I am a grin lover from China. I bought Grin at a relatively high price a few years ago. Although he made me lose a lot of money, it cannot resist my love for Grin. Closer to home, here are my suggestions, and also what I think is the main problem grin is facing right now.
One of the reasons why mainstream exchanges dare not list Grin is that Grin has network insecurity problems due to its computing power. It is recommended to strengthen network security problems and 51 attacks through algorithms. The output model of Pow+Pos should be able to solve the problem. this problem.
The fixed output is indeed the advantage of Grin, but the output is too high. It is recommended to set the total output to 210,000,000 and reduce the fixed number of output per block to 5 GRIN per block. Such an economic model It is helpful for the price of Grin. Although the price is not the reason for measuring the quality of a coin, it is definitely an important factor.
The above is my suggestion. Itâs time to make a change and complete the great idea of ââSatoshi Nakamotoâs perfect coin, maybe my suggestion is wrong, but please the community to discuss and advance the final version of Grin with the highest efficiency to discuss and vote quickly.
Grin already has the highest relative security among all coins, in terms of the ratio of block subsidy (security budget) relative to existing supply (secured value).
So youâre recommending to let the block subsidy go down toward 0, leaving Grin completely insecure in the longer term.
IMO hardforking in order to try raise the price is the stupidest thing a coin can do.
I sometimes wish Grin was named âonepersecondforevercoinâ instead, just to pre-empt these silly suggestions about removing the one unique feature that makes Grin stand out above all other coins, just because someoneâs investment didnât follow the ânumber-go-upâ trend so farâŚ
51% is currently a problem yes, hopefully with time (when yearly inflation gets lower) more miners come and secure the network. Iâm assuming the creators were aware of what linear emission brings and decided it was worth the risk. Also Pow+Pos alone wouldnât help, you would need to change the subsidy aswell.
That seems like an arbitrary number, the one which should have been set from the genesis if grin went with a different monetary policy. Iâm glad it didnât though, it seems like linear emission is a very fair one and since 99% of the coins are there to grab investors bags it creates a unique fairness that no other coin has (as far as iâm aware). It would help the price of grin, but it would ruin all the hard work that has been done and came as a consequence of deciding to have a linear emission. Price is an important factor for sure, but if we donât wait at least 20 years then i would say we havenât really given linear emission a fair chance (it still wouldnât make sense to switch imo, but it would be more telling).
So i believe 1grin/sec is great, itâs like mining time forever, each generation can mine time in their own lifetime while all the other coins will have to deal with problems that come when the subsidy reduces over time. Grin has a unique economic property that i donât think is worth throwing away to make grinâs life easier in the first X years. A fun fact is also that nobody can catch up with grinâs linear emission. If they start today they will always be #grincoins seconds behind us which is extremely important when emission is as âpunishable in the first few yearsâ as linear is
51% attack is only a risk if you donât wait appropriate confirmation times.
Most people wouldnât be depositing enough to justify high deposit times. If people were depositing such large amounts, then Grins market cap would surely be higher, and more miners would appear to secure the network and claim Grinâs juicy ~25% APY mining subsidy.
Exchanges are just greedy and lazy. If they thought they could make more money trading (and fractionally reserving) Grin, they would list it overnight. Exchanges take way more risk with other coins that have much lower miner subsidy, especially when they donât wait appropriate confirmation times.
thatâs true, but if the security is low then one might need to wait quite a bit for tx to confirm (assume high amount). Exchanges kind of have to have fixed low confirmation times because their competition has them, so they donât really have much of a choice imo. Userâs are not technical enough to understand why dynamic confirmations are the right way so they will use exchange which offers them best UX
The second half of my comment addressed that. If many people are trading such high volumes to require larger confirmation times, then by extension Grinâs market cap would be much higher. If Grinâs market cap is higher, then more miners will come to secure the network, because Grin pays a very nice miner subsidy.
And lastly⌠exchanges donât have to wait longer times. That was only my response to OPâs criticism that exchanges wont list Grin due to 51% risk. If an exchange would rather bare the risk of short confirmation times to be competitive other exchanges, they can and will as you rightly suggest (and indeed they do do this for many many coins).
But⌠this is not Grinâs problem. Grinâs incentives are designed well, to attract miners to secure the network while being usable as a cash system. The tradeoff between UX and confirmation time is a risk analysis game played by exchanges that we cannot control.
Certainly someone who invested in grin several years ago is envious. But if I remember correctly because I am one of those who have been following it for several years, it was never promoted as a cryptocurrency investment like other currencies. So I think there is also individual responsibility if someone invests a lot of money expecting to become a millionaire in a project that is de facto completely different from the rest.
What makes us different from the rest is opsfc +â
The great idea of Satoshi Nakamoto should be completed by bitcoin developers.
Ignotus Peverell greatest idea is here alive.
