Hi all,
I'm not really open to changing the reward schedule at this point, sorry. We
can find a number of very valid arguments for a limited supply, as well as a
number of very valid arguments for an infinite tail emission. Both set of
arguments will be equally convincing.
My current position
On Mon, Oct 2, 2017 at 8:53 AM, Alessandro Viganò wrote:
> 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
On Mon, 2017-10-02 at 13:11 +0100, Yeastplume wrote:
> 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
Hello everyone,
I agree with Yeastplume.
The main focus for now should be getting the software out.
The emission curve needs to be decided before that though.
Every thing else can be put on a schedule and forks released for implementation.
Olise
Sent from Mail For OSX
smime.p7s
Description:
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
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
