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

[smooth]

 My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.
 

The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions.

You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak.

Ah but you are equally playing God by declaring some things to be unquestionable and unchangable and also defining ethics to be as you say they are.

i believe any project that is stuck with serious errors because Certain Things Cannot Change is likely doomed.

There is no technical barrier to fixing it therefore the matter is simply opinion and nothing more. Although I certainly respect your disagreement I do not accept your characterization of a difference of opinion as violating ethics. Your ethics need not match mine and this is not an area where ethics have been established since prehistory. Crypto currency is young and Bitcoin did not get everything right (if it did there would be no monero). That includes this notion of an inflexible social contact with no mechansm for correction or improvement. No other system like that exists in the world other than religion. I reject it.

[sparky999]

 My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.
 

The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions.

You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak.

Ah but you are equally playing God by declaring some things to be unquestionable and unchangable and also defining ethics to be as you say they are.

i believe any project that is stuck with serious errors because Certain Things Cannot Change is likely doomed.

There is no technical barrier to fixing it therefore the matter is simply opinion and nothing more. Although I certainly respect your disagreement I do not accept your characterization of a difference of opinion as violating ethics. Your ethics need not match mine and this is not an area where ethics have been established since prehistory. Crypto currency is young and Bitcoin did not get everything right (if it did there would be no monero). That includes this notion of an inflexible social contact with no mechansm for correction or improvement. No other system like that exists in the world other than religion. I reject it.

To be very clear before I really leave the thread -

All I want is everything to be clearly laid out - if that is that Monero DEV's can change whatever they want whenever they like that is absolutely fine. It is just not something that  I want to be a a part of because there is a very clear slippery slope argument in my mind.

[smooth]

You need to be able to say these are the things that we can change and these are the things that are core to the coin.

My opinion is the emission curve shouldn't be changed as in my opinion it is core to the coin. Despite the likely economic benefit to me if I were to take the other side.

ad infinitum

just put it to stone, this speculation about emission is not good for the coin, smooth.

That is simply not possible. Even if I were to 100% support calcification, who is to say another developer or stakeholder might push for change a month or a year or a decade from now.

You can't creat absolute unquestionable and unchangable tenets without a religion and even then some will always seek to reform it.

[sparky999]

I was under the impression that when I bought into this coin some things were fixed one of those was the emission curve - if I am wrong that is my own mistake and poor research and I will quietly sell my coins, if I am right then it should remain that way in my opinion.

[sparky999]

You need to be able to say these are the things that we can change and these are the things that are core to the coin.

My opinion is the emission curve shouldn't be changed as in my opinion it is core to the coin. Despite the likely economic benefit to me if I were to take the other side.

ad infinitum

just put it to stone, this speculation about emission is not good for the coin, smooth.

That is simply not possible. Even if I were to 100% support calcification, who is to say another developer or stakeholder might push for change a month or a year or a decade from now.

You can't creat absolute unquestionable and unchangable tenets without a religion and even then some will always seek to reform it.

Actually in mathematics you can.

[Nekomata]

XMR is the future.

[smooth]

 My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.
 

The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions.

You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak.

Ah but you are equally playing God by declaring some things to be unquestionable and unchangable and also defining ethics to be as you say they are.

i believe any project that is stuck with serious errors because Certain Things Cannot Change is likely doomed.

There is no technical barrier to fixing it therefore the matter is simply opinion and nothing more. Although I certainly respect your disagreement I do not accept your characterization of a difference of opinion as violating ethics. Your ethics need not match mine and this is not an area where ethics have been established since prehistory. Crypto currency is young and Bitcoin did not get everything right (if it did there would be no monero). That includes this notion of an inflexible social contact with no mechansm for correction or improvement. No other system like that exists in the world other than religion. I reject it.

To be very clear before I really leave the thread -

All I want is everything to be clearly laid out - if that is that Monero DEV's can change whatever they want whenever they like that is absolutely fine. It is just not something that  I want to be a a part of because there is a very clear slippery slope argument in my mind.

Obviously we can't change whatever we want. At all. If the community opposes what we do or seek to do then we will be shown the door. Furthermore we do not and have never wanted to impose our will on the community at all. I oppose items being framed as unchangable even with community support. Without community support it is a moot point.

[smooth]

I was under the impression that when I bought into this coin some things were fixed one of those was the emission curve - if I am wrong that is my own mistake and poor research and I will quietly sell my coins, if I am right then it should remain that way in my opinion.

yeah, believe, there are hundreds of people like you, thats what I'm trying to say to smooth, dont touch the forking emission

There may be but there are thousands or tens of thousands of participants. I have no idea how they all feel. Both views have been represented here.

[Hotmetal]

I was under the impression that when I bought into this coin some things were fixed one of those was the emission curve - if I am wrong that is my own mistake and poor research and I will quietly sell my coins, if I am right then it should remain that way in my opinion.

yeah, believe, there are hundreds of people like you, thats what I'm trying to say to smooth, dont touch the forking emission

There may be but there are thousands or tens of thousands of participants. I have no idea how they all feel. Both views have been represented here.

Isn't that what public votes are for?

[oda.krell]

I was under the impression that when I bought into this coin some things were fixed one of those was the emission curve - if I am wrong that is my own mistake and poor research and I will quietly sell my coins, if I am right then it should remain that way in my opinion.

yeah, believe, there are hundreds of people like you, thats what I'm trying to say to smooth, dont touch the forking emission

There may be but there are thousands or tens of thousands of participants. I have no idea how they all feel. Both views have been represented here.

One more remark on this topic:

Big props to you, smooth, for your reactions on the previous pages.

As far as I know you've stated before that you are actually (more or less) against adjusting emission speed. Still, you're giving a very fair representation of both sides (or point out misrepresentation of one by the other). That's not at all to be expected, especially in online discussions, in my experience.

What I'm saying is, if we ever get to the point where the community / devs / stakeholders /miners make a decision on this matter, it's good to know that you're probably going to be in a position to guide that discussion. Even if the result is a resounding 'no change', I'll be happy to know there was a fair discussion and decision.

[smooth]

One more remark on this topic:

Big props to you, smooth, for your reactions on the previous pages.

As far as I know you've stated before that you are actually (more or less) against adjusting emission speed.

So there is no misunderstanding, my personal opinion is that it would be better to slow down emission, or couple a longer-term slowdown with some short-term acceleration in the form of "post-mine" funding, such that the two offset each other to some extent.

But that is very different from attempting to impose this view on others. If am convinced that the stakeholders are overwhelmingly opposed, in that case I would be opposed to changing it regardless of my own opinion. In fact I would actively oppose others trying to impose such a change despite my own view on the underlying question. I don't think anyone attempting to impose anything is very likely however.

Thank you for your comments as to style of discussion and perspective.

Even if the result is a resounding 'no change', I'll be happy to know there was a fair discussion and decision.

Me too.

[Ultros]

Beware of people that act like they represent some sort of large group and/or majority, then use it as a pressure tactic, without any strong statistical proof. Forums always gather the most vocal (and sometimes manipulative) individuals.
That statement isn't pointed at anyone in particular in that debate so don't jump on your horse. I just feel it needs to be said, better twice than not.

If I want to see majority's opinion, I usually watch markets. That's the best indicator I can think of now. If the community, the devs, both, or whoever takes a decision, is confident about the legitimacy of the change, then the market will vote accordingly. Ofc it's healthy to debate but pressure tactics should be avoided. Just my 0.02 xmr.

[fluffypony]

Guys, it's obviously a contentious topic with proponents on both sides. I think it prudent to table this until we have finalised the minimum subsidy (eternal emission) proposal. This, in itself, is only a proposal, but I believe that the discussion around that will allow us to visit this topic more thoroughly.

Right now we're discussing it in the context of the status quo, whereas I feel we'll be better equipped to do so when we have the bigger picture in view.

[smooth]

You need to be able to say these are the things that we can change and these are the things that are core to the coin.

My opinion is the emission curve shouldn't be changed as in my opinion it is core to the coin. Despite the likely economic benefit to me if I were to take the other side.

ad infinitum

just put it to stone, this speculation about emission is not good for the coin, smooth.

That is simply not possible. Even if I were to 100% support calcification, who is to say another developer or stakeholder might push for change a month or a year or a decade from now.

You can't creat absolute unquestionable and unchangable tenets without a religion and even then some will always seek to reform it.

Actually in mathematics you can.

Mathematics does not have tenets, it has axioms. They are two different things.

[iourzzz]

One more remark on this topic:

Big props to you, smooth, for your reactions on the previous pages.

As far as I know you've stated before that you are actually (more or less) against adjusting emission speed.

So there is no misunderstanding, my personal opinion is that it would be better to slow down emission, or couple a longer-term slowdown with some short-term acceleration in the form of "post-mine" funding, such that the two offset each other to some extent.

But that is very different from attempting to impose this view on others. If am convinced that the stakeholders are overwhelmingly opposed, in that case I would be opposed to changing it regardless of my own opinion. In fact I would actively oppose others trying to impose such a change despite my own view on the underlying question. I don't think anyone attempting to impose anything is very likely however.

Thank you for your comments as to style of discussion and perspective.

Thank you for staying rock solid in the epicenter of typhoon.

[smooth]

As far as I know you've stated before that you are actually (more or less) against adjusting emission speed. Still, you're giving a very fair representation of both sides (or point out misrepresentation of one by the other). That's not at all to be expected, especially in online discussions, in my experience.

I guess you were wrong:

So there is no misunderstanding, my personal opinion is that it would be better to slow down emission, or couple a longer-term slowdown with some short-term acceleration in the form of "post-mine" funding, such that the two offset each other to some extent.

I'm glad you are back to your senses smooth, what you are suggesting to like doing would effectively do what BCX couldn't in his wildest dreams

Maybe you misunderstood his attack. It was actually a mind control ray beamed at smooth.

[Nekomata]

XMR is the future.

[nakaone]

Guys, it's obviously a contentious topic with proponents on both sides. I think it prudent to table this until we have finalised the minimum subsidy (eternal emission) proposal. This, in itself, is only a proposal, but I believe that the discussion around that will allow us to visit this topic more thoroughly.

Right now we're discussing it in the context of the status quo, whereas I feel we'll be better equipped to do so when we have the bigger picture in view.

don't you think it would be possible to auction a part of the still undefined emission after 4 years now ?

Let us assume we mine 18,x million coins in the next 4 years; we now auction a part of the following emission rate. these tokens are given to the auctioneer in the time the coins are created, e.g. in 4 years. but you would get the bitcoins for the auction today.

the pros:
1.) we still have no proper idea how to design the emmission after most coins are mined, so we do not destroy the social contract
2.) the investors would have a long term interest in the project and asssuming it succeeds would massively benefit in the future.
3.) you would get the amount of money for development now
4.) short term and mid term effects on distribution and price are almost non-existent

the cons:
1.) some burocratic effort
2.) maybe the network security in 4 years would suffer (not sure on this)
3.) the investors take a high risk and so the coins would very likely be sold with a discount

I think a solution like that would be very beneficial and the economic costs are very low in comparison to the benefits generated. Additionally an incentive structure is generated which has some interesting implications.

[binaryFate]

You are right now harming the coin with these discussions. "You" being a general address.
(Adding a "we only say it will be debated one day in the future" doesn't change the fact everybody's discussing it right now).   

Cryptocurrencies are nothing tangible and their intrinsic value lies largely in knowing other people attach some value to it, and will keep doing so in the future.
You are putting no less than that at stake for me.
                                       
You're worsening whatever situation you're not happy about by insinuating "something might be fundamentally wrong with the emission curve".
Few likes to be invested in something openly fundamentally unstable. (Note this is different from an alpha-quality of software, that is technically unstable).

[NewLiberty]

You need to be able to say these are the things that we can change and these are the things that are core to the coin.

My opinion is the emission curve shouldn't be changed as in my opinion it is core to the coin. Despite the likely economic benefit to me if I were to take the other side.

ad infinitum

just put it to stone, this speculation about emission is not good for the coin, smooth.

Can we then agree that: Discussion is good, uncertainty is bad.

And so: Let me reframe the question.  

Assuming that this can be accomplished with a merged mined side chain.
Whereas XMR will forever keep to the emission it has, can we then discuss what sort of "core covenant" changes might be good to make in a prospective side chain(s).

Doing it that way has the benefit of rewarding the miners who are merge mining both chains.   It further lets the market decide this sort of thing, without any uncertainty regarding changes to that which we already enjoy owning.

Edit: It needs its own thread.