Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1312. (Read 4671575 times)

It wouldn't clearly benefit miners, unless the price went up enough to offset the reduced rewards. If some of the miners depart, the coin becomes less secure.

It wouldn't necessarily benefit the reputation or adoption of the coin, since it looks like an instamine. If you have been involved for the past six months, you got the benefit of large numbers of coins being minted and traded at low (and even increasingly lower) prices. Then mining gets cut and everyone but the early adopters gets to fight over a smaller supply, or pay up to buy from early adopters' stashes.

It also wouldn't necessarily benefit confidence in (and again reputation of) the coin. If it is considered acceptable to change once, it could be acceptable to change again. No one knows where that leads, and it is hard for anyone who is buying to know what he or she is buying.

Also a slower curve now means higher inflation later, for a longer period of time. Pay now or pay later?

This is not a the sort of change to be made lightly. I most certainly preferred a slower curve at the start. Now, I'm not sure the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Just tell me what the wonder is the idea behind giving more coins in proportion of the existing coins? What does it accomplish?

Just tell me what the wonder is the idea behind giving more coins in proportion of the existing coins? What does it accomplish?

*Sigh* I need to pull mine off but I'm afraid to.  Maybe the devs have a webwallet.

With the ITO/ICO's Poloniex has gotten involved in (from what I understand)

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/sec-sends-inquiry-letters-hundreds-bitcoin-companies-unregistered-securities/

That might make it even worse.


Edit:  Looks like this news spooked someone - back down to 17's

waxo has some professional contact with filmmakers. He lives in Paris, we are in excellent terms and I plan to see him at the beginning of December. Interested?

It would have annual % increase, so even after the entire supply is mined out, you still get a certain % of coins every year proportional the # of coins you hold?

I will not do it alone. Everyone will participate and I'll find someone competent for the editing.

My thought is that price per coin would offset the loss in mining rewards, so the hash rate wouldn't be affected unless everyone migrated to larger pools to offset the lesser chance of reward.

See the point of acceptable change--how do you sell such a major strategical move?

Slower curve of inflation? Hmmm.... Maybe 2% with a hidden x% is something the bankers got right? 2% + x fee = how many years?

In Devs we trust. 

It wouldn't clearly benefit miners, unless the price went up enough to offset the reduced rewards. If some of the miners depart, the coin becomes less secure.

It wouldn't necessarily benefit the reputation or adoption of the coin, since it looks like an instamine. If you have been involved for the past six months, you got the benefit of large numbers of coins being minted and traded at low (and even increasingly lower) prices. Then mining gets cut and everyone but the early adopters gets to fight over a smaller supply, or pay up to buy from early adopters' stashes.

It also wouldn't necessarily benefit confidence in (and again reputation of) the coin. If it is considered acceptable to change once, it could be acceptable to change again. No one knows where that leads, and it is hard for anyone who is buying to know what he or she is buying.

Also a slower curve now means higher inflation later, for a longer period of time. Pay now or pay later?

This is not a the sort of change to be made lightly. I most certainly preferred a slower curve at the start. Now, I'm not sure the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.

Wouldn't a longer/lower emissions curve benefit everyone?

Grabbed this from the DRK thread, thought that anyone trading on Poloniex would like to know .. seeing as how Poloniex is such a large part of our volume.

http://altcoinpress.com/2014/10/fincen-ruling-us-government-ramps-up-war-on-cryptocurrency/

Pretty significant to be honest. Monero will have 18.4 million total/max coins. 14.72 million (80%) will be mined in the first 4 years. Currently, we're at 4.2 million in circulation.

The first 4 years, has heavy inflation. This gives investors an incentive to buy in at the end of that timeframe. And 4 years in crypto is a long time, with a significant chance that something better will come into the market.

The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today issued two administrative rulings regarding digital currency. And the government has apparently decided to go with the nuclear option.

The first ruling published today relates to the application of FinCEN regulations to a virtual currency trading platform, while the second ruling discusses the application of FinCEN regulations to a virtual currency payment system.

In ruling FIN-2014-R011, FinCEN states that any and all cryptocurrency exchanges must become licensed as a money transmitter including crypto-only exchanges:

    As explained in the Guidance, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.

In ruling FIN-2014-R012, the agency confirms that any and all payment processors are obliged to register as money transmitters, significantly increasing the cost of entry in becoming a digital payments provider.

    As described above, the Company is an exchanger under the Guidance because it engages as a business in accepting and converting the customer’s real currency into virtual currency for transmission to the merchant. The fact that the Company uses its cache of Bitcoin to pay the merchant is not relevant to whether it fits within the definition of money transmitter.

Once labeled a money transmitter, a business wishing to continue operating must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to become licensed in each of the 50 states. And that’s only the beginning of the regulatory costs and legal hoop jumping.

paperworkIn addition, companies are required to register with FinCEN, conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of its exposure to money laundering, implement an Anti-Money Laundering Program based on such risk assessment, and comply with various record keeping, reporting and transaction monitoring obligations, in addition to meeting several other requirements.

It is interesting to note that the government classifies Bitcoin as a digital “property” for taxation purposes, but as a digital “money” for regulatory and licensing purposes.

Do you think Bitcoin can survive this latest atomic bomb blast? Log in below using your favorite social media network and weigh in on the discussion.

I'm so tired...
Guys can you please post that missive so that I can go to bed?... 

Depends on the miner, although I must admit I havent checked recently, but only Claymore's used to support backup pools

Pool downtime shouldn't be a big factor since you can and should set up backup pools in your miner.

Moneropool.com is down to 30% of net hash currently, which is an improvement but its still not a good distribution for network security.

If anyone can find a way to get those miners to understand that you dont earn any more from a pool which finds a block every 5min compared to every 5hrs they should get a prize. Pool uptime and fees are the critical factor, a pool which averages half a day of downtime per month is like another 1.5% on its fees.