Should Boolberry implement a tail emission?

[languagehasmeaning]

Monero has a tail emission designed to protect against lack of incentives to secure the network.
Here is an excerpt from a good post explaining the reasoning for this:

It at this point where we see the critical importance of a tail emission since if R_base = 0 this attack has zero cost and the tragedy of the commons actually occurs. This is the critical difference between those Cryptonote coins that have a tail emission, and have solved the problem, such as Monero and those that do not, and will in a matter of time become vulnerable, such as Bytecoin.

[2] Initial number of atomic units is M = 2⁶⁴ - 1. However, once the block reward reaches 0.3 XMR (sometime in 2022) that is treated as the minimum subsidy, which means that Monero's total emission will forever increase by ~157783.68 XMR annually.
[3] Uses a recurrence relation. Block reward = (M - A) * 2^-20 * 10^-12, where A = current circulation. Roughly 86% mined in 4 years (see graph).

At the time of the Monero hard fork in March (when they will switch from 60 second blocks to 120 second blocks like Boolberry has now) the tail emission schedule will be adjusted accordingly.

Aeon also appears to have plans to include a tail emission:

Okay let's consider this an official proposal then, open for comments:

Once the base reward declines below 0.3/minute, then reward will switch to inflationary at a target rate of 0.8888888....%/year (actual rate may deviate slightly in practice due to variations in block rate, block reward penalty, rounding, etc.)

This is what the Monero tail emission will look like (offering continued incentives for miners to protect the network in addition to transaction fees).



Boolberry could implement something very similar although it will take us twice as long to reach the "tail" due to our slower emission schedule.

[1714961220]

1714961220

[1714961220]

1714961220

[1714961220]

1714961220

[boolberry]

This is a discussion that has been postponed long enough. Hopefully the community reach a consensus on this question to remove future uncertainty.

I voted yes but look forward to an open debate with those who may disagree or are undecided.

[newb4now]

I like the idea of a tail emission but there is no reason that it needs to be exactly like Monero.

Boolberry could use a fixed percentage based annual tail emission instead of a fixed reward like Monero (which will gradually reduce on a percentage basis as the supple grows over time).

[funnyman21]

Is the only purpose of tail emission to encourage continued mining in a situation where transaction fees alone are not economically sufficient to do so?

[mathgal23]

Is the only purpose of tail emission to encourage continued mining in a situation where transaction fees alone are not economically sufficient to do so?

I think that is the main idea but encouraging adoption among latecomers also might be easier with tail emission if it makes the currency distribution seem more fair. Continual dilution of all coins is the negative as scarcity is reduced.

[boolberry]

I am happy to see voting is in favor of adding a tail emission so far.

[LucyLovesCrypto]

I expected the vote to be closer!

[smooth]

Is the only purpose of tail emission to encourage continued mining in a situation where transaction fees alone are not economically sufficient to do so?

People also make economic arguments about recirculating wealth. Note I am not making this argument, just reporting on it.

[LucyLovesCrypto]

I like the idea of a tail emission but there is no reason that it needs to be exactly like Monero.

Boolberry could use a fixed percentage based annual tail emission instead of a fixed reward like Monero (which will gradually reduce on a percentage basis as the supple grows over time).

Putting the fixed reward vs percentage question aside do we think the tail emission should be more or less than what Monero chose? If the emission is too high we devalue the currency if it is too low the incentive for decentralized mining may be at risk. How do we find the right balance?

[slapper]

Where is Dev? 

[smooth]

Where is Dev?  

Last Active:   2015-12-04, 16:29:40

[languagehasmeaning]

Where is Dev?  

Last Active:   2015-12-04, 16:29:40

Boolberry will go on with or without crypto_zoidberg

Two points

1. This account "louisdor" is very likely to be "crypto_zoidberg"

Last Active:   2016-1-18, 09:01:06

2. This thread is about making a relatively simple change (adding tail emission) that many people could implement fairly easily. Boolberry has had a working GUI and pruning implementation for well over a year already and can can survive without crypto_zoidberg. If he does not return we can fork away the developer bounty and move to a donation system similar to Monero to fund new developers to replace him.

[smooth]

1. This account "louisdor" account is very likely to be "crypto_zoidberg" (based on post history and pattern of logging in often without posting)

Good thinking. Looks like there may be more activity soon:

We hope that Alpha will be available in january.
We want to do everything really good.

