Quote from: Come-In-Behind on November 08, 2014, 08:53:49 PM

Quote from: smooth on November 08, 2014, 08:28:51 PM

Quote from: nakaone on November 08, 2014, 08:17:13 PM

Quote from: smooth on November 08, 2014, 08:07:15 PM

Quote from: othe on November 08, 2014, 07:06:04 PM

Once again: Don´t point out the problem; present a solution, make a better Emission curve and back it up why its better, present the advantages and disadvantages etc. Thats simply what i expect from a discussion. Just changing the Emission to be only half as fast or whatever can´t be the holy grail.

The best suggestion I've seen, I think, is from BanditryAndLoot, who suggested to take the next 3.5 years (or pick some other such number) of rewards under the existing curve and flatten them.

My rationale for this would be that:

1. BTC and LTC have done okay with keeping he emissions flat for a while and then cutting them. This is total speculation but I might guess that keeping them flat for a while encourages participation, since people do not feel disadvantaged for having arrived a bit later in each cycle.

2. 3.5 (or 2.5 or whatever) years should most certainly be enough time for build out of the technology and for adoption to start to occur if it ever will. I don't think the current 1-2 years before we are well over 50% mined and people start to look at the coin as mature but with little to show for it is enough.

3. This causes no permanent change so it has less "social contract" issues. Once the end of the flattening period is reached everything is just exactly as it always was. This is probably the positive action that can be taken with the least reputation harm. Not zero necessarily, but everything else is worse.

I'm still undecided on whether anything should be changed.

Quote from: nakaone on August 29, 2014, 11:41:29 PM

Quote from: wachtwoord on August 29, 2014, 10:47:08 PM

Quote from: nakaone on August 29, 2014, 10:46:08 PM

I think for several reasons that the emmission rate of xmr is close to perfect - the only thing i am unsure is if the price is probably to high. but we will see.

if you study the emmission rate in a greater detail you'll see the beauty. from an economics perspective it has quite a ton of very interesting implications.

this place is so used to pump and dump that it forgets where the true value of a decentralized currency can be found. its possibility to create network effects.

Could you share more details?

1.) if only the the design of inflation would matter, the price will be an inverse function of supply
2.) given the high amount of daily produced coins it is almost impossible to pump the coin or to keep a the pump for a long time
3.) given the high amount of daily produced coins it is almost impossible to become a super whale and keep this status for a long period of time - if this would be the case it would hinder network effects
4.) given the design of inflation it is still more rational to buy today than tommorow, but if you fail to buy today the costs will be minimal
5.) the effects of this can already be seen: most of time the coin was traded in a range between 0.002 and 0.0045, this probably gives a lot of people the feeling that they "have not missed the train already"
6.) if only the design of inflation matters: investors assume an appreciation of xmr in the long run, which leads to the incentive to hold
7.) all that said: the design leads to a situation, where mining is rational, where holding is rational and where buying is rational. given situations of bubbles it is rational to sell and buy back lower - this leads to a stabilisation of the system

compare this to other designs of emmission.

I still have some concerns but compared to other designs they are minor

my own disclaimer is probably that I am a post-keynesian institutional economist

but when this looks convincing to someone with this background it will probably convince guys on the other side of the guild much more Wink

I posted that back in august I guess - still think it is true - but there are issues which we could not see back then

You make good points in favor of high emissions really. I guess that is why I'm undecided and why I also agree with othe that nobody really knows what the hell is right.

Then how about what is Better. A slower emission may not be what's "perfect", but it sure is better than a higher one.

Bold #1: I also liked BanditryAndLoot's idea.

Bold #2: Would a slower emissions still be fast enough to fit nakaone's thoughts?

Bold #3: How much better would a change need to be? Grin