Also, a finite money supply (this includes a fixed reward system) will only encourage banks to use the coin as lending leverage. This "fiatization" would not be difficult, as banks can simply loan out MoneroNotes(tm) at ultra low interest rates, that have the "Legal Tender" stamp of approval.

I'd rather have such debasement baked into the currency, so at least the new coins actually go back to the miners.

I actually think that transaction fees will be enough to support the miners without subsidy, because the miners will only process transactions with the highest fees. This will turn transactions into bidding wars, and it will become extremely expensive to get a transaction included in a block.

This is why I don't think a fixed block reward system will be sustainable long term, because as inflation trends to zero, miners will be less satisfied with the reward and become more picky with tx fees. We need a proportional (percentage based) inflation. However, I'm not sure how much would be suitable.

With the same concerns in mind, there should be a reasonable cap on transaction fees (perhaps as a percentage of block reward). Transactors shouldn't be able to pay a higher fee, as this encourages the issue.

This is the main idea I was trying to get across earlier in the thread. Demurrage differs from inflation because inflation in PoW crypto is more complicated in that each coin has other value properties in addition to being simply a percentage of total value. If the total supply increases by 1%, that doesn't mean the value of each coin decreases by 1%. FreiCoin's demurrage does mean that because a percentage of coins are actually disappearing. This means a 1% demurrage is much more costly than a 1% inflation (in PoW crypto, that is).

Forcing ambiguity upchain. Keeps your transaction from being outed but adds considerable bloat to the blockchain.

Feel free to explain yourself. We need some type of inflation to keep transaction fees from escalating. I prefer a fixed percentage inflation, and have argued my reasons plenty here and in the economy thread. It solves a number of problems.

I think you need to read rpietila's quote one more time. You completely missed his point.

Any mixin greater than zero is enough to provide plausible deniability in the block chain, though larger mixins provide additional security by cripling the ability to rule out other parties as possible transactors.

Even simpler: Single-use addresses are already created at the time of transaction (for stealth addressing). Would it not be possible to create single-use receiving addresses on-the-fly based on your wallet address?

Yup. Rolling PIDs are non-solutions anyway because an anonymous currency can't rely on third parties to maintain the privacy of the network.

My fear is that adoption and dependence of PIDs will grow too quickly before more robust wallet addressing ever gets implemented. At that point removing the Payment ID "feature" may be too costly.

I think the takeaway here is that this is a world currency. Some of us live in happier places than others and some of us have more trust in our governments than others. When it comes to identifying weaknesses in systems it's important to view things from the most corrupt perspective possible, because someone out there will attempt to exploit it.

Unfortunately, it is the only way to identify payments at this point. And I don't believe a better alternative is even a priority.

Spoken like a true politician. "Why do you want privacy if you have nothing to hide?"

My reasons for privacy, legal or not, are none of your fucking business. And that's the point of Monero. All transactions should be private, without anyone having to justify themselves to anyone else.

What would "ruin it" is a coin that attempts to do it all. Monero is a coin for private transactions. If you want to make a "non-private" transaction, use bitcoin (or fiat, for that matter).

What stops governments from forcing businesses to require Pay IDs when accepting monero? What stops governments from forcing exchanges to use Pay IDs when users withdraw monero? Once anonymity can be circumvented, regulators will find a way to make it always so.

If we want anonymity to be protected, then every transaction on the block chain must be private.

To whoever praised the Payment ID as a better alternative than multiple receiving addresses:

Multiple receiving addresses keeps anonymity intact in the blockchain, and thus will always be superior to Pay IDs. Payment IDs defeat the purpose of ring signatures and open doors for future regulation (businesses being required by law to collect Payment IDs for every transaction, etc.).

This is why I've said in the past that transactions should force mixin levels greater than 0. Any "features" that reduce anonymity in the block chain can be used against us in the future.

Payment IDs should be treated as a temporary solution until wallets are capable of creating multiple receiving addresses. At that point they should be removed entirely to prevent future abuse.

Have you submitted any pull requests to the repository? If not, then maybe you should start contributing before accusing the devs of not accepting help.

Last I checked, the devs are not receiving a salary for their work. Would you like to step up and pay them to quit their day jobs and allocate all their attention to Monero?

The Payment ID requirement will indeed be a constant issue. This one-address-per-wallet limitation is something that needs to be resolved on Monero's end (and soon) if we ever expect it to grow as a currency. Transaction differentiation should happen outside of the blockchain, anyway.

As great as it sounds, a coin that "does it all" will neither be a great store of value nor a great exchange medium. Instead, it will be mediocre at both.

Currency cannot behave like currency if the value constantly trends upward. An asset's value appreciation tends to be the inverse of its liquidity.

If you like Bitcoin so much then invest in Bitcoin. That's the whole point I'm trying to make. The bulk of your wealth should not be liquid, because that's not what currency is for, and you will likely not see a comparable ROI.

I'll just go ahead and link to this again: http://physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/papers/PhysicaA-299-213-2001.pdf
Power-law wealth distribution means that with a finite money supply, your wealth is pretty much guaranteed to be eaten over time, as more money flows into the infrastructures of the economy than flows back to the consumers.

You want to be in control and not subject to the whims of banks and governments? Me too. We are on the same team.

Do you want to continue to pay pay 2-4% per year (plus income/capital gains taxes) to greedy bankers who only want to take countries and people into debt? Or would you rather pay 2-4% per year back to the miners to reduce wealth centralization, prevent escalating transaction fees, stabalize trade value, and maintain the overall security of the network?

If your answer is "neither" then I'd love to hear some of your free solutions to the above problems. If you think Bitcoin (or any other crypto for that matter) is untouchable by centralized parties, then tell me right now what's stopping banks/governments from
lending out debased "bitcoin-backed" dollars at super low interest rates and calling it Legal Tender?

How much are you willing to pay to keep the greedy fatcats out of the cookie jar? I would love more than anything to see a "bullet-proof" crypto, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that such security comes at no cost.

You're still dodging the question of why it's necessary to save in-currency! Answer it, please. Smart people store wealth in a diversity of assets outside their currency.

Not once did I say it's "impossible" to spend. I'm saying that in any given moment, spending is discouraged due to perpetually increasing value. Just because people do spend doesn't mean they're spending fast enough.

And Bitcoin has less than 50 million transactions in its entire life, so don't even pretend like you know if it's capable of supporting any economy of scale.


The people are not punished. Only their behavior is. If you want to save long-term, then invest in mutual funds or real estate or whatever you want, but don't sit on your currency.


I disagree. People will use whatever the hell is put in front of them. The coin that's easiest to get and easiest to spend will be the one that acheives mass adoption.

Guys I'm not claiming that saving is unimportant. I'm talking about savings in the form of unspent currency. I was responding to hbadger's claim that inflation punishes savers. There are plenty of appreciable saving/investment vehicles that will result in greater long term yields. Incentivizing saving in the currency itself, however, will only serve to kill its velocity. Economies of scale require a currency that moves.

I hate to bring fiat into the argument, but despite all it's problems the U.S. dollar does a great job at supporting large-scale economies. Even with a 2.5% - 4% annual inflation (definitely not "saver friendly"), capital formation does not seem to be a problem. Go figure.