Topic: Should Boolberry implement a tail emission? - page 2. (Read 4108 times)

I wish crypto_zoidberg or louisdor would share their thoughts but I agree the community should move forward on its own on the tail emission issue if that does not happen.

Please to stay on the tail emission topic

Monero could learn a lot from Boolberry of course, and I think they need to implement some of Boolberry's ideas (especially the ability to require a certain amount of mixins for an output). But it would be sad to see Boolberry die because of it.

I think we all agree on this point. Monero was wise to make this decision early. Based on the feedback I have received so far I think Boolberry should be able to gain community support for this as well.

As of today just over 1/3 of (pre-tail) Boolberry has been emitted:
6,243,478/18,446,744

I think higher tail emissions (or other solutions to the problem) should at least be given a fair shake. At the very least, I think a tail emission is better than nothing though. It is easy to not be worried about the issue now because it is years down the road.

I think that it is something that should be thought about well in advance, because if changes need to be made then it affects the economics greatly and could cause a huge rift in the community of a cryptocurrency- a large enough rift that could kill it. So, I think IF there is an issue that it is better to fix it sooner rather than later.

Again, if you're simply interested in pump and dumping this doesn't matter to you...

Of course I want Boolberry to succeed but I also support Monero. We are friendly communities. Monero does not seem to be upset that we are discussing implementing their idea (tail emission) so we should not be upset if they later implement some version of pruning (likely to be different than Boolberry) or that they are also moving to 2 minute blocks. Open source development always benefits other development projects. Should Boolberry modify its LevelDB plans due to the Monero success with LMDB? I don't know.
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/tree/db

This is all just an experiment. Lets make Boolberry the best we can and build an economy around it rather than worry about which coin is implementing ideas developed by another.

Monero and Boolberry will never be the same. I am certain that when the official Monero GUI is released it will be much different (with many new features) and not based on the current Boolberry GUI. If the community agrees that we should implement tail emission I hope that we make it different than the tail emission designed by Monero.

Those can easily use metacoin protocols, especially if someone can work out the ugly issues of how to secure them in a decentralized manner. May always require some degree of centralization.

Anyway, not relevant to BBR.

I think there will certainly be niches. Collectible card games, multiplayer games in general, music-centric coins, cause coins (like Gridcoin but for many of them for different purposes) etc....

I even think there are successful niche coins that exist today with low market cap but with solid development, solid marketing, and/or solid innovation.. such as Qoura, Crypti, Siacoin, Bitcrystals (although its overvalued atm), GetGems, etc...

It is much easier I think to have small (but still substantial enough) adoption and be somewhat successful than to knock it out of the park. You are claiming that every cryptocurrency should try to knock it out of the park, or end up completely worthless and there is no middle ground. I don't like setting money on fire though, and that is what everyone is doing if they follow this logic. Only a handful of coins will win, and if yours doesn't then it's dead- game over. I don't see the appeal in that unless you're simply pumping and dumping, and I'm definitely not betting much on the fact any alternative cryptocurrency is going to knock it out of the park (even Litecoin.)

I think Monero adopting Boolberry's best features is the biggest threat to it.

You are conservative and are probably not alone in that view. If taking a lie detector test, I don't think anyone here would claim to think Boolberry has a greater chance of commercial success than Monero.

The current market cap of each coin reflects that:
14,323 BTC for Monero
153 BTC for Boolberry
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/boolberry/

Monero is valued at over 93 times that of Boolberry today. Putting aside the risk/reward analysis there are non speculative reasons to care about Boolberry.

Boolberry and Aeon also provide value as a testbed for potential features that may one day be implemented into Monero (such as pruning). If there is a new promising but "unproven" feature that could cause catastrophic loss if a flaw is found would there be less economic loss if that happened in Boolberry or Monero? Boolberry is definitely a useful experiment. Only time will tells what happens. Until then all we can do is our best.

I don't believe there is niche for a successful mom-and-pop cryptocurrency. We don't know how many successful cryptocurrencies there will be (including zero) but it will be closer to the number of very large businesses than mom-and-pops. That could still be hundreds or even thousands (or a much smaller number of course), but one way or another they will be very large or will fail.

I think it is possibly the only way to keep a PoW cryptocurrency alive and secure towards the end of its emission curve. Tail emissions have a chance of working, just as finite cryptocurrencies have less of a chance of working. I think it is more important to be secure and valuable than rare and vulnerable.

Meh, if I have to choose in between:

A. An 80% chance to make a small but above average income by running a mom and pop business (with even a chance to make a highly successful large corporation, if the stars align.)

or

B. A 20% chance to make large corporation that is highly successful and earns millions, or nothing if the corporation is not highly successful.

I am a bit of a nit, but I am going to choose option A- especially if option B is an alternative cryptocurrency going against highly network effected super powers such as Bitcoin and Litecoin. Hell, I can name approximately 10 coins with greater network effects than Monero (I could name exponentially more for Boolberry.) With those odds I'm taking option A all day long...

As the most superficial person here, I want "boolberries" to be very collectible. They still will be with a tail emission, but slightly less so. If it *really* will improve the Boolberry network then I support it.

Good point smooth. None of this will matter at all if Boolberry is not a success.


Your opinion is welcome here even if you are not a Boolberry stakeholder.  Can I assume from your statement that in addition to favoring a tail emission you think that a relatively "high" tail emission (whatever "high" means) would be a good idea?

I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless.

So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter.

The issue of transfer fees being enough (or not) to pay for a secure blockchain is something that is often overlooked with most cryptocurrencies. This is one of the biggest gripes I've had with PoW cryptocurrencies, and is part of the reason I support PoS cryptocurrencies (along with PoW cryptocurrencies.) This is a benefit to PoS coins that I always forget to bring up in PoW v. PoS debates for some reason... even though I've thought about this issue a lot before!!  

I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success. What I mean by great success is a very high market cap with a decent number of transactions per second (or a decent market cap with a lot of transactions per second... but the former is more likely due to decentralized TPS issues.) In other words, the stars will need to align for any finite (or a tail emission) be able to pay for a secure enough blockchain after their emission rate diminishes greatly.

I am not a stakeholder of Boolberry (and I like the name btw.. you guys get too much hate for that), but I think implementing something like this that attempts to mitigate (possibly solve again depending on the coin's success) this issue is of great importance. Most people don't think about this issue, and there are several cryptocurrencies with fast emission rates that ended up vulnerable and got attacked due to this exact issue. Quarkcoin to name one... I am sure there are others, but I don't follow every coin under the sun.  

I hope so but that is another CryptoNote (PoS) project even if some of his ideas for it may ultimately benefit Boolberry. Now is the time to decide the Boolberry tail emission issue no matter what happens with louisdor.

Good thinking. Looks like there may be more activity soon:

Boolberry will go on with or without crypto_zoidberg

Two points

1. This account "louisdor" is very likely to be "crypto_zoidberg"


2. This thread is about making a relatively simple change (adding tail emission) that many people could implement fairly easily. Boolberry has had a working GUI and pruning implementation for well over a year already and can can survive without crypto_zoidberg. If he does not return we can fork away the developer bounty and move to a donation system similar to Monero to fund new developers to replace him.