- I currently think an ideal cryptocurrency coin emission curve includes a tail emission.
You don't prolly don't need it with PoS combined. Tail emission doesn't provide enough security any way, so you've go to get a handle on the fee market issues. Thus the reason to want PoS control. But democracy is always a winner-take-all power vacuum.
-Proof of stake mining has a genuine penalty (coins locked up)
That is actually a good thing for making the price go up because the float is smaller. Dash's masternode scheme with allegedly compounding concentrating stake to Evan Inc is a perverse example.
It is one of the clever schemes everybody seems to want to copy now.
If you don't lockup your stake, you lose value as everyone else is earning an interest.
Who else is copying the locking up the coins?
Both Dash and Pivx dont really lock the coins properly, you can unlock them at a seconds notice. With Decred you could lose access to your coins literally for months. Though its possible you're aware of some new coins I am not. I think a proper lock like Decreds is better than a "sorta not really locked" lock like PIVX or Dash
I am certainly open to changing my mind about the benefits vs pitfalls of a tail emission, I was discussing it in the Decred slack yesterday and noone there wanted one but they said at the end of the day it will be up for vote. To me though it just seems you have to pay for security one way or the other and a tail emission is one way that doesn't ramp up transfer fees.
@iamnotback btw you still haven't told me why I was so wrong and silly about my Steemit post yet, and I have been waiting to find out where I went so wrong to get such harsh criticism from you
