[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1389.

iourzzz

member

Activity: 94

Merit: 10

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 08:19:55 AM

Quote from: oda.krell on September 25, 2014, 08:10:09 AM

One more remark on this topic:

Big props to you, smooth, for your reactions on the previous pages.

As far as I know you've stated before that you are actually (more or less) against adjusting emission speed.

So there is no misunderstanding, my personal opinion is that it would be better to slow down emission, or couple a longer-term slowdown with some short-term acceleration in the form of "post-mine" funding, such that the two offset each other to some extent.

But that is very different from attempting to impose this view on others. If am convinced that the stakeholders are overwhelmingly opposed, in that case I would be opposed to changing it regardless of my own opinion. In fact I would actively oppose others trying to impose such a change despite my own view on the underlying question. I don't think anyone attempting to impose anything is very likely however.

Thank you for your comments as to style of discussion and perspective.

Thank you for staying rock solid in the epicenter of typhoon.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:56:24 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 07:54:30 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:38:35 AM

You need to be able to say these are the things that we can change and these are the things that are core to the coin.

My opinion is the emission curve shouldn't be changed as in my opinion it is core to the coin. Despite the likely economic benefit to me if I were to take the other side.

ad infinitum

just put it to stone, this speculation about emission is not good for the coin, smooth.

That is simply not possible. Even if I were to 100% support calcification, who is to say another developer or stakeholder might push for change a month or a year or a decade from now.

You can't creat absolute unquestionable and unchangable tenets without a religion and even then some will always seek to reform it.

Actually in mathematics you can.

Mathematics does not have tenets, it has axioms. They are two different things.

fluffypony

donator

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1060

GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com

Guys, it's obviously a contentious topic with proponents on both sides. I think it prudent to table this until we have finalised the minimum subsidy (eternal emission) proposal. This, in itself, is only a proposal, but I believe that the discussion around that will allow us to visit this topic more thoroughly.

Right now we're discussing it in the context of the status quo, whereas I feel we'll be better equipped to do so when we have the bigger picture in view.

Ultros

sr. member

Activity: 471

Merit: 250

Beware of people that act like they represent some sort of large group and/or majority, then use it as a pressure tactic, without any strong statistical proof. Forums always gather the most vocal (and sometimes manipulative) individuals.
That statement isn't pointed at anyone in particular in that debate so don't jump on your horse. I just feel it needs to be said, better twice than not.

If I want to see majority's opinion, I usually watch markets. That's the best indicator I can think of now. If the community, the devs, both, or whoever takes a decision, is confident about the legitimacy of the change, then the market will vote accordingly. Ofc it's healthy to debate but pressure tactics should be avoided. Just my 0.02 xmr.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: oda.krell on September 25, 2014, 08:10:09 AM

One more remark on this topic:

Big props to you, smooth, for your reactions on the previous pages.

As far as I know you've stated before that you are actually (more or less) against adjusting emission speed.

So there is no misunderstanding, my personal opinion is that it would be better to slow down emission, or couple a longer-term slowdown with some short-term acceleration in the form of "post-mine" funding, such that the two offset each other to some extent.

But that is very different from attempting to impose this view on others. If am convinced that the stakeholders are overwhelmingly opposed, in that case I would be opposed to changing it regardless of my own opinion. In fact I would actively oppose others trying to impose such a change despite my own view on the underlying question. I don't think anyone attempting to impose anything is very likely however.

Thank you for your comments as to style of discussion and perspective.

Quote

Even if the result is a resounding 'no change', I'll be happy to know there was a fair discussion and decision.

Me too.

oda.krell

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1007

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 08:00:06 AM

Quote from: Nekomata on September 25, 2014, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:55:27 AM

I was under the impression that when I bought into this coin some things were fixed one of those was the emission curve - if I am wrong that is my own mistake and poor research and I will quietly sell my coins, if I am right then it should remain that way in my opinion.

yeah, believe, there are hundreds of people like you, thats what I'm trying to say to smooth, dont touch the forking emission Grin

There may be but there are thousands or tens of thousands of participants. I have no idea how they all feel. Both views have been represented here.

One more remark on this topic:

Big props to you, smooth, for your reactions on the previous pages.

As far as I know you've stated before that you are actually (more or less) against adjusting emission speed. Still, you're giving a very fair representation of both sides (or point out misrepresentation of one by the other). That's not at all to be expected, especially in online discussions, in my experience.

What I'm saying is, if we ever get to the point where the community / devs / stakeholders /miners make a decision on this matter, it's good to know that you're probably going to be in a position to guide that discussion. Even if the result is a resounding 'no change', I'll be happy to know there was a fair discussion and decision.

