Quote from: AnonyMint on July 18, 2014, 03:24:48 AM

And your implied point is the % of bounties may continue at that rate as the money supply increases, since it was not taken as a premine then we don't have to compare it to the long-term money supply rather as an ongoing percentage.

My 'scattershot' criticism is about the declining nominal block reward, as this shifts more of the debasement earlier than a constant nominal, which has two theoretical disadvantages:

1. The faster the mining reward declines, the more pressure to mine and pump another coin.

2. Distribution is declining faster.

If you took the money for development in a premine, then you don't need to 'scattershot' the money supply in order to get enough coins into the core developers pockets (early on) to make the coin a reality.

There are counter arguments of course, but none that I've found compelling.

1. This seems to be true with regard to darkcoin, which is showing signs of a declining hashrate for the last few weeks. They hit 5 DRK/block, the low limit (i believe in May sometime). But back in march, there were still around 15-20 DRK/block IIRC. The point I'd try to make is that the value reward takes precedence over the actual number reward, and is showing to be independent of the total coins in circulation/to be in circulation. This falls back on keeping the value of the coin closely tracking the value of the/added by the demographic. The value seems rooted heavily in core development, known competition and apparently a slight bit of speculation (there's more - I believe aminorex addressed fundamental valuation far upthread). Two of three of these points are weighted by external forces to the currency(speculation can be driven by proposals like this: http://www.dfs.ny.gov/about/press2014/pr1407171-vc.pdf), which can lead to an increased value reward from mining.

Furthering the point, the value reward is something that is going to fluctuate based on many things outside the proposed emission and core development - and your point that competition becomes present is one of them. My point is that there will be more than just other competition to worry about (and you've stated it many times as well), and in these cases the value reward can positively correlate to legislation. Whether that will be a driving factor for adoption for a currency(specifically Monero) I think remains to be seen. If these currencies were outlawed in the coming months, adoption may decline (temporarily or permanently) but value reward might just become exponential depending on what is available. I don't think this is entirely compelling, but if a high emission were to be coupled with an event that would require the currency to be capable of handling (and mostly sustaining) a massive influx of both value and adoption in a short period of time, then the two events may be a suitable match. A worst-case scenario type currency. I would consider that a large percentage of the world is on the brink of adopting cryptocurrencies, even if they are unaware of it yet; however, this point does not address debasement (nor do I believe beyond doubt that it's going to happen, only strong belief to this date).

2. Again breaking this down. I'd have to look at many different points of distribution. Value distribution, % held by person relative to total supply distribution, comparisons to other failed distributions. While I would feel uncomfortable with even one person having control over 1.84 million of these, I would feel even more uncomfortable with 1% of the users in control of 18255600 XMR. I'm currently in a position where I can say that that is not happening yet (in that 1% of the people here do not own 2151021 XMR), as I feel confident that there are much more than 21727.5 XMR collectively in the hands of 99% of the people here. This is only taking into view the current distribution compared to the current world distribution of value.

Even if that 1% (in control of the vast majority of wealth) of the world were to currently purchase and hold every Monero from here on until 4-10 years from now, then they would still collectively have less than 90% of all Monero (provided everyone else held). This is currently a favorable outlook to me, even though it may lead to the cycle repeating (In which case I would consider the effectiveness of having a cryptocurrency in the first place nullified .. no matter how far ahead or behind I ended up -- as I would have potentially defined as being in a 1%). I do agree that a high rate of emission will correlate to distribution declining faster -- to which I'd say that 100% penetration (or at least ideal penetration) would likely be impossible, but the extent of distribution still has yet to be completed (and even then, does it yield a 1% in control of 99% of value scenario?). Anything that does not lead to that scenario, has the possibility to serve as a useful method of exchange until something better comes along. I would think the worst case scenario here would be that the cycle repeats for a length of time that can be correlated to how concentrated the value is, until it's done right. My participation will be given to the extent that I can provide in the meantime.

As I stated before in a private message on this subject, I do not think the majority of people are collectively ready (on so many different levels) to deal with an ideal cryptocurrency (outside of a very small minority). I also don't know if I am. We can't even get New York to say that they don't want the entire world to see the exact amount of money inside of everyone's wallets, along with every transaction that was ever made. I don't think they will be ready for an ideal one within at least my lifetime, as the only way I can see an ideal one taking root and achieving full penetration is with a revolutionary force (can't even get most of them to adopt a non-ideal one without bribery - 'hodl this for me now, it'll be worth a lot some day'). If that does not manifest, then it will be one that is evolutionary.

Here comes the censorship...

Quote from: Bitcoin Forum

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Quote from: AnonyMint

Quote from: bytemaster on December 04, 2013, 03:16:40 AM

Mining is waisting electricity and always concentrates power in those with economies of scale.

Perhaps not true if home users mine at incomes lower than their electricity cost.

If only we could guarantee the moderation was intended to be used to deter abuse, rather than actively ever using it to abuse, or prevent abuse .. without alerting the abuser in suit.