Monero Economy

[smooth]

Forgive me for saying this again, but using inflation as a means to pay miners (or anyone else) sounds a lot like a government "trick".

It is, in a way, except that it's exactly Satoshi's trick that makes these coins possible. Since the network has no access to resources from outside the network, it can only rely on internal resources to reward miners. Which basically comes down to issuing coins out of thin air. No one disputes that this is how PoW coins work. The only issue is what happens "in a long time" when the rewards diminish to near zero or zero.

If you don't like issuing coins out of thin air, then you really can't like Satoshi-style PoW coins. You wouldn't be alone, BTW, there are plenty of critics.

[1715503731]

1715503731

[hbadger]

Forgive me for saying this again, but using inflation as a means to pay miners (or anyone else) sounds a lot like a government "trick".

It is, in a way, except that it's exactly Satoshi's trick that makes these coins possible. Since the network has no access to resources from outside the network, it can only rely on internal resources to reward miners. Which basically comes down to issuing coins out of thin air. No one disputes that this is how PoW coins work. The only issue is what happens "in a long time" when the rewards diminish to near zero or zero.

If you don't like issuing coins out of thin air, then you really can't like Satoshi-style PoW coins. You wouldn't be alone, BTW, there are plenty of critics.

Obviously there is a difference between issuing coins until certain max cap is reached (or at least tending towards a limit - as in calculus -), and issuing coins forever at an ever growing rate (which is what happens when you set a % of inflation).

One resembles the mining of gold, the other one is exactly like fiat.

[smooth]

Forgive me for saying this again, but using inflation as a means to pay miners (or anyone else) sounds a lot like a government "trick".

It is, in a way, except that it's exactly Satoshi's trick that makes these coins possible. Since the network has no access to resources from outside the network, it can only rely on internal resources to reward miners. Which basically comes down to issuing coins out of thin air. No one disputes that this is how PoW coins work. The only issue is what happens "in a long time" when the rewards diminish to near zero or zero.

If you don't like issuing coins out of thin air, then you really can't like Satoshi-style PoW coins. You wouldn't be alone, BTW, there are plenty of critics.

Obviously there is a difference between issuing coins until certain max cap is reached (or at least tending towards a limit - as in calculus -), and issuing coins forever at an ever growing rate (which is what happens when you set a % of inflation).

One resembles the mining of gold, the other one is exactly like fiat.

It's not like exactly like fiat regardless of the inflation number, as you correctly explained, because the rules can't be changed, at least not without some sort of consensus. They certainly can't be changed "by fiat."

[Johnny Mnemonic]

It is well established that finite money supplies don't work over the long term.

Not a promising strategy in a currency.

Gold has done just fine for thousands of years. There are only two reasons why nobody spends it:

- The problems it has due to its physical nature
- Government bans

The supply of gold has been inflating by 1.5% - 2.5% for thousands of years. Thank you for strengthening my argument.

Smooth was just telling us how he sees economics as a pseudoscience, and I agreed. So please don't say things like "it is well established that" inflation is good and deflation is bad. It's like a fallacious appeal to authority.

I'm sorry if your judgement is getting clouded by facts. If you and smooth think econ is junk science, then any reasonable debate goes out the window. It's like arguing with religious folks where any logic gets defeated "because God says so."

I didn't say anything about "good" or "bad". I said a finite money supply has a limited lifespan:

Wealth is power-law distributed: http://physics.umd.edu/~yakovenk/papers/PhysicaA-299-213-2001.pdf

The quantity theory of money ( M x V = P x Q ) says that if supply M remains constant or decreases, then velocity V must increase exponentially, which is not sustainable. Hell, I'll just quote AnonyMint:

We can conclude that if P x Q ≅ nominal GDP is rising by 5% per annum, then either M or V or some combination must also rise by 5% per annum. So if M were constant or falling, then V would have to rise exponentially faster than 5%.
...
In short, exponential growth of velocity can not physically continue forever. And the faster it is growing, the faster the economy must overheat and correct.

So we can conclude that those who are argue for benefits of a constant money supply have no mathematical acumen.

As time increases, circulating supply will shrink to nothing. This is true because math (and common sense) says so (unless you disbelieve that as well).

The discussion would be easier if instead of saying "inflation will pay for  that" we simply said "savers will pay for that".

Savers are useless non-contributors. Not that there's anything wrong with saving, but economies of scale don't depend on it, and so there's no economic justification to encourage it.

There is a common belief that the amount of transactions is far more important for the price than the savers/investors, which is absolutely false. Number of transactions is only an interesting indicator that the currency has a lot of utility, that it's accepted everywhere. Utility drives the price up, spending for no reason does not. One guy above was even suggesting that we punish stale coins, and that we move our coins for the sake of it. That's dogma right there.

Careful, this is starting to sound a lot like economic theory But I agree with you on the stale coin matter. It's a non-solution that's dancing around the heart of the problem.

If you, like me, want to see the price go "to the moon", what you want is savers/investors.

I don't want to see the price go "to the moon." I see that as an unambitious (and somewhat selfish) perspective. What I want is an ultra high volume, massively scalable world currency, capable of competing with or replacing fiat. That cannot be achieved with a finite money supply.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Forgive me for saying this again, but using inflation as a means to pay miners (or anyone else) sounds a lot like a government "trick".

It is, in a way, except that it's exactly Satoshi's trick that makes these coins possible. Since the network has no access to resources from outside the network, it can only rely on internal resources to reward miners. Which basically comes down to issuing coins out of thin air. No one disputes that this is how PoW coins work. The only issue is what happens "in a long time" when the rewards diminish to near zero or zero.

If you don't like issuing coins out of thin air, then you really can't like Satoshi-style PoW coins. You wouldn't be alone, BTW, there are plenty of critics.

Goddamnit no. All of the critics are wrong. PoW coins are not created out of thin air. It costs thousands of dollars in computing power to mine a single block, and that doesn't even include the computing costs of all the miners that didn't win the block. That is real, intrinsic value.

- fiat money is created out of thin air
- Proof of stake coins are created out of thin air

Proof of Work is value by design.

[smooth]

Goddamnit no. All of the critics are wrong. PoW coins are not created out of thin air. It costs thousands of dollars in computing power to mine a single block, and that doesn't even include the computing costs of all the miners that didn't win the block. That is real, intrinsic value.

Sort of. First off, the cost to mine a block does not exclude the miners who didn't get a block. They'll get another block, covering their costs.

Second, there is no direct link between the cost to mine a block and the value of the block, except insofar as the market creates one. That's essentially Satoshi's model. Instead of trying to peg the value of the coin to some intrinsic value, you set the value of a block at 50 otherwise-worthless credits, and let the market adjust.

But in theory, the market can adjust to just about anything, as other coins have shown. As long as the coin doesn't fail altogether, then the market has adjusted to its reward schedule, and non-failed coins with all sorts of reward structures exist. So you can't really argue the reward structure must be one way or another on this basis.

The argument for non-trivial perpetual rewards is that coins without them would actually fail. Miners wouldn't mine, or would only do so under conditions that are otherwise viewed as dysfunctional, such as monopolization and transaction hoarding. That's somewhat speculative, but I do think it is pretty clearly possible to set up a coin that fails. If it is possible to do by design it is also possible to do so by mistake, and perhaps easier.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Goddamnit no. All of the critics are wrong. PoW coins are not created out of thin air. It costs thousands of dollars in computing power to mine a single block, and that doesn't even include the computing costs of all the miners that didn't win the block. That is real, intrinsic value.

Sort of. First off, the cost to mine a block does not exclude the miners who didn't get a block. They'll get another block, covering their costs.

Second, there is no direct link between the cost to mine a block and the value of the block, except insofar as the market creates one. That's essentially Satoshi's model. Instead of trying to peg the value of the coin to some intrinsic value, you set the value of a block at 50 otherwise-worthless credits, and let the market adjust.

But in theory, the market can adjust to just about anything, as other coins have shown. As long as the coin doesn't fail altogether, then the market has adjusted to its reward schedule, and non-failed coins with all sorts of reward structures exist. So you can't really argue the reward structure must be one way or another on this basis.

The argument for non-trivial perpetual rewards is that coins without them would actually fail. Miners wouldn't mine, or would only do so under conditions that are otherwise viewed as dysfunctional, such as monopolization and transaction hoarding. That's somewhat speculative, but I do think it is pretty clearly possible to set up a coin that fails. If it is possible to do by design it is also possible to do so by mistake, and perhaps easier.

I agree with this for the most part. I just don't like the comparison to fiat money printing (out of thin air), as PoW coins have an inherent effort/reward relationship that is consistent with historical currencies and establishes trust value if nothing else.

[aminorex]

I don't really see how moving coins to yourself is good for the economy. In fact it seems like a waste of resources, though the benefit of certainly over lost coins might be worth it.

It's not.  But keeping coins moving is.  Any waste of resources in this instance is negligible.  But I am more likely to spend coins if I am consciously aware of them as a resource, as would be required in order to move them.  The good for the economy part is emission which compensates for lost coins.  They will have higher velocity than average.

Inflation is not an incentive to spend unless you are forced into using only that currency...

I am not arguing that inflation is good for the economy.  I am arguing that spending is good for the economy.  I am arguing that spending is more likely if you are aware of your funds.

I am not arguing in favor of punishing stale funds.  I am arguing in favor of replacing lost coins.  Stale coins are a proxy for lost coins.

Aside from argument, my disposition is thus:  I do not favor inflation.  I favor deflation.  I also favor securing the network, and indeed consider it a priority above most other considerations. 

Because of these dispositions, I think constant emission is a good trade-off, but do not think that exponential emission is a good trade-off.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Inspector Clousseau asks if minkey like Monero.

[aminorex]

the magic monkey is definitely not equipped to evaluate monero.  the monkey depends on lots of information which isn't yet available for monero.  my personal views on monero are therefore not tied to the monkey in any way.

[stylin]

Savers are useless non-contributors. Not that there's anything wrong with saving, but economies of scale don't depend on it, and so there's no economic justification to encourage it.

You cannot be more wrong. Saving is simply deferred spending. It's spending later vs. spending now. You could argue that incentivizing spending over saving is transferring prosperity from the future to the present. In the end it's a zero sum.

[FreeTrade]

It's not.  But keeping coins moving is.  Any waste of resources in this instance is negligible.  But I am more likely to spend coins if I am consciously aware of them as a resource, as would be required in order to move them.

+1

The good for the economy part is emission which compensates for lost coins.  They will have higher velocity than average.

-1

I don't see any need to re-issue lost coins, rather just allow a deflation in the money supply. Economists hate deflation, but investors love it.

One unintended consequence might be that investors are more likely to delegate their holding to a third-party (e.g. a bank) to ensure the coins are moved in a timely fashion.

[FreeTrade]

I don't want to see the price go "to the moon." I see that as an unambitious (and somewhat selfish) perspective. What I want is an ultra high volume, massively scalable world currency, capable of competing with or replacing fiat. That cannot be achieved with a finite money supply.

Only one?

[smooth]

If you and smooth think econ is junk science

I never said econ, just macroeconomics. I't nearly impossible to test any meaningful theories about an entire economy or even make testable predictions. The whole thing is entirely unrepeatable, which almost by itself precludes science.

Theories about the behavior of individual markets or actors are testable and tested all the time. That part of econ is much more sound.

[Keyboard-Mash]

I don't see any need to re-issue lost coins, rather just allow a deflation in the money supply. Economists hate deflation, but investors love it.

One unintended consequence might be that investors are more likely to delegate their holding to a third-party (e.g. a bank) to ensure the coins are moved in a timely fashion.

What about coins that are simply "never created" due to the block reward penalty? Specifically, what does such a penalty achieve in the first place? I think the current penalty is set to never exceed 9% of the intended subsidy .. leading to a minimum of ~1678000 coins rather than the intended 18440000 in the design. Should these be taken into account somehow?

Edit: I'd like to add that I could use Darkcoin as an example here .. evan based his block reward off of difficulty. If difficulty were to drop into a range that would yield >5 DRK / block the exact coin supply (when planning for the future) would be unknowable. What kind of effects does an unspecified emission have when taking into account some kind of fixed block reward toward the end of emission?

[smooth]

I don't see any need to re-issue lost coins, rather just allow a deflation in the money supply. Economists hate deflation, but investors love it.

One unintended consequence might be that investors are more likely to delegate their holding to a third-party (e.g. a bank) to ensure the coins are moved in a timely fashion.

What about coins that are simply "never created" due to the block reward penalty? Specifically, what does such a penalty achieve in the first place? I think the current penalty is set to never exceed 9% of the intended subsidy .. leading to a minimum of ~1678000 coins rather than the intended 18440000 in the design. Should these be taken into account somehow?

Edit: I'd like to add that I could use Darkcoin as an example here .. evan based his block reward off of difficulty. If difficulty were to drop into a range that would yield >5 DRK / block the exact coin supply (when planning for the future) would be unknowable. What kind of effects does an unspecified emission have when taking into account some kind of fixed block reward toward the end of emission?

The total number of coins doesn't even matter. You can have a coin with 17 million or 17 billion. It's all the same thing except the number of zeros.

The block penalty is miners (mostly pools) being stupid and burning their own coins, something you can't prevent with any coin. For example, minergate is still using the old code with larger penalties. You can't stop stupid.

[Keyboard-Mash]

The block penalty is miners (mostly pools) being stupid and burning their own coins, something you can't prevent with any coin. For example, minergate is still using the old code with larger penalties. You can't stop stupid.

Is that whose been doingallowing those tx's? I guess I'll stop mentioning them as a pool for people to use unless they can convince me that there's some logic to using the old daemon. Wierd that they put so much time into development daily but don't update that .. maybe there's something behind it? It does seem pretty stupid.

The total number of coins doesn't even matter. You can have a coin with 17 million or 17 billion. It's all the same thing except the number of zeros.

It's just an interesting mechanism to me really. What purpose does it serve? People will issue transactions probably using more space than they need, miners verify the transactions without regard to their subsidy and profit, and an investor providing liquidity in the markets now will ultimately profit more in the future because the investment could be worth as much as 109% more than planned when subsidy drops to zero. I don't see the necessity .. why not just limit the block size and have no penalty? I'm sure there's something I'm missing thats simple otherwise it wouldn't be done at all.

OTOH, people could seek to maximize block size on purpose, miners can just deny all tx's because they won't know if it's on purpose or accident (anonymous) and verify zero tx's at all and just continue to mine blocks. I'm just not seeing where decreasing subsidy makes any sense at all .. do you know?

[smooth]

OTOH, people could seek to maximize block size on purpose, miners can just deny all tx's because they won't know if it's on purpose or accident (anonymous) and verify zero tx's at all and just continue to mine blocks. I'm just not seeing where decreasing subsidy makes any sense at all .. do you know?

It's supposed to be a soft limit, where miners don't include transactions more than the limit (so they aren't penalized) beyond a a small amount which causes a very small penalty (the penalty is quadratic -- i.e. squared -- so exceeding the limit by 5% causes only a 0.25% -- 5% of 5% -- penalty).  

The small excess size of blocks indicates to the network a high demand for transactions which in turn over time causes the block limit to grow. The reverse mechanism causes it to slowly shrink during periods of low demand.

The whole scheme seems designed to avoid spam and bloat but at the same time avoid persistent scarcity of block space that would lead to high transaction fees.

This was implemented, perhaps somewhat correctly though with at least one bug, in the original bytecoin code. TFT broke it when it forked off to bitmonero and tried to fix the bug (poorly).

Since this is experimental and was never quite implemented correctly it is unclear at this point whether Monero will continue to fix it or just drop it.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

It costs thousands of dollars in computing power to mine a single block, and that doesn't even include the computing costs of all the miners that didn't win the block. That is real, intrinsic value.

Four years ago it cost a couple hundred bucks in computing power to mine a single block.  How can a coin created four years ago and a coin created today have the same intrinsic value?

[NASdaq]

How long until someone releases a cryptonote coin with 100% premine, and then issues the coins to a stakeholder list similar to NEM?

Seems like an obvious thing to do. Maybe add some inflation and transaction fees to keep people running their clients. Might be an interesting experiment. 'GreenNote'