[languagehasmeaning]

1. This account "louisdor" account is very likely to be "crypto_zoidberg" (based on post history and pattern of logging in often without posting)

Good thinking. Looks like there may be more activity soon:

We hope that Alpha will be available in january.
We want to do everything really good.

I hope so but that is another CryptoNote (PoS) project even if some of his ideas for it may ultimately benefit Boolberry. Now is the time to decide the Boolberry tail emission issue no matter what happens with louisdor.

[CoinHoarder]

The issue of transfer fees being enough (or not) to pay for a secure blockchain is something that is often overlooked with most cryptocurrencies. This is one of the biggest gripes I've had with PoW cryptocurrencies, and is part of the reason I support PoS cryptocurrencies (along with PoW cryptocurrencies.) This is a benefit to PoS coins that I always forget to bring up in PoW v. PoS debates for some reason... even though I've thought about this issue a lot before!!  

I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success. What I mean by great success is a very high market cap with a decent number of transactions per second (or a decent market cap with a lot of transactions per second... but the former is more likely due to decentralized TPS issues.) In other words, the stars will need to align for any finite (or a tail emission) be able to pay for a secure enough blockchain after their emission rate diminishes greatly.

I am not a stakeholder of Boolberry (and I like the name btw.. you guys get too much hate for that), but I think implementing something like this that attempts to mitigate (possibly solve again depending on the coin's success) this issue is of great importance. Most people don't think about this issue, and there are several cryptocurrencies with fast emission rates that ended up vulnerable and got attacked due to this exact issue. Quarkcoin to name one... I am sure there are others, but I don't follow every coin under the sun.  

[smooth]

I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success.

I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless.

So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter.

[languagehasmeaning]

I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success.

I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless.

So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter.

Good point smooth. None of this will matter at all if Boolberry is not a success.

In other words, the stars will need to align for any finite (or a tail emission) be able to pay for a secure enough blockchain after their emission rate diminishes greatly.

Your opinion is welcome here even if you are not a Boolberry stakeholder.  Can I assume from your statement that in addition to favoring a tail emission you think that a relatively "high" tail emission (whatever "high" means) would be a good idea?

[fernforest]

As the most superficial person here, I want "boolberries" to be very collectible. They still will be with a tail emission, but slightly less so. If it *really* will improve the Boolberry network then I support it.

[CoinHoarder]

I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success.

I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless.

So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter.

Meh, if I have to choose in between:

A. An 80% chance to make a small but above average income by running a mom and pop business (with even a chance to make a highly successful large corporation, if the stars align.)

or

B. A 20% chance to make large corporation that is highly successful and earns millions, or nothing if the corporation is not highly successful.

I am a bit of a nit, but I am going to choose option A- especially if option B is an alternative cryptocurrency going against highly network effected super powers such as Bitcoin and Litecoin. Hell, I can name approximately 10 coins with greater network effects than Monero (I could name exponentially more for Boolberry.) With those odds I'm taking option A all day long...

[CoinHoarder]

In other words, the stars will need to align for any finite (or a tail emission) be able to pay for a secure enough blockchain after their emission rate diminishes greatly.

Can I assume from your statement that in addition to favoring a tail emission you think that a relatively "high: tail emission (whatever "high" means) would be a good idea?

I think it is possibly the only way to keep a PoW cryptocurrency alive and secure towards the end of its emission curve. Tail emissions have a chance of working, just as finite cryptocurrencies have less of a chance of working. I think it is more important to be secure and valuable than rare and vulnerable.

[smooth]

I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success.

I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless.

So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter.

Meh, if I have to choose in between:

A. An 80% chance to make a small but above average income by running a mom and pop business

or

B. A 20% chance to make large corporation that is highly successful and earns millions, or nothing if the corporation is not highly successful.

I am a bit of a nit, but I am going to choose option A- especially if option B is an alternative cryptocurrency going against highly network effected super powers such as Bitcoin and Litecoin. Hell, I can name approximately 10 coins with greater network effects than Monero (I could name exponentially more for Boolberry.) With those odds I'm taking option A all day long...

I don't believe there is niche for a successful mom-and-pop cryptocurrency. We don't know how many successful cryptocurrencies there will be (including zero) but it will be closer to the number of very large businesses than mom-and-pops. That could still be hundreds or even thousands (or a much smaller number of course), but one way or another they will be very large or will fail.

[languagehasmeaning]

I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success.

I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless.

So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter.

Meh, if I have to choose in between:

A. An 80% chance to make a small but above average income by running a mom and pop business

or

B. A 20% chance to make large corporation that is highly successful and earns millions, or nothing if the corporation is not highly successful.

I am a bit of a nit, but I am going to choose option A- especially if option B is an alternative cryptocurrency going against highly network effected super powers such as Bitcoin and Litecoin. Hell, I can name approximately 10 coins with greater network effects than Monero (I could name exponentially more for Boolberry.) With those odds I'm taking option A all day long...

You are conservative and are probably not alone in that view. If taking a lie detector test, I don't think anyone here would claim to think Boolberry has a greater chance of commercial success than Monero.

The current market cap of each coin reflects that:
14,323 BTC for Monero
153 BTC for Boolberry
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/boolberry/

Monero is valued at over 93 times that of Boolberry today. Putting aside the risk/reward analysis there are non speculative reasons to care about Boolberry.

Boolberry and Aeon also provide value as a testbed for potential features that may one day be implemented into Monero (such as pruning). If there is a new promising but "unproven" feature that could cause catastrophic loss if a flaw is found would there be less economic loss if that happened in Boolberry or Monero? Boolberry is definitely a useful experiment. Only time will tells what happens. Until then all we can do is our best.

[fernforest]

I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success.

I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless.

So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter.

Meh, if I have to choose in between:

A. An 80% chance to make a small but above average income by running a mom and pop business

or

B. A 20% chance to make large corporation that is highly successful and earns millions, or nothing if the corporation is not highly successful.

I am a bit of a nit, but I am going to choose option A- especially if option B is an alternative cryptocurrency going against highly network effected super powers such as Bitcoin and Litecoin. Hell, I can name approximately 10 coins with greater network effects than Monero (I could name exponentially more for Boolberry.) With those odds I'm taking option A all day long...

You are conservative and are probably not alone in that view. If taking a lie detector test, I don't think anyone here would claim to think Boolberry has a greater chance of commercial success than Monero.

The current market cap of each coin reflects that:
14,323 BTC for Monero
153 BTC for Boolberry
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/boolberry/

Monero is valued at over 93 times that of Boolberry today. Putting aside the risk/reward analysis there are non speculative reasons to care about Boolberry.

Boolberry and Aeon also provide value as a testbed for potential features that may one day be implemented into Monero (such as pruning). If there is a new promising but "unproven" feature that could cause catastrophic loss if a flaw is found would there be less economic loss if that happened in Boolberry or Monero? Boolberry is definitely a useful experiment. Only time will tells what happens. Until then all we can do is our best.

I think Monero adopting Boolberry's best features is the biggest threat to it.

[CoinHoarder]

I don't believe there is niche for a successful mom-and-pop cryptocurrency. We don't know how many successful cryptocurrencies there will be (including zero) but it will be closer to the number of very large businesses than mom-and-pops. That could still be hundreds or even thousands (or a much smaller number of course), but one way or another they will be very large or will fail.

I think there will certainly be niches. Collectible card games, multiplayer games in general, music-centric coins, cause coins (like Gridcoin but for many of them for different purposes) etc....

I even think there are successful niche coins that exist today with low market cap but with solid development, solid marketing, and/or solid innovation.. such as Qoura, Crypti, Siacoin, Bitcrystals (although its overvalued atm), GetGems, etc...

It is much easier I think to have small (but still substantial enough) adoption and be somewhat successful than to knock it out of the park. You are claiming that every cryptocurrency should try to knock it out of the park, or end up completely worthless and there is no middle ground. I don't like setting money on fire though, and that is what everyone is doing if they follow this logic. Only a handful of coins will win, and if yours doesn't then it's dead- game over. I don't see the appeal in that unless you're simply pumping and dumping, and I'm definitely not betting much on the fact any alternative cryptocurrency is going to knock it out of the park (even Litecoin.)

[smooth]

I don't believe there is niche for a successful mom-and-pop cryptocurrency. We don't know how many successful cryptocurrencies there will be (including zero) but it will be closer to the number of very large businesses than mom-and-pops. That could still be hundreds or even thousands (or a much smaller number of course), but one way or another they will be very large or will fail.

I think there will certainly be niches. Collectible card games, multiplayer games in general, music-centric coins, cause coins (like Gridcoin but for many of them for different purposes) etc....

Those can easily use metacoin protocols, especially if someone can work out the ugly issues of how to secure them in a decentralized manner. May always require some degree of centralization.

Anyway, not relevant to BBR.

[languagehasmeaning]

I think Monero adopting Boolberry's best features is the biggest threat to it.

Of course I want Boolberry to succeed but I also support Monero. We are friendly communities. Monero does not seem to be upset that we are discussing implementing their idea (tail emission) so we should not be upset if they later implement some version of pruning (likely to be different than Boolberry) or that they are also moving to 2 minute blocks. Open source development always benefits other development projects. Should Boolberry modify its LevelDB plans due to the Monero success with LMDB? I don't know.
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/tree/db

This is all just an experiment. Lets make Boolberry the best we can and build an economy around it rather than worry about which coin is implementing ideas developed by another.

Monero and Boolberry will never be the same. I am certain that when the official Monero GUI is released it will be much different (with many new features) and not based on the current Boolberry GUI. If the community agrees that we should implement tail emission I hope that we make it different than the tail emission designed by Monero.

[CoinHoarder]

I think higher tail emissions (or other solutions to the problem) should at least be given a fair shake. At the very least, I think a tail emission is better than nothing though. It is easy to not be worried about the issue now because it is years down the road.

I think that it is something that should be thought about well in advance, because if changes need to be made then it affects the economics greatly and could cause a huge rift in the community of a cryptocurrency- a large enough rift that could kill it. So, I think IF there is an issue that it is better to fix it sooner rather than later.

Again, if you're simply interested in pump and dumping this doesn't matter to you...

[languagehasmeaning]

I think that it is something that should be thought about well in advance, because if changes need to be made then it affects the economics greatly and could cause a huge rift in the community of a cryptocurrency- a large enough rift that could kill it. So, I think IF there is an issue that it is better to fix it sooner rather than later.

I think we all agree on this point. Monero was wise to make this decision early. Based on the feedback I have received so far I think Boolberry should be able to gain community support for this as well.

As of today just over 1/3 of (pre-tail) Boolberry has been emitted:
6,243,478/18,446,744

[fernforest]

I think Monero adopting Boolberry's best features is the biggest threat to it.

Of course I want Boolberry to succeed but I also support Monero. We are friendly communities. Monero does not seem to be upset that we are discussing implementing their idea (tail emission) so we should not be upset if they later implement some version of pruning (likely to be different than Boolberry) or that they are also moving to 2 minute blocks. Open source development always benefits other development projects. Should Boolberry modify its LevelDB plans due to the Monero success with LMDB? I don't know.
https://github.com/cryptozoidberg/boolberry/tree/db

This is all just an experiment. Lets make Boolberry the best we can and build an economy around it rather than worry about which coin is implementing ideas developed by another.

Monero and Boolberry will never be the same. I am certain that when the official Monero GUI is released it will be much different (with many new features) and not based on the current Boolberry GUI. If the community agrees that we should implement tail emission I hope that we make it different than the tail emission designed by Monero.

Monero could learn a lot from Boolberry of course, and I think they need to implement some of Boolberry's ideas (especially the ability to require a certain amount of mixins for an output). But it would be sad to see Boolberry die because of it.

[languagehasmeaning]

Please to stay on the tail emission topic

[newb4now]

1. This account "louisdor" account is very likely to be "crypto_zoidberg" (based on post history and pattern of logging in often without posting)

Good thinking. Looks like there may be more activity soon:

We hope that Alpha will be available in january.
We want to do everything really good.

I wish crypto_zoidberg or louisdor would share their thoughts but I agree the community should move forward on its own on the tail emission issue if that does not happen.

[languagehasmeaning]

This account "louisdor" is very likely to be "crypto_zoidberg"

Last Active:   2016-1-18, 09:01:06

louisdor logged in again today without commenting. Are you one of the small number of no votes? Please voice your opinion!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=524591

I sent louisdor a PM.

[crypto_zoidberg]

Hi Folk!

Still have no idea, why u think need this tail emission ?
Can someone give clear and short explain of the problem?

[LucyLovesCrypto]

Hi Folk!

Still have no idea, why u think need this tail emission ?
Can someone give clear and short explain of the problem?

Thanks for the reply Crypto_Zoidberg!

I am sure someone else can explain in more detail, but the basic idea seems to be to better incentivize miners with a tail emission in addition to the transaction fees generated by the network.

[CoinHoarder]

Hi Folk!

Still have no idea, why u think need this tail emission ?
Can someone give clear and short explain of the problem?

Historically, PoW-based cryptocurrencies utilize inflation to subsidize the mining efforts that secure their blockchain. Towards the end of a cryptocurrency's emission curve (or inflation stage), it is unclear whether transaction fees will be able to effectively secure the cryptocurrency. If there is not enough incentive to mine the cryptocurrency, then miners will move on and mine other cryptocurrencies which leaves the cryptocurrency vulnerable to 51% attacks. Several cryptocurrencies with expedited emission curves, and a finite amount of money supply, have suffered from 51% attacks due to this issue (Quarkcoin to name one.) A "tail emission" is intended to combat this issue by providing incentive for miners to continue mining the cryptocurrency indefinitely. Without a "tail emission", a cryptocurrency would need to increase greatly in value and transactions per second to be able to afford sufficient protection from 51% attacks. Not having a tail emission, or another solution in place, is effectively making an "all or nothing" bet in which the cryptocurrency will end up a huge success or worthless. I would liken a "tail emission" to a "safety net", in case your PoW-base cryptocurrency falls somewhere in-between a huge success and worthless (which, in my opinion, is a likely outcome for Boolberry.)

[smooth]

Hi Folk!

Still have no idea, why u think need this tail emission ?
Can someone give clear and short explain of the problem?

Historically, PoW-based cryptocurrencies utilize inflation to subsidize the mining efforts that secure their blockchain. Towards the end of a cryptocurrency's emission curve (or inflation stage), it is unclear whether transaction fees will be able to effectively secure the cryptocurrency. If there is not enough incentive to mine the cryptocurrency, then miners will move on and mine other cryptocurrencies which leaves the cryptocurrency vulnerable to 51% attacks. Several cryptocurrencies with expedited emission curves, and a finite amount of money supply, have suffered from 51% attacks due to this issue (Quarkcoin to name one.) A "tail emission" is intended to combat this issue by providing incentive for miners to continue mining the cryptocurrency indefinitely. Without a "tail emission", a cryptocurrency would need to increase greatly in value and transactions per second to be able to afford sufficient protection from 51% attacks. Not having a tail emission, or another solution in place, is effectively making an "all or nothing" bet in which the cryptocurrency will end up a huge success or worthless. A "tail emission" is like a "safety net" in case your PoW-base cryptocurrency falls somewhere in-between a huge success and worthless.

Some of those coins that have been attacked had tail emissions, I think. For example QRK:

"Total of 247 million QRK will be mined in ~ 6 months, after that ~ 1 million QRK p.a."

It isn't clear whether a tail emission even helps if the value of the coin drops so much that the cost to attack is negligible. It may or may not help if the value is high enough. (I think it does but that is just my opinion.)

[CoinHoarder]

Some of those coins that have been attacked had tail emissions, I think. For example QRK:

"Total of 247 million QRK will be mined in ~ 6 months, after that ~ 1 million QRK p.a."

It isn't clear whether a tail emission even helps if the value of the coin drops so much that the cost to attack is negligible. It may or may not help if the value is high enough. (I think it does but that is just my opinion.)

To be fair, I mention up-thread that "tail emissions" may not be sufficient protection. I had forgot that Quark had a tail emission, so my bad... it has been a while. I stated up-thread that a larger tail emission, or a whole different solution may be necessary. You will not like this, but a Vericoin-like approach may be necessary (the cryptocurrency eventually switches from PoW to PoS after its initial distribution phase.) Alternatively, if you want to remain purely a PoW-base cryptocurrency, a larger "tail emission" may be the only solution.

[smooth]

We can agree to disagree, but I don't think there is any solution when the value is too low.

At some point it is just time to consider the experiment a worthy one that didn't work out. This is not meant as a comment on BBR or any other particular coin, I'm speaking in generalities. It might even apply to Bitcoin some day.

[mathgal23]

We can agree to disagree, but I don't think there is any solution when the value is too low.

At some point it is just time to consider the experiment a worthy one that didn't work out. This is not meant as a comment on BBR or any other particular coin, I'm speaking in generalities. It might even apply to Bitcoin some day.

Most PoW coins do not have a tail emission. This seems like a good economic experiment.

[crypto_zoidberg]

Hi Folk!

Still have no idea, why u think need this tail emission ?
Can someone give clear and short explain of the problem?

Historically, PoW-based cryptocurrencies utilize inflation to subsidize the mining efforts that secure their blockchain. Towards the end of a cryptocurrency's emission curve (or inflation stage), it is unclear whether transaction fees will be able to effectively secure the cryptocurrency. If there is not enough incentive to mine the cryptocurrency, then miners will move on and mine other cryptocurrencies which leaves the cryptocurrency vulnerable to 51% attacks. Several cryptocurrencies with expedited emission curves, and a finite amount of money supply, have suffered from 51% attacks due to this issue (Quarkcoin to name one.) A "tail emission" is intended to combat this issue by providing incentive for miners to continue mining the cryptocurrency indefinitely. Without a "tail emission", a cryptocurrency would need to increase greatly in value and transactions per second to be able to afford sufficient protection from 51% attacks. Not having a tail emission, or another solution in place, is effectively making an "all or nothing" bet in which the cryptocurrency will end up a huge success or worthless. I would liken a "tail emission" to a "safety net", in case your PoW-base cryptocurrency falls somewhere in-between a huge success and worthless (which, in my opinion, is a likely outcome for Boolberry.)

CoinHoarder, thank u for clarifying it.
It make sense, especially for cc with fast emission curve.
For now i think we have more important technical things to do, but this could be an option in future.
As or me emission curve is very important part of cc, and now i thing it's not fair that biggest reward comes in first blocks when nobody knows what this coin about.
It would be more interesting to have small reward in the beginning, then after some time - valuable reward, and then the rest of emission could be linear... something like tail emission that CoinHoarder mentioned.


Zoidberg

[CoinHoarder]

We can agree to disagree, but I don't think there is any solution when the value is too low.

At some point it is just time to consider the experiment a worthy one that didn't work out. This is not meant as a comment on BBR or any other particular coin, I'm speaking in generalities. It might even apply to Bitcoin some day.

Most PoW coins do not have a tail emission. This seems like a good economic experiment.

I don't think he is "anti-tail emission". In fact, he said that he thinks that it will help with the issue. It really couldn't do anything but help with the problem it intends to fix, but I suppose Smooth is correct that value still matters.

I have an idea... a dynamic tail emission. Clients could publish the current value of the cryptocurrency, and the median is used to calculate what the emission should be. The dynamic tail emission should only be in effect if X number or X percentage of nodes are publishing the current value, otherwise it defaults to a set amount. You can weight it by stake to combat Sybil. It can be hard coded that the tail emission should be X amount of USD a day, which should be an amount that effectively secures the blockchain, and the cryptocurrency autonomously adjusts it to ensure its security.

[mathgal23]

It make sense, especially for cc with fast emission curve.
For now i think we have more important technical things to do, but this could be an option in future.

What more important technical things do you mean?

[mathgal23]

I have an idea... a dynamic tail emission.

I like that concept (because it is flexible) but think the precise implementation needs more thought.

[CoinHoarder]

I have an idea... a dynamic tail emission.

I like that concept (because it is flexible) but think the precise implementation needs more thought.

I think it could certainly be improved by some peer review. It may be the only sure-fire way to secure a PoW cryptocurrency with a diminishing block reward. Otherwise, if price drops so much then you become vulnerable, or if the transactions per second drop then you become vulnerable. With something such as this you would never be vulnerable (if the kinks could be worked out.) The only setback I can think of is maybe the value of the token will suffer. Then again, the value of the token will plummet towards zero if it is successful attacked, so maybe the economic setbacks are acceptable.

[languagehasmeaning]

Hi Folk!

Still have no idea, why u think need this tail emission ?
Can someone give clear and short explain of the problem?

