Technical and operational discussion of network design

[oetyng]

@neo

There needs to be a very good reason for doing so in my opinion.

So, as I started out with saying, it might be a difficult thing to do depending on how far to take anonymization.

@oetyng

About minting, there’s a bit more to it; it might not be possible depending on how far the blinding of DBCs will go. It’s too early to say for certain, just mentioning it.

But, in case it would not be possible to mint new tokens, then we’d have to start with the full supply from start.

(where “can’t” translates into “other things were higher priority”, like anonymity etc.)

And also, from that first post (which David has already gone into details with above):

@oetyng

So, what the above two things are most obviously about, is that
a) network does not own or hold any tokens , and
b) the network cannot create tokens

This summarises the reasons to want that:

@dirvine

I feel it’s best though that the network itself cannot mutate anything (i.e. it’s just a recording device and we could replace it with a single container of users signed “stuff”). I feel this gives us the best we can get where a bad network/section/container can only refuse to give us data or give us old data but no more. Then we can make that cross platform/network/storage etc.

---

@neo

The buffer in the network cannot be underestimated and you even suggested a work around for this.

Was not a suggestion for it to be done, just described the first idea that came across for how it could be done.

---

@neo

But the 4.3 bn supply under the current system is a myth. The recycling of tokens means the supply to be sold over time can be 50, 60, 70, whatever bn. What will the market actually see. Perhaps it will only see the amount estimated to be “out there”. If its estimated there is 2 bn in the hands of holders then the market sees 2bn, and really would this not be the amount they should be seeing.

I have no opinion on what the market should be seeing. But what you are talking about above are three different things; supply, velocity and GDP.
The supply of tokens within the DBCs will be real. It’s not a myth.
Depending on the velocity, you might get a GDP of "50, 60, 70 whatever bn", but that is not the supply.

@Bogard

Finally, I also like the proposal because it should keep things very simple thus allowing for faster launch yet with strong security guarantees. As long as the network is upgradable, the token holders can collectively vote in the future to add a network-owned wallet/pool when the security guarantees have been figured out so that bad sections can’t steal coins.

Great points @Bogard.