Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 2129. (Read 3313076 times)

What he's saying is that the rate of decline also slows down.

If there is less emission now, then there is more emission later. That is a mathematical certainty.

The "selling pressure" argument for cutting would be that the emission now is less useful or more problematic than emission later. However that is necessarily speculative since what happens "later" is impossible to know.

If the supply drops, why there will be selling pressure?

After I got involved in bitcoin, end of 2012, I've been spending significant time and efforts to vulgarize bitcoin (and cryptos at large) publicly. Most of the time with just enthousiasts, but also with media (including radio & tv & newspapers) and more recently with the (mostly financial) industry.

Being truly passionate, when I say "vulgarize" it implies in fact a kind of honest evangelism. I don't want to only inform those that are curious, I am humbly doing what I can for this idea to spread.

I can tell by experience this task would be way more difficult, some time painful to do, putting myself in potentially high discomfort during interviews, if bitcoin had gone trough what some of you want to do with monero emission schedule.

However, to be fair a low price (though not one that is perceived as declining) is better to bring in new buyers. It is not unheard of for people to evaluate a coin but feel the high price is out of line with the risk profile and level of maturity. I've done that myself (not with XMR specifically but with other coins).

That requires the prospective new buyers have some way to even find out about the coin, which gets back to some of the past few replies about pushing on the exposure and adoption side. Falling too far in value hurts this too. There is likely some sort of sweet spot (or range).

Agree that we have selling pressure for a very long time, but I think with cutting the emission the selling pressure will be better to handle. It also gives more space to increase adoption and price will be less supressed as well. Personally, I think an increasing price gives more incentives for current holders to increase the adoption and maybe invest more. A decling price with making lower lows doesn´t really encourage current holders (since people will get into the despair or depression phase).

This is true almost with certainty. We are currently #11 on coinmarketcap (#7 if you filter premined/nonmined) which is close to our peak ranking ever. I think we hit #10 or #9 only for a very brief time. I remember noting it because I felt a sustained presence in the top 10 (which didn't happen) would be beneficial in terms of exposure.

But you realize, that if we cut the emission we have selling pressure for a very very very long time, the daily inflation goes down way faster at the moment than it would with a different emission?

Monero has no good value currently as you can´t do shit with it literally, it simply can´t be used widely before other crucial parts are fixed. The same applies to most other coins, they are currently purely speculative assets.

Look at Bitcoindark, Blackcoin, NXT or whatever PoS coin, theres literally no inflation but the marketcap has gone down the same.

Everything you said basically also applies to Bitcoin, Litecoin, Peercoin and all other bigger coins

I am sure the dumping has other reasons and is not only the emissions fault.

The price is an indicator wether things are done right or wrong so it is good to see the discussion on this matter and hopefully the decision is made.
If they decide not to cut the emission - I am done with Monero (I am not selling but I am not enthustiatic buyer neither). There is no point in buying a coin which is going down after a small pump - and going lower than the previous height.
Also as someone here thought, I assume the community has not enough cash (and above all, interest) to buy the rest of coins from the markets.

Monero has value but there are also other coins which are anonymous, too. Monero is not the one for an investor to choose.

I am now at the point that I couldn't care less. I have been throwing money a lot into Monero - I am not so much interested in throwing more unless there is no hope for the end of this dumping. My Dollar value is down roughly 70 % (a huge part of this is the decline in btc-usd price but mainly it is due to the decline between xmr-btc pairing). I am just not interested in a coin which will go on dumping like this. I do not want to end up being the largest bagholder so I am not buying a coin that is dumped by the dumpsters constantly.
I have other investments that are increasing in value so I personally focus more on them.

Hah, well that would be the trick. Finding a vote with a perfect consensus is one of the main reasons I'm still here

Wrote all this up ... it's overcomplicated b/c tired and lazy, and it's also not finished, and probably doesn't work so good at all.

IP distribution of a new coin/fork over 24 hours, just like MiracleCoin did.

Accept only ZeroCoins as a vote for different options, This is bonus, because all existing implementations of zerocoins on satoshi codebase are incomplete or not available to be forked yet. Consider monitoring Shadowcash, Zerovert, or Anoncoin.

Repeat 5-10 times standard over a week or two, at times distributed through a dev messaging system in the Monero daemon and not publicly. Somehow find a way for the ZeroCoin fork to reset automatically so that the history of the vote can be retained, and all balances can be set to zero for re-distribution for a new vote. Did the memorycoin 2.0 voting system work out?

Take the average of all votes combined, divided by 5-10 or however many times you voted, and you have your community chosen choice.

This minimizes trolls, because who's gonna keep vps's/proxies/the monero daemon open for 2 weeks consistently just to troll vote for monero tail end emission curve? Minimizes, not eliminates. Obviously this is gameable, and I haven't forgotten that we've already been spam attacked. Likely it can be refined in the years it takes to get to the tail end of the emission. It might work at this point in time ... I mean we gotta start somewhere.

