mimblewimble team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Branding and messaging
I'm happy with the name "grin" for both the implementation and the coin.
Naming of the smallest unit is not that important, and we could just go
with nanogrin if we deviate from the 10^-8 subdivision by adopting the more
metric compatible 10^-9 subdivision. Otherwise, I'm also fine with a
"jedusor" in honor of the MW creator.
The coin's best two properties are its prunability, leading to greater
on-chain scalability, and fungibility, the fact that all transactions
look alike, which provides strong anonymity with no additional effort.
I would not advertise "centralization resistance" due to PoW choice,
since the mining landscape will probably look a lot like that of Ethereum,
which is still dominated by huge GPU stocked datacenters in China.
The main strengths of Cuckoo Cycle are that it, like MW itself, is
elegant in design and scales well. And it lowers the barrier to entry
for miners. We don't know how it plays out long-term though, in terms
of mining performance gap between commodity and custom hardware.
One issue that hasn't been brought up yet, is whether the grin coin
will have any form of funding. In the early days of bitcoin, thanks to
its obscurity, developers could be compensated simply by mining
themselves. Charlie Lee arguably didn't need much compensation for
tweaking and relaunching Tenebrix as Litecoin.
Ideally, development could be sustained as a voluntary effort with some
developers soliciting donations to support their contributions.
If a more consistent form of funding is desired, then perhaps ZCash'
model of siphoning off some small percentage of block rewards in the
first few years is the least offensive model. A modest percentage like
1% would be a lot more acceptable than their 20% though, and more akin
to what miner developers charge as a fee. Who gets to spend these
funds and how can become quite