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.
Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1360. (Read 4670630 times)
October 05, 2014, 04:33:50 PM
October 05, 2014, 03:55:37 PM
I say, double the max supply of coins, instead of slowing down the emission.
October 05, 2014, 03:52:24 PM
We can keep the same total amount, but slow down the release of the rest of the coins.
October 05, 2014, 02:46:43 PM
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.
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.
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)
October 05, 2014, 01:59:22 PM
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 recenttwo 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.
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
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.
October 05, 2014, 01:58:24 PM
XMR is the future.
October 05, 2014, 01:51:24 PM
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.
October 05, 2014, 01:41:55 PM
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.
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.
October 05, 2014, 01:35:35 PM
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.
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.
October 05, 2014, 01:09:28 PM
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.
October 05, 2014, 12:45:55 PM
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.
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?
October 05, 2014, 12:28:03 PM
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?
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?
October 05, 2014, 12:23:35 PM
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?
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.
October 05, 2014, 12:22:12 PM
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.
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.
October 05, 2014, 12:20:41 PM
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.
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.
October 05, 2014, 12:18:32 PM
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.
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.
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."
October 05, 2014, 12:14:11 PM
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.
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.
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.
October 05, 2014, 12:10:46 PM
I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.
Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.
Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.
I'm more horrified of not considering everything.
Yes, everything should be considered and discussed, price is already down and Monero has plenty of haters already, little harm being done.
I refrained earlier but now I think its time to discuss.
The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).
Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).
1. no buyers for dally mined coins? No problem, reduce the emission rate.
2. no sellers for daily mined coins? No problem, increase the emission rate.
3. repeat 1 and 2 as needed
4. Decentralization? What's that?
For case number 2 there is a bitcoinlike solution: the whales and early guys sells to noobs.
The heart of the problem is that Monero becomes fully mined way too fast at current block reward.
I cant see why the current emission rate is too fast. It's still a long way to go before "all" coins are mined.
In just a few years the block reward is merely <1 XMR/block.
October 05, 2014, 12:09:33 PM
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.
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.
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.
October 05, 2014, 12:00:59 PM
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.
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.
Jump to: