AURORACOIN - Empowering Financial Freedom

[ny2cafuse]

The only argument I've heard so far for leaving it as-is is because BTC did it that way, and Satoshi knows best.  The only other reason I could think of is because it's more complicated code.  This can't be an issue with the fact that we're pushing a pretty large update to the wallets soon that will have a change far greater than changing the halving schedule.

I've posted my ideas regarding this on the official forum. No need to repeat it.

The new change is needed for chain stability. It adds already complicated code, but that is needed. The problem you describe can be solved with solutions that don't add extra complexity to the code. Like posted on the other forum, your problem is part of a bigger economic problem that has to be tackled any way.

Look at our NLG friends. They dropped the reward 10x, because they expected that that would make the price going up. It didn't happen. What did happen was that the price dropped further.

To continue: the first drop would be from 12.5 to 6.25 (and according to you the price would almost double, so let's say 20000), then the next drop it goes to 3.125 (and according to you the price would almost double again, 40000), next drop 1.5625 (again almost double of price?, 80000)... now what's the economic logic behind every price increase if the drops become smaller and smaller? As the price increases more and more bag holders would start selling, pushing the price down. This is even without taking into consideration that there would be a healthy Auroracoin economy that would stabilize the price by itself (by providing sufficient liquidity). Finally, it easier to pump the price from 10000 to 20000 than from 40000 to 80000. So, if the first halving is a bit bumpy, the next halvings will have less and less effect as the price would go up.

Agreed.  Yes, my problem is with the bigger economic picture.  Like I said, I'm not an economist, so I guess that's what's driving this curiosity on my side for why it's always been this way.  I read your post on the official forums and here, and I agree with a lot of what you said about the issue diminishing as time goes on.  Considering I wasn't involved with AUR prior to coming onboard with the team, I would say that the halving that will happen in the 400k's would be the first for the relaunch.  Now, if we're pushing to get things really rolling this year, and we gain wide adoption shortly there-after, the fact that the "first" halving is statistically bumpy concerns me.  That would mean that we're 2 years into this team's push, and we're looking at an event of uncertainty.  That's nagging at me.  Call me crazy. lol

I've seen botched reductions with other coins as well.  Ones that I even argued against vehemently that ultimately did the same thing as NLG... dropped instead of increased.  I would never argue for any kind of price manipulation via blockchain mechanics.  While a gradual block reward decrease would ultimately affect the price over time, it should be in equilibrium with what it would have been had we stuck with the hard halving.  It's like gearing up from 1st to 5th gear instead of running the RPMs to redline and slamming into 5th from 1st.  Both ways will get you to 5th gear, but one is going to be a lot smoother ride.

-Fuse

[BioMike]

I have to agree with bimmerhead and leave the rewards as they are, I remember how you same people were having a heart attack when NLG wanted to change the reward system and now you wanting to change it yourselves on AUR. Double standards much? Leave it as the way satoshi intended or GTFO.

Ny2cafuse and I were the only ones involved with that (I was also against the NLG change, just as this change.) and have taken a position in this. The double standards also crossed my mind, but the situation here is completely different. Ny2cafuse wants to prevent a big difference in price (stabilize the price), while the NLG people argued that the price was too low and hoped to pump it this way (higher price). Also, with Fuse' solution the drop stays at specific points the same (just in between those points are changed), while the NLG solution is a one time drop of 10x and keep it the same for 60 years into the future.

[ny2cafuse]

I have to agree with bimmerhead and leave the rewards as they are, I remember how you same people were having a heart attack when NLG wanted to change the reward system and now you wanting to change it yourselves on AUR. Double standards much? Leave it as the way satoshi intended or GTFO.

Ny2cafuse and I were the only ones involved with that (I was also against the NLG change, just as this change.) and have taken a position in this. The double standards also crossed my mind, but the situation here is completely different. Ny2cafuse wants to prevent a big difference in price (stabilize the price), while the NLG people argued that the price was too low and hoped to pump it this way (higher price). Also, with Fuse' solution the drop stays at specific points the same (just in between those points are changed), while the NLG solution is a one time drop of 10x and keep it the same for 60 years into the future.

