[StableCoin] Looking for inflationary cryptocurrency developer (3 btc bounty)

[Sweft]

I am willing to pay for the implementation of a very simple fork to the bitcoin protocol.

There are two difference that my fork and bitcoin will have.

1) Block discovery reward will not half, but remain constant at 50 until 2)
2) Once the annual rate of inflation is less than 2%, the block reward will adjust to fulfill a 2% annual inflation and the block reward adjustment will occur at an annual basis.

3 bitcoins if anyone is interested please PM me.


I created an extensive thread in Economics of why I believe deflation is bad for bitcoin.  The thread can be found here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=12109.0

[jtimon]

Have you heard about Freicoin?

[Sweft]

Have you heard about Freicoin?

Yes, i don't find the protocol particularly attractive.

It is possible that Freicoin runs into the same problem as bitcoin because the mining reward is not compounding.

[jtimon]

Have you heard about Freicoin?

Yes, i don't find the protocol particularly attractive.

In any case, while there's a maximum block size, bitcoin can survive on fees. It is unclear if it could survive only on fees without a block limit. But many core devs think so and I find their arguments convincing enough.
But since you're concerned with this, Freicoin will have perpetual reward and is certain that you will not have to worry about this problem you discuss in the other thread.

[Balthazar]

-nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
+nSubsidy <<= (nHeight / 210000);

My work is done here.  

[Sweft]

Have you heard about Freicoin?

Yes, i don't find the protocol particularly attractive.

In any case, while there's a maximum block size, bitcoin can survive on fees. It is unclear if it could survive only on fees without a block limit. But many core devs think so and I find their arguments convincing enough.
But since you're concerned with this, Freicoin will have perpetual reward and is certain that you will not have to worry about this problem you discuss in the other thread.

I have a problem with Freicoin in that

1) Since it is not compounding the 5% surcharge will always have the same mining profit unless the price of the coins increases.  An inflationary crypto, mining profit increases if price remains static.
2) the 5% surcharge makes it easier for a miner to accumulate a share of all coins proportional to his share of mining hash in a period of ~30 years.

[jtimon]

It is possible that Freicoin runs into the same problem as bitcoin because the mining reward is not compounding.

To be clear, Moore's law is equal for all miners, honest and attackers, and by the way, it's not a law.
You don't need compounding reward.
Does it have to be compounding on nominal or real terms?

1) Since it is not compounding the 5% surcharge will always have the same mining profit unless the price of the coins increases.  An inflationary crypto, mining profit increases if price remains static.

No, no. Mining profits don't necessarily increase if the price remains static. That depends on how many other miners are out there.
Ideally mining profit tend to zero in perfect competition in ALL CRYPTO-COINS. The only thing that would change (with ideal perfect competition) would be hashing power.
Profitability depends on competition, not on nominal reward. And the difficulty filter tends to adjust even if there's only two miners.

2) the 5% surcharge makes it easier for a miner to accumulate a share of all coins proportional to his share of mining hash in a period of ~30 years.

Sorry, I don't understand what are you talking about here.

[Sweft]

-nSubsidy >>= (nHeight / 210000);
+nSubsidy <<= (nHeight / 210000);

My work is done here.  

Can you create the fork with the specifications i listed?

[lucuasl]

why 2%? that is too low. I think inflationary should be about 5% to 8%

but, good idea

[Balthazar]

I don't think that it's possible without serious protocol modifications. Just because available coins volume is unknown, we are able to see only sum of available and destroyed coins. The actual inflation rate should depend on active coins volume. Otherwise there will be no sense.

[Sweft]

I don't think that it's possible without serious protocol modifications. Just because available coins volume is unknown, we are able to see only sum of available and destroyed coins. The actual inflation rate should depend on active coins volume.

My proposal is not possible why?

I'm not concerned with active or inactive coins, only how many coins have been generated.  If you base the inflation rate on active coins it creates all sorts of problems.

[Balthazar]

I'm not concerned with active or inactive coins, only how many coins have been generated.

It has no sense. Inactive and dead coins simply doesn't exist for market. You can't predict destruction or inactivation rate in the future, so you can't use fixed emission rate to keep constant coins value. It's something like the nuclear reactor control by using a sledge hammer. One small mistake and... BAAM  

You need adaptive algorithm, which will be based on active coins volume.

[Sweft]

I'm not concerned with active or inactive coins, only how many coins have been generated.

It has no sense. Inactive and dead coins simply doesn't exist for market. You can't predict destruction or inactivation rate in the future, so you can't use fixed emission rate to keep constant coins value. It's something like the nuclear reactor control by using a sledge hammer. One small mistake and... BAAM  

You need adaptive algorithm, which will be based on active coins volume.

You cannot judge if a coin is inactive because it can either be stored in a vault or lost forever.  You cannot know.  Thus, it is not necessary to differentiate between inactive or active coins.

It also creates a problem because an rogue agents can buy coins and destroyed them, lowering the inflation rate and making the crypto that is designed for inflation, actually deflationary.  Thus, destroying the whole purpose of your inflationary coin.

I do not want to judge between active and inactive coins.  It is a benefit of the protocol that the inflationary rate should be based on all coins mined rather than coins in circulation, active or inactive.

[Sweft]

why 2%? that is too low. I think inflationary should be about 5% to 8%

but, good idea

2% inflation requires the crypto market cap / mining hardware cost to be approximately 12.5
3% inflation requires the crypto market cap / mining hardware cost to be approximately 8
8% inflation requires the crypto market cap / mining hardware cost to be approximately 3.15

8% inflation seems excessive. 2% preserves value and also benefits miners while having a 12.5x multiplier which is not outrageously high.

[Sweft]

Can someone develop this?

3 coins isn't really pocket change.  I'd be willing to use a trusted forum member as an escrow for the transaction.

[Sweft]

Can someone develop this?

3 coins isn't really pocket change.  I'd be willing to use a trusted forum member as an escrow for the transaction.

Bump

[annoyingbird]

why 2%? that is too low. I think inflationary should be about 5% to 8%

but, good idea

2% inflation requires the crypto market cap / mining hardware cost to be approximately 12.5
3% inflation requires the crypto market cap / mining hardware cost to be approximately 8
8% inflation requires the crypto market cap / mining hardware cost to be approximately 3.15

8% inflation seems excessive. 2% preserves value and also benefits miners while having a 12.5x multiplier which is not outrageously high.

I don't understand what you mean, mining hardware cost....

8% is probably the true US dollar inflation when you really look hard at the numbers. Most agree at least 5%. that is what people are used to.... 2% is barely noticable

[Red]

@sweft, You might want to consider prefixing your title with the term [StableCoin]. We are using that to help associate related threads. If you search for it, you will find people who share your same interests.

The other day there were guys creating their own coin just to learn how "NoobCoin" I think is what they called it. They also have #noobcoin on freenet IRC if I remember correctly. Most of them were young. They would probably jump at the coins.

I was considering LinearCoin (<-- search for that) myself as the same kind of learning project. I've changed my mind and decided to spend my time on another project. You might talk to the guy proposing "LinearCoin". I think he would like your even better.

Edit: I linked your thread here
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179918.msg1878011#msg1878011

[markm]

Can someone develop this?

3 coins isn't really pocket change.  I'd be willing to use a trusted forum member as an escrow for the transaction.

Bump

It sounds like what you are proposing, in essence or in effect, is that in some far future year when the 50 coins per block that GRouPcoin constantly mints happens to work out to be 2% of the number of coins generated up until that moment (up until that block, in practice), the time will have arrived for GRouPcoin to adjust its rate of coin-minting if, by that far future time, your theories as to what would be the perfect mining curve still seem to be as valid as they seem today and the benefits are actually worthwhile enough to actually bother to change the number of coins per block.

Thus I suggest that the coin you want is already up and running, has been for years, and still has years to go before it will need a tiny tweak to make its generation rate stick at 2% (or whatever percent has been determined, by that future point in time, to actually be the exact precise perfect percent rather than just some guess made by you years in advance of the actual coming into effect of such a rate change).

So we might as well just keep chugging along using GRouPcoin and simply add to our over the coming years concerns the concern that possibly it might prove beneficial, at some future date, to cause the generation rate to stick at some percentage of the total coins minted, so that over those coming years we can make observations and track statistics and so on that will enable us to know, come that far future, what exact percentage is in fact ideal. (If it does turn out to be 2%, how many decimals of accuracy is that? 2.0%? 2.00%? 2.000%? To what number of decimals has it been determined that "zeroes all the way down" is in fact the ideal?)

Basically though, there are years yet to work out the exact best percentage, in the meantime the 50 coins per block has been chugging happily along and will continue until the exact details of the later stage are worked out / negotiated.

Please note also that your concept of "annually" can be a whole can of worms, because nodes are not synchronised in time, their synchronisation is by block number. So we also will not even know how many blocks any given year will actually consist of until we know how much up and down see-saw of hashing power will be happening during that year...

(For example the advent of ASICs is likely to make a "blocks counted year" much shorter than a "calendar year" this year for bitcoin...)

-MarkM-

[Red]

@markm, Which GRouPCoin thread would you like me to link at the [SteadyCoin] Introduce yourself thread?

I'd forgotten GrouPCoin was still running. Someone else was asking about a LinearCoin like that. Except one that forked off the existing BTC chain. I'll point him your way if he still wants that.