The best suggestion I've seen, I think, is from BanditryAndLoot, who suggested to take the next 3.5 years (or pick some other such number) of rewards under the existing curve and flatten them.

My rationale for this would be that:

1. BTC and LTC have done okay with keeping he emissions flat for a while and then cutting them. This is total speculation but I might guess that keeping them flat for a while encourages participation, since people do not feel disadvantaged for having arrived a bit later in each cycle.

2. 3.5 (or 2.5 or whatever) years should most certainly be enough time for build out of the technology and for adoption to start to occur if it ever will. I don't think the current 1-2 years before we are well over 50% mined and people start to look at the coin as mature but with little to show for it is enough.

3. This causes no permanent change so it has less "social contract" issues. Once the end of the flattening period is reached everything is just exactly as it always was. This is probably the positive action that can be taken with the least reputation harm. Not zero necessarily, but everything else is worse.

I'm still undecided on whether anything should be changed.

1.) if only the the design of inflation would matter, the price will be an inverse function of supply
2.) given the high amount of daily produced coins it is almost impossible to pump the coin or to keep a the pump for a long time
3.) given the high amount of daily produced coins it is almost impossible to become a super whale and keep this status for a long period of time - if this would be the case it would hinder network effects
4.) given the design of inflation it is still more rational to buy today than tommorow, but if you fail to buy today the costs will be minimal
5.) the effects of this can already be seen: most of time the coin was traded in a range between 0.002 and 0.0045, this probably gives a lot of people the feeling that they "have not missed the train already"
6.) if only the design of inflation matters: investors assume an appreciation of xmr in the long run, which leads to the incentive to hold
7.) all that said: the design leads to a situation, where mining is rational, where holding is rational and where buying is rational. given situations of bubbles it is rational to sell and buy back lower - this leads to a stabilisation of the system

compare this to other designs of emmission.

I still have some concerns but compared to other designs they are minor

my own disclaimer is probably that I am a post-keynesian institutional economist but when this looks convincing to someone with this background it will probably convince guys on the other side of the guild much more
 

You make good points in favor of high emissions really. I guess that is why I'm undecided and why I also agree with othe that nobody really knows what the hell is right.

Off topic includes any extensive discussion of other coins, promoting other coins, or posting of promotional materials from other coins.

They did start with trolling for 80% of the space the post took up .. then made the 'rational' point, which easily could have been a troll point. Hard to tell when your post is 80% spiteful troll at least.

Even if they did find a reason to stuff themself up a sock .. only 4-5 lines there even made sense at all .. the rest was just kinda lame. Admittedly though, I did chuckle for a second or two at at least one line.

I'd agree that the post was prime for deletion.

If the author came back and restated the last couple of lines .. then that would have been almost worthy of commenting on.

Also, the recent seizure of underground markets, primarily Silk Road 2, and the arrest of several vendors using those markets, should increase adoption with anonymity coins i.e Monero.

Yes, that's what I'd been told as well.

I was fishing in other places but nobody really seems to have links.

All I've read is something with ddosing .. no details though.

(...)

 (NewLiberty's appearance on a LTBTC show was a very nice bit of exposure for us).

(...)