Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1911. (Read 4670606 times)

What do we set as payment ID?

I am going to transfer my coins from my old wallet, to the new wallet as recommended a few posts above.

Do I simple log into the old wallet, and send it to the new wallet address?

What is payment id, can I leave it blank?

Is this correct to use: transfer 2 [myaddress] [# of coins]

Any news about adding monero on mintpal?

thanks, that's very kind of you!

The address is the address to which you are sending, not yours. The mixin count determines the sender anonymity of the transaction (if you don't want the transaction traced back to link with your other transactions). If you aren't concerned with that you can use 0, although 1 is generally better. The payment ID goes at the very end, after the amount:

Hi, how do i make a transaction? Is address 1 my address or the destination address? what is with the mixin_count? And where do i put the transaction id from poloniex? Please give me an example. Thanks in advance.

do not change block reward. please review the thread before comming to you skewed conclusion. there is also an emission thread.

A coin doesn't select if it gets pumped. If it happens it happens. A dev can say "we are not pump and dump" and then have a pumper come onboard and pump it / dump it. The dev's assurance is not meaningful in the sense that he can't control what will happen with buyers. IIRC the XC thread said that in its first page and it got pumped. Was it the dev's fault?

As for the coin gaining traction due to utility, remember that perception plays a role. If someone is to, say, adopt Litecoin or Dogecoin, it's because they are considered "big coins". If you don't reach the "big" status, then adoption is low and use is also very low.

Think like real-life currencies in global commerce. Do you exchange in brazilian money or south african money? No. There is "hard currency" like USD and there is local currency. The local currency is a small market and is therefore irrelevant. That's the analogy that you must have in mind in terms of adoption. There is an ongoing currency competition and the "bigger one", which is accepted the most, is the best store of value compared to shit-currencies-that-inflate-too-much etc etc, is chosen as a tool for trade. To reach the "big" status you must first capture the market and stay there.

The experimental version just graduated. It is now 0.8.8.8. Grab it on the OP (no OS X binaries yet).

- updated by David Latapie

Yeah, this is the case. Pretty soon you will not be able to submit tx to the network with the old client, as only about 25% or less of miners right now are on the old code.

Personally I'm not concerned about the p.v. per monero so much as the volatility.  But really, cutting supply wouldn't do much for volatility unless it were a dynamically adaptive supply, and that is far too experimental for monero.  I'm pretty much a convert to the status quo at this point.  I don't like the vol because I think it harms adoption, but c'mon, there's no real adoption beyond spec and mining, nor will there be until we have some stuff up.  Usabilty in all its aspects.  As long as it remains active in speculators minds, I think that's about all we can really ask until there is more transaction flow.  I do expect some hoarding, by privacy-minded savers, which is some measure of mercy applied to the sin of front-loaded emission, and I'm happy for that.  If there's a lively economy and the vol is still brutal, I can complain then.  Meanwhile, I try to mitigate it and profit from it by trading mean reversions (quite successfully so far -- it's dead easy) and adding demand by gradual accumulation at opportunistic prices.

I'm not positive but I think this means that if you use an old wallet to send a transaction it will not confirm once the mining nodes are upgraded. Users should upgrade or patch promptly.

0.8.8 has been merged with master.

changelog

Yes that is exactly right, any change to the block time target would change the reward proportionately. It is even possible the block time could be dynamic, with rewards also scaled dynamically. I don't know that any coin has done that so it probably won't happen here any time soon, as we are really not that bold with new risky experiments, but it is certainly possible to do.

XMR is the future.

I think you're misunderstanding. The implication is that if you rally enough support .. then go and fork the coin. It happened with QCN, and if you think there's enough support for it then by all means follow through. You may not have immediate dev support, but they may come either way

I support sticking with their decision. I worry that the distribution might be a bit on the fast side, actually I think most would agree on that; however, most also seem to be able to live with the decision given the downsides of changing that rule, for this coin, mid-game.

Edit: I'm only talking about the emission curve here, not the block time. I haven't yet formed enough of an opinion to throw total support at it. I would hope that the reward would scale with the block time, though .. in order to maintain the same emission .. regardless of the time that is settled on.

edit 2 : The absolute worst case scenario that can happen with this issue is that we don't achieve 100% penetration. To which I would say that perhaps, 100% isn't necessary. It's pure speculation to say that 100% penetration is needed. Consider Bytecoin, whose main audience is a closed community, if you take their word that they are who they say they are. Albeit we're not privy to it, it's an economy nonetheless. They have an exchange rate, described by their original picture of .001 BCN = .1 BTC. We see its value at a couple satoshis. Though this would fail a fungibility test, they still have an economy according to them .. and are doing just fine from the looks of it. Opposite this, if 100% is required .. then we've only extended the time in which it will be achieved.

But who are you to say there is zero flexibility? Shouldn't the community decide?

I explained to you that there is zero flexibility on this, aside from the long term changes that have already been discussed and disclosed from the start. Manage your investment accordingly.

I posted a couple of days ago about whether anyone has thoughts on changing the block reward. There were quite a few replies of which the majority agreed with me in some sense. I only recall 2 people being against it, one being smooth.

If I was in a minority I wouldn't have posted about it again.

I believe I said at the time, my question is for selfish reasons as it's benefits early holders. Clarification at to whether there's any flexibility in changing the coin reward allows me to better decide how to manage my investment.

2+ minute blocks would make sense even if verification were as fast as scrypt or sha256, which it won't be, likely ever. I have actually been thinking that a longer time would be better, like maybe 5 minutes, but as hashing has become more optimized the gap has shrunk a bit. Two minutes might still be okay. One minute will not.

You know it is interesting. We have this anonymous coin here and there are the huge opportunites to build things like gambling sites -- even fairly simple ones that are often popular -- yet people are more interested in coming here and wanting to make a few quick bucks with a supply cut pump than actually doing the things that could make them truly rich. A bit of a head scratcher.