For those still wondering whether or not github.com/ethereum/EIPs/… was an April Fool's joke, the answer is: it was an April Fool's meta-joke. *The point* was seeing people argue about whether or not the proposal is "real".
In reality, of course, it should not matter. The proposal is very real in the sense that the words actually were written in the github issue, and the arguments for it are real arguments.
If the community wants fixed supply and people believe that EIP 960 is a good way to achieve that, then it should adopt the proposal. If the community does not, then it should not. This is true regardless of whether or not the original intent was in jest.
And by the way, most people missed one of the more well-hidden jokes in blog.ethereum.org/2018/04/01/ann…: ~20% of the blogpost was plagiarized from tron.network/en.html
I do now believe that fixed supply is worth considering. Arguments:
* With ASICs, PoW issuance fails at making coin distribution more egalitarian
* With PoS, PoW issuance not needed for security
* With rewards coming from rent+other burned fees, can have rewards without issuance
* With ASICs, PoW issuance fails at making coin distribution more egalitarian
* With PoS, PoW issuance not needed for security
* With rewards coming from rent+other burned fees, can have rewards without issuance
And long-run-inflationary tokens are a bad idea because of arguments in vitalik.ca/general/2017/1…
Crypto can avoid being too inegalitarian through emergence of new coins, not through any single coin being super-inflationary.
Crypto can avoid being too inegalitarian through emergence of new coins, not through any single coin being super-inflationary.
