-snip-
What you guys don't want to understand is that you should stop selling this idea that fairness has anything to do with complying with a series of very specific technical parameters. Dash launch was a fair lunch as everyone involved was subject to the same circumstances and constraints. No one is saying that there weren't technical issues and a lot of tokens, were mined at the beginning. There was a fastmine, but those tokens went to anyone and everyone mining at the moment not to Evan in particular as people some times try to imply. I know how much Evan holds and is small compared to the insinuations of people here all the time, he is not even close to the level of the largest holders of the project that bought their coins in exchanges, while doing most of the development work.
I am not a miner and the majority of people that participate in these forums are not miners so no matter what client you have I would not be able to participate. So how are these technical parameters going to make anything accessible to the general community.
I think also all these talks about "social contracts" and "distribution" are misleading a lot of people in these forums. We are here to create empowering technology that adds value to people in every day life and part of the challenge is actually deploying it and making it accessible to users with no expectation of an ROI.
We are not in some sort of socialist movement and this obsession with not making any changes to the parameters with which a coin is launched not to break the "social contract" is one of the most short sighted ideas I have ever seen. When any project, company or decentralized effort is launched is when you know the least about your solution, market and what you are doing and making changes and adapting is precisely what is necessary to make progress. Expecting that all parameters of a nascent project can be set from the very start so that they never need changes in unrealistic.
Some of the more experienced and intelligent people around these forums have been explaining it very clear recently.
I am lamenting the emission cut did not pass a year ago. Currently we just get loads and loads of cheap XMR on top of what we have, and when the value is realized in the wider audience, it feels almost as bad as a premine, with great concentrations of coin in the hands of people who already were rich and smart and forward-looking.
The intention is not to punish from such qualities, but now the reward is so excessive it makes me blush
"Equal opportunity" loses some of its allure when nobody is using it (and then complain afterwards, same as with
BTC)
I've always believed that "more inflation now <=> less inflation later".
Yes, it is correct. What the community refused to believe a year ago, and seemingly still do, is that
both are harmful.
Now we
don't need much inflation as the coin is small and inflation does not benefit anyone (including the usual but completely incorrect claim that it "distributes the coins" which can only happen if the community grows, and can be witnessed in marketcap growth). Later we
would need more inflation to show that the coin is not a pyramid game but that the monetary base is growing as newcomers enter in.
And what reply do these intelligent observations get:
I am lamenting the emission cut did not pass a year ago. Currently we just get loads and loads of cheap XMR on top of what we have, and when the value is realized in the wider audience, it feels almost as bad as a premine, with great concentrations of coin in the hands of people who already were rich and smart and forward-looking.
The intention is not to punish from such qualities, but now the reward is so excessive it makes me blush
"Equal opportunity" loses some of its allure when nobody is using it (and then complain afterwards, same as with
BTC)
I beg to disagree here. People overestimate how high the emission rate actually is. Furthermore, changing the emission rate would have broken
the social contract and would probably look way more sketchy from the outside than the fast emission rate. I also agree with wachtwoord on this matter.
I have always wondered what "social contract" is this guy referring to, isn't the contract to create good technology that is easy to use and make it accessible to people and make all the changes necessary to actually make that a reality. Whether is funding, governance, emission, inflation, mining algorithm, or anything else. Correct what you find to be wrong along the way and move forward.
Dash has always made changes to adapt and evolve and these changes have always been to the benefit of existing and future users of the system. The big challenge is whether the project will be able to produce something that bridges the gap between technocrats and everyday users, that is what we are working for and we will continue to make any and every change or improvement necessary for the project to fulfill its objective. Everyone can try their own way and we can see in a few years what is the better approach.