data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/686e1/686e1d2afeabd36ed797180a16bf21b0e58a4a69" alt="" |
March 24, 2015, 02:09:17 PM |
|
I was talking to a friend of mine who is an economics major, and we had some conflicting ideas about this.
Let's say there is a crypto that has a fixed size of 20 million coins, and that it linearly increases in network hash rate. This would mean that the difficulty increases at a similar rate. With that being said, to stabilize the coin's emission, would it make more sense to:
* Lower the reward when the hash rate is low * Decreases rate of emission, stabilizing price of coin (as there is less being generated, pushing back date until all coins are mined) * Short term stabilization, because as soon as the hash rate increases, the reward will go up (causing rate of emission to increase, devaluing currency)
OR
* Raise the reward when the hash rate is low * Thereby incentivizing new miners to come and mine and stabilize hash rate * More miners = more difficulty = more value of coin * Does not stabilize price, because if reward decreases with higher hash rates, miners will have less of an incentive * Long run: can possibly hurt price because, like most coins, is not profitable unless difficulty is low
I obviously argued for the first, because if a coin with that structure is added to a multi pool, or profit-switching pool, it will maintain being profitable (via jacking up rewards in relation to difficulty).
What are your thoughts?
|