I would respectfully request that if you insist on discussing this, that any and all comments or posts discussing ideas around "dev blocks", miner tax, adjusting the emission curve, threats to sell your stash if X happens, calls for the core team to wade through walls of posts and make some comment, and anything of that nature be taken to the MEW thread or anywhere else.
Let's, please, solidify ourselves and retain some degree of unity as we restart our activities and reevaluate our priorities, and we can have these in-depth and controversial discussions once the smoke has cleared.
I concur with my team mate fluffypony. A proposal has been made within MEW on this matter and that is the best place to discuss it. if you think the community will ever accept changes on emission or a dev block you are 100% wrong :p I want to agree with the core team members fluffypony and smooth here: The question of possible slashing of emission rate, with no change in total number of coins, will be addressed in due time in MEW first. It will be thoroughly discussed. Then it will be voted upon. Iff the votes are overwhelmingly in favor of a change, we will expect the change to happen. If not, there will be no change. The most difficult situation would be a close call or a strongly divided community, but we have the resources to handle these cases also. Only after it is clear if the community favors the change, will the devs even need to care about it. This lets them concentrate on their work (which admittedly they have a lot in front of them) and the MEW can concentrate on funding them (we already raised 2,500 XMR for the devs in 2 days). The discussion about the topic is very intriguing, but since it requires community vote instead of a I-yell-louder-with-more-sockpuppets-than-you contest (which btw was the way how the emission was voted upon last time, and the quickmine won over a more moderate curve), I exhort everyone who wants to have a vote, to join MEW.  Disclosing the amount raised, discloses the amount of votes available within MEW. I could now send 1000XMR to MEW and control 20% of the voting. This seems like a very serious flaw in the plan. In theory it would only take a maximum of 5 sock puppet accounts sending the max donation to control 50% of MEW voting rights that seems an absurdly low number. |
|
|
|
|
That's the thing, the practicality of verifying that a change is a majority decision is hard enough. Let alone even fairly defining a majority of what.
There are a multitude of systems that are all arguably fair but could provide drastically different results in a vote.
|
|
|
|
I see this question as something of a special case, given the peculiar history and origin of this particular coin.
This is certainly an idea that I could get on board with - if a convincing argument can be made that the original emission schedule is somehow 'corrupt' (for want of a better word) then I could potentially get on board with some form of change conducted in some manner. The details of which would need to be debated. |
|
|
|
You need to be able to say these are the things that we can change and these are the things that are core to the coin.
My opinion is the emission curve shouldn't be changed as in my opinion it is core to the coin. Despite the likely economic benefit to me if I were to take the other side.
ad infinitum just put it to stone, this speculation about emission is not good for the coin, smooth. That is simply not possible. Even if I were to 100% support calcification, who is to say another developer or stakeholder might push for change a month or a year or a decade from now. You can't creat absolute unquestionable and unchangable tenets without a religion and even then some will always seek to reform it. Actually in mathematics you can. |
|
|
|
|
I was under the impression that when I bought into this coin some things were fixed one of those was the emission curve - if I am wrong that is my own mistake and poor research and I will quietly sell my coins, if I am right then it should remain that way in my opinion.
|
|
|
|
My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.
The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions. You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak. Ah but you are equally playing God by declaring some things to be unquestionable and unchangable and also defining ethics to be as you say they are. i believe any project that is stuck with serious errors because Certain Things Cannot Change is likely doomed. There is no technical barrier to fixing it therefore the matter is simply opinion and nothing more. Although I certainly respect your disagreement I do not accept your characterization of a difference of opinion as violating ethics. Your ethics need not match mine and this is not an area where ethics have been established since prehistory. Crypto currency is young and Bitcoin did not get everything right (if it did there would be no monero). That includes this notion of an inflexible social contact with no mechansm for correction or improvement. No other system like that exists in the world other than religion. I reject it. To be very clear before I really leave the thread - All I want is everything to be clearly laid out - if that is that Monero DEV's can change whatever they want whenever they like that is absolutely fine. It is just not something that I want to be a a part of because there is a very clear slippery slope argument in my mind. |
|
|
|
|
What happens when the 4th 5th or 6th vote gets ignored by the DEV's at what point does MEW decide to find new DEV's and fork the coin?
|
|
|
|
The beauty of MEW is that everyone may voice their own opinion and vote for it, and the majority wins. Even then, the core team may totally independently decide whether to act according to the guidance or not.
Majority of what? One man one vote? One coin one vote? Ranking systems? It's all arbitrary. I wish I could continue this discussion some more but I can't right now. I will try and come back later today or tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Not impossible to come to come to a solution on those topics, but I'll freely admit, it'll be a pain to agree on the decision making process on this matter.
Just one of the reasons why the status quo is better. I have to get on with my day but I would like to add that prior to today's discussion I was still accumulating Monero I have now changed to simply holding what I have and will continue to remain in this state until a clear and final decision is made regarding these types of changes. So whatever the DEV's decide I would urge them to do so in an expedient manner as uncertainty is the the worst of all options. |
|
|
|
|
You need to be able to say these are the things that we can change and these are the things that are core to the coin.