I don't understand how it's different if Ny2cafuse reasons is about price too? To me you guys are admitting that the NLG team was right and by not making the change you sticking to your principles. No point trying to butter up the excuses to make yourselves look better. Lets keep it as is and do proper development to create value.

This is a completely different situation.  I'm pretty sure I wasn't even around when NLG did the reduction, so don't try to make any connection to NLG here, mate.  However, if I was, I would have fought it tooth and nail.  If you want to see where I fought this with another coin, check out POT, which is now untradeable and dying a slow death.  Manipulating price via the blockchain to the point of what NLG or POT did is where you start getting into the realm of extreme lack of confidence.  This is a completely different situation.  I'm not trying to manipulate price like those coins did.  I'm trying to ease the rate of block reward decrease so there is less shock to the markets and blockchain when halvings occur.  Two completely different things.

BioMike is 100% correct in what I'm proposing.  The rewards would stay the same at the periods in time when they would have normally halved.  In between those points though, the reward would slowly decrease to get to that point.  So halfway between block 420k and 840k, block 630k would be worth 4.6875AUR instead of 6.25AUR.  By the time we got to 840k blocks, the reward would match the 3.125 that it would normally have been with the hard halving.  If I absolutely have to, I'll make a chart this afternoon when I get back into the office to illustrate my proposal.

-Fuse

[Auroracoin]

It's good to have discussions about block halving, but don't forget it's not on any official agenda. Right now we are focusing on bringing you an amazing package of developments that mostly improve the security of the network and usability of our coin.

Just for clarity, the Auroracoin dev-team is not working on or even seriously discussing this matter. It's an interesting discussion however and one we gladly take on when time comes.

[adamastor]

It's good to have discussions about block halving, but don't forget it's not on any official agenda. Right now we are focusing on bringing you an amazing package of developments that mostly improve the security of the network and usability of our coin.

Just for clarity, the Auroracoin dev-team is not working on or even seriously discussing this matter. It's an interesting discussion however and one we gladly take on when time comes.

Do you have any instructions on how to download the Auroracoin Android wallet?

[Trackcoins]

I am ok for block reward manipulation change if price go up. Digibute price went up with block reward change. Dont have to explain yourself to people . Doit if biomike agree to manipulation for increase price.

[Auroracoin]

Do you have any instructions on how to download the Auroracoin Android wallet?

Right now there is only the old version. We do not recommend you use this for it has been unsupported for quite some time and it depends on the "old" wallet chain.

We have new wallets for all OS's coming out soon. First we are finalizing a major change in our network protocols that creates dependancies towards those wallets. After final testing is satisfactory, expect massive releases.

[ny2cafuse]

It's good to have discussions about block halving, but don't forget it's not on any official agenda. Right now we are focusing on bringing you an amazing package of developments that mostly improve the security of the network and usability of our coin.

Just for clarity, the Auroracoin dev-team is not working on or even seriously discussing this matter. It's an interesting discussion however and one we gladly take on when time comes.

I want to reiterate this point.  While I would like to see the change made, it's not on the development roadmap at this time.  The discussion is merely being had right now for the sake of the discussion.

-Fuse

[adamastor]

Do you have any instructions on how to download the Auroracoin Android wallet?

Right now there is only the old version. We do not recommend you use this for it has been unsupported for quite some time and it depends on the "old" wallet chain.

We have new wallets for all OS's coming out soon. First we are finalizing a major change in our network protocols that creates dependancies towards those wallets. After final testing is satisfactory, expect massive releases.

Ok.

What about the Icelandic exchange?

[adamastor]

wow.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this moving average graph I found on Bittrex shows that Auroracoin's overall moving average price reached a turning point  minimum on the the 4th of February 2016.

http://imgur.com/wXGnEQ4

[molecular]

wow.

