[ANN][MUN] Muniti: First touristic cryptocurrency - X11, D2D - Multi-algo soon

[aws]

Its good idea - Pos!!!

how about double spending attacks on Pos?

if a coin is pure pos then its network has rate will go down substantially and then it becomes really easy to attack the network and double spend
a high hashrate and the longest chain rule is what protects Pow coins

[1715088005]

1715088005

[coine_smithe]

Its good idea - Pos!!!

how about double spending attacks on Pos?

if a coin is pure pos then its network has rate will go down substantially and then it becomes really easy to attack the network and double spend
a high hashrate and the longest chain rule is what protects Pow coins

There's plenty of discussion of these issues in the threads of PoS coins like Blackcoin, Cinni and Peercoin. You should go check it out if you're curious. If a coin goes 100% PoS then hashrate doesn't matter and the main issue is forking due to PoS exploit that rat4 claims to have solved. I believe his github fix is opensource which could be used. He has a method for determining the longest chain if it gets forked and he simply goes off of that. Also I believe Peercoin is still going which is still a hybrid PoW/PoS. Either way there are plenty of successful PoS coins and if they could be forked and manipulated for double spending then I'm sure many would have already done it.

[Eliza Lucido29]

Everyone is coming up with great ideas, please be sure to let Tofer know if and how you can

contribute to these projects

[radi324]

Just a rough sketch of which options are available if Muniti were to transit to PoS:

1) Increase block reward substantially, aim for MUN to become pure PoS in 3 weeks' time - I believe this would destroy the coin's value in the short-term, with no guarantee of recovery in the long-term.
2) Stop PoW in a week's time at the current block reward rate, and move on to PoS - this would go against the very objective of the project, as there would be more coins in the hands of the Maltese people than in the hands of foreigners, unless we adopt BlackCoin's system of mining.
3) Increase block reward slightly, and aim for PoS in a year's time - perhaps the safest approach of all, yet the most time-consuming.

These are just some possible scenarios I came up with in 5 minutes' worth of consideration. I'll be discussing this in more detail with the rest of the team tomorrow.

[tonk997]

I will be very interested in the results of the discussions.

[aws]

Its good idea - Pos!!!

how about double spending attacks on Pos?

if a coin is pure pos then its network has rate will go down substantially and then it becomes really easy to attack the network and double spend
a high hashrate and the longest chain rule is what protects Pow coins

There's plenty of discussion of these issues in the threads of PoS coins like Blackcoin, Cinni and Peercoin. You should go check it out if you're curious. If a coin goes 100% PoS then hashrate doesn't matter and the main issue is forking due to PoS exploit that rat4 claims to have solved. I believe his github fix is opensource which could be used. He has a method for determining the longest chain if it gets forked and he simply goes off of that. Also I believe Peercoin is still going which is still a hybrid PoW/PoS. Either way there are plenty of successful PoS coins and if they could be forked and manipulated for double spending then I'm sure many would have already done it.

the problem with a successful attack is that it becomes part of the longest chain and no one is the wiser
check out this paper: http://cryptome.org/2014/05/bitcoin-suicide.pdf
and the related discussion that mostly discredits it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.0

[YBC]

Instead of:

"2) Stop PoW in a week's time at the current block reward rate, and move on to PoS - this would go against the very objective of the project, as there would be more coins in the hands of the Maltese people than in the hands of foreigners, unless we adopt BlackCoin's system of mining."

Why not just Stop PoW in a week's time at current block reward rate and move to PoS BUT give the Maltese people a smaller nominal number of coins (ultimately with a higher real value)? Just reduce the number given in the drop proportionally to have same ratio as before

[coine_smithe]

Its good idea - Pos!!!

how about double spending attacks on Pos?

if a coin is pure pos then its network has rate will go down substantially and then it becomes really easy to attack the network and double spend
a high hashrate and the longest chain rule is what protects Pow coins

There's plenty of discussion of these issues in the threads of PoS coins like Blackcoin, Cinni and Peercoin. You should go check it out if you're curious. If a coin goes 100% PoS then hashrate doesn't matter and the main issue is forking due to PoS exploit that rat4 claims to have solved. I believe his github fix is opensource which could be used. He has a method for determining the longest chain if it gets forked and he simply goes off of that. Also I believe Peercoin is still going which is still a hybrid PoW/PoS. Either way there are plenty of successful PoS coins and if they could be forked and manipulated for double spending then I'm sure many would have already done it.

the problem with a successful attack is that it becomes part of the longest chain and no one is the wiser
check out this paper: http://cryptome.org/2014/05/bitcoin-suicide.pdf
and the related discussion that mostly discredits it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.0

Wow that's a lot of reading but I'm definitely gonna check it out.

[coine_smithe]

Its good idea - Pos!!!

how about double spending attacks on Pos?

if a coin is pure pos then its network has rate will go down substantially and then it becomes really easy to attack the network and double spend
a high hashrate and the longest chain rule is what protects Pow coins

There's plenty of discussion of these issues in the threads of PoS coins like Blackcoin, Cinni and Peercoin. You should go check it out if you're curious. If a coin goes 100% PoS then hashrate doesn't matter and the main issue is forking due to PoS exploit that rat4 claims to have solved. I believe his github fix is opensource which could be used. He has a method for determining the longest chain if it gets forked and he simply goes off of that. Also I believe Peercoin is still going which is still a hybrid PoW/PoS. Either way there are plenty of successful PoS coins and if they could be forked and manipulated for double spending then I'm sure many would have already done it.

the problem with a successful attack is that it becomes part of the longest chain and no one is the wiser
check out this paper: http://cryptome.org/2014/05/bitcoin-suicide.pdf
and the related discussion that mostly discredits it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.0

Wow that's a lot of reading but I'm definitely gonna check it out.

Ok so I skimmed the post and the paper a little bit and from what I understand the paper is more of a discussion of a possible 51% attack defense that the people in the thread think will not work. Am I understanding correctly? I'm not sure that is relevant to deciding whether or not to make Muniti PoS.

I found this link which I find more relevant to the PoS discussion. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/23j9iw/problems_with_pure_proofofstake/.

It looks like from that link, the biggest vulnerability with PoS is if someone bought more than 70% of all the coins they could create a false side chain where they double spent. Obviously buying 70% of all the coins would skyrocket the price and just about any coin this would be impossible because there isn't even 70% of the coins on the market. It's difficult to even predict how high the price would go before they would even get close to getting that many. I guess radi324 with the premine could do this attack but they'd be destroying their own coin basically because everyone's transactions that weren't on the false chain would become null and everyone would know what was going on after the attack.

After this reading I think I feel pretty safe in assuming that PoS vulnerabilities haven't been fully tested yet because they've never happened and probably aren't likely to ever happen. I haven't heard of any of these attack scenarios actually occurring, and they aren't that much more plausible than a 51% attack, which by the way for a lot of the time this coin has had like 80% of the hashrate on one pool.

As for the method of transitioning to PoS, it is difficult to say, because of the premine distribution. The reason the market is receiving coins like Cinni and Blackcoin favorably is because the supply is known and fixed and there is very little inflation. With each D2D release the supply would inflate, and the market would be expecting this, so the price might remain suppressed. On the other hand, the hype of a PoS country coin might be able to overcome this.

Instead of:

"2) Stop PoW in a week's time at the current block reward rate, and move on to PoS - this would go against the very objective of the project, as there would be more coins in the hands of the Maltese people than in the hands of foreigners, unless we adopt BlackCoin's system of mining."

Why not just Stop PoW in a week's time at current block reward rate and move to PoS BUT give the Maltese people a smaller nominal number of coins (ultimately with a higher real value)? Just reduce the number given in the drop proportionally to have same ratio as before

I kind of like this idea because it would mean massive sudden deflation of total supply which would send the price souring. With the current price at 1,000 satoshi, this would give a lot more nominal separation from 1 satoshi. Since there would then only be about 750,000 (This is what we'd have if production stopped immediately, not with one more week of distribution) coins then including the adjusted premine amount, then the price should be roughly 100 times higher even at current base level, not including buying support due to the fact that the total planned supply would be slashed, the excitement over a new country PoS coin (the first?), and the unique distribution method and genuine dev team. There would certainly be huge excitement and publicity in the community from one week of mining the final Muniti coins. If there was any selling after each D2D wave, then the price would be in the hundreds of thousands of satoshi, which would give more room for the price to recover from falls, rather than fall to depressing lows in the thousands or hundreds of satoshi if there was a potential crash.

I had another thought, what if there was increased PoS % following each D2D release? This would encourage people to hold their coins during the uncertain time that people would be suspecting that Maltese might dump their coins. The Maltese would also in turn have incentive to hold their coins during these periods. The amount of coins this would generate could be calculated and publicized so that there is no uncertainty about how it will affect the total amount of coins. I think it would only require a nominal increase, of say, 3 weeks following each D2D release will be 5% PoS instead of 1% normally.

Finally, this method would reward all of the supporters who have mined and stuck with Muniti from the beginning, and the top holders would be the most loyal people to the coin and less likely to dump.

[zjcoin]

followers on Twitter

[reader31]

Its good idea - Pos!!!

how about double spending attacks on Pos?

if a coin is pure pos then its network has rate will go down substantially and then it becomes really easy to attack the network and double spend
a high hashrate and the longest chain rule is what protects Pow coins

There's plenty of discussion of these issues in the threads of PoS coins like Blackcoin, Cinni and Peercoin. You should go check it out if you're curious. If a coin goes 100% PoS then hashrate doesn't matter and the main issue is forking due to PoS exploit that rat4 claims to have solved. I believe his github fix is opensource which could be used. He has a method for determining the longest chain if it gets forked and he simply goes off of that. Also I believe Peercoin is still going which is still a hybrid PoW/PoS. Either way there are plenty of successful PoS coins and if they could be forked and manipulated for double spending then I'm sure many would have already done it.

the problem with a successful attack is that it becomes part of the longest chain and no one is the wiser
check out this paper: http://cryptome.org/2014/05/bitcoin-suicide.pdf
and the related discussion that mostly discredits it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600436.0

Wow that's a lot of reading but I'm definitely gonna check it out.

Ok so I skimmed the post and the paper a little bit and from what I understand the paper is more of a discussion of a possible 51% attack defense that the people in the thread think will not work. Am I understanding correctly? I'm not sure that is relevant to deciding whether or not to make Muniti PoS.

I found this link which I find more relevant to the PoS discussion. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/23j9iw/problems_with_pure_proofofstake/.

It looks like from that link, the biggest vulnerability with PoS is if someone bought more than 70% of all the coins they could create a false side chain where they double spent. Obviously buying 70% of all the coins would skyrocket the price and just about any coin this would be impossible because there isn't even 70% of the coins on the market. It's difficult to even predict how high the price would go before they would even get close to getting that many. I guess radi324 with the premine could do this attack but they'd be destroying their own coin basically because everyone's transactions that weren't on the false chain would become null and everyone would know what was going on after the attack.

After this reading I think I feel pretty safe in assuming that PoS vulnerabilities haven't been fully tested yet because they've never happened and probably aren't likely to ever happen. I haven't heard of any of these attack scenarios actually occurring, and they aren't that much more plausible than a 51% attack, which by the way for a lot of the time this coin has had like 80% of the hashrate on one pool.

As for the method of transitioning to PoS, it is difficult to say, because of the premine distribution. The reason the market is receiving coins like Cinni and Blackcoin favorably is because the supply is known and fixed and there is very little inflation. With each D2D release the supply would inflate, and the market would be expecting this, so the price might remain suppressed. On the other hand, the hype of a PoS country coin might be able to overcome this.

Instead of:

"2) Stop PoW in a week's time at the current block reward rate, and move on to PoS - this would go against the very objective of the project, as there would be more coins in the hands of the Maltese people than in the hands of foreigners, unless we adopt BlackCoin's system of mining."

Why not just Stop PoW in a week's time at current block reward rate and move to PoS BUT give the Maltese people a smaller nominal number of coins (ultimately with a higher real value)? Just reduce the number given in the drop proportionally to have same ratio as before

I kind of like this idea because it would mean massive sudden deflation of total supply which would send the price souring. With the current price at 1,000 satoshi, this would give a lot more nominal separation from 1 satoshi. Since there would then only be about 750,000 (This is what we'd have if production stopped immediately, not with one more week of distribution) coins then including the adjusted premine amount, then the price should be roughly 100 times higher even at current base level, not including buying support due to the fact that the total planned supply would be slashed, the excitement over a new country PoS coin (the first?), and the unique distribution method and genuine dev team. There would certainly be huge excitement and publicity in the community from one week of mining the final Muniti coins. If there was any selling after each D2D wave, then the price would be in the hundreds of thousands of satoshi, which would give more room for the price to recover from falls, rather than fall to depressing lows in the thousands or hundreds of satoshi if there was a potential crash.

I had another thought, what if there was increased PoS % following each D2D release? This would encourage people to hold their coins during the uncertain time that people would be suspecting that Maltese might dump their coins. The Maltese would also in turn have incentive to hold their coins during these periods. The amount of coins this would generate could be calculated and publicized so that there is no uncertainty about how it will affect the total amount of coins. I think it would only require a nominal increase, of say, 3 weeks following each D2D release will be 5% PoS instead of 1% normally.

Finally, this method would reward all of the supporters who have mined and stuck with Muniti from the beginning, and the top holders would be the most loyal people to the coin and less likely to dump.

Wow! Love the idea of setting up POS % as a tool to deincentivizing dumping. Also to regular joe on the street we can market it like, "Heres some free money...and by the way it pays you more interest than your bank!!"

that should get them curious

[reader31]

we can also add the line..."welcome to the future!"

[radi324]

Instead of:

"2) Stop PoW in a week's time at the current block reward rate, and move on to PoS - this would go against the very objective of the project, as there would be more coins in the hands of the Maltese people than in the hands of foreigners, unless we adopt BlackCoin's system of mining."

Why not just Stop PoW in a week's time at current block reward rate and move to PoS BUT give the Maltese people a smaller nominal number of coins (ultimately with a higher real value)? Just reduce the number given in the drop proportionally to have same ratio as before

I kind of like this idea because it would mean massive sudden deflation of total supply which would send the price souring. With the current price at 1,000 satoshi, this would give a lot more nominal separation from 1 satoshi. Since there would then only be about 750,000 (This is what we'd have if production stopped immediately, not with one more week of distribution) coins then including the adjusted premine amount, then the price should be roughly 100 times higher even at current base level, not including buying support due to the fact that the total planned supply would be slashed, the excitement over a new country PoS coin (the first?), and the unique distribution method and genuine dev team. There would certainly be huge excitement and publicity in the community from one week of mining the final Muniti coins. If there was any selling after each D2D wave, then the price would be in the hundreds of thousands of satoshi, which would give more room for the price to recover from falls, rather than fall to depressing lows in the thousands or hundreds of satoshi if there was a potential crash.

I had another thought, what if there was increased PoS % following each D2D release? This would encourage people to hold their coins during the uncertain time that people would be suspecting that Maltese might dump their coins. The Maltese would also in turn have incentive to hold their coins during these periods. The amount of coins this would generate could be calculated and publicized so that there is no uncertainty about how it will affect the total amount of coins. I think it would only require a nominal increase, of say, 3 weeks following each D2D release will be 5% PoS instead of 1% normally.

Finally, this method would reward all of the supporters who have mined and stuck with Muniti from the beginning, and the top holders would be the most loyal people to the coin and less likely to dump.

This sounds appealing, especially the part stipulating an increase of interest rate with every D2D release. I would prefer a marginal permanent increase rather than a bigger temporary increase, as it would be a bigger incentive to hold on the long-term. We can certainly destroy the amount of D2D pre-mine which would be rendered superfluous after such a change, while at the same time rewarding initial investors, which in a sense includes our team since our rigs have been mining Muniti from the start, both to support the network and to provide a means of sustenance of sorts. My only worry is that:

1) For people unfamiliar with cryptocurrencies, a lower quantity relates to a lower value. Instead of receiving 156 MUN, citizens will receive, say, 16 MUN. Instead of having 76,000,000 in circulation at the end of the PoW phase as it is, we would have a much lower quantity. Would it be feasible to use a cryptocurrency made of decimals rather than integers, especially a touristic cryptocurrency?
2) The PoS attack mentioned earlier on which still needs to be proof-wrapped properly in some way, and I'm wondering as well which effects PoS would have on the stability of Muniti if implemented. At the moment Muniti seems to be one of the few coins without the need of an update or hard fork, it's one of the most stable ones out there.

[YBC]

Also, have you heard of the PoSV that reddcoin is introducing? Sounds interesting too?

[Eastwind]

Ordinary people would think 16 MUM has lower value than 156 MUN even though the total number of currency in circulation is lower. So it is better to keep the total number 76M(?) same.

My suggestions:
1. if we decide to go PoS, the total number of MUN should be the same.
2. At the start of PoS, give interest to the mined (PoW) coins using the interest rate (double, triple or what ever) so that those PoW mined coins would be the same as the total intended mined coins (50.92M). So the proportion is the same 67% (100%-1%-32%) of total coins. This process would exclude the premined coins because they are already the right number of coins. At that time point, there will 76M MUN in total.
3. Same interest rate applied to all the 76M coins (premined+mined with PoW) after the start of PoS.
4. In the PoW period, we can still reduce the subsidy 1% per week.

With the above process, we can start PoS at any time, and keep a fair distribution of coins with PoW mining.

[coine_smithe]

Instead of:

"2) Stop PoW in a week's time at the current block reward rate, and move on to PoS - this would go against the very objective of the project, as there would be more coins in the hands of the Maltese people than in the hands of foreigners, unless we adopt BlackCoin's system of mining."

Why not just Stop PoW in a week's time at current block reward rate and move to PoS BUT give the Maltese people a smaller nominal number of coins (ultimately with a higher real value)? Just reduce the number given in the drop proportionally to have same ratio as before

I kind of like this idea because it would mean massive sudden deflation of total supply which would send the price souring. With the current price at 1,000 satoshi, this would give a lot more nominal separation from 1 satoshi. Since there would then only be about 750,000 (This is what we'd have if production stopped immediately, not with one more week of distribution) coins then including the adjusted premine amount, then the price should be roughly 100 times higher even at current base level, not including buying support due to the fact that the total planned supply would be slashed, the excitement over a new country PoS coin (the first?), and the unique distribution method and genuine dev team. There would certainly be huge excitement and publicity in the community from one week of mining the final Muniti coins. If there was any selling after each D2D wave, then the price would be in the hundreds of thousands of satoshi, which would give more room for the price to recover from falls, rather than fall to depressing lows in the thousands or hundreds of satoshi if there was a potential crash.

I had another thought, what if there was increased PoS % following each D2D release? This would encourage people to hold their coins during the uncertain time that people would be suspecting that Maltese might dump their coins. The Maltese would also in turn have incentive to hold their coins during these periods. The amount of coins this would generate could be calculated and publicized so that there is no uncertainty about how it will affect the total amount of coins. I think it would only require a nominal increase, of say, 3 weeks following each D2D release will be 5% PoS instead of 1% normally.

Finally, this method would reward all of the supporters who have mined and stuck with Muniti from the beginning, and the top holders would be the most loyal people to the coin and less likely to dump.

This sounds appealing, especially the part stipulating an increase of interest rate with every D2D release. I would prefer a marginal permanent increase rather than a bigger temporary increase, as it would be a bigger incentive to hold on the long-term. We can certainly destroy the amount of D2D pre-mine which would be rendered superfluous after such a change, while at the same time rewarding initial investors, which in a sense includes our team since our rigs have been mining Muniti from the start, both to support the network and to provide a means of sustenance of sorts. My only worry is that:

1) For people unfamiliar with cryptocurrencies, a lower quantity relates to a lower value. Instead of receiving 156 MUN, citizens will receive, say, 16 MUN. Instead of having 76,000,000 in circulation at the end of the PoW phase as it is, we would have a much lower quantity. Would it be feasible to use a cryptocurrency made of decimals rather than integers, especially a touristic cryptocurrency?
2) The PoS attack mentioned earlier on which still needs to be proof-wrapped properly in some way, and I'm wondering as well which effects PoS would have on the stability of Muniti if implemented. At the moment Muniti seems to be one of the few coins without the need of an update or hard fork, it's one of the most stable ones out there.

1) Perhaps in the D2D and promo campaign we could use the new Bitcoin "bits" concept of .00000100 being the "dollars" of Muniti. That way you can tell people they are getting 16 million "bits" of Muniti. Also with roughly 1-2 million coins that would be about 1 trillion bits, plenty of nominal value to support Muniti's economy indefinitely.

2) PoW coins are always vulnerable to 51% attack and we're lucky with such a low net hashrate that this hasn't happened already by a bad actor with lots of hash power. Many farms exist that I've seen mining other X11 coins with single miners having more hash power than our entire current network hashrate. If anything I think PoS would make the network more secure (at least in my eyes).

Also, have you heard of the PoSV that reddcoin is introducing? Sounds interesting too?

So basically they have an exponentially decreasing interest rate, with a higher interest rate when coins are first deposited in the wallet, but the longer they sit there, the lower the interest rate goes. This seems pretty experimental and I'm not sure how well it would work out. The point of PoS is to have people verifying the block chain, indefinitely with their wallets open and staking but this will reduce that effect depending on the curve. Plus it might be confusing to people who are used to fixed interest rates on their bank account. I'd be more in favor of a fixed interest rate.

Ordinary people would think 16 MUM has lower value than 156 MUN even though the total number of currency in circulation is lower. So it is better to keep the total number 76M(?) same.

My suggestions:
1. if we decide to go PoS, the total number of MUN should be the same.
2. At the start of PoS, give interest to the mined (PoW) coins using the interest rate (double, triple or what ever) so that those PoW mined coins would be the same as the total intended mined coins (50.92M). So the proportion is the same 67% (100%-1%-32%) of total coins. This process would exclude the premined coins because they are already the right number of coins. At that time point, there will 76M MUN in total.
3. Same interest rate applied to all the 76M coins (premined+mined with PoW) after the start of PoS.
4. In the PoW period, we can still reduce the subsidy 1% per week.

With the above process, we can start PoS at any time, and keep a fair distribution of coins with PoW mining.

That seems like a really complicated plan for PoS implementation. It would be a lot simpler to just increase block rewards and get PoW done really quick and then just go to PoS. If we are to keep 76 million total I think that would be a more elegant solution. Just my two cents.

[misexegwjz]

Very interesting.  I will be mining this one. 

[Eastwind]

Ordinary people would think 16 MUM has lower value than 156 MUN even though the total number of currency in circulation is lower. So it is better to keep the total number 76M(?) same.

My suggestions:
1. if we decide to go PoS, the total number of MUN should be the same.
2. At the start of PoS, give interest to the mined (PoW) coins using the interest rate (double, triple or what ever) so that those PoW mined coins would be the same as the total intended mined coins (50.92M). So the proportion is the same 67% (100%-1%-32%) of total coins. This process would exclude the premined coins because they are already the right number of coins. At that time point, there will 76M MUN in total.
3. Same interest rate applied to all the 76M coins (premined+mined with PoW) after the start of PoS.
4. In the PoW period, we can still reduce the subsidy 1% per week.

With the above process, we can start PoS at any time, and keep a fair distribution of coins with PoW mining.

That seems like a really complicated plan for PoS implementation. It would be a lot simpler to just increase block rewards and get PoW done really quick and then just go to PoS. If we are to keep 76 million total I think that would be a more elegant solution. Just my two cents.

If we just increase the block reward to keep the 76M total, then it is unfair to early PoW miners. That would devalue early miners' coins dramatically.

[coine_smithe]

Ordinary people would think 16 MUM has lower value than 156 MUN even though the total number of currency in circulation is lower. So it is better to keep the total number 76M(?) same.

My suggestions:
1. if we decide to go PoS, the total number of MUN should be the same.
2. At the start of PoS, give interest to the mined (PoW) coins using the interest rate (double, triple or what ever) so that those PoW mined coins would be the same as the total intended mined coins (50.92M). So the proportion is the same 67% (100%-1%-32%) of total coins. This process would exclude the premined coins because they are already the right number of coins. At that time point, there will 76M MUN in total.
3. Same interest rate applied to all the 76M coins (premined+mined with PoW) after the start of PoS.
4. In the PoW period, we can still reduce the subsidy 1% per week.

With the above process, we can start PoS at any time, and keep a fair distribution of coins with PoW mining.

That seems like a really complicated plan for PoS implementation. It would be a lot simpler to just increase block rewards and get PoW done really quick and then just go to PoS. If we are to keep 76 million total I think that would be a more elegant solution. Just my two cents.

If we just increase the block reward to keep the 76M total, then it is unfair to early PoW miners. That would devalue early miners' coins dramatically.

Ya that's why I think it's better to have one last week or so of PoW and just go to PoS and adjust the premine accordingly. That would draw a lot of publicity but still reward early miners. As for the number seeming low value to people, they are going to look at the exchange rate anyway. I think we are babying people too much in that assumption and thinking they will be too dumb to figure it out. Plus using "bits" is better anyway than focusing too much on coin totals IMO.

I'm confused what the plan you're suggesting is. Are you saying to keep the current PoW 1% decrease every two weeks? That would mean the total coins are reached in roughly 10 years. That seems to defeat the purpose of switching to PoS.

[Eastwind]

Ordinary people would think 16 MUM has lower value than 156 MUN even though the total number of currency in circulation is lower. So it is better to keep the total number 76M(?) same.

My suggestions:
1. if we decide to go PoS, the total number of MUN should be the same.
2. At the start of PoS, give interest to the mined (PoW) coins using the interest rate (double, triple or what ever) so that those PoW mined coins would be the same as the total intended mined coins (50.92M). So the proportion is the same 67% (100%-1%-32%) of total coins. This process would exclude the premined coins because they are already the right number of coins. At that time point, there will 76M MUN in total.
3. Same interest rate applied to all the 76M coins (premined+mined with PoW) after the start of PoS.
4. In the PoW period, we can still reduce the subsidy 1% per week.

With the above process, we can start PoS at any time, and keep a fair distribution of coins with PoW mining.

That seems like a really complicated plan for PoS implementation. It would be a lot simpler to just increase block rewards and get PoW done really quick and then just go to PoS. If we are to keep 76 million total I think that would be a more elegant solution. Just my two cents.

If we just increase the block reward to keep the 76M total, then it is unfair to early PoW miners. That would devalue early miners' coins dramatically.

Ya that's why I think it's better to have one last week or so of PoW and just go to PoS and adjust the premine accordingly. That would draw a lot of publicity but still reward early miners. As for the number seeming low value to people, they are going to look at the exchange rate anyway. I think we are babying people too much in that assumption and thinking they will be too dumb to figure it out. Plus using "bits" is better anyway than focusing too much on coin totals IMO.

I'm confused what the plan you're suggesting is. Are you saying to keep the current PoW 1% decrease every two weeks? That would mean the total coins are reached in roughly 10 years. That seems to defeat the purpose of switching to PoS.

I mean keeping the 1% decrease during the current PoW mining. When the PoS starts, it will stop.

Your proposition is the same as mine if you adjust down the premine proportionally to achieve the 33% proportion. The difference is that my  proposition is to adjust up the PoW mining to achieve 67% proportion. But my suggestion can keep the 76M coins. I admit my suggestion is more complicated as adjusting down the premine is much easier as it just involve a few addresses.

Maybe we can have a vote about PoS etc. That would generate some publicity. PandaCoin (PND) has an active development team. It changed from PoW to PoS, the coin value increased 30 times. By the way, it has a PND multipool before the switch. So our development team has to do a lot of work.

I wish the every success of MUN. I hope in the near future, I can use the MUN I mined and enjoy holiday in Malta.