My opinion is the emission curve shouldn't be changed as in my opinion it is core to the coin. Despite the likely economic benefit to me if I were to take the other side.
|
|
|
|
My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.
The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions. You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak. |
|
|
|
The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.
Seriously now, this is a piece of software, not a religious doctrine. That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it. That does not mean that something necessarily is broken, but "sanctity" precludes even considering it. It is an economy that people bought into because of a set of basic rules that were presented to them - changing those rules is a material change to the original contract. The only way it could ever be considered is by obtaining a 50% majority of coins in favour of the changes and even then I would still be against it. Which essentially means, if it would come to that, you recommend to go against an economic majority because it is different from your minority view (EDIT: in this scenario. Not saying your view is necessarily the minority view). Yes, makes sense. It's really pretty simple: if the change of the original rules is perceived as so terrible that a large number of early buyers are sufficiently turned off, then a) there won't be an economic majority supporting the change, and b) if there would be an economic majority in support of changes, the early buyers in the minority can still sell. Wondrous how markets work like that. I see your point, I was really trying to say that at or around 50% I think the status quo should continue. I'm not sure what the appropriate number for change would be economics suggest 50% obviously my personal view is that for such substantial changes that number should be closer to 60% for various reasons. |
|
|
|
agreed, I only speak for myself if Monero changes the emission I'm out.
I rather see it stagnate for months with no development if some devs thinks they are not getting their fair cut.
I feel the same way. Whilst I am not the largest Monero holder my exit would certainly move the price. |
|
|
|
The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.
That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it. It deeply concerns me to hear you say that. What do you think would happen if bitcoin developers turned round tomorrow and said we are changing the emission schedule because this new one is better we think? |
|
|
|
The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.
Seriously now, this is a piece of software, not a religious doctrine. That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it. That does not mean that something necessarily is broken, but "sanctity" precludes even considering it. It is an economy that people bought into because of a set of basic rules that were presented to them - changing those rules is a material change to the original contract. The only way it could ever be considered is by obtaining a 50% majority of coins in favour of the changes and even then I would still be against it. |
|
|
|
|
Transaction fees were always meant to be adjusted over time by the DEV team I think even a compulsory fee should have little to no negative impact on the economy where as changing the emission curve, which is a core original feature, changes the parameters by which every current owner of Monero agreed to be a part off.
The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.
|
|
|
|
I also think a lot of people would turn it off. The experience with p2pool where an extremely high percentage of users turn it off does not encourage me. That is a very valuable piece of software that provides a critical counterbalance against centralization of pools yet most users were so cheap they essentially killed the project by turning off donations.
I tend to agree with you, economics would suggest that the fee be default On but configurable and in the event that system failed then moving to a compulsory fee model. I think in practicality jumping straight to the compulsory fee model may just save time. |
|
|
|
If the desire is to raise funds for development there is a clear way for this to be done and that is for either a fixed or % based fee be added to every and all transactions the network performs.
That's the current proposal on the table that is most universally liked, completely optional and configurable (default on @ 50% match tx-fee) per-tx donation. However, it is going to be an extremely sluggish way of fundraising, as it will only grow as the number of tx's grow. The counter-balance to this would be for people to set their donation % to, say, 150% or 200% of tx fees in the short-term, and then decrease that in future. The benefit of this model is that it has bilateral motivation. It motivates MEW to build the surrounding economy to increase transaction volume and it encourages DEV's to write good code to make the network more usable. I agree the LAG in between is an annoyance but that is all that it is and you could argue the LAG also increases DEV motivation and if nothing else certainly makes them more personally invested. Configurable with default set to on seems like the most viable of the options, although compulsory is a close second. |
|
|
|
Slowing down the emission is a good idea to distribute the coin for longer period. We can achieve that by increasing the block time from 1 min to 3 min. We can implement that with 1 second block time increase per week. When XMR is adopted more in commerce, we can reduce the block time slowly, from 3 min to 1 min. The main reason to do that is that I found there is no transaction in most of the mined blocks.
Adjusting the emission in anyway is a terrible idea. I don't know if those suggesting it are simply selfish, incompetent or just have an overwhelming sense of grandeur. Or perhaps you think presenting an incomplete list is if it were complete is a good tactic for marginalizing those who disagree with you. It isn't. It is at least as fair a tactic as forming a collective of owners to influence the direction the core DEV's take. To be clear I am Pro Monero and Pro MEW - what I am not in favour of is the two ever imparting influence on each other with respect to core features of the coin. |
|
|
|
when did I say you were a troll, you are implying that mew will be used to blackmail the developers, this is absurd.
everything will be discussed but not really implemented, changing emission is a fatal blow to monero everyone knows that, one thing that can be done is rising the block time and the reward accordingly so emission stay the same but the blocks take more time.
I'm not implying it will be, I'm implicitly stating that it could potentially happen. Any basic study of human psychology will tell you that the chance is non-zero. Let the DEV's work on the code and let MEW build a viable peripheral economy. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
