Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6364026
I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it.
Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin. How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems.
Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which *might* be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up.
Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price?
I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6364026
I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it.
Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin. How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems.
Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which *might* be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up.
Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price?
I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?
This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.
Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph?
That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?
Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week.
This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.
I hardly think that significantly less than 1% over the course of a week or so constitutes an instamine.
The crypto world is pretty brutal, bitcointalk even more so - I'll watch with interest and shut up in the meantime.....
