Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1382. (Read 4670630 times)

Guys what is the current coin supply?

Just stop it with the propaganda and I won't call it FUD. But I simply cannot let you insinuate lies and get away with anymore. Its gone on for months and at some point it has to stop, you have to stop lieing about the "competition" and let XMR stand on its own merits. Being created to avoid "scams" is not a merit.

This is off topic.  Please take it to a BBR or more general alt thread.

This is not why you don't support BBR. Come on. Seriously. Anyone who has taken a close serious look at CZ and the community would not have these concerns.

Thank you smooth, for your answer.

Please, if you can't behave decently just go foul your own pool.  Stop molesting us.

Yea, because you're going to achieve widespread adoption by forcing users to dig through the source code to understand fundamental aspects of the coin

Use the source Luke.

Anyway, it was discussed at the start as a voting scheme, not individual volunteer donations. For which I give CZ credit, since volunteer donations clearly don't work.

How can it be "documented" cbuchner sold all his coins?

Also, afaik there is no detailed explanation of how the dev fee works, on either the ANN page or on boolberry.com.

Thanks for taking the time to respond in a reasonable manner, i.e. calling me devious and/or dumb for expressing my opinions.

Again nonsensical argument to protect your investment.  We don't need a developer name to trust them. We can watch his/her actions.

There is ZERO lack of trust when it comes to CZ. Hell, he single-handedly saved XMRs ass (again) by finding a deadly exchange bug related to all CN coins which he spent the last 36 hours helping the exchanges to fix.  And yet your still say its a VALID CONCERN?? lol

Its such a blatant attempt to protect your investment that its laughable.

It's not nonsense. Trust can't be created out of thin air, and the relationship between a coin community and a developer is a high trust one, at least before a level of maturity is reached. Much of the trust afforded to XMR is that many of the poeple behind it or early community supporters are well-known identities or persons in the community and furthermore that conspiracies of seven (who don't even know each other outside of this project) are unlikely to the point of implausibility. There is and clearly will be no scam here.

The analogy with Satoshi is off base because the initial development by Satoshi took place in a different time and place, one in which the explosion of altcoin scammers didn't yet exist. Furthermore: 1) others who were known persons quickly joined the project, and 2) Satoshi's contribution was profoundly innovative and could stand on its own. CZ's contributions have not been profoundly innovative (no slam on him, no altcoin innovations have been).

Note: I am not calling CZ a scammer here, I am saying that lack of trustability is a valid concern. But it doesn't matter what I say, the community will decide whether having known identities is important or not. Obviously over time CZ becomes a known identity so the issue becomes moot.

FUD, FUD and more FUD. Everyone of these points have been made 1000 times and debunked 1001. Its propaganda to protect investments. But its propaganda in its true form.

CBuchner created a miner that was highly efficient. It is documented that he has sold all his coins, almost all of them off exchange, below current market value.

Slower emission does not mean less fairness. It means MORE fairness as the coins are harder to get and harder to hoard.

The 1% dev fee has been explained in detail. You understand it. I know you do. Its not hard to understand and the miners control it.

However, the bolded part above is true. You don't understand or are playing dumb.  This is not rocket science. This is just propaganda to protect an investment.

If you tell a lie long enough and hard enough people will believe it. Its why there was a need for crypto to begin with.

Unless the proposal is withdrawn there is a specified discussion period and a voting period that is going to happen. So this issue will be with us for some time.


Good points.

This is propaganda that you created to protect your investment. It is non-sense and based on the absurd proposition that because you dont know who CZ is, you cant trust him. Yet you are a BTC "whale" created by SATOSHI. Hyprocisy much? Come on.

The is one of the lamest excluses for an instamine scam I've ever seen, which makes it more likely in my eyes that XDN is a CN coin-mill scam coin (I've never been 100% sure about that one, but I'd say 85% now), because: 1) they seem to have an affinity for premine/instamine scams, and 2) they seem uniquely tone deaf when it comes to the made up stories they believe the community will actually find credible.

