Number of Coins Committee

Ideas
#43



http://thedailycrowd.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/global-money-supply.png 
80 000 000 000 000 00  cents in total from around 2011
I say cents because the smallest unit of NEM should be small enough to buy a penny sweet.
8 billion total units of NEM would be.  8 000 000 000 000 000 smallest units.

8 billion NEM covers these numbers perfectly according to this graph.

There would be more than enough NEM if there was no QE 4 as deflation should set in.
There would not be enough NEM if QE 4 takes place which I expect to happen.

The more I think about it 80 billion or  800 billion would be safe and ensure enough NEM .
If the latter was chosen then I would prefer to go to 1 trillion.

I dont expect to get my way though...... :)


That is nice.  I had been looking for the M3 when I started my calculations but it is more abstract so much harder to find.  I am glad you found it. :-)


I think they stopped looking at M3 recently.


It worries me when "they" stop looking at something.  It is like so they can say later, "oops, we didn't know" when all along it was there in the numbers that everybody stopped looking at.  I am not saying that this is the case.  I am just saying it worries me.
#44




http://thedailycrowd.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/global-money-supply.png 
80 000 000 000 000 00  cents in total from around 2011
I say cents because the smallest unit of NEM should be small enough to buy a penny sweet.
8 billion total units of NEM would be.  8 000 000 000 000 000 smallest units.

8 billion NEM covers these numbers perfectly according to this graph.

There would be more than enough NEM if there was no QE 4 as deflation should set in.
There would not be enough NEM if QE 4 takes place which I expect to happen.

The more I think about it 80 billion or  800 billion would be safe and ensure enough NEM .
If the latter was chosen then I would prefer to go to 1 trillion.

I dont expect to get my way though...... :)


That is nice.  I had been looking for the M3 when I started my calculations but it is more abstract so much harder to find.  I am glad you found it. :-)


I think they stopped looking at M3 recently.


It worries me when "they" stop looking at something.  It is like so they can say later, "oops, we didn't know" when all along it was there in the numbers that everybody stopped looking at.  I am not saying that this is the case.  I am just saying it worries me.


Yes, the Fed stopped relaying information on M3 in 2006 when it started to get high enough that the general public would start taking notice. It has gone crazy since then.

#45

For the sake of completeness, there is yet another option: move some of the decimals of precision to the left-hand side of the decimal. For example, if we had a precision of 3 instead of 6 places after the decimal, we could go up to 8 trillion NEM.


I like this idea of 'completeness' or ' wholeness'. Looking at Rockethead, Jabos and my own figures I reckon a safe figure to use which covers everything is 80 billion with 6 decimal places.
  Doing it your way then it would be 8 trillion with 4 decimal places...
#46


For the sake of completeness, there is yet another option: move some of the decimals of precision to the left-hand side of the decimal. For example, if we had a precision of 3 instead of 6 places after the decimal, we could go up to 8 trillion NEM.


I like this idea of 'completeness' or ' wholeness'. Looking at Rockethead, Jabos and my own figures I reckon a safe figure to use which covers everything is 80 billion with 6 decimal places.
  Doing it your way then it would be 8 trillion with 4 decimal places...


Maybe ... anyway, despite of all these options and possibilities,
these are  the "only" options for larger number than the current one:
    8 000 000 000  or  8 888 888 888

The limit of Java Int is quite restricting  ;)
and it was mentioned that 6 digits after the decimal point is also an important feature.
If decimal point is moved to the right, then it  p r o b a b l y  will cause a lot of testing ... and there is not so much time ...


#47


For the sake of completeness, there is yet another option: move some of the decimals of precision to the left-hand side of the decimal. For example, if we had a precision of 3 instead of 6 places after the decimal, we could go up to 8 trillion NEM.


I like this idea of 'completeness' or ' wholeness'. Looking at Rockethead, Jabos and my own figures I reckon a safe figure to use which covers everything is 80 billion with 6 decimal places.
  Doing it your way then it would be 8 trillion with 4 decimal places...


