data. We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.
He replied, "I thought the fork was QE". In fact that's a reason he stopped following BTM. We've not explained to people that we've kept the emission the same or that the fork was fair and in line with our original goals. This (at least anecdotally) has turned some investors away from us. We need to explain to folks what we've done and why.
I lean towards chain point simply because I know some of the community group and they use technologies we already like such as linked data. We can write up an open time stamps proposal too.
Correct. We are on target for the limits of the original spec, somewhere under 28 million units.
The only change on emission policy in the current code (Fork 1, v0.9.7.2) is that reward "tracks" hashrate as a modulation factor "turning down the volume on reward, on daily per-algo basis. This factor reduces reward when hashrate is below recent peaks. The idea is that mining (hashrate) pressure indicate demand (desire) for the coin, and that lower demand should be met with lower emission.
This is implemented in algorithm Coin Emission Modulation v0.1 (CEM V0.1) has worked well, and reduced emission from the strict rate implied by the 2 minute average block production alone
People like it for different reasons, but in general, I think it has had good acceptance, and that a second version can capitalize on that.
CEM v0.1 & the proposed CEM v0.2 are temperance factors, that people like for several reasons, and *are not* inflationary measures: just the opposite. (Not boundless emissions, like the "Qualitative Easings" or QE's of fiats .... no, not at all. )
The max emission has not been changed, and the uncorrupted protocol basics (I think total emission is really a must-respect) is still under 28 million units (BTM) (MARKS) .
I'll work on an emission tracker graph this coming week ... one was posted a while back