Historically, PoW-based cryptocurrencies utilize inflation to subsidize the mining efforts that secure their blockchain. Towards the end of a cryptocurrency's emission curve (or inflation stage), it is unclear whether transaction fees will be able to effectively secure the cryptocurrency. If there is not enough incentive to mine the cryptocurrency, then miners will move on and mine other cryptocurrencies which leaves the cryptocurrency vulnerable to 51% attacks. Several cryptocurrencies with expedited emission curves, and a finite amount of money supply, have suffered from 51% attacks due to this issue (Quarkcoin to name one.) A "tail emission" is intended to combat this issue by providing incentive for miners to continue mining the cryptocurrency indefinitely. Without a "tail emission", a cryptocurrency would need to increase greatly in value and transactions per second to be able to afford sufficient protection from 51% attacks. Not having a tail emission, or another solution in place, is effectively making an "all or nothing" bet in which the cryptocurrency will end up a huge success or worthless. I would liken a "tail emission" to a "safety net", in case your PoW-base cryptocurrency falls somewhere in-between a huge success and worthless (which, in my opinion, is a likely outcome for Boolberry.)

CoinHoarder, thank u for clarifying it.
It make sense, especially for cc with fast emission curve.
For now i think we have more important technical things to do, but this could be an option in future.
As or me emission curve is very important part of cc, and now i thing it's not fair that biggest reward comes in first blocks when nobody knows what this coin about.
It would be more interesting to have small reward in the beginning, then after some time - valuable reward, and then the rest of emission could be linear... something like tail emission that CoinHoarder mentioned.


Zoidberg

As the founder of Boolberry I am happy you decided to visit this thread to discuss emission ideas. 

[smooth]

It make sense, especially for cc with fast emission curve.
For now i think we have more important technical things to do, but this could be an option in future.

What more important technical things do you mean?

I'm not sure what he means but I would just point out that the BBR emission is half the speed of XMR. So if BBR were to implement a similar tail emission to XMR (percentage wise), it wouldn't reach that point for about 16 years. So there is no hurry to deal with it now necessarily.

[shojayxt]

Boolberry has quite some time before a tail emission is even relevant.  Time would be better spent focusing on making sure Boolberry survives long enough for it to matter. 

[XMRpromotions]

It make sense, especially for cc with fast emission curve.
For now i think we have more important technical things to do, but this could be an option in future.

What more important technical things do you mean?

I'm not sure what he means but I would just point out that the BBR emission is half the speed of XMR. So if BBR were to implement a similar tail emission to XMR (percentage wise), it wouldn't reach that point for about 16 years. So there is no hurry to deal with it now necessarily.

It is true that any tail will not be relevant for a long time, but the longer the decision is postponed the harder it may be to find consensus on the ideal solution.

[iCEBREAKER]

Is the only purpose of tail emission to encourage continued mining in a situation where transaction fees alone are not economically sufficient to do so?

IIRC there was discussion in a Monero thread about a feature tail emission was required for, or some attack it prevented.

As long as there is some cryptonote coin with no tail emission (preserving diversity of approaches and mitigating risk) I'm fine with BBR doing it.

But absent some immediately compelling reason, I'd table the motion until BBR's 10th birthday, then re-consider.

[smooth]

Is the only purpose of tail emission to encourage continued mining in a situation where transaction fees alone are not economically sufficient to do so?

IIRC there was discussion in a Monero thread about a feature tail emission was required for, or some attack it prevented.

As long as there is some cryptonote coin with no tail emission (preserving diversity of approaches and mitigating risk) I'm fine with BBR doing it.

But absent some immediately compelling reason, I'd table the motion until BBR's 10th birthday, then re-consider.

By then the XMR tail emission will have been reached so there will be some real world data. Good plan.

[ArticMine]

...
By then the XMR tail emission will have been reached so there will be some real world data. Good plan.

I would not be surprised the adverse impact of the lack of a tail emission in a Cryptonote coin will manifest itself in Bytecoin before Monero reaches its tail emission. The premine/ninjamine in Bytecoin will provide some very useful data here.

Edit: The onset of the tail emission in Monero would also be delayed due to fluctuation in the Monero blocksize. This is due to the impact of the Cryptnote penalty function on the emission when the blocksize grows.