[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1388.

fluffypony

donator

Activity: 1274

Merit: 1060

GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com

Quote from: rdnkjdi on September 25, 2014, 10:24:26 AM

(I do think what money has been spent by the devs needs to be documented - and the dev fund needs to be transparent)

Every cost is detailed and noted in a document the entire core team has access to. However, there is information in that document that could potentially compromise people who wish to remain pseudonymous / private (eg. the transaction ID of BTC payments reveal their address). Coupled with that is the very real probability of the information being used to criticise us, which means we'll waste more time explaining why we spent X on Y than on getting things done.

We can fix the first problem by not revealing transaction IDs, for instance, but then there's no verification of the information.

We're open to a discussion about how we can solve this without opening the trollgates and without compromising anyone. However, I think that is a discussion we should table for a later stage, as right now we're covering the bulk of the costs out of our pocket so the only people we'd affect is ourselves:-P

tempusr

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 0

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: tempusr on September 25, 2014, 10:49:38 AM

Can anyone tell me what happened?About twenty-four hours ago,I sended 10 XMR to my account on mintpal plartform ,but I still don't receive any XMR coins,What happen?please help me,thanks

http://d.pcs.baidu.com/thumbnail/09d8cba0d685893dcab630f2c6b23ad9?fid=2302147323-250528-352818782664868&time=1411653600&sign=FDTAER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-xfq%2BmRvQKP1NpWPz0HId%2FyVHJe8%3D&rt=sh&expires=2h&r=402572072&sharesign=unknown&size=c710_u500&quality=100

You have to contact Mintpal, they are the worst Monero exchange so good luck.

i see,thanks your quick reply

tempusr

newbie

Activity: 19

Merit: 0

Can anyone tell me what happened?About twenty-four hours ago,I sended 10 XMR to my account on mintpal plartform ,but I still don't receive any XMR coins,What happen?please help me,thanks

http://nb.baidupcs.com/file/09d8cba0d685893dcab630f2c6b23ad9?fid=2302147323-250528-352818782664868&time=1411657124&sign=FDTAXER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-UO7FD6RvwZC2dtRzke9U5HM1DRs%3D&to=nbb&fm=Nin,B,T,t&newver=1&newfm=1&flow_ver=3&expires=8h&rt=sh&r=409269212&mlogid=2161294598&vuk=2302147323&vbdid=3477857793
http://nb.baidupcs.com/file/631142f444f4d12bfe3877013517b0ae?fid=2302147323-250528-817633268953823&time=1411657129&sign=FDTAXER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-VkInpe0CgP63NNkHx7Cx3QoRQVA%3D&to=nbb&fm=Nin,B,T,t&newver=1&newfm=1&flow_ver=3&expires=8h&rt=sh&r=838769748&mlogid=4237898471&vuk=2302147323&vbdid=3477857793
http://nb.baidupcs.com/file/631142f444f4d12bfe3877013517b0ae?fid=2302147323-250528-817633268953823&time=1411657129&sign=FDTAXER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-VkInpe0CgP63NNkHx7Cx3QoRQVA%3D&to=nbb&fm=Nin,B,T,t&newver=1&newfm=1&flow_ver=3&expires=8h&rt=sh&r=838769748&mlogid=4237898471&vuk=2302147323&vbdid=3477857793

Nekomata

member

Activity: 99

Merit: 10

XMR is the future.

rdnkjdi

legendary

Activity: 1256

Merit: 1009

Quote

who is worried about the prospect of emission being as fast as it is.

If the solution for future adoption is to slow it down though. The later that conclusion is reached - the more damage has been done.

oda.krell

legendary

Activity: 1470

Merit: 1007

Yeah, that's not how it works...

Warning ominously that the mere discussion "hurts the coin", then happily jumping into the discussion explaining why emission change is bad.

(Important note, by the way: I'm sure everyone in this discussion is aware of it, but maybe not every silent reader is: this is about the *speed* of the emission, not the total number of emitted "units") Just to be perfectly clear.

Discussions like this are a necessary part of a community project like this, in my opinion. A bit like the Scottish referendum, I think: it's necessary to have it, and after it's done, every side should accept the result.

It's true that there was already a vote on this matter about half a year ago, but the community was much smaller back then, the proposal unworkable in a way (return mined coins), and it was mainly addressed at miners afaik.

So I think *having* this discussion is fair enough. We're not a religion where "the code" is some unquestionable gift from the gods. On the other hand, I understand the concern that a *never-ending* discussion on this topic will hurt the value.

So, I'm fine with postponing this discussion when a) the current attack (or "attack") is long forgotten, and b) we have secured more funding for the devs. But eventually, this discussion will have to be had, because I know I'm not the only one who is in this project for the long run , who is worried about the prospect of emission being as fast as it is.