Hotmetal

sr. member

Activity: 378

Merit: 250

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 08:00:06 AM

Quote from: Nekomata on September 25, 2014, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:55:27 AM

I was under the impression that when I bought into this coin some things were fixed one of those was the emission curve - if I am wrong that is my own mistake and poor research and I will quietly sell my coins, if I am right then it should remain that way in my opinion.

yeah, believe, there are hundreds of people like you, thats what I'm trying to say to smooth, dont touch the forking emission Grin

There may be but there are thousands or tens of thousands of participants. I have no idea how they all feel. Both views have been represented here.

Isn't that what public votes are for?

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: Nekomata on September 25, 2014, 07:57:15 AM

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:55:27 AM

I was under the impression that when I bought into this coin some things were fixed one of those was the emission curve - if I am wrong that is my own mistake and poor research and I will quietly sell my coins, if I am right then it should remain that way in my opinion.

yeah, believe, there are hundreds of people like you, thats what I'm trying to say to smooth, dont touch the forking emission Grin

There may be but there are thousands or tens of thousands of participants. I have no idea how they all feel. Both views have been represented here.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:53:32 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 07:49:06 AM

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:37:17 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 07:28:55 AM

My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.

The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions.

You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak.

Ah but you are equally playing God by declaring some things to be unquestionable and unchangable and also defining ethics to be as you say they are.

i believe any project that is stuck with serious errors because Certain Things Cannot Change is likely doomed.

There is no technical barrier to fixing it therefore the matter is simply opinion and nothing more. Although I certainly respect your disagreement I do not accept your characterization of a difference of opinion as violating ethics. Your ethics need not match mine and this is not an area where ethics have been established since prehistory. Crypto currency is young and Bitcoin did not get everything right (if it did there would be no monero). That includes this notion of an inflexible social contact with no mechansm for correction or improvement. No other system like that exists in the world other than religion. I reject it.

To be very clear before I really leave the thread -

All I want is everything to be clearly laid out - if that is that Monero DEV's can change whatever they want whenever they like that is absolutely fine. It is just not something that I want to be a a part of because there is a very clear slippery slope argument in my mind.

Obviously we can't change whatever we want. At all. If the community opposes what we do or seek to do then we will be shown the door. Furthermore we do not and have never wanted to impose our will on the community at all. I oppose items being framed as unchangable even with community support. Without community support it is a moot point.

Nekomata

member

Activity: 99

Merit: 10

XMR is the future.

sparky999

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 07:54:30 AM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:38:35 AM

You need to be able to say these are the things that we can change and these are the things that are core to the coin.

My opinion is the emission curve shouldn't be changed as in my opinion it is core to the coin. Despite the likely economic benefit to me if I were to take the other side.

ad infinitum

just put it to stone, this speculation about emission is not good for the coin, smooth.

That is simply not possible. Even if I were to 100% support calcification, who is to say another developer or stakeholder might push for change a month or a year or a decade from now.

You can't creat absolute unquestionable and unchangable tenets without a religion and even then some will always seek to reform it.

Actually in mathematics you can.

sparky999

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

I was under the impression that when I bought into this coin some things were fixed one of those was the emission curve - if I am wrong that is my own mistake and poor research and I will quietly sell my coins, if I am right then it should remain that way in my opinion.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:38:35 AM

You need to be able to say these are the things that we can change and these are the things that are core to the coin.

My opinion is the emission curve shouldn't be changed as in my opinion it is core to the coin. Despite the likely economic benefit to me if I were to take the other side.

ad infinitum

just put it to stone, this speculation about emission is not good for the coin, smooth.

That is simply not possible. Even if I were to 100% support calcification, who is to say another developer or stakeholder might push for change a month or a year or a decade from now.

You can't creat absolute unquestionable and unchangable tenets without a religion and even then some will always seek to reform it.

sparky999

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 07:49:06 AM

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:37:17 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 07:28:55 AM

My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.

The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions.

You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak.

Ah but you are equally playing God by declaring some things to be unquestionable and unchangable and also defining ethics to be as you say they are.

i believe any project that is stuck with serious errors because Certain Things Cannot Change is likely doomed.

There is no technical barrier to fixing it therefore the matter is simply opinion and nothing more. Although I certainly respect your disagreement I do not accept your characterization of a difference of opinion as violating ethics. Your ethics need not match mine and this is not an area where ethics have been established since prehistory. Crypto currency is young and Bitcoin did not get everything right (if it did there would be no monero). That includes this notion of an inflexible social contact with no mechansm for correction or improvement. No other system like that exists in the world other than religion. I reject it.

To be very clear before I really leave the thread -

All I want is everything to be clearly laid out - if that is that Monero DEV's can change whatever they want whenever they like that is absolutely fine. It is just not something that I want to be a a part of because there is a very clear slippery slope argument in my mind.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:37:17 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 07:28:55 AM

My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.

The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions.

You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak.

Ah but you are equally playing God by declaring some things to be unquestionable and unchangable and also defining ethics to be as you say they are.

i believe any project that is stuck with serious errors because Certain Things Cannot Change is likely doomed.

There is no technical barrier to fixing it therefore the matter is simply opinion and nothing more. Although I certainly respect your disagreement I do not accept your characterization of a difference of opinion as violating ethics. Your ethics need not match mine and this is not an area where ethics have been established since prehistory. Crypto currency is young and Bitcoin did not get everything right (if it did there would be no monero). That includes this notion of an inflexible social contact with no mechansm for correction or improvement. No other system like that exists in the world other than religion. I reject it.

sparky999

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

What happens when the 4th 5th or 6th vote gets ignored by the DEV's at what point does MEW decide to find new DEV's and fork the coin?

sparky999

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

Quote from: rpietila on September 25, 2014, 07:44:41 AM

The beauty of MEW is that everyone may voice their own opinion and vote for it, and the majority wins. Even then, the core team may totally independently decide whether to act according to the guidance or not.

Majority of what?

One man one vote?
One coin one vote?
Ranking systems?

It's all arbitrary. I wish I could continue this discussion some more but I can't right now. I will try and come back later today or tomorrow.

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:37:17 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 07:28:55 AM

My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.

The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions.

You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak.

For the readers, it might be interesting to know that smooth is a member in the core team + also has a large stake in MEW hinting that he is one of the most involved people in Monero. If they make bad decisions in the core team, his personal investment also suffers.

The beauty of MEW is that everyone may voice their own opinion and vote for it, and the majority wins. Even then, the core team may totally independently decide whether to act according to the guidance or not.

Mostly, the matters that MEW is interested in do not even require the core team to implement. In these cases it is very easy - the burden of implementation rests totally on the ones who voted in favor.

MEW is not trying to force the majority opinion on anyone. The rationale for voting is to measure the support on initiatives. For me personally, it would be a great tragedy if I spent my time doing something that most would not even want to use. Submitting my ideas to economic vote before implementation, saves me from many griefs.

sparky999

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

Quote from: oda.krell on September 25, 2014, 07:40:24 AM

Not impossible to come to come to a solution on those topics, but I'll freely admit, it'll be a pain to agree on the decision making process on this matter.

Just one of the reasons why the status quo is better.

I have to get on with my day but I would like to add that prior to today's discussion I was still accumulating Monero I have now changed to simply holding what I have and will continue to remain in this state until a clear and final decision is made regarding these types of changes. So whatever the DEV's decide I would urge them to do so in an expedient manner as uncertainty is the the worst of all options.

oda.krell

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1007

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:30:46 AM

Quote from: oda.krell on September 25, 2014, 07:25:13 AM

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:14:05 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 06:54:15 AM

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 06:49:36 AM

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

Seriously now, this is a piece of software, not a religious doctrine. That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

That does not mean that something necessarily is broken, but "sanctity" precludes even considering it.

It is an economy that people bought into because of a set of basic rules that were presented to them - changing those rules is a material change to the original contract. The only way it could ever be considered is by obtaining a 50% majority of coins in favour of the changes and even then I would still be against it.

Which essentially means, if it would come to that, you recommend to go against an economic majority because it is different from your minority view (EDIT: in this scenario. Not saying your view is necessarily the minority view). Yes, makes sense.

It's really pretty simple: if the change of the original rules is perceived as so terrible that a large number of early buyers are sufficiently turned off, then a) there won't be an economic majority supporting the change, and b) if there would be an economic majority in support of changes, the early buyers in the minority can still sell. Wondrous how markets work like that.

I see your point, I was really trying to say that at or around 50% I think the status quo should continue. I'm not sure what the appropriate number for change would be economics suggest 50% obviously my personal view is that for such substantial changes that number should be closer to 60% for various reasons.

Agreed then.

And I'll even add, "50% of what?", which is a tricky question: a majority of users? a majority of funds? a mining majority? (in my own understanding, "economic majority" is not necessarily identical to "fund majority", but also includes network influence and "soft influence" like community standing - but because of its fuzzy definition, you can't really put "economic majority" in that sense into a vote)

Also: do we require a simple majority or an absolute majority?

Not impossible to come to come to a solution on those topics, but I'll freely admit, it'll be a pain to agree on the decision making process on this matter.

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1389. (Read 4670630 times)