Before starting to change the number ... This is a crazy idea. This is a manifestation of weakness and uncertainty. This will be bad for NEM.
There are things that are worthy of an authoritarian approach and for whom voting is harmful. Developers have long had to just say firmly and rigidly - it's only our competence, the question is closed and is not negotiable.
Topic: NEM (XEM) Official Thread - 100% New Code - Easy To Use APIs - page 1546. (Read 2985369 times)
November 08, 2014, 11:14:28 PM
November 08, 2014, 10:59:15 PM
I have voted for 8 Billion. I personally don't see much difference between 4 and 8 Billion NEMs and it doesn't matter for me either ways. My vote for 8 was influenced by the idea of making a single NEM of a cheaper value so current and future social network NEM apps/functionalities would operate efficiently with cheaper fuel "transaction fees". These thoughts are from a prespective that NEM will be extremely successful where a single NEM would be more valuable than being used as a transaction fee.
Only a difference of 4,000,000,000 HAHaha
November 08, 2014, 10:00:14 PM
I have voted for 8 Billion. I personally don't see much difference between 4 and 8 Billion NEMs and it doesn't matter for me either ways. My vote for 8 was influenced by the idea of making a single NEM of a cheaper value so current and future social network NEM apps/functionalities would operate efficiently with cheaper fuel "transaction fees". These thoughts are from a prespective that NEM will be extremely successful where a single NEM would be more valuable than being used as a transaction fee.
November 08, 2014, 07:21:17 PM
we have a big argument on how many coins there will be..4 or 8 billion...lets have a poll to put an end to it.
You are asking for a third poll on the same subject, doesn;t the fact that after two polls people did not agree, say anything?
Should we have polls on the matter until all 550 members of nemforums agree completely?
There were 2 polls so far, and both were inconclusive. Well, one is still open, go and vote.
It is still a manipuilative poll, just like the first one, without any options, or as the author put it "the options are condensed".
Please refrain from asking a change of this magnitude now, 10 days before launch because 27 people say yes to 8 billion, 21 say no and more than 2000 stakeholders did not even register at the nemforums. Be serious, you cant change the rules every other week, and expect to be taken seriously.
Please do understand that changing the amount of coin supply 10 days before launch, without enough time for this kind of change to be debated in a serious manner is absolutely suicidal.
There are more accounts in both the nemforum threads (in all of the 8 pages of them, mind you!!/sarc), arguing against this change.
The poll is not objective and cannot be trusted because it can be heavily manipulated as it evidently has, and the change proposed is too important to just let it pass.
There are three accounts or four, that are trying to rush this change now and reapeatedly dismiss any opinion against the change, 10 days before launch.
Look in both the nemforum threads, count the posters, read their comments.
"...is absolutely suicidal"
- Those are the famous, historical words
You are just throwing balls over here and there, soft balls - no facts, only pure, soft opinions.
Your intensity reminds of school times ... Too cool for school
November 08, 2014, 07:02:27 PM
we have a big argument on how many coins there will be..4 or 8 billion...lets have a poll to put an end to it.
You are asking for a third poll on the same subject, doesn;t the fact that after two polls people did not agree, say anything?
Should we have polls on the matter until all 550 members of nemforums agree completely?
There were 2 polls so far, and both were inconclusive. Well, one is still open, go and vote.
It is still a manipuilative poll, just like the first one, without any options, or as the author put it "the options are condensed".
Please refrain from asking a change of this magnitude now, 10 days before launch because 27 people say yes to 8 billion, 21 say no and more than 2000 stakeholders did not even register at the nemforums. Be serious, you cant change the rules every other week, and expect to be taken seriously.
Please do understand that changing the amount of coin supply 10 days before launch, without enough time for this kind of change to be debated in a serious manner is absolutely suicidal.
There are more accounts in both the nemforum threads (in all of the 8 pages of them, mind you!!/sarc), arguing against this change.
The poll is not objective and cannot be trusted because it can be heavily manipulated as it evidently has, and the change proposed is too important to just let it pass.
There are three accounts or four, that are trying to rush this change now and reapeatedly dismiss any opinion against the change, 10 days before launch.
Look in both the nemforum threads, count the posters, read their comments.
November 08, 2014, 06:35:36 PM
ok....listen guys......we have a couple of things going on here.....lets look at them
we have a big argument on how many coins there will be..4 or 8 billion...lets have a poll to put an end to it.
also....do we want an ecosystem with inflation or not......lets have a poll on it. ( what %)
lets have a poll now , running for 10 days on both these matters and finally put a stop to the arguments.
someone please instigate these polls and lets finish it....( I will instigate it if no-one else will and if folk want me to.)
we have a big argument on how many coins there will be..4 or 8 billion...lets have a poll to put an end to it.
also....do we want an ecosystem with inflation or not......lets have a poll on it. ( what %)
lets have a poll now , running for 10 days on both these matters and finally put a stop to the arguments.
someone please instigate these polls and lets finish it....( I will instigate it if no-one else will and if folk want me to.)
November 08, 2014, 06:34:37 PM
You do know that 0.1% means 10%, correct?
Wrong,
0.1% = 0.001
1% = 0.01
10% = 0.10
Quick basic math lesson:
1 = 100%
0.1 x 100% = 10%
0.001 x 100% = 0.1%
November 08, 2014, 04:19:27 PM
jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.
Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.
A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.
Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.
So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.
Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.
A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.
Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.
So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)
While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.
I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.
If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,
If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw
Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.
Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.
This a really amazing idea to me. I figured out that if there are 4 billion coins that 0.1% inflation per year could go as a node reward no problem, possibly even more. I think nobody can really get upset about a tenth of a percent of inflation. The plus side is that would be just a little over 10,000 NEM a day. If the amount of coins is 8 billion, then that number goes up to 20,000 NEM a day. This actually is a kind of nice amount of NEM.
I think the best way is that once a day, always at a random time that nobody can know, a network sweep is done for nodes and that 10,000-20,000 NEM is divided equally between all nodes, rich or poor, all alike would get a reward. I could even easily double those numbers and not even think twice about it. This could also dramatically cut down on the whole "faucet" thing. Instead of people going to some website and going through silly motions or putting a silly signature on their profile, they can just leave a very lightweight client running in the background and get free coins.
For instance, I once checked into NXT and found out they usually have less that 200 hallmarked nodes at any time (hallmarked nodes are the ones your really need because while anybody can forge, only hallmarked nodes support the network). One reason for that is that in NXT making a hallmarked node is very difficult and only really for the more advanced techies. But in NEM getting the node to be hallmarked is like 10 times easier (still took me a bit to figure out and took many tries, some clear guides with pictures and steps on how to open ports on different popular firewalls and routers would go a long way to making it much easier). It would be sooooooooo awesome to say that NEM on week one had more nodes up and going than NXT. And what would the cost be? Very very little in the way of inflation.
If I had to give it a name, I would call it proof-of-support.
I can tell you right now for a fact 100%, that if I could have gotten 20-100 NXT a day just for leaving a client going, I would have had it running in the background of my computer all the time, anytime I had the computer on. I also would have been much, much, much, more active in their community. After a long time in NXT, I forged three blocks, all for 0 fees. Made me so frustrated I turned it off and started looking at their forum far less. How many more people were like me? NXT's system is set up in a way where the rich just get richer. We have a chance do do something about that here and give regular people a chance to become something too, especially if they are in on NEM early.
One of my majors in university was Psychology. It has been proven time and time again, if you get people to do a little something for you, they are more invested in you and will do a big something later on. This is one of the oldest tricks of manipulators around the world. New religious movements do it constantly. Those people that come knocking on your door trying to convert you, the church doesn't send them out to your house for your salvation. The church sends them out to your house to solidify the faith of the person knocking. That is why there are always two, an established church member and a newbie. The newbie by knocking on the doors becomes soooo invested in the church that they are much much more likely to give the church money later.
