[XMR] Monero Speculation

[Come-In-Behind]

I think it's been made pretty clear: A change to slow down emission(even if temporarily) is needed. Without it....... death. After really considering it, It's only been 6 months so it's not too late to change the emission, yes some people may view it negatively, but if Monero's intended goal is to become the leader of the Anonymity niche, then a reasonable emission is needed so investors dont see their holdings slowly fade away. In a year-few years, it probably wouldn't matter.

[1714150891]

1714150891

[nioc]

What is clear is that this emissions schedule is not the intended one once Monero was taken over by the current team but that is history now.  6 months may not be a long time yet 25% of coins have been mined.  The # of coins would seem to be a better metric but still I have no clue.

What is clear is that nobody knows what will happen no matter what is decided.

In regards to forking or sporking (I use that term because there seems to be uncertainty what a fork is), who would do it?

That question is in the context of what Monero currently is.  In my mind so much of what Monero is is the vision of the core team.  They are a large part of the reason I am involved with Monero.  Who would take over and what would that mean?  I support whatever the core team decides.

[eizh]

Clearly, the real victim here is QuazarCoin.

[smooth]

Clearly, the real victim here is QuazarCoin.

Coin mill hypothesis is accepted

[rpietila]

I think we all see the same problem that at current usability we are not able two reach new investors/user whatever - but the problem here is not the emission rate but the functionality at this point of time - if we had the choice of working functionality or changing emission what would you choose?

I am one of the very few fulltimers in Monero currently (the other whom I know working full-time is David Latapie). I have had time to examine that question, and it is phrased wrongly. We do not have to choose. We have to make all of them happen. Without each of usability (in the form of both DB implementation and a reliable webwallet), AND reasonable emission that is not burned out before the coin has a chance to hit mainstream, Monero's living is only in the hands of competitors doing even worse.

DB and wallet are coming, and people are putting real work on them. Emission has also been real work because of many opinions involved, but we are in the final decision steps now. If the MEW finds it in favor of emission cut, the core team can legitimately change it (they wanted to change it already in April but the vote was rigged, and afterwards the main reason not to is lacking legitimacy "it is too late, social contract, everyone will hate us"). If the MEW decides that change is not needed, then the matter is set in stone and normalcy restored.

The voting thread.

[Hunyadi]

First of all, I have to confess, I have not taken monero seriously...but now I do. I thought BCX was going to kill the coin, but she couldn't. I also thought monero was Risto's pump n' dump...perhaps it's not. 

Anonymity/privacy are very important values and will be more so in the future. Monero is one of the top anon coins, if not the best one. Dark Markets are currently under attack. Even thought, I don't use deepweb, I think monero should be also used there in the future (after gui/db/webwallet). OpenBazaar type darkmarket+monero would be difficult to stop. Also, monero+sidechains is quite intriguing possibility.

Good luck devs and MEW!

[dnaleor]

monero can by definition never be a premine.

it was here at day one with block one.

it was overly visible - we have at least 15 threads here, it is in the top 15 of coinmarketcap etc. pp.

bytecoin was a premine because it was not announced - they came here with 82% of mined coins.

even the always yesterdays at r/bitcoin were discussing monero as an implentation of sidechains....

But tell me, if Monero ever goes to mainstream, what will be the difference: Monero is not a premined but still like 80-90 % mined vs. Monero being 80-90 % mined due to premine?
Who wants to buy a coin that is almost mined? Even bitcoin has problems to find new buyers and therefore the price is declining month after month.

Ill just copy what I posted on the Monero forum:
To start, I want to say I'm still undecided over this matter.

On the one hand, I usually am opposed to changing a 'social contract' because it creates uncertainty. On the other had, Monero is clearly suffering from the current high inflation.

The question we need to ask ourselves is the following: Will Monero reach 'crypto mainstream' before a considerable amount of XMR is mined?

off course "crypto mainstream" and "considerable" are not objective terms, but this is how I see it: If 90% of the coins are mined before XMR is a top5 coin in market cap ranking, It would be a bad thing. If XMR would enter the top5 and only 40% of the coins are mined, I think the "fast emission" isn't a problem.

Why do I compare with the 'crypto mainstream' and not with 'global mainstream'? Bitcoin will be mined >90% in just a few years. A currency will be used by the public or it won't be used. The amount of coins left to be mined is NOT a decisive factor. The EUR and USD are constantly being instamined at will by a board of some rich folks. The people want a currency to be more fair? Well, they don't want to be bothered with mining, as long as the network is strong. Mining supports the network, emission of coins is a SECUNDARY factor in this. It's just the incentive to support the network.

So let's take a step back: in a few years, XMR will be mined >90%. If that is a serious problem (I don't think it will be, see above) then it will become worthless. But also BTC will go down the same road. So if people are advocating to change the emission because the emission is going to fast at the moment, you need to be aware that you are also advocating a slower emission for BTC. Unless you agree that the only reason for the emission change is the question I described at the start: "Will Monero reach 'crypto mainstream' before a considerable amount of XMR is mined?" If the answer is NO, then MAYBE an emission change is sensible.

If an emssion change IS sensible, I would like to say that the block reward change needs to be done slowly, to give miners the possibility to adapt to the situation. I proposed on #Monero-MEW the following: Change the block time with 1 second a day until we reach 2.5 minutes per block. Don't change block rewards. Also announce the change at least 10 days beforehand.

About tail emission: I'm not against a perpetual minimum block reward. A possible implementation of this was announced right from the start. 0.1 XMR seems OK.

edit: I think the current uncertainity around emission is also a factor in the current downtrend in BTC/XMR. Any decision will be positive at this point. It takes away the uncertainity.

[thelibertycap]

I have a few remarks on the case of emission change

monero is not a young coin anymore and due to its emission rate a high percentage of coins has been produced. this all happened with console based x64 wallet and poor website. remember months ago when the devs were claiming the website is being worked on, no help needed? i understand that it might be wise to wait for a proper wallet first and fine tune things before going mainstream.
the question is, have we all been well aware how long this will take and that when all things are finally ready and an actual website&wallet for common people is released, there will be already so many coins mined? the emission rate was clearly set for this project gaining adoption fast. it has not happened.

next, consider all the anonymous coins out there, zerocash release date getting close - will a new website&gui suddenly save us all and masses will start discovering monero? a wishful thinking. look at the police raids on dark markets, open bazaar is the next hope of black markets. will monero be ready? with no target release of the new gui, we are way behind the schedule to gain any meaningful traction on these markets. if open bazaar is going to stay and is truly a technology that will not be shut down, all the current meaningful anonymous cryptocoins (not to mention dark wallet) will be established as the way to use the this market with.

it is time to wake up from the dream of monero becoming the second to bitcoin only. that was the early mindset, remember? thus, it is maybe time to get realistic about the emission rate as well.

talking about breaking the social contract and pointing at how it is not fair to break it after so many months - when i see this small group of repeating nicknames talking on the forum, it really doesn't seem like an old coin anymore. yeah, monero is old but only with age, not really mature at all.

the second thing i would like to ask about is who will be securing the network after all the coins have been meaningfully mined? are we still so optimistic that monero will be so mainstream that people will accept high fees just to do a transaction because... monero is so superior?

[rpietila]

Perhaps Monero was a pump & dump after all. The miners rigged the original vote about reasonable emission curve in their hopes of making money with optimized (non-deoptimized) mining software. It worked. The promise of finally having something fresh in the altcoin scene, with fair launch and compelling new tech was so good.

I think the only people who have understandable grounds in opposing the emission cut are the only ones who benefit from the current situation - the privileged miners, ones who should not even exist, according to my understanding from the others who are deeply involved. If I have been wrong and such people do exist, their short-term interest is to have as high emission as possible (same as in April when they foiled the vote the last time). Long term (a few months probably), the coin is mortally wounded, but to them it does not matter.

A common tactic in high-profile voting is to demonize the ones who lean on the opposite side. But that's what I am going to do anyway 

If you reject the proposal of the emission cut, the hardest part for me is that I am not sure if you even have Monero's good in mind.

Hey, how about we change this discussion to the Monero Forum! It is a better software than this!

[canth]

Perhaps Monero was a pump & dump after all. The miners rigged the original vote about reasonable emission curve in their hopes of making money with optimized (non-deoptimized) mining software. It worked. The promise of finally having something fresh in the altcoin scene, with fair launch and compelling new tech was so good.

I think the only people who have understandable grounds in opposing the emission cut are the only ones who benefit from the current situation - the privileged miners, ones who should not even exist, according to my understanding from the others who are deeply involved. If I have been wrong and such people do exist, their short-term interest is to have as high emission as possible (same as in April when they foiled the vote the last time). Long term (a few months probably), the coin is mortally wounded, but to them it does not matter.

A common tactic in high-profile voting is to demonize the ones who lean on the opposite side. But that's what I am going to do anyway 

If you reject the proposal of the emission cut, the hardest part for me is that I am not sure if you even have Monero's good in mind.

Hey, how about we change this discussion to the Monero Forum! It is a better software than this!

Is it realistic to think that we're going to get enough involvement on a separate forum? I for one would prefer to keep the discussion here, because while I am a Monero holder and supporter, I'm not really ready to track a separate forum.

[nakaone]

I somewhat now see some arguments for changing the emission - best would be if could change the emission and adapt the current amount of coins accordingly, but I think this is really impossible.

maybe I am wrong and the social contract is less important than the fixing - I am really really unsure about this.

[BitmoreCoin]

I somewhat now see some arguments for changing the emission - best would be if could change the emission and adapt the current amount of coins accordingly, but I think this is really impossible.

maybe I am wrong and the social contract is less important than the fixing - I am really really unsure about this.

We may need a new CN coin to implement the thoughts here.

[dEBRUYNE]

I somewhat now see some arguments for changing the emission - best would be if could change the emission and adapt the current amount of coins accordingly, but I think this is really impossible.

maybe I am wrong and the social contract is less important than the fixing - I am really really unsure about this.

You can just slow down the block time and you will lower the daily inflation, but keep the same amount of coins. Why do you think this is impossible? Btw, I think that changing the total amount of coins will be perceived more negative than slowing down the emission..

[rangedriver]

IMHO, given that Monero is still in its infancy I don't see a problem with changing the variables at this early stage providing that the changes made are permanent, well thought through, have the general consensus of the userbase, and will provide stability and security to the coin now and for the future.

[nakaone]

I somewhat now see some arguments for changing the emission - best would be if could change the emission and adapt the current amount of coins accordingly, but I think this is really impossible.

maybe I am wrong and the social contract is less important than the fixing - I am really really unsure about this.

You can just slow down the block time and you will lower the daily inflation, but keep the same amount of coins. Why do you think this is impossible? Btw, I think that changing the total amount of coins will be perceived more negative than slowing down the emission..

because the generation of users bought until now is better off for a long period of time - maybe I overestimate the effect here but it will be critizised.

the only thing we do not need is a fork, we have enough cryptonotes, and let us be fair here the only one existent and having a chance is monero. these projects here are driven by the size as well as the quality of the community - maybe I am completely biased but the quality of the monero community is by far the one with the highest quality of user base - a lot of people who never touched altcoins before joined this project.

let us be clear here what happens when monero is forked - it will be attacked by a) the existing monero community b) the other cryptonotes c) darkcoin d) shills.

this is a one shot possibility here with monero.

[rangedriver]

let us be clear here what happens when monero is forked - it will be attacked by a) the existing monero community b) the other cryptonotes c) darkcoin d) shills.

They are going to attack us anyway.

We fought off numerous technical and psychological attacks and won. More power to us.

The real question is: Can we justify our actions?

[TrueCryptonaire]

I somewhat now see some arguments for changing the emission - best would be if could change the emission and adapt the current amount of coins accordingly, but I think this is really impossible.

maybe I am wrong and the social contract is less important than the fixing - I am really really unsure about this.

You can just slow down the block time and you will lower the daily inflation, but keep the same amount of coins. Why do you think this is impossible? Btw, I think that changing the total amount of coins will be perceived more negative than slowing down the emission..

let us be clear here what happens when monero is forked - it will be attacked by a) the existing monero community b) the other cryptonotes c) darkcoin d) shills.

this is a one shot possibility here with monero.

Hello,

The part of Monero community who will attack will not have Monero's best interest since they are not willing to fix the bugs (emission issue making the coin looking scammish with very fast mine).

Other cryptonotes/other coins are going to attack depending on if Monero will make it or not. If Monero will be just another coin, they will not attack, but when Monero starts rising, they will be attacking for sure.

Shills are out there always.

The developing of coin and fixing serious errors should not be done by asking the permission of the opponent.
Similar situation like in warfare - you do not ask permission from your enemy: "Can I defend my life?"
Monero is now in similar situation.

[nakaone]

let us be clear here what happens when monero is forked - it will be attacked by a) the existing monero community b) the other cryptonotes c) darkcoin d) shills.

They are going to attack us anyway.

We fought off numerous technical and psychological attacks and won. More power to us.

The real question is: Can we justify our actions?

ok lets say it differently, we do not need a split in our community.

I was always against changing the emission rate, but the argument that new user are worse off is only half true - I estimate that 90% of the users bought them at higher prices, when we change we should do it as fast as possible.

I probably changed my mind regarding this issue.

[TrueCryptonaire]

let us be clear here what happens when monero is forked - it will be attacked by a) the existing monero community b) the other cryptonotes c) darkcoin d) shills.

They are going to attack us anyway.

We fought off numerous technical and psychological attacks and won. More power to us.

The real question is: Can we justify our actions?

Justifying is easy:
Now Monero is mined by relatively small community which is unfair towards later adaptors.

[thelibertycap]

there is an interesting document you might have stumbled upon http://cryptome.org/2014/05/bitcoin-suicide.pdf
(perhaps start reading from chapter 10 to see my point)

the document talks about decreasing hashrate and increasing possibility of doublespend attacks due to price of the coin (=adoption) not being able to catch up with lower mining rewards.
if the adoption is not correct with regard to the emission rate and the coin is deflationary, the miners will abandon the coin thus making it weak.

monero's deflationary characteristic (~18M coins in short time) might cause miners gradualy to abandon the ship when the reward starts to get low (happening soon with current emission) and not enough adoption takes place.
Monero hashrate is trending lower for almost 3 months now and we are still in the inflationary stage!! What will happen in a year or two? Is the adoption going to be so big in a year to drive the price up even when there are so many coins mined already and compensate miners for low reward?

Can somebody comment on this and ease my worries?

I think slowing down the emission now but keeping the target 18M+small inflation could prevent such problems in the not so distant future of too little inflation too soon.