Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1438. (Read 4670622 times)

The door is opened up now (more so than ever before) because of his statement.  He has already hinted at the conditions, so at this point if a select few who were skilled at reading code the way BCX is is able to, they could possibly execute it as well.

Interesting to say the least.

He does not want to execute it but as soon as he state that the flaw exist and can be exploited, people that want XMR to disappear (and we can suspect there are a few...) will try to find a way to use it.
He literally pointed his finger in the right direction on a public's forum.

not a developer but he told about that flaw back in july, which worried me a that time. I think it is either very hard to find or non-existent in the way bitcoinexpress wants it to execute. but could be dead wrong here.

btw. he said he does not want to execute it

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/delete-786201

What were the findings again?

Hahem am I the only one that think BCX's findings are worrisome?

Suit yourself: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/monero-economy-workgroup-the-mew-thread-776479

how to get in there?


a third idea and that is basically how mike hear financed his project is to convince very rich anarchists/libertarians that this project has a lot of value. finding these guys in the bitcoin environment should be easy convincing them that there is place for a second major currency is hard. first because the person probably thinks it shoots its own leg, second because there needs to be an incentive for him. that said I think there are people who see besides their own profit, moral reasons to invest in a project like this.

Regarding donations - we already have about 20% of the Monero owners joining MEW. If we get this number to about 50%, then it will be easier to fund development as a community effort because there is no free riding.

I don't think that it's fundamentally bad to build something into the software. Not sure if you saw the Missive, but in the last wizard screenshot there's an idea for an auto-donation system we want to implement: https://i.imgur.com/ACDmOFJ.jpg

The basic idea is that it's completely user-selectable, based on a % of your tx fee (cumulative to avoid adding dust outputs) that is added on top of the tx fee, so it'll never have a major impact. In the GUI we'd most likely have it on at 50% by default.

Did you see this? https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/delete-786201

Yes, this is the way to go.

Anon136 idea of forking in order to give 1% of mining reward to dev team is bad and will only bring confusion. If that would to occur xmr would become worthless. Forking is violent way of doing things.

Kickstarter idea works in real world. Devs (or maybe MEW?) only need to create page where they or any other interested party could publish ideas for xmr changes/projects. Of course they will have to make a good arguments in layman terms why this changes would be beneficial and how much would it cost. Distinguished members or multisig wallet or donators vote will decide if job is finished.

MEW does this for XMR.  An open cross-currency foundation would command a pathetically limited kingdom, because they are so often at each other's throats (often irrationally).

When considering such options, please be careful not to poison XMR's image.  I would rather pay 50% out of pocket voluntarily than 1% involuntarily - because I think an involuntary payment will degrade the value of the currency by more than 50%.  It would be a value-destroying option.  [Note that no one is proposing a brute tax here - just brainstorming.]

BBR's method is less damaging to the currency than a brute tax:  It is default opt-in, IIRC, which is not so bad.  It doesn't press a one-sided change in contract. 

plus 1 for classical fundraising, minus... a lot for a forkraiser. As if we don't have enough detractors, just imagine what will happen if we build a payout into the protocol.

That said, I'm kinda out of the loop here: is there a Bitcoin accepting Kickstarter-like site in the wild?

What about the Mike Hearn 'alternative to the BTC foundation' project, that is supposed to combine community decision making with fundraising? Any ETA on that, and whether it'll be usable by alts?

well there is the crowd funding idea that i mentioned a few posts back. we could always try that first.

I would suggest exhausting all possible external options for raising funds before building something into the software. I think going this other route would be more scandalized and trolled than you're considering.

Wouldn't it be better to do it on kickstarter or the like?  Wider audience.  BTCT is a ghetto.

Thats actually a brilliant idea. Release a fork that pays part of the mining rewards automatically to the devs. If people dont like it than they dont have to use that fork. If the network splits into two, one where we have all of the devs being properly compensated and devloping appropriately, and another fork where its just some stubborn guys who dont like the proposal hording and sitting on coins that arnt being developed, than i think we know which would win out in the long run. If they want to fork and get their own devs and follow a more traditional funding model, than great we will have 2 competing cryptos that would both be pretty interesting. I might throw some capital into both.

Its not forcing people to pay you either. You provide some code, built in is what you guys want to be compensated for it, and only people who value your code more highly than what you are charging will decide to use it. Its totally fair. Just like a store putting a price tag on a product that they are selling. You either buy it or dont depending on how you feel about the price.

I obviously understand the drawbacks. We would be assailed for having an element of centralization. But i really think that when you weigh the costs and the benefits against each other, atleast superficially, we get to a point where we really really really should be atleast talking about this.

Also obviously this would have to be temporary. The devs would need to commit to weaning off of such a system after given features are implemented or a given period of time.

Those other projects usually have prettier websites and make use of other PR techniques. While I personally like the fact that the devs here are focusing on the fundamentals of the backend, I've come to the conclusion that I'm in the minority on that.