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.

[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.