Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1640. (Read 4670972 times)

Maybe i didn't explain myself clearly enough. So lets say that each new block is introducing 1 monero. And lets say that people are losing 0.5 monero per block on average due to carelessness. So each new block is having 0.5 new monero be introduced into circulation on net. This causes inflation, which all other things being equal reduces the value of a unit of monero. Suppose this trend continues. If a monero is worth less, than it is worth less effort to secure it. Thus the less it becomes worth the less effort people put into securing it. Eventually if this trend continues enough the values will flip. So now now each block is introducing 1 new monero and people are losing 1.5 monero per block due to carelessness. This is causing deflation. Deflation increases the value of a unit of monero. Thus increases the value of precautions to ensure against loss due to carelessness. And the process repeats.

Especially if I knew how to solve a multitude of problems I see in all the coins in existence. And especially if I didn't agree with their model of development by consensus MOB.

However, be aware that I am sometimes very ill and unable to work effectively.  

How so? If I knew how to solve such a problem, I'd make my own currency, not reveal it to a competitor.

And there goes your last shred of credibility.

Hint: does every user in the world need the most power efficient implementation of SHA-2 such that Intel would make it happen in every PC? No. This is why there is an ASICs problem for Bitcoin, wherein there isn't anymore equal access to efficiencies in mining.

I would rater say that to achieve what you say anon, you need a fix x% per year of coin creation to counter the Lost "due to carelessness". I think that loss should be account for a percentage of the total market number of atomic coins. The problem is to define the "x" value, I agree that this is not easy. Instead, with a fix amount, it like saying in the limit of end of time that there is less and less people that are losing the coins due to carelessness. Maybe that thinking is also incorrect...

In the end, maybe the creation of coin that should counter loss should not be count on x% or "y" fix number of coins per block, but be count in term of coin inactivity in the last "average life time" of a human life. After that time of inactivity, we can expect that the coins are lost, so they need to be replace...

If your block chain can't scale then the entire discussion is pointless.

Of course I know how to make block chain scale, but I am not going to tell you.

Maybe if you actually know how to make blockchains scalable. But if you dont than this argument doesnt hold. And if you do, than again, for the 10,000 time what are you doing here, please for christ sake go prove it.

If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches.

By the time a currency reaches widespread adoption, it doesn't matter if it is a perfect store-of-value (actually no such thing exists), as that is the role of investments, gold and other alternatives.

The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power.

You have to fund mining, but I guess that is an economics consideration.


The larger the annual % of your money supply that you spend on mining, then assuming your mining hasn't been destroyed with ASICs as is the case for Bitcoin, then the more new people can come into the coin via mining.

Mining could be the most efficient way to introduce new users to the coin, as it doesn't require AML, KYC, fraudulent exchanges, etc..

Do you want a Mt.Gox and Coinbase driving your coin's adoption, or do you want to get the coins directly to them?

Investors should understand that a larger (reasonable, not pump & dump levels of) debasement is going to drive more adoption and thus avoid the problem that happened to Bitcoin wherein it fell into a log-logistic adoption rate (instead of logistic, as I showed) and this is the reason the price will not be moving up as fast as it had been in the past.

In my view 1% is myopic. Gold has never been a widely adopted currency. Never! It was always debased bronze, etc..

Go for 3 - 10% instead!


It is possible to remove coins from the supply via demurrage.


Apples and oranges.

Users couldn't mine silver.

In crypto-currency, your mining expenditures go right back to yourselves (unless you suffer the ASICs kiss of death).

Btw, there is no way to prevent ASICs. But the problem with ASICs is not their existence, but rather that they are not readily available on time to everyone in the same efficiencies. So if you want to defeat this problem, you've got to think about it a totally different way.

You think I haven't been working eh.

I attempted to summarize my thesis more comprehensibly.

What is terrifying about it?

What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year?

Hey guys, let's say 10% of coins are lost, then 1% of 10% is 0.1%. You are worried about nothing.

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

Don't read the paper (the timestamp idea was debunked already). Read my posts. My posts in the linked thread are not too vague.

If I am correct, it appears that unlinkable block chains can defeat the ephemeral 50+% double-spending attacks by having excruciatingly slow payments.

Whereas with my proposal, the linkable block chains can instead defeat it with an equivalent delay between the time a payment is final and the funds can be re-spent.

That appears to be a major disadvantage for unlinkable block chains. I reiterate that more peer review is needed before we accept this hypothesis as fact.

I think rpietila knows I was talking about a fixed supply (per year), rpietila is advocating a fixed percent instead of fixed amount.

I believe that rpietila has good reason to oppose a fixed amount, and this topic needs more discussion. I originally wanted a fixed amount, then a fixed percent (0.5% to 1%) but that has it's own issues because we cannot know how many coins are lost, and then I went back to thinking a fixed amount would be better.

It's a very hard thing to get right, and we might have only one chance.

Anon136 , the trouble with lost coins is as they become worth more and more they will become lost less and less as people take better care of them.

I don't think he was talking about an X% increase in coin supply. He was talking about a perpetual 1 coin per block. You will notice that with each new block 1 coin is a smaller percentage of the total money supply. Eventually it will become so small that the value of securing a marginal unit from loss due to carelessness will be less than 1 coin per block. And thus we would reach an equilibrium where about 1 coin per block was lost due to carelessness and 1 coin per block is created in mining. The beauty of a proposal like this is that it leads to a stable money supply. No deflation or inflation.

Risto, read the economy thread if you havent and continue the discussion there. This will be far better than it getting lost in here.

It will probably answer some of your inital questions too.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597878.200

Are you speaking of a perpetual minimum block reward? Like from now until the universe dies? I have been strongly in favour of this idea for a long time. The economics are sound. Though it may be a pr nightmare.