[XMR] Monero Speculation

[smooth]

So no economic reasoning whatsoever to the choice of approx 0.9% inflation?

There is plenty of economic reasons, first being to secure the network,[/b] without network no transactions, like rpietila said its close to what gold is now. 1% is bellow the long-run ideal inflation on a large scale economy (believed to be 2%). 1% runs of the risk of deflation with eventual lost coins it will become de-facto deflationary in the long run.

I didn't say tail emission was a bad idea. I agree with it. It just shouldn't be a "magic number" value. And Monero is NOT gold. Most everything about it is quite different than gold. There seems to be no logical reason to choose that value based on "that's how gold is".

It wasn't logical, it was indeed a magic number (at least 1% was; 0.3 coins/minute is derived from the 1%/year) chosen at the start more or less arbitrary manner based on subjective views of what was useful to do. If it turns out to be a disastrous choice with horrible consequences, then Monero will fail. This is an experiment.

Sure, we can just say "hey it is an experiment". But wouldn't it be nicer to have a logical economic reasoning with maybe not precisely predictable results, but at least an intelligently planned results? I already see interesting brain storming in the last few posts. Generally the less magic numbers, the better. Something for Monero Research Labs maybe...

EDIT: If I'm dragging this on in the wrong thread just ask and I'll happily move it elsewhere.

I think its somewhat relevant to speculation in that if you think the parameters are extremely poor, the coin will likely fail. If you think that just picking a (vague reasonable) number and going and implementing something to see if it might succeed is a hopeless approach, you likely also think the coin will fail.

[1714755999]

1714755999

[1714755999]

1714755999

[smooth]

This is getting a bit off topic but one idea that has been proposed is to simply emit one unit per hash of proof-of-work. (No magic numbers at all!)

The bold part is sarcastic, right?

No, not really. 1 hash = 1 unit removes the magic numbers from things like inflation rate, coin supply, etc. That doesn't make it a good approach necessarily.

[binaryFate]

This is getting a bit off topic but one idea that has been proposed is to simply emit one unit per hash of proof-of-work. (No magic numbers at all!)

The bold part is sarcastic, right?

No, not really. 1 hash = 1 unit removes the magic numbers from things like inflation rate, coin supply, etc. That doesn't make it a good approach necessarily.

It sounds as abritrary as anything else to me. Has the "advantage" of being a round number, but that's all.


EDIT: I mean arbitrary as "magic number".

[G2M]

I'd like to make the suggestion that possibly getting in contact with any game developers, likely MMORPG game developers might be a good route to pursue if you're looking to study the effects of various inflations on the value of simulated currencies revolving around simplistic economic models.

Obviously, CKG would be a comparison, but its infancy would likely not yield enough information.

Anyone know anyone that works at Blizzard?

[smooth]

This is getting a bit off topic but one idea that has been proposed is to simply emit one unit per hash of proof-of-work. (No magic numbers at all!)

The bold part is sarcastic, right?

No, not really. 1 hash = 1 unit removes the magic numbers from things like inflation rate, coin supply, etc. That doesn't make it a good approach necessarily.

It sounds as abritrary as anything else to me. Has the "advantage" of being a round number, but that's all.

EDIT: I mean arbitrary as "magic number".

The growth rate is tied directly to a physical property. Advantage? Disadvantage? I'm not sure, but it is different from just setting a mathematical growth rate as with Bitcoin or Monero.

[smooth]

I'd like to make the suggestion that possibly getting in contact with any game developers, likely MMORPG game developers might be a good route to pursue if you're looking to study the effects of various inflations on the value of simulated currencies revolving around simplistic economic models.

Obviously, CKG would be a comparison, but its infancy would likely not yield enough information.

Anyone know anyone that works at Blizzard?

I don't know about Blizzard but the Valve economist guy is somewhat busy right now

[binaryFate]

I'd like to make the suggestion that possibly getting in contact with any game developers, likely MMORPG game developers might be a good route to pursue if you're looking to study the effects of various inflations on the value of simulated currencies revolving around simplistic economic models.

Obviously, CKG would be a comparison, but its infancy would likely not yield enough information.

Anyone know anyone that works at Blizzard?

I don't know about Blizzard but the Valve economist guy is somewhat busy right now

You mean he's busy pumping litecoin with the crappiest arguments you can find even in the deep bitcointalk mud?
(watch at 1'10): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLu1yAeWNtw

[smooth]

I'd like to make the suggestion that possibly getting in contact with any game developers, likely MMORPG game developers might be a good route to pursue if you're looking to study the effects of various inflations on the value of simulated currencies revolving around simplistic economic models.

Obviously, CKG would be a comparison, but its infancy would likely not yield enough information.

Anyone know anyone that works at Blizzard?

