Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1431. (Read 4671575 times)

I like the idea of a page like that. With proper design and marketing, it could draw in donations from people outside of the current cryptocurrency ecosystem. There are plenty of privacy advocates, libertarians, technologists, etc. who are uninterested in the messy world of cryptocurrency "investment", but may nonetheless be willing to support what's marketed as a relatively NSA-proof, anonymous, very important, new technology. People should also be able to donate fiat.

I like the dice idea. It also means XMR has some practical use.

I don't see the term "image key" anywhere, so I'm not sure what that means. Maybe I missed it?


If you mean key image, you can't create that from a public key, only a private key.

This is a great idea. One that could probably be run by pretty much anyone too.

Perhaps someone should try it and see what kind of level of participation we get?

No good ?? Don't want to do a secondary offering ??

Then ask the top 100 wallets on the 'rich list' ( they know who they are )
to kick in 1% of what they currently own/hold to the 'Dev Fund' ..

Triff ..

No other exchange will try to push that kind of volume in the same questionable manner unless they're trying a coordinated manipulation on it... but why bother?

So +1 on scenario 1, though not sure how good of a scenario that is.

1% is not that much of a loss. no one should complain about it considering what the coins are going to be spent for.  

Is that "image key" public observable ? Every node knows what input is really spent and who ring-sing this message ?

Edit:
If I know YOUR public key, from an unspet input . You are broadcasting new transaction (is not yet minted). I can compute "image key" and create ring-sing of YOUR input with my privateKey ...

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 ..