Wouldn't a longer/lower emissions curve benefit everyone?
It wouldn't clearly benefit miners, unless the price went up enough to offset the reduced rewards. If some of the miners depart, the coin becomes less secure.
It wouldn't necessarily benefit the reputation or adoption of the coin, since it looks like an instamine. If you have been involved for the past six months, you got the benefit of large numbers of coins being minted and traded at low (and even increasingly lower) prices. Then mining gets cut and everyone but the early adopters gets to fight over a smaller supply, or pay up to buy from early adopters' stashes.
It also wouldn't necessarily benefit confidence in (and again reputation of) the coin. If it is considered acceptable to change once, it could be acceptable to change again. No one knows where that leads, and it is hard for anyone who is buying to know what he or she is buying.
Also a slower curve now means higher inflation later, for a longer period of time. Pay now or pay later?
This is not a the sort of change to be made lightly. I most certainly preferred a slower curve at the start. Now, I'm not sure the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.
My thought is that price per coin would offset the loss in mining rewards, so the hash rate wouldn't be affected unless everyone migrated to larger pools to offset the lesser chance of reward.
See the point of acceptable change--how do you sell such a major strategical move?
Slower curve of inflation? Hmmm.... Maybe 2% with a hidden x% is something the bankers got right? 2% + x fee = how many years?
In Devs we trust.
Interesting. What if Monero eventually became partly PoS, similar to Peercoin or partly DPoS like Bitshares? It would have annual % increase, so even after the entire supply is mined out, you still get a certain % of coins every year proportional the # of coins you hold?
