Topic: [ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency - page 6517. (Read 9723858 times)

+1 great explanation

This can't happen. If the price goes up many times due to being a store of value coin, then the quantities needed for trading or trading anonymously, go down massively because each monetary unit (1 DRK) represents a much higher value: A $100 DRK will require 1/100th of the coins being liquid and on the move, in order to facilitate trade, compared to a $1 DRK.

It's an auto-compensation mechanism.

A scarce, low-inflation, high-value coin can also be a medium of payments/commercial transactions etc. The opposite is not true however: You can have any coin as a medium of payments but not as a store of value, unless it satisfies certain criteria.

The choice is really not between

a) A store of value coin which is unable to do payments

and

b) A payment coin which cannot hold value


...it's rather


c) A coin that can do payments AND be a store of value - because these two are not mutually exclusive

vs

d)  A payment coin which cannot hold value



The problem of (b/d) is this: Coin competition is strong. In order to survive out there you must have the least amount of improvable weaknesses. Every weakness of yours can be exploited by others. You can have the best technical coin and a clone will come and then say: "Darkcoin was great but it is too inflationary for it to become both a payment medium AND a store of value... so we fixed their problem and we'll do better" => problem right there.

I'm sure there is a happy medium, that's how the world works best.  Sorry  if I sounded self centered as I was just trying to clearly state my viewpoint.  I literally got exhausted.  Still am.  I made the best points I could for leaving it as is, but I saw eddufield's comment that investors are insisting on a change, and the coin does need to survive childhood, so... hopefully we can keep it mild

20% every two years might be ok as well.  That would give us approximately the same number of max coins as bitcoin assuming we reach the 5 coin reward quickly.

I'm just registering my +1 on pretty much all of this. The coin needs to be able to support both being a store of value for investors AND be usable as a directly transferable cash-type item in order to succeed in being what it truly can. If you push too hard for only investors to get in, the end-users who would most benefit from the anonymity factor (people in seriously oppressive regimes and the suchlike) won't be able to, and it'll become stagnant, and full of partially laundered money that rarely moves.

If you push too hard for only end-users to have access the coin, then you'll end up with the coin constantly shifting, staying unstable as all hell and scaring away potential investors, keeping the price down.

Look at fiat currencies: They act as BOTH. The systems which manage them may be broken, but this is surely something that we're here to try and fix... Over a long-term project.

Disclaimer: I'm not even close to being any kind of economist, and if I'm completely wrong here please let me know (but do try and be polite ;-) )

How about .5-1 % every month? This allows a slow reduction of new coins entering the market while still reaching a decent amount of maximum coins that would make the coin attractive for new people

+1, I'd love to store my wealth in this cryptocurrency long term, and it would be difficult to do so if it's subject to inflation forever.  I think the eventual coin cap can be high and the tapering schedule can be gradual so that it gives ample time for people to join in, and miners will see their profits sustained by transaction fees in the decades to come as the price rises to adjust for the scarcity.  

Those that think that way, let them join a highly inflationary coin and learn their lesson. When it's in a slow death for months and years and they are like "oh, whyyyyyyyyy did I lose my money, time, mining effort", then they may realize how real economy works.

Is it that simple? Why wouldn't people use the coin for transactions even if others are hoarding them. Still anonymous transactions. I'm hoarding mine right now regardless. Isn't that a llegitimate function? Some will transact some will hoard. I think know there's a happy medium.

You can have the best of both worlds, just:
1) make the reward adjustment less than 50%.  Evan is suggesting 20%, and this allows for much more gradual tapering over time.
2) Make the reward period long enough, 20% every 1-3 years is pretty slow
3) Adjust these parameters so that overall, the total number of coins remains high.  

I think you make very valuable contributions.  

I think what people feel about limited supply is that when you use crypto you add value into the coin which you can save or send. Paying with paypal or credit card is a promise to pay, i.e. there is a settlement process that happens behind the scenes once you make a transaction - your bank account gets deducted and cash transfers through the banking system.

With crypto there is no banking or any kind of settlement system. The promise to pay is the coin - cash. If you load value into a coin, preferably it should remain there. But with more coins coming into the system your coin loses value. That is what happens when people print more money, it loses value and so prices must go up - Zimbabwe style.

Satoshi he say: Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.

The sooner we get to transaction fees, the better. We can charge a lot for DarkSend, that will, because of X11, attract lots of smaller decentralised miners to support the network.

Ok. This is now over my paid grade.

To clear 3400 is the required difficulty for the 5 coin block reward.

As for the change, maybe we can use a 10% cut to compromise.

Yesterday there was a good debate about the usability of DRK as a way to store wealth because of the anonymity factor nobody wants to store wealth on a public ledger.  I totally support the idea of making the change, it can bring a lot of capital since the interest would shift from day to day transaction to storing wealth.

+1
For Darkcoin to really succeed, it needs to be highly distributed among its users, achieving high equality.
If a small number of people hold most of the coins, it will gain no network effect, and it can kill the coin.

Right now, we have ~3.7m coins, of which ~2m where mined in the first 24hours.
If Darkcoin has 84m coins within X years, then the equality will obviously be achieved, especially if all the GPU miners come to darkcoin after Asic ruled the Scryp-coins.

But if we limit the coin supply, and have say 10m coins within X years, then one might think that this makes the coin a good store of value, but I would argue that it will TanteStefana is right about what people would say...

Let's do it!!  If you want to create an address for specific donations to this use, I'd donate more.  Specify how much of the existing pool is used for this as well. 

I guess, I just saw a different future for this coin, as an actual coin, not a commodity.  I've said my peace

I believe around 3400

Let's say you have bitcoin which has 21mn coins but it will be destined to grow for ever and it's a bad store of value. Thus its price is low but it's highly liquid and nobody hoards it. Thus the price is, say, 10$ instead of 1000$. This means that there are 21mn X 10$ = 210mn USD in bitcoins that can be moved around for commerce / payments etc.

Now, let's change that and make it finite. 90% of people hoard bitcoin and the price goes from 10 to 1000$. Thus ~19mn coins are in hoarding and ~2mn coins are in circulation for commerce. However these 2mn coins can now handle commerce/payments/trade etc of 2mn coins X 1000 USD each = 2bn USD. You would actually only need 200.000 coins of 1000 USD each to cover what previously required 21.000.000 coins at a price of 10$.

You see the spike in price for the hoarded coins allows for a much lesser number of coins to cover commerce / payments / trade or financial daytrading. So it's not really a problem. And now the coin not only serves for trading/commerce etc but also as a store of value as well. You can't go wrong with this.

It is not infinite if the demand outpaces the supply, by a lot!  And bitcoin is already stagnant.  It sits  like gold in a vault, under your bed, behind the couch.

We're most definitely going to hug the blue line. We're already at 20DRK and the mining network will most certainly grow in the coming months. I also agree with you about the 1M coins being absorbed by the future users of the coin. However, there are many investors that really like the coin and are interested in using it as a store of value, but are turned off by the inflationary creation of currency. Many of these people have been reaching out to me saying they want to invest but won't unless we change this.