I might be tempted if Dash went over $50. I never said our model was perfect, it was high tech stuff a few years ago but the economics of Dash (and crypto in general) has always been absolute shite imo. Good enough to fit in with todays world but it's never been "money reinvented", just something to build tomorrows money on (or rather, what makes money obsolete).

That's fine, if you or anyone else wishes to cling to some antiquated concept where artificial forms of value are necessary then I won't argue, and if anyone wishes to believe the earth is flat and climate change is a myth that's perfectly ok too but thankfully we live in an enlightened age with instant global communications so it's only a matter of time, one, maybe two generations at best before value comes out from the age of mysticism and becomes a legitimate science.

Then there we're going to have to agree to disagree because from my point of view that has less than zero value. Energy converted to a usable form has value, energy used to create something with its own intrinsic value is fine but energy used to create something that has no intrinsic value is wasted, any value that item has is entirely artificial.

You can argue 'til you're blue in the face over what gives crypto tokens an intrinsic value but you will never be able to justify anything over fractions of cents, if you can have an infinite number of finite emission blockchains then that's an infinite number of tokens, zero scarcity.

If total emission doesn't change, how does full PoW create scarcity that partial PoW doesn't?

Is there some sort of brain disease going around amongst beancounters? Even the ones at the very top seem to have got the idea that the laws of supply and demand are merely guidelines :/

In PoW, supply costs have absolutely zero influence on market prices, nada, nothing, not even a little bit fallen down the back of the couch and clinging on so fanatically to the idea that they do isn't just wrong, it's entirely backwards. Markets decide how much miners are getting and it makes absolutely zero difference if 100% of miners are getting it or just 40%, the supply remains fixed regardless and the amount the market is willing to pay dictates its value. One more time even though I know you're going to get this into your head even with the help of a very big hammer, difficulty adjusts so the supply remains fix and the work varies, not the other way around.

You're way over-thinking it. Stored value is artificial no matter what way you turn it, a shared belief or agreement and often has no relationship to anything other than scarcity on the supply side. The market is going down because the market is going down, personally I think manipulation plays the biggest part in that but it's just as explainable by lack of interest, the newness has worn off and it' worn off Dash more than most.

A few tweaks with distribution of supply isn't going to fix it, a 10x reduction in the MN collateral requirement might put the economics on a more sustainable path but it's very unlikely to have much effect on our weak and mostly delusional markets.

What you're saying holds true for a strong market, strong demand but it's still ass backwards, the cost of production dictates prices because it's a competitive market, the cost of production has been driven down. That doesn't exist in PoW crypto, the cost of production adjusts to meet demand while the volume of production remains unchanged regardless of demand.

It's a very weird set of market dynamics but those dynamics never get genuinely tested because it's a very weak market, genuine need is practically non existent and you can see that just by looking at what leads those markets, there's practically zero interest in more optimized and cost effective products.

If you want to criticise the excessive difference between MN rewards and their running costs then go right ahead, I'm in full agreement but please don't do it with some twisted "we lost money this year therefor we all got richer" accountancy logic. Those excessive profits shouldn't exist in a healthy and competitive environment and even if that environment existed the collateral requirement would prevent it from reaching any kind of equilibrium. Hell, even the name "Masternode" gets my goat because it implies every other node is a servant/slave and why would anyone want to use a network that clearly only serves to make a few thousand already wealthy and privileged individuals richer?

So yeah, you're a believer in "the energy needed to create it is what gives it value" dumbass argument. That's no different to saying a TV goes up in value as it gets older because it's used more electricity. It works for the creation of energy, trying to justify it for the usage of energy is ass backwards (but no surprise to hear coming from an accountant).

That supply is fixed, the cost to create it is what changes. It doesn't matter if 40% or 100% of that supply has a creation cost, all the market sees is the average.

The only place it's exposed to competitive bidding is the exchanges. Crypto 101, mining difficulty adjusts, the cost to create the next coin constantly changes.

You might want to consider backing off on whatever you're drinking/smoking/whatever. You've had a lot of extremely rational arguments in the past but you're going full Camosoul on this one. The electricity companies aren't mediating the bidding, they're charging a fixed price per unit and miners are using more or less electricity as value goes up or down.

You could argue that mining has a constant disincentive, "fx you, why should I be doing all this work when you're getting it for free?". That would definitely have legitimacy and reaches equilibrium when MN running costs equal rewards, somewhere around 4$ at the mo but that would adjust in the same way as mining, the number of MNs would reduce.

Where are you getting the idea that the amount people have to spend to receive block rewards effects how much money comes into markets? The only reality in which that works is one where the electricity companies use the money they've got from miners to buy Dash.

Were you sober when you came up with that? You've got it back to front, the amount of fiat coming into markets dictates how much fiat miners have available to pay their running costs, mining adjusts its overheads to match it. 40% or 100% makes no difference to how much fiat is coming into markets, it only effects what percentage of that fiat is spent on mining running costs.

It makes fx all difference. Miner and MN emission is constant, it wouldn't matter a damn if it was all going to miners or all going to MN's, if it's getting to markets then the market (supposedly) matches that to cash flow in, matches supply to demand.

If anything's the opposite would apply, MNs only send enough to the markets to meet their running costs and hoard the rest, supply to markets reduces.

You're not anchored to anything. Price dictates mining costs, there's no "unless they can mine at a lower cost", if the market isn't offering them above cost they switch to mining something else. MN operating costs are close to 10% of rewards at the mo (ignoring depreciation on collateral) so not entirely free but it wouldn't really matter. If Dash was entirely PoW the price would be just the same, what's being soaked up by the markets determines the price (in a perfect world ofc, here in the real world it's mostly determined by manipulative trading and selective reporting).

No, they're matched. Emission doesn't change, instead mining power reduces as profits reduce. The only market stability offered stems from miners reserves, accumulated coins and unwillingness to just cut their losses on hardware.

Any Devtome contributors still around?

I'm sure it was considered, probably much in the same way as the popularity of the Iraq war was considered, ie. "how much can we get away with?".
Here's how one of Irelands biggest banks added up the numbers:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-24/anglo-irish-picked-bailout-number-out-my-arse-force-shared-taxpayer-sacrifice

Another?? Oh well, guess that's a good sign :/ Just a word of caution, after the Satoshi round table meeting Dashes lead dev (Evan Duffield) announced they'll be putting a high priority on avoiding mining centralisation and changes are planned out and in development for that. No word on how it will be done yet but it doesn't involve any changes to X11, it's likely to be included in the next release which is due in about 3 months (v0.12.1).

EDIT: Mentioned here in the March budget proposal details:
https://dashtalk.org/threads/march-2016-budget-proposal.8198/

Lol, that one has got me before and it's not as long as it seems New or restarting with something changed? If its something changed then it can take about 90 minutes (iirc) for the network to forget the old one but otherwise it's usually just a few seconds here. Probably someone better to answer along soon though, I tend to take the restart it and swear at it approach and it usually works but no doubt there are better ways of resolving most issues