Quote from: rpietila on September 10, 2014, 01:59:25 PM

Quote from: dga on September 10, 2014, 01:27:39 PM

(edit: In addition to wishing more coins would copy Gatra's soft-start approach to block rewards used in Riecoin, more coins should copy Zoidberg's 1% ongoing dev fee from BBR. The incentive difference between a 1% premine and 1% ongoing revenue is HUGE. The premine invites a fast pump and dump; the 1% ongoing revenue motivates continued long-term development.

Heck - XMR should add this so the team has food on their plates. :-)

Duly noted and implemented.

You keep finding a way to write something so important that I feel compelled to reply.

I see some motivational advantages for this idea also versus a premine, but unfortunately it is insufficient. For any coin that does not have Monero's catastrophic design error of rapidly declining the block reward, the 1% will be insufficient when it matters most at the early stage where all the critical work is done before inertia and vested interests prevent further radical improvements (e.g. Bitcoin).

The rapidly declining block reward is a design error because the early hodlers lock up the coin and the rate of velocity of money and adoption decelerate (e.g. Bitcoin and Monero).

Quote from: thankful_for_today on April 26, 2014, 12:37:00 PM

Emission curve variants

http://i.imgur.com/jSu2EQU.png

Another problem with the developer fee: it is a resource to fight over and it can fund the development of a bureaucracy, e.g. the MEW foundation (just see what happened to the Bitcoin foundation and you can be sure the same will happen to the MEW despite the best intentions and will of the current participants due to the Iron Law of Political Economics aka Mancur Olsen's treatise on the Logic of Collective Action).

Also it does give the appearance of being a corporation instead of an open source project.

The best funding model is still (as it was for Bitcoin) for the brilliant creator to take his stash and run after he has made the coin so popular that no one can refuse nor fork it.

Great thing about a premine is all those who obstinately won't buy the coin until AFTER everyone else does. I love that.

P.S. Did you know Satoshi perhaps limited the money supply to 21 million because that is what he could fit into standard double floating point arithmetic with each coin at 100 million of the smallest unit (satoshi). Nice excuse any way.

Edit: for the math deficient, note that a slower declining rate of debasement means the relative value (as a percentage of total mined coins) generated by the fee is less early on than for a more rapid declining rate of debasement. And there is no guarantee to the developer that his hard effort early on will be rewarded 10 years hence waiting for the fee to accumulate. Timing risk comes into play when borrowing long to lend short. This is what killed the banks in 2008. Hommel did teach me that future's contracts are evil.

Proverbs - Do not be surety for thy friend.

Quote from: nakaone on September 10, 2014, 03:29:19 PM

is a social contract. it can by definition not have catastrophic design errors, because no one is forced to sign this social contract.

And when the majority do not adopt the social contract, it is a catastrophic failure. It the money doesn't circulate, it isn't a currency, and there is no adoption. See the Quantity Theory of Money.

Do you have any clue how fucking tired I am of writing that? I have only written that point about 50 times in my archives on this forum. Geez.

Good riddance to this forum! (I know it is not your personal fault, you did not read what I wrote in the past)

Quote from: nakaone on September 10, 2014, 03:29:19 PM

hodling bitcoins or monero is neccessary for giving it value.

Absolutely false!

The magic show is coming soon to a theater near you.

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. Arthur C. Clarke

Quote from: nakaone on September 10, 2014, 03:29:19 PM

regarding the idea of voluntarily giving 1% of mining to development I would strongly suggest doing it.

Risto is correct, many or most people aren't skilled or well-practiced in math and or macro economics.

Quote from: rpietila on September 08, 2014, 09:03:13 PM

they don't have time for the economy, and they are not competent in it