I still like their marketing though. Clearly the best in the CN space, unless you consider XMR's non-marketing marketing.

After messing with the other two significant Cryptonotes recently, here is my opinion on the issues du jour: emission rate change and dev compensation.

The other two, Duck/Darknote and Boolberry, currently offer more features and/or faster syncing. Darknote now has encrypted, on blockchain messaging (which seems to be possibly a bad idea if it can be spammed) and the blockchain moved out of memory (full disclosure, I don't have the wallet). Boolberry syncs extremely rapidly in comparison to Monero and offers aliasing of addresses (also maybe not a great idea).

However, the advantage Monero currently has over the other two is that it seems to have a much fairer distribution of coins. This is more difficult to analyze than traditional bitcoin clones due to the anonymous nature of the transactions.

Darknote is already 73% mined out after several months of a much smaller network hashrate compared to Monero, and I think it was something like 50% of coins emitted after only the first month. This is purportedly to head off asics before they have a chance to be designed and manufactured for cryptonight algo (assuming this ever happens), however it reeks of instamine imo, which is why I don't even bother downloading the wallet.

Boolberry is the more interesting competitor to Monero imo, despite currently having a significantly lower market cap than Darknote (I would argue this is a function of instaminers holding a large portion of coins ever mined, waiting for more buy support before dumping some/all their coins from the coin's first month of existence). However, despite Boolberry having a slower emission rate than Monero, it still has a couple of issues that make its distribution a bit more suspect than Monero's. I think the cbuchner miner/mining is viewed with more suspicion than dga's private miner, because Monero was probably already more popular when dga was mining that Boolberry currently is, in terms of miners and in terms of trade volume on exchanges. The other thing is the 1% dev fee, that zoidberg does not do a good job of explaining on the ANN page or on Boolberry's; it's supposedly voluntary, but miners can only vote to turn it up or down, not on or off, and this can only be done by solo miners or pool operators (I think, tbh I do not have a good idea how it actually works, and haven't gotten anymore info after asking on IRC).

So, that leaves Monero as the most fair. Mostly due simply to its much greater popularity and trade volume, but also due to the factors mentioned above. I just feel like messing with coin emission, or chucking in a 1% "post-mine" block, or anything else like that will greatly risk the trust that has grown around the dev team and the community in general, and would possibly create an opportunity for someone to fork Monero (or Darknote or Boolberry), and try to position itself as THE Cryptonote with a legitimately fair distribution.

tl;dr I agree with xulescu

XMR was formed to avoid scams.  Everything else is a scam, or threatens a scam.  The realistic alternative is to fork XMR for fair emission.  But that is too hard (expensive) and likely to fail, due to XMRs huge lead.  Better to buy counterfeit Euros.

Look, I agree with you. But some people (there were discussions even with crypto colleagues of mine) invested in FCN and QCN. So I am not going to just dismiss the investments of people I personally know.

But, your right, there is only one viable alternative at this time, although I don't know much at Darknote, so I won't right out dismiss it either.

It will go away if we (you) stop raising it.


In the MEW I suggested that emission in excess of adoption was bad because it concentrates wealth, and creates a 'common knowledge' of unfairness.  
I also suggested that the best way to fix this is not to change emission but to grow adoption faster than emission can decline.  I prefer to discuss this topic there.
I don want the subject "decided" in the public mind by bytecoin trolls.

Now I know you are full of shit and just throwing FUD bombs over here.

No serious experienced players in the crypto scene are remotely interested in "other CN coins" with the possible exception of those who are interested in Bytecoin as the first technical implementation (but still would never buy it).

The only one remotely worth considering would be duckNote/darkNote and its is pretty clear that nobody takes it all that seriously. Some of us find their marketing mildly amusing, but expecting anyone to view that as a substitute for Monero is silly.

What "other" ones are there? FCN/QCN/MCN? That boat sailed a long time ago.

It is my belief that if it is technical, this should not even be discussed in the MEW. MEW is about adoption, ecosystem, B2B. To each their own and overlap should be minimal (although probably not non-existant).

+1