Author

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1916. (Read 4670606 times)

legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015
Continuing to clog up the thread with economics does no one any good. Drive away the users who aren't economics wonks and there will soon be no coin left to argue over.

Agreed.

How long until a Monero forum is up and running? We desperately need a Bitcointalk of our own in some fashion. The Monero community is growing fast and we can't have all the topics of interest in this thread.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015

I agree with Alex. The emission is far too fast.

I can't see monero gaining value with the huge release as it is stands.

Supply will increase 600% in the next 48 weeks.

This logic doesn't check out. With the CryptoNote emission formula, the faster the emission, the faster the reduction in inflation.

If this was Bitcoin (constant reward) at the same age, supply would've increased ~1000% over the next 48 weeks (216k to 2.59 million).

If this was QuazarCoin (4x slower clone) at the same age, supply would've increased ~750% over the next 48 weeks (255k to 2.17 million).

As you can see when you do the math, (1) CryptoNote is already anti-inflationary by design and (2) a flatter emission actually draws out the inflationary phase.

Why the obsession with price per coin, anyway? What matters both for the individual and for the overall MRO market is price*amount. Price is lower, but the amount is correspondingly higher. There's always 42 Coin for those who want a high price per coin. Unfortunately, you might only own a tenth of one coin.

I never realized that Bitcoin and QCN had that much increase in comparison.

The logic checks out insofar as these guys (whether they entirely realize it or not) are arguing if favor of the instamine approach of mining a lot of cheap and easy coins really fast, then (once they have theirs), slowing inflation way down to boost price.

Not true, I looked at MRO and how 6 million coins will be mined in the first year and tried to compare it to both Bitcoin and our direct competitor QCN.

I was under the impression QCN would increase much slower over the same time period than MRO, and I didn't want MRO to lose out against QCN for that reason.

However eizh has pointed out that my analysis is incorrect. I'll have to re-run the numbers.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
Wealth centralization occurs in currencies with very large inflation.  Wealth is Zipf distributed.  Live with it.
We're all going to die someday. No point in being healthy, I guess? Fixed inflation can greatly discourage wealth centralization.

If you are going to have these general economic debates, I ask you, please, take it elsewhere.

These economic debates can go on for weeks at a time, or longer. In fact this one has been raging, at some level, since this coin was created over a month ago. We have people coming here literally asking how to get their wallet to work. They need help. They want to know how to mine, or mixin counts mean, or whether there are important new patches. There's is really no other place to get this important information. 

Continuing to clog up the thread with economics does no one any good. Drive away the users who aren't economics wonks and there will soon be no coin left to argue over.
hero member
Activity: 795
Merit: 514
Wealth centralization occurs in currencies with very large inflation.  Wealth is Zipf distributed.  Live with it.  If you want a coin amenable to progressive taxation, starting with privacy enhanced monero is the wrong place.  States will tax bitcoin and redistribute.  They are unlikely to redistribute monero.  I have respect for the view that better distribution leads to a healthier economy, lifting all boats.  I have no respect for confiscation by inflation.  Building a bully, a robber, into the coin will not win you friends.

Constant reward solves the problem of mining incentives quite adequately because a non-exponential growth in supply will never exceed the growth of the economy, and thus the reward will appreciate at roughly the same rate as the growth of the economy.  It is perfectly balanced, by its very nature.   An exponential reward just creates bifurcated dangers:  Either it devalues the coin, or else it over-incentivizes miners, resulting in a huge waste of hash (electrical) power.  The probability of reward value tracking the growth of the economy is approximately zero in an exponentially growing reward system.

Personally, I would not invest in a currency with exponential supply, period.  It has no future because it will not be adopted by the majority of users.  It will fail to attain monopoly control if its niche. Since I am not going to be invested in such a currency, I will never use it: I have a disincentive to use it because that detracts from the currency in which I am invested.  I think this is a majority view, among cryptocurrency early adopters.  Thus it would be ill-advised to invest time, energy, creativity, or funds into such a currency.

Constant reward is superior to bitcoin.  And that's a very favorable thing to have said about a fledgling crypto. The history of exponential money supply growth on the other hand is a history of disaster and tragedy.

I cannot disagree more. You're telling me you want an anonymous coin, that has high adoption, that perpetually increases in value, that is resistant to centralization and comes at no cost? Good luck.

Wealth centralization occurs in currencies with very large inflation.  Wealth is Zipf distributed.  Live with it.
We're all going to die someday. No point in being healthy, I guess? Fixed inflation can greatly discourage wealth centralization.
Constant-reward inflation is effectively a fixed money supply. Not to mention a constant reward is the same as a decreasing reward, which is the primary concern that started this debate in the first place!

I find these posts from AnonyMint to be quite relevant:

In the Quantity Theory of Money a constant money supply requires that the economy can grow only if the velocity-of-money circulation rises exponentially or the price level declines exponentially, neither of which are plausible for a healthy economy.

we can't have freedom without diluting the money supply. Selfish savers want their past efforts to be a perpetual friction on the backs of those new innovators. Rather a small, reasonable debasement (or demurrage) provides a balance to neutralize the parasitic rent that usury has on society.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3816209
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3788809
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.3788782

........

Why are you so selfish as a saver that you don't want to pay 2.5% - 5% per year to fund the security of mining to keep it decentralized so the government can't come tax + confiscate 50+% of your savings? You know that even gold is debased at 2 - 2.5% per year.

The new coin goes out to the people who are the miners, especially with a provably cpu-only coin.

The increased value of the coin and the increased productivity gains (Q in the Quantity Theory of Money) in the society due to not having the government meddling will far exceed that 2.5% - 5% per year cost.

Selfish people deserve the corporate top-down controlled fully compliant government's coin. Wink
newbie
Activity: 25
Merit: 0
This keeps happening and diff resets. Is that a problem? Mining on minemro.com.

Code:
...

The daemon was playing up, I've restarted it now so it should stop doing it, although its not a major problem, it just meant that the connection was being reset.
sr. member
Activity: 400
Merit: 263
I know I know...but are there any news/developements regarding a GUI release?

Developing a dedicated GUI wallet for CryptoNote coins is a time-consuming task. Please be patient, you could have to wait months.

No problem, just asking. Let's hope the coin will keep people's interest long enough in this 10 new altcoins/day environment.
TTM
full member
Activity: 140
Merit: 100
I know I know...but are there any news/developements regarding a GUI release?

Developing a dedicated GUI wallet for CryptoNote coins is a time-consuming task. Please be patient, you could have to wait months.
sr. member
Activity: 400
Merit: 263
I know I know...but are there any news/developements regarding a GUI release?
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198

Having a longer mining horizon doesn't necessarily increase a future user's access to a coin. It increases a future miner's access to it. But in the long run, mining is dominated by professionals so this group diverges from the mainstream. Bitcoin and Litecoin are examples of this. An ordinary user is largely restricted to buying it on the market, which is available regardless of the emission curve. So the egalitarian aspect of the argument exists, but it plays out weakly in the real world.


I thought the point of CPU-only was that users are miners and run the network in a decentralized cost that most absorb invisibly as some small bump in power bill cost.

This is the ideal that Satoshi pursued and is part of CryptoNote's marketing. But I don't think anyone expects it to play out like that because it's yet to be demonstrated in the real world. Most likely a GPU miner for the CryptoNight algo will be developed soon, though with a smaller advantage than seen in scrypt.

Technically a GPU miner doesn't necessarily mean that users can't mine. Nearly all new computers now have some kind of GPU, and that will increasingly be the case in the future. The main question is how big an advantage you get from building a particular specialized type of GPU rig over perhaps somewhat less efficient common computers. When you get huge advantages as with BTC or LTC, then users mining doesn't really exist. But if the advantage is small, then regular users can still mine. So we will just have to see how this plays out.

That's not really the point though. Users may mine, and if that works out to help keep the network descentralized, great. But mining rewards will be an increasingly unimportant way people receive the coins they want or need. They will primarily get them in some sort of trade (either trading for other assets or performing services and being paid in coins).

EDIT: I'd add that if this doesn't turn out to be the case, that won't really be a surprise (as many intelligent comments have been made about CPU mining being impossible), and will merely leave this coin in the same position as every other coin with respect to mining. Its anonymity features will not be affected.

hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500

Having a longer mining horizon doesn't necessarily increase a future user's access to a coin. It increases a future miner's access to it. But in the long run, mining is dominated by professionals so this group diverges from the mainstream. Bitcoin and Litecoin are examples of this. An ordinary user is largely restricted to buying it on the market, which is available regardless of the emission curve. So the egalitarian aspect of the argument exists, but it plays out weakly in the real world.


I thought the point of CPU-only was that users are miners and run the network in a decentralized cost that most absorb invisibly as some small bump in power bill cost.

This is the ideal that Satoshi pursued and is part of CryptoNote's marketing. But I don't think anyone expects it to play out like that because it's yet to be demonstrated in the real world. Most likely a GPU miner for the CryptoNight algo will be developed soon, though with a smaller advantage than seen in scrypt.
sr. member
Activity: 263
Merit: 250

Having a longer mining horizon doesn't necessarily increase a future user's access to a coin. It increases a future miner's access to it. But in the long run, mining is dominated by professionals so this group diverges from the mainstream. Bitcoin and Litecoin are examples of this. An ordinary user is largely restricted to buying it on the market, which is available regardless of the emission curve. So the egalitarian aspect of the argument exists, but it plays out weakly in the real world.


I thought the point of CPU-only was that users are miners and run the network in a decentralized cost that most absorb invisibly as some small bump in power bill cost.
sr. member
Activity: 263
Merit: 250
It's healthy to discuss curve tuning in the interests of long-term health of the coin and its economy.  Tedious, perhaps, but healthy.

Tedious and useless. This has already been decided and is considered part of the social contract. It won't change unless the entire dev team behind this coin breaks up and blows away, because there is 100% unchangeable agreement on this point.

There will likely be a change to allow for some perpetual rewards on the back end, as was stated up front. That was the motive for wanting a flatter curve from the start: It was meaningful rewards out for a longer period of time, not trying to tinker with inflation and "pump" up the value. That important goal will instead be achieved using the second method, as I have described.

There will not be tinkering with the curve.

If you don't like it, please exit now, and head on over to QCN or some other curve-tinkering clone.

Otherwise, let's have healthy discussion about things that might actually happen with this coin.



I think it is quite myopic to think like that. The backlash over premining is not that it changes the rules, but that it changes them to the interest of those already in power. This is what the whole crypto world was supposed to solve.

I am a holder and would buy more if the curve was flattened and the current holders' accounts halved. "Half ma coins" is not the target audience. The change is against the current owners and for the future owners. The reason those in power do it is because they are more heavily invested (financially or otherwise) and therefore more risk adverse. They prefer -EV bets that increase the coin's long term success.

That is my argument for the holders, for the non-holders and the core of the associated PR campaign. Monero can be the coin that does things better, even in terms of policy.

Edit: i sometimes feel like the Monero community temporarily forgets the scope we aim for. If successful at what it pretends to become, Monero will not be drug dealers and shady biz money, but instead it will be the People's Republic of Offshore. There is a large difference in audience between the two.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500
It's healthy to discuss curve tuning in the interests of long-term health of the coin and its economy.  Tedious, perhaps, but healthy.  

Y'all have an instamine reaction formation.  You do realize people criticize monero as an instamine because its curve is too aggressive, don't you?  The fact is, "instamine" will be thrown at you no matter what you do.  The correct thing to do is what is best for the health of the coin and its economy in the long-term.  Opinions on that may vary, but the instamine bugaboo has nothing to do with it.  If you reduce emission rate, you will be giving more people the chance to participate in mining at favorable rates -- and that is the exact opposite of instamining.  It will aid dispersion.  


Having a longer mining horizon doesn't necessarily increase a future user's access to a coin. It increases a future miner's access to it. But in the long run, mining is dominated by professionals so this group diverges from the mainstream. Bitcoin and Litecoin are examples of this. An ordinary user is largely restricted to buying it on the market, which is available regardless of the emission curve. So the egalitarian aspect of the argument exists, but it plays out weakly in the real world.

The main reason you want a long mining horizon is so that you can have a blockchain that's secure without relying on tx fees. Of course, it merely delays the problem: the permanent fix is a minimum block reward, which MRO will have in some form.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
It's healthy to discuss curve tuning in the interests of long-term health of the coin and its economy.  Tedious, perhaps, but healthy.

Tedious and useless. This has already been decided and is considered part of the social contract. It won't change unless the entire dev team behind this coin breaks up and blows away, because there is 100% unchangeable agreement on this point.

There will likely be a change to allow for some perpetual rewards on the back end, as was stated up front. That was the motive for wanting a flatter curve from the start: It was meaningful rewards out for a longer period of time, not trying to tinker with inflation and "pump" up the value. That important goal will instead be achieved using the second method, as I have described.

There will not be tinkering with the curve.

If you don't like it, please exit now, and head on over to QCN or some other curve-tinkering clone.

Otherwise, let's have healthy discussion about things that might actually happen with this coin.

legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
It's healthy to discuss curve tuning in the interests of long-term health of the coin and its economy.  Tedious, perhaps, but healthy.  

Y'all have an instamine reaction formation.  You do realize people criticize monero as an instamine because its curve is too aggressive, don't you?  The fact is, "instamine" will be thrown at you no matter what you do.  The correct thing to do is what is best for the health of the coin and its economy in the long-term.  Opinions on that may vary, but the instamine bugaboo has nothing to do with it.  If you reduce emission rate, you will be giving more people the chance to participate in mining at favorable rates -- and that is the exact opposite of instamining.  It will aid dispersion.  

A healthy ecosystem is what will empower monero to change the world for the better.  I think slow and steady appreciation is the best possible scenario.  It will attract risk-averse investors and will encourage currency use.  Personally, I will focus on software and ties with enterprises, merchants -- I see that as less difficult than pressing a case for curve reforms .

The idea of screwing future buyers is ludicrous to me.  People buy or not at their own discretion.  If they buy it is because they deem it better to buy than not to buy.  I will certainly buy more monero if emission is reduced than  I would if it is unchanged, simply because I will have a better expectation of price stability.

On the other hand, the market will fix this problem soon enough.  It will just adjust the price down until it corresponds to the emission rate.





hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500

The logic checks out insofar as these guys (whether they entirely realize it or not) are arguing if favor of the instamine approach of mining a lot of cheap and easy coins really fast, then (once they have theirs), slowing inflation way down to boost price.

It's not going to happen, but that's the logic behind these posts.


For those unfamiliar with this coin's history, this was all already discussed. The devs wanted to implement a switch where all present coins had their value halved and the emission was changed to be 2x slower. This is the equivalent of having started the blockchain with a flatter emission -- the only fair way to do it while keeping the current chain. The plan was dropped because there was a backlash over 'taking half my coins away' (this line of thinking requires some numerical illiteracy Tongue).

As I showed above, the inflation-related arguments actually favor MRO's curve because of the way the recurrence relation works. It's understandable if this is not intuitive to you guys because CryptoNote emission is so different from other altcoins. I posted some MATLAB scripts a few pages back if you want to check the numbers yourself and play with the parameters.

What we're arguing here only helps your value precisely because it screws over future buyers - i.e. not because of fundamentals but because you already got yours. This may be the flavor of the month in altcoins, but luckily this dev team is more ethical.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198

I agree with Alex. The emission is far too fast.

I can't see monero gaining value with the huge release as it is stands.

Supply will increase 600% in the next 48 weeks.

This logic doesn't check out.

The logic checks out insofar as these guys (whether they entirely realize it or not) are arguing if favor of the instamine approach of mining a lot of cheap and easy coins really fast, then (once they have theirs), slowing inflation way down to boost price.

It's not going to happen, but that's the logic behind these posts.
hero member
Activity: 560
Merit: 500

I agree with Alex. The emission is far too fast.

I can't see monero gaining value with the huge release as it is stands.

Supply will increase 600% in the next 48 weeks.

This logic doesn't check out. With the CryptoNote emission formula, the faster the emission, the faster the reduction in inflation.

If this was Bitcoin (constant reward) at the same age, supply would've increased ~1000% over the next 48 weeks (216k to 2.59 million).

If this was QuazarCoin (4x slower clone) at the same age, supply would've increased ~750% over the next 48 weeks (255k to 2.17 million).

As you can see when you do the math, (1) CryptoNote is already anti-inflationary by design and (2) a flatter emission actually draws out the inflationary phase.

Why the obsession with price per coin, anyway? What matters both for the individual and for the overall MRO market is price*amount. Price is lower, but the amount is correspondingly higher. There's always 42 Coin for those who want a high price per coin. Unfortunately, you might only own a tenth of one coin.
legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015
We need to increase block time ASAP or say "bye" to decentralized mining.

And when you do that, don't increase the reward per block... too much inflation. Did I mention that already? Tongue

Any block time adjustment will come with a block reward scaling to keep the emission curve the same. It's not fair to current or future users to have the rules changed after the blockchain has started. There would be a perpetual instamine stigma (for good reasons).

Inflation is a basic feature of PoW. There are plenty of other coins for the 'scarcity'-obsessed crowd (like XC, which is suddenly cutting the max supply to benefit the early adopters).

I admit I am in the scarcity-obsessed crowd and highly anti-inflationary in terms of economic philosophy. But you do have to realize that coin price will degrade if it needs 50-100 BTC per day to pull daily production off the market. And if price is degrading, the consensus is that "the coin is dying". And when the consensus builds up, people are like "fuck this" => sell => chain dumps => "it's dead" => taking a look at coinmarketcap => finding the highest ranked BCN clone => "that is successful" => buy buy buy that one => more success for that one, etc etc => establishing it as the dominant coin.

There are very strong points on why one shouldn't change something which is considered fixed (changing the rules of the game while the game is played => might turn off investors) and why they should change it if it threatens the coin with "death" (perceived death due to price degradation that catalyzes actual death).

The alternative is just to let price slide so that daily production can be absorbed with greater ease, and expect price rise when coin production will slow down after 3-4 years. With altcoins being the ADD-paradise, it seems unlikely that people will like MRO then. The rationale will be "ok, this is been around for 3-4 years with no success... why should it even interest me?". However this is a time stamped post and it will be fun if someone bumps my post (2017-8) to laugh at me.

I agree with Alex. The emission is far too fast.

I can't see monero gaining value with the huge release as it is stands.

Supply will increase 600% in the next 48 weeks.
newbie
Activity: 28
Merit: 0
Looks like a good buy right now, the price will likely push up the next 24 hours.

I think you're absolutely right.
This is a very good coin, its price will rise in the future.
 Smiley Smiley
Jump to: