[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1360.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: nioc on October 05, 2014, 12:41:55 PM

Quote

On the other hand, it does make sense to speak of 40% of the coins that will be mined during the initial period of faster mining. It isn't quite as clear what that means though, but it does make this whole emissions curve sound a bit more like an instamine doesn't it?

Maybe I'm a little slow but if the concept of 40% of the coins doesn't exist, how can you use it to compare it to an instamine?

What I meant was when you start talking about some percentage of some "initial period of faster mining" (and that is the only correct way to discuss percentages here) that sounds to me more like the system being set up from the start like an instamine, fast mine, etc. The faster period in this case is several years before emissions slow to some tail level.

Quote

I just can't see how the emissions can be changed after a very significant % has been mined.

It is a simple change to one or a few lines of code. I'm pretty sure that's not what you meant though, but that is literally the case. So "can be changed" is not really the issue, it is more like whether people want it changed. Ultimately it comes down to consensus of the community.

dEBRUYNE

legendary

Activity: 2268

Merit: 1141

Quote from: mr_random on October 05, 2014, 03:33:50 PM

People who say you can't slow down emission because it looks like a scam... well in a few years 99% of all the currency will be emitted, how will that look like to newcomers (a scam?)

The instamine period is all relative. Even 4 years will look like an instamine in the context of 50 years.

Agree with that, IIRC rpietila said that in 4 years around 87% would be mined. That's way to much in my opinion.

TooDumbForBitcoin

legendary

Activity: 1638

Merit: 1001

I say, double the total amount, cut the emission by 75%, increase the block time to 2 minutes, change the name to rune, change to POS, do hard fork, air drop, time warp and make double spends mandatory.

Something for everyone.

Oh, and change r and k for TheFracturedMind.

mr_random

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 1001

People who say you can't slow down emission because it looks like a scam... well in a few years 99% of all the currency will be emitted, how will that look like to newcomers (a scam?)

The instamine period is all relative. Even 4 years will look like an instamine in the context of 50 years.

Come-In-Behind

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

I say, double the max supply of coins, instead of slowing down the emission.

Oscilson

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

We can keep the same total amount, but slow down the release of the rest of the coins.

robinwilliams

member

Activity: 112

Merit: 10

Quote from: TrueCryptonaire on October 05, 2014, 11:09:33 AM

Quote from: surfer43 on October 05, 2014, 11:00:59 AM

If the problem is there is too short a time before the emission runs out, simply double the final supply.

Changing the emission is a ridiculous concept. Then what differentiates you from any other BCN fork? Oh wait, it was an ultra-fair community premine for the fairest coin that ever existed because.. because.. it was the first fork of BCN that conforms to our ever-changing concept of fairness!! In other words, Monero is fair because it is Monero.

DRK had too much of an instamine, a little is OK and completely justified because the "community" did it. Wink

As I said before, touching the total number of coins is touching in the fundamentals but touching in the emission curve is a fixing the problem of almost instamine.

there will be less backlash from future potential investors if we punish early adopters by inflating total supply to double it which would punish early adopters at the same time as rewarding them (by slowing down release schedule / lowering supply)

this is the only thing that makes sense.

the goal is to avoid scam / get rich quick accusations and spread adoption here. not increase our holdings instantly (make the pie bigger vs get more of the pie)

dga

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 511

Submitting for comment / review before I send a pull request with this:

I've added comments and documentation about the CryptoNight proof-of-work function and its implementation to the slow-hash.c file, as part of the code cleanup and documentation effort.

https://github.com/dave-andersen/bitmonero/blob/master/src/crypto/slow-hash.c

(The most recent ~~two~~ three commits in the repository will show what I added).

Comments welcomed and appreciated before I send a pull request - in particular, if there are spots people feel are still unclear or errors/badness in the documentation, I'd love to get them fixed before making fluffypony and crew do more work.

Nekomata

member

Activity: 99

Merit: 10

XMR is the future.

AdamWhite

hero member

Activity: 605

Merit: 500

I can't believe that changing the emission curve is being discussed in page 800+ of this thread. If the emission curve was such a problem it would have been fixed immediately. XMR's emission curve is what it is so enough already with the emission curve please.

nioc

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1008

Quote from: smooth on October 05, 2014, 11:45:55 AM

Quote from: nioc on October 05, 2014, 11:22:12 AM

I am not advocating anything.

In the first year 40% of the coins are mined. That is 6 months from now. Unless something is done quickly, which seems virtually impossible, almost 1/2 the coins will have already been mined. How can any changes be made at that point?

ETA: I just read smooth's point about continued emissions but I believe the point still stands.

I agree and disagree.

In one sense the concept "of 40% of the coins" doesn't even exist, so arguing on that basis isn't very meaningful.

On the other hand, it does make sense to speak of 40% of the coins that will be mined during the initial period of faster mining. It isn't quite as clear what that means though, but it does make this whole emissions curve sound a bit more like an instamine doesn't it?

Maybe I'm a little slow but if the concept of 40% of the coins doesn't exist, how can you use it to compare it to an instamine?

Does it make any difference if I say 40% before the tail? If so how much practical difference really is there?

I just can't see how the emissions can be changed after a very significant % has been mined.

I understand I am viewing this from ignorance, that is very limited experience, knowledge and perspective.

PeaMine

hero member

Activity: 979

Merit: 510

I downloaded the latest blockchain and daemon/wallet, but when I start it, it crashes saying it can't load the blockchain from storage file, generating genesis block, then crashes.
I downloaded the blockchain again, same issue.
I deleted the blockchain file and its running and synchronizing, but at the current rate will take days, it's stuck on block 801 for half an hour now, but is still using a lot of network.
Modern PC with 8GB of RAM and 16GB virtual ram, 3770 processor, 64bit Windows 7.

