mimblewimble team mailing list archive

[grindelwald@xxxxxxxxxxx]

> Ignotus and me both seem to share the opinion that a tail-less (i.e.
> fees only) schedule may be undesirable.

Having a tail-emission will definitely be something mimblewimble will need
to keep miners incentivized for long term network security.

> The whole block history shall be divided into epochs lasting 2^i blocks.
> There is a peak epoch where the block reward peaks at REWARD per
> block. Block in non-peak epochs get exponentially smaller rewards
> (REWARD/2^{epoch distance from peak}).

This is a pretty brilliant emission scheme. It would make for a very fair
coin distribution where late adopters to mimblewimble would not feel
greatly disadvantaged compared to 'early' adopters of the coin.

> That's it. The block reward starts out 0, and ramps up exponentially
> at the same rate that epochs get longer. Then, at for instance about 4
> years in,
> the peak epoch starts. 4 years later the peak epoch ends as the reward
> halves, but this will now last for an 8 year epoch. The next epoch,
> with rewards equal to a quarter of peak, will last 16 years. So each
> successive epoch will contribute the same number of coins to the
> distribution. In practice it will take too long for the reward to
> become negligible.

while this may be true, it may also be desirable to establish a constant
block reward after x epochs so that in the far far future the tail
emission is still attractive for miners to secure the network.

Cheers,
Gellert Grindelwald