I have found 5 blocks now! Difficulty is way to high for me to continue mining any more though.
Someone let me know when another clone of this coin comes out. I want to get in on it right at launch.
Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 2088. (Read 4669741 times)
It could and was argued that DRK gave early miners an unfair advantage, ninja launch etc. but in the end had no effect on its future.
1. How do you know the effect? What would have happened without the launch issues.
2. The future is still being written. CryptoNote has the potential to render DRK obsolete anyway. We'll see.
It could and was argued that DRK gave early miners an unfair advantage, ninja launch etc. but in the end had no effect on its future.
Well DRK was instamined 7% on the first day, I would argue this has a huge effect on its future. The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided.
Well the pool on the forum failed to get a majority but there is zero protection against ballot stuffing with newbie accounts so who knows what that really means. If we had a voting mechanism in the coin itself we could use that to get a more reliable vote, but we don't.
I do agree there is a widespread objection about either taking coins away or giving early miners an unfair advantage, so it likely best to just leave it the way it is and implement a longer term fix to the somewhat overly fast curve over the scale of years/decades as eizh mentioned.
It could and was argued that DRK gave early miners an unfair advantage, ninja launch etc. but in the end had no effect on its future.
The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided.
Well the pool on the forum failed to get a majority but there is zero protection against ballot stuffing with newbie accounts so who knows what that really means. If we had a voting mechanism in the coin itself we could use that to get a more reliable vote, but we don't.
I do agree there is a widespread objection about either taking coins away or giving early miners an unfair advantage, so it likely best to just leave it the way it is and implement a longer term fix to the somewhat overly fast curve over the scale of years/decades as eizh mentioned.
Can this be resolved with something like slowly moving the block target to 2 or 2.5 or x minutes over the course of a few years? At this point, it would probably be much more favorable to come up with long-term, barely visible solutions rather than shocks. I don't know the protocol though -- you guys do so I'm probably just making it harder than it needs to be. It sounds like you're in favor of somehting like this too.
I get what you're saying about ballot stuffing, lots of new accounts in this thread.
I understand the need to have a correction, but is there any way to cause it to appear as a crawl rather than a shock? I'd rather lose a miniscule amount every day rather than rip out a tooth all at once . . if possible.
Yeah anything that's done will probably be slow like that. The leading idea of just making the reward bound at some minimum or perhaps slow to some minimum won't even kick in for years.
The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided.
Well the pool on the forum failed to get a majority but there is zero protection against ballot stuffing with newbie accounts so who knows what that really means. If we had a voting mechanism in the coin itself we could use that to get a more reliable vote, but we don't.
I do agree there is a widespread objection about either taking coins away or giving early miners an unfair advantage, so it likely best to just leave it the way it is and implement a longer term fix to the somewhat overly fast curve over the scale of years/decades as eizh mentioned.
Can this be resolved with something like slowly moving the block target to 2 or 2.5 or x minutes over the course of a few years? At this point, it would probably be much more favorable to come up with long-term, barely visible solutions rather than shocks. I don't know the protocol though -- you guys do so I'm probably just making it harder than it needs to be. It sounds like you're in favor of somehting like this too.
I get what you're saying about ballot stuffing, lots of new accounts in this thread.
I understand the need to have a correction, but is there any way to cause it to appear as a crawl rather than a shock? I'd rather lose a miniscule amount every day rather than rip out a tooth all at once . . if possible.
The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided.
Well the pool on the forum failed to get a majority but there is zero protection against ballot stuffing with newbie accounts so who knows what that really means. If we had a voting mechanism in the coin itself we could use that to get a more reliable vote, but we don't.
I do agree there is a widespread objection about either taking coins away or giving early miners an unfair advantage, so it likely best to just leave it the way it is and implement a longer term fix to the somewhat overly fast curve over the scale of years/decades as eizh mentioned.
The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided.
The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miners don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miners don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.
It does that. I don't know what triggers it though.
My windows computer automatically restarted itself last night for a windows update. The blockchain went back to when I manually saved it 10 hours ago so it doesn't seem to be saving. It only saves when you type "save" or "exit".
Well I see it claiming to do so in the daemon output, but I'm on linux. Maybe that makes a difference, or maybe its not really saving it.
Ok, I checked today and you are right. It does save automatically. I just saw the below message and I didn't type save this time.
2014-May-05 11:21:21.400675 [P2P8]Storing blockchain...
2014-May-05 11:21:22.418777 [P2P8]Blockchain stored OK.
Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.
It does that. I don't know what triggers it though.
My windows computer automatically restarted itself last night for a windows update. The blockchain went back to when I manually saved it 10 hours ago so it doesn't seem to be saving. It only saves when you type "save" or "exit".
Well I see it claiming to do so in the daemon output, but I'm on linux. Maybe that makes a difference, or maybe its not really saving it.
Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.
It does that. I don't know what triggers it though.
My windows computer automatically restarted itself last night for a windows update. The blockchain went back to when I manually saved it 10 hours ago so it doesn't seem to be saving. It only saves when you type "save" or "exit".
i have been reading this in some of the posts:
tft has left...
now that tft is gone...
tft left project....
there are so many threads regarding monero, bitmonero, bcn, that its hard to keep track whre i read it. last one was in emision curve i think.
tft has left...
now that tft is gone...
tft left project....
there are so many threads regarding monero, bitmonero, bcn, that its hard to keep track whre i read it. last one was in emision curve i think.
- OSX binaries to be uploaded soon, check for a date change.
- Hashrate increase was for Windows binaries only. This new Linux version doesn't increase it.
- We'll wait on Noodle for the Windows. Currently what's on the OP is pre-0.8.6.
- Mega is working, just let it load for a minute or two.
- Hashrate increase was for Windows binaries only. This new Linux version doesn't increase it.
- We'll wait on Noodle for the Windows. Currently what's on the OP is pre-0.8.6.
- Mega is working, just let it load for a minute or two.
i here tft is no longer part of the project. so is he forking or relaunching bytecoin under new name and new parameters (merged mining with flatter emission curve.) also. what is the end consensus for the emission curve for monero. will it be adjusted.
just curious.
just curious.
I don't think anyone's addressed the emission curve. It's a tough issue and I'm glad it seems like everyone's decided to wait. With more people coming in over time, we'd get a better vote of what people want . . rather than prematurely deciding. I would think it will need to be addressed soon though, if it's going to happen.
Also, I don't know about tft. I would imagine he's reading the thread/irc often enough to hear the updates. Maybe posting under a different name? Maybe still contributing, quietly? It's too bad, he and amphibian seemed to have quite a bit to bring to the development of the coin. But the consensus was that not enough people wanted merge mining to make it a viable option for the coin.
I do hope tft returns to the community, at least actively. Fortunately we still have many very experienced, talented and driven people keeping up with development.
It seems HoneyPenny is implementing a merge-mining concept, so possibly they've paired up? There was a thread started for tft's/amphibian's fork, but it's been quiet for almost a week now.
When & where did TFT say he's no longer part of the project?
i here tft is no longer part of the project. so is he forking or relaunching bytecoin under new name and new parameters (merged mining with flatter emission curve.) also. what is the end consensus for the emission curve for monero. will it be adjusted.
just curious.
just curious.
Also I have one feature request. Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.
I think it's already implemented
Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.
It does that. I don't know what triggers it though.
I have updated master to 0.8.6.
Are NoodleDoodle's windows enhancements included in this version? Or were the windows improvements due to his windows compiler settings?
Also I have one feature request. Can we have the daemon auto-save the blockchain? Maybe every 30 minutes or so.
Jump to: