Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 2050. (Read 4670562 times)

It is mentioned in the first post, so there should be some awareness


It is certainly reasonable even to reply to that comment and say that you don't think that <1% will be enough. But when it turns into a debate back and forth, complete with references and links in support of each position, it's time to move to a different thread.

EDIT: Keyboard-Mash has taken the liberty of continuing the conversation over in the Monero economy thread. That was originally more about price speculation but price, money supply, and sustainability are certainly related, making that not a terrible place for it.

I was totally joking with that last part.


I agree completely and withdraw my previous attitude. I thought transparency of the issue would be smart, especially considering interested parties have already been accused of "conspiring" behind the community's back. I also wanted knowledgable followers of the thread to be aware of the issue, especially if they have interest in MRO. I don't mind where the discussion takes place, as long as the people in this thread to know it's taking place.

Exactly!

This is an announcement thread, for people to learn about this (somewhat) new coin, get help setting it up, post subsequent announcements about new releases, post announcements about other related threads being opened (bounties, exchanges and other new services, polls/discussions, etc.). It is not really a good place for debates about the economics of block chains.

That is a fair point. Your comment in response to the specific proposal to set a floor of 1 atomic unit on the subsidy is reasonable.

The problem is that it is certainly clear there is no consensus of what the actual best approach actually is. I would suggest that starting a thread (or continuing) a discussion somewhere more focused on "best practices for structuring long term block chain mining incentives" (which, again, applies to many different coins) and then referencing whatever ideas come out of that discussion is preferable to having that complex debate right here mixed in with people asking question about setting up their wallets.

Tacotime said he was going to propose a hard fork to address this very issue. I brought the matter to the Monero thread so our whole community could be aware of it and discuss possible solutions.

Besides, this entire thread is essentially the same questions repeated over and over again:
What's the difference between Monero and BitMonero?
Is there a pool yet?
How is Monero any better than BCN?
Are there any pools yet?
What do these weird messages mean in my miner daemon?
Pool status?

I'm not saying Monero won't do things better, just that the discussion about what is "better" should take place somewhere else.

Being impartial for a moment here, just take a quick look at the quoted context above. You think one thing is better, aminorex thinks something else. I'm just asking that you take that discussion elsewhere. That doesn't mean we aren't interested in such a discussion or its outcome.

 ///If you have waited for more than 1 hour on deposit, contact us. Occasionally cryptonote wallets may freeze and cause further delay due to having to manually reset.///

cryptonote is all manual

cryptonote.exchange.to
I despoit some BTC to my cryptonote account from my mintpal account .
But I don't get it after about 4 hours..what's the matter?

I'm sorry, I was under the impression we actually wanted to do things better than the other coins.  Perhaps it's being discussed here because we think Monero has the potential to solve these problems early and be a leader in providing long-term solutions. How silly of me for being so optimistic.

It's actually flattering that you think this obscure little altcoin is so important as to make this the appropriate venue to debate these important questions, but in reality these exact same issues apply to every single coin based on Satoshi's basic block chain concept, and indeed many will need to address them in practice much sooner than MRO. In fact BCN being twice as fast and two years ahead will confront them much sooner. It is absurd to think this discussion should take place on the thread for every coin to which they apply, because that's all of them.

So I would respectfully request that you guys take it over to the Economics subforum or somewhere else a bit more focused. There are MRO-specific topics to discuss here.

Uh... that's exactly why it is a problem.  If payers have to enter a bidding war to get their transactions included, they might as well go back to fiat.

I've made Russian translation of monero.cc.
Materials are sent to webmaster.
Hope we will see changes soon.

It's a non-problem.  The market will fix it.  Miners will mine the txns with the best fees.  Don't worry about prices.  The market sets them. They are never what payers want them to be anyhow.

Has anyone considered the practicalities of doing side-chains in MRO?  Moving mining to side-chains can help deter centralization of control in the hands of a single pool operator.  I'd been given short shrift for this notion as applied to BTC, but I think my critics are simply not thinking it through:  The idea is to mine on a dedicated side-chain, and merge-mine the main chain.  If you want to insure that there are a minimum of 100 pools, you can mine on 100 side-chains simultaneously, round-robin to insure fractioning the hashpower.  I haven't considered how this would be implemented in MRO, however.

Regarding chain bloat, garbage-collecting the chain would be a big splash, and get some attention.  Define a minimum balance, and let miners reap dust.  That number can change over time.  The block chain only needs to contain an effective record of the current assignment of non-zero (greater than dust threshold) balances.  Historical data is not required to maintain accounts.  It is currently used to compute hashes, but does not need to be:  The most up-to-date assignment ledger state can be used and old stuff discarded.  This will improve privacy to a small degree as well, although obviously its not in any sense a protection against evesdropping history maintainers.  If the chain is garbage collected, then there is precious little reason not to require a minimum mix.  The requirement to garbage collect the chain insures that mining is done by CPUs -- and it's not make-work, but actual useful work.

I've been trying to raise awareness of this issue. The typical response seems to be, "when Bitcoin addresses the problem, so will we." To me this means it will never be addressed.  The obvious solution is to perpetually increase the money supply, always rewarding miners with new coins.

Tacotime mentioned a hard fork proposal to never let the block reward drop below 1 coin:


I assume this is merely delaying the problem, however. I proposed a fixed annual debasement (say 2%) with a tx fee cap of like 0.001% of the current block reward (or whatever sounds reasonable). That way we still get the spam protection without worrying about fee escalation down the road.

Any solution involving debasement, however, will be met with harsh criticism, because "inflation is bad" and stuff.

Someone from your group private messaged me and ask I provide references.

Here is the recent article I was referring to:

http://radar.oreilly.com/2014/04/bitcoin-what-happens-when-the-miners-pack-up-their-gear.html

I raised similar issues last year as follows.

Transactions Withholding Attack

"Spiraling Transaction Fees Destruction" of bitcoin (Transactions fees are a Tragedy of the Commons)

More links on the discussion of why transaction fees suck:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6108034

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6151061

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gavin-andresen-rising-transaction-fees-could-price-poor-out-of-bitcoin-612652

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6152042

Pool software is in testing now. You can follow the progress on the pool bounty thread (see original post on this thread for link).

Pools are in development with great progress.  Soon.

there is now yet no pools?

i agree with this