I can objectively say that malicious miners do exist. Malicious miners are miners who will try to hurt the long term value of a coin–bonus if they can profit off of it. I would say that a malicious miner in this case would simply be one will mine and dump while trying to maximize the inflation rate whenever they can.
Having an issuance model that is hard to change is a good thing. That doesn’t mean it can never be changed. I’m not sure why those two concepts are being conflated.
If I told you I’m going to attack this coin any way I can, you need to be thinking how your system prevents that. It really sounds like it would be easier. I think you can only learn the hard way at this point.
I think what you mean is that it may not be inflationary enough, as it tends to 0% inflation.
Still, it stands out among all current cryptocurrencies as the most inflationary one.
Allowing miners to change emission rate would lose this guarantee, as they can turn it into a finite supply by halving the emission every few years. I’m as opposed to that as to seeing emission double every few years.
I want Grin to neither have a finite supply, not have more inflation than fiat. Linear emission is the simplest way to guarantee that, and I’m happy to see Grin being the first coin to adopt it.
…tends to 0% inflation, whilst expected loss rate of coins will probably remain fairly constant. At some point there’s an intersection where loss of coins > new coins issued and thus there’s active monetary supply deflation. Or am I seeing this wrong?
Sure, this won’t happen any time soon, it’s more like 30 years into the future, and so perhaps it’s no issue kicking the can down the road. Personally I prefer sth that would work just as well in 30 years from now as it would work in 3 months from now.
That being said, there is definitely something really nice to be said about the elegance and simplicity of 1 grin/sec.
Yes, that’s a real risk. On the other hand, a hard floor for emission rate could be set that’s >0% and that risk is then eliminated, is it not?
To be clear, I’m quite happy for Grin to adopt it as well. Yet I do think that the arguments raised here merits discussion. I honestly don’t see what the problem of a high rate of increase of the coin supply is, as long as it’s benefiting the economy that uses the coin and discourages money being kept under the mattresses. Inflation is neutral, it’s a tool, its use being context dependent.
Update: this proposal was discussed at the last governance meeting, where it was preferred to stick with the existing 1 grin / sec emission rate as planned.
A suggestion was made for OP to pitch this idea to the Ethereum Research Lab for further studies of the mechanism design and game theoretic aspects, and see if some of the arguments can be proved to hold.
At some point the two will more or less balance (losses will fluctuate from year to year) and then the non-lost supply more or less stabilizes, getting neither deflated not inflated.