I don't know about Blizzard but the Valve economist guy is somewhat busy right now

You mean he's busy pumping litecoin with the crappiest arguments you can find even in the deep bitcointalk mud?
(watch at 1'10): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLu1yAeWNtw

Wow worst call ever. LTC in December 2013. LOL

[MadCow]

I repeat my thesis that the inflation should mimic gold, so that new currency could be created at a variable rate depending how much need there is, preserving both the first-mover advantage without which it has no chance to take off, and the late-mover fairness, without which it has no chance to fly.

AFAIK, only CKG has this emission formula. To implement it in a P2P distributed software, might require solving challenges.

variable emission depending on need=eMunie

which is just about to launch

[binaryFate]

eMunie

which is just about to launch

About to launch like since 2 years, or even more about to launch?

[arnuschky]

\
variable emission depending on need=eMunie

which is just about to launch

lol, emunie. Best running joke in crypto.

Longest running joke, I would say

[opennux]

So no economic reasoning whatsoever to the choice of approx 0.9% inflation?

There is plenty of economic reasons, first being to secure the network,[/b] without network no transactions, like rpietila said its close to what gold is now. 1% is bellow the long-run ideal inflation on a large scale economy (believed to be 2%). 1% runs of the risk of deflation with eventual lost coins it will become de-facto deflationary in the long run.

I didn't say tail emission was a bad idea. I agree with it. It just shouldn't be a "magic number" value. And Monero is NOT gold. Most everything about it is quite different than gold. There seems to be no logical reason to choose that value based on "that's how gold is".

It wasn't logical, it was indeed a magic number (at least 1% was; 0.3 coins/minute is derived from the 1%/year) chosen at the start more or less arbitrary manner based on subjective views of what was useful to do. If it turns out to be a disastrous choice with horrible consequences, then Monero will fail. This is an experiment.

Sure, we can just say "hey it is an experiment". But wouldn't it be nicer to have a logical economic reasoning with maybe not precisely predictable results, but at least an intelligently planned results? I already see interesting brain storming in the last few posts. Generally the less magic numbers, the better. Something for Monero Research Labs maybe...



EDIT: If I'm dragging this on in the wrong thread just ask and I'll happily move it elsewhere.

I think it is befitting to realise that "intelligently planned results" does not just happen, especially in such an inherently wishy-washy subject as economics. It's akin to hubris to believe we can "fix" it with the "perfect formula", because the world and the economy is such a dynamic place. There are too many variables inflicting upon that little special reward percentage for THAT to be the 'magic number'.

I can get behind the "let's experiment based on a finger in the air" approach as a 'better than' solution. Especially because no currency is eternal, and eventually something else and better comes along and Gresham's Law applies.

With a low percentage of 0.9% I do believe that coins lost will be larger than the emission.

[medusa13]

what is price doing? will 280 hold another time or time for some doom?
resistance still there, 30k on the books until 280 and who knows what else is hidden, lets see.
buy side very passive for now, just absorbing everything.

looks like bitcoin will crash one more time, some move out of alts and out of btc, a wise move?

[aminorex]

No worries. My monkey says BTC has strong support at 126usd.

[Hueristic]

So no economic reasoning whatsoever to the choice of approx 0.9% inflation?

There is plenty of economic reasons, first being to secure the network,[/b] without network no transactions, like rpietila said its close to what gold is now. 1% is bellow the long-run ideal inflation on a large scale economy (believed to be 2%). 1% runs of the risk of deflation with eventual lost coins it will become de-facto deflationary in the long run.

I didn't say tail emission was a bad idea. I agree with it. It just shouldn't be a "magic number" value. And Monero is NOT gold. Most everything about it is quite different than gold. There seems to be no logical reason to choose that value based on "that's how gold is".

It wasn't logical, it was indeed a magic number (at least 1% was; 0.3 coins/minute is derived from the 1%/year) chosen at the start more or less arbitrary manner based on subjective views of what was useful to do. If it turns out to be a disastrous choice with horrible consequences, then Monero will fail. This is an experiment.

I really like the way you don't sugar coat shit.

...
You mean he's busy pumping litecoin with the crappiest arguments you can find even in the deep bitcointalk mud?
(watch at 1'10): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLu1yAeWNtw

Well to be fair it was before ASIC's for Scrypt and the doggie explosion which really fueled the alt race. Which really was what killed LTC. Well that and the lack of Dev support.

[rpietila]

Obviously, CKG would be a comparison, but its infancy would likely not yield enough information.

I like it when a soon-1-year-old plays so bossy towards a more-than-1/2-year-old 

[rpietila]

variable emission depending on need=eMunie

which is just about to launch

How does it work (mods - again please allow 10 lines)?

[opennux]

variable emission depending on need=eMunie

which is just about to launch

How does it work (mods - again please allow 10 lines)?

It doesn't. So far just vapourware.

[rpietila]

variable emission depending on need=eMunie

which is just about to launch

How does it work (mods - again please allow 10 lines)?

It doesn't. So far just vapourware.

Let him explain

[MalMen]

variable emission depending on need=eMunie

which is just about to launch

How does it work (mods - again please allow 10 lines)?

It doesn't. So far just vapourware.

Let him explain

Im curious too