Quote from: NewLiberty on October 01, 2014, 01:03:39 AM

Quote from: Johnny Mnemonic on October 01, 2014, 12:28:31 AM

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

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.

This is why I've always believed in a perpetually increasing (or difficulty-dependent) block reward... it encourages use as a currency (medium of exchange) as opposed to an investment vehicle, and new adopters are never punished for arriving "late".

Imagine a coin with a difficulty-adjusted block reward of 10 coins per 1 billion. Block rewards would be very small during the coin's early growth, but would scale up or down with the network. When difficulty reaches 1.45 billion (XMR's current difficulty), the reward would be 14.5 coins. This would also be the most fair and fungible crypto, as all coins would cost roughly the same hash power regardless of when they're mined.

I like this notion and have fostered it myself, though I don't think it is the whole picture.

Bitcoin is perpetually inflating.
In the current picture up until 2140.
It goes well beyond this when the decimal point moves.

Coins are lost/destroyed over time too increasing scarcity. So there is more to it than just the difficulty, but that should be considered.

Bitcoin is different because the money supply is finite. I don't see how lost/destroyed coins are an issue with an undefined/infinite money supply that grows with the network. Am I missing something?

What I'm suggesting basically means the same hardware will yield the same profit whether it's used for mining now or 10 years from now, because every contributed hash will always have the same return over time (CPU mineable forever?). I'm guessing this would also reduce the profit incentive for special hardware manufacturing.