Tiresome, but necessary to refute
If those merge mined coins are really so cheap and easy to get, then can someone please show me that? Go mine a merge mined block, and tell me how much money/energy you spent. Just because you get Bitmarks together with Litecoin, doesn't mean the litecoin was easy to mine.
The point is, the Litecoin (parent chain) mining operation was pre-existing. It would continue, with or without the benefit of some bonus MARKS. That's what is meant by a fixed cost. The marginal cost of mining Bitmarks is probably 1/100th the cost, if not less. The point is not about mining the parent chain. The point is the relative cost of mining BITMARKS,
our chain, the one that offers AuxPoW support. So Yes, Fact #1)
MERGE-MINED BLOCKS ARE VASTLY CHEAPER TO PRODUCE THAN NATIVE BLOCKS.
Do you really not understand or are you just purposely trying to confuse the issue ?
Your rental analogy falls flat on its face. It suffers a contusion, it's painful to watch.... Contracts come to an end, and terms re-written. If a party doesn't like the new terms, they don't have to accept, they can just move on. Fact #2)
The full epoch reward was offered to native miners . The only kind there was then, native SCrypt miners. No mention of merge-miners at all in the original Bitmark docs, because merge-mining wasn't offered. So now that it is, it is reasonable that the first implementation (like most 1st implementations) needs work and has to be improved. Like any technology, particulalry software, blockchains
evolve. That is why the version numbering starts with "0" and the "Beta" qualifier is used often.
In fact,
@onelineproof agrees that CEM is a good idea, (even though... goodness !!!
it has the effect of reducing the emission rate!)
<humourous sarcasm>Oh say it isn't so, Defender of the One True Emission Rate and the 'Uncorrupted' Protocol ! ¿ how did you, how could you fall into Beelzebub's snare ? </humorous sarcasm>.... \
but, yes, Andrew has actually said he likes CEM.
So now that we've established (even he allows!) that the emission rate may be lowered for good reason, has been lowered for good reason, then if the Bitmark community supports the new code we will offer, it will be lowered
again for good reason.
Note that this lowering by CEM is a dynamic,
algorithmic lowering. Not a centralized measure as @onlineproof inaccurately portrays at times. And the same goes for the mergeReduction factor, which just fosters native mining by policy, and equitably rewards merge-miners. The theoretical max emission rate so cherished by Andrew is within reach, in the case Bitmarks become so valuable that merge-miners go native.
Oh and a few more things ...
"Steal from people", Andrew ? You are the one who happily coded AuxPoW
into every algo now offered by Bitmark, and because of this firehose of cheap coins, the price of Bitmark has dropped to about 1/10 of what it was before the June 6 fork. So you've got some nerve talking about "stealing from people".
With regret, I accept my part in this debacle. I thought it was a good idea, and it seemed attractive at the time. But it was a mistake to allow merge-mining in every single algo without any distinction in the rewards payed to native-mined vs. merge-mined blocks.
This is the only thing which has actually taken equity away from people's pockets, in real life.
And
we are working hard to address this issue and fix the most likely reason which caused it: the lack of sensitivity to the mining cost difference between merge mined and native blocks. We have already delayed the release of v0.9.8 several times, until we feel it is as solid as any release we've ever done.
We will have a Fork #2 to offer which works, fairly compensates native miners and merge-miners,
But don't worry. The theoretical emission rate (
which Andrew at times seems to think was handed from on high to us mere mortals) is within reach! All miners have to do is i) be native miners, and ii) mine as hard as they can, constantly. Within 90 days, voilà, the max epoch block reward is given ! Praise be to algorithms ! (This will be coded into the software, not decided by some dreaded bugaboo "centralized" cabal of banksters) LOL
"Unlikely", I hear you say ? Right, and it doesn't matter....
that's the point of the free market. If circumstances are such that the emission rate is lower than the theoretical possible maximum, its because the market is not demanding those coins, not valuing them as much, and so they are held in reserve by the algo, to be emitted at some future date when they are valued more.
I don't decide what the market does, and how miners mine. What we do get to decide are the rules and policies that build the blockchain: what the compensation is for the different kinds of mining. One must understand and admit that there is a substantial cost difference between mining Bitmark blocks natively and getting them as a merge-mining bonus. This fact at the core of this issue must be recognized and acknowledged in order to make any progress and arrive at a reasonable solution.
My posts are here to be read, going back a number of years. So let people do so if they are interested.
It is still unclear how Melvin gained control of the code repository.
What's the big mystery ? Mark P. courted Melvin and granted him admin rights. Elementary, AK.
Why did I merit @psycodad ? For the simple reason that he shed light on a subject I'm interested in. I truly appreciate the insight his answer provided me.
And Andrew, nothing I've done could be even remotely construed as illegal. That's quite a reach.
