Quote from: rpietila on September 30, 2014, 02:54:28 PM

Quote from: nakaone on September 30, 2014, 02:33:09 PM

Quote from: devphp on September 30, 2014, 02:31:20 PM

Quote from: rpietila on September 30, 2014, 02:25:01 PM

The supermajority (perhaps not of the people, but of the supporters of various altcoins) believe that the initial emission period should be rather short, to "get rid" of the pesky "inflation", so that the coin can "start rising in value".

I believe they are hoping in vain, because the "new money" not yet invested, does not see such a coin as a very interesting investment and do not buy it. So instead of a rise, a fall in value is the result.

The only way around this is to grow the real economy of the coin big enough, before the declining emission really hits. This can hardly be achieved in 1 year, so a considerable longer time before half is emitted should be the case.

How does "new money"'s perception of the coin change if the inflation period is long? I mean, what benefits are there in the long inflation period for investors? How is growing economy of the coin dependent on the length of the inflation period?

to put it simple you need enough inflation to network and as little as to keep it as a store of value in a foreseeable future.

What you said - the latter part - is exactly the fallacy.

explain to me how this shall work if a cryptocurrency which is issued by nothing but its scarcity and its function will be adopted without having a store of value.

I am not talking about a 7 days fast-mine pump and dump, but a design with a slightly decreasing block reward seems somewhat convincing to me