Should we accelerate token emission? Tail emission?

My opinion is basically this. Why kick the can down the road if it can be fixed now. I’ll add more detail in the next day or two, there is kind of a lot to unpack.

Do not be mad.
I’m not saying you’re wrong: you’re right.
But I think everyone understood and there was no confusion.

No one knows if Bitcoin will ever have an emission problem.
You can believe it, but it’s still a belief.
At the moment, Bitcoin is 13 years old and has no problem on this point. In practice, there are not even any signs to suggest that this problem will ever occur.
This problem is only theoretical.

It does not take into account, for example, the increase in level two layers: the opening and closing of LN channels will accommodate fees much higher than the purchase of a soda at the bar (this soda will have its transaction encapsulated onL LN). Who knows how FIRO will evolve in 50 years?

In practice, fees have already accounted for 43% of Bitcoin’s reward block (early 2018 Bitcoin fees). I could also quote the fees on ETH…

Both of these arguments lead me to believe that a blockchain can very well be secured with only fees (probably even more FIRO if security remains mainly provided by masternodes ans not PoW).

But, like you, it’s an opinion, not a fact.
What is a fact is that for the moment there is no problem andif it appears, will appear only in a very long time. Let’s leave this point to the people who will manage the project at that time: no need to take risks solving today problems that may never exist.

2 Likes

A long term failed project, to question a long term successful project Bitcoin , to question a fake question that is not yet happen. Don’t those institutional investors of Bitcoin have world-class economists?

Firo as a privacy coin, the most important thing is must to develop our privacy technology to Top1, and let everyone knows Firo is one of the most powerful privacy coin in the world.

Constantly initiationg major changes, leaving the project without a certain long-term expectation, price keep falling.
Do the right thing step by step. Succeed first, and then carefully consider the next.

4 Likes

My point is that my ‘belief’ is not baseless. It’s kinda saying that ‘global warming’ is not a problem as it’s just a belief despite the signs that it is. Waiting for it to become ‘fact’ is a problem.

There’s been a study on it as I linked earlier by some pretty smart people.

I quote its conclusions:

We have argued that deviant mining strategies in a transaction fee regime could hurt the stability of Bitcoin mining and harm the ecosystem. In a block chain with constant forks caused by undercutting, an attacker’s effective hash power is magnified because he will always mine to extend his own blocks whereas other miners are not unified. This would make a “51%” attack possible with much less than 51% of the hash power.

Many other unanticipated side-effects may arise. In the block size debate, it is frequently argued or assumed that space in the block chain will be a scarce resource and a market will emerge, with users being able to speed up the confirmation of a transaction by paying a sufficiently large transaction fee. But if miners intentionally “leave money on the table” when solving blocks, as is the case in undercutting attacks, it breaks this assumption. That is because undercutting miners are not looking to maximize the transaction fee that they can claim, and don’t have a strong reason to prioritize a transaction with a high fee.

Put another way, the block size imposes a constraint on the total size of transactions in a block and the threat of being undercut imposes another constraint on the total fee. The two interact in complex ways. We believe that qualitatively our results will continue to hold in a world where the available block size is much smaller than the demand, but quantitatively the impact of undercutting will be mitigated (see end of Section 3.1). Still, it is an important direction for future research to
understand this connection more rigorously.

Despite the variety of our results, we believe we have only scratched the surface of what can go wrong in a transaction fee regime. To wit: we have not presented an analysis of miners whose strategy space includes both undercutting and selfish mining, primarily due to the complexity of the resulting models. There has been scant attention paid to the transition to a transaction-fee regime. The Nakamoto paper addresses it briefly: “The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees… Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free”. Similar comments on the Bitcoin Wiki and other places suggest that the community views the transition as unremarkable. Some altcoins (Monero, Dogecoin) have even opted to hasten the block reward halving time.

Our results suggest a different view. We see the block reward as integral to the stability of the mining game. At a minimum, analyzing equilibria in the transaction-fee regime appears dramatically harder than in the block-reward regime, which is a cause for concern by itself. The monetary inflation resulting from making the block reward permanent, as Ethereum does, may be a small price to pay to ensure the stability of a cryptocurrency.

Let’s look at real figures. Ideally we would want to start seeing the creation of a fee market as time passes. Unfortunately, fees as a % of the block reward have actually have been dropping.

Source: https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-fee_to_reward.html#3y

You mentioned that the fees instead will be mostly opening and closing of lightning channels and it’s a future whereby only settlements happen on the base layer while most transactions happen on the lightning layer. Does that mean that a regular Joe would need to pay this expensive one off cost to onboard onto lightning? And then need to pay someone enough out to have sufficient inbound liquidity or use one of these methods? Or use a centralized service that incurs yet more fees to create this inbound liquidity?

Sounds like a permissioned system instead of the ‘anyone can create a wallet’ and receive/send money immediately.

4 Likes

Getting rather annoyed that we’re being accused of starting this proposal.

I was actually given flak for NOT initiating this proposal but decided to take the step to give a properly weighed out argument. I’m okay if this thing doesn’t pass now and we just revisit it further down the road which is why I am not pushing for a poll right now but I think it’s good to have this discussion sooner than later.

I of course have an opinion and am sharing it though don’t appreciate that we are being accused of “initiating major changes”. Yet at the same time, people are saying as we are a ‘failed project’ we must initiate major changes. Again with the blame on the core team which has delivered on its promises. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

along with some other people who DMed me with insults and also proposed this.

Anyway, I won’t be initiating any further proposals or taking the initiative. Anyone who wants to start a poll, go and do it and don’t ask me to do it. I’ll leave it in the community hands since the core team has failed.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

1 Like

@reuben Reuben, you have had many messages of support on the forum and I bet it: we all know the role you play in the FIRO community and we thank you for it.

But as you say, we are here to discuss, to build consensus. If we don’t agree, it has nothing to do with the quality of the people, it’s just that we still have to enrich ourselves from the other’s point of view. And even if there were to be “friction”, never anything that should upset you or discourage you. We all want FIRO’s success, and not just to “make a hit”: it’s the foundation of our confidence.

1 Like

It’s one thing to discuss. My points of view don’t make any personal attacks but just discuss the issue and my points of view.

I provide reasons, data and research for my arguments. I bother taking the time to do the necessary background reading to ensure I at least have an educated opinion and even research the counter arguments.

But saying things to me that I’m playing with words has a very negative connotation. I would ask you again if you understand how that looks. For context, choice of the right words are important. You can look at how the [Suggestion] Firo coins redenomination proposal because of an initially badly worded title that said change supply resulted in lots of gut reactions. You can read through that thread and see how people didn’t understand things.

Or suggesting that I’m ruining the project by initiating proposals which I didn’t start truly frustrates me. That Bitcoin can do no wrong because it’s number one and that we are a “long term failed project” makes me wonder why we are even trying.

I’m fedup of being everyone’s scapegoat and already stepping back. I’m fedup of trying really hard to make Firo work while being mindful of community sentiment, being blamed for the project’s failures and yet expected to continue working.

I don’t know what your native language is, but in my native language, this expression “playing with words”, is far from having such a negative connotation as the one you feel.
In a debate in my language, this expression has rather the purpose of reducing differences, in the sense “the word used is not the right one or the best, but we understood each other on the meaning”.
I respect your work and have no negative feelings.

Just get the Lelantus Spark done,all other things are shit

Reuben, you just gotta be rock solid. These days, anyone, any competitors can register any amount of anonymous accounts and come here to post shits, undermine, discourage or even try to destroy the projects. What can you do about this ? nothing, (unless we have a mechanism to make them responsible for their speech) since this is far beyond your controls.

You just need to provide good augments with facts and statistics and communicate in a way that easy to understand for the public. This is the best that you can do. The rest does not really matter.

1 Like

With such an excellent voting system, why not use it for FIRO voting? @poramin

One coin(Except community fund & Dev Fund holding coin), one vote, so that long-term Firo-holders and a large amount of Firo-holders can obtain the power they deserve.
Let those who pay money buy & holding Firo to vote and bear the responsibility of price

5 Likes

With such an excellent voting system, why not use it for FIRO voting?
One coin(Except community fund & Dev Fund holding coin) , one vote, so that long-term Firo-holders and a large amount of Firo holders can obtain the power they deserve

Let those who pay money buy & holding Firo voters vote and bear the responsibility of price

4 Likes

yes, power should be in hands of people who bear the financial risk.

4 Likes

Alice and Bob hold x coins each. I hold 10x. Voting equal weight with a 2/3 result. If the decision turns out to be wrong, I take 10x damage. How fair?

is it possible to implement a voting system that only count long term FIRO holders, let’s say at least 6 months ?

I guess it is impossible with the burn-mint mechanism.

This is a technical problem. Let @poramin find a solution, One coin, one vote

Because in those systems they have a national identity registration system. This is something we cannot implement especially as a privacy coin unless we require KYC. It is very difficult to prove ‘personhood’ even with coins as you can always split them up. This is why asking people to prove that they own a coin to vote is tough. Also with the privacy mechanism, how can you restrict community funds and dev funds from voting if they are anonymized? Again, this suggestion shows a lack of consideration when making them and pushing the responsibility to the core team to ‘figure it out’.

This is why quadratic voting is fairer which is what we are proposing eventually. While it approximates ‘personhood’ via tying to digital identities (social media accounts or forum accounts) it additional imposes other protection because voting has a cost since your donations are your votes. Basically, put your money where your mouth is at.

Sure there are ways to game it but it is much harder since you’ll have to create multiple aged and active forum accounts in additional to donating and also if you have a human committee to oversee this and identify voting patterns which are suspicious (for e.g. a lot of account registrations and people cross post liking just to get trust level up), this is a lot harder to game and discourages this behaviour as well.

To others proposing pure coin voting, might want to read this post I posted as well which references a “successful project” founder, Vitalik on his opinions of the issues with coin voting and the dangers it poses. Coin voting also means someone who entrenches themselves as a large holder of the coin can almost permanently exert influence without easily being untrenched.

Monero’s governance model is actually quite similar to what we have currently where community feedback is solicited and the core team make decisions based off it. This assumes some level of trust in the core team to act for the good of the project and not to ignore the wishes of the community.

4 Likes

加速剩余币开采我有几个意见,第一个方法,可以一半按正常开采速度继续开采分发,一半直接按持币数量平均空投给所有持币人。避免一倍的抛售压力。
第二个方法,一半币按正常速度继续开采分发,一半直接销毁。同样避免一倍抛售压力。