Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN][MRO] Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology - page 9. (Read 23515 times)

legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network.

It's not microscopic at 9 or 10 years, with the revised schedule. Take a look at the graph a few posts back. With the original schedule, that is more the case. With the revised schedule this is more an issue of 20 years out.  

I'm not positive but I think most of the other alts such as doge have much shorter schedules, so the issue is more urgent there.
legendary
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1008
Forget-about-it
eizh I believe as long as theres a reward, if the coins valuable enough it will be worth it to mine.  But aside from that I don't care if the coin changes the number I guess I'm with tacotime.  You all have a better grasp on the scheduling and usability for longevity than I do absolutely.  If i end up with 100 instead of 200 and the coins better off I'm cool with that.  
legendary
Activity: 1484
Merit: 1005
I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair.  I'm an early adopter.  This halves my money, and it's what I want to do.

There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network.  In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not.  So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins.  To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 2^64-1 atomic units to accommodate this.

Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run.  It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now.

We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news.  Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
I think you guys are being hyper-critical of minor pieces, the name, the emission schedule etc. So many coins released with such less care, I'd hate for this crowd to get stuck on the small stuff.  No exchanges have worked with CryptoNight based coins yet, C-cex was having a hard time... The general crypto community are unfamiliar with what CryptoNote based coins can bring to the table and why it is important.
 (and while im typing) Roach why would we every switch to gpu if you want to mine a gpu coin pick from the hundred available theyre released every day.

Name maybe, but emission schedule is in no way minor. It's one of the defining features of a coin. If you're off, the network becomes unsustainable in the long run. One could argue BTC is successful because it incentivizes miners for at least a decade or two.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
Relaunch with a GPU algorithm unless a Myriadcoin style PoW setup can be achieved.  Name the last successful CPU only coin...it doesn't exist (no, Bitcoin doesn't count).

There no successful coins other than bitcoin. The second largest coin is 5% of bitcoin's market cap. The third largest is 1%.  It gets rapidly worse from there.

If there is ever a successful coin other than bitcoin (unclear, but maybe) it will take new approaches, not anything like any of the current alts.

Personally I don't believe hash algorithm even matters very much. By focusing on that you are getting distracted from anything that does (or at least might) matter.




legendary
Activity: 1610
Merit: 1008
Forget-about-it
I think you guys are being hyper-critical of minor pieces, the name, the emission schedule etc. So many coins released with such less care, I'd hate for this crowd to get stuck on the small stuff.  No exchanges have worked with CryptoNight based coins yet, C-cex was having a hard time... The general crypto community are unfamiliar with what CryptoNote based coins can bring to the table and why it is important.
 (and while im typing) Roach why would we every switch to gpu if you want to mine a gpu coin pick from the hundred available theyre released every day.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1000
Relaunch with a GPU algorithm unless a Myriadcoin style PoW setup can be achieved.  Name the last successful CPU only coin...it doesn't exist (no, Bitcoin doesn't count).
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
Here's a graph I made showing the change of new (red) vs. old (blue) emission schedule. It's coins in circulation vs. blockchain age in years (goes up to 16). We're basically at 0 on the x-axis right now and the magnitude of the slope around there represents the early miner advantage. It's being substantially reduced to follow the flatter BTC-model as originally advertised. There's also a minimum subsidy to preserve miner incentives (and hence blockchain security). The dashed black line is the maximum supply neglecting that minimum subsidy.

hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote.

Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people.

Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.

Since everything is scaled and retroactive, the only person to be affected is... me.  Tongue Because I bought BMR with BTC, priced it with incorrect information, and my share relative to the eventual maximum has been halved. Oh well. The rest merely mined coins that never should have been mined. The "taking away coins" isn't a symptom of the fix: it's the fundamental thing that needed fixing. The result is more egalitarian and follows the original intention.

Software is always a work-in-progress. Waiting for something ideal at launch is pretty hopeless.

edit: Let me point out that most top cryptocurrencies today were released before KGW and other new difficulty retargeting algorithms became widespread. Consequently they had massive instamines on the first day, even favorites in good standing like LTC. Here the early miners are voluntarily reducing their eventual stake for the sake of fairness. How cool is that?
legendary
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1001
getmonero.org
I also agree that the fix is good. Since everyone's coins are halved noone gains and noone loses. And since this stops instamine more people will get to mine it as first adopters which is always good.
sr. member
Activity: 910
Merit: 250
Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Network
Fix is good. Need to be done.  I mine  and hold coins but understand why fix is neccessary.  I willing to have reduced coins to make future of coin strong.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
You guys seem to know what you do very well, and that's worth quite a lot.

Thank you for the kind words. I agree with you that the quality of the team is really important. When I evaluate any project that's the number one thing I look for. I'm very pleased with the quality of the team that has come together around this coin.




newbie
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
I think this would set a strange trend for setting debasement in the currency

It's not debasement. Debasement is issuing more coins, making existing coins worth less. The proposed bug fix is essentially a reverse stock split where every two old coins are exchanged for one new coin.

The extra coins being combined into one coin are coins you should not have received under the "close to Bitcoin's original curve" schedule that was advertised. To argue that bugs can't be fixed is absurd.

If there were a bug that gave some people a million extra coins for no reason in bitcoin or any other coin, you can bet there would be a fix to remove those coins.

As you say, this is all an experiment. If people abandon the coin in droves because of the reverse split, then that will be a useful experiment and we can all get on with our lives with some other coin. Most of us believe that the value of a coin with the cryptonote feature set, no-premine, no-instamine, no-tax, and a bitcoin-like reward schedule is compelling. We'll see if that turns out to be correct.





Yes, debasement is devaluing the current value (Something that occurs when issuing more coins). As trades have already occurred at a certain price . . eliminating half of the coins will only serve to raise the value of the currency from what it was yesterday. That is quite the opposite of debasement is what I was getting at . . sorry if I was unclear.

In setting a trend for debasement by establishing minimum block rewards, this is a strange start. All I'm saying. Not that it's a terrible one, and certainly not that this is debasement.

I understand the bug, and completely agree that it should be fixed. I will also be choosing to stick with this coin because of the bold move being taken. You guys seem to know what you do very well, and that's worth quite a lot.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote.

Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people.

Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.

What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes.

Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. I think we can fix this in a way that makes nearly everyone happy and does minimal damage, but if not, then a new coin is certainly possible.

hero member
Activity: 938
Merit: 1001
I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote.

Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people.

Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?

The existing block chain would not change, of course. What would happen is that if you were using the new version of the wallet, the old coins would be displayed using a value half as large as what is actually in the block chain. New coins would be displayed using their actual value. When the old coins are moved, the miner would adjust their value on the block chain to be new coins. So in a sense, the fix is mostly cosmetic.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
I think this would set a strange trend for setting debasement in the currency

It's not debasement. Debasement is issuing more coins, making existing coins worth less. The proposed bug fix is essentially a reverse stock split where every two old coins are exchanged for one new coin.

The extra coins being combined into one coin are coins you should not have received under the "close to Bitcoin's original curve" schedule that was advertised. To argue that bugs can't be fixed is absurd.

If there were a bug that gave some people a million extra coins for no reason in bitcoin or any other coin, you can bet there would be a fix to remove those coins.

As you say, this is all an experiment. If people abandon the coin in droves because of the reverse split, then that will be a useful experiment and we can all get on with our lives with some other coin. Most of us believe that the value of a coin with the cryptonote feature set, no-premine, no-instamine, no-tax, and a bitcoin-like reward schedule is compelling. We'll see if that turns out to be correct.



newbie
Activity: 23
Merit: 0
+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?

It's not even been a week. Nothing is lost, besides a couple of auctions. Continuing on a path that would provide an excessive emission is far more detrimental than causing some level of discomfort with the small group involved right now.

End of the day, if you're here now and have been here . . you're still an early adopter.

I think this would set a strange trend for setting debasement in the currency . . but at this point we're all just a group of people who ran a hash function for a week . . not part of some game-changing currency.

Give it a shot and if it all goes to hell make a new fork.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.

No, not true. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.

Also, a favourable premine for early adopters is far from uncommon - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are arguments for each.

Right, and no one involved with this coin wanted or wants a favorable premine. Well, maybe other than you, that is.

Oh here we go........

I have valid questions, brush me off if you want, the questions will remain.

I already said you made valid points. It was a screw up, and fixing it can't be done in a perfect way. We're trying to choose the least harmful fix. They all have down sides.

hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 500
So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.

No, not true. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.

Also, a favourable premine for early adopters is far from uncommon - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are arguments for each.

Right, and no one involved with this coin wanted or wants a favorable premine. Well, maybe other than you, that is.

Oh here we go........

I have valid questions, brush me off if you want, the questions will remain.
Pages:
Jump to: