Use Grin Coin as a reserve for more Advanced Fair Tokens

[minexpert]

@vegycslol

Exactly, you’ve spoiled the issue for him

Yes yes. Exactly…

What Tromp said is mathematically completely wrong. Constant block reward does not do fairness. He advocates it. He can’t give any mathematical equations to prove it anyway.

My proposition is absolutely correct. Only constant inflation can do Full fairness.

Is this easy to do? Not, however, it can be done if an equation is set up that is constantly burning and increasing with respect to the amount held. It’s not impossible.

Satoshi couldn’t. Ignotus too but one day someone will.

[ardocrat]

@minexpert

Inflationary currencies have less demand

Grin’s emission is disinflationary, only first years are hard for market as there is no demand and everything is in development

As mine expert you can get idea: block reward is about mining process, it remains fair now and after 10 years, as it stays the same

So in the end of the day, only this rule matters: does not matter what % of inflation we have, if there is no demand.

[minexpert]

@ardocrat

Thats absolutely not fair, with your example miners are getting more and more coins, so who will come later, will get more

Gold inflation is not decreasing and the amount of gold are increasing more day by day. Firstly, check precious metals mining graphs.

Full fairness is constant inflation. It’s still not done as they couldn’t do this easily mathematically. Not because it’s not fair.

[ardocrat]

@minexpert

the amount of gold are increasing day by day

So Grin is more fair than gold then.

[oryhp]

@minexpert

However, this does not mean that I am advocating the policy that created these difficult times.

Good, it makes very little sense to have another currency synced with time.

@tromp

If you target 1% yearly inflation and want to end up with about 2.7 billion grin after an entire century, then you’d have to set the genesis reward at 1 billion grin; a huge premine.

Makes me wonder if one could model it such that after 100 years, it starts burning 1 second from total supply for each second passed. This means that it keeps 100 year of coins as a supply forever. The number 100 is pretty arbitrary and much less elegant than just counting seconds though…

[vegycslol]

Whose coins would it burn though?

[pengliangfui]

我觉得grin缺少的是共识机制,信用机制。而不是通胀不通胀的事情，你看eth也是1亿多代币，他为什么能突破两千多美金，为什么grin一直徘徊在0.03美金，这是值得考虑的事情，也应该反思的问题

[oryhp]

It’s theoretical. You’d need to see the amounts and subtract based a certain value on height at which the output was created. Never mind this though, it’s an orthogonal idea.

[vegycslol]

I’m guessing you can’t do that because you can’t know if utxo - epsilon > 0 (well theoretically you could to some point, but it’s annoying). So one could create a bunch of utxos with minimal amount to reduce the actual burning.

[tromp]

@minexpert

What Tromp said is mathematically completely wrong. Constant block reward does not do fairness. He advocates it. He can’t give any mathematical equations to prove it anyway.

You fail to understand the obvious. Little can be proven until fairness is mathematically defined. Which so far it hasn’t.

But instead of defining fairness exactly, let’s try to define some properties it should have. We can agree that a fair emission should not induce a large wealth inequality. That rules out large premines.
We can also agree that it should not induce large generational wealth gaps either. Let’s formalize the latter property.

DEFINITION:
An emission is generationally fair if-and-only-if no generation obtains more than twice as much of the supply as the next generation.

Note that the factor of 2 easily exceeds one generation of a yearly 2% inflation, making the issue of inflation moot.

Then out of ALL tens of thousands of existing cryptocurrencies, I know of only two which are generationally fair: Grin and Dogecoin. The latter just barely qualifying with its 1.95x gap (see my other post on wealth inequality).

@minexpert

My proposition is absolutely correct. Only constant inflation can do Full fairness.

You demand mathematical proof of the fairness of linear emission yet you claim fairness of an emission that requires a huge premine.

@minexpert

Is this easy to do? Not, however, it can be done if an equation is set up that is constantly burning and increasing with respect to the amount held. It’s not impossible.

How about you come back to the discussion when you can actually define an emission that you can argue is more fair than Grin’s trivally defined one.

[minexpert]

Here’s the point you all missed. Nobody wanted to built the Grin to experience amazing price drop first 5 years. Also, just because Grin is about the future doesn’t mean it should go down in the short term. There is a big problem in Grin’s monetary policy that does not appear in theory but emerges in practice. Igno missed this point.
He evaluated the difference between Bitcoin and Grin as 33% in the first 8 years. However, you get a share of x/21 million in Bitcoin. In Grin x/∞ . Unlimited supply combined with this situation, the price burned and the project suffered serious damage. There is currently 1 developer and he left before also. It lists on a 1 normal exchange. What will you do if Gate delist? What will you do if Ipollo get back support? One mistake brought the project down to the line between life and death but you guys still showing out the old words of Ignotus here.

If you guys accept mistake, it will be better. If Igno didn’t see bugs in the crypto ecosystem and didn’t want to build Grin, there wouldn’t be Grin right now. Now, if you don’t see Grin’s mistakes, you’ll never be able to move forward.

From the beginning, I’ve only been telling the truth. I’m talking about mathematical data. Contrasting ideas don’t have any proof yet. Just theories. expectations, unfulfilled dreams. All of you are clinging to opposing thoughts to find hope.

Support unlimited supply, tail emission, fairness, long-term distribution of supply but don’t support anymore constant emission from start to finish. It doesn’t have any ADVANTAGE. It is never connected with justice either, because inflation is different at every point.

@tromp

How about you come back to the discussion when you can actually define an emission that you can argue is more fair than Grin’s trivally defined one.

Tromp, forget me, just try alone for understand highly.

Initially, design reducing block rewards for decrease hyper inflation. After, reduce speed of block rewards decrease as inflation decreases. When inflation reach an ideal point, lets say it’s 7%, start to increase the block rewards for fixing inflation at 7% till forever. Isn’t it fairer, longer term, in a way that doesn’t end development in the short run? The price will be more stable as inflation will fall faster and stabilize sooner. Also, it can’t make rich early adopters because there is an unlimited supply and also high inflation till fixed. After constant inflation level, everyone will be equal forever. From then on, only the supply-demand balance determines the price.

So how is it in Grin? Hyperinflation in the first 2 years. Next, above-normal inflation. Less inflation after 10 years. Dangerous inflation 50 years later.Continuously variable, unstable structure. You have capacity to understand what i tell you. Support Grin for another things but see bugs in constant emission distribution. Better and fairer of this can be designed fastly.

[oryhp]

@minexpert

Nobody wanted to built the Grin to experience amazing price drop first 5 years.

And yet, the decision for the inevitable price to drop, although not encoding a specific price target, was made in the very first commit.

@minexpert

There is a big problem in Grin’s monetary policy that does not appear in theory but emerges in practice. Igno missed this point.
He evaluated the difference between Bitcoin and Grin as 33% in the first 8 years. However, you get a share of x/21 million in Bitcoin. In Grin x/∞ .

I don’t think this would be news to anyone, even before launch. He may have missed some points, but he most certainly didn’t miss this one.

@minexpert

There is currently 1 developer and he left before also. It lists on a 1 normal exchange.

C’est la vie. We welcome new man power with open arms and any exchange is still free to list Grin.

@minexpert

If you guys accept mistake, it will be better.

I think you’re approaching this project with a startup mentality when it’s not of such type. It’s an experiment. It’s going to take quite a few more years before any conclusion can be made. Not working out is one of the possible outcomes, but saying “accept mistake, it will be better” makes absolutely no sense in this context.

@minexpert

Contrasting ideas don’t have any proof yet. Just theories. expectations, unfulfilled dreams.

Nothing in the crypto space has a proof. Even Bitcoin is still an ongoing experiment that could crash and burn for many reasons and any competent developer, including people on Core, would likely confirm this.

@minexpert

All of you are clinging to opposing thoughts to find hope.

Open source contributions are about picking a project you like. I’d be wasting my time if I listened to strangers on the internet telling me to contribute to Kaspa because they like it and think it has a future. Choose the project you want to contribute to and be a part of its community… in a productive way.

[AceKaplin]

@oryhp

I think you’re approaching this project with a startup mentality when it’s not of such type

Exactly. What’s more, @minexpert if you want to change emission, you can. The code is open source. You can change it to do whatever you like, and start your own MineExpertCoin with your preferred flavor of economics.

[ardocrat]

@minexpert I have bad idea for you =)
Fork Grin at block number X and start fixed emission rate 15% as you want (~21 mln coins at first year).

[Doogevol]

I had the Idea ago, to fork grin, to keep inflation at around 1%. I will start announcing it at least two generations before the fork happens, so people have time to prepare.

[minexpert]

@oryhp

And yet, the decision for the inevitable price to drop, although not encoding a specific price target, was made in the very first commit .

Was it also stated that it will decrease to $5 million in 5 years? What are you still trying talking about? Nothing you said happened. You are imposing wrong ideas on people here.

You are someone who claims that a crypto currency that has been delisted all market in 5 years and only one developer will be unique because of this feature. I’m laughing while reading this, people here believe it.

This is the maximum answer beleiver can give.

@AceKaplin

start your own MineExpertCoin

@ardocrat

Fork Grin at block number X and start fixed emission rate 15% as you want

[tromp]

@minexpert

So how is it in Grin? Hyperinflation in the first 2 years.

[minexpert]

With the constancy of the block reward, they argue that it is fair, and they deceive you. There are extremely low informed people here to believe. I see a new one every day in the comments. OC never admits mistakes but Grin’s monetary policy is unfair.

Putting you in an unbelievable inflation and unlimited supply, no one can recommend getting Grin to protect the network. If no one gets Grin, the network can’t work. Then how you create fair crypto? There is no mathematical incentive in the early years, there is just a system where you will melt your money nicely in the Grin network. Also, defending the fall in the first years because Grin is for the future is the best example of ignorance.

Bitcoin is not like that because you get everytime x/21 million. In Grin x/∞. IGNO claimed Bitcoin&Grin difference is just 33 in 8 years%. Hell no.

OC or anyone cannot produce any solution other than producing words here. Here is a more stable and fairer Model.

Start the block reward at 300. Reduce by 20 for the first 6 months and by 10 for the next 6 months block rewards. In the second year, reduce block rewards by 5. After 2 years, you continue to give fixed at 60 block rewards because inflation will come to ideal point. After 20 years, when inflation reaches 4%, you can increase the block rewards and keep the inflation at 4%.

No one can argue that this is not fair, not for longer-term and will have more volatile. Also, no one can claim that this system will enrich the early participants.

Grin’s monetary policy is far from perfect and fairness. It’s just the simplest and also most weak monetary policy. It has incredible volatile inflation. It sinks first comers. There is no protection mechanism to prevent it from dying in the long run. Here one cannot mathematically prove that Grin will not die after 2069. No one. But it was not for future? Instead of sighing that the project is melting day by day, that the fall will end here, find a solution.

[ardocrat]

@minexpert

Start the block reward at 300.

Share a link when your fork will be ready

[oryhp]

@minexpert

they argue that it is fair, and they deceive you.

How can one possibly get deceived when anyone in the world can estimate what the supply will be after 10 days or 10 years? It can’t get any easier than counting seconds.

@minexpert

Putting you in an unbelievable inflation and unlimited supply,

There is no “putting you”. The network runs and anyone is free to either become a part of it or not. No one is magically thrown in the Grin world, they have to opt-in.

@minexpert

Bitcoin is not like that because you get everytime x/21 million. In Grin x/∞. IGNO claimed Bitcoin&Grin difference is just 33 in 8 years%. Hell no.

It’s quite an entertaining thought to think Ignotus was able to code this thing without understanding elementary level mathematics.

@minexpert

OC or anyone cannot produce any solution other than producing words here. Here is a more stable and fairer Model. No one can argue that this is not fair…

The problem with your model is that there’s nothing really new there. We already have a model that reduces the supply over time with a certain speed and is consistent at it, it’s Bitcoin. We already have a model that starts with a faster initial emission and later transitions to a long tail model, it’s Monero. We also have a model whose supply mimics real life seconds, and that’s Grin.

@minexpert

Here one cannot mathematically prove that Grin will not die after 2069.

Not just here, you can’t prove this for any project.

@minexpert

find a solution.

Given that we’re all “extremely low informed people” and you seem to be the brains here, please take the time to describe a solution and what exactly should be done.