Quote from: pooya87 on November 25, 2019, 05:11:56 AM

Quote from: dnprock on November 25, 2019, 02:42:07 AM

We've had a lot of tech innovations. Have you ever asked why tech stack innovations haven't done anything to drive crypto usage? Ethereum was the first major rebuild tech project. It came with a lot of promises. The tech stack innovation list is long: consensus, mining, cryptography, privacy. Recently, there're stacks that promise even more flexibility like Polkadot. There're a lot of experiments. Even within Bitcoin, there're a lot: big block, SegWit, Lightning Network, sidechain.

i haven't seen that much innovations to be honest. swapping SHA256 with Keccak256 and secp256k1 with secp256r1 is a change but not an innovation in usage of cryptography. and ethereum is not the first nor the biggest rebuild, not by a long shot.

Quote

We're still stuck at speculative phase. We can try tech stack rebuild for the next ten years. Maybe, we'll figure out something. But I think developers are wasting time building solutions to imaginary problems. We have enough technology to solve crypto problems for the next 5-10 years.

that's the thing though, we already have the technology and implementation of it that is working well. that is why i believe that if someone new wants to come along it has to be innovative.

Quote

The problem is in crypto economics. I'm not changing just supply cap and block interval. I want a chain that has inflation as its main feature.

i get your point and it is an interesting approach BUT the problem is that this was also tried... multiple times... many of the bitcoin fork (which is probably about 200 at this point) has tackled inflation in one way or another.
economically such settings could not survive the long run. what inflation does to the price of a cryptocurrency is that it keeps decreasing it, and since traders nowadays know this already they won't touch such coins. having low price that keeps going down due to inflation means the chain could not be kept secure over the long run hence it could destined to fail from day one.

Thanks for the reply. We digress from this topic. But I want to respond. I personally view that we've tried so many combination of technology. I've been following the tech. I'm not hopeful. I can't see how further technology experiment would move the needle. I guess nobody has any good idea so we follow Vitalik on his latest tech proposal. I know Ethereum, Dogecoin, Grin have tail emission. But they are constant emission and intended to support mining. They eventually will behave like zero supply. Stella has inflation but their inflation is distributed through a voting process built on top of Stella protocol. They have since abandoned inflation. They may succeed if they really stick with inflation. But I think their priority is to come up with something that matches USD for payment.

I see the problem with dumping if supply inflates. So I design a reward schedule to prevent dumping.

0: 50 (supply: 10 million)
1: 25 (supply: 15 million)
2: 12.5
3: 6.25 (end of halving)
4: 6.56 (start of inflation 7%)
5: 7.02
6: 7.51
7: 8.04
8: 8.60
9: 9.20
10: 9.85 (supply: 31 million)

When inflation starts, the reward increases from 6.25 to 6.56. After 10 years, supply is 31 million. Supply will reach 100 million in between year 27-28. The chain has inflation. But it doesn't really mint that many tokens. Its supply is still restricted by inflation. There's a field of currency speculation. Fiat currencies have inflation. I don't worry that traders won't touch it because it has inflation.

I think this reward schedule can bootstrap an inflating crypto. That's the new idea.