Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 120. (Read 387551 times)

Please quantify this advantage in terms of % of the eventual coin supply of 18.4 million.

Also, do you have grounds to believe that it was both intentional, and the devs or whoever did it intentionally, are getting personal gain such as a kickback? Quantify also this, and produce the evidence.

I agree those are important parts of a fair launch, but there are other factors to consider.

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

I just may agree on everything except POS. Does not gets into my head easily. I just may be too stupid, sry

1. No premine, instamine or ninjamine.
2. Exchange as soon as possible.
3. Marketing as soon as possible.

For Monero:

1. The current devteam did not actually launch the coin, but took it over soon after launch. The devteam combined has less than 0.5% of the eventual number of coins, and has bought/mined all their coins fairly in a competitive environment, in addition to working for free and paying most of the development costs out of their pocket (a minority of the costs have been covered by community donations).

2. Monero started OTC trading before 0.5% of the coins were mined, and was listed when 3.2% were mined. The volume in the most voluminous channel alone (OTC thread, then CryptoNote exchange, then Poloniex), during the coin's history, is 4460k, which is 3.7 times higher than the average number of coins existing during the same period. Thus, on average, every monero changes hands in less than a month.

3. There has been marketing from early on, so that the difficulty and the price have been high since almost the beginning (only 2.4% of the trades ever, have been executed at a price 1/4 or less than the current price). I heard about the coin promptly after launch, and I don't usually seek information on altcoins, actually never before (or after) bought one. Withholding information (factual and hype), and then releasing it, is conducive to pump & dump, but none of that has happened with Monero.

When there is no comparison. You just know it.

I believe mine is the consensus view:

-0% premine

-100% open source

-reasonable notice (a week or two)

-reasonable emission curve (<50% coins mined in first week or two)

Please note that fairness (equality of opportunity) is a concern entirely unrelated to equality of outcome.  We've all seen how confusing the two causes no end of entitled whining.

Interesting point. You're probably correct.

On the other hand XC's approach is unique (layered, flexible, designed for mobile and for scalability), and so starting afresh makes sense.

Nobody, especially with influence, should say this.

As for the premine, XC would also be able to fund development with no premine if highly successful. But if needs to get there first, and for that it'll need a big investment in top-notch development.

Have you seen XC's rate of progress? Since its launch on 8 May it's delivered the Xnode protocol (true P2P with end-to-end encryption), trustless mixing, multipath ad hoc networking, the XC TOR Stick, and XChat. Up next is the official public launch, and then full-featured mobile wallets.

You don't get that without funding.

He would probably be wider appreciated if he was not dispersing dev power, but rather contributed to some of the projects that has most of network effect potential

Thanks :-)

About being closed source:

XC's stance is that while being open-source is ideal, it is equally important to limit the prevalence of P&D scams and cheap knockoff clones that deceive noobs, dilute the marketplace, and reduce confidence in altoins in general. It's a phenomenon that hurts every project and is profoundly unethical.

Here's XC's statement:
XC is committed to the open source model. Open source code is vital for the health and advancement of cryptographic technologies, and it is a privilege to share our technical breakthroughs with a community such as this. We believe that XC's code embodies several world-firsts enabling anonymity that is scalable, mobile-friendly, POS-integrated, and is ultimately a platform upon which a broad range of Blockchain 2.0 technologies will be built.

However people’s faith in cryptocurrency projects is significantly hindered by clones. Therefore we believe that the ethical way to engage with the community is to make our code available on a delayed timeline. This way, the community will still benefit from our work, while we'd reduce the incentive for developers to flood the marketplace with clones that lack a long term future and reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon. XC represents several market-leading innovations, and we are honoured to make these available to the community in the near future.

What is your definition of fair launch?  

That a great summery!  I hlod some XC, but only a token amount.

Metcalfe is an ad-hoc meshtech guru, but his crypto skills aren't anything special.  And one does not simply anon a coin, or it would have been done already.

Being closed source, even for a little while, is not acceptable and shows the XC paradigm and approach are flawed.

The premine is also an issue.  If (highly successful) Monero can be 100% open source and 0% premined, XC's excuses are invalid.

That's a good one.

My short version:

- BTC is a good coin. Hold it.

- Of the cryptonote coins, only one has realistic chance of winning - the first fair launch: XMR. Buy it.

- Of the 2.0 "coins". They are actually startup stocks. Do your DD. I haven't bought any, for the lack of reason to buy.

My version:

As i'm not cryptoanithing i will not give any valid opinion on Cryptonite, but i'll note that mining BBR is still pretty much egalitarian. BBR got optimized GPU miners relatively early in it's life and algo runs within same order of magnitude ond GPU and CPU, so pretty much everyone with comp connected on the Internet is still in the game. Also, i'll note that BBR situation from a month ago, with one acknowledged private GPU miner, only influenced the priority list of BBR development, and got it in the situation it is now – with spectrum of opensource miners (kudos to anyone contributed to this, all our grandchildren just may be thankful to U. Most kudos to those behind GNU initiative who made everything else possible). So it just might be that Christian in the end gave several benefits to the project. I still hope he opensources his CUDA miner though. Aditionally, BBR mining seems to develop in very decentralized direction.

If i had to say something about Cryptonite situation i would say that it is mined on the order of 0.1%, so if playground levels up in few days or weeks any scenario is still possible.

Hahaha, no.

Could not agree more. I just might add explicitly that generally marketing through BTC awared channels may be insufficient for larger network effect.

Regarding rest of the post, i think that most enjoy reading your posts in which there are no names callings to the respectable and constructive members of the community. Personally, as i do not understand at least 40% of your posts i noticed that hyper-production of the posts does not help me to learn quickly, or even sometimes to catch your point without understanding all the details. But i guess you are addressing to the knowledgeable part of the Cryptoland

Opinions on Cryptonite, the first coin implementing mini-blockchain? Whitepaper here.

Interesting that someone is trying to create something new for a change, but I feel like the PoW algo selection will make it BCN2 or BBR2 as there is/will be a private mining group with GPU miners whereas there's no hope of mining with a high-end desktop CPU. Maybe this won't be an issue as only half of the coins will be mined within the first 10 years, and you can't really mine with a 1 video card desktop anything anyway these days? Another coin forking from Cryptonite with an established PoW algo and miners and pools ready at launch could steal its thunder though, similar to BCN vs XMR.

For me this compilation even not comprehensive on everything mentioned subject still was very useful to understand at least something:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins

In regards to Monero and TOR, it's clear at least to me now that TOR is shit and apparently the privacy as been broken or something, I don't really know because im not a technical person and never used it but that's what i've read, so Monero is going to use i2p so here you have bigger reasons to bet on Monero and forget the rest of shitty anon coins.