[EMUNIE] One small step for transactions, one giant leap for crypto

[Fuserleer]

[...]

At go live, the buffer will be credited with 10% of the total amount of currency the system is started with, so if there is 1M EMU at launch, the buffer will be credited with 100,000.  This should be enough to cover almost all short term pump/dump movements.  The buffer also receives 10% of all new currency being issued, (and in the cases where the buffer is low, system revenue from fees) so as to ensure its purchasing power -> currency ratio is always adequate to guard against "un-natural" movements.

If the case of a supply contraction, buffer assets are burned.  If enough can not be burned from the buffer, then EMU is purchased from the DEX, held for a short period in "limbo" and burnt later if the system doesn't return to an expansive state.

That is a VERY simplified explanation of whats going on, there is plenty of further detail required on the algorithms and mechanisms at play to get a fuller understanding, but the above should be enough to at least have an idea.

[...]

Really curious about those "details".
For now I would call it playing with fire.

caveman who played with fire eventually discovered BBQ ribs ... YUMMY!! Much better than raw mammoth steaks, just ask Bear Gryls, that dude drinks his own piss ... I'm sure Bear is just as excited at the prospect of chowing down on some flame grilled EMU as many here on this forum. I respect Fuserleer for playing with fire!!

Hah!  You sir, win comment of the day!

Better wait until the day is over with awarding comments.
Playing with fire and being the overhasty type of guy is a dangerous combination  

I'm just coming to the end of my shift, almost 6am, so its the end of the day for me

I wouldn't say I was overhasty, the eMunie economic model has been in development for a long long time, as has the rest of the project....a hasty guy would have thrown it together and launched it a long time ago just to make a quick couple of bucks.

[1713400364]

1713400364

[1713400364]

1713400364

[LiQio]

[...]

At go live, the buffer will be credited with 10% of the total amount of currency the system is started with, so if there is 1M EMU at launch, the buffer will be credited with 100,000.  This should be enough to cover almost all short term pump/dump movements.  The buffer also receives 10% of all new currency being issued, (and in the cases where the buffer is low, system revenue from fees) so as to ensure its purchasing power -> currency ratio is always adequate to guard against "un-natural" movements.

If the case of a supply contraction, buffer assets are burned.  If enough can not be burned from the buffer, then EMU is purchased from the DEX, held for a short period in "limbo" and burnt later if the system doesn't return to an expansive state.

That is a VERY simplified explanation of whats going on, there is plenty of further detail required on the algorithms and mechanisms at play to get a fuller understanding, but the above should be enough to at least have an idea.

[...]

Really curious about those "details".
For now I would call it playing with fire.

caveman who played with fire eventually discovered BBQ ribs ... YUMMY!! Much better than raw mammoth steaks, just ask Bear Gryls, that dude drinks his own piss ... I'm sure Bear is just as excited at the prospect of chowing down on some flame grilled EMU as many here on this forum. I respect Fuserleer for playing with fire!!

Hah!  You sir, win comment of the day!

Better wait until the day is over with awarding comments.
Playing with fire and being the overhasty type of guy is a dangerous combination  

I'm just coming to the end of my shift, almost 6am, so its the end of the day for me

I wouldn't say I was overhasty, the eMunie economic model has been in development for a long long time, as has the rest of the project....a hasty guy would have thrown it together and launched it a long time ago just to make a quick couple of bucks.

Interesting way of defining day.
The overhasty was referring to your comment above not your project or character in general.

BTW still curious about the details.

[Fuserleer]

Hehe day starts when I get up, day ends when I go to bed.   My days are very dynamic

I hope to have all the major details of the project written and available within the next 4-6 weeks.  Obviously with being the lead on all aspects of the project from design, code, business relations, and everything in between, things can and do slip, despite having a great resource of help to call upon.

Even so, the wait should be relatively short, and there will be plenty of juicy reading of other stuff between now and then

[Anima]

Count me in as another proud investor without issue for over 2 years and I'm willing to wait as long as it takes.

With regard to the development timeline, just remember we've had 6000 years of human-controlled/manipulated currency and all of it's inherent problems.  I think taking a few years to build an autonomously decentralized version is more than justified.

As for the baseless criminal accusations.  Oh puhLEEZ.  I've flown from Texas to the UK to meet with him personally and can 100% vouch for his credibility and acumen.

Like Peachy, i've also trusted Dan with my personal funds for a long period of time and would not hesitate to contribute more. Dan could have launched a long time ago at the peak of the bitcoin hype train back in December 2013 and made much more money than he have ever had in emunie investments. He spends countless days and nights coding - to me, that seems like too much of a hazzle if you want to scam everyone. It would be much easier to finish a gui, crack on a Wordpress template and spend the weekend at the Hilton spending other peoples money.

[monsterer]

For example if a party was to come and sell a lot of EMU in one shot at a sub market price, where the result of selling that volume would sink the price below a system wide agreed lower threshold, then the system itself would buy that EMU with assets it holds (if it has enough) at the threshold level.

This dominant market maker model of price stabilisation is similar to how nuBits works - the trick is to have more money available than anyone else in the market at all times in order to manipulate the price. However, although eMunie's MM will have more of its native token available than anyone else, where will it get the liquidity for the other side of the market from?

For that matter, where are these trades taking place?

[BigSirko]

if Daniel had invested into NXT like he almost did.

He would had said "SFYL" (sorry for your loss) and would had left his baby Peachy & "investors" behind holding an empty bag.  Daniel would had left eMunie to be a NXT developer.  This really proves that Fuserleer was a greedy chump then and still is today.

[Anima]

if Daniel had invested into NXT like he almost did.

He would had said "SFYL" (sorry for your loss) and would had left his baby Peachy & "investors" behind holding an empty bag.  Daniel would had left eMunie to be a NXT developer.  This really proves that Fuserleer was a greedy chump then and still is today.

This is just wrong 

I think nxt is sad Dan did not invest his time in their project.. not the other way around. Right now, nxt is on a 12th place on coinmarketcap - behind DogeCoin. 'nuff said.

[nextgencoin]

I thought this developer had already been found to be a scammer, people should research his past threads on this forum. It's not pretty.

[lovely89]

if Daniel had invested into NXT like he almost did.

He would had said "SFYL" (sorry for your loss) and would had left his baby Peachy & "investors" behind holding an empty bag.  Daniel would had left eMunie to be a NXT developer.  This really proves that Fuserleer was a greedy chump then and still is today.

Your requirement for proof is beyond laughable.

I thought this developer had already been found to be a scammer, people should research his past threads on this forum. It's not pretty.

All raised concerns have been addressed by Dan. Please continue to read all/entire threads instead of op's.

[Anima]

I thought this developer had already been found to be a scammer, people should research his past threads on this forum. It's not pretty.

If they did, they would actually find he's NOT a scammer.

Please, if you don't mind, post some actual proof (if you have any) and lets take it from that once and for all.

[Fuserleer]

I wouldn't give the trolls the satisfaction of an argument.

There is an endless queue of them waiting to get on the same carousel over and over, as they've all read some post(s) from some crack pot on "the interweb" so it must be true and taken over simple fact.  Anyone who matters will perform their own fact finding and come to the correct conclusion.

"Listen, and understand! That troll is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with.  It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever!" - Kyle Reese

[ExtremeFacials.com]

"Listen, and understand! That troll is out there! It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with.  It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop, ever!" - Kyle Reese

fuckin' A Mr Fuserleer!! There's a lot of scared mofo's round these parts trying to muddy the waters. eMunie is the GAS, just do ya research and it's obvious EMU is a solid currency for everyday people

[Fuserleer]

For example if a party was to come and sell a lot of EMU in one shot at a sub market price, where the result of selling that volume would sink the price below a system wide agreed lower threshold, then the system itself would buy that EMU with assets it holds (if it has enough) at the threshold level.

This dominant market maker model of price stabilisation is similar to how nuBits works - the trick is to have more money available than anyone else in the market at all times in order to manipulate the price. However, although eMunie's MM will have more of its native token available than anyone else, where will it get the liquidity for the other side of the market from?

For that matter, where are these trades taking place?

Currency trades will be performed within the integrated DEX (3rd party exchanges are supported also, but have no impact on the economics), with tokens representing other world currencies.  These tokens are pegged to the respective currency and can be converted to actual fiat currency via a network of on/off ramps through another system component called TRAID.

Initially the buffer will hold only EMU, users will "buy in" with USD tokens, that they can then trade on the DEX for EMU.  This is the basic mechanism with which the buffers obtain other asset types.

These tokens can also be used to buy goods/services if the merchant wishes to accept them.  World currency tokens can not be traded freely in the DEX, 1 USD token is worth 1 real USD.

[monsterer]

Currency trades will be performed within the integrated DEX (3rd party exchanges are supported also, but have no impact on the economics), with tokens representing other world currencies.  These tokens are pegged to the respective currency and can be converted to actual fiat currency via a network of on/off ramps through another system component called TRAID.

Initially the buffer will hold only EMU, users will "buy in" with USD tokens, that they can then trade on the DEX for EMU.  This is the basic mechanism with which the buffers obtain other asset types.

These tokens can also be used to buy goods/services if the merchant wishes to accept them.  World currency tokens can not be traded freely in the DEX, 1 USD token is worth 1 real USD.

The system must maintain a chain wide majority holdings of EMU for this to be effective, and also be fortunate enough that the initial sell off of EMU for USD tokens does not then lead to a situation where the system is not a chain wide majority holder of USD tokens.

Obviously there is counterparty risk associated with the (multiple?) gateways... Will each gateway have its own USD token? If not, how do you get them to agree on the value?

[theprofileth]

Currency trades will be performed within the integrated DEX (3rd party exchanges are supported also, but have no impact on the economics), with tokens representing other world currencies.  These tokens are pegged to the respective currency and can be converted to actual fiat currency via a network of on/off ramps through another system component called TRAID.

