Topic: [AEON] Aeon Speculation - page 87. (Read 190166 times)

who is TPTB

Only correction I'd make is that it was never really dead. I got involved to a minor extent right from the point where the original developer stopped maintaining it. My first task was to patch a few bugs and organize a new community-run seed node to replace the one the original developer shut down. My involvement increased over time but there was never a point when the coin was completely unmaintained or when activity on the thread completely stopped for an extended period.

The value of an idea like this is a direct reflection of the talent that is getting involved with it.  
  
Yes, it was 'dead' (hurting) for a many months.  It's conceivable someone was mining it with a plan to eventually resurrect it, but that could be said of any of the thousand blockchains lying idle.  The simple fact is that without technology, talent, ongoing development, and a community, no currency has any chance to ever reach escape velocity and establish an economy (Tier 2 of a money).  Technology was always here, but interest and talent seem to have returned to this blockchain lately.  It's my belief that this isn't anything shady - it's a genuine attempt to resurrect what once was a promising Cryptonote (before it was abandoned).  
  
Smooth getting involved (who has been public about how much he owns) meant that suddenly 'talent' had returned to this dead blockchain.  I saw the potential to help build (not just speculate on) the next big 'litecoin' of the Cryptonote world and I wanted to get involved too.  As I just told someone over PM: the way I see it, every Coca-Cola will eventually have its Pepsi.  It's been a year and a half and only Boolberry has attempted to create some kind of other viable Cryptonote coin (but I have serious concerns about their perpetual 1% dev-mine of Boolberry, leaving Monero as the only solid Cryptonote).  Since the existence of a viable alternative Cryptonote is inevitable, far better to be involved in creating it vs. waiting for some unknown force to create it with unknown intentions.  This way Aeon can at least complement Monero, even if it eventually jousts with it too.  
  
So considering all these factors, plus considering that for some reason the illustrious TPTB himself took time out of his busy day to come take a look at our homely little coin, I'm making a speculative allocation of both my time and money - into Aeon.  
  
As I've said, it's my intention to acquire a long-term 1% to hold, and a little more on top of that to use as "angel investing" material (think of it as a separate dev fund, but a social one).  If the coin gets too cheap, I can see possibly acquiring some more to play with.  No one has gifted me any Aeon, and I've received no incentives to be part of it; I've had to use half of my yearly bonus (a significant amount of money for me) to establish my position.  Why would I do this, despite not knowing any more than you do?  Because over the years I've slowly (I think) developed the ability to sniff out a good thing.  And in this case (and in Monero's), I see a chance to help build it instead of just speculate on the sidelines.  
  
I like that we are 'practicing as we preach'.  Instead of just going and inventing yet another blockchain we are looking into revitalizing an existing one.  There's no need for 1,000 Cryptonote blockchains - just a few good ones.  Hey, maybe a miner is sitting on a Satoshi sized chunk of Aeon they mined for free during the months when few cared about this blockchain.  But if they are, they are certainly not profiting off it at the moment.  Aeon is stupid cheap, you can buy 1/1,000 for like $200 right now.  And look around this entire altcoin world - do you see any other project with the potential of Aeon (and Monero) right now?  Fuck no.  So if someone wants to cash out their Aeon to people who actually believe in building it (for a paltry few thousand dollars), I welcome them to do it.  
  
In the end we all have to make up our own mind.  I think that Cryptonote is the next big thing, and unless a new technology is fundamentally incompatible with those blockchains (as privacy was with the Bitcoin blockchain) we should focus on building and adding technology to these two vs. starting new currencies.  Come on in and get involved with us TPTB - I'll give you 5,000 AEON of what I've acquired to bring your talent and passion into the fold.  

correct get the facts right before writing silly posts. donations were given after smooth took over the coin.

I do not understand this, were you not on board contributing valuable ideas and even a domain name to the project? ...

Thank you for warning us about this coin with a total cap of $133,000 USD.. if your concern really is insider concentration why aren't you trolling the DASH to warn investors about the fraudulent instamine  

edit: correction

I'm being polite when I call you a troll. The way you're creating FUD and giving out misinformation is just unbelievable. Enlighten yourself and dig through the main thread to understand what really happened. FYI, donations toward the dev account came AFTER smooth was on board, no one "enticed" him to join.
I sense you have a bit of jealousy toward smooth, perhaps due to the overwhelming respect he has and the success for the resurrection of AEON.

Case law has already shown the existing securities law and case law is flexible (via the Howey test) to be applicable to violations ongoing in crypto. The Howey test doesn't require a corporation.

I tried to warn you guys, but you are determined to suffer your fate.

P.S. my understanding is Aeon was a nearly dead coin that some investors bought up and then awarded many coins to smooth to entice him to be the lead developer. Smacks of insider concentration.

It seems like most people support this. Can we have a vote to make it official? How long before the code can be changed to reflect it?

 
Hey, thanks a lot!! I've actually been through the jitters phase that you and TBTP are going through now. But to be frank, there comes a time when ya realize that there's no way to be truly disruptive without risking trouble. That's just the way it is, even though I have definite mixed feelings about it.

For what it's worth, my attendance here is spotty because I'm working on a side project that I hope I can leverage into pushing crypto unto the masses. I'll say no more except that it involves Horizon, and that it'll have an "idealistic" side. To be frank, Bitcoin's new-and-strong bull market is a welcome blessing (albeit coincidental.)