Febo

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 1288

I like the emission curve it will keep coins cheap for some time for everyone to buy them. Emission drastically decreased till now and will continue in future. Half year from now, no one will even think this is necessary, since wil be to little new coins fro all that will want to buy them. When volumes are low of all coins, yes it can happen that there is to much fresh mined moneros come to exchanges, but will not last to long.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: nioc on October 05, 2014, 11:22:12 AM

I am not advocating anything.

In the first year 40% of the coins are mined. That is 6 months from now. Unless something is done quickly, which seems virtually impossible, almost 1/2 the coins will have already been mined. How can any changes be made at that point?

ETA: I just read smooth's point about continued emissions but I believe the point still stands.

I agree and disagree.

In one sense the concept "of 40% of the coins" doesn't even exist, so arguing on that basis isn't very meaningful.

On the other hand, it does make sense to speak of 40% of the coins that will be mined during the initial period of faster mining. It isn't quite as clear what that means though, but it does make this whole emissions curve sound a bit more like an instamine doesn't it?

nioc

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1008

Quote from: Oscilson on October 05, 2014, 11:23:35 AM

Quote from: nioc on October 05, 2014, 11:22:12 AM

I am not advocating anything.

In the first year 40% of the coins are mined. That is 6 months from now. Unless something is done quickly, which seems virtually impossible, almost 1/2 the coins will have already been mined. How can any changes be made at that point?

We need a coin with much slower emission.

Is it true? LOL

If so how with Monero?

If can't then..............................

Damn edit again. I remember not too long ago people touting Monero's emission. What happened?

Oscilson

sr. member

Activity: 434

Merit: 250

Quote from: nioc on October 05, 2014, 11:22:12 AM

I am not advocating anything.

In the first year 40% of the coins are mined. That is 6 months from now. Unless something is done quickly, which seems virtually impossible, almost 1/2 the coins will have already been mined. How can any changes be made at that point?

We need a coin with much slower emission.

nioc

legendary

Activity: 1624

Merit: 1008

I am not advocating anything.

In the first year 40% of the coins are mined. That is 6 months from now. Unless something is done quickly, which seems virtually impossible, almost 1/2 the coins will have already been mined. How can any changes be made at that point?

ETA: I just read smooth's point about continued emissions but I believe the point still stands.

generalizethis

legendary

Activity: 1750

Merit: 1036

Facts are more efficient than fud

If the emission curve for xpm is the worst, then isn't the opposite emission curve the best, or near best?

XPM destroys its own inertia by making it harder to hit a block as the mining power is turned-up and easier to hit a block as the mining power is turned-down. Wouldn't reversing this allow a coin keep its inertia going until the last coin is mined? Why fight it with an arbitrary block reward setting? If BTC had used a non-arbitrary system for block reward, they wouldn't hit adoption walls caused by exponential shifting in prices. The thought is that more people are drawn to BTC as the price increases, but let's at least consider for the sake of argument, that people are driven away from BTC as the price increases, for fear of losing their initial investment and being tagged a bag-holder.

Just a thought.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: surfer43 on October 05, 2014, 11:14:11 AM

Quote from: TrueCryptonaire on October 05, 2014, 11:09:33 AM

Quote from: surfer43 on October 05, 2014, 11:00:59 AM

If the problem is there is too short a time before the emission runs out, simply double the final supply.

Changing the emission is a ridiculous concept. Then what differentiates you from any other BCN fork? Oh wait, it was an ultra-fair community premine for the fairest coin that ever existed because.. because.. it was the first fork of BCN that conforms to our ever-changing concept of fairness!! In other words, Monero is fair because it is Monero.

DRK had too much of an instamine, a little is OK and completely justified because the "community" did it. Wink

As I said before, touching the total number of coins is touching in the fundamentals but touching in the emission curve is a fixing the problem of almost instamine.

I am 99% positive that touching the emission curve is touching in the fundamentals.

The instamine problem is made worse when changing the emission curve without retroactively changing the current supply (i.e. 1 old XMR = 0.5 new XMR). I guess we can just call instamining solving the problem of an instamine.

I remind everyone that the design of this coin has always included a perpetual reward for mining incentives:

Quote

A minimum subsidy may be implemented in the future with <1% inflation to preserve mining incentives

In that case there is no specific finite supply so it makes no sense to talk about "doubling the supply."

surfer43

sr. member

Activity: 560

Merit: 250

"Trading Platform of The Future!"

Quote from: TrueCryptonaire on October 05, 2014, 11:09:33 AM

Quote from: surfer43 on October 05, 2014, 11:00:59 AM

If the problem is there is too short a time before the emission runs out, simply double the final supply.

Changing the emission is a ridiculous concept. Then what differentiates you from any other BCN fork? Oh wait, it was an ultra-fair community premine for the fairest coin that ever existed because.. because.. it was the first fork of BCN that conforms to our ever-changing concept of fairness!! In other words, Monero is fair because it is Monero.

DRK had too much of an instamine, a little is OK and completely justified because the "community" did it. Wink

As I said before, touching the total number of coins is touching in the fundamentals but touching in the emission curve is a fixing the problem of almost instamine.

I am 99% positive that touching the emission curve is touching in the fundamentals.

The instamine problem is made worse when changing the emission curve without retroactively changing the current supply (i.e. 1 old XMR = 0.5 new XMR). I guess we can just call instamining solving the problem of an instamine.

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1360. (Read 4671953 times)