Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1431. (Read 4670622 times)

It'd definitely be awesome if someone could figure out a way to fairly compensate FOSS devs for the all those LASER beams: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYJwen53cII

1) Dithering
2) Gravity
3) BitCoinEXpress' exploit

Triff ..

What the heck is going on with the price?

I have to agree with Smooth's last comment regarding voluntary donations; even though various miners are saying they wouldnt have a problem with a 1% donation, in practice I'm pretty certain that you would see 99.5% of them turn it off.

Interesting to turn that round and impose the fee at the pool level though - I run the pool which donates all its 1% fee to the dev fund and it has maybe 0.25% of the net hash. Reliability and payouts aren't an issue at my pool(although a surprising % of miners think that a bigger pool = bigger payouts), so maybe the donation level just isnt an important factor for most miners. If the admins of the top 5 pools could be convinced to jointly increase their donation fee to 1% (in addition to whatever fee they need to fund the pool) I don't think they would lose many miners to smaller pools who opted not to impose the fee.

It was a few pages back now but I appreciate Anon136's argument against imposing a "post-mine" which would affect the emissions curve, as he says miners have the choice to stop mining if they dont like the change but investors have already bought in so changing the conditions is unfair. I still like the idea of a post-mine on the principle that the devteam have proved themselves worthy of a pre-mine which never happened, but I don't have a decent idea of how to create it

maybe can you reach the swarmcorp team for that purpose ?

The above list won't be enough to provide significant funding unless a huge number share of the hash rate switches to pools with a significant donation percentage. That is somewhat similar to expecting a major shift in voluntary donation behavior relative to the tiny level we have seen over the past six months so I don't expect it nor consider it a reasonable plan.

Thus the crowd funding or another source is absolutely needed. I'm in agreement with trying the crowd funding first, to see whether that gets a high level of participation.

Your idea of corporate donations is a good one. We will explore that further.

No he didn't. He said there is a timewarp exploit (in KGW), which the devs fixed.

http://cryptonotepool.org.uk. Sure, it is a little acorn, but great oaks from little acorns grow.

I also thought about poloniex role in this process but did not come to a proper solution.

there are basically two scenarios:

1.) busoni keeps his place as basically the monopoly of xmr trading - in this situation he should support xmr in the best possible way. I think if he does this position would be self enforcing.

2.) a bigger exchange overtakes his position (btc-e?), in this case he would be worse off.

that said - it could be a marketing idea of an exchange to say it funds the development of xmr

Isn't it possible to make such a thing for mining also? Something like: auto-donate 1% of block-reward to development fund. Miners that would like to contribute enable the option and miners that won't just put it off. Sorry if this was already proposed, not enough time to read through the thread.

Rounding things up, it looks like we can/will fund development by:
 - mining at a pool with a % going to development fund
 - donate on personal initiative (thus joining the hall of fame)
 - by setting up a donation % on top of transaction fees, soon^(tm)

Initiatives like MEW might/will come up with their own funding strategies as well. As stated upthread, nothing precludes a crowd funding initiative that might take place.

I think this already gives participants from all quadrants, the opportunity to take their part in assuring that development doesn't stagnate and is properly rewarded. Not all these bits are fully in motion yet, so it looks like we don't have a realistic funding quantification at this time.

There's one participant in particular that benefits largely from the Monero community, and should be in a position to 'give a little back', and that is Poloniex, which has an apparent dramatic increase in popularity and trading activity, in no small part thanks to Monero. Just my 2 cents, but I think that it would be great if they would donate a small % of their Monero trading fees to the development fund.

@ fluffy: I don't know if this has been considered yet, but perhaps it is worthwhile having a couple of different development fund accounts, in order to separate donation sources? I'm thinking that it would be useful, if long term, one could perform some statistical analysis on donations per source (% of donations made from pool fees, % of donations from individuals, % of auto-donations from the client software, etc).

Cheers,
~ Myagui

You're making this harder than it needs to be ..
Take a page from Wall Street ..

You can't have a successful project without adequate funding ..

How much money do you need ?
When do you need it ?
Is this a 'one off' funding request or an ongoing funding requirement ?  

The easiest and quickest solution is a small secondary offering ..
If you want to call it an 'instamine' then so be it ..
Bottom line you've got devs that need to be paid and projects that need to get done ..

Take 100,000 Monero out of the back-end of the emmissions curve and sell them
now at a slight discount to current market prices ..

Most current XMR holders will buy a 'proportional share' of the offering to maintain or increase their
ownership position in the coin .. and you'll be offering new investors a chance to get in at a slight discount ..

Considering the development pace in Cryptoland you can't afford to wait ..

Triff ..

imho we should incentivate donations instead of begging for donations...
what about a weekly lottery where participating cost you eg. 1 xmr and the winner gets eg. 50% of the jackpot and the remaining 50% goes to developers?
we could use the block hash to choose the winner like fairpumps.net is doing for choosing the coin to pump (just an idea)...
it would be even better if it could be implemented directly into the gui (just to incentivate a little more the developers to finally release it ).
what do you think?

I'd say we have bigger fish to fry right now, like getting the development moving at a faster pace than it has for the past six months.

If we can make that happen then we can take up this question at a later time. I agree with your general framework for asking the question.

I think this cannot be overquoted - anomymint wrote some very reasonable posts about the importance of this role in the beginning of projects.


I think the 1% solution for financing development is fair. that said I am not a miner but an investor and I think it is as crucial to design a system for investors not to freeride. maybe less utopian is a system which inventivecises non-free riding. I have a few ideas about that but little time.

Quote and my response from the speculation thread, where it was off-topic (thanks smooth for the heads-up)



Alright, I'd like to chip in on that.

Preliminary remark: Please assume good faith in what is about to follow. You can sometimes react a bit too abrasively - understandable given the constant attacks against this project, but not necessarily always a justified reaction to what you respond to.

a) There are good reasons for thinking that a different emission would be desirable, put forward by members of this community that are not interested in a quick p&d, but instead have a long-term interest in this project.

Note: I am not saying they are necessarily better than the arguments of the opposing side, but they are not all to be dismissed as "pump and dumpers GTFO".

b) No one in his right mind is suggesting a quick curve change to prevent price from dropping. This is not supposed to be a quick fix to a temporary problem (like a flash crash), if it were to considered. It is a complex question that has to be seriously discussed before considering implementing it.

c) The April vote made it clear that there would be a very real problem with a 'smooth' curve switch, in the sense that it would require somehow giving back coins that were mined "ahead" of the new curve. I am going to go out on a limb here and say that's not really a realistic option anymore.

d) Which would mean a change in the emission curve would be discontinuous, should it come to that. Which, correctly mentioned here already, would possibly open up the door to "community fast-mine" accusations coming from outside (and maybe even inside, by community members that came here later).

I am not convinced if that is the end of it, though: I still think that, should the community / economic majority favor a change in emission, referring back to that community choice would leave those accusation mostly impotent, but I understand that there are now two open questions:

- do we want a change in emission? (if so, what are the pros/cons?)

- can we afford a change in emssion? (as in: will the negative reactions be prohibitively expensive).

Has my support, as long as it will always remain optional. Leaving it as 'opt-out' is also fine with me, we're adults who should be able to read/decide

Ah ok, so just to make sure everyone's on the same page, this is the screenshot from the Missive:



The idea was to make it "ticked" by default, and it's a per-wallet setting, but if people want to disable it or increase/decrease the percentage they can at any time. Before the GUI is even released, though, we wanted to add this in to simplewallet / rpcwallet - again, prompted during wallet creation, and configurable at any time.

Now I know this seems like a small amount, and it won't do much difference, and you're right. This is not going to satisfy the immediate and large funding requirements. Which is why this is more of a longer-term thing to make sure we always have budget for ongoing efforts / maintenance. It does not preclude fundraising for specific features / tasks.

That sounds awfully altcoinish.

As a miner myself, I would support a small mining tax. We could see how a crowd funding approach works first though.