interesting idea. I’ve got a few comments regarding each point:
-
‘Electronic transactions for all’ is not a mission statement, it’s just a nice slogan. Grin itself has no mission and no statement, it’s a tool for individuals to use.
I believe that sentence was first used here.
If somebody has a mission for grin, it’s nothing but his own mission. -
Side note: A common problem among bitcoin users is that of sending bitcoin back to a 'from address’. For example, Alice sends 1btc to Bob, and a week later Bob wants to return 0.5btc back to Alice. He might look at their past tx and just send it to the address he got it from. Intuitively, it makes sense. Practically, however, that could potentially be a very bad move, explained in detail here.
Point is, the term ‘non-existing address’ which you used, is not always appropriate. An address may technically exist but is no longer under Alice’s control, for many possible reasons. -
That’s a bold statement to make. First of all, I wouldn’t say that a light node also means grin is ‘most secure’. Security encompasses many other things beyond being able to fully validate with minimal resources.
Besides, is anybody even running a mobile node?
Instead, I would say something along the lines of ‘cheap to validate’. -
I need to think a bit more about this one.
-
The tx fees are low because there is no shortage of block space (not even close). It doesn’t have anything to do with the block reward. What the never-ending block reward does achieve, is that long term, Grin’s security spend is going to be much larger:
Constant emission -> Higher reward from blocks -> Miners spend more capital on equipment and electricity -> Higher cost of attaining a large hashrate of the network and attacking the network.
Most PoW currencies will be shockingly easy and tempting to attack in a few years, especially in times when demand for block space isn’t high thus fees are low.
This is a nice overview of the subject in regards to Bitcoin. -
I would re-word this one to be clear that constant emission has two main benefits: 1) Fair supply, as you say. Grin doesn’t favor early developers and users with exponentially higher emission. Late comers have a fair opportunity to join and are not turned off. 2) Long term security for the chain (as explained above).
-
I’d add that a centralized development team is a huge attack vector, especially for privacy-focused currencies. To survive for years, it’s essential for the project to be 100% community based, as it is right now.
Cool initiative @Anynomous, well done. I really encourage you to open some kind of shared folder to collect “marketing” content. It doesn’t have to be (and shouldn’t be) in the actual grin docs, but as a private side project that allows anybody to contribute or make use of.