I've got one question.
If eMu supply increases when there is more demand, how will the value of eMu increase in the long run?
What is it about eMu that is attracting big investors if they won't be able to make any profit?
The only way for price to increase is if supply remains unchanged or falls when demand increases. But if supply increases with demand, then the price will only stay the same or fall if there is too much supply.
If you could clear that up, I'd be most grateful.
Topic: [eMunie] eMunie Tech & General Q&A Thread - Get Involved - page 3. (Read 15671 times)
eMunie is truly a 2nd generation crypto
Assume I have 1000 eMu that cost me $100 @ $0.1 each and I was an early adopter. All being well, eMunie will be a great success and there will be a lot of demand, but also assume that over time a nice easy uptrend in value is attained, and that 5% over that first year is met.
My 1000 eMu at the end of the 1st year is now worth $105 ($0.105 per eMu), not a great increase, supply inflation however due to huge demand is 1000% over the year. New supply eMu is roughly split 50:50 between balance holders and hatchers as reward for clearing transactions. I am a balance holder, so balance holders over the year will see a 500% increase in the amount of eMu they hold.
I'm now holding 5000 eMu @ $0.105 which equals $525, a nice ROI while at the same time giving a predictable, stable value of each unit.
Some might say that 1000% inflation is too large, but I pose these 2 arguments to counter that position:
All of this sounds good in theory, and I applaud your efforts in trying to combat the volatility that we've seen in digital currencies. But I'm wondering in the real world how soundproof is this algorithm. Can artificial demand be introduced to inflate the supply? What about when demand severely dries up, are EmU taken away or does money creation stop? Something just doesn't sit right with a potentially 'unlimited' money supply ... makes me think of central banks and money printing.
Is this money creation throttled in some way or is it a direct 1:1 relationship?
While no one likes the ups/downs and wild price swings, the more it becomes adopted the less volatility you will have. I personally would prefer the price swings with a knowable supply amount.
When demand stops, creation of new eMu stops.
When demand stops, eMu is dead.
Assume I have 1000 eMu that cost me $100 @ $0.1 each and I was an early adopter. All being well, eMunie will be a great success and there will be a lot of demand, but also assume that over time a nice easy uptrend in value is attained, and that 5% over that first year is met.
My 1000 eMu at the end of the 1st year is now worth $105 ($0.105 per eMu), not a great increase, supply inflation however due to huge demand is 1000% over the year. New supply eMu is roughly split 50:50 between balance holders and hatchers as reward for clearing transactions. I am a balance holder, so balance holders over the year will see a 500% increase in the amount of eMu they hold.
I'm now holding 5000 eMu @ $0.105 which equals $525, a nice ROI while at the same time giving a predictable, stable value of each unit.
Some might say that 1000% inflation is too large, but I pose these 2 arguments to counter that position:
All of this sounds good in theory, and I applaud your efforts in trying to combat the volatility that we've seen in digital currencies. But I'm wondering in the real world how soundproof is this algorithm. Can artificial demand be introduced to inflate the supply? What about when demand severely dries up, are EmU taken away or does money creation stop? Something just doesn't sit right with a potentially 'unlimited' money supply ... makes me think of central banks and money printing.
Is this money creation throttled in some way or is it a direct 1:1 relationship?
While no one likes the ups/downs and wild price swings, the more it becomes adopted the less volatility you will have. I personally would prefer the price swings with a knowable supply amount.
When demand stops, creation of new eMu stops.
Assume I have 1000 eMu that cost me $100 @ $0.1 each and I was an early adopter. All being well, eMunie will be a great success and there will be a lot of demand, but also assume that over time a nice easy uptrend in value is attained, and that 5% over that first year is met.
My 1000 eMu at the end of the 1st year is now worth $105 ($0.105 per eMu), not a great increase, supply inflation however due to huge demand is 1000% over the year. New supply eMu is roughly split 50:50 between balance holders and hatchers as reward for clearing transactions. I am a balance holder, so balance holders over the year will see a 500% increase in the amount of eMu they hold.
I'm now holding 5000 eMu @ $0.105 which equals $525, a nice ROI while at the same time giving a predictable, stable value of each unit.
Some might say that 1000% inflation is too large, but I pose these 2 arguments to counter that position:
All of this sounds good in theory, and I applaud your efforts in trying to combat the volatility that we've seen in digital currencies. But I'm wondering in the real world how soundproof is this algorithm. Can artificial demand be introduced to inflate the supply? What about when demand severely dries up, are EmU taken away or does money creation stop? Something just doesn't sit right with a potentially 'unlimited' money supply ... makes me think of central banks and money printing.
Is this money creation throttled in some way or is it a direct 1:1 relationship?
While no one likes the ups/downs and wild price swings, the more it becomes adopted the less volatility you will have. I personally would prefer the price swings with a knowable supply amount.
Is EMU issued by DEV like ripple did,or it is mined like bitcoin?
Neither of them, new EMU will be hatched by hatcher-clients when the market dictates a need for more EMU. Hatchers will be rewarded with bonus EMU for the work.
At the upcoming launch most mediocre computers should be able to do hatching, but as the market and hardware requirement expands elemental hardware for running a capable hatching machine is CPU, memory and SSD.
Is EMU issued by DEV like ripple did,or it is mined like bitcoin?
Like Anenome5 said i really hope that it will work, time will show us the truth 
Also be carrefull, you may have a Nobel price or a jail in Guantanamo
With love.
Also be carrefull, you may have a Nobel price or a jail in Guantanamo
With love.
http://forum.emunie.com/index.php/topic/420-ann-emunie-pre-launch-sale-details-information-draft/
eMunie Pre-Launch Sale
Duration: 18th November - 18th December
Is the pre-launch going on or not yet?
eMunie Pre-Launch Sale
Duration: 18th November - 18th December
Is the pre-launch going on or not yet?
No, that was just a draft. He hasn't announced any date for the pre-launch yet.
http://forum.emunie.com/index.php/topic/420-ann-emunie-pre-launch-sale-details-information-draft/
eMunie Pre-Launch Sale
Duration: 18th November - 18th December
Is the pre-launch going on or not yet?
eMunie Pre-Launch Sale
Duration: 18th November - 18th December
Is the pre-launch going on or not yet?
I like the goals of this creation, and I applaud the OP for following through. I have a couple comments.
1. Trolls: I think one major reason why Emunie is attracting trolls, as you put it, is that the name of it is a bit goofy, if you don't mind me saying so. It's kitsch. It's misspelled. It's like self-parody almost. You might consider a new name.
2. Inflation: Your inflation model is unnecessary. There's no intrinsic difference between doubling the existing currency of people holding emunie, thus inflating the currency base amongst those people, and bitcoin's system of deflation which causes people to divide their earnings, only the latter is far simpler and likely less exploitable (if an exploit does appear), but at the least causes less worry. Everyone knows there's only 21m bitcoin ever, but there's no upper limit of emunie, so that's a bit less good. Because currencies in the past have often been destroyed by hyperinflation--that's the typical way for fiat to die in fact, and bitcoin makes that impossible, but it looks like your system does not, and that's a worry.
The only reason people/economists/governments want an inflationary currency if because most people are debtors and want their loans to become cheaper over time; most economists are Keynesians and want to manipulate the economy with credit and by creating new money, and governments can greatly increase their wealth and power by controlling where new money gets spent.
You create here a system where people who have emunie also receive the new inflated money. That satisfies none of the concerns and wishes of the people above and they'll be just as against it as bitcoin's deflationary model.
But at least you're not outright making it inflationary in the way that a government makes new currency for themselves and gets to spend it all themselves, stealing value from all currency holders, at least you're not doing that, so I consider it workable if unnecessary.
