Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1917. (Read 4671660 times)

Having a longer mining horizon doesn't necessarily increase a future user's access to a coin. It increases a future miner's access to it. But in the long run, mining is dominated by professionals so this group diverges from the mainstream. Bitcoin and Litecoin are examples of this. An ordinary user is largely restricted to buying it on the market, which is available regardless of the emission curve. So the egalitarian aspect of the argument exists, but it plays out weakly in the real world.

The main reason you want a long mining horizon is so that you can have a blockchain that's secure without relying on tx fees. Of course, it merely delays the problem: the permanent fix is a minimum block reward, which MRO will have in some form.

Tedious and useless. This has already been decided and is considered part of the social contract. It won't change unless the entire dev team behind this coin breaks up and blows away, because there is 100% unchangeable agreement on this point.

There will likely be a change to allow for some perpetual rewards on the back end, as was stated up front. That was the motive for wanting a flatter curve from the start: It was meaningful rewards out for a longer period of time, not trying to tinker with inflation and "pump" up the value. That important goal will instead be achieved using the second method, as I have described.

There will not be tinkering with the curve.

If you don't like it, please exit now, and head on over to QCN or some other curve-tinkering clone.

Otherwise, let's have healthy discussion about things that might actually happen with this coin.

It's healthy to discuss curve tuning in the interests of long-term health of the coin and its economy.  Tedious, perhaps, but healthy.  

Y'all have an instamine reaction formation.  You do realize people criticize monero as an instamine because its curve is too aggressive, don't you?  The fact is, "instamine" will be thrown at you no matter what you do.  The correct thing to do is what is best for the health of the coin and its economy in the long-term.  Opinions on that may vary, but the instamine bugaboo has nothing to do with it.  If you reduce emission rate, you will be giving more people the chance to participate in mining at favorable rates -- and that is the exact opposite of instamining.  It will aid dispersion.  

A healthy ecosystem is what will empower monero to change the world for the better.  I think slow and steady appreciation is the best possible scenario.  It will attract risk-averse investors and will encourage currency use.  Personally, I will focus on software and ties with enterprises, merchants -- I see that as less difficult than pressing a case for curve reforms .

The idea of screwing future buyers is ludicrous to me.  People buy or not at their own discretion.  If they buy it is because they deem it better to buy than not to buy.  I will certainly buy more monero if emission is reduced than  I would if it is unchanged, simply because I will have a better expectation of price stability.

On the other hand, the market will fix this problem soon enough.  It will just adjust the price down until it corresponds to the emission rate.

For those unfamiliar with this coin's history, this was all already discussed. The devs wanted to implement a switch where all present coins had their value halved and the emission was changed to be 2x slower. This is the equivalent of having started the blockchain with a flatter emission -- the only fair way to do it while keeping the current chain. The plan was dropped because there was a backlash over 'taking half my coins away' (this line of thinking requires some numerical illiteracy ).

As I showed above, the inflation-related arguments actually favor MRO's curve because of the way the recurrence relation works. It's understandable if this is not intuitive to you guys because CryptoNote emission is so different from other altcoins. I posted some MATLAB scripts a few pages back if you want to check the numbers yourself and play with the parameters.

What we're arguing here only helps your value precisely because it screws over future buyers - i.e. not because of fundamentals but because you already got yours. This may be the flavor of the month in altcoins, but luckily this dev team is more ethical.

The logic checks out insofar as these guys (whether they entirely realize it or not) are arguing if favor of the instamine approach of mining a lot of cheap and easy coins really fast, then (once they have theirs), slowing inflation way down to boost price.

It's not going to happen, but that's the logic behind these posts.

This logic doesn't check out. With the CryptoNote emission formula, the faster the emission, the faster the reduction in inflation.

If this was Bitcoin (constant reward) at the same age, supply would've increased ~1000% over the next 48 weeks (216k to 2.59 million).

If this was QuazarCoin (4x slower clone) at the same age, supply would've increased ~750% over the next 48 weeks (255k to 2.17 million).

As you can see when you do the math, (1) CryptoNote is already anti-inflationary by design and (2) a flatter emission actually draws out the inflationary phase.

Why the obsession with price per coin, anyway? What matters both for the individual and for the overall MRO market is price*amount. Price is lower, but the amount is correspondingly higher. There's always 42 Coin for those who want a high price per coin. Unfortunately, you might only own a tenth of one coin.

I agree with Alex. The emission is far too fast.

I can't see monero gaining value with the huge release as it is stands.

Supply will increase 600% in the next 48 weeks.

I think you're absolutely right.
This is a very good coin, its price will rise in the future.
 

I think you're absolutely right.
For coins, time is money, who can go into the market, who is the winner!
 

in the op

Do you have a link to the miner?

Currently mining QCN on minergate.  Played with the the MRO and BCN, but the coins I mined for thosehaven't confirmed in three days.  What's the deal with that?

I admit I am in the scarcity-obsessed crowd and highly anti-inflationary in terms of economic philosophy. But you do have to realize that coin price will degrade if it needs 50-100 BTC per day to pull daily production off the market. And if price is degrading, the consensus is that "the coin is dying". And when the consensus builds up, people are like "fuck this" => sell => chain dumps => "it's dead" => taking a look at coinmarketcap => finding the highest ranked BCN clone => "that is successful" => buy buy buy that one => more success for that one, etc etc => establishing it as the dominant coin.

There are very strong points on why one shouldn't change something which is considered fixed (changing the rules of the game while the game is played => might turn off investors) and why they should change it if it threatens the coin with "death" (perceived death due to price degradation that catalyzes actual death).

The alternative is just to let price slide so that daily production can be absorbed with greater ease, and expect price rise when coin production will slow down after 3-4 years. With altcoins being the ADD-paradise, it seems unlikely that people will like MRO then. The rationale will be "ok, this is been around for 3-4 years with no success... why should it even interest me?". However this is a time stamped post and it will be fun if someone bumps my post (2017-8) to laugh at me.

Yeah, maybe extending the coin supply generation a bit longer than now is a good idea. Better now than later, while the coin is still young. Make it not 80% over 4 years, but over 6 years, which is a sort of compromise and will please all - miners and investors.

Instamine stigma, hm, well, perhaps you're right. Actually 4 years is a long time, a lot of things change over the span of 2 months in the crypto currency scene

Any block time adjustment will come with a block reward scaling to keep the emission curve the same. It's not fair to current or future users to have the rules changed after the blockchain has started. There would be a perpetual instamine stigma (for good reasons).

Inflation is a basic feature of PoW. There are plenty of other coins for the 'scarcity'-obsessed crowd (like XC, which is suddenly cutting the max supply to benefit the early adopters).

And when you do that, don't increase the reward per block... too much inflation. Did I mention that already?

Wow, I am seeing a ton of orphans. Sometimes even several orphans on the same height. Looks like moneropool.com is mining lots of blocks on top of its own blocks, killing smaller pools and solo miners who have to wait for propagation to have others work on their blocks. 

We need to increase block time ASAP or say "bye" to decentralized mining.

Wow you made quick work of that one. Thanks for taking charge on something that will likely really help to fuel adoption and real-world use.

Yep, this wasn't what I thought would win but the group talked to advertising professionals and graphic designers and this one was a consistent top 3 choice. As one of them said, the logo that best represents a product/project best isn't necessarily the 'cool' looking one. This is money, and money gets used by a much wider demographic group than 20-something-year-old men. To quote him:

Cool! Thanks again for everything you bring to the community Aminorex.

Also, small message to the miners: it appears 10% of you are still not using the latest optimised miner. If you want a small bump in your HR, go use the code Wolf made:)