Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1942. (Read 4670562 times)

This is a bit damning for future price really. How can the market absorb another 20 times the coin supply at current prices?

This is a bit damning for future price really. How can the market absorb another 20 times the coin supply at current prices?

- It would either require 50mn USD (100mn USD if MRO price doubled or 200mn USD if price went up 4x)
- Or price would have to drop significantly so that the new MROs can be absorbed at much lower prices

As it is right now it is not sustainable, inflation-wise / price-wise. Investors would quickly lose money on their investment as the coin is debased. Alternatively, they'd rather go with a BCN clone that doesn't have this type of "weakness".

My suggestion is a reduction in the number of coins or altering of the reward curve.

I maintain that this coin is just a fork with almost technically nothing more than bytecoin. This is just the reality.

As things stand at the present this coin has no more future than most of altcoins just because most of these coins (in fact all of them) add no improvements to what Bitcoin needs.

Who really cares traceability (Bitcoin is already an anonymous coin) ? If you do illegal things you should change your mind or ask real maffioso to help you.

We can talk about others so-called improvements of other altcoins :
- better confirmation time : even with 30s block the real confirmation take several minutes, so can't compete with Visa Card;
- PoS : better than PoW for energy saving but worst for volume increasing transactions;
- difficulty algorithms regulation : useless when total hashrate is huge.

In fact to this day, only about 5% of the coins have been mined, and it is FAR from the case that developers or very early adopters have been the only ones mining.

Your missing the point. The purpose of the fork was not to make technical changes. It was:

1. To cleanly launch the coin without an 80% hidden premine and an insanely fast reward curve that will release 96% of the coins in 4 years. (By comparison bitcoin released 50% in 4 years, and people complain about early adopters.) After that, what?  

2. To create a coin with active, engaged, community based leadership as opposed to some secret cabal hidden away doing nobody-knows-what with 80% of the coins.

The developers of Monero (and Bitmonero before it) did not have any special premine or any special access ability mine a huge amount of coins. The difficulty adjustment algorithm on this coin does not allow for any ridiculous instamine after release either -- the difficulty adjusts every single block. In fact to this day, only about 5% of the coins have been mined, and it is FAR from the case that developers or very early adopters have been the only ones mining. In fact I doubt we account for 10% of it at this point.

That said, if you really prefer BCN, it is over here. No harm no foul.

Noob question:

After all the coins are mined, probalbly no one will be mining. How will transactions occur without blocks being generated? This applies also to bitcoin and a lot of other coins

Then start by looking diff on files then look inside what changed in these files  

Then talk your technical skills with me.

In the strange, strange world we live in, the fork has 2.2 million H/s while the non-fork has 180k H/s.

Maybe there's more to it.

Either way, enjoy your profit.

This is just reality dude : I bought a bunch of this coin (0.0037) and I'm ready to sell them as soon as I feel it.

I didn't want to discredite you guys. Just say what I think is the truth. For the moment this is just a fork, may be time will prove me wrong.

Actually I control the domain name, David merely registered it. The site is hosted on my servers. David is part of the core Monero team, but he is not the only one. In the next few days we will try make things a little more transparent in terms of who the core team is and so on, it's all been a little bit rushed since it went up on Poloniex, and we're reacting and reeling.

He is one developer, there are a few at the moment.

No future hey? We get started with a fair launch, lots of interest and the other coins you mention start with insta-mine or pre-mine and yet it's Monero that is the pump and dump?

Dude, you're spreading FUD, that is all.

The developer of Monero is David Latapie, a french "multi forker" (he also developed mintcoin).

http://whois.domaintools.com/monero.cc
http://whois.domaintools.com/mintcoin.cc

Mintcoin.cc is now made anonymous by obscure WhoisGuard company from Panama...

Well... no future except pump and dump (I own a bunch of this coin but I'm realist).

The developer of Monero is David Latapie, a french "multi forker" (he also developed mintcoin).

Well... no future except pump and dump (I own a bunch of this coin but I'm realist).

I hold both MRO and DRK and so have thought about this question somewhat carefully. DRK has the advantage of better awareness (particularly with its recent price increase), the familiarity and backend support of using a BTC-based client and associated services, and a large community of holders/miners. The developer, Evan Duffield, is quite visible and had made meaningful development progress. Some of the economic characteristics of the coin, including its relatively low inflation and the masternode system (which ties up coin) tend to encourage price increases. The principal concern for many regarding it is its unequal early distribution ("instamine") which you'll have to decide for yourself how much it bothers you. Another potential criticism is that Darksend is currently closed-source and unvetted, so we have no way of knowing if it will deliver on its promises. In fairness, Evan has stated it will go open source when complete, however.

MRO has the advantage of a truly novel and elegant implementation of anonymity. If a coin's value is determined purely by the anonymity if offers then CryptoNote beats CoinJoin (which underpins Darksend) hands-down. Even the originator of CoinJoin, gmaxwell, has stated as such. The CryptoNote developers, while anonymous, appear to be quite familiar with the academic cryptography literature and have used ring signatures in a clever manner to underpin their coin. Ring signatures are academically vetted and enjoy broad support within the cryptographic community (e.g. Adam Back, the cryptographer who invented hashcash for Bitcoin, tweeted his support). While I think Evan is a great developer amongst the sea of altcoins, he strikes me as more of a coder and less of a cryptographer. He, for example, has reversed himself and decided against using ring signatures. While this decision was ascribed to avoiding bloat in the blockchain, I think it's more likely because he realized implementing ring signatures in a BTC-based coin, particularly one with an already-established blockchain, would be extremely difficult.

The main limiting factor of MRO right now is that because it is not based on BTC, all of the underpinnings users have come to expect (GUI, pools, exchanges, etc.) have to be developed from scratch. This hurts the uptake of the coin and scares off less advanced users. It is possible that DRK could develop a lead in user uptake while these things get sorted out. With that said, I think the progress over one month has been very fast given that deficit; there is also a strong team of experienced developers. Some also criticize MRO as a "clone" of Bytecoin (the original CryptoNote currency marred by its own, bigger, "premine" controversy). While Bytecoin did indeed form the base of MRO, the MRO devs have done a lot to popularize CryptoNote and make it accessible to end users. MRO also has by far the largest net hash and exchange volume of the CryptoNote coins. As we saw with Tenebrix/Litecoin, sometimes being second with a fair launch is what makes the difference in making a coin stick in the long term. Also, the reason DRK is able to avoid having any "clones" currently is because of its aforementioned closed source; this is not really a strength per se as it is unlikely that people will tolerate a closed source coin in the long run, particularly when it comes to anonymity.

Anyway, I think both of these coins have a bright future. While the recent run-up of DRK clearly has elements of irrational exuberance, I do think that, so long as it delivers on its promises, it deserves to be beside Litecoin as one of the most valuable BTC derivatives. For a dark-horse long-term bet though I think MRO is the true second generation cryptocurrency.

The change to two minutes is easy and relatively non-controversial. Instead of roughly 17 coins per minute (a bit less now) the block rewards would be 34 coins every two minutes. That is no change to the number of coins per day or the shape of the emission curve.

The only reason it hasn't been done is that it needs to be done carefully to prevent any network disruption during the change over and there are other priorities.