Topic: [ANN][MRO] Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology - page 8. (Read 23515 times)

yes, idea is good. that's how cryptocurrency people should make decisions. i'm in!

I don't want your coins and I'm not suggesting that anyone is trying to screw anybody, this is all about the perception of devs being able to take coins without any mandate - please try to take me seriously.

In few days I will publish a code with merged mining support. This code will be turned ON only by voting process from miners. What does it mean:

- miners supporting merged mining are to update their nodes and miners. New miners will issue blocks with modified minor_version field indicating they are ready to accept AuxPoW blocks. But no AuxPoW blocks will be issued before 75% of last 1000 blocks will have a positive vote (a changed minor_version).

- miners not supporting will not update but will still be able to mine and accept blocks. In case of successful voting they will have to switch to new code. In case of voting failed they can stay on old version.

The same procedure is suitable for all other protocol changes.

How about I just give you 250 coins? The idea here is to move forward and correct the error, not rip anyone off.

You seem to forget that people need to be able to trust their "money" also - this coin will have a reputation of devs literally taking money off people to "solve" technical  problems they don't necessarily understand and trying to hide that fact with flawed maths.

There is a danger that this coin will go the same way as Myriad, becoming nothing more than a technical exercise for miners and geeks without any possible real world usage. End users don't care about emission rates and algorithms but they do care about the contents of their wallets and whether the devs feel entitled to raid them - it could be seen as the behaviour of a centralised currency.

I know I am now going to get accused of being a pump and dumper by those too emotionally attached to this coin, but how can that be true when I have less than 500 coins? Or is it 250? Or will it be 125? Also, if halving people's balances "has no real world effect" on people, how does not halving benefit me? You can't have it both ways, it makes a difference or it doesn't.

This biggest hurdle of crypto and mass adoption is it's perceived dodgy reputation - this move really doesn't help that image because it adds to the genuine fear, uncertainty and doubt that already exists. Ignore public perception of your coin at your peril.

Seems alright to me. You should create a voting instructions tho, cause it's not looks like an easy process

Hello!

It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming.

But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by bitcointalk.org people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum.

Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless.

In case of hardfork that isn't supported by majority of miners the network will split into two nets with low-power fork and high-power not-forking branches. I don't think that this will be good for anybody.

Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?

will there be any other changes? hard-fork with reduced emission?
do you want to orginize smth like the "core dev team" or the "Secret Monero Community"? why does thankful_for _today as main dev doesn't participate in discussion?
everything i see there is pretty strange. just like bytecoin (BCN)  

The daemon is likely still synching the blockchain

When I command "start_mining ..." I get this message:

Error: mining has NOT been started: daemon is busy. Please try later

Rename: Bitmonero -> Monero

is MRO equal to BMR? what's going on?

They aren't radically different.  All you need to implement is an instruction cache that does most of the normal transformations for hashing algorithms (eg bit rotations).  Then you can make an ASIC for any hashing algorithm that can be implemented in 20k-100k circuits.  scrypt was neat in that it required some memory, but then they made ASICs with memory.

If you're saying weighting can cause a big disturbance from a minor shift in hashing, that phenomenon seems much less likely to occur with 4 algos instead of 2 if weighted properly.

It's obviously also much more cartel proof.

People like Gmaxwell seem to claim that a group like KNCminer would create ASICs for all four chains.

I don't really see groups like that monopolizing all four chains into eternity, especially if each algo is radically different from one another.

I think this is the right attitude. Like you I stand to "lose" from this decision in having my early mining halved, but I welcome it. Given how scammy the average coin launch is, I think maximizing fairness for everyone is the right move. Combining a fair distribution with the innovation of Cryptonote tech could be what differentiates Monero from other coins.

No.  The second biggest cryptocurrency is Liteoin.  I CPU mined Litecoin for months.  It was a CPU coin at generation and was flooded with botnets and large computing clusters early on.  The coin succeeded despite this, because eventually a GPU algo came out.  I'm sure we'll see the same thing for the cryptonote hashing algo.

Myriadcoin introduces vulnerability when miners hop between difficulties and the difficulty of one hashing algo for GPU goes down and another goes up.  It's not a proper solution.  We saw a similar thing with RUCoin (which had SHA256 and scrypt) and the coin failed.

You seem to forget what the function of this is: money.  As long as people find the privacy afforded to be favourable, it will have a usage and monetary value.  This is the whole point.

Roach the algo takes 3.5 GB ram to run on the original, Its not a walk in the park for a cpu...

There will be some time when its still likely to be a problem. Almost everyone agrees with this, although I guess there are a few die hard bitcoin originalists who don't see a need to change ever.

I'm less sure about the solution though. I'd rather some mechanism that provides whatever rewards are necessary rather than trying to guess at that 20 years ahead of time, but I'm not sure at all what mechanism that is. Some small inflation rate is probably better than nothing.

You are the one that does not understand the big picture.  Why was Dogecoin successful at all and has beaten Bitcoin in daily transactions several times?  The answer is market penetration.

A currency is useless without high market penetration.  Guess what algos give the highest market penetration?  GPU.

When people try to CPU mine and earn 1 penny a day due to botnets, most people cease to bother doing so, and the coin dies from lack of interest.

The future of PoW, if GPU only can't be achieved, is Myriadcoin style coins where you can mine with anything and receive some kind of reward.

Yeah it's a little less dire now, I will calculate inflation percent soon and we can collectively decide if it's too low after a certain time.

It's a problem with Bitcoin too, so we could also ignore it and wait to see how Bitcoin eventually handles it.