I'd like to remind you that Transaction Anonymizer can only operate with the premine
Can you explain why it can only operate with a (huge) premine?
Do you have a paper explaining the concept?
While I don't have a formal paper, I believe you are generally aware of the principles of operation of classical bitcoin transaction decorrelation systems such as the Bitcoin Laundry and the (typical) problem of not having a large buffer of "clean/uncorrelated" coins to send to the client.
Because if you are, then you should be aware that a typical transaction mixer will have troubles guaranteeing "coin cleanness" as the size of mass to be laundered approaches the size of mass stored as "clean buffer" at the laundry.
The trivial, and straightforward solution, is to have a buffer so huge that it dwarfs typical laundering transaction, thus ensuring that 1) all clients WILL get clean coins 2) buffer turnover (process by which an "old" buffer of clean coins is replaced by coins procured from (client transactions-fees) ) is reasonably slow
Sadly, much like with choosing a "sane" amount of premine, there can exist no formal way to calculate "a good buffer" beyond the unquantifiable assessment that it should be
damned big. I also believe you are aware of coblee/ArtForz proposal to create a code lock-in system that will not allow to "steal" from the laundry even in the unlikely event a hostile party takes over its wallet.dat and will both warn users of such a client in case it takes place and fork the blockchain in a manner that will render the attempted heist rather trite.
Do mind that I intend to deploy it, albeit in a voluntary manner (though I will of course advise exchanges and pools to deploy "locked" version and the version of the client with Laundry GUI will come only with lock-ins)
Differences of behavior of the source coins won't matter once they are merged.
Oh yes they will.
Please check out the infinite amazing deeflahshun argument.
People who like / dislike a particular economic quirk will be pissed royally about the merger if their beloved pet econ-twist happens to be left in the dust as result of the merger.
As you seem to be realizing now, the infinite expansion of TBX (and FBX for that matter) hinders its adoption as the value of each coin tends asymptotically to 0 as time passes (economy is finite).
Oh dear Cthulhu allmighty, are you a
"deflationist" ?
Listen, I don't
mind your economic beliefs - I am even going to implement a thing or two in TBX to make it more deflation-y so you people won't be concerned over hypothetical infinite expansion that much.
But for the love of everything good - nobody knows how markets really will respond to subsidy cuts
specifically (not just the first, but also the second one, since, you know, each subsidy cut will have different effects unless you have some very weird beliefs about utility of CCoins and their demand elasticity), and we already have a coin that intends to find that out experimentally, one called Bitcoin.
Also, it seems quite apparent that cutting subsidy is neither the only nor the most cunning way to enforce a limit on "coin mass" growth (not to mention that any human-run system includes such "methods" by default, and unlike coin production in TBX, they scale up with adoption growth)
Methinks that it is both boring and dangerous to refuse to try out new designs, including new creative ways of creating pseudo-deflation (all coin deflation isn't deflation proper) which is exactly what I intend to do.
<snip>
It is unfortunate that the deflation crew got to you. did you explain to them that your coin will be deflationary as well as the amount of newly minted coins gets closer and closer to 0% inflation?
And how by the very fundamental nature of humanity, coins will be lost or vandalized out of existence?
I sort of gave up when a group of relatively large size has started mailing me deflation pamphlets and ebooks about how Austrian view of monetary policy is the bee's knees (not that I am willing to engage in an argument about which part of a bee's anatomy said view really is)
This behavior is most remarkable given that I am 100% confident that I never published that email address in any public venue.
At that point I decided that if someone is driven enough to organize a "mail lolcust campaign" I might as well cooperate in some mutually agreeable way.
Well I know your web site clearly states this but still lol maybe some just need more direct teachings?
I have contemplated the option of individually replying to each and every correspondent who has chosen to share priceless economic insights with me, but have chosen not to do so, both due to time constraints and due to the fact that I doubt my ability to argue someone out of a view they seemingly were not argued into in the first place.
Burning the tx fees is probably not a bad compromise to appease the people you mentioned I suppose.
That's just first of several "let's increase coin loss without additional inconvenience to users or miners" tricks up the sleeve, but the rest are at this point too vaguely experimental to discuss.
