Changing the halving doesn't give anyone more of an advantage with mining than anyone else. It actually creates a fairer distribution of coins over time.
What do you mean by "fairer"?
Additionally, if we aren't talking about "a better way" or "a greater good", then why are we working on AUR, and not just pumping up BTC? If BTC is does things right, then why try to compete with that?
Because airdrop was designed to get coins into many hands in small geographic area, creating a critical mass of users. With many thousands claiming their coins, this worked.
Evening out the halving schedule doesn't change the supply, nor does it centralize the power of control to the deciding few.
No, but every time we tinker with the system average users will feel the rules of the game are changing. This reduces confidence in the currency.
If anything, it broadens the base of wealth and creates a fairer distribution. It also eases the fluctuations in price caused by halving over the next *nth degree of years. Sure... acceptance is going to create a skyrocket price increase... but what about 2 years from now when we hit the next halving? Are we saying that in 2 years, we won't want the price and chain to be as smooth as possible, or are we hoping for a rollercoaster coin that we make day trades on?
Halving does not cut the supply of AUR in half. It cuts the inflation rate of AUR in half. There will continue to be
more coins than previously, which is downward-pressing on price.
But if change in payout causes price fluctuations, then what you're proposing merely changes it from a once-every-four-years known phenomenon that people can calculate for, to an ever-happening phenomenon that is hidden and difficult to account for. In fact, I don't really understand how it would work myself.
The only argument I've heard so far for leaving it as-is is because BTC did it that way, and Satoshi knows best. The only other reason I could think of is because it's more complicated code. This can't be an issue with the fact that we're pushing a pretty large update to the wallets soon that will have a change far greater than changing the halving schedule.
I do think that Satoshi has thought about this a lot more than most of us. But I'm also not convinced the current methodology accounts for anything more than minimal convulsions in the price since users know when it is happening and can act accordingly. If everyone knew the supply of copper was going to halve in 2 years, don't you think many people would stockpile now, thus driving up the price in the present?
I don't think anyone is making a 'complicated code' argument.
I'm still waiting for someone to tell my why it is financially or technically more beneficial to have hard halving schedules rather than gradual block reductions that match the mining timeline. Sell me on why it's better to leave it as is.
I'm not convinced the hard halving schedule is broken. I'm not convinced it causes wild price fluctuation. I think we have enough work to do without introducing more unknowns and more complexity into the system. I am enjoying the discussion though.
I have to agree with bimmerhead and leave the rewards as they are, I remember how you same people were having a heart attack when NLG wanted to change the reward system and now you wanting to change it yourselves on AUR. Double standards much? Leave it as the way satoshi intended or GTFO.