Initially the buffer will hold only EMU, users will "buy in" with USD tokens, that they can then trade on the DEX for EMU.  This is the basic mechanism with which the buffers obtain other asset types.

These tokens can also be used to buy goods/services if the merchant wishes to accept them.  World currency tokens can not be traded freely in the DEX, 1 USD token is worth 1 real USD.

The system must maintain a chain wide majority holdings of EMU for this to be effective, and also be fortunate enough that the initial sell off of EMU for USD tokens does not then lead to a situation where the system is not a chain wide majority holder of USD tokens.

Obviously there is counterparty risk associated with the (multiple?) gateways... Will each gateway have its own USD token? If not, how do you get them to agree on the value?

Again the purpose isn't to stop the correct or incorrect revaluation of the currency, it is simply in place to increase the quality of life for the majority of users by attempting to provide some form of logical or at least mathematical attempts at price stabilization without arbitrarily deciding the value of the currency. Furthermore any increase in the total amount of emu will be split up as 10% for the buffer and 90% as interest and payment for processing transactions. The interest and processing payments are (last I heard) in equal portions meaning they each qualify for 45% of all new emu generated. Furthermore this means that 45% of all new emu created will be given as interest to all account holders based on their portion of the total currency available. This means that while some will probably attempt to short their interest or payments, those who hold will actually be building capital proportional to their holdings.

[r0ach]

this means that 45% of all new emu created will be given as interest to all account holders based on their portion of the total currency available

Getting a non-deterministic number and set of nodes that can expand or contract the money supply at will without forking or having enormous security risks doesn't sound possible.  Bitshares, which is overly complex compared to most cryptos, is simpler than this and forks around 5-10 per day.  I guess this is the benefit of the ledger system not using blocks?  Everything is kept at millisecond interval delay from each other?  It doesn't sound very "anti-fragile" though.  Isn't this kind of setup way more vulnerable to attacks by state actors?  What do you do if the state decides to disconnect the network from other parts of the network for extended periods of time?

Relying on a steady state network and not having fork resolution being the backbone of the system itself seems like it creates major problems in this area.

[theprofileth]

There has been extensive testing and we already have robust error detection and correction, you would know this if you read our recent blog post which covers some of these concerns you mentioned
http://blog.emunie.com

[monsterer]

Again the purpose isn't to stop the correct or incorrect revaluation of the currency, it is simply in place to increase the quality of life for the majority of users by attempting to provide some form of logical or at least mathematical attempts at price stabilization without arbitrarily deciding the value of the currency. Furthermore any increase in the total amount of emu will be split up as 10% for the buffer and 90% as interest and payment for processing transactions.

Quality of life will not be improved if the price stabilisation is broken. Furthermore, you cannot 'arbitrarily' decide the value of the currency in a free market.

The market maker model of price stabilisation works by creating huge buy/sell walls around your currency valuation price; the idea being that, since the system is the majority holder on both sides of the market, it would be impossible for anyone to eat through those walls. However, you can see where this starts to break down if the system is not the majority holder, or starts losing it's majority over time.

[lovely89]

Again the purpose isn't to stop the correct or incorrect revaluation of the currency, it is simply in place to increase the quality of life for the majority of users by attempting to provide some form of logical or at least mathematical attempts at price stabilization without arbitrarily deciding the value of the currency. Furthermore any increase in the total amount of emu will be split up as 10% for the buffer and 90% as interest and payment for processing transactions.

Quality of life will not be improved if the price stabilisation is broken. Furthermore, you cannot 'arbitrarily' decide the value of the currency in a free market.

The market maker model of price stabilisation works by creating huge buy/sell walls around your currency valuation price; the idea being that, since the system is the majority holder on both sides of the market, it would be impossible for anyone to eat through those walls. However, you can see where this starts to break down if the system is not the majority holder, or starts losing it's majority over time.

Let's wait for the complete details in this before we pointlessly debate.

[r0ach]

There has been extensive testing and we already have robust error detection and correction, you would know this if you read our recent blog post which covers some of these concerns you mentioned
http://www.blog.emunie.com/

Let's say a state actor or rogue ISP decides to shape traffic to fragment the network for an extended period of time.  I remember Dan talking about some arbitrary time limit built into the system that was rather short to cover network latency that was not covered by this.  If the network becomes fragmented into several different pieces this way, let's say three similar sized groups, what was the reference point governing the "longest chain" so to speak?  Is it the group with the highest reputation?  And is that reputation derived from averaging the entire group, or can you have just one guy with extremely high reputation making it a consensus of only...one person.

Fork consensus was not discussed enough at all when it's probably the most important part of any platform.  Dan kind of brushed it off like forks aren't going to be a problem when they definitely can be, especially with ISP traffic shaping and port blocking out the wazoo nowadays.


Comcast Doesn't Give A F*ck
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMcny_pixDw