OrientA

sr. member

Activity: 462

Merit: 250

Quote from: rdnkjdi on September 25, 2014, 10:24:26 AM

I agree 100% to flattening the emission curve to benefit later adopters. Sadly it also benefits early adopters before the curve by slowing things down early. So maybe it benefits late & early adopters at the expense of middle adopters?

Hope it is not a horizontal line. A slower emission will do for me, such as half every 6-10 years. I reckon the life expectancy of XMR 1.0 will be much longer than 50 years.

rdnkjdi

legendary

Activity: 1256

Merit: 1009

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 09:53:29 AM

Quote from: binaryFate on September 25, 2014, 09:46:39 AM

However there is another aspect in danger here: fairness between holders across time. Any change would split monero holders forever into the before-change holders and the after-change newcomers. The latters criticizing the formers for the advantage they got over them. Serious drawback for adoption to be carried forever.

Definitely a valid point. If it were not addressed adequately could very well spell the undoing of any change, and I'm not sure whether or not it can be.

Likewise about there being a possible silent majority that would be strongly against it. Again I'm not sure how we could know whether there is or not.

I have some ideas to handle this in a way that I believe is absolutely 100% fair to everyone, but hard to implement. Perhaps we consider that at a later time when there are less pressing issues.

I agree 100% to flattening the emission curve to benefit later adopters. Sadly it also benefits early adopters before the curve by slowing things down early. So maybe it benefits late & early adopters at the expense of middle adopters?

But more than that on a fundamental discussion like this would be figuring out how to "vote" with real monero supporters.

On idea is to have people spend Monero for a vote that goes into the dev fund. Since we are massively underfunded I like the idea of pitting two groups against each other in a fundamental vote and throwing the proceeds at the dev fund.

(I do think what money has been spent by the devs needs to be documented - and the dev fund needs to be transparent)

Another is to have a 3 month (or even 1 month) escrow. This should get rid of a lot of the bytecoin shills. Instead of proving they just have the coins (buy from market, vote, sell) they have to send to a pre-determined escrow and the coins are released after 1 - 3 months.

iourzzz

member

Activity: 94

Merit: 10

Quote from: binaryFate on September 25, 2014, 09:46:39 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 09:31:15 AM

Like you, I believe that stability is important to value

Got your point about seeking future stability.

However there is another aspect in danger here: fairness between holders across time. Any change would split monero holders forever into the before-change holders and the after-change newcomers. The latters criticizing the formers for the advantage they got over them. Serious drawback for adoption to be carried forever.

Totally agree. It's the real risk for future adoption and possible criticism. But this risk is comparable with the one regarding the lack of funds in the hands of developers for solid progress in development.

But there are definitely other ways to solve it. Not only the abrupt change of rules during the crisis.

aerbax

full member

Activity: 201

Merit: 100

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 07:37:52 AM

...

Please make a new clone from github one more time. There was a bad commit that got removed but then got reapplied later. Some people ended up with the wrong one. Everything is fixed now afaik.

I cloned again this morning and everything appears to syncing perfectly. Thanks again!

sparky999

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

That's the thing, the practicality of verifying that a change is a majority decision is hard enough. Let alone even fairly defining a majority of what.
There are a multitude of systems that are all arguably fair but could provide drastically different results in a vote.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: binaryFate on September 25, 2014, 09:46:39 AM

However there is another aspect in danger here: fairness between holders across time. Any change would split monero holders forever into the before-change holders and the after-change newcomers. The latters criticizing the formers for the advantage they got over them. Serious drawback for adoption to be carried forever.

Definitely a valid point. If it were not addressed adequately could very well spell the undoing of any change, and I'm not sure whether or not it can be.

Likewise about there being a possible silent majority that would be strongly against it. Again I'm not sure how we could know whether there is or not.

I have some ideas to handle this in a way that I believe is absolutely 100% fair to everyone, but hard to implement. Perhaps we consider that at a later time when there are less pressing issues.

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 09:31:15 AM

Like you, I believe that stability is important to value

Got your point about seeking future stability.

However there is another aspect in danger here: fairness between holders across time. Any change would split monero holders forever into the before-change holders and the after-change newcomers. The latters criticizing the formers for the advantage they got over them. Serious drawback for adoption to be carried forever.

sparky999

sr. member

Activity: 473

Merit: 250

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 09:31:15 AM

I see this question as something of a special case, given the peculiar history and origin of this particular coin.

This is certainly an idea that I could get on board with - if a convincing argument can be made that the original emission schedule is somehow 'corrupt' (for want of a better word) then I could potentially get on board with some form of change conducted in some manner. The details of which would need to be debated.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: binaryFate on September 25, 2014, 09:13:07 AM

You are right now harming the coin with these discussions.

Since the discussion started the price has gone up (not a whole lot, but its measurable). Other factors are always at work of course.

Like you, I believe that stability is important to value, but I see that as future stability. If we were proposing annual redesign meetings for the life of the coin, that would be very different and far worse. How to get there and what helps or hurts are certainly things about which reasonable people can disagree though.

What we are talking about now is something that has been a source of strong disagreement since the very origin of the coin, and has never been properly discussed much less resolved, outside of a single poll that was poisoned by Bytecoin sock-puppets. People are worried about shills sneaking into the MEW, but that was blatant and actually had a direct impact on the design of the coin, something MEW can't do. I see this question as something of a special case, given the peculiar history and origin of this particular coin.

These coins are all speculative assets being priced on the basis of expected future value. We can afford to make a correction or two now with the expectation that makes it more stable (and more valuable) later, not less.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: sparky999 on September 25, 2014, 07:38:35 AM

You need to be able to say these are the things that we can change and these are the things that are core to the coin.

My opinion is the emission curve shouldn't be changed as in my opinion it is core to the coin. Despite the likely economic benefit to me if I were to take the other side.

ad infinitum

just put it to stone, this speculation about emission is not good for the coin, smooth.

Can we then agree that: Discussion is good, uncertainty is bad.

And so: Let me reframe the question.

Assuming that this can be accomplished with a merged mined side chain.
Whereas XMR will forever keep to the emission it has, can we then discuss what sort of "core covenant" changes might be good to make in a prospective side chain(s).

Doing it that way has the benefit of rewarding the miners who are merge mining both chains. It further lets the market decide this sort of thing, without any uncertainty regarding changes to that which we already enjoy owning.

Edit: It needs its own thread.

binaryFate

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1012

Still wild and free

You are right now harming the coin with these discussions. "You" being a general address.
(Adding a "we only say it will be debated one day in the future" doesn't change the fact everybody's discussing it right now).

Cryptocurrencies are nothing tangible and their intrinsic value lies largely in knowing other people attach some value to it, and will keep doing so in the future.
You are putting no less than that at stake for me.

You're worsening whatever situation you're not happy about by insinuating "something might be fundamentally wrong with the emission curve".
Few likes to be invested in something openly fundamentally unstable. (Note this is different from an alpha-quality of software, that is technically unstable).

nakaone

hero member

Activity: 742

Merit: 500

Quote from: fluffypony on September 25, 2014, 08:28:59 AM

Guys, it's obviously a contentious topic with proponents on both sides. I think it prudent to table this until we have finalised the minimum subsidy (eternal emission) proposal. This, in itself, is only a proposal, but I believe that the discussion around that will allow us to visit this topic more thoroughly.

Right now we're discussing it in the context of the status quo, whereas I feel we'll be better equipped to do so when we have the bigger picture in view.

don't you think it would be possible to auction a part of the still undefined emission after 4 years now ?

Let us assume we mine 18,x million coins in the next 4 years; we now auction a part of the following emission rate. these tokens are given to the auctioneer in the time the coins are created, e.g. in 4 years. but you would get the bitcoins for the auction today.

the pros:
1.) we still have no proper idea how to design the emmission after most coins are mined, so we do not destroy the social contract
2.) the investors would have a long term interest in the project and asssuming it succeeds would massively benefit in the future.
3.) you would get the amount of money for development now
4.) short term and mid term effects on distribution and price are almost non-existent

the cons:
1.) some burocratic effort
2.) maybe the network security in 4 years would suffer (not sure on this)
3.) the investors take a high risk and so the coins would very likely be sold with a discount

I think a solution like that would be very beneficial and the economic costs are very low in comparison to the benefits generated. Additionally an incentive structure is generated which has some interesting implications.

Nekomata

member

Activity: 99

Merit: 10

XMR is the future.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: oda.krell on September 25, 2014, 08:10:09 AM

As far as I know you've stated before that you are actually (more or less) against adjusting emission speed. Still, you're giving a very fair representation of both sides (or point out misrepresentation of one by the other). That's not at all to be expected, especially in online discussions, in my experience.

I guess you were wrong:

Quote from: smooth on September 25, 2014, 08:19:55 AM

So there is no misunderstanding, my personal opinion is that it would be better to slow down emission, or couple a longer-term slowdown with some short-term acceleration in the form of "post-mine" funding, such that the two offset each other to some extent.

I'm glad you are back to your senses smooth, what you are suggesting to like doing would effectively do what BCX couldn't in his wildest dreams Tongue

Maybe you misunderstood his attack. It was actually a mind control ray beamed at smooth.

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1388. (Read 4670630 times)