Correct me if I'm wrong but this moving average graph I found on Bittrex shows that Auroracoin's overall moving average price reached a turning point  minimum on the the 4th of February 2016.

http://imgur.com/wXGnEQ4

can you repost this (maybe using an img tag) in the Auroracoin market observer thread? It's more appropriate there and I could use some help in getting that thread a little more lively.

[adamastor]

did anyone remember to celebrate Auroracoins birthday on Jan 24th?

[soltantgris]

THAT is an interesting convo !

I feel a bit like Fuse on this - I never got why such a drastic reward decrease was coded at first. Why not gradually ? The endgame would be the same, no ?  Most economic activity move ''gradually''. I don't bump the price of an item from 100$ to 200$. I increase the price to 109, then 129, then 139 etc. Banks move rates slowly for the same reason - and each time they don't, well, we know what happen. Crashes, war, bankrupt etc. 

Imo, just the fact that people worry, or prepare to the next halving is a sign that there is something wrong with it. This is not a good stable currency !   I don't want any price manipulation - but keeping something just because ''satoshi'' put it in BTC is not a good reason to me. Satoshi was/is not a god - we see tons of coders trying to figure how to change BTC so the network can support more transactions - these coders don't say that bitcoin is broken, they say it can be better suited for what we need.

If we gradually decrease the reward without changing the supply in any way (just doing the maths correctly, right?), we just eliminate a big question mark, we let the market grow on an organic way, no ?   The halving realy look like a dogma to me - or at least i can't see any decent reason for wanting such drastic change in something that need stability. 

[Bimmerhead]

we see tons of coders trying to figure how to change BTC so the network can support more transactions - these coders don't say that bitcoin is broken, they say it can be better suited for what we need.

Satoshi foresaw the block size debate and spoke to it before 2011.
 

[Skarfur]

we see tons of coders trying to figure how to change BTC so the network can support more transactions - these coders don't say that bitcoin is broken, they say it can be better suited for what we need.

Satoshi foresaw the block size debate and spoke to it before 2011.
 

Of course he did. I think anyone with the IQ of room temperature could have foreseen that.

I think that Soltantgris wasn't really pointing out this specific topic, just using it as an example to point out that Bitcoin's design is not perfect and in it's original form it's far from being a viable option as a world scale payment system without monumental modifications. Satoshi didn't have all the answers for sure and who is to say that the ones he had are the best ones?

I just don't think it's a valid logic to say that something shouldn't be changed because it's designer had everything figured out. Everything made my man can be improved.

[ny2cafuse]

I just don't think it's a valid logic to say that something shouldn't be changed because it's designer had everything figured out. Everything made my man can be improved.

There's a video called "Billions in Change".  It's an interesting watch, and can be found here: http://billionsinchange.com.  Long story short, it's about the 5-hour energy drink CEO, Manoj Bhargava, spending like 95% of his earnings on ideas to change the world.  But that's not what I'm getting at.

In the video, Manoj talks about hiring experts.  Basically, he says that they don't hire experts because experts know everything about what has been.  He said instead, he wants people that will think about what could possibly come next.  Satoshi did that in a lot of ways, but he(/she/they) couldn't predict everything.  He was an expert of digital currency at that time.  He knew what would happen then, but he couldn't account for everything.

I think that's what we really need to focus on.  We can't possibly know everything about what will happen either.  We need to try to predict trends, safeguard against possible risks, and code for the future instead of the now.  But we can't be afraid to make changes down the line to course correct.  Crypto is ever-evolving.  It's adapting to change, and overcoming possible adversity.

We can't be afraid to entertain the idea of change because somebody, who could even just be a fictional entity for a group of people, said years ago that "this is what it is", and people take that as "this is what it always should be."  Ultimately, that's what BTC is- a solution to the traditional fiat currency systems that people were afraid to question.

-Fuse

[Bimmerhead]

I just don't think it's a valid logic to say that something shouldn't be changed because it's designer had everything figured out. Everything made my man can be improved.

