[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency

[sparky999]

If the desire is to raise funds for development there is a clear way for this to be done and that is for either a fixed or % based fee be added to every and all transactions the network performs.

[smooth]

Slowing down the emission is a good idea to distribute the coin for longer period. We can achieve that by increasing the block time from 1 min to 3 min. We can implement that with 1 second block time increase per week. When XMR is adopted more in commerce, we can reduce the block time slowly, from 3 min to 1 min. The main reason to do that is that I found there is no transaction in most of the mined blocks.

Adjusting the emission in anyway is a terrible idea. I don't know if those suggesting it are simply selfish, incompetent or just have an overwhelming sense of grandeur.

Or perhaps you think presenting an incomplete list is if it were complete is a good tactic for marginalizing those who disagree with you. It isn't.

[sparky999]

when did I say you were a troll, you are implying that mew will be used to blackmail the developers, this is absurd.

everything will be discussed but not really implemented, changing emission is a fatal blow to monero everyone knows that, one thing that can be done is rising the block time and the reward accordingly so emission stay the same but the blocks take more time.

I'm not implying it will be, I'm implicitly stating that it could potentially happen.

Any basic study of human psychology will tell you that the chance is non-zero.

Let the DEV's work on the code and let MEW build a viable peripheral economy.

[sparky999]

Slowing down the emission is a good idea to distribute the coin for longer period. We can achieve that by increasing the block time from 1 min to 3 min. We can implement that with 1 second block time increase per week. When XMR is adopted more in commerce, we can reduce the block time slowly, from 3 min to 1 min. The main reason to do that is that I found there is no transaction in most of the mined blocks.

Adjusting the emission in anyway is a terrible idea. I don't know if those suggesting it are simply selfish, incompetent or just have an overwhelming sense of grandeur.

Or perhaps you think presenting an incomplete list is if it were complete is a good tactic for marginalizing those who disagree with you. It isn't.

It is at least as fair a tactic as forming a collective of owners to influence the direction the core DEV's take.

To be clear I am Pro Monero and Pro MEW - what I am not in favour of is the two ever imparting influence on each other with respect to core features of the coin.

[varun555]

If the desire is to raise funds for development there is a clear way for this to be done and that is for either a fixed or % based fee be added to every and all transactions the network performs.

What's wrong with this idea?

[fluffypony]

If the desire is to raise funds for development there is a clear way for this to be done and that is for either a fixed or % based fee be added to every and all transactions the network performs.

That's the current proposal on the table that is most universally liked, completely optional and configurable (default on @ 50% match tx-fee) per-tx donation. However, it is going to be an extremely sluggish way of fundraising, as it will only grow as the number of tx's grow. The counter-balance to this would be for people to set their donation % to, say, 150% or 200% of tx fees in the short-term, and then decrease that in future.

[smooth]

If the desire is to raise funds for development there is a clear way for this to be done and that is for either a fixed or % based fee be added to every and all transactions the network performs.

This has a lot of problems, one of them being that any reasonable fee right now (when funds are needed) would raise very little. Another is that fees are so small this would create a lot of dust and therefore destroy a lot of the value, since the inherent cost in handling dust is high. To avoid this we would have to greatly increase the block time to ensure a large number of transactions per block.

It has been proposed to me privately that we could issue a crypto asset backed by a portion of transaction fees. That more potentially addresses the first issue but not the second.

[sparky999]

If the desire is to raise funds for development there is a clear way for this to be done and that is for either a fixed or % based fee be added to every and all transactions the network performs.

That's the current proposal on the table that is most universally liked, completely optional and configurable (default on @ 50% match tx-fee) per-tx donation. However, it is going to be an extremely sluggish way of fundraising, as it will only grow as the number of tx's grow. The counter-balance to this would be for people to set their donation % to, say, 150% or 200% of tx fees in the short-term, and then decrease that in future.

The benefit of this model is that it has bilateral motivation. It motivates MEW to build the surrounding economy to increase transaction volume and it encourages DEV's to write good code to make the network more usable. I agree the LAG in between is an annoyance but that is all that it is and you could argue the LAG also increases DEV motivation and if nothing else certainly makes them more personally invested.

Configurable with default set to on seems like the most viable of the options, although compulsory is a close second.

[smooth]

If the desire is to raise funds for development there is a clear way for this to be done and that is for either a fixed or % based fee be added to every and all transactions the network performs.

That's the current proposal on the table that is most universally liked, completely optional and configurable (default on @ 50% match tx-fee) per-tx donation. However, it is going to be an extremely sluggish way of fundraising, as it will only grow as the number of tx's grow. The counter-balance to this would be for people to set their donation % to, say, 150% or 200% of tx fees in the short-term, and then decrease that in future.

What is currently envisioned is doing it in a GUI client (more or less necessary to include the concept of people setting their own donation level), which would be even worse than a blockchain based method in terms of the amount raised because a good many of the transactions on the network now are not created by a human using a GUI. Thus the amount raised in the near term would be even more negligible. Of course it could grow in time.

It does address dust since the wallet could just keep track of the donation amount and send it occasionally in larger chunks.

I also think a lot of people would turn it off. The experience with p2pool where an extremely high percentage of users turn it off does not encourage me. That is a very valuable piece of software that provides a critical counterbalance against centralization of pools yet most users were so cheap they essentially killed the project by turning off donations.

[sparky999]

I also think a lot of people would turn it off. The experience with p2pool where an extremely high percentage of users turn it off does not encourage me. That is a very valuable piece of software that provides a critical counterbalance against centralization of pools yet most users were so cheap they essentially killed the project by turning off donations.

I tend to agree with you, economics would suggest that the fee be default On but configurable and in the event that system failed then moving to a compulsory fee model. I think in practicality jumping straight to the compulsory fee model may just save time.

[sparky999]

Transaction fees were always meant to be adjusted over time by the DEV team I think even a compulsory fee should have little to no negative impact on the economy where as changing the emission curve, which is a core original feature, changes the parameters by which every current owner of Monero agreed to be a part off.

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

[smooth]

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

Seriously now, this is a piece of software, not a religious doctrine. That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

That does not mean that something necessarily is broken, but "sanctity" precludes even considering it.

[OrientA]

Slowing down the emission is a good idea to distribute the coin for longer period. We can achieve that by increasing the block time from 1 min to 3 min. We can implement that with 1 second block time increase per week. When XMR is adopted more in commerce, we can reduce the block time slowly, from 3 min to 1 min. The main reason to do that is that I found there is no transaction in most of the mined blocks.

Adjusting the emission in anyway is a terrible idea. I don't know if those suggesting it are simply selfish, incompetent or just have an overwhelming sense of grandeur.

I do not have many XMR. If we slow down the emission, more people can mine it for longer term in the future.

[nakaone]

Slowing down the emission is a good idea to distribute the coin for longer period. We can achieve that by increasing the block time from 1 min to 3 min. We can implement that with 1 second block time increase per week. When XMR is adopted more in commerce, we can reduce the block time slowly, from 3 min to 1 min. The main reason to do that is that I found there is no transaction in most of the mined blocks.

Adjusting the emission in anyway is a terrible idea. I don't know if those suggesting it are simply selfish, incompetent or just have an overwhelming sense of grandeur.

I do not have many XMR. If we slow down the emission, more people can mine it for longer term in the future.

the problem with slowing the emission rate is that we create a worse off/ better off situation which differs from the beginning of the emission "contract" - that said nobody cares if we change the blocktime due to technical reasons and adjust the emission rate accordingly.

regarding the financing of development, I think this is the most crucial point in the evolution of monero. a development solely driven by donation does not work. I could write a wall to explain why this is different to the early days of bitcoin

[sparky999]

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

Seriously now, this is a piece of software, not a religious doctrine. That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

That does not mean that something necessarily is broken, but "sanctity" precludes even considering it.

It is an economy that people bought into because of a set of basic rules that were presented to them - changing those rules is a material change to the original contract. The only way it could ever be considered is by obtaining a 50% majority of coins in favour of the changes and even then I would still be against it.

[Nekomata]

XMR is the future.

[sparky999]

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

It deeply concerns me to hear you say that.

What do you think would happen if bitcoin developers turned round tomorrow and said we are changing the emission schedule because this new one is better we think?

[sparky999]

agreed, I only speak for myself if Monero changes the emission I'm out.

I rather see it stagnate for months with no development if some devs thinks they are not getting their fair cut.

I feel the same way. Whilst I am not the largest Monero holder my exit would certainly move the price.

[oda.krell]

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

Seriously now, this is a piece of software, not a religious doctrine. That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

That does not mean that something necessarily is broken, but "sanctity" precludes even considering it.

It is an economy that people bought into because of a set of basic rules that were presented to them - changing those rules is a material change to the original contract. The only way it could ever be considered is by obtaining a 50% majority of coins in favour of the changes and even then I would still be against it.

Which essentially means, if it would come to that, you recommend to go against an economic majority because it is different from your minority view (EDIT: in this scenario. Not saying your view is necessarily the minority view). Yes, makes sense.

It's really pretty simple: if the change of the original rules is perceived as so terrible that a large number of early buyers are sufficiently turned off, then a) there won't be an economic majority supporting the change, and b) if there would be an economic majority in support of changes, the early buyers in the minority can still sell. Wondrous how markets work like that.

[nakaone]

what about icebreakers proposal for some kind of an postmine, which could be auctioned for financing development? For some reason I did not make entirely clear for me I think this is quite a good solution