80 billion will be 5 decimal places and 8 trillion will be 3 decimal places. Three decimal places is "too few for comfort". ;)

My personal opinion is don't go less than 5 as there will be instances where we need them. I can't think of any right now but fiat is 10 decimal places. So 80 B is ok.
#48



For the sake of completeness, there is yet another option: move some of the decimals of precision to the left-hand side of the decimal. For example, if we had a precision of 3 instead of 6 places after the decimal, we could go up to 8 trillion NEM.


I like this idea of 'completeness' or ' wholeness'. Looking at Rockethead, Jabos and my own figures I reckon a safe figure to use which covers everything is 80 billion with 6 decimal places.
  Doing it your way then it would be 8 trillion with 4 decimal places...


Maybe ... anyway, despite of all these options and possibilities,
these are  the "only" options for larger number than the current one:
    8 000 000 000  or  8 888 888 888

The limit of Java Int is quite restricting  ;)
and it was mentioned that 6 digits after the decimal point is also an important feature.
If decimal point is moved to the right, then it  p r o b a b l y  will cause a lot of testing ... and there is not so much time ...


Javascript numbers are the limiting factor :)
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/17320706/javascript-long-integer

In Java we are fine (so NIS core is flexible). However, if you want to make it easy for people to program for NEM, we need to support Javascript numbers.
#49



For the sake of completeness, there is yet another option: move some of the decimals of precision to the left-hand side of the decimal. For example, if we had a precision of 3 instead of 6 places after the decimal, we could go up to 8 trillion NEM.


I like this idea of 'completeness' or ' wholeness'. Looking at Rockethead, Jabos and my own figures I reckon a safe figure to use which covers everything is 80 billion with 6 decimal places.
  Doing it your way then it would be 8 trillion with 4 decimal places...


80 billion will be 5 decimal places and 8 trillion will be 3 decimal places. Three decimal places is "too few for comfort". ;)

My personal opinion is don't go less than 5 as there will be instances where we need them. I can't think of any right now but fiat is 10 decimal places. So 80 B is ok.


I think that you think I still had 8 billion in mind as the finished number? I was meaning that I think 80 billion is the first' safe' number to use to ensure enough NEM. ;)
80 000 000 000.000 000      A lovely number  :)
#50




For the sake of completeness, there is yet another option: move some of the decimals of precision to the left-hand side of the decimal. For example, if we had a precision of 3 instead of 6 places after the decimal, we could go up to 8 trillion NEM.


I like this idea of 'completeness' or ' wholeness'. Looking at Rockethead, Jabos and my own figures I reckon a safe figure to use which covers everything is 80 billion with 6 decimal places.
  Doing it your way then it would be 8 trillion with 4 decimal places...


80 billion will be 5 decimal places and 8 trillion will be 3 decimal places. Three decimal places is "too few for comfort". ;)

My personal opinion is don't go less than 5 as there will be instances where we need them. I can't think of any right now but fiat is 10 decimal places. So 80 B is ok.


I think that you think I still had 8 billion in mind as the finished number? I was meaning that I think 80 billion is the first' safe' number to use to ensure enough NEM. ;)
80 000 000 000.000 000


Technically you cannot do with Javascript. That was my point. You can only have 80 000 000 000.000 00 or 8 000 000 000.000 000. ;)
#51





For the sake of completeness, there is yet another option: move some of the decimals of precision to the left-hand side of the decimal. For example, if we had a precision of 3 instead of 6 places after the decimal, we could go up to 8 trillion NEM.


I like this idea of 'completeness' or ' wholeness'. Looking at Rockethead, Jabos and my own figures I reckon a safe figure to use which covers everything is 80 billion with 6 decimal places.
  Doing it your way then it would be 8 trillion with 4 decimal places...


80 billion will be 5 decimal places and 8 trillion will be 3 decimal places. Three decimal places is "too few for comfort". ;)

My personal opinion is don't go less than 5 as there will be instances where we need them. I can't think of any right now but fiat is 10 decimal places. So 80 B is ok.


I think that you think I still had 8 billion in mind as the finished number? I was meaning that I think 80 billion is the first' safe' number to use to ensure enough NEM. ;)
80 000 000 000.000 000


Technically you cannot do with Javascript. That was my point. You can only have 80 000 000 000.000 00 or 8 000 000 000.000 000. ;)


Oh I see.....mmmmm....not so good  :(
#52





For the sake of completeness, there is yet another option: move some of the decimals of precision to the left-hand side of the decimal. For example, if we had a precision of 3 instead of 6 places after the decimal, we could go up to 8 trillion NEM.


I like this idea of 'completeness' or ' wholeness'. Looking at Rockethead, Jabos and my own figures I reckon a safe figure to use which covers everything is 80 billion with 6 decimal places.
  Doing it your way then it would be 8 trillion with 4 decimal places...


80 billion will be 5 decimal places and 8 trillion will be 3 decimal places. Three decimal places is "too few for comfort". ;)

My personal opinion is don't go less than 5 as there will be instances where we need them. I can't think of any right now but fiat is 10 decimal places. So 80 B is ok.


I think that you think I still had 8 billion in mind as the finished number? I was meaning that I think 80 billion is the first' safe' number to use to ensure enough NEM. ;)
80 000 000 000.000 000


Technically you cannot do with Javascript. That was my point. You can only have 80 000 000 000.000 00 or 8 000 000 000.000 000. ;)


I am going to go with 8,000,000,000.000,000 in that case then.  I like the idea that 1 NEM = 1,000,000 Makotoes. 
#53






For the sake of completeness, there is yet another option: move some of the decimals of precision to the left-hand side of the decimal. For example, if we had a precision of 3 instead of 6 places after the decimal, we could go up to 8 trillion NEM.


I like this idea of 'completeness' or ' wholeness'. Looking at Rockethead, Jabos and my own figures I reckon a safe figure to use which covers everything is 80 billion with 6 decimal places.
  Doing it your way then it would be 8 trillion with 4 decimal places...


80 billion will be 5 decimal places and 8 trillion will be 3 decimal places. Three decimal places is "too few for comfort". ;)

My personal opinion is don't go less than 5 as there will be instances where we need them. I can't think of any right now but fiat is 10 decimal places. So 80 B is ok.


I think that you think I still had 8 billion in mind as the finished number? I was meaning that I think 80 billion is the first' safe' number to use to ensure enough NEM. ;)
80 000 000 000.000 000


Technically you cannot do with Javascript. That was my point. You can only have 80 000 000 000.000 00 or 8 000 000 000.000 000. ;)


I am going to go with 8,000,000,000.000,000 in that case then.  I like the idea that 1 NEM = 1,000,000 Makotoes.


+1.          That is my two Makotoes also.  ;D ;D
#54







For the sake of completeness, there is yet another option: move some of the decimals of precision to the left-hand side of the decimal. For example, if we had a precision of 3 instead of 6 places after the decimal, we could go up to 8 trillion NEM.


I like this idea of 'completeness' or ' wholeness'. Looking at Rockethead, Jabos and my own figures I reckon a safe figure to use which covers everything is 80 billion with 6 decimal places.
  Doing it your way then it would be 8 trillion with 4 decimal places...


80 billion will be 5 decimal places and 8 trillion will be 3 decimal places. Three decimal places is "too few for comfort". ;)

My personal opinion is don't go less than 5 as there will be instances where we need them. I can't think of any right now but fiat is 10 decimal places. So 80 B is ok.


I think that you think I still had 8 billion in mind as the finished number? I was meaning that I think 80 billion is the first' safe' number to use to ensure enough NEM. ;)
80 000 000 000.000 000


Technically you cannot do with Javascript. That was my point. You can only have 80 000 000 000.000 00 or 8 000 000 000.000 000. ;)


I am going to go with 8,000,000,000.000,000 in that case then.  I like the idea that 1 NEM = 1,000,000 Makotoes.


+1.          That is my two Makotoes also.  ;D ;D


OK. Case close. We are doing better with 8 Quadrillion Makotoes now!

And I think it is good too for publicity!! Bitcoin had satoshi for a name and we have NEM for a sake drinking makoto.
#55

Wow, I see that there are a lot of thread about the total amount of coins. 

What I think is important is the digits behind the comma. So like I said before, when I go to the cashier to buy my 4KG of biologic/ecologic potatoes I don't want to hear "Well Sir, that'll be 12 NEM and 43523523 Makotoes (12,43323523). What sounds better to you guys?

So let's go for the trillions, but try to lessen the digits behind the comma, this also increases the adaptivity of NEM to the people.

#56

No, boestin, you are wrong.
4 kg potatoes won't cost 12,43523523 NEM but 11,99 or 12,49 or something like that.
With Euro/Dollar etc. nobody sells a product like potatoes or bread or stuff like that for 2,04 or 8,01 or something like that. Its always rounded. Of course people do stuff like ,99 for psychological reasons, but thats a completely different thing.

The digits behind the comma are only for one reason:
If the value of NEM increases that much, that 1 NEM would be worth 10.000 kg potatoes, then people can start to sell it for mNEM instead of "this costs 0,00012 NEM". Understand?

#57

No, boestin, you are wrong.
4 kg potatoes won't cost 12,43523523 NEM but 11,99 or 12,49 or something like that.
With Euro/Dollar etc. nobody sells a product like potatoes or bread or stuff like that for 2,04 or 8,01 or something like that. Its always rounded. Of course people do stuff like ,99 for psychological reasons, but thats a completely different thing.

The digits behind the comma are only for one reason:
If the value of NEM increases that much, that 1 NEM would be worth 10.000 kg potatoes, then people can start to sell it for mNEM instead of "this costs 0,00012 NEM". Understand?


I do understand that, but personally I don't like the fact what is happening with mBTC thing right now, it scares the regular people away from adaption. 
So, in my opinion, the trillion idea is not so bad..
Understand? :-)
#58


No, boestin, you are wrong.
4 kg potatoes won't cost 12,43523523 NEM but 11,99 or 12,49 or something like that.
With Euro/Dollar etc. nobody sells a product like potatoes or bread or stuff like that for 2,04 or 8,01 or something like that. Its always rounded. Of course people do stuff like ,99 for psychological reasons, but thats a completely different thing.

The digits behind the comma are only for one reason:
If the value of NEM increases that much, that 1 NEM would be worth 10.000 kg potatoes, then people can start to sell it for mNEM instead of "this costs 0,00012 NEM". Understand?


I do understand that, but personally I don't like the fact what is happening with mBTC thing right now, it scares the regular people away from adaption. 
So, in my opinion, the trillion idea is not so bad..
Understand? :-)


I like trillion too, but we are limited by Javascript Number objects :(
#59

So, this committee has been very successful and there has been great analysis and many thoughtful comments. Thanks everyone for contributing!


In summary, it seems that 8 or 8,888,888,888 is the way to go.


One interesting idea from rockethead was to distribute 8 billion as stakes, then distribute 888,888,888 as rewards to nodes. I thought about this idea some more and it might be interesting to vary these node rewards based on changes in moving averages of average transaction sizes, as this may indicate changes in prices on an economic scale. Thus varying the rewards (lower when prices go up, raise when prices are going down) might help stabilize prices in the economy.


Does anyone have any thoughts on this more complicated, but economically interesting, dispersement idea?

#60

One interesting idea from rockethead was to distribute 8 billion as stakes, then distribute 888,888,888 as rewards to nodes.


I have nothing against changing number of coins as long as percentage everyone gets remains the same.
If you add 888,888,888 as rewards to nodes everyone's slice gets 11% smaller... I don't think this is acceptable.

Also, we better avoid repeated 8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_%28number%29#In_white_nationalism
#61


One interesting idea from rockethead was to distribute 8 billion as stakes, then distribute 888,888,888 as rewards to nodes.


I have nothing against changing number of coins as long as percentage everyone gets remains the same.
If you add 888,888,888 as rewards to nodes everyone's slice gets 11% smaller... I don't think this is acceptable.

Also, we better avoid repeated 8: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/88_%28number%29#In_white_nationalism


Only need to avoid an even number of repeated 8's, actually.
#62

I like the Pearson explanation presented by Rockethead elsewhere. So I am going with 8 Billion. And also how about 1 NEM = 1,000,000 Nematoes ?? It's got both NEM and Makoto in it? ;D