3 ms·
I don't want to compare to fiat. I think bitcoin should have had a purely linear emission. No reward halvings. No early adopter advantage. No mere crumbs for la
by tromp 4y ago
I don't want to compare to fiat. I think bitcoin should have had a purely linear emission. No reward halvings. No early adopter advantage. No mere crumbs for later generations.
Sure; it will take a century to get inflation down to 1%, but that means speculative use is strongly discouraged. As a result, its price would be much lower as would its environmental impact. While use as a peer-to-peer currency, its stated goal, would be largely unaffected.
- scottiebarnes 4y agoThat's the cool thing about open source software. You can literally design your own fork, and then work to persuade people that your vision is better. You'll be called a shit coin. But over a long enough time horizon, someone will be right. > but that means speculative use is strongly discouraged Volatility is ironically a "feature". As it stands your system has no incentive for anyone to overcome the barriers of joining. You're proposing a better system from the outside, not the inside.
- Sohcahtoa82 4y agoFor what it's worth, Dogecoin works this way.
- tromp 4y agoNo; they had 20x larger rewards in the first year. I only know of one PoW coin with a purely linear emission, and no financial rewards for its creators.
- 3pt14159 4y agoLinear doesn't make sense in the very long term. Anyway, this is all besides the point. Now that governments have figured out they can colour coins these types of projects are doomed. Once you have a poisonable ledger and powerful entities see it in their interests to poison some of the branches of the tree then there is no actual advantage of using it. Not in the long term, I mean. Personally, I'm pleased. I do not want global, decentralized, electronic currencies.
- tromp 4y agoLinear makes perfect sense in the very long term when yearly supply will just about balance the yearly coin loss.