The Mormoms famously send out all their young for two years to proselytize. After this intense experience, they are much more likely to not ever leave the church but instead more likely to donate money to it. It is one of the richest churches in the world because of this despite being so small (I have another degree in world religions).
My point is, if we can get people running NEM in the background, they will be much more likely to follow our posts, join the community, and even contribute more. A very small inflation of less than one percent given to people that support NEM would actually make NEM much more valuable, not less valuable.
I support this idea 100%.
Let's be careful with the word inflation. People hate inflation for good reasons. Inflation is the hidden way for governments to tax the people. So depending on you view about tax, it is good or bad. If the collected tax is for the benefit of society you might call it good. If it is collected by a corrupt political elite well you know the answer...
But inflation is not a normal tax. It is the expansion of the money supply. And in the present day world the expansion of the money supply is not primarily done by the state but by commercial banks who are also the beneficiaries of this system of money creation.
And 1% inflation is exponential growth. It means the amount of NEM coins will double in 70 years to NEM 16 billion and NEM 32 billion in 140 years.
But i like the idea of proof-of-support
Fidor bank is launching a crypto bank. We know more fractional reserve is coming to crypto currencies.
Fractional reserves in the exchanges and upcoming payment processors and then crypto banks. We don't need to compound this inflation with any hardcoded inflation.
Makoto already proposed NODE funding. 150 million NEM could someday be $150 million, $1.5 billion, et al.
November 08, 2014, 04:19:24 PM
Changing to 8b = controversial.
Sticking to 4b = not controversial.
We should avoid any possible controversial changes at this late stage. It's been well and truly ingrained into people that it is 1m nem per stake. Changes to that May just cause more controversail situations and unnecessary confusion. That is reason enough to stick with 4b. Also it's going to cause confusion for months after cos some people will still think it's 4b the same way that some still think nem is a clone. This stuff sticks..
Plus many many people won't know about the change, assume they got double by mistake
And could end up dumping the extra cos they think it's free profit..
Is that not a compelling reason to stick with 4?
Sticking to 4b = not controversial.
We should avoid any possible controversial changes at this late stage. It's been well and truly ingrained into people that it is 1m nem per stake. Changes to that May just cause more controversail situations and unnecessary confusion. That is reason enough to stick with 4b. Also it's going to cause confusion for months after cos some people will still think it's 4b the same way that some still think nem is a clone. This stuff sticks..
Plus many many people won't know about the change, assume they got double by mistake
And could end up dumping the extra cos they think it's free profit..
Is that not a compelling reason to stick with 4?
I also tend to be against doubling.
November 08, 2014, 04:16:50 PM
Man no more joking around. make 22 the deadline for crying out loud. if they dont want to
redeem then tax them. what makes them so special to hold everyone else up. I mean come on. Sorry if I seem like im complaining but it's time that we get firm on the deadline.
redeem then tax them. what makes them so special to hold everyone else up. I mean come on. Sorry if I seem like im complaining but it's time that we get firm on the deadline.
if the deadline is extended then its going to be for a damn good reason.. decisions that are made are not made lightly and are ALWAYS for the betterment of nem. people need to understand that everything the team decides to do is for the good of nem and its community and most certainly not for personal gains/benefits. imagine what would have happened if we had launched a couple weeks ago or even a week ago like some people were calling out for? the network would have forked like it did, webstart would be causing many people problems and who knows what other issues would have popped up, all this resulting in a crashing price and near total loss of faith in the team.
but because of the decisions the team has made this has not happened. because of the decisions the team has made nem has not crashed and burned. because of the decisions the team has made we are still looking pretty damn golden and looking at taking the crypto world by storm.
would you rather the deadlines are not changed and we launch before nem is ready? you may think that is what you want but can assure you if we rush through this CRITICAL stage of nems development and if we do not mind every step we take and if we do not proceed with extreme caution nem could quite easily crash and burn like so many other 2.0 coins before us.
redemption is also a key part of this final stage. if redemption process is moving too slow and we have too few addresses then it is essential that the deadline be postponed so that we can reach a satisfactory number of claimants. with out optimal distribution, nem loses one of its most attractive attributes. this we cannot allow.
i can understand peoples frustration with delays and things seeming like they are not moving fast enough. i really can. im frustrated myself at times but when its a choice between rushing things, resulting in nem under performing, losing reputation or not fulfilling promises or even just totally crashing and burning OR taking things slowly, getting things right, keeping our golden reputation and taking the crypto world by storm with epic distribution, revolutionary - secure - heavily tested tech that can withstand the beating it will need to withstand after launch... i know what i would chose..
we get one shot at getting this right and one shot only. we fuck this up there is no going back to change the past. i think everyone will agree that we need to proceed with calculated, precision steps, ensuring to avoid any possible fuck ups along the way.
lets face it.. if we can pull this off.. its going to be totally and utterly epic beyond anything we have previously seen in crypto and people will take notice - but we gotta get it right first time. no two ways about that.
Good points Kod.
November 08, 2014, 03:36:16 PM
If I had to give it a name, I would call it proof-of-support.
---snip---
The Mormoms famously send out all their young for two years to proselytize. After this intense experience, they are much more likely to not ever leave the church but instead more likely to donate money to it. It is one of the richest churches in the world because of this despite being so small (I have another degree in world religions).
My point is, if we can get people running NEM in the background, they will be much more likely to follow our posts, join the community, and even contribute more. A very small inflation of less than one percent given to people that support NEM would actually make NEM much more valuable, not less valuable.
I support this idea 100%.
I like you even more now since you mentioned Mormons ;-) I'm one...
I support the 8B idea - I think it would help distribution a lot. And I would much more prefer to have 2m NEM instead of 1 regardles of total worth.
The inflation idea is a great one. And I would like that implemented very much. It will give even more opportunity to "miners/harvesters" also it would make possible the significant reduction of fees (bringing them down to really the level so that nobody spams the network) since to those running nodes the fees wouldn't be only source of "income/reward".
Imagine having 0.1 NEM or even 0.01 NEM transaction fees - how much popular NEMs AE or sending messages would be or anything else that our bright devs build on top of NEM.
Micropayments would really make sense...
November 08, 2014, 03:31:32 PM
jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.
Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.
A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.
Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.
So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.
Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.
A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.
Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.
So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)
While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.
I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.
If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,
If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw
Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.
Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.
This a really amazing idea to me. I figured out that if there are 4 billion coins that 0.1% inflation per year could go as a node reward no problem, possibly even more. I think nobody can really get upset about a tenth of a percent of inflation. The plus side is that would be just a little over 10,000 NEM a day. If the amount of coins is 8 billion, then that number goes up to 20,000 NEM a day. This actually is a kind of nice amount of NEM.
I think the best way is that once a day, always at a random time that nobody can know, a network sweep is done for nodes and that 10,000-20,000 NEM is divided equally between all nodes, rich or poor, all alike would get a reward. I could even easily double those numbers and not even think twice about it. This could also dramatically cut down on the whole "faucet" thing. Instead of people going to some website and going through silly motions or putting a silly signature on their profile, they can just leave a very lightweight client running in the background and get free coins.
For instance, I once checked into NXT and found out they usually have less that 200 hallmarked nodes at any time (hallmarked nodes are the ones your really need because while anybody can forge, only hallmarked nodes support the network). One reason for that is that in NXT making a hallmarked node is very difficult and only really for the more advanced techies. But in NEM getting the node to be hallmarked is like 10 times easier (still took me a bit to figure out and took many tries, some clear guides with pictures and steps on how to open ports on different popular firewalls and routers would go a long way to making it much easier). It would be sooooooooo awesome to say that NEM on week one had more nodes up and going than NXT. And what would the cost be? Very very little in the way of inflation.
If I had to give it a name, I would call it proof-of-support.
I can tell you right now for a fact 100%, that if I could have gotten 20-100 NXT a day just for leaving a client going, I would have had it running in the background of my computer all the time, anytime I had the computer on. I also would have been much, much, much, more active in their community. After a long time in NXT, I forged three blocks, all for 0 fees. Made me so frustrated I turned it off and started looking at their forum far less. How many more people were like me? NXT's system is set up in a way where the rich just get richer. We have a chance do do something about that here and give regular people a chance to become something too, especially if they are in on NEM early.
One of my majors in university was Psychology. It has been proven time and time again, if you get people to do a little something for you, they are more invested in you and will do a big something later on. This is one of the oldest tricks of manipulators around the world. New religious movements do it constantly. Those people that come knocking on your door trying to convert you, the church doesn't send them out to your house for your salvation. The church sends them out to your house to solidify the faith of the person knocking. That is why there are always two, an established church member and a newbie. The newbie by knocking on the doors becomes soooo invested in the church that they are much much more likely to give the church money later.
The Mormoms famously send out all their young for two years to proselytize. After this intense experience, they are much more likely to not ever leave the church but instead more likely to donate money to it. It is one of the richest churches in the world because of this despite being so small (I have another degree in world religions).
My point is, if we can get people running NEM in the background, they will be much more likely to follow our posts, join the community, and even contribute more. A very small inflation of less than one percent given to people that support NEM would actually make NEM much more valuable, not less valuable.
I support this idea 100%.
Let's be careful with the word inflation. People hate inflation for good reasons. Inflation is the hidden way for governments to tax the people. So depending on you view about tax, it is good or bad. If the collected tax is for the benefit of society you might call it good. If it is collected by a corrupt political elite well you know the answer...
But inflation is not a normal tax. It is the expansion of the money supply. And in the present day world the expansion of the money supply is not primarily done by the state but by commercial banks who are also the beneficiaries of this system of money creation.
And 1% inflation is exponential growth. It means the amount of NEM coins will double in 70 years to NEM 16 billion and NEM 32 billion in 140 years.
But i like the idea of proof-of-support
November 08, 2014, 03:26:41 PM
I think switching to 8 billion is a good idea. It might confuse some people with the amount change and yes some people will be upset, but oh well. I think its going to boost the market cap by a lot. Its all about the numbers. Its about what price people see on the exchange sites. With the illusion that its cheap it should bring in more buy support. 100 satoshis a coin looks twice as good as 200 sats. Attention is usually focused more on price than total supply anyway. Also it should help with hoarding coins by making it psychologically easier for holders to part from them. Someone is more likely to give up 100k nem of 2 million coins vs 50k nem of the amount of 1 million. "That shiny pretty 1M coin stash isn't complete anymore 
" VS "I'm still holding 900k along with a whole 1 million, whoo!"
" VS "I'm still holding 900k along with a whole 1 million, whoo!"Just check the amount of the coins in top 10 in CMC.......
CMC?
link to that top 10?
From https://www.cryptsy.com/ and https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/List_of_alternative_cryptocurrencies
Market Currency 24hr Vol Unit cap Price
millions
DRK/BTC DarkCoin 421 BTC 18.04 0.00777300
DOGE/BTC Dogecoin 116 BTC Unlimited 0.00000063
LTC/BTC LiteCoin 106 BTC 84 0.01030010
RDD/BTC ReddCoin 17.9 BTC 0.00000012
BC/BTC BlackCoin 16.6 BTC 0.00009343
XRP/BTC Ripple 14.2 BTC 28989 0.00001444
VTC/BTC VertCoin 12.5 BTC 0.00016301
WDC/BTC WorldCoin 12.3 BTC 0.00002690
PTS/BTC Bitshares PTS 11.3 BTC 1999 0.00175430
DGB/BTC Digibyte 10.6 BTC 0.00000024
EXCL/BTC Exclusivecoin 8.23 BTC 0.00001608
UTC/BTC UltraCoin 7.96 BTC 0.00008199
CANN/BTC CannabisCoin 7.82 BTC 0.00002427
ANC/BTC AnonCoin 6.93 BTC 0.00072125
PPC/BTC Peercoin 6.10 BTC Unlimited 0.00225000
SDC/BTC ShadowCash 5.92 BTC 0.00022000
XC/BTC XCurrency 5.19 BTC 0.00051000
POT/BTC PotCoin 4.07 BTC 0.00000656
NXT/BTC Nxt 3.68 BTC 999 0.00005787
MINT/BTC MintCoin 3.67 BTC 0.00000003
FTC/BTC FeatherCoin 3.24 BTC ? 0.00007000
November 08, 2014, 03:19:10 PM
@jabo very well said sir. I don't see how anyone would disagree to that. It's brilliant.
I'm just wondering what kind of time/effort would be required to do this?
I'm just wondering what kind of time/effort would be required to do this?
I am just an idea kind of guy. I think the devs would have to speak to the time/effort to make this happen.
My guess is that it would be difficult but possible.
-1
Digital currencies already have a lot of inflation from the exchanges creating fake coins. Then velocity is unpredictable as formally dormant & hibernating whales come out of nowhere to dump their BTC and other coins.
You do know that 0.1% means 10%, correct? Nobody is going to touch NEM if that were the case and I will tell you why. There's already several 10% to 25% PoS coins and they often do worse than their lower interest or low-rate PoW counterparts.
People don't even want 1% inflation in cryptos. Have to realize a lot of people coming into digital currencies are investors with diversified holdings or people working on their retirement portfolio. In a nutshell, for that demographic, you have to make digital currencies look more attractive than bonds and investment plans at institutions like Vanguard.
November 08, 2014, 02:02:50 PM
I think switching to 8 billion is a good idea. It might confuse some people with the amount change and yes some people will be upset, but oh well. I think its going to boost the market cap by a lot. Its all about the numbers. Its about what price people see on the exchange sites. With the illusion that its cheap it should bring in more buy support. 100 satoshis a coin looks twice as good as 200 sats. Attention is usually focused more on price than total supply anyway. Also it should help with hoarding coins by making it psychologically easier for holders to part from them. Someone is more likely to give up 100k nem of 2 million coins vs 50k nem of the amount of 1 million. "That shiny pretty 1M coin stash isn't complete anymore " VS "I'm still holding 900k along with a whole 1 million, whoo!"
" VS "I'm still holding 900k along with a whole 1 million, whoo!"Just check the amount of the coins in top 10 in CMC.......
November 08, 2014, 02:01:21 PM
I think switching to 8 billion is a good idea. It might confuse some people with the amount change and yes some people will be upset, but oh well. I think its going to boost the market cap by a lot. Its all about the numbers. Its about what price people see on the exchange sites. With the illusion that its cheap it should bring in more buy support. 100 satoshis a coin looks twice as good as 200 sats. Attention is usually focused more on price than total supply anyway. Also it should help with hoarding coins by making it psychologically easier for holders to part from them. Someone is more likely to give up 100k nem of 2 million coins vs 50k nem of the amount of 1 million. "That shiny pretty 1M coin stash isn't complete anymore " VS "I'm still holding 900k along with a whole 1 million, whoo!"
" VS "I'm still holding 900k along with a whole 1 million, whoo!"
November 08, 2014, 01:56:12 PM
@jabo very well said sir. I don't see how anyone would disagree to that. It's brilliant.
I'm just wondering what kind of time/effort would be required to do this?
I'm just wondering what kind of time/effort would be required to do this?
I am just an idea kind of guy. I think the devs would have to speak to the time/effort to make this happen.
My guess is that it would be difficult but possible.
November 08, 2014, 12:48:21 PM
...
Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.
Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.
Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.
Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.
This a really amazing idea to me. I figured out that if there are 4 billion coins that 0.1% inflation per year could go as a node reward no problem, possibly even more. ...
I think the best way is that once a day, always at a random time that nobody can know, a network sweep is done for nodes and that 10,000-20,000 NEM is divided equally between all nodes, rich or poor, all alike would get a reward.
...
How do you determine the inflation % ...
what if the situation is such that there is deflation ?
Or are you just using the word "inflation" for a certain meaning to adjust NEM system?
"10,000-20,000 NEM is divided equally between all nodes" - is that an extra salary, not an inflation ?
November 08, 2014, 12:40:11 PM
jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.
Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.
A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.
Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.
So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.
Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.
A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.
Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.
So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)
While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.
I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.
If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,
If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw
Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.
Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.
This a really amazing idea to me. I figured out that if there are 4 billion coins that 0.1% inflation per year could go as a node reward no problem, possibly even more. I think nobody can really get upset about a tenth of a percent of inflation. The plus side is that would be just a little over 10,000 NEM a day. If the amount of coins is 8 billion, then that number goes up to 20,000 NEM a day. This actually is a kind of nice amount of NEM.
I think the best way is that once a day, always at a random time that nobody can know, a network sweep is done for nodes and that 10,000-20,000 NEM is divided equally between all nodes, rich or poor, all alike would get a reward. I could even easily double those numbers and not even think twice about it. This could also dramatically cut down on the whole "faucet" thing. Instead of people going to some website and going through silly motions or putting a silly signature on their profile, they can just leave a very lightweight client running in the background and get free coins.
For instance, I once checked into NXT and found out they usually have less that 200 hallmarked nodes at any time (hallmarked nodes are the ones your really need because while anybody can forge, only hallmarked nodes support the network). One reason for that is that in NXT making a hallmarked node is very difficult and only really for the more advanced techies. But in NEM getting the node to be hallmarked is like 10 times easier (still took me a bit to figure out and took many tries, some clear guides with pictures and steps on how to open ports on different popular firewalls and routers would go a long way to making it much easier). It would be sooooooooo awesome to say that NEM on week one had more nodes up and going than NXT. And what would the cost be? Very very little in the way of inflation.
If I had to give it a name, I would call it proof-of-support.
I can tell you right now for a fact 100%, that if I could have gotten 20-100 NXT a day just for leaving a client going, I would have had it running in the background of my computer all the time, anytime I had the computer on. I also would have been much, much, much, more active in their community. After a long time in NXT, I forged three blocks, all for 0 fees. Made me so frustrated I turned it off and started looking at their forum far less. How many more people were like me? NXT's system is set up in a way where the rich just get richer. We have a chance do do something about that here and give regular people a chance to become something too, especially if they are in on NEM early.
One of my majors in university was Psychology. It has been proven time and time again, if you get people to do a little something for you, they are more invested in you and will do a big something later on. This is one of the oldest tricks of manipulators around the world. New religious movements do it constantly. Those people that come knocking on your door trying to convert you, the church doesn't send them out to your house for your salvation. The church sends them out to your house to solidify the faith of the person knocking. That is why there are always two, an established church member and a newbie. The newbie by knocking on the doors becomes soooo invested in the church that they are much much more likely to give the church money later.
The Mormoms famously send out all their young for two years to proselytize. After this intense experience, they are much more likely to not ever leave the church but instead more likely to donate money to it. It is one of the richest churches in the world because of this despite being so small (I have another degree in world religions).
My point is, if we can get people running NEM in the background, they will be much more likely to follow our posts, join the community, and even contribute more. A very small inflation of less than one percent given to people that support NEM would actually make NEM much more valuable, not less valuable.
I support this idea 100%.
November 08, 2014, 12:38:57 PM
4 000 000 000 coins or 8 000 000 000 coins ... "original" plan was copied from bitcoin/litecoin.
If there will be 8 000 000 000 coins, everyone do get double amount of coins, but the share is the same. Why that is not seen?
I See the nothing will change in shares. It would only double our share I get that.
it's the reasoning as to why we want to change it is what I don't get.
Jump to: