It’s not closed, they’re reachable on keybase, some even on telegram and they’re happy to hear about possible improvements.
I don’t like it because:
you lose coin-time relation, so grin is not a time coin anymore
it’s completely unfair to new participants
this change only makes sense if we want to empower existing holders
So why do you like it?
They do, coinswap is one of them, contracts another one etc.
Because not many people understand the tech and among those who do there are always 2 groups, one who’s right and one who’s wrong.
No, sadly the tech doesn’t always win, but it’s still early for grin.
You’re blaming people who have put countless hours in improving grin, why don’t you do the same?
Nobody acts like this. They act like they care about grin, the same way that btc core acts.
Wait for what? Someone’s investment to go up? Each person invests money wherever they want, protocol doesn’t (and shouldn’t) care about people’s investments.
And whose fault is this? Software’s? It’s not like grin has changed monetary policy or anything else really
It’s a currency which is currently probably not the greatest store of value due to high emission rate.
Please stop complaining on the forum about people’s investments. Everyone here would like to see the numbers go up, but damaging the protocol or its emission is not the right way to achieve that.
There’s no problem with the community. Show me a coin with similar price performance to Grin that has a stronger community. After a project launches Community participation is strongly correlated with price action. It’s the same narrative throughout all of cryptocurrency. It’s hard to gain any kind of adoption when price is trending down. Unless you create some kind of unique use case/ or reason for people to speculate. But as it stands right now, speculation trumps everything.
@GrinTurkey Grins uniqueness is its fair supply, minimalism, privacy preservation with better scaling and interactivity. Changing any of these attributes would weaken its use case and would betray investors. Consistency and predictabilty are very important for any cryptocurrency project. For example, changing to 1 Grin per minut would unfairly favor those who invested already while putting all future investors and those waiting patiently on the sideline for the right time to buy at a disadvantage. Have a for what makes Grin great and embrace its uniqueness. If the price action dominates your sentiment, I would advice to buy in gradually, do not live in the excitement or fear of daily price action knowing you invested in a project designed for the decades to come.
My problem is not Grin’s current price. Here, people share their opinions and make constructive criticism, but these people are always wrong. What kind of committee is this? Who waits for a project for 100 years? Why is 1 Grin not possible in 60 seconds? Why don’t we do something to reduce inflation? Why don’t we care about people’s opinions? Why didn’t any committee member say “Yes you are right” to the criticisms made? Was Igno not betrayed? Those who bought the Grin for $30 or $40 weren’t betrayed?
Can you give an example of constructive critisism that is not listened to?
Who says you have to wait for 100 year, wait for what? If you mean for price bottom, quite certain the bottom is foun in the first 5-10 years🙂.
From the start it was clear that Grins price would drop due to its supply. No one was betraid. Anyone who bought at that time had all the information needed to know the price would go down. We are all big boys and girls who can do our own research. Changing supply would betray investors, as I and others explained above. Being consistant is important for all crypto project, not just Grin. Anyone, committee or not will only say you are right when you make convincing arguments. I have seen little to no argumentation as for why any change is needed.
I guess the point here is that contributors come and go, but when price is down a coin is much less likely to attract attention and gain new contributors.
Because then Grin would no longer be immutable. We’d be no different to central bankers, changing monetary policy to suit the current narrative. Doubt this would actually help things anyway, aside from provide a short term pump. I think Grin needs something much cooler than “low inflation” to create any sustained demand from speculators.
I have yet to hear a proposal to change Grin emission that isn’t focused on “saving mah bags bro”. If you are ok with constant emission, then why is 1 Grin / min any different than 1Grin / sec? Economically they are not meaningfully different EXCEPT that making such a change post launch would only serve to pump the bags of early holders.
This project isn’t about pumping bags. Its about building a functional cash system. If you can make an argument based in economics why one emission schedule is better than the other, you’re likely to get a serious response. Though you still may not like the response.
You do realize its possible to care about someone’s opinion and still think they are wrong, right? The community at large thinks your opinion is wrong. Why is this so hard for you to accept?
I’m not talking about the very start. And about the present time. And if in a month the whale starts to move the price, then low liquidity will not allow everyone to buy enough coins.
You are absolutely right, a use case is needed. And since GRIN is anonymous, I see the only practical option - the black market. How BTC was once used for the well-known marketplace. (P.S. do not call for illegal actions)
Ironically Grin could potentially make improvements on dark market tx flow. Most users will send their physical shipping address( or any sensitive message) via PGP using 3rd party software, so they have to import the vendors public pgp key/ encrypt their physical address using the vendors keys/ sign as themselves/ copy the pgp output message to their clipboard, then send to the vendor( they’re basically sending slatepack messages already in a more cumbersome way) But then on top of that they need to separately send funds to the vendors stealth address( Monero is the preference over BTC now days). The vendor also has to import in the users public pgp key in order to decrypt any message
What would be cool is an open source dark market that natively supports a Grin tx flow. Ready for anyone to build what they want on top of it.
The way I see it, the use case for Grin is very simple, to be sound money/cash. Sound money has to be privacy preserving to protect users as well as to ensure fungibility
One can sell all kind of goods, there is no restriction on that. I think it would be a mistake to ‘market’ grin specifically as being used for criminal activity or ‘dark’ market places although it allows for such use cases as welly. Many currencies allow for uses for criminal activities, so do all fiat cash systems. Still no one talks about fiat cash as ‘dark’ or to be specifically intended for criminal activity. These fiat currencies like Grin, try to be sound money. But that is just my opinion, feel free to start a ‘dark’ market place
@Markozzz True indeed. If governments mess up with their introduction of government controlled digital cash by for example not providing enough privacy to users, that would mean they basically push citizens to better alternatives like Grin and adoption might be very fast since citizens get used to the idea of digital cash…
In case government controlled crypto currencies will be well designed with reasonable privacy, it could delay the adoption of Grin, Bitcoin (arguably more or store of value than digital cash) and other digital currencies that try to be digital cash.
I know for sure that if the state creates its own cryptocurrency/stablecoin or other cash substitute, they will be tracked with 100% probability. And if you look at the digital yuan and the social rating in China, then such digital currencies of states will be able to block an account at any time or prohibit citizens from making certain purchases. I think we are on the threshold of a grandiose digital concentration camp
Time will tell. Probably Chinas Central Bank DigitalCurrency (CBDC) will be used to excert control. I have a bit more fait that EU, Japan, Scandinavian countries and perhaps even the digital dolar will provide a reasonable privacy AML balance since if they don’t, they are doomed to fail and central banks know this is there last chance to extend the life of the current financial system. If they fock it up, it is game over and large parts of the population will switch to truly decentralised crypto ending the current financial system.
@Anynomous, fair point to say that a state’s money works in favour of that state (another discussion to have about that is if it’s to the detriment of that state’s people / or used to “exert control” as you say).
To counter your point (if no reasonable privacy/AML balance exists, people would refuse the proposed CBDC): perhaps you overestimate how much people (at the moment / seem to) care about their privacy…? If people knew-for-fact that what they think is private actually isn’t, then social media scene could transform overnight… A ‘direct message’ actually isn’t direct. You send it to (CentralisedSocialMediaPlatform as in a server owned by Facebook/WhatsApp, VK, Snapchat, etc) which sends (perhaps ‘relays’ could be a better word) it to me; vice versa: when I reply I send my message to (CentralisedSocialMediaPlatform) which sends (relays) it to you. Sure, there is encryption and whatever else they claim, but essentially we depend on trust (we accept the platform’s promise [or an auditor’s confirmation of such] regarding “no, even if we wanted to, we cannot read your messages”).
So we arrive to the classic phrase: don’t trust; verify (or some would say: trust, but verify)! Since we cannot verify their claims of privacy, we are left to decide: trust or not-trust. Which brings me back to my point: most people today trust (social media / so-called authority figures / etc), even blindly. History shows us that that can be dangerous.
I may be missing something here, so please do say if you know a way that would allow for us to communicate (provably-privately) via (CentralisedSocialMediaPlatform); other than using PGP…
Fair point. What the general mass considers a good balance between private and auditable is probably less private than I or you would find optimal. It is my nature to assume the best in people and in general I think the EU as well as others are not evil states and realize the importance of privacy. For example, there is a growing awareness of the importance of privacy for a) trustworthiness, b) protecting against manipulation by foreign states, c) protection against corporate spying. Hence, I do not trust blindly, I trust in the incentive for these states to find a reasonable balance.
Regarding Facebook, personally I use multiple internet identities and I simply do not share anything with big tech companies like Facebook that needs to be private. I am fan of alternatives to these platforms that are decentralized, use encryption or at least do not earn based on user data. I have not found a great alternative yet. I believe it would be interesting to use crypto wallets to manage digital identities and be at the root of better decentralized social media platforms.
for what makes Grin great and embrace its uniqueness. If the price action dominates your sentiment, I would advice to buy in gradually, do not live in the excitement or fear of daily price action knowing you invested in a project designed for the decades to come.