 
Thanks for the update. The only strong opinion I have is, the emission rate should be simple. In money matters, there's an invisible line between sophisticated complexity and too-smart-by-half. Exhibit A: The Fed. 

There's a lot of wisdom in Milton Friedman's k-percent rule. A predictable, fixed and simple emission schedule gives everyone a stable and easy-to-understand standard to truck and trade with. As a matter of pure economics, it also makes the process of reaching equilibrium states less difficult than otherwise. Give the need for a miners' subsidy for security's sake, a k-percent-rule system makes the collective task of reaching equilibria the least blurry: in this sense, it's the optimum.


Nxtblg out.

 
  
Yes, it all makes perfect sense when you think about it.  Just looking at this logo:
 
  
the idea of "8" has already been buried in aeon for a long time now and we just haven't realized it.  So to cap it with an inflation of "infinite 8's" is a pretty incredible solution to the issue.  (even the idea of "infinity 8's" is a mathematical pun in itself)  
  

  
Also, as I posted in the [ANN] topic, I don't want this to feel 'ported' in any way over to China.  The Monero 0.9 base will be done soon^tm (shit, there's another nested-pun on the number eight), which will finally give us the realization of a fully functional and reasonable memory footprint currency.  After that the GUI is a relatively quick given, and I want to attract the best and brightest Chinese cryptographers, mathematicians, and economists to work hand in hand with us.  I'm not discounting any other nation; obviously we hope that Aeon and Monero both remain international ledgers in the truest sense - but it's hard to deny the popularity of cryptocurrency in China at the moment.  
  
Ideally all nations (including Russia) will lift their bans/regulation on cryptocurrency so we can draw in the brightest talent, regardless of borders.    
  
Lastly, if we are suddenly going "8-tarded" with this   then I believe we should definitely choose æ as the symbol as it flows better than the others, best encapsulates the symbology we are trying to elude to, and also has some mathematical/spiritual puns buried inside of it.

Liking the 0.8888 idea.

Would be useful to help form relations with the Chinese right from the start.

+0.8888888888888...

Okay let's consider this an official proposal then, open for comments:

The proposal has been made by MoneroMoo (and refined by Smooth) that the trailing emission should be 8/9% or 0.888~% (infinite 8's).  
  
I agree for many reasons.  It's a number that carries lots of mathematical amusements and symbology:  
  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/888_%28number%29
 
  
It really feels like we found the ideal answer here, and I encourage everyone to get on board, but if you have any reservations or you disagree please feel free to make your voice heard.  
  
 
  
As I've stated, it was going up mainly because I was buying a lot but the buying pressure has declined a little.  But our purpose isn't to create some shallow pump.  We want to create a genuine technological asset that will support Monero and Cryptonote research going forward while also establishing its own identity.  Let's be more worried about Aeon price this time next year, or even in 2017, not whether or not we ride the coattails of the current Bitcoin explosion.  

For a while AEON was going up while almost all alts were falling. Looks like gravity finally caught up to it:(

I like the tail emission discussions

perfect.

First of all, Nxtblog you have been making some incredible posts lately.  I'm a fan and have started following you.  Thanks for your contributions to the space - you sound like you really know your stuff.  
  
Second, I think we are slowly finding consensus over at the Aeon [ANN] topic and on the subreddit about a perpetual 1% tail emission for Aeon.  
  
It would look something like this:  
  
 
  
 
  
As you can see, this does a great job to ensure miners stay incentivized in the long term without affecting the ecosystem.  I think we will have a great combination of tech and features if we are one of the first Cryptonote coins with an emphasis on lightweight and mobile development while also representing a responsible and low inflation rate.  If you have any strong opinions on this issue one way or the other, now is the time to make your voice heard.

Not at all. To be frank, talking up an asset you own is so common that it even has a term: "talking your book." Even in the thoroughly regulated asset markets, all you have to do is disclose honestly how much you own.

There are special rules for "insiders," but those folks are specified by the relevant laws. There are also special disclosure requirements for stocks if you own a large fraction of an issue. The précised percentage varies - 5%, 10% 20% - but the gist of the special disclosure consists of letting the securities regulators know you have them and (in a general sense) why you bought them.

This significant-ownership disclosure requirement, however, has a special purpose: it's to foil stealthy takeovers. And that intent puts forth an obvious question: does a 'takeover', in the sense of holding 50% + 1 of a cryptocurrency, have any meaning? For a listed corporation, 50% + 1 gives you control of the thing - which opens up the possibility of abusing that control by pulling shenanigans that benefit the majority owner but not the minority owners. How does that apply to a cryptocurrency? The closest similarity, for PoW coins, is controlling 51% of the hashrate. It is not owning 51% of the cryptocurrency itself.

A cryptocurrency is not a corporation. That plain fact means that there's a lot of good reason to object to a simple law that brings cryptocurrencies as if they were equities or debt securities. This fact alone all-but guarantees - if the new crypto mavens get into lobbying like the tech giants already have - that: a) cryptocurrency will likely have a new regulatory agency; b) it will take a long time for the details of the enabling legislation to be hammered out.

Sorry about that, but that's the way the market twists-and-turns sometimes. To be honest, I missed that jump completely. 

everyone waiting for the poloniex add. youl see a dump depending how high it goes but monero volume will head towards aeon