Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1434. (Read 4670622 times)

We are trying to reach consensus here. If devs propose this and miners refuse, devs lose credibility. Thus miners would not refuse even if the decision is against their interests unless they wanted to damage Monero. This is a perverted incentive, related to the fact that there is not one 51% attack that is not in the attacker's best interest, but that the attacker would make it in the others' best interest to not disagree. I'm not saying the devs are going to steal it all and leave (heck, I'm arguing they already have supreme power now). What I'm saying is that this misaligned incentive makes the vote result biased (or at least makes it not convincingly unbiased) and that leads to the reputation damage I mentioned.

Also, "wrongheaded thinking" is a loaded expression. It is patronizing and denotes that you don't really consider other points of view. If the best counter-argument is "that's wrong" maybe you need to engage a bit more in the conversation.


This distinction becomes blurry and troubling when Walmart issues your currency. Or other imperfect analogy of the kind. You conflate the dev team with a company again.


Like I said earlier, I see it as a measure of force majeure. The atomic solution. It is clearly better than the devs packing and taking a hike. But I want to fully explore the posibilities before signing up to this.

More transparency about the funds and their destination would definitely attract more donations. Make a list of 10-30 itemized atomic tasks, how much effort (XMR) they require, what are their expected time requirements, what is their urgency and their impact. An Excel sheet could work for now, and a Form for investors to indicate binding or nonbinding commitment for each of the projects.

Also, @smooth: crowdfunding also works really well with completely experimental games. Sure, they often flop, but not because they didn't get the money but because they were either unrealistic in their requirements (too low) or inefficient.

Perhaps this is a problem with the approach. Most of the things you say you "need to know" are largely unknowable (as you acknowledge to some extent). Also, developing these sort of specifics accounting for al the unknowable factors and possible outcomes is itself fairly time consuming and therefore expensive. Maybe that should be crowdfunded, or maybe this crowdfunding thing wont work for this, or we lack the tools for it (again expensive)? I'm not really sure.

Crowdfunding works really well when you are going to get some device, trinket, etc. in return. R&D on an very immature technology in a rapidly changing environment is a different animal.

First I will need to know precisely what it is that I am selling to people. Part of the problem I think is that people dont want to commit to the nebulous idea of "munny to make munaro gudder". They will want specifics. They will want to know what feature it is that you will be developing with their funds. The price to develop that feature. And given the budget and the number, availability, and proficency of the staff working on delivering said feature, a time table for completion.

Granted i understand that there are limitations to what you can know. But neither can people be expected to go into this blind. Do your best, and give us a specific price and specific features, but feel free to leave yourselves a realistically generous range for time of completion. People will be understanding and they will know that you cant possibly know exactly how quickly a new feature will be able to be developed.

Oh, another thing. This is certainly false because the mining rewards will be dropping rather quickly. If you had XMR=10K USD right now, then you would be paying 140K USD per block or 200M USD per day for mining. Now maybe that might make sense to continue to secure the coin if the value of the coin increased explosively, but if that happens then the urgency of resources going into development has also exploded.

I don't really see where 1% of the amount paid for mining going instead to development is ever going to be an unreasonable balance, outside of some distant future where everything is mature and a dedicated development effort isn't needed. In fact at the current stage of maturity, development is clearly more important than mining, at least on the margin.

Go for it. Start getting people to sign up and see how much you can (relatively) quickly line up in the way of at least nonbinding commitments. If it looks promising, we will likely be influenced in that direction.

smooth, I agree.  

Also to anyone mining, there is a pool that donates 100% of it's 1% fee to the devs.

How are the devs going to impose something on the miners? No one has to mine or transact on any fork that they dont want to mine or transact on. "imposed" "tax" this is the doublespeak. Does walmart "impose" a "tax" on you when you buy a gallon of milk? No they charge for the product. The devs are producing code. Therefor the code that they produce is a product. A tax is something that you are forced to pay, a price is something that you chose to pay in exchange for a good or service, what we are discussing here is not a tax, it is a price.

As for all of the stuff about damage to the reputation. yea thats totally true and i mentioned it before. but its only true because of wrongheaded thinking. thinking that im trying to mitigate.

Yea lets try the crowd fund thing first, i totally agree. I even offered my services to that effect. But if other options are exhausted, than we will need to confront this issue, and when we do it would be ideal for people to consider it with clear thinking, thus i make arguments like those witnessed above.

Nobody is downplaying anything. We are splashing some cold water on the idea that the purely voluntarist approach is working and will be viable. It isn't working and I see no evidence that it will be viable. Sooner or later (probably sooner, but I have no specific information) the developers who have been funding the work out of their own pocket will lose their interest in doing so, and the work will stop.

The current state of things is such that the project hasn't reach a particularly useful stage, and without major ongoing effort, it won't

If you have specific suggestions for how to raise the necessary amount of funding (or encourage unpaid volunteer efforts on the large scale that is necessary), I'm all ears. Better yet, organize it and make it happen.

I'd rather work with 1/3 of the costs than work with 1/30, which is approximately what has been received in donations. The former at least allows prioritizing, scaling down some items (at least temporarily), etc. and still getting a significant portion of the work done, plus as I said it need not be the only funding source (and some work will I'm sure continue to be done by community volunteers who are interested in doing it).

I believe many things are wrong with this approach. I would ONLY use it as force majeure because it is so damaging to the image of Monero. It is not a business, it is not a producer, it is not a company or a startup. It is an open-source project in an environment of extreme suspicion. If something is imposed on the miners it is not a donation, it is a tax, and to pretend otherwise is doublespeak.

We are here because we don't believe it is wise for any entity, especially one as central and powerful as the developers, to have a rent on the system. We are here because we are dissatisfied with exactly such a system.

I have to agree with aminorex here:

1. Reputation damage
2. Corruptability / Tragedy of the commons
3. Yields too little now, too much later
4. Market methods are likely better in a suspicious environment - crowdfund small specific tasks, with specific requirements

Of course, "swag" of any kind is good and memorabilia better. Humans hoard and owning a unique/limited asset can be worth very large sums for some.

What I do not understand is, why you downplay the reputation damage, the socialization objection and the market methods, and handwave a complex adjustment mechanism for the tax level that looks even more worrying than a fixed 1% tax. Remember that the income tax in the US started at 1% as well.

The above post by fluffypony should put this funding discussion in perspective.  He lists approximately $200,000 in costs.   3,500,000 coins have been mined and 1% is 35,000.  At a generous exchange rate of $2 equals $70,000.  So 1% of all the coins ever mined equals 1/3 of the most important costs listed.

With a voting scheme, miners can vote to turn it off if it is viewed as too high (or not being spent usefully) or possibly reduce it. I'm not sure how the BBR scheme works -- some sort of auction process where the votes are for a level (rather than just on-off) and the median vote determines the amount of the donation sounds reasonable to me, but just throwing ideas out now.

I think the really important point to drive home is that, atleast in the bootstrapping phase, there is nothing "wrong" with this approach. In almost every other industry in the world, when someone develops a product they charge for their services. No one makes a pair of shoes and puts them up for free in the store and hopes that someone donates. They make the shoes, put a price on them, and then people decide whether or not they want to make the exchange. There is no good reason why crypto developers shouldnt be entitled to do the exact same thing as a shoe makers for the exact same reasons why shoe makers are entitled to do that thing. Consumers arnt "forced" to pay this fee any more than a customer at walmart is "forced" to pay for the products that are on the shelves.

and at xmr 10k, 52mm/mo.  too much is at least as problematic as too little.  the degree to which this scales with the network is inappropriate.

Actually a 1% mining donation (of course this number is set in stone, I'm just using it because that's what BBR uses, I think) would make a huge difference to the development budget. In fact, it would mean there was a budget at all, which isn't currently the case for the most part. So a huge change.

It wouldn't need to be the entire source of funding, but as a source of some steady funding it is sufficient enough to consider on that basis alone. Working out the numbers it comes to about 2500 USD per week at current exchange rates. That's enough to pay for a few days of full time dedicated development, which we are currently not able to do on a sustainable basis, and is certainly enough to accelerate progress significantly.

Yeah, saw that with the 15% going to devs. I'm talking SWAG like a vacation at a castle or a piece of memorabilia--something someone will pay a premium for and feel good that they're supporting the devs at the same time. Wish I could offer something, but all I've got is used books and none of them are signed or valuable--well, other than to me.

i was talking hyperbolic smack when i said 50%, sorry.  but the point about socializing development remains:  it is a value-destroyer.  you know the kind of inefficiencies it engenders. moreover, i don't think the magnitude of the revulsion it would inspire is properly appreciated.  i am not even an ancap ideologue, merely a sympathizer, and it makes me nauseous.  and it is not presently sufficient in the magnitudes mooted...it doesn't actually solve the problem.

market-based incentives are largely untried.  they do not suffer the pitfalls of socializing. it takes some effort to organize them, but not a lot.  certainly no due diligence has yet been done to form targeted and accountable feature delivery bounties, which seem to me the most obvious and likely successful method of efficient funding. i am vastly more likely to make a substantial commitment when i am able to gauge the benefit.  asking me to trust you is unlikely to inspire my confidence.

You can put a chameleon to shame mate Is BBR no longer hurting XMR adoption or you just play snake in Polo trollbox and show a different color on forums?  

Swag meaning logo gear and such? That was in the latest missive.

Is there any swag we can offer up for a donation drive/auction?  This won't solve the problem of dev-costs long term, but could provide a bump until the GUI is up--which should generate a price raise and alleviate cost concerns if the increase matches expenses. Just throwing things out there, so don't be too critical.