search

monero-project / research-lab

A general repo for Monero Research Lab work in progress and completed work
238 stars 78 forks source link

Game theoretic formal peer reviewed paper about XMR tail emissions #46

Open electricatom opened 5 years ago

electricatom commented 5 years ago

Tail emissions within XMR are an enormous game theoretic concept that we don't see in other (major) cryptocurrencies. However, there's no game theoretic paper that's been formally peer reviewed within Monero or the crypto community though. Everyone, including XMR contributors and MRL researchers, have opinions on tail emissions and nothing more than opinions. This is a serious matter that the MRL should be working on providing the community as it entails the future of XMR. It's tremendously brushed off as fine and all who challenge it are ridiculed, including by XMR contributors and Monero subreddit moderators, into the ground with no real proof behind their ridiculing rather than their opinions.

Eventually, a game theoretic paper within the crypto community might prove that XMR tail emissions is inefficient or unnecessary for the long term, and that zero-knowledge based decentralized self sovereign identity (SSI) will act as a natural "tail emissions" within capped supplies (of all crypto's) to provide proper redistribution and stability, so the ideology of immutability is sound (if you're trying to become anonymous 'digital cash' and not an anonymous 'payment network' which is what I believe XMR should be gunning for as it would create its own utility-niche (captures a giant multi-trillion dollar market) rather than competing/testing with/for Bitcoin, Zcash, fiat, continuously evolving formal peer reviewed papers, etc... As both, a governance system within Monero and this highly game theoretic topic evolve it shouldn't be off the table within any logically centralized governance system, full of an expanding pool of users (decentralization), of any decentralized cryptocurrency project, when maturity of the network has reached a certain point, to make a final decentralized political decision (of reassurance) on the supplied direction of the project for the long term. The community could even vote to leave everything as it is... All projects learn with time, mistakes are initially made and variables change. It shouldn't even be off the table to create a sustainable politically based supply schedule for the users to vote on periodically (e.g.: immutably every 10, 20, 30, 50, 100, etc years or so... A final decision could also be voted on to immutably never change a thing or to immutably only allow the one final decision indefinitely...).

Gingeropolous commented 5 years ago

What are your thoughts on

http://randomwalker.info/publications/mining_CCS.pdf

?

electricatom commented 5 years ago

My thoughts are that the entire paper about proof-of-work mining is irrelevant.

Mitchellpkt commented 5 years ago

I am interested in collaborating/contributing on this research. I've read interesting papers about late-stage cryptoeconomics in other incentive systems (e.g. Carlsten et al), and I would like to see high-quality research into tail-emission era Monero economic structures.