languagehasmeaning



Offline



Activity: 336

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 336Merit: 250 Should Boolberry implement a tail emission? January 19, 2016, 09:13:25 PM

Last edit: January 19, 2016, 09:58:24 PM by languagehasmeaning #1

Here is an excerpt from a good post explaining the reasoning for this:



Quote from: ArticMine on January 18, 2016, 05:32:49 AM It at this point where we see the critical importance of a tail emission since if R base = 0 this attack has zero cost and the tragedy of the commons actually occurs. This is the critical difference between those Cryptonote coins that have a tail emission, and have solved the problem, such as Monero and those that do not, and will in a matter of time become vulnerable, such as Bytecoin.



Quote from: monero on April 25, 2014, 12:38:50 AM [2] Initial number of atomic units is M = 264 - 1. However, once the block reward reaches 0.3 XMR (sometime in 2022) that is treated as the minimum subsidy, which means that Monero's total emission will forever increase by ~157783.68 XMR annually.

[3] Uses a recurrence relation. Block reward = (M - A) * 2-20 * 10-12, where A = current circulation. Roughly 86% mined in 4 years (see

Initial number of atomic units is M = 2- 1. However, once the block reward reaches 0.3 XMR (sometime in 2022) that is treated as the minimum subsidy, which means that Monero's total emission will forever increase by ~157783.68 XMR annually.Uses a recurrence relation. Block reward = (M - A) * 2* 10, where A = current circulation. Roughly 86% mined in 4 years (see graph ).

At the time of the Monero hard fork in March (when they will switch from 60 second blocks to 120 second blocks like Boolberry has now) the tail emission schedule will be adjusted accordingly.



Aeon also appears to have plans to include a tail emission:



Quote from: smooth on November 04, 2015, 08:52:54 PM



Quote Once the base reward declines below 0.3/minute, then reward will switch to inflationary at a target rate of 0.8888888....%/year (actual rate may deviate slightly in practice due to variations in block rate, block reward penalty, rounding, etc.) Okay let's consider this an official proposal then, open for comments:

This is what the Monero tail emission will look like (offering continued incentives for miners to protect the network in addition to transaction fees).







Boolberry could implement something very similar although it will take us twice as long to reach the "tail" due to our slower emission schedule.

Monero has a tail emission designed to protect against lack of incentives to secure the network.Here is an excerpt from a good post explaining the reasoning for this:At the time of the Monero hard fork in March (when they will switch from 60 second blocks to 120 second blocks like Boolberry has now) the tail emission schedule will be adjusted accordingly.Aeon also appears to have plans to include a tail emission:This is what the Monero tail emission will look like (offering continued incentives for miners to protect the network in addition to transaction fees).Boolberry could implement something very similar although it will take us twice as long to reach the "tail" due to our slower emission schedule.

boolberry



Offline



Activity: 378

Merit: 250







Sr. MemberActivity: 378Merit: 250 Re: Should Boolberry implement a tail emission? January 20, 2016, 12:52:01 AM

Last edit: January 20, 2016, 01:14:12 AM by boolberry #2 This is a discussion that has been postponed long enough. Hopefully the community reach a consensus on this question to remove future uncertainty.



I voted yes but look forward to an open debate with those who may disagree or are undecided.

newb4now



Offline



Activity: 686

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 686Merit: 500 Re: Should Boolberry implement a tail emission? January 20, 2016, 01:53:41 AM #3 I like the idea of a tail emission but there is no reason that it needs to be exactly like Monero.



Boolberry could use a fixed percentage based annual tail emission instead of a fixed reward like Monero (which will gradually reduce on a percentage basis as the supple grows over time).

mathgal23



Offline



Activity: 150

Merit: 102







Full MemberActivity: 150Merit: 102 Re: Should Boolberry implement a tail emission? January 20, 2016, 10:37:31 PM #5 Quote from: funnyman21 on January 20, 2016, 07:09:07 PM Is the only purpose of tail emission to encourage continued mining in a situation where transaction fees alone are not economically sufficient to do so?



I think that is the main idea but encouraging adoption among latecomers also might be easier with tail emission if it makes the currency distribution seem more fair. Continual dilution of all coins is the negative as scarcity is reduced. I think that is the main idea but encouraging adoption among latecomers also might be easier with tail emission if it makes the currency distribution seem more fair. Continual dilution of all coins is the negative as scarcity is reduced.

LucyLovesCrypto



Offline



Activity: 414

Merit: 251







Sr. MemberActivity: 414Merit: 251 Re: Should Boolberry implement a tail emission? January 21, 2016, 09:38:26 PM #9 Quote from: newb4now on January 20, 2016, 01:53:41 AM I like the idea of a tail emission but there is no reason that it needs to be exactly like Monero.



Boolberry could use a fixed percentage based annual tail emission instead of a fixed reward like Monero (which will gradually reduce on a percentage basis as the supple grows over time).



Putting the fixed reward vs percentage question aside do we think the tail emission should be more or less than what Monero chose? If the emission is too high we devalue the currency if it is too low the incentive for decentralized mining may be at risk. How do we find the right balance? Putting the fixed reward vs percentage question aside do we think the tail emission should be more or less than what Monero chose? If the emission is too high we devalue the currency if it is too low the incentive for decentralized mining may be at risk. How do we find the right balance?

CoinHoarder



Offline



Activity: 1456

Merit: 1025



In Cryptocoins I Trust







LegendaryActivity: 1456Merit: 1025In Cryptocoins I Trust Re: Should Boolberry implement a tail emission? January 22, 2016, 04:30:54 AM #15



I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success. What I mean by great success is a very high market cap with a decent number of transactions per second (or a decent market cap with a lot of transactions per second... but the former is more likely due to decentralized TPS issues.) In other words, the stars will need to align for any finite (or a tail emission) be able to pay for a secure enough blockchain after their emission rate diminishes greatly.



I am not a stakeholder of Boolberry (and I like the name btw.. you guys get too much hate for that), but I think implementing something like this that attempts to mitigate (possibly solve again depending on the coin's success) this issue is of great importance. Most people don't think about this issue, and there are several cryptocurrencies with fast emission rates that ended up vulnerable and got attacked due to this exact issue. Quarkcoin to name one... I am sure there are others, but I don't follow every coin under the sun. The issue of transfer fees being enough (or not) to pay for a secure blockchain is something that is often overlooked with most cryptocurrencies. This is one of the biggest gripes I've had with PoW cryptocurrencies, and is part of the reason I support PoS cryptocurrencies (along with PoW cryptocurrencies.) This is a benefit to PoS coins that I always forget to bring up in PoW v. PoS debates for some reason... even though I've thought about this issue a lot before!!I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success. What I mean by great success is a very high market cap with a decent number of transactions per second (or a decent market cap with a lot of transactions per second... but the former is more likely due to decentralized TPS issues.) In other words, the stars will need to align for any finite (or a tail emission) be able to pay for a secure enough blockchain after their emission rate diminishes greatly.I am not a stakeholder of Boolberry (and I like the name btw.. you guys get too much hate for that), but I think implementing something like this that attempts to mitigate (possibly solve again depending on the coin's success) this issue is of great importance. Most people don't think about this issue, and there are several cryptocurrencies with fast emission rates that ended up vulnerable and got attacked due to this exact issue. Quarkcoin to name one... I am sure there are others, but I don't follow every coin under the sun.

smooth



Offline



Activity: 2534

Merit: 1167









LegendaryActivity: 2534Merit: 1167 Re: Should Boolberry implement a tail emission? January 22, 2016, 04:35:13 AM #16 Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 22, 2016, 04:30:54 AM I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success.

I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless.



So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter.

I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless.So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter.