Search results

The perception is a problem, but the intent is more of one. I think when people start to say that voters deserve a larger share of other network members hard-coded inflation money to compensate them for their time and effort at a price that they themselves are determining, then we have strayed...

No worries. For what it's worth the idea of changing the hard coded emission scheduled and allocation to pay a certain group of people within the network with intent to incentivise holding sends chills down my spine. It sounds a lot like a kind of central planning that would scare off a lot of...

It's not a question of someones definition of "fair", it's a question of what incentives actually create the best decisions given the system we have in place. The misalignment that makes the system terrible at the moment can also be over-corrected. If you want to compensate masternodes more than...

In short, yes. But if we went down that road it might also be better to weight one side of the allocation because allocation to masternodes benefits them, but the allocation to the burned/not-created option actually benefits both the non-masternodes and the masternodes again, so masternode...

Sure. If the goal is to better align the masternode costs and benefits with the non-masternode costs and benefits when the masternodes are making voting decisions, then the consequences of voting and not voting need to be felt in proportion by both groups, which will be related to the ratio of...

I support the unmodified original proposal made by the OP completely. The one thing that I think is strongly worth considering when making this decision was originally brought up by Ryan Taylor, and while I'm not entirely sure how to best address it, I have proposed one possible solution here...

If regulators do have a problem with the word "mixed", then we can simply discuss potentially better names for those two balances, but I feel that this should be the focus perhaps "joined balance", "unjoined balance", and "total balance"? "Mixed" and "Unmixed"? "Joined" and "Unjoined"...

I think the idea of there being one sending function with two different balances is a good one. That would remove the issue of having to explain "private send" as if it were a separate concept. People already explain what coin-join is, and the ways in which Dash and Bitcoin are similar when...