Quote from: Skinnkavaj on September 10, 2014, 02:34:29 PM

Quote from: dga on September 10, 2014, 02:29:15 PM

Hi. There's this thing called politeness. It works even on the Internet.

Second - your comment makes me believe you aren't familiar with the BBR model that I'm advocating. In BBR, 1% of the mining output is sent to the developer as a revenue source for ongoing development. This 1% "dev fee" has nothing to do with inflation. It decreases over time as the block reward decreases.

Sorry, DGA. Yes I realized it does not add more to inflation. I edited my post before you posted this one.
A change like this would make XMR like a company, but XMR is designed to be a currency and should be so.

Developers should find other ways to make money, I have already proposed making a Blockchain.info clone and make money from it.
Blockchain.info today is already a company making money.

It would be really silly the more I think about it, if Bitcoin had built in 1% fee to go to developers I doubt anyone would take Bitcoin seriously if this was the case.

http://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/

Indeed - why settle for a 1% ongoing dev fee when you can instead own more than 5% of the total number of coins that will ever be created?

I'd suggest looking to Linux as a better example of an alternate: Most of the core kernel development work is done by people who work for companies (Intel, IBM, Google, etc.) that have collectively decided that Linux is so useful they want to make sure it stays around by subsidizing its development. This isn't a bad model for Bitcoin either -- if, e.g., the exchanges all paid for one full-time developer. But it doesn't work for a "startup" coin that doesn't have a well established ecosystem.

Perhaps rpietila's MEW is good enough - or better. But coding takes money, because most coders like to eat and feed their families.