mimblewimble team mailing list archive

[Yeastplume <yeastplume@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi All,

Just catching up with these discussions after the weekend; there have been a lot of interesting arguments put forward and even a couple of completely new viewpoints I hadn’t considered (viewing rewards as bonds,) all of which I think are valuable.

I’m not going to add anything more in particular, as my own viewpoint on particular aspects of the policies we should adopt are a mix of what’s already been said by others. And personally, I’m purely going on gut-feel rather than having any hard data or evidence to back my opinions.

As development is progressing, we do need to make some hard decisions on these matters though. And while there are a lot of good (or not, I don’t know) ideas that can be included into the mix, my own view is that I would strongly advocate not trying to do anything too radically new or experimental with the initial Grin coin itself. In my opinion, the MW technology in Grin is the main thing under the spotlight (rather than speculation about which policies would have what effects on future value,) and it is very new and as-of-yet completely untested. There are enough new ideas within it (and still-unanswered questions) that piling on more untested experimentations could potentially just confuse the outcome.

Once MimbleWimble is proven and observed in the wild, then there will be plenty of opportunity to experiment with different ideas via multiple assets or forks implementing different rules etc. However, for Grin at present I will argue for trying to keep the rules as simple as possible, and to not deviate too far from what has been known to work on other chains (even if imperfectly). 

Can I propose we start an issue in Github in which we keep the current list of the proposed rules/policies affixed, have people put the arguments for various points they feel strongly about into the comments, and then edit the rules as arguments are considered?

YP


> On 2 Oct 2017, at 07:53, Alessandro Viganò <alvistar@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 
> Hi all,
> My first post as well but following Mimblewimble since Andrew Poelstra scaling bitcoin Milan 2016.
> 
> I agree with Gold Goblin.
> 
> Right now is important to design a good monetary policy but not a perfect one. I believe it’s impossible to foresee what is coming in years. So some flexibility is needed, and, in any case, the ultimate flexibility is called forking.
> 
> So if can’t deal so well with future coming in 10 years, we must deal to immediate future.
> And for that I am strongly believer in network effects and for that we should not forget the role of speculators. They are looking for own profit, but they are also creating efficient markets.
> 
> I believe that a finite supply would be a more accepted idea, IMHO. 
> 
> If the world would need a change in 10 years, nothing is really immutable, and we could be dealt later.
> Changes for sure has costs, but when benefits are greater this can be done.
> 
> In conclusion let’s try to project something future proof, but remember that we need to get first to that future and we must deal with present.
> 
> Alessandro
> 
> Il giorno lun 2 ott 2017 alle 01:38 Gold Goblin <goldgoblin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:goldgoblin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> ha scritto:
> Hi everyone,
> I have been following MW, Grin and this mailing list for a while, and this is my very first post.
> 
> It seems that in discussions of Grin's future issuance schedule, the favoured option for now has been a linear-issue schedule (resulting in an infinite supply and an inflation rate tending towards zero without ever reaching it). This contrasts with the fixed supply model of many other currencies such as Bitcoin or Monero. This choice has been defended as a way to incentivise miners to go on mining and making the chain more secure in the very long run.
> 
> I think that it would be mistaken to start out with a monetary policy that doesn’t encourage early adopters and investors, but instead has been chosen as a way to deal with issues that may or may not arise decades from now.
> 
> A currency's use as a medium of exchange is directly related to it having network effect to begin with. The best way to bootstrap this network effect would be to incentivise early adopters to invest in the coin, by making it as investor-friendly as possible (i.e. with a finite supply). Grin has great qualities (strong privacy, ASIC-resistant proof of work) that lack in Bitcoin, and that many Bitcoin investors would want to invest in; but an infinite supply would be a deal breaker to many.
> 
> I do not believe that the “store of value” and “medium of exchange” aspects of a currency have to be mutually exclusive: a currency has to be good at both to become popular and widely used.
> 
> In all cases, this project is amazing, and I’m looking forward to the testnet and eventual release!
> 
> Best regards.
> 
> 
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble <https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble>
> Post to     : mimblewimble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:mimblewimble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble <https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble>
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>
> -- 
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble
> Post to     : mimblewimble@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp