Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 2073. (Read 4671920 times)

A bitcoin style emission means the circulating money supply will continue to decrease. As block reward decreases miners will become more and more dependent on tx fees. Eventually the transaction fees will be so expensive the transaction won't be worth conducting. You must have a steady debasement or even the smallest currency unit will eventually be too valuable. Ideally, there shouldn't be any tx fees at all.

Bitcoin is only maintaining its circulating supply because new coins are still being created. However, with mining becoming more and more privileged and block reward decreasing, the circulating wealth will dry up and a tx fees will spiral out of control.

strange when none of these accounts were around for the discussions that took place 3 weeks ago. Such vested interests with no prior indications. Hmm..

Fantom will likely catch up in terms of difficulty due to merged mining but will still likely be a shitcoin that miners just dump for a little extra income (like the BTC merged coins).

I personally find it a bit irratating that they went ahead and did merged mining even though this coin's community specifically said we didn't want it. I would really like to see the ability to merge mine coins against MRO removed. Let them build their own network.

Yep, that was the entire point of the bounty.

Altcoin history shows that except in the case of premine (Tenebrix), the first implementation stays the largest by a wide margin. We're repeating that here by outpacing Bytecoin (thanks to its 80% mine prior to surfacing). No other CN coin has anywhere near the hashrate or trading volume. Go check diff in Fantom for example or the lack of activity in BCN trading.

The only CN coin out there doing something valuable is HoneyPenny, and they're open source too. If HP develops something useful, MRO can incorporate it as well. Open source gives confidence. No need for any further edge.

Not going to happen. A condition of the pool software bounty is that it is open source.

Russian thread also updated as well.

Source is already out there.  Could make the pool software closed source when it comes out though.  That would give monero an edge.

I would strongly suggest partial closed source until market dominance is achieved. Having the best developers will likely mean others can't readily fill in the gaps to release clones early in the ramp up.

What I envision isn't available yet.

Thanks for the overview. What do you recommend that's superior to Tor?

There is research demonstrating ring signatures with quantum computing resistant formulations.

Main post now updated to the latest builds. Changes put in today:

- Source code change in slow_hash.c that doubles hashrate in both Linux and Windows.
- Windows from the same source + compiler optimization that puts Windows on par with Linux.
- 32-bit Windows binaries released. Please test these and report back.

Zerocash will be announced soon (May 18 in Oakland? but open source may not be ready then?).

Here is a synopsis of the tradeoffs compared to CyptoNote:

1. Zerocash hides everything, even the money supply so if the master key was compromised or if the highly complex bleeding edge crypto is cracked, no one will know.

2. They will claim to generate the master key at a ceremony or devise a way to compute in parts, but nothing they can do will insure it isn't compromised. CPUs even have special firmware that allows the NSA to reprogram them remotely, and even computation can be intercepted wireless with RF signals. Whereas we have to place all trust in a single party with Zerocash, with CN the trusted parties are changing on each transaction. Compromising the master key doesn't compromise the anonymity, but does compromise the money supply which could be expanded invisibly. Cracking the highly complex bleeding edge crypto which has not been sufficiently vetted over years, could compromise the anonymity ex post facto (it is all on the block chain).

3. Both CN and Zerocash use a form of cryptography which is not immune to quantum computation attack, if that becomes a reality in the future.

4. Zerocash transactions add up to 3 minutes of additional transaction delay which is much worse than Zerocoin. Zerocash (full node computation and block chain) resource requirements are centralizing but much improved over Zerocoin.

5. Zerocash hides everything so it is not necessary to obscure your IP address.



Thus on balance I prefer CN, but I like to see it altered to use a quantum computer resistant algorithm. And then we need to add IP address obfuscation as well that is superior to Tor and I2P.

Darkcoin (CoinJoin innovation) is really not at the level of the two above. You can review my comments in the Darkcoin thread to see why.

Don't post it here either. 

Somebody is attemping to relaunch == steal Monero 
bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=599580.0
I advise against posting in his topic at the moment to avoid bumping

As far as I can see (unless I am missing something), I think it is silly and doesn't resolve the issues I explained upthread.

I would like to comment on this issue of fairness and premine. I offer a "reality check" like water on the face. Apologies.

In my opinion, the coin that wins is the one that has the best developers. Developers need to be paid. When I say developers, I mean several people like myself (or apparently smooth?) who are extremely capable programmers and computer scientists. That coin will win regardless of the level of premine retained to pay the bounties. I would hope the original CN developers could be paid. Communism sucks.

The CryptoNote coins at this time all have a problem that they are too difficult to mine and use.

The are not CPU only. They are not anonymous because they don't obscure the IP address and Tor is a honeypot.

They do nothing to decentralize pools. Two Bitcoin pools control more than 50% of the network.

There are many development issues that need to be addressed, e.g. decentralized exchanges.

I suspect there is no way you get there without a premine to pay development costs. I mean we are talking about man-months or man-years of development. In my opinion (as a person who has developed million user commercial software projects), we can't just take some ByteCoin C code and slap a few tweaks on it and release it and expect to complete all the development work that needs to be done.

---

Add: I don't have time to read the entire thread but I've already seen political catfights. Nothing great gets done by committee nor a  Foundation. A fair-minded Benevolent Dictator takes charge and delivers the goods. Then then people avail of it, because it works.

Mining from the daemon is fine but a better solution is to type "save" in the daemon after it syncs. This will make the RPC work (so starting mining from the wallet works, along with the rest of wallet functionality) and will also save the blockchain to disk so you won't have to do all that syncing again.

Newest windows binaries

Win32
https://www.dropbox.com/s/jmg7ax68zpa704r/monero.win.x86.050714.zip

Win64
https://www.dropbox.com/s/j6kdxxkd1mx4g1b/monero.win.x64.050714.zip

What does a checkpoint provides?