3. Programmatic Security: SNakamoto programmed bitcoin using a specific means designed to make it very difficult to hack, have you taken similar precautions? Without the system being open source no one can really say. I appreciate your reasons for keeping it closed source for now and I think many will take this effort far more seriously once you do OS it, so you have a bit of a problem there--you want to see uptake before you OS it, but it not being OS'd actually hampers serious uptake.
4. Patching Bitcoin: To actually overtake bitcoin you will have to produce a system that can do things that bitcoin cannot do. It looks like you're doing that, and bravo. But if bitcoin can be patched to do many of the things that make your system more attractive as an ecurrency, then it's all for naught and your system becomes just another alt-currency proving ground for good ideas that end up adopted by the king-currency.
I actually find this rather likely, that bitcoin partisans if facing a true threat from another currency like this will simply mod in the missing functionality. They have the will, the developers, and the resources to do so, and it's hard to believe that they couldn't replicate just about anything.
I don't think they'd bother with the modular aspects you talk about here, the messaging and marketplace, those are better left as separate projects, and it's a bit unusual for an effort like this to spend time on them since they're adjunct concerns, unless the nature of this project makes implementing them as a corollary of the main system so simple that it's beautiful. Time will tell.
The main feature everyone wants in a cryptocurrency, now that bitcoin is making waves, is privacy of transactions. This system addresses it, but are you sure it's something that could never be patched into bitcoin ultimately. I have no idea.
5. A stumble: Lastly, circumstances of uptake. I can see either way this could go--I think bitcoin would have to stumble in some major way before the mainstream of cryptocurrency partisans, like all of us on here, would throw weight behind an alt-currency even as promising as this one--and it would already have to be OS'd at that point, or a system like this becomes the new defacto currency of the darknet for people conducting business so elicit that they can't rely on just Tor anymore, and then you'd better hope your programmatic security is up to snuff as the world's governments apply pressure.
And btw, how is your own personal opsec, because if that happens then they're going to find you and put pressure on you to corrupt your own creation in line with their desires. It is not for nothing that SNakamoto remained anonymous.
All that said, I've never even considered sneezing at another cryptocurrency, knowing bitcoin already had path dependence and the bandwagon effect on its side, but this is different enough to be interesting, so I wish you much luck. At the very least I hope an effort like this puts enough pressure on bitcoin to make it more private in various ways to match your effort.
1. Trolls: I think one major reason why Emunie is attracting trolls, as you put it, is that the name of it is a bit goofy, if you don't mind me saying so. It's kitsch. It's misspelled. It's like self-parody almost. You might consider a new name.
2. Inflation: Your inflation model is unnecessary. There's no intrinsic difference between doubling the existing currency of people holding emunie, thus inflating the currency base amongst those people, and bitcoin's system of deflation which causes people to divide their earnings, only the latter is far simpler and likely less exploitable (if an exploit does appear), but at the least causes less worry. Everyone knows there's only 21m bitcoin ever, but there's no upper limit of emunie, so that's a bit less good. Because currencies in the past have often been destroyed by hyperinflation--that's the typical way for fiat to die in fact, and bitcoin makes that impossible, but it looks like your system does not, and that's a worry.
The only reason people/economists/governments want an inflationary currency if because most people are debtors and want their loans to become cheaper over time; most economists are Keynesians and want to manipulate the economy with credit and by creating new money, and governments can greatly increase their wealth and power by controlling where new money gets spent.
You create here a system where people who have emunie also receive the new inflated money. That satisfies none of the concerns and wishes of the people above and they'll be just as against it as bitcoin's deflationary model.
But at least you're not outright making it inflationary in the way that a government makes new currency for themselves and gets to spend it all themselves, stealing value from all currency holders, at least you're not doing that, so I consider it workable if unnecessary.
3. Programmatic Security: SNakamoto programmed bitcoin using a specific means designed to make it very difficult to hack, have you taken similar precautions? Without the system being open source no one can really say. I appreciate your reasons for keeping it closed source for now and I think many will take this effort far more seriously once you do OS it, so you have a bit of a problem there--you want to see uptake before you OS it, but it not being OS'd actually hampers serious uptake.
4. Patching Bitcoin: To actually overtake bitcoin you will have to produce a system that can do things that bitcoin cannot do. It looks like you're doing that, and bravo. But if bitcoin can be patched to do many of the things that make your system more attractive as an ecurrency, then it's all for naught and your system becomes just another alt-currency proving ground for good ideas that end up adopted by the king-currency.
I actually find this rather likely, that bitcoin partisans if facing a true threat from another currency like this will simply mod in the missing functionality. They have the will, the developers, and the resources to do so, and it's hard to believe that they couldn't replicate just about anything.
I don't think they'd bother with the modular aspects you talk about here, the messaging and marketplace, those are better left as separate projects, and it's a bit unusual for an effort like this to spend time on them since they're adjunct concerns, unless the nature of this project makes implementing them as a corollary of the main system so simple that it's beautiful. Time will tell.
The main feature everyone wants in a cryptocurrency, now that bitcoin is making waves, is privacy of transactions. This system addresses it, but are you sure it's something that could never be patched into bitcoin ultimately. I have no idea.
5. A stumble: Lastly, circumstances of uptake. I can see either way this could go--I think bitcoin would have to stumble in some major way before the mainstream of cryptocurrency partisans, like all of us on here, would throw weight behind an alt-currency even as promising as this one--and it would already have to be OS'd at that point, or a system like this becomes the new defacto currency of the darknet for people conducting business so elicit that they can't rely on just Tor anymore, and then you'd better hope your programmatic security is up to snuff as the world's governments apply pressure.
And btw, how is your own personal opsec, because if that happens then they're going to find you and put pressure on you to corrupt your own creation in line with their desires. It is not for nothing that SNakamoto remained anonymous.
All that said, I've never even considered sneezing at another cryptocurrency, knowing bitcoin already had path dependence and the bandwagon effect on its side, but this is different enough to be interesting, so I wish you much luck. At the very least I hope an effort like this puts enough pressure on bitcoin to make it more private in various ways to match your effort.
To get the client, you need to put your name down to join the Beta Testers group. I beleive that the eMu presale will be kicking off on the 1st of December, for 1 month.
http://emunie.com/download
not working
not working
Is it already possible to buy some eMunie coins ?
All these useless PonZicoins make people greedy and crazy.
The community needs a true and useful cryptocurrency.
eMunie has Great features and an ethical concept.
I just hope what it promises is what it delivers..
The community needs a true and useful cryptocurrency.
eMunie has Great features and an ethical concept.
I just hope what it promises is what it delivers..
Couldn't agree more. I'm interested in a currency that people are using in commerce, rather than a commodity. I've done a lot of vetting and research and eMu is very unique. At this point, I'm all BTC and eMu in my holdings.
All these useless PonZicoins make people greedy and crazy.
The community needs a true and useful cryptocurrency.
eMunie has Great features and an ethical concept.
I just hope what it promises is what it delivers..
The community needs a true and useful cryptocurrency.
eMunie has Great features and an ethical concept.
I just hope what it promises is what it delivers..
The client is Java based (at least for now).
eid
eid
Will the upcoming client be available for Mac osx?
once that price is set somehow, is that in stone and then it's 5% increase a year from that point on? Just trying to understand the pricing model. Would love to see a thorough Wiki on everything, although I realize you are probably swamped.
If I understand correctly, (and Im sure Fuseleer will correct me otherwise) the price is not set in stone or fixed as such, rather the protocol is designed to keep the price stable by adjusting the supply of new currency to fit the demand.
High demand? The system creates more eMu: the price stays steady.
Low demand? The system lowers the rate of new eMu creation.
The price is allowed to fluctuate in small amounts day by day but is prevented from boom/bust.
eid
Thanks, I did get that sense, but I'm still wondering how the initial price will be set by "market". Overall, I'm really excited about eMu, I've downloaded the client and it's really good!
Jump to: