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

[drawingthesun]

If rpietila wants to change emission curve, and we also don't want to come off as preminers, couldn't we instead do this:

Change the initial supply to 36 million over 20 years, or even 72 million over 50 years?

This way us early holders won't be called preminers, and the supply won't hit 70% in 4 years time.

I think we should also make the minimum block reward 1 monero, and not <1 monero such as it is now.

[1715578396]

1715578396

[1715578396]

1715578396

[1715578396]

1715578396

[1715578396]

1715578396

[1715578396]

1715578396

[drawingthesun]

If rpietila wants to change emission curve, and we also don't want to come off as preminers, couldn't we instead do this:

Change the initial supply to 36 million over 20 years, or even 72 million over 50 years?

This way us early holders won't be called preminers, and the supply won't hit 70% in 4 years time.

I think we should also make the minimum block reward 1 monero, and not <1 monero such as it is now.

This is a good idea, changing the final block reward to keep minting 1 monero until its 36mm.

No no, the 1 xmr is forever (immortal) after the initial 18 mil is mined (or initial 36 mil, if that becomes the new initial emission rate)

[bigj]

If rpietila wants to change emission curve, and we also don't want to come off as preminers, couldn't we instead do this:

Change the initial supply to 36 million over 20 years, or even 72 million over 50 years?

This way us early holders won't be called preminers, and the supply won't hit 70% in 4 years time.

I think we should also make the minimum block reward 1 monero, and not <1 monero such as it is now.

This is a good idea, changing the final block reward to keep minting 1 monero until its 36mm.

No no, the 1 xmr is forever (immortal) after the initial 18 mil is mined (or initial 36 mil, if that becomes the new initial emission rate)

Playing around with the foundation of a (already established) currency, e.g., its emission curve or so, causes uncertainty, which in turn leads to drowning prices. Well done. Again, for what reason (other than speculation) is this discussed?

[Nekomata]

XMR is the future.

[Anon136]

If rpietila wants to change emission curve, and we also don't want to come off as preminers, couldn't we instead do this:

Change the initial supply to 36 million over 20 years, or even 72 million over 50 years?

This way us early holders won't be called preminers, and the supply won't hit 70% in 4 years time.

I think we should also make the minimum block reward 1 monero, and not <1 monero such as it is now.

This is a good idea, changing the final block reward to keep minting 1 monero until its 36mm.

No no, the 1 xmr is forever (immortal) after the initial 18 mil is mined (or initial 36 mil, if that becomes the new initial emission rate)

Changing the total number of monero that will be created would be a breach of trust with all current holders. Changing the emission curve so that that same total amount was generated over a different time frame would not be as bad. But we really shouldn’t even be considering changing the total money supply.

[TrueCryptonaire]

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

[NewLiberty]

So there is talk on the poloniex trollbox about changing the Monero emission rate to be slower.

Any thoughts about this? The great rpietila seems to be an advocate of emission rate change.

People can discuss, but there is no actual plan right now to do this.

EDIT: corrected typo to no actual plan

As price is already going down I see no reason to keep with the current emission as the only argument was so save some holders against possible dumps if it happened.

Its not the only argument.
Saving holders from dumps wouldn't be a persuasive argument in its own right anyway.

either way I see no reason to Monero keep its contract, everybody that hates Monero will keep on hatin and who likes Monero will keep going on or not, its pretty disgusting to read the amount of trolls that hate a coin, fuck them, it doesnt matter because price is way down, if the the majority of the community decides in favor of changing and the devs do it, I see no reason to not.

So you 1) wish a vote to be taken, 2) have a vote preference you advocate here for contract breaking, others may reasonably disagree with either 1 or 2, but even more important for me are...  
3) Change it to what, and why?
4) How to do this.
Does anyone know what the "right" emission rate is?  With a sufficiently good answer to (3), then your (1) and (2) become easier.  Without a sufficiently good answer to (3), we will be right back here in this discussion again later.

It may be fine and well to keep revisiting this topic, over and over again into the future, and keep working on fixing and perfecting the emission rate.  

Further, this ought be everyone's expectation if we do (1) and (2) without a definitive (3) (which I'd argue doesn't exist today)  The mechanism (4) for making these changes, and the reasons for making them will be important.  It would essentially create a somewhat de-centralized banking function to the coin that is forever changing the inflation rate in attempts to optimize the economy.

This would present an important innovation in alt coin development that will be impossible for the crypto currency world to ignore, for good or ill.  Get it right, and XMR may continue its rise to leadership.  Bungle (4) at it's great peril.

And realize also the gravity of this proposal you are making.  If XMR lives up to its promises, the actions we take here and now in this effort, will reverberate across decades into the future and impact the lives of billions of people.  It is probably worth getting it right.

[NewLiberty]

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

[Nekomata]

XMR is the future.

[smooth]

If rpietila wants to change emission curve, and we also don't want to come off as preminers, couldn't we instead do this:

Change the initial supply to 36 million over 20 years, or even 72 million over 50 years?

In my opinion no. It still comes off as an instamine (or more broadly shady/scammy) that the original rewards were based on some (larger) fraction of 18 million then everything is shifted such that future rewards become a smaller fraction of 36 million.

[TrueCryptonaire]

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

Yes, everything should be considered and discussed, price is already down and Monero has plenty of haters already, little harm being done.

I refrained earlier but now I think its time to discuss.

The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).

Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).

[Liquid71]

So I guess the pump whales are in dump mode..BCX must have forced this pump and dump crew to end their little party early. Anticlimactic end for a pump and dump shitcoin with this much hype and drama surrounding it, thought their would be more fireworks.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

Yes, everything should be considered and discussed, price is already down and Monero has plenty of haters already, little harm being done.

I refrained earlier but now I think its time to discuss.

The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).

Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).

1.  no buyers for dally mined coins?  No problem, reduce the emission rate.
2.  no sellers for daily mined coins?   No problem, increase the emission rate.
3.  repeat 1 and 2 as needed
4.   Decentralization?  What's that?

[TrueCryptonaire]

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

Yes, everything should be considered and discussed, price is already down and Monero has plenty of haters already, little harm being done.

I refrained earlier but now I think its time to discuss.

The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).

Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).

1.  no buyers for dally mined coins?  No problem, reduce the emission rate.
2.  no sellers for daily mined coins?   No problem, increase the emission rate.
3.  repeat 1 and 2 as needed
4.   Decentralization?  What's that?

For case number 2 there is a bitcoinlike solution: the whales and early guys sells to noobs.
The heart of the problem is that Monero becomes fully mined way too fast at current block reward.

[bigj]

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

Yes, everything should be considered and discussed, price is already down and Monero has plenty of haters already, little harm being done.

I refrained earlier but now I think its time to discuss.

The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).

Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).

1.  no buyers for dally mined coins?  No problem, reduce the emission rate.
2.  no sellers for daily mined coins?   No problem, increase the emission rate.
3.  repeat 1 and 2 as needed
4.   Decentralization?  What's that?

For case number 2 there is a bitcoinlike solution: the whales and early guys sells to noobs.
The heart of the problem is that Monero becomes fully mined way too fast at current block reward.

I cant see why the current emission rate is too fast. It's still a long way to go before "all" coins are mined.

[surfer43]

If the problem is there is too short a time before the emission runs out, simply double the final supply.

Changing the emission is a ridiculous concept. Then what differentiates you from any other BCN fork? Oh wait, it was an ultra-fair community premine for the fairest coin that ever existed because.. because.. it was the first fork of BCN that conforms to our ever-changing concept of fairness!! In other words, Monero is fair because it is Monero.

DRK had too much of an instamine, a little is OK and completely justified because the "community" did it.

[TrueCryptonaire]

If the problem is there is too short a time before the emission runs out, simply double the final supply.

Changing the emission is a ridiculous concept. Then what differentiates you from any other BCN fork? Oh wait, it was an ultra-fair community premine for the fairest coin that ever existed because.. because.. it was the first fork of BCN that conforms to our ever-changing concept of fairness!! In other words, Monero is fair because it is Monero.

DRK had too much of an instamine, a little is OK and completely justified because the "community" did it.

As I said before, touching the total number of coins is touching in the fundamentals but touching in the emission curve is a fixing the problem of almost instamine.

[TrueCryptonaire]

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

Yes, everything should be considered and discussed, price is already down and Monero has plenty of haters already, little harm being done.

I refrained earlier but now I think its time to discuss.

The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).

Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).

1.  no buyers for dally mined coins?  No problem, reduce the emission rate.
2.  no sellers for daily mined coins?   No problem, increase the emission rate.
3.  repeat 1 and 2 as needed
4.   Decentralization?  What's that?

For case number 2 there is a bitcoinlike solution: the whales and early guys sells to noobs.
The heart of the problem is that Monero becomes fully mined way too fast at current block reward.

I cant see why the current emission rate is too fast. It's still a long way to go before "all" coins are mined.

In just a few years the block reward is merely <1 XMR/block.

[surfer43]

If the problem is there is too short a time before the emission runs out, simply double the final supply.

Changing the emission is a ridiculous concept. Then what differentiates you from any other BCN fork? Oh wait, it was an ultra-fair community premine for the fairest coin that ever existed because.. because.. it was the first fork of BCN that conforms to our ever-changing concept of fairness!! In other words, Monero is fair because it is Monero.

DRK had too much of an instamine, a little is OK and completely justified because the "community" did it.

As I said before, touching the total number of coins is touching in the fundamentals but touching in the emission curve is a fixing the problem of almost instamine.

I am 99% positive that touching the emission curve is touching in the fundamentals.

The instamine problem is made worse when changing the emission curve without retroactively changing the current supply (i.e. 1 old XMR = 0.5 new XMR). I guess we can just call instamining solving the problem of an instamine.

[smooth]

If the problem is there is too short a time before the emission runs out, simply double the final supply.

Changing the emission is a ridiculous concept. Then what differentiates you from any other BCN fork? Oh wait, it was an ultra-fair community premine for the fairest coin that ever existed because.. because.. it was the first fork of BCN that conforms to our ever-changing concept of fairness!! In other words, Monero is fair because it is Monero.

DRK had too much of an instamine, a little is OK and completely justified because the "community" did it.

As I said before, touching the total number of coins is touching in the fundamentals but touching in the emission curve is a fixing the problem of almost instamine.

I am 99% positive that touching the emission curve is touching in the fundamentals.

The instamine problem is made worse when changing the emission curve without retroactively changing the current supply (i.e. 1 old XMR = 0.5 new XMR). I guess we can just call instamining solving the problem of an instamine.

I remind everyone that the design of this coin has always included a perpetual reward for mining incentives:

A minimum subsidy may be implemented in the future with <1% inflation to preserve mining incentives

In that case there is no specific finite supply so it makes no sense to talk about "doubling the supply."