Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 26. (Read 387542 times)

To move on, I have decided to erase the speculation of the recent troll attack towards XMR. I personally feel that the line of good taste was crossed and luckily I am in the position to clean it up in my threads.

In general, there is no way to get rid of trolls. Ignore and delete buttons make life more tolerable.

Your idea of a slow block time that gradually decreases is fine, and also gradually increasing rewards. I see now harm in that at all. Those are probably good practices to follow on any new coin.

I was referring more to a large unexpected change in the emission rate on an existing coin.

When a new coin is to be launched, the schedule of the block time can be coded and known publicly. The hash rate/difficulty will rise gradually. It will not get mined too instantly as the block time will reduce in the near future. Miner can wait until the block time reduces (or difficulty reduces). But in the mean time, the block reward will also reduce.

However the purpose of creating a coin is usually to make the coin creator rich fast. The creator will not have the patience to grow the coin and reap the rewards later.

darkcoin

The conditions for it would like be hard to find, at least as I envision it.

The coin would have to be fairly well established, reasonably well known and widely understood, not have extreme concentration, with an active somewhat liquid market and at most moderate price manipulation. I believe all these conditions exist for XMR and some might disagree with that, but most other coins and especially new coins, would be far worse (likely few would disagree with that).

Under these conditions I believe a large cut in the short term rate of emissions would reduce the price.

Who knows if I'm right though.

Probably it is too late for XMR. I wonder if a new coin can try that. To reduce the risk of 51%, this coin could also use a GPU friendly algorithm.

You know what would be an interesting experiment. Actually trying it. Because my theory is that a change like this would make the price go down, exactly the opposite of what people usually proposing such changes intend.

No, I'm not seriously suggesting this for XMR, but I would love to see the experiment happen.

AMEN

Link?

My idea would apply to the launch of new coins, if not XMR.

Sorry, but this makes no sense. 5% of today's hashrate could 51% attack the coin.

Seriously, all these discussions lately about changing fundamental stuff just because people are not happy with the price are tiring.
Changing the fundamentals of a coin because you want an immediate increase in price is wrong. Given the stability of XMR despite the fact that it is everything but user friendly for the average Joe, and all the attacks, I'd say the fundamentals in terms of emissions are about perfect.

 

The global hash rate would be 10% of present. The coin can mature slowly, with all the developments.

What kind of global hashrate do you think $ 4k / day would give XMR?

Even miners who support coins they like and not necessarily need to make a profit such as me would leave the coin hanging.

I find with the right disposition and adequate patience (otherwise this can become very frustrating), technical suggestions from non-technical people are often incredibly useful. They are often not blinded by the details of the technology (because they don't even know them) and can be more creative and groundbreaking as a result. I've solved several major design problems by listening to these ideas (not from Risto specifically, but in other projects).

XMR generates 1440 blocks a day, it needs about $40k injection a day to keep the price stable. The coin is not adopted/used widely. The only out of exchange transaction I know of is one guy paid XMR to an artist and the artist paid rent to landlord.

Therefore, the 1 minute block time is not necessary at this phase of the coin. We can wait much longer than 1 min to send/receive the coin to/from exchange.

We can increase the block time to say, 10 min. That should be enough for the current situation. We will generate 144 block and need $4k to keep price stable. As the coin get used widely, we can reduce gradually block time to 1 min, e.g. 1 min less every 3 months. This will also reduce the problem of block bloat.

This will increase the distribution time of the coin. Late comers will benefit.

The block reward can be the same as present schedule, which reduce constantly.

Yes we have. No we aren't going to tell you how.

I don't even know that people want that though, which makes it a questionable focus. I'm sure you feel differently, so best of luck trying to create this mass scale consumer-driven solution you seem to envision (and I mean that sincerely -- I hope you succeed).

Honestly most are pretty happy with credit cards (would be better with a bit stronger security but that is an implementation detail), Apple Pay, Paypal, etc. Decentralization is interesting and has compelling advantages, but getting ordinary people to actually care about that difference seems an uphill battle, and the natural market for this technology seems elsewhere.

I believe he did not exactly mean that there is a serious and fatal exploit that is certainly exploitable and sure to kill the coin. He did not say it, and the world does not work that way. All ecosystems (of which coins are just a tech-heavy example) have vulnerabilities. Some can be infiltrated by force, others by deceit. This is a multi-faceted issue. The admittedly quite clever campaign that used the fake pro-Monero trolls may have influenced BCX's initial reaction.

Now we are already in a point where everyone actually involved wants to move on, and only the consumers of sensation media still want to dig deeper.


It is not easy to say in a person's lifetime if he has left a legacy of tirelessly working for the better world, nor compare 2 people on this ground. I am doing to the best of my ability and you likewise. Our styles are very different though. I am showing a way that people around me can copy and follow, your way is impossible to follow. I don't know anything about tech and propose using imperfect solutions, sometimes just for the sake of feeling empowered by the new thing. You can deem some solutions faulty before they are even implemented. I have made some money by following general investment principles, you don't even care about making money. We are different.

As I am sure you know from experience T.A. is correct about 50% of the time, because there are cycles within cycles, so we never know which cycle is in control. So we need some supporting fundamental.

Thus it seems you are betting that BCX is lying. What caused you to place the odds higher that he is lying than not? It is very suspicious that he won't commit to reveal what he knows later if the exploit hasn't been sold and used by such a date in the future.

On the larger (longer) cycle, has any one figured out how to scale CN's ring signatures to 200 million users? Apple Pay will be there in a year or so. Paypal (cum Bitpay, Coinbase et al centralized crap) is targeting in the unbanked in the developing world (assuming Bangladesh's threat to jail crypto-currency users is an outlier).

In the middle of euphoria, such a rumor would have been just disregarded without actual proof of messing with the blockchain.

Cycles may be in control, but we create the cycles, so I don't feel the need to develop an argument about this.