It’s a planned upgrade for year 2500.
13 Likes
Alright, well… I asked Dumbledore about deep sleep spells, he said they work however not for that long without taking a life… you see, the only alternative is to become immortal. He’s got word voldemort has one horcrux in gruelgoats storage depository and another safely hidden by the wizarding life insurance corporation, on a good note TWLIC is now offering the old fashioned method of cryostasis and we should be able to purchase with in the next few months once gringots opens, let’s get this ball rolling! I won’t be happy until all you devs are locked away in cryostatis.
I personally I have always preferred the idea of a static reward to other alternatives but that is a very fringe position. I am very surprised to find it here in a project I am already so interested in. So much about this project continually reaffirms how smart I think you guys are.
However I would suggest that it may be worth considering the optics. People gripe about the pitiful tail emission in Monero. It’s ridiculous. If you do this there will be fork after fork after fork proposing to “fix” the inflation “problem” of grin. To be the “Austrian economics compliant version of grin”. And there will be troglodytes out there who refuse to use grin for this reason. If their marketing and sophistry is good enough they may even manage to leverage it into a more capitalized block-chain than grin that routinely pillages your hard work instead of doing any of its own development.
Just something to think about.
6 Likes
Gringots is gringots, it’s got the marketing down. Personally I’m happy with what has been proposed, it’s clearly been well thought about and yes Monero curve and block rewards specifically look awful. Grin is better than that. I feel what is important is the technological advancement. Being open source, the best one will always win.
troglodytes
sophistry
Alternatively you could respond to the arguments
Should I argue about the true cause of the civil war while I’m at it? I didn’t mention that either. The point of my post was to bring attention to the idea that some people would respond very negatively to a static emission rate. It is my belief that this negative attitude would be unfounded, but if it weren’t unfounded, if they weren’t troglodytes but in fact the enlightened ones, that would only serve to make my point stronger.
1 Like
I for one don’t believe in Gresham’s law… it’s subjective, the understand of the scene of bad money drives out good money.
I think of it as a hot potato. If you get money that is a hot potato, you will pass it on if you have the opportunity, because it burns your hands.
From this perspective, bad money getting passed on around faster and faster could indicate a process of “un-moneyness”, a money that’s turning into a non-money.
Yes, at any given instant the quantity will be finite.
I plotted a fixed emission rate f, the integration of that emission g (total units in circulation), and also the proportion of f over g, which is the inflation rate.
The plot is in log scale for both axis.
(the actual zero on y axis is, vertically, in minus infinite)
For pratical purposes, the green line will eventually move horizontally, when the inflation rate basically reaches zero. So the difference to bitcoin is the “focus” of the inflation. Bitcoin brings it closer to the start, and Grin spreads it to a very long period.
Thought I should drop this here as well:
1 Like
I have no idea where i got this but might be relevant somehow 
1 Like
Has consideration been given to more mature projects like Monero having tried 60 second blocks and reducing them to 120 seconds for security?
“Perhaps the strongest reason to make this change is to guard against an increase in popularity (and the size of the network) causing the chain to become unstable. This has been seen on Bitcoin forks with 30 second blocks, where long chain (10 blocks or more) reorgs become extremely common and the network may fail to converge at all for long periods of time (or in theory permanently). Similar effects are seen to a lesser extent on BTC forks with 60 second blocks, and CryptoNote is somewhat more sensitive to the effects of reorgs, so staying at 60 seconds puts us in (or at best close to) a potential danger zone. The coins with the fastest block times that don’t seem to commonly run into this trouble are the LTC-style 2.5 minute blocks.”
Yes, consideration was given But considerations can differ with time and circumstance. More specifically:
- Over 2 years have passed since that change, we have likely another 2 years before having larger blocks could become an issue. Several studies have shown that worldwide bandwidth capacity has increased significantly in the past few years.
- We’re starting with compact blocks and compact rage proofs right away, so our blocks should be significantly smaller (and faster to propagate) than full Monero blocks with ring-CT.
2 Likes
We’re starting with compact blocks and compact rage proofs right away, so our blocks should be significantly smaller (and faster to propagate) than full Monero blocks with ring-CT.
I don’t think aiming low and thinking its only going to reach xmr level of use is the right call. If future proofing is on the table, doing it before it becomes an ugly debate would probably be wise.
Neither points are at odds with future proofing.
Well I’m not an economist and will never be but I just don’t see any advantage.
As far as I understand Monero overal deflation lasts less than 10 years, then inflation starts taking place.
During these deflation years it (XMR) gains value and attention of people.
Afterwards it goes the same way as Grin is currently supposed to go from the beginning.
Therefore the question: why and how these years of deflation might be harmful for Grin?
1 Like
I think you might have your terms backwards. Monero has a decreasing supply emission (deflationary) starting with big emission (inflationary) and ending with.0.3xmr (?) per block.
Grin looks as though it will move linearly towards deflation, with no huge emission (inflationary) to begin with. The big difference between Grins potential emission and other coins is the length of time before the currency inflation rate dips anywhere near 5% or less is many years.
You are absolutely right, and it’s roughly the same I was trying to reflect in my message.
The big difference between Grins potential emission and other coins
And that’s the thing I’m trying to understand. There are coins emission of which is supposed to end one day (like Bitcoin) and coins with endless emission.
I’m totally fine with endless emission of Grin (and Monero).
I’m just curious why the reward decrease during nearest relatively short period of time could do any harm.
I’m not saying that “linear” emission won’t work! By and large it doesn’t matter, but:
It might kinda make sense to reward first adherents of Grin stronger.
It’s a mere psychology - people love to feel powerful. People want to remain powerful so they do their best to support their power. So it’s just about catching attention.
However, rewarding first adherents of Grin stronger may seem sort of unfair towards miners who will join later. But again, in the end it won’t matter. Is that “unfairness” one of the reason of such a decision (to make emission linear)?
Early miners are rewarded with lower mining-difficulty.
3 Likes
Miners usually mine whats most profitable and can switch in hours.
It’s the investors that make the value of the coin and bear the risks of a loss.