There's a video called "Billions in Change".  It's an interesting watch, and can be found here: http://billionsinchange.com.  Long story short, it's about the 5-hour energy drink CEO, Manoj Bhargava, spending like 95% of his earnings on ideas to change the world.  But that's not what I'm getting at.

In the video, Manoj talks about hiring experts.  Basically, he says that they don't hire experts because experts know everything about what has been.  He said instead, he wants people that will think about what could possibly come next.  Satoshi did that in a lot of ways, but he(/she/they) couldn't predict everything.  He was an expert of digital currency at that time.  He knew what would happen then, but he couldn't account for everything.

I think that's what we really need to focus on.  We can't possibly know everything about what will happen either.  We need to try to predict trends, safeguard against possible risks, and code for the future instead of the now.  But we can't be afraid to make changes down the line to course correct.  Crypto is ever-evolving.  It's adapting to change, and overcoming possible adversity.

We can't be afraid to entertain the idea of change because somebody, who could even just be a fictional entity for a group of people, said years ago that "this is what it is", and people take that as "this is what it always should be."  Ultimately, that's what BTC is- a solution to the traditional fiat currency systems that people were afraid to question.

-Fuse

With all respect, this is a straw man argument.

No one here is afraid to entertain the idea of change. However some of us are against change for the sake of change. Especially when there is so much work (read "change") that truly needs to be done before this project can move forward.

Over and out.

[ny2cafuse]

No one here is afraid to entertain the idea of change. However some of us are against change for the sake of change. Especially when there is so much work (read "change") that truly needs to be done before this project can move forward.

I don't see how my agreement with Skarfur is a straw man argument.  Satoshi knew enough to get things established, but it will be the developers that refine the system that will be the heroes in my book.

Change that is currently happening.  But don't think that this will be the only change, and that the chain will remain healthy with a client that never gets updated or modified.  My goal is, and always will be as long as I'm on the team, to insure the stability and security of the blockchain.  My proposal was a facet of change that I believe would help do that, and create a better system of inflation control.  If it's too radical an idea because Satoshi didn't do it that way, then we'll leave it at that.

-Fuse

[Danslip]

THAT is an interesting convo !

I feel a bit like Fuse on this - I never got why such a drastic reward decrease was coded at first. Why not gradually ? The endgame would be the same, no ?  Most economic activity move ''gradually''. I don't bump the price of an item from 100$ to 200$. I increase the price to 109, then 129, then 139 etc. Banks move rates slowly for the same reason - and each time they don't, well, we know what happen. Crashes, war, bankrupt etc. 

Imo, just the fact that people worry, or prepare to the next halving is a sign that there is something wrong with it. This is not a good stable currency !   I don't want any price manipulation - but keeping something just because ''satoshi'' put it in BTC is not a good reason to me. Satoshi was/is not a god - we see tons of coders trying to figure how to change BTC so the network can support more transactions - these coders don't say that bitcoin is broken, they say it can be better suited for what we need.

If we gradually decrease the reward without changing the supply in any way (just doing the maths correctly, right?), we just eliminate a big question mark, we let the market grow on an organic way, no ?   The halving realy look like a dogma to me - or at least i can't see any decent reason for wanting such drastic change in something that need stability. 

You must be with the NLG team because there reasoning was identical.lol

[Auroracoin]

Everyone on version 1.x.x should update to version 0.8.7.5 (Arngrímur Jónsson) which is the latest.

Downloads can be found on http://auroracoin.is
or https://github.com/aurarad/auroracoin

THIS, AS OF NOW, IS A MANDATORY UPDATE!

We are coming close to the release of our new wallets and the latest release (0.8.7.5) we did was already 6 months ago. To make sure everyone is on the right chain when we release our new version (which will be a hard-fork!) we have now closed the bridge node to the initial (OLD) chain. Please note that if you are sending coins or mine on the old chain (1.x.x) the transactions will no longer be validated on the appropriate one!

- the Auroracoin dev team -