Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1379. (Read 4670630 times)

All I can say is, we have limited time (100% of us are doing this on a volunteer part time basis in our free time) and have spent most of it at this point fighting fires. You can talk all you want about "integrative funding models" but unless someone steps forward to do the work on that, it won't happen soon if at all.

I did say that we will have a spreadsheet as described earlier for crowdfunding of various work items. Even that hasn't been done yet for the above reason. It isn't hard and might not satisfy you but it still takes time to put together.

You still aren't getting it. If you want something done around here, you either volunteer to do it, or pay someone to do it. If not, then you get whatever free work you get and that's it.

I think that trollers are welcomed, even they are making noise only. XMR is under time-based stress test. I want to see how this community can grow up everyday.

If you want to change it, why not just hardfork and take the devs that agree with you? I think changing the original is highly unfair to current holders that don't agree. Just fork and let the true economy (not a private organization such as MEW) decide.

I repeat, anyone can open a thread if the existing one is seen as insufficient. I hope the new thread has more success than the old one.

As I said, the dev team has moved away from bounties as a preferred process, but we can't stop others from organizing them, and don't really discourage it either, if it doesn't overlap with work we are already doing or for which we have developed conflicting plans (and AMD miner is not such a work item).

This is an open source community project. You are not customers you are participants, if you choose to be.

That was extremely close to the structure used. It likely failed at the first stage, in that expressions of interest were insufficient, and increases in the expressions of interest have been zero for months.

Furthermore, no one has stepped forward to improve the process either. Let someone else pay is approximately the same as let someone else do the work in this context. There is no AMD miner because of both.

It lacked the structure conducive to success.  One which has been frequently successful is to capture expressions of interest until the value is sufficient to make successful completion highly probable, then to get the funds committed, and only then to initiate the work.  Upon passage of clearly defined success criteria, finally to pay out.

XMR is the future.

Minimal response:
So you join MEW with 1000 XMR (not a small sum), and you get 20% votes. What now? There are presumably legitimate members holding the other 80%, and your influence powers seem rather small for what you just paid. Take your extreme example: 5 sock puppets do the same, enter with max, 1000 XMR. This group now has over 50% of the votes. All you managed to do, was to fund the core development team with 2500 XMR, to gain a majority voting position in a community group that bears no control whatsoever over development. Bravo.
Continue throwing XMR at it with more puppets, and all you'll get is "some" MEW 2.0 would eventually be formed, with some refinement to the entry barrier to further deny the presence of shills & sock puppets. All the while, the core development team would have been funded with 50% of all this XMR, pretty good.
 
If only sock puppets were such generous donators. 

Again, this is not at all the place for this discussion. Have you tried the MEW thread yet?
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/monero-economy-workgroup-the-mew-thread-776479

Back to normal. All good.

Disclosing the amount raised, discloses the amount of votes available within MEW. I could now send 1000XMR to MEW and control 20% of the voting. This seems like a very serious flaw in the plan. In theory it would only take a maximum of 5 sock puppet accounts sending the max donation to control 50% of MEW voting rights that seems an absurdly low number.

I want to agree with the core team members fluffypony and smooth here: The question of possible slashing of emission rate, with no change in total number of coins, will be addressed in due time in MEW first. It will be thoroughly discussed. Then it will be voted upon. Iff the votes are overwhelmingly in favor of a change, we will expect the change to happen. If not, there will be no change. The most difficult situation would be a close call or a strongly divided community, but we have the resources to handle these cases also.

Only after it is clear if the community favors the change, will the devs even need to care about it. This lets them concentrate on their work (which admittedly they have a lot in front of them) and the MEW can concentrate on funding them (we already raised 2,500 XMR for the devs in 2 days).

The discussion about the topic is very intriguing, but since it requires community vote instead of a I-yell-louder-with-more-sockpuppets-than-you contest (which btw was the way how the emission was voted upon last time, and the quickmine won over a more moderate curve), I exhort everyone who wants to have a vote, to join MEW.

I'm at max instances already, unfortunately (30). I'll check if I can raise it.

Not to minimize the significance of this. moneropool.com is the largest pool, so a DDoS there is a big deal.

Anyone who can mine, please mine, and if you are pool mining, use smaller ones and make sure you have backup pools configured.

Regardless of the debates and objections here, this is *STILL* a nice price for an entry point. I 'm thinking of doubling my holdings. Thoughts?

Ok wallet42 has confirmed it's just a DDoS.

My idea?  You don't read very well do you?

Here, have a second chance to catch the clue-clue train:

I like XMR's emission just fine.  Especially the part where the tail-end is To Be Determined:


Sorry smooth & fluffy, but the MEW is master-debating about what their own logo and name should be right now.  IE, it's not ready for prime time.

Thanks, and 100% agreement from me.

There wasn't even a proposal to vote, and still some in here reacted as if Monero was about to be hijacked by special interest groups. In fact, the careful reader will have noticed that a number of posters (including me) said that a more structured discussion on those topic should take place another time, not in the current turmoil.

I do want to point out one asymmetry in this discussion: as I said above, the (rather cautious) proponents of e.g. emission change, said "discussion on this topic another time". To which the opponents answered in absolute terms ("out of the question"), and emotional threats to sell their stash right now, unless the devs sign a declaration of code immutability.

If I were cynical I'd respond "I don't see price crashing? Guess your stash wasn't that big after all."

I also want, for the record, state very clearly what *was* and what was *not* actually discussed so far:

1) the 'emission' discussion  and the 'dev funding' discussion have been, but should not to be conflated. There was at least one proposal that entered into both areas, but the majority of funding proposals had nothing to do with emission. Keep the two topics separate, please.

2) the "pro" arguments for emission change have been grossly misrepresented. Nobody ever argued to change emission so that the exchange rate would go higher. The *actual* argument in favor of slowing emission, in a nutshell: a big share of Monero will be mined rather soon (compared to, say, how Bitcoin does it), and some of us are worried that this could hamper the long-term potential of Monero. The argument "You want to change emission to pump & dump, or fill your pockets" is a complete strawman.

I'm going to let this topic rest now (unless there is a response that misrepresents my position). I will however say, as I said before, that this is in a sense a community project, and statements by some in here "that topic X isn't even up for discussion" are naive in the context of such a project (not addressed at you, fluffypony) ....

There will be several difficult decisions the dev team (and the community) will have to make in the future, completely unrelated to emission or dev funding, and we will have to come up with methods to gauge what the consensus (or at least: majority opinion) is on those topics. Shouting "If you do X, I will leave!" is perhaps the least helpful response in developing such methods.

How about abiding by fluffypony's and my requests to take this up within the context of the MEW or at least give it a rest here for now?

You too Nekomata.

We're looking into it meanwhile everyone please move your miners off moneropool.com. The pool is clearly having trouble and its has rate is down to a tiny fraction of normal.

Anyone who is prepared to fire up AWS instances or GPU rigs or anything else to help support the network while moneropool.com is impaired, please do so.

The post-mine bootstrap idea enjoyed immediate popular support when Triffin and RentaMouse first proposed it:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8881179

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8874391

If you don't like it, start your own fork (with blackjack and hookers...).