Topic: Should Boolberry implement a tail emission? (Read 4108 times)

I would not be surprised the adverse impact of the lack of a tail emission in a Cryptonote coin will manifest itself in Bytecoin before Monero reaches its tail emission. The premine/ninjamine in Bytecoin will provide some very useful data here.

Edit: The onset of the tail emission in Monero would also be delayed due to fluctuation in the Monero blocksize. This is due to the impact of the Cryptnote penalty function on the emission when the blocksize grows.

By then the XMR tail emission will have been reached so there will be some real world data. Good plan.

IIRC there was discussion in a Monero thread about a feature tail emission was required for, or some attack it prevented.

As long as there is some cryptonote coin with no tail emission (preserving diversity of approaches and mitigating risk) I'm fine with BBR doing it.

But absent some immediately compelling reason, I'd table the motion until BBR's 10th birthday, then re-consider.

It is true that any tail will not be relevant for a long time, but the longer the decision is postponed the harder it may be to find consensus on the ideal solution.

Boolberry has quite some time before a tail emission is even relevant.  Time would be better spent focusing on making sure Boolberry survives long enough for it to matter. 

I'm not sure what he means but I would just point out that the BBR emission is half the speed of XMR. So if BBR were to implement a similar tail emission to XMR (percentage wise), it wouldn't reach that point for about 16 years. So there is no hurry to deal with it now necessarily.

As the founder of Boolberry I am happy you decided to visit this thread to discuss emission ideas. 

I think it could certainly be improved by some peer review. It may be the only sure-fire way to secure a PoW cryptocurrency with a diminishing block reward. Otherwise, if price drops so much then you become vulnerable, or if the transactions per second drop then you become vulnerable. With something such as this you would never be vulnerable (if the kinks could be worked out.) The only setback I can think of is maybe the value of the token will suffer. Then again, the value of the token will plummet towards zero if it is successful attacked, so maybe the economic setbacks are acceptable.

I like that concept (because it is flexible) but think the precise implementation needs more thought.

What more important technical things do you mean?

I don't think he is "anti-tail emission". In fact, he said that he thinks that it will help with the issue. It really couldn't do anything but help with the problem it intends to fix, but I suppose Smooth is correct that value still matters.

I have an idea... a dynamic tail emission. Clients could publish the current value of the cryptocurrency, and the median is used to calculate what the emission should be. The dynamic tail emission should only be in effect if X number or X percentage of nodes are publishing the current value, otherwise it defaults to a set amount. You can weight it by stake to combat Sybil. It can be hard coded that the tail emission should be X amount of USD a day, which should be an amount that effectively secures the blockchain, and the cryptocurrency autonomously adjusts it to ensure its security.

CoinHoarder, thank u for clarifying it.
It make sense, especially for cc with fast emission curve.
For now i think we have more important technical things to do, but this could be an option in future.
As or me emission curve is very important part of cc, and now i thing it's not fair that biggest reward comes in first blocks when nobody knows what this coin about.
It would be more interesting to have small reward in the beginning, then after some time - valuable reward, and then the rest of emission could be linear... something like tail emission that CoinHoarder mentioned.


Zoidberg

Most PoW coins do not have a tail emission. This seems like a good economic experiment.

We can agree to disagree, but I don't think there is any solution when the value is too low.

At some point it is just time to consider the experiment a worthy one that didn't work out. This is not meant as a comment on BBR or any other particular coin, I'm speaking in generalities. It might even apply to Bitcoin some day.

To be fair, I mention up-thread that "tail emissions" may not be sufficient protection. I had forgot that Quark had a tail emission, so my bad... it has been a while. I stated up-thread that a larger tail emission, or a whole different solution may be necessary. You will not like this, but a Vericoin-like approach may be necessary (the cryptocurrency eventually switches from PoW to PoS after its initial distribution phase.) Alternatively, if you want to remain purely a PoW-base cryptocurrency, a larger "tail emission" may be the only solution.

Some of those coins that have been attacked had tail emissions, I think. For example QRK:

"Total of 247 million QRK will be mined in ~ 6 months, after that ~ 1 million QRK p.a."

It isn't clear whether a tail emission even helps if the value of the coin drops so much that the cost to attack is negligible. It may or may not help if the value is high enough. (I think it does but that is just my opinion.)

Historically, PoW-based cryptocurrencies utilize inflation to subsidize the mining efforts that secure their blockchain. Towards the end of a cryptocurrency's emission curve (or inflation stage), it is unclear whether transaction fees will be able to effectively secure the cryptocurrency. If there is not enough incentive to mine the cryptocurrency, then miners will move on and mine other cryptocurrencies which leaves the cryptocurrency vulnerable to 51% attacks. Several cryptocurrencies with expedited emission curves, and a finite amount of money supply, have suffered from 51% attacks due to this issue (Quarkcoin to name one.) A "tail emission" is intended to combat this issue by providing incentive for miners to continue mining the cryptocurrency indefinitely. Without a "tail emission", a cryptocurrency would need to increase greatly in value and transactions per second to be able to afford sufficient protection from 51% attacks. Not having a tail emission, or another solution in place, is effectively making an "all or nothing" bet in which the cryptocurrency will end up a huge success or worthless. I would liken a "tail emission" to a "safety net", in case your PoW-base cryptocurrency falls somewhere in-between a huge success and worthless (which, in my opinion, is a likely outcome for Boolberry.)

Thanks for the reply Crypto_Zoidberg!

I am sure someone else can explain in more detail, but the basic idea seems to be to better incentivize miners with a tail emission in addition to the transaction fees generated by the network.

Hi Folk!

Still have no idea, why u think need this tail emission ?
Can someone give clear and short explain of the problem?

louisdor logged in again today without commenting. Are you one of the small number of no votes? Please voice your opinion!
https://bitcointalksearch.org/user/louisdor-524591

I sent louisdor a PM.