Remove halving and use simple static block reward for now

dtr-org / unit-e

A digital currency for a new era of decentralized trust

https://unit-e.io

MIT License

45 stars 15 forks source link

Remove halving and use simple static block reward for now #984

Closed Ruteri closed 5 years ago

Ruteri commented 5 years ago

Sets static block reward such that after 50 years we expect to have e billion UTE
Removes maximum_supply, as we no longer have one
Increases MAX_MONEY to 10*e billion UTE
Sets regtest block reward to 37.5 UTE, as making it lower requires a lot of adjustments in functional tests and we should do it in a follow up PR.

Signed-off-by: Mateusz Morusiewicz mateusz@thirdhash.com

castarco commented 5 years ago

I can guess why we get rid of the maximum supply concept (probably related with the economics & incentives), but I have my doubts about why we also use a static/fixed/constant reward function. What's the rationale behind this change?

@Gnappuraz @thothd , any hints? :slightly_smiling_face:

scravy commented 5 years ago

I can guess why we get rid of the maximum supply concept (probably related with the economics & incentives), but I have my doubts about why we also use a static/fixed/constant reward function. What's the rationale behind this change?

What do you suppose as alternative?

BTW: We have an implicit maximum supply, std::numeric_limits<CAmount>::max :-)

Gnappuraz commented 5 years ago

@castarco I think until we define something specific a constant function is the simpler and most intuitive thing to do.

thothd commented 5 years ago

I can guess why we get rid of the maximum supply concept (probably related with the economics & incentives), but I have my doubts about why we also use a static/fixed/constant reward function. What's the rationale behind this change?

@Gnappuraz @thothd , any hints? 🙂

I agree such areas should be as clear as possible. Inhering the halving is just something we rather not do since any kind of emission schedule surely won't look in this way, but probably gonna be a factor of the amount of stake in the system (also makes sense for PoS), so we're basically removing the halving. Besides that I've mentioned this as one of the goals of the testnet: https://github.com/dtr-org/unit-e/blame/master/README.md#L93. @castarco maybe you can potentially add another comment to make sure it's clear

thothd commented 5 years ago

I can guess why we get rid of the maximum supply concept (probably related with the economics & incentives), but I have my doubts about why we also use a static/fixed/constant reward function. What's the rationale behind this change? @Gnappuraz @thothd , any hints? 🙂

I agree such areas should be as clear as possible. Inhering the halving is just something we rather not do since any kind of emission schedule surely won't look in this way, but probably gonna be a factor of the amount of stake in the system (also makes sense for PoS), so we're basically removing the halving. Besides that I've mentioned this as one of the goals of the testnet: https://github.com/dtr-org/unit-e/blame/master/README.md#L93. @castarco maybe you can potentially add another comment to make sure it's clear

Further info can be found here: https://github.com/dtr-org/unit-e/pull/991