NEM (XEM) Official Thread - 100% New Code - Easy To Use APIs

[dandruff1138]

Pat........I have thought about your inflation proposal and agree to a very small and ever fixed rate.

can you organise 2 official polls?

1. 4 or 8 billion coins.
2.  A proposal for ####  rate of inflation. yes/ no

I think we need to organise these 2 official polls to put an end to a lot of argument.

Is this going to delay the launch again?

[1714967002]

1714967002

[1714967002]

1714967002

[nembit86]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

you seem to be taking an interest in this subject now, where were you when everybody was discussing and voting a month ago? ....but thats ok..better late than never.
So do you want to put this to an official poll or not...? as it is clear there is division.

There were 2 polls on nemforums, that did not get enough votes to warrant such a change, why have a third one??
there are less than 100 users, that agree with it.

Furthermore, there is no reason at all. So many users here disagreed and many stated serious arguments against it.
Seems that whoever wants 8billion NEM cant see those voices for some reason.

Yet, the groupthinkers want to call fud, while at the same time cant spot fud on a dictionary.
Calling fud or starting personal attacks like rockethead or yourself when you disagree with someone shows to everyone else that you cant win the argument on any other way.

I didnt think I attacked you personaly and I think you are battling your corner well....but you are too quick to dismiss the views of others.

If you think it is a mistake to take account of polls then you are way off the mark.
Members need to express their opinion for any changes and a poll is the only way for now.
Please support an official poll on this matter.

[rockethead]

Pat........I have thought about your inflation proposal and agree to a very small and ever fixed rate.

can you organise 2 official polls?

1. 4 or 8 billion coins.
2.  A proposal for ####  rate of inflation. yes/ no

I think we need to organise these 2 official polls to put an end to a lot of argument.

As much as I wish, Pat is up to his nose to get things sorted out. He would be the last person who can do it. Let's not burn him out. He still has a great life ahead to get going with. What he said is true. If you look at the number of active participants, only a handful care about NEM. The rest won't bother if it is 2B, 4B, 8B or 100B or if the inflation is 1%,2% or 10%.

[okaynow]

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

i dont think you spotted my reasoning yet.
Are you openly saying that the 35 positive opinions on nemforum carry more value that the 3000+ stakeholders?

Are you openly saying that whoever did not vote for his own reasons that you cannot know of, agrees with your point of view?

it sounds a bit like a totalitarian thing to say, and i'm pretty sure that is not what you mean.

Let me help you, and whoever wants to see my point:
Two polls were brought to nemforums, none of which gave enough votes for either side to go ahead and claim that a change should happen or not.
Not enough people cared, if you like to think so.

Does that imply that the change is accepted? I am saying that since there are not enough votes, this change cannot go ahead.

[nembit86]

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

i dont think you spotted my reasoning yet.
Are you openly saying that the 35 positive opinions on nemforum carry more value that the 3000+ stakeholders?

Are you openly saying that whoever did not vote for his own reasons that you cannot know of, agrees with your point of view?

it sounds a bit like a totalitarian thing to say, and i'm pretty sure that is not what you mean.

Let me help you, and whoever wants to see my point:
Two polls were brought to nemforums, none of which gave enough votes for either side to go ahead and claim that a change should happen or not.
Not enough people cared, if you like to think so.

Does that imply that the change is accepted? I am saying that since there are not enough votes, this change cannot go ahead.

so what you are saying is that votes dont count in small numbers. Even when those who vote are the only ones that care.
you obviously dont appreciate the thoughts that active members have. They are all stupid if they vote something other than your wishes.

[patmast3r]

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

i dont think you spotted my reasoning yet.
Are you openly saying that the 35 positive opinions on nemforum carry more value that the 3000+ stakeholders?

Are you openly saying that whoever did not vote for his own reasons that you cannot know of, agrees with your point of view?

it sounds a bit like a totalitarian thing to say, and i'm pretty sure that is not what you mean.

Let me help you, and whoever wants to see my point:
Two polls were brought to nemforums, none of which gave enough votes for either side to go ahead and claim that a change should happen or not.
Not enough people cared, if you like to think so.

Does that imply that the change is accepted? I am saying that since there are not enough votes, this change cannot go ahead.

I'm not saying they are agreeing with my point of view - which btw is similar to yours as i also don't want to double the supply - I'm simply saying they didn't vote which isn't enough to decide either way. Fact is most of the people that did vote voted in favor.
Are we supposed to dismiss any idea because people that have already forgotten about NEM aren't showing up for votes ?

[Djentriser]

I am not for or againt change, I really dont care for the number...as obviously majority of stakeholders.. But I dont see reason why people who expressed their opinion should be completely ignored, just because there are no many. It is problem of citizens when they are letargic to take part in democratic process. Majority of people who care for particular topic expressed their opinion...the rest of apathic peoples votes can be divided 50/50 ... so it would 51% vs 49% ... If 3000 people dont wanna express their opinions, they will not be taken in consideration, that makes sense.. Take into consideration those who do... why ignore them?

[DarkhorseofNxt]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

it depends on the source of inflation and where/who the New coins go to.

If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,

If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw

inflation is a good idea imo. Patmaster, you should look into this possibility more.

[patmast3r]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

it depends on the source of inflation and where/who the New coins go to.

If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,

If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw

Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.

Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.

[Conurtrol]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

it depends on the source of inflation and where/who the New coins go to.

If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,

If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw

Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.

Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.

Sounds like a good idea to strngthen the network. What is the argument against it?

[okaynow]

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

i dont think you spotted my reasoning yet.
Are you openly saying that the 35 positive opinions on nemforum carry more value that the 3000+ stakeholders?

Are you openly saying that whoever did not vote for his own reasons that you cannot know of, agrees with your point of view?

it sounds a bit like a totalitarian thing to say, and i'm pretty sure that is not what you mean.

Let me help you, and whoever wants to see my point:
Two polls were brought to nemforums, none of which gave enough votes for either side to go ahead and claim that a change should happen or not.
Not enough people cared, if you like to think so.

Does that imply that the change is accepted? I am saying that since there are not enough votes, this change cannot go ahead.

I'm not saying they are agreeing with my point of view - which btw is similar to yours as i also don't want to double the supply - I'm simply saying they didn't vote which isn't enough to decide either way. Fact is most of the people that did vote voted in favor.
Are we supposed to dismiss any idea because people that have already forgotten about NEM aren't showing up for votes ?

i know we agree on not doubling the coins. I am not against ideas either.
Also, as you acknowledge there are not enough votes to decide either way.

Therefore, we can accept the fact that there is no consensus in going ahead and making such a radical change at this time.
This(the lack of consensus on the matter along with the extremely small participation) does not warrant issuing 8 billion coins.

Some people said that since users did not come ahead to vote, they agree. This is not true in any way.

**keep in mind:
The poll was on for merely a week #Not enough time/
The options given were three (3.8bil, 4bil and 8bil) on the first and 2 on the second poll.      #3.8 and 4 options were cancelling each other, whoever made the poll, made a manipulative poll/
Poll thread was locked afterwards  #?

*Keep in mind also:
We can safely assume that there are more NEM holders in BTT than there are in nemforum.
There are 3000+ stakeholders here while the total members of the nemforums are 550+ users. Or is that a mistake?
The option to issue 8billion coins received 35 votes on the first poll.
Those 35 votes cant get twisted as the acceptance to issue 8 billion coins.

My point is that since there were so little votes for either option, we can safely dismiss the call for changing the number of coins.

[patmast3r]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

it depends on the source of inflation and where/who the New coins go to.

If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,

If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw

Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.

Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.

Sounds like a good idea to strngthen the network. What is the argument against it?

Just that most people hate inflation.
But I think this very very minor inflation would do more good than harm.

[DICTATOR-NEM]

What else do you want to change?

Inflation?
From 75% community stakes to 50% so the devs can control more?

Come one, you are ruining this.

[gsxrl3oi]

I see nothing NEW in NEM if we were to add inflation. NEW ECONOMY MOVEMENT right. so  Lets not have inflation.
As for the back and forth about 4 or 8 billion coins. I simply didn't vote because I found it ridiculous that we would change it now. I am Asian too, I don't care about the 4 or 8. I did participate knowing that it is 4. The polls we have doesn't speak, for me. My 2cents.
All I see is greed now from ppl who are trying to double their stakes. hey im all for it, but the truth is 4 billion was the original plan. 4 billion coin 4 billion stake holders. Lets stick with 4.

Cheers guys

[jkoil]

I see nothing NEW in NEM if we were to add inflation. NEW ECONOMY MOVEMENT right. so  Lets not have inflation.
As for the back and forth about 4 or 8 billion coins. I simply didn't vote because I found it ridiculous that we would change it now. I am Asian too, I don't care about the 4 or 8. I did participate knowing that it is 4. The polls we have doesn't speak, for me. My 2cents.
All I see is greed now from ppl who are trying to double their stakes. hey im all for it, but the truth is 4 billion was the original plan. 4 billion coin 4 billion stake holders. Lets stick with 4.

Cheers guys

+-1

Neither do I see the point of "inflation". I have understood that the inflation is caused by the "outside" of the money system. To fix it, there would be needed some index, or several, to measure the inflation. Every country has some inflation, but do they try to fix it with the money system?  (We all know, how Weimar Republic handled it...)


4 000 000 000 coins or 8 000 000 000 coins ... "original" plan was copied from bitcoin/litecoin.
If there will be 8 000 000 000 coins, everyone do get double amount of coins, but the share is the same. Why that is not seen?

[gsxrl3oi]

4 000 000 000 coins or 8 000 000 000 coins ... "original" plan was copied from bitcoin/litecoin.
If there will be 8 000 000 000 coins, everyone do get double amount of coins, but the share is the same. Why that is not seen?

I See the nothing will change in shares. It would only double our share I get that.
it's the reasoning as to why we want to change it is what I don't get.

[jabo38]

jkoil, you are not making any sense at all.
Just like the other disgruntled user, you accuse of fud, while you dont even understand half of the conversation.

Of course it is easy to make such a change, noone denied such a thing.

A whole lot of users are not accepting THE REASONING behind the change.
And since (the last month?) only 30-35 accounts agreed with it.

Dismissing the rest and saying that they (the 35) have more say than the 3000+ is utter nonsense and you seem to be defending them.

So tell me, wise jkoil, you who asked a month ago, and know so much of the distribution process,
DO YOU have a reasonable argument as to why make such a change, except for the extra coins you will receive?
(the groupthink is strong with this one, i said it before_i say it again)

While I agree that we shouldn't double the supply I do not agree with your reasoning.
A very small part of the stakehodlers agreed to the change that is correct. However all of them had the chance to vote and the ones that don't bother to vote are people who shouldn't be considered. The majority of people who give a flying fart about that topic are in favor of that change. We may have thousands of stakeholders but the community is a lot smaller than that so you can't reason that not all of the thousands of people voted and so the result is dismissable.

I'd actually like to bring the idea of a very minor inflation of below 1% payed out as block rewards back on the table.
Why is that such a bad thing ? Inflation is being portraied as pure evil but a very minor inflation can be a good thing especially if it's used to strengthen the network.

it depends on the source of inflation and where/who the New coins go to.

If you mean rewarding nodes that are securing the network and using sock stakes for this that is an exceptional idea and I'm 100% for that.,

If you mean just a bot making transactions with x nem as a fee in each block then I don't see the issue here eitwe as long as it isn't an over the top reward. It would have to be a trivial amount. 1% per year is trivial when considering that many nations have 3-5/6% inflation, possibly more. And bitcoin having a vastly 10%. Inflation under the correct circumstances is very healthy for the economyname does promotw

Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.

Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.

This a really amazing idea to me.  I figured out that if there are 4 billion coins that 0.1% inflation per year could go as a node reward no problem, possibly even more.  I think nobody can really get upset about a tenth of a percent of inflation.  The plus side is that would be just a little over 10,000 NEM a day.    If the amount of coins is 8 billion, then that number goes up to 20,000 NEM a day.  This actually is a kind of nice amount of NEM.

I think the best way is that once a day, always at a random time that nobody can know, a network sweep is done for nodes and that 10,000-20,000 NEM is divided equally between all nodes, rich or poor, all alike would get a reward. I could even easily double those numbers and not even think twice about it.  This could also dramatically cut down on the whole "faucet" thing.  Instead of people going to some website and going through silly motions or putting a silly signature on their profile, they can just leave a very lightweight client running in the background and get free coins.  

For instance, I once checked into NXT and found out they usually have less that 200 hallmarked nodes at any time (hallmarked nodes are the ones your really need because while anybody can forge, only hallmarked nodes support the network).  One reason for that is that in NXT making a hallmarked node is very difficult and only really for the more advanced techies.  But in NEM getting the node to be hallmarked is like 10 times easier (still took me a bit to figure out and took many tries, some clear guides with pictures and steps on how to open ports on different popular firewalls and routers would go a long way to making it much easier).  It would be sooooooooo awesome to say that NEM on week one had more nodes up and going than NXT.  And what would the cost be? Very very little in the way of inflation.  

If I had to give it a name, I would call it proof-of-support.  

I can tell you right now for a fact 100%, that if I could have gotten 20-100 NXT a day just for leaving a client going, I would have had it running in the background of my computer all the time, anytime I had the computer on.  I also would have been much, much, much, more active in their community.  After a long time in NXT, I forged three blocks, all for 0 fees.  Made me so frustrated I turned it off and started looking at their forum far less.  How many more people were like me?  NXT's system is set up in a way where the rich just get richer.  We have a chance do do something about that here and give regular people a chance to become something too, especially if they are in on NEM early.  

One of my majors in university was Psychology.  It has been proven time and time again, if you get people to do a little something for you, they are more invested in you and will do a big something later on.  This is one of the oldest tricks of manipulators around the world.  New religious movements do it constantly.  Those people that come knocking on your door trying to convert you, the church doesn't send them out to your house for your salvation.  The church sends them out to your house to solidify the faith of the person knocking.  That is why there are always two, an established church member and a newbie.  The newbie by knocking on the doors becomes soooo invested in the church that they are much much more likely to give the church money later.  

The Mormoms famously send out all their young for two years to proselytize.  After this intense experience, they are much more likely to not ever leave the church but instead more likely to donate money to it.  It is one of the richest churches in the world because of this despite being so small (I have another degree in world religions).

My point is, if we can get people running NEM in the background, they will be much more likely to follow our posts, join the community, and even contribute more.  A very small inflation of less than one percent given to people that support NEM would actually make NEM much more valuable, not less valuable.  

I support this idea 100%.

[jkoil]

...
Using sock stakes for that wouldn't mean any inflation as those coins already exist at nemesis.
What I'm talking about is using an inflation of <1% per year for paying people that are running nodes.
Not even as block rewards but as node rewards. So even people with a very very small importance have an incentive to run a node. At some random time some random node will get a reward if he's harvesting. No matter what his importance. All that matter is that he is harvesting at that time. Since nobody knows the time you can't just turn on your node at "reward time" to join the pool.

Of course there are prob some kinks that need ironing out but imho this wouldn't be a bad idea.

This a really amazing idea to me.  I figured out that if there are 4 billion coins that 0.1% inflation per year could go as a node reward no problem, possibly even more.  ...


I think the best way is that once a day, always at a random time that nobody can know, a network sweep is done for nodes and that 10,000-20,000 NEM is divided equally between all nodes, rich or poor, all alike would get a reward.
...

How do you determine the inflation % ...
what if the situation is such that there is deflation ?

Or are you just using the word "inflation" for a certain meaning to adjust NEM system?
"10,000-20,000 NEM is divided equally between all nodes" - is that an extra salary, not an inflation ?

[jabo38]

@jabo very well said sir. I don't see how anyone would disagree to that. It's brilliant.

I'm just wondering what kind of time/effort would be required to do this?

I am just an idea kind of guy.  I think the devs would have to speak to the time/effort to make this happen. 

My guess is that it would be difficult but possible. 

[NoirSuccubus]

I think switching to 8 billion is a good idea. It might confuse some people with the amount change and yes some people will be upset, but oh well. I think its going to boost the market cap by a lot. Its all about the numbers. Its about what price people see on the exchange sites. With the illusion that its cheap it should bring in more buy support. 100 satoshis a coin looks twice as good as 200 sats. Attention is usually focused more on price than total supply anyway. Also it should help with hoarding coins by making it psychologically easier for holders to part from them. Someone is more likely to give up 100k nem of 2 million coins vs 50k nem of the amount of 1 million. "That shiny pretty 1M coin stash isn't complete anymore "  VS "I'm still holding 900k along with a whole 1 million, whoo!"