Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1361. (Read 4671575 times)

We need a coin with much slower emission.

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.

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.

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


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

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.

In just a few years the block reward is merely <1 XMR/block.

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.

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.

I cant see why the current emission rate is too fast. It's still a long way to go before "all" coins are mined.

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.

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?

So I guess the pump whales are in dump mode..BCX must have forced this pump and dump crew to end their little party early. Anticlimactic end for a pump and dump shitcoin with this much hype and drama surrounding it, thought their would be more fireworks.

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).

In my opinion no. It still comes off as an instamine (or more broadly shady/scammy) that the original rewards were based on some (larger) fraction of 18 million then everything is shifted such that future rewards become a smaller fraction of 36 million.

XMR is the future.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

So you 1) wish a vote to be taken, 2) have a vote preference you advocate here for contract breaking, others may reasonably disagree with either 1 or 2, but even more important for me are...  
3) Change it to what, and why?
4) How to do this.
Does anyone know what the "right" emission rate is?  With a sufficiently good answer to (3), then your (1) and (2) become easier.  Without a sufficiently good answer to (3), we will be right back here in this discussion again later.

It may be fine and well to keep revisiting this topic, over and over again into the future, and keep working on fixing and perfecting the emission rate.  

Further, this ought be everyone's expectation if we do (1) and (2) without a definitive (3) (which I'd argue doesn't exist today)  The mechanism (4) for making these changes, and the reasons for making them will be important.  It would essentially create a somewhat de-centralized banking function to the coin that is forever changing the inflation rate in attempts to optimize the economy.

This would present an important innovation in alt coin development that will be impossible for the crypto currency world to ignore, for good or ill.  Get it right, and XMR may continue its rise to leadership.  Bungle (4) at it's great peril.

And realize also the gravity of this proposal you are making.  If XMR lives up to its promises, the actions we take here and now in this effort, will reverberate across decades into the future and impact the lives of billions of people.  It is probably worth getting it right.

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.

Changing the total number of monero that will be created would be a breach of trust with all current holders. Changing the emission curve so that that same total amount was generated over a different time frame would not be as bad. But we really shouldn’t even be considering changing the total money supply.

XMR is the future.