Additionally, I'd also use a PoW distribution for at least one or two of the votes. Obviously PoW has been .. more or less ruined as a consensus system for us because of a lack of a real CPU-only algorithm, but I think it could give a good contrast in a vote when compared against Proof of IP. Maybe we could just start chaining insane amounts of algos together to keep it CPU only on a 24 hour distribution period? Lots of work, but it's a big question, so anythings on the table I guess

Alternatively, we can look to game ring signatures into a voting system. One big signature comprised of everyone that is to vote. One big signature for each person that wants to vote. I think this could be interesting. Will think about blockchain voting with CN.

Or, we can all get together, supporters, MEW and developers and talk about it again and again and again and again

Honestly, I'd rather not vote. I'd rather have someone step up and say 'this is what were doing' and that's that, at this point in time. But asking for that is kinda a one way thing .. but then again circuitousness of not having it now has put us in circles on this matter from day one.


Pow distribution - Reconfigure pool software to detect that your worker has a hashrate, and not what hashrate it is, and distribute equally to all connected miners

IP distribution - distribute .1 to all ip's on the network, for 199 blocks. Require a threshold of 10 to vote. Find a way to only let each input be use one time on the network, once for receiving, and once for voting. Discard votes that are combined from other inputs to make the voting threshold, so that the 9.99 left over from the distribution can't be gamed.

A democratic currency using blockchain electoral technology. Now that would be cool!

How does this vote work?

Coin holders vote via the blockchain somehow?

That's kind of a radical change from how most coins operate, but that doesn't by itself disqualify it. The idea needs to be fleshed out a bit, at a minimum.

If nobody's rushing to the market to buy these things, then why are we still dumping them out like it's a party?

Nobody here wants any less total coins, they just don't want them all right now. Chances are ... the same people will keep buying anyways, all the way down to nothing.

We don't have infinite money, and no part of this 'unique story' that's played out so far reflects that we do .. so why are we trying to pretend that we have enough money to buy up the entire emission for likely the next year and a half?

Give the people that get interested in this, by the fact that we're still relevant because we changed our emission curve and didn't bankrupt ourselves, a chance to buy or even mine some more coins than we otherwise would have bought at a cheaper price anyways.

Either damn way they're gonna claim instamine!

Anyways .. I'm really tired of debating this. I've literally been debating this fucken subject since at least "May 13, 2014, 07:34:16 AM" : https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6701490

I'm really tired of it.

I've spent enough time thinking about it, and that's my choice.

Literally right after that post, there's a discussion about side chains relating to the economic choices we have to make

I repeat, my opinion is to drop emission 37%, vote on the tail emission every 3-5 years.

It's time to shit or get off the pot, I'm done with the discussion .. It's been half a year! The talk has been nice, but this is about the 3rd or 4th time this has come up, and it's covered 15% of the emission!

I mean by the time you guys finally get your shit together and make a decision, we're gonna be at the last block.

Am I being pandered to?

I thought we were against that?

Figure it out, you guys are awesome, I've had the greatest time being a part of whatever this is, but I'm not in a position to make decisions, there are people here who are, and it's that fucking time to make a call, and if we're just gonna rehash the exact same discussion on 5 different 'monero economics' threads then I'm gonna have to just take a bow .. because I'm tired of being led on.

Good luck

I agree with this.

However, I still think the emission is too fast.

To my way of thinking if we were designing the coin today (hell, even when we discussed it at the time it was designed) we would not choose such a fast curve that has it almost fully mined out in 2-3 years. It is a slow motion premine/instamine for extreme early adopters and leaves little incentive for mining later to support the security of a more valuable network (though the latter is partially addressed with a maintenance reward). In effect my view is not that emissions are too high now (the dumping/inflation argument) but that they are too low later. The two are opposite sides of the exact same coin.

However, the trade off is whether it is worth adjusting things to be more like what we would do if we were first designing the coin now (which we are not) as opposed to the the inherent cost of making such a change since it was not designed that way then.

I'm undecided.


I think part of the reason quite frankly is that the value has been dumped so low by now that not enough people care. They've either sold or are holding as a small passive investment "just in case." With a 2 million USD total market cap there just isn't a lot of value here. By which I mean economic value not technical value or real or potential social value.

I ask though. If you say "it is a balance," then why do you dismiss the emission side of the balance and suggest that the only solution here is on the development side? Perhaps the best solution to this balance is both an adjustment to the emissions and pushing forward on development and adoption? That is a real question since I'm personally undecided on the matter.


Very good points


The discussion is a fait accomplis so it serves no purpose to argue whether or not there should be a discussion. I made this point several weeks ago when it first came up. MEW exists, it has a process for discussion and voting, and this proposal has been entered into that process, as anticipated.

1) You're right, I was thinking shortterm(and how people, especially miners would be upset by an emission cut), instead of longterm and instamine allegations etc.

2) Basically demand needs to be increased if the emission is to stay the same. Marketing, Developments, and etc come into play here.

The damage isn't short term, but long term (more precisely, forever term). Thus to me this "barrage" is completely irrelevant.


^This.

It's not that the emission is too high in absolute. It's just too high with respect to the demand. It's a balance, and why the hell nobody seem to consider pushing the other side rather than pulling the emission one?
Let's say the GUI+DB is ready around christmas, can't we focus on making plans to push the other side?
*That* is more ambitious, that is more monero as we expect it to be, and to be seen. Focusing on the emission is a short-sighted way to look at a solution to maybe leave, but leave small, like all the others alts, not something that makes you dream. Monero is by itself a unique story telling until now, and you will destroy that to make it just a okish one.

Just having this discussion is harmful. I'm personally convinced it has a high impact on the price since it has started. If you have free time then help development and spreading, instead of wondering endlessly the pro/cons of changing something that by design should not be changed.

About emission, I agree with rptiella on forum.monero.cc, in the sense that it would be best to cut the emission. But, if that is to happen, there would need to be more news or a barrage of news regarding future implementations(Revolving around Privacy, Security, Simplicity) to offset the initial negative reaction the emission cut would gather. I myself don't believe that emission is that important later on, it mostly comes down to demand.

Total thoughts:

If emission is going to be cut, the negative reaction that would occur at first(Looks at miners) must be offset by more news about developments in important areas(Privacy, Security, Simplicity) to solidify Monero as the ruler of the Anonymity niche. Marketing etc also plays a great deal here. Or maybe even as user, BanditryAndLoot proposed, temporarily cut the emission for on and off periods of time.

If it is not going to be cut, there would need to be a hell of a lot more news about future developments(than if it were cut) to keep investors interested even when facing relatively high emission until it slows down.

"Will Monero reach 'crypto mainstream' before a considerable amount of XMR is mined?" If the answer is NO, then MAYBE an emission change is sensible. - This quote from the user dnaelor makes sense. Monero and BTC would similar in 4 years(monero being 90% mined, btc being 80% mined). Not cutting the emission rate would only work if Monero can gain enough exposure to be accepted as payment for websites, darknet markets, all that etc.

Yes, and I think it's equally important to have the same conversation as a non-MEW member. I don't know if you are one or not, but I'm not.

I read it earlier today, so probably there's been a bit of discussion since then .. maybe I'm behind. Last post I read about it was Newliberty's idea.

I liked Newliberty's idea to convert to a side chain and have the vote taken by which coins are on which chain, but I fear that the work required to develop software that hasn't been developed before, then deal with inevitable bugs that will have to be worked through will serve to push the price even lower, in addition to the spiral now, as the time required to develop such a type of software might take longer than anticipated, where curbing emission would be a much easier project to take on. Maybe I'm wrong though, I don't know much about how to integrate sidechain technology into cryptonote, let alone even a satoshi codebase. I think the idea can better be suited to choosing the tail emission, rather than the permanent decrease in emission, only because of the timeframe we're working with, and not on a technical basis.

Something that I did consider on my own: Why don't we push at all for a temporary prolonged emission, rather than have it be a permanent one. Taking smooths words on the thread, the OP has said that there may or may not be a tail end emission of <1%, so I feel that we should take that literally, and realize that we're still probably gonna have developers, MEW, and regular supporters in three or five years, and instead just set up the code to drop to zero emission after three or five years worth of blocks, where it would be expected that MEW and people could once again get together and collaborate on what type of future. Same goes for if the vote is rejected, the tail emission is turned off for three or five years worth of blocks, when it is scheduled at 'block xxx' to turn on again, with the implication that MEW, the developers aat the time, and the community can once again come together and make a decision about what the emission should again be.

Just my idea is all.

But about the inflation -

Yeah, nobody wants to deal with a crippling emission rate. We could let the price fall to nothing, but that doesn't spur any new interest, and only loses people money. Basically, to put it really really bluntly, I think we're fucked unless we change it.

Either we deal with people screaming 'OMG instamine favoring devs and early adopters' in a few years, or we never hear it because the price will really fall into a death spiral, where we'd never even get to hear those bitter words in the first place.

Maybe not though. Maybe, some force of magic will come along with a few billion dollars and make it all right over the next few months.

Needless to say that interest is pretty damn stunted right now. There was supposed to be hundreds or thousands of people here right now

We should stop ramming our heads into a sidewalk .. it's just not gonna budge.

I'd propose the 3-5 year collaboration to designate a tail emission, and reduce the emission right now by 37% at the very minimum, extended to a timeframe that will still accomodate 18,446,000 coins before the tail end emission takes place.

Is the discussion itself concerning you, or the topic of the discussion?

XMR is making steady progress in its development.

I am ignorant of the process so take my comment from that perspective.  I am confident that things are happening.