Topic: AURORACOIN - Empowering Financial Freedom - page 59. (Read 138034 times)

There's a video called "Billions in Change".  It's an interesting watch, and can be found here: http://billionsinchange.com.  Long story short, it's about the 5-hour energy drink CEO, Manoj Bhargava, spending like 95% of his earnings on ideas to change the world.  But that's not what I'm getting at.

In the video, Manoj talks about hiring experts.  Basically, he says that they don't hire experts because experts know everything about what has been.  He said instead, he wants people that will think about what could possibly come next.  Satoshi did that in a lot of ways, but he(/she/they) couldn't predict everything.  He was an expert of digital currency at that time.  He knew what would happen then, but he couldn't account for everything.

I think that's what we really need to focus on.  We can't possibly know everything about what will happen either.  We need to try to predict trends, safeguard against possible risks, and code for the future instead of the now.  But we can't be afraid to make changes down the line to course correct.  Crypto is ever-evolving.  It's adapting to change, and overcoming possible adversity.

We can't be afraid to entertain the idea of change because somebody, who could even just be a fictional entity for a group of people, said years ago that "this is what it is", and people take that as "this is what it always should be."  Ultimately, that's what BTC is- a solution to the traditional fiat currency systems that people were afraid to question.

-Fuse

Of course he did. I think anyone with the IQ of room temperature could have foreseen that.

I think that Soltantgris wasn't really pointing out this specific topic, just using it as an example to point out that Bitcoin's design is not perfect and in it's original form it's far from being a viable option as a world scale payment system without monumental modifications. Satoshi didn't have all the answers for sure and who is to say that the ones he had are the best ones?

I just don't think it's a valid logic to say that something shouldn't be changed because it's designer had everything figured out. Everything made my man can be improved.

Satoshi foresaw the block size debate and spoke to it before 2011.
 

THAT is an interesting convo !

I feel a bit like Fuse on this - I never got why such a drastic reward decrease was coded at first. Why not gradually ? The endgame would be the same, no ?  Most economic activity move ''gradually''. I don't bump the price of an item from 100$ to 200$. I increase the price to 109, then 129, then 139 etc. Banks move rates slowly for the same reason - and each time they don't, well, we know what happen. Crashes, war, bankrupt etc. 

Imo, just the fact that people worry, or prepare to the next halving is a sign that there is something wrong with it. This is not a good stable currency !   I don't want any price manipulation - but keeping something just because ''satoshi'' put it in BTC is not a good reason to me. Satoshi was/is not a god - we see tons of coders trying to figure how to change BTC so the network can support more transactions - these coders don't say that bitcoin is broken, they say it can be better suited for what we need.

If we gradually decrease the reward without changing the supply in any way (just doing the maths correctly, right?), we just eliminate a big question mark, we let the market grow on an organic way, no ?   The halving realy look like a dogma to me - or at least i can't see any decent reason for wanting such drastic change in something that need stability. 

did anyone remember to celebrate Auroracoins birthday on Jan 24th?

can you repost this (maybe using an img tag) in the Auroracoin market observer thread? It's more appropriate there and I could use some help in getting that thread a little more lively.

wow.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this moving average graph I found on Bittrex shows that Auroracoin's overall moving average price reached a turning point  minimum on the the 4th of February 2016.

http://imgur.com/wXGnEQ4

Ok.

What about the Icelandic exchange?

I want to reiterate this point.  While I would like to see the change made, it's not on the development roadmap at this time.  The discussion is merely being had right now for the sake of the discussion.

-Fuse

Right now there is only the old version. We do not recommend you use this for it has been unsupported for quite some time and it depends on the "old" wallet chain.

We have new wallets for all OS's coming out soon. First we are finalizing a major change in our network protocols that creates dependancies towards those wallets. After final testing is satisfactory, expect massive releases.

I am ok for block reward manipulation change if price go up. Digibute price went up with block reward change. Dont have to explain yourself to people . Doit if biomike agree to manipulation for increase price.

Do you have any instructions on how to download the Auroracoin Android wallet?

It's good to have discussions about block halving, but don't forget it's not on any official agenda. Right now we are focusing on bringing you an amazing package of developments that mostly improve the security of the network and usability of our coin.

Just for clarity, the Auroracoin dev-team is not working on or even seriously discussing this matter. It's an interesting discussion however and one we gladly take on when time comes.

This is a completely different situation.  I'm pretty sure I wasn't even around when NLG did the reduction, so don't try to make any connection to NLG here, mate.  However, if I was, I would have fought it tooth and nail.  If you want to see where I fought this with another coin, check out POT, which is now untradeable and dying a slow death.  Manipulating price via the blockchain to the point of what NLG or POT did is where you start getting into the realm of extreme lack of confidence.  This is a completely different situation.  I'm not trying to manipulate price like those coins did.  I'm trying to ease the rate of block reward decrease so there is less shock to the markets and blockchain when halvings occur.  Two completely different things.

BioMike is 100% correct in what I'm proposing.  The rewards would stay the same at the periods in time when they would have normally halved.  In between those points though, the reward would slowly decrease to get to that point.  So halfway between block 420k and 840k, block 630k would be worth 4.6875AUR instead of 6.25AUR.  By the time we got to 840k blocks, the reward would match the 3.125 that it would normally have been with the hard halving.  If I absolutely have to, I'll make a chart this afternoon when I get back into the office to illustrate my proposal.

-Fuse

Ny2cafuse and I were the only ones involved with that (I was also against the NLG change, just as this change.) and have taken a position in this. The double standards also crossed my mind, but the situation here is completely different. Ny2cafuse wants to prevent a big difference in price (stabilize the price), while the NLG people argued that the price was too low and hoped to pump it this way (higher price). Also, with Fuse' solution the drop stays at specific points the same (just in between those points are changed), while the NLG solution is a one time drop of 10x and keep it the same for 60 years into the future.

Agreed.  Yes, my problem is with the bigger economic picture.  Like I said, I'm not an economist, so I guess that's what's driving this curiosity on my side for why it's always been this way.  I read your post on the official forums and here, and I agree with a lot of what you said about the issue diminishing as time goes on.  Considering I wasn't involved with AUR prior to coming onboard with the team, I would say that the halving that will happen in the 400k's would be the first for the relaunch.  Now, if we're pushing to get things really rolling this year, and we gain wide adoption shortly there-after, the fact that the "first" halving is statistically bumpy concerns me.  That would mean that we're 2 years into this team's push, and we're looking at an event of uncertainty.  That's nagging at me.  Call me crazy. lol

I've seen botched reductions with other coins as well.  Ones that I even argued against vehemently that ultimately did the same thing as NLG... dropped instead of increased.  I would never argue for any kind of price manipulation via blockchain mechanics.  While a gradual block reward decrease would ultimately affect the price over time, it should be in equilibrium with what it would have been had we stuck with the hard halving.  It's like gearing up from 1st to 5th gear instead of running the RPMs to redline and slamming into 5th from 1st.  Both ways will get you to 5th gear, but one is going to be a lot smoother ride.

-Fuse

But are we airdropping coins to anyone else?  So the distribution is now primarily mining and buying through the ISK/AUR exchange.  If I'm mining, changing to a gradual decrease would mean that the "early adopter" period is diminished.  The closer we get to the legacy halvings, the smaller the rewards get.  So people won't hammer the chain in the months prior to try to "short" AUR in an attempt to dump months later when the price corrects to match halving.  Listen, I'm ok with that if that's what people want, but the price and hashrate fluctuations that would result from that would suck.  We'll see this with BTC this summer.  I guarantee it.



I'd say we've already tinkered with the system with the latest update.  Things are changing.  Big things.  The gradual reduction in block rewards, and one that matches the original reduction plan but in a smoother manner, is miniscule to what we're pushing out in the coming months.



Correct.  It cuts the inflation rate, not the supply.  Like I said, it does nothing to the supply.  But easing the reduction in inflation rate has got to be better than hard percentage decreases.  There were some decent proposals to the the way inflation rates could be shaped better.  One that outlined actual schedules and rates can be found here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/cryptocurrencies-and-monetary-supply-growth-rates-108964.  Again, I'm not a econ guru, but I would think a steady gradual decrease in the inflationary rate would be better than waiting years for a change.  The argument I see for keeping block rewards high in the beginning for BTC was that they wanted to see early adoption and distribution.  I think AUR addressed that with the airdrop.  So really, wouldn't we want the rate to really start tapering off?



Satoshi was a smart guy, but not a clairvoyant.  He had plans in place to address a lot of issue like this.  What he didn't have in place, the dev team addressed as well.  However, the overwhelming consensus from people discussing the halving schedule back in the day was that it was set the way it was for early adoption and simplicity of code.  And while I am a firm believer in the KISS method, sometimes the easiest thing isn't always the best.  The halving functions set by BTC were uniquely created for BTC.  The thing that keeps haunting me about this is that coins just continued to use the same principals because "it's what BTC did".  That seems to be the only explanation I'm seeing.  There are coins that have altered this function to include a gradual decrease.  However, they never really explain why either.  I just want to troof, troof.

I would hope we're not shooting for a hoarding situation like your copper example.  Again, this is the "shorting" scenario I mentioned about.  I'd love to eliminate that.  I think that's my biggest driving force for proposing this change- speculation mining/trading.

Regarding the code complexity, there was some mention in our slack meeting about the floating point errors.  There is a lot of discussion about this in the BTC halving threads in late 2012 / early 2013.  There is a concern about code issues, but at least we're aware of what could happen.  I just thought I'd throw out the concern that some might have because I want to make sure we address every aspect of this (non)issue.



I'm not convinced it's broken either.  But just because something works, doesn't mean it's the best way for it to work.  If we stuck with that mentality, we'd be watching cathode tube televisions still.  I want AUR to be one of those snazzy new 0.11" thick LG TV sets(http://www.ibtimes.com/ces-2016-lg-shows-ultra-thin-g6-tv-measures-same-4-stacked-credit-cards-2250067).

I love the discussion, mate.  Even if nothing changes, we can at least say we thought about it and addressed both sides of the discussion.

-Fuse

I've posted my ideas regarding this on the official forum. No need to repeat it.

The new change is needed for chain stability. It adds already complicated code, but that is needed. The problem you describe can be solved with solutions that don't add extra complexity to the code. Like posted on the other forum, your problem is part of a bigger economic problem that has to be tackled any way.

Look at our NLG friends. They dropped the reward 10x, because they expected that that would make the price going up. It didn't happen. What did happen was that the price dropped further.

To continue: the first drop would be from 12.5 to 6.25 (and according to you the price would almost double, so let's say 20000), then the next drop it goes to 3.125 (and according to you the price would almost double again, 40000), next drop 1.5625 (again almost double of price?, 80000)... now what's the economic logic behind every price increase if the drops become smaller and smaller? As the price increases more and more bag holders would start selling, pushing the price down. This is even without taking into consideration that there would be a healthy Auroracoin economy that would stabilize the price by itself (by providing sufficient liquidity). Finally, it easier to pump the price from 10000 to 20000 than from 40000 to 80000. So, if the first halving is a bit bumpy, the next halvings will have less and less effect as the price would go up.

What do you mean by "fairer"?


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.

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.


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.


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 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 feel like I'm doing something wrong with the github wallet.

could you give me instructions to download it?