Hi MimbleWimblers, I'd like to suggest a different approach. Rather than launch with zero supply, MimbleWimble should start as a chain split of Bitcoin. I understand that the address scheme is different, but there are several ways to solve this. One way is to store all Bitcoin addresses with a non-zero balance in a genesis block and treat these addresses similar to the way other currencies have used "pre-sale" wallets.
Optionally, if we didn't want to worry about maintaining this prewallet state over a long time, there could be a short time window where people must sign a message to claim their MimbleWimble coins. After bootstrapping the initial supply, the blockchain could start running as a pure MimbleWimble implementation and nodes could even choose to prune the initial bitcoin bootstrapping blocks. Then as far as branding and messaging goes, we could take a page out of Bitcoin Cash's book. Honestly, I wouldn't mind calling this chain Bitcoin2.0 or something like that. People of course would still be free to use legacy Bitcoin. Bitcoin2.0 might only start with 10% of the market cap of Bitcoin Legacy. I can understand the urge to create a "pure" chain implementation, but I think that we have moved past the days where that's necessary for a project like this, and honestly, it could set back the potential of MimbleWimble by several years. As an investor, I am very excited about the technology in MimbleWimble. However, if it starts with zero supply then I'm in a really tough spot of trying to figure out where to buy in. After 6 months, the coin still has a 200% yearly inflation rate. After 1 year, it's at 100% yearly inflation. Will demand outpace that? Maybe, but it's a much tougher spot to be in than if supply was bootstrapped off of the Bitcoin blockchain. Additionally, I don't think it's a stretch to think of MimbleWimble as Bitcoin 2.0 technology. It has many of the same goals as the original Bitcoin with advancements that weren't available at the time and a much nicer codebase. -Rhett On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 12:22 AM, Ignotus Peverell < igno.pever...@protonmail.com> wrote: > Hi all, > > We're getting closer and closer to a testnet [1] and it may be a good idea > to start thinking of outward communication. We want to have enough time to > prepare so when the time comes, we don't get confused with the thousands of > other projects in this noisy space, and have a chance to voice our > strengths and differences. Messaging can also take time to refine. Now, as > I know words like "narratives" (yeastplume used it first, not me :P) can > make some developers' eyes glaze over, I'll start with something more fun > and friendly: naming [2]. > > We need names for a few things: > > 1. Our blockchain type. I'm happy to keep using MimbleWimble here. I > know that technically, the Grin blockchain will have quite a bit more than > just what's in the Jedusor white paper, but I think at a high level it's a > good approximation. Some people are also already familiar with it and heard > the name. > 2. Our implementation. I'm not unhappy with grin but I'm not opposed > to renaming if too many folks are strongly against it. > 3. Our coin. We have nothing so far here so we need to find a name. My > first inclination would be to accept propositions for names as replies to > this email, and then run a poll online. Sounds good as a process? We likely > need another name for smallest denominations too. > > To draw a parallel, in the Ethereum world 1) is Ethereum, 2) is Parity or > geth, 3) is Ether/Wei. > > > Now for the messaging and narratives. In my experience (which is a lot > more shallow in that domain), we want to outline our strengths and > differences to formulate a value proposition. From there we can distill > messages of various lengths, adapted to different support (one-liner title, > one paragraph article intro, full website, etc). And ideally, we'd have > opportunities to try these messages in various environments to see how they > work and incrementally improve them. > > So I'll start with a mixed bag of strengths and differences in no > particular order and maybe we can figure out a way to go from there. If > some people have more experience in how to go about this and a good process > to get there, by all means please chime in. > > - Strong anonymity provided by obfuscating amounts, sources and > destinations and removing data over time. > - Great scalability as most blockchain data gets removed, without > compromising security (the magic part). > - A diverse community of developers and cryptographers (no control > from a single entity). > - A brand new, clean (relatively) and modern blockchain implementation > with few fundamental primitives. > - A Harry Potter theme that, while quirky, has personality (obviously, > I may be biased). > - No ICO, pre-mine or funny business. We may still need to find a way > to get funding but hopefully it'll be reasonable and in line with other > funded open source projects/foundations. > - The person who started the project has a cool name and uses > parentheses a little too much (it's a side effect of the cloak). > > For others involved in this project, I'd love to hear what it means to you > as well. > > - Igno > > [1] I know it's taking some time but I decided to include the UTXO sum > tree in that milestone, which created a bit more work than I expected. > [2] Throwing a Wikipedia article your way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ > True_name#In_cryptography > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble > Post to : mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble Post to : mimblewimble@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~mimblewimble More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
