Bitcoin Forum

New thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.new#new

What status of BMR currently holding?

No change. This is just a rename/rebrand/reannounce, since the first one was a bit sloppy

No change, this is just a renaming. In the future, the binaries will have to be changed, as well as some URL, but that's all. By the way, this very account (monero) is shared by several user and is meant to make it easier to change the OP in case of vacancy of the OP. This idea of a shared OP comes from Karmacoin.

Some more things to come:

• A logo
• A website (URL will be monero.cc)
• A GUI wallet

Before this thread is too big, I would like to state that a bug has been identified in the emission curve and we are currently in the process of fixing it (me, TFT, and smooth).

Currently coins are emitted at double the rate that was intended.  We will correct this in the future, likely by bitshifting values of outputs before a certain height, and then correcting 1 min blocks to 2 min blocks.  The changes proposed will be published to a Monero Improvement Protocol on github.

is there a hidden gpu miner?

I doubt it, network is equivalent to about 400 good CPUs right now.  Making the hashing algorithm implemented on a GPU is non-trivial.

Reminds me of Litecoin back in late 2012. :)

To expand on this, if you read the Cryptonote whitepaper (see https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf) you'll see that the PoW, even if implemented on a GPU, would be unlikely to give a significant advantage, as it is limited by memory random access speed rather than bandwidth (the traditional strength of GPUs for hashing).

One can never be absolutely certain sure there won't be a clever shortcut found but it seems plausible this may remain a CPU coin for a very long time.

An ASIC built especially to speed up random access to memory has a better chance to work here than current GPUs. GPUs may get bigger caches over time, but then you can't be sure that CPUs won't also speed up access to their L3 cache, get more cores, and start to look more like GPUs anyway (and GPUs are being built into CPUs).

It is possible this may stay mineable by regular common computers (whatever those are) indefinitely.

I want to buy 1000 moneo, PM me the BTC price. Thank

Trading thread is over here (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.0). It says Bitmonero BMR but that's the same thing (former name). Will be fixed there soon.

so i create a wallet via password


if i create a new wallet. if i set the same password. would this still be the same wallet generated?

No the password is just for keeping the wallet safe. You can even use no password (not recommended).

Each generated wallet is different. You can copy the wallet files if you want the same wallet somewhere else.

Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026

I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it.

Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin? How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems?

Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which *might* be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up.

Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price?

I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?

You make good points but unfortunately conflicting statements were made and it isn't possible to stick to them all. It was said that this coin had a mining reward schedule similar to bitcoin. In fact it is twice as fast as intended, even even a bit more than twice as fast as bitcoin.

If you acquired your coins on the basis of the advertised reward schedule, you would be disappointed, and rightfully so, as more coins come to into existence more quickly than you were led to believe.

To simply ignore that aspect of the bug is highly problematic. Every solution may be highly problematic, but the one being proposed was agreed as being the least bad by most of the major stakeholders. Maybe it will still not work, this coin will collapse, and there will need to be a relaunch, in which case all your coins will likely be worthless. I hope that doesn't happen.

This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.

how many coins are out already? how do i tell i synched in?

I think correct the coin now while early.  Not many blocks mined so if fixed now future of coin is strong.

There are approximately 150k coins. There will likely be a "reverse stock split" turning these into 75k "new" coins at some point, because the mining reward is currently twice what is intended.

Syncing the daemon is currently pretty fast as there isn't much of a block chain. Type refresh in the wallet to sync it.

So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.

Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph?

That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?

Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week.

This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.

No, not true. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.

Also, a favourable premine for early adopters is far from uncommon - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are arguments for each.

Right, and no one involved with this coin wanted or wants a favorable premine. Well, maybe other than you, that is.

I hardly think that significantly less than 1% over the course of a week or so constitutes an instamine.

The crypto world is pretty brutal, bitcointalk even more so - I'll watch with interest and shut up in the meantime.....  ;)

Oh here we go........

I have valid questions, brush me off if you want, the questions will remain.

I already said you made valid points. It was a screw up, and fixing it can't be done in a perfect way. We're trying to choose the least harmful fix. They all have down sides.

+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?

It's not even been a week. Nothing is lost, besides a couple of auctions. Continuing on a path that would provide an excessive emission is far more detrimental than causing some level of discomfort with the small group involved right now.

End of the day, if you're here now and have been here . . you're still an early adopter.

I think this would set a strange trend for setting debasement in the currency . . but at this point we're all just a group of people who ran a hash function for a week . . not part of some game-changing currency.

Give it a shot and if it all goes to hell make a new fork.

It's not debasement. Debasement is issuing more coins, making existing coins worth less. The proposed bug fix is essentially a reverse stock split where every two old coins are exchanged for one new coin.

The extra coins being combined into one coin are coins you should not have received under the "close to Bitcoin's original curve" schedule that was advertised. To argue that bugs can't be fixed is absurd.

If there were a bug that gave some people a million extra coins for no reason in bitcoin or any other coin, you can bet there would be a fix to remove those coins.

As you say, this is all an experiment. If people abandon the coin in droves because of the reverse split, then that will be a useful experiment and we can all get on with our lives with some other coin. Most of us believe that the value of a coin with the cryptonote feature set, no-premine, no-instamine, no-tax, and a bitcoin-like reward schedule is compelling. We'll see if that turns out to be correct.

The existing block chain would not change, of course. What would happen is that if you were using the new version of the wallet, the old coins would be displayed using a value half as large as what is actually in the block chain. New coins would be displayed using their actual value. When the old coins are moved, the miner would adjust their value on the block chain to be new coins. So in a sense, the fix is mostly cosmetic.

I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote.

Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people.

Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.

What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes.

Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. I think we can fix this in a way that makes nearly everyone happy and does minimal damage, but if not, then a new coin is certainly possible.

Yes, debasement is devaluing the current value (Something that occurs when issuing more coins). As trades have already occurred at a certain price . . eliminating half of the coins will only serve to raise the value of the currency from what it was yesterday. That is quite the opposite of debasement is what I was getting at . . sorry if I was unclear.

In setting a trend for debasement by establishing minimum block rewards, this is a strange start. All I'm saying. Not that it's a terrible one, and certainly not that this is debasement.

I understand the bug, and completely agree that it should be fixed. I will also be choosing to stick with this coin because of the bold move being taken. You guys seem to know what you do very well, and that's worth quite a lot.

Thank you for the kind words. I agree with you that the quality of the team is really important. When I evaluate any project that's the number one thing I look for. I'm very pleased with the quality of the team that has come together around this coin.

Fix is good. Need to be done.  I mine  and hold coins but understand why fix is neccessary.  I willing to have reduced coins to make future of coin strong.

I also agree that the fix is good. Since everyone's coins are halved noone gains and noone loses. And since this stops instamine more people will get to mine it as first adopters which is always good.

Since everything is scaled and retroactive, the only person to be affected is... me.  :P Because I bought BMR with BTC, priced it with incorrect information, and my share relative to the eventual maximum has been halved. Oh well. The rest merely mined coins that never should have been mined. The "taking away coins" isn't a symptom of the fix: it's the fundamental thing that needed fixing. The result is more egalitarian and follows the original intention.

Software is always a work-in-progress. Waiting for something ideal at launch is pretty hopeless.

edit: Let me point out that most top cryptocurrencies today were released before KGW and other new difficulty retargeting algorithms became widespread. Consequently they had massive instamines on the first day, even favorites in good standing like LTC. Here the early miners are voluntarily reducing their eventual stake for the sake of fairness. How cool is that?

Here's a graph I made showing the change of new (red) vs. old (blue) emission schedule. It's coins in circulation vs. blockchain age in years (goes up to 16). We're basically at 0 on the x-axis right now and the magnitude of the slope around there represents the early miner advantage. It's being substantially reduced to follow the flatter BTC-model as originally advertised. There's also a minimum subsidy to preserve miner incentives (and hence blockchain security). The dashed black line is the maximum supply neglecting that minimum subsidy.

https://i.imgur.com/HoO2E5E.png

Relaunch with a GPU algorithm unless a Myriadcoin style PoW setup can be achieved.  Name the last successful CPU only coin...it doesn't exist (no, Bitcoin doesn't count).

I think you guys are being hyper-critical of minor pieces, the name, the emission schedule etc. So many coins released with such less care, I'd hate for this crowd to get stuck on the small stuff.  No exchanges have worked with CryptoNight based coins yet, C-cex was having a hard time... The general crypto community are unfamiliar with what CryptoNote based coins can bring to the table and why it is important.
 (and while im typing) Roach why would we every switch to gpu if you want to mine a gpu coin pick from the hundred available theyre released every day.

There no successful coins other than bitcoin. The second largest coin is 5% of bitcoin's market cap. The third largest is 1%.  It gets rapidly worse from there.

If there is ever a successful coin other than bitcoin (unclear, but maybe) it will take new approaches, not anything like any of the current alts.

Personally I don't believe hash algorithm even matters very much. By focusing on that you are getting distracted from anything that does (or at least might) matter.

Name maybe, but emission schedule is in no way minor. It's one of the defining features of a coin. If you're off, the network becomes unsustainable in the long run. One could argue BTC is successful because it incentivizes miners for at least a decade or two.

I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair.  I'm an early adopter.  This halves my money, and it's what I want to do.

There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network.  In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not.  So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins.  To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 2^64-1 atomic units to accommodate this.

Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run.  It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now.

We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news.  Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.

eizh I believe as long as theres a reward, if the coins valuable enough it will be worth it to mine.  But aside from that I don't care if the coin changes the number I guess I'm with tacotime.  You all have a better grasp on the scheduling and usability for longevity than I do absolutely.  If i end up with 100 instead of 200 and the coins better off I'm cool with that.  

It's not microscopic at 9 or 10 years, with the revised schedule. Take a look at the graph a few posts back. With the original schedule, that is more the case. With the revised schedule this is more an issue of 20 years out.  

I'm not positive but I think most of the other alts such as doge have much shorter schedules, so the issue is more urgent there.

Yeah it's a little less dire now, I will calculate inflation percent soon and we can collectively decide if it's too low after a certain time.

It's a problem with Bitcoin too, so we could also ignore it and wait to see how Bitcoin eventually handles it.

You are the one that does not understand the big picture.  Why was Dogecoin successful at all and has beaten Bitcoin in daily transactions several times?  The answer is market penetration.

A currency is useless without high market penetration.  Guess what algos give the highest market penetration?  GPU.

When people try to CPU mine and earn 1 penny a day due to botnets, most people cease to bother doing so, and the coin dies from lack of interest.

The future of PoW, if GPU only can't be achieved, is Myriadcoin style coins where you can mine with anything and receive some kind of reward.

There will be some time when its still likely to be a problem. Almost everyone agrees with this, although I guess there are a few die hard bitcoin originalists who don't see a need to change ever.

I'm less sure about the solution though. I'd rather some mechanism that provides whatever rewards are necessary rather than trying to guess at that 20 years ahead of time, but I'm not sure at all what mechanism that is. Some small inflation rate is probably better than nothing.

Roach the algo takes 3.5 GB ram to run on the original, Its not a walk in the park for a cpu...

No.  The second biggest cryptocurrency is Liteoin.  I CPU mined Litecoin for months.  It was a CPU coin at generation and was flooded with botnets and large computing clusters early on.  The coin succeeded despite this, because eventually a GPU algo came out.  I'm sure we'll see the same thing for the cryptonote hashing algo.

Myriadcoin introduces vulnerability when miners hop between difficulties and the difficulty of one hashing algo for GPU goes down and another goes up.  It's not a proper solution.  We saw a similar thing with RUCoin (which had SHA256 and scrypt) and the coin failed.

You seem to forget what the function of this is: money.  As long as people find the privacy afforded to be favourable, it will have a usage and monetary value.  This is the whole point.

I think this is the right attitude. Like you I stand to "lose" from this decision in having my early mining halved, but I welcome it. Given how scammy the average coin launch is, I think maximizing fairness for everyone is the right move. Combining a fair distribution with the innovation of Cryptonote tech could be what differentiates Monero from other coins.

If you're saying weighting can cause a big disturbance from a minor shift in hashing, that phenomenon seems much less likely to occur with 4 algos instead of 2 if weighted properly.

It's obviously also much more cartel proof.

People like Gmaxwell seem to claim that a group like KNCminer would create ASICs for all four chains.

I don't really see groups like that monopolizing all four chains into eternity, especially if each algo is radically different from one another.

They aren't radically different.  All you need to implement is an instruction cache that does most of the normal transformations for hashing algorithms (eg bit rotations).  Then you can make an ASIC for any hashing algorithm that can be implemented in 20k-100k circuits.  scrypt was neat in that it required some memory, but then they made ASICs with memory.

is MRO equal to BMR? what's going on?

Rename: Bitmonero -> Monero

When I command "start_mining ..." I get this message:

Error: mining has NOT been started: daemon is busy. Please try later

The daemon is likely still synching the blockchain

will there be any other changes? hard-fork with reduced emission?
do you want to orginize smth like the "core dev team" or the "Secret Monero Community"? why does thankful_for _today as main dev doesn't participate in discussion?
everything i see there is pretty strange. just like bytecoin (BCN)  ;D

Hello!

It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming.

But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by bitcointalk.org people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum.

Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless.

In case of hardfork that isn't supported by majority of miners the network will split into two nets with low-power fork and high-power not-forking branches. I don't think that this will be good for anybody.

Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?

Seems alright to me. You should create a voting instructions tho, cause it's not looks like an easy process ;)

You seem to forget that people need to be able to trust their "money" also - this coin will have a reputation of devs literally taking money off people to "solve" technical  problems they don't necessarily understand and trying to hide that fact with flawed maths.

There is a danger that this coin will go the same way as Myriad, becoming nothing more than a technical exercise for miners and geeks without any possible real world usage. End users don't care about emission rates and algorithms but they do care about the contents of their wallets and whether the devs feel entitled to raid them - it could be seen as the behaviour of a centralised currency.

I know I am now going to get accused of being a pump and dumper by those too emotionally attached to this coin, but how can that be true when I have less than 500 coins? Or is it 250? Or will it be 125? Also, if halving people's balances "has no real world effect" on people, how does not halving benefit me? You can't have it both ways, it makes a difference or it doesn't.

This biggest hurdle of crypto and mass adoption is it's perceived dodgy reputation - this move really doesn't help that image because it adds to the genuine fear, uncertainty and doubt that already exists. Ignore public perception of your coin at your peril.

How about I just give you 250 coins? The idea here is to move forward and correct the error, not rip anyone off.

In few days I will publish a code with merged mining support. This code will be turned ON only by voting process from miners. What does it mean:

- miners supporting merged mining are to update their nodes and miners. New miners will issue blocks with modified minor_version field indicating they are ready to accept AuxPoW blocks. But no AuxPoW blocks will be issued before 75% of last 1000 blocks will have a positive vote (a changed minor_version).

- miners not supporting will not update but will still be able to mine and accept blocks. In case of successful voting they will have to switch to new code. In case of voting failed they can stay on old version.

The same procedure is suitable for all other protocol changes.

I don't want your coins and I'm not suggesting that anyone is trying to screw anybody, this is all about the perception of devs being able to take coins without any mandate - please try to take me seriously.

yes, idea is good. that's how cryptocurrency people should make decisions. i'm in!

Okay, easy enough. AFAIK Bitcoin changes are being voted this way too, right?

We don't agree that a reverse split amounts to "taking" coins. I also wouldn't agree that a regular forward split would be "giving" coins. It's an exchange of old coins with new coins, with very nearly the exact same value. There is a very slight difference in value due to the way the reward schedule is capped, but that won't be relevant for years or decades. Such a change is entirely reasonable to fix an error in a in coin that has only existed for a week.

There were no error made in this coin but now there is an initiative to make some changes. Changes are always bad and changes destroy participant confidence even in case these changes are looking as useful. We have to be very careful before making any changes in coins ;)

Sounds fair enough for me to go with a system like this, the coin is still young so major changes wont have a really big impact atm. But still, i think the emmision fix is more important then the merged mining if it is advertised as a bitcoin alternative with comparable emmision.

For the record I approve of the voting process.

I do not approve of merged mining. It hurts this coin more than it helps it. With what we have done here we can easily build the largest and most secure network using the cryptonote design. We're well on our way to doing that already.

We should just go our own way, and leave bytecoin and its ninja-preminers to do the same.

That is my view.  

I'm not sure about not having really big impact argument. Now we have a support of a lot of people (see hashrate image below). In case a change is harmful from their point of view we will loose them either in form of not-upgrading (i.e. chain split) or in form of abandoning this coin.

https://i.imgur.com/dzqbibU.png

Any order of issuing fixes is ok for me. I suppose that merged mining will be ready (from dev. point of view) before an emission fix.

You are wrong TFT. The original announcement described the coin as having a reward curve "close to Bitcoin's original curve" (those are your exact words). The code as implemented has a reward curve that is nothing like bitcoin. It will be 86% mined in 4 years. It will be 98% mined in 8 years. Bitcoin is 50% mined in 4 years, and 75% in 8 years.

With respect TFT, you did the original fork, and you deserve credit for that.  But this coin has now gone beyond your initial vision. It isn't just a question of whether miners are on bitcointalk or not. There is a great team of people who are working hard to make this coin a success, and this team is collaborating regularly through forum posts, IRC, PM and email. And beyond that a community of users who by and large have been very supportive of the efforts we've taken to move this forward.

Also, miners aren't the only stakeholders, and while a miner voting process is great, it isn't the answer to every question. Though I do agree that miners need to be on board with any hard fork to avoid a harmful split.

There is also a bug where sometimes this happens even when the blockchain is already synced. Typing "save" in the daemon process seems to fix it.

You can always make your own fork if you do not agree with developer's position ;)

I suppose that merged mining as a possible option is a good idea as soon as nobody is forced to use it. MM is a possibility to accept PoW calculated for some other network. It helps to increase a security of both networks and makes it possible for miners not to choose between two networks if they want both:

- BCN only miners will continue to mine BCN
- BMR/MRO only miners will continue to mine BMR/MRO
- merge miners will mine both at the same time (now some of them mine BCN only and other - BMR only)

Important things to know about MM:

- MM doesn't imply that BMR is smaller or has a less hashpower. In case BMR will has more mining power than BCN it will simply accept less BCN blocks.
- MM doesn't force BMR users to have BCN chain on their HDD - BCN chain isn't neede to verify blocks
- MM doesn't require any specific parent chain. Miner decides himself which parent chain to use: BCN or any other chain supporting the same PoW method.

Actually the only change that goes with MM is that we are able to accept PoW from some other net with same hash-function. Each miner can decide his own other net he will merge mine BMR with. And this is still very secure.

This way I don't see any disadvantage in merged mining. What disadvantages do you see in MM?

This is the point. The network that isn't supported by miners is useless. We have to ask them.

Merged mining essentially forces people to merge both coins because that is the only economically rational decision.

I do not want to support the ninja-premined coin with our hash rate.

Merged mining makes perfect sense for a coin with a very low hash rate, otherwise unable to secure itself effectively. That is the case with coins that merge mine with bitcoin. This coin already has 60% of the hash rate of bytecoin, and has no need to attach itself to another coin and encourage sharing of hash rate between the two. It stands well on its own and will likely eclipse bytecoin very soon.

I want people to make a clear choice between the fair launched coin and the ninja-premine that was already 80% mined before it was made public. Given such a choice I believe most will just choose this coin.  Letting them choose both allows bytecoin to free ride on what we are doing here. Let the ninja-preminers go their own way.

Yes I agree with that, as I said. To be fair though, I believe that a large portion of the current hash rate, most likely a clear majority, was active in the meeting where these things were discussed.

I agree. Let's make two separate voting processes.
Merged mining will be turned on only in case 75% of hashpower will be supporting it. For me this is ok. If less we will not introduce it. Is this ok?
For emission schedule modification is 75% a good margin?

75% percent is probably a good margin for miners to approve just about any hard fork. With anything much less than that you are going to end up with a split.

Let's not forget though, non-miners have to approve too.

Everything is ok except the first argument: MM FORCES a MERGE of coins. It doesn't force and no merge will happen. You can continue to mine only one coin if you want. Any "parent" chain isn't required if you don't want to have it on your pc.

- In case we introduce a MM it still will be only an option but not a requirement.
- In case we introduce a MM each miner will decide himself which "parent" chain to use with MM: BCN or some other chain.

Actually this is more technical and less political issue. Looks like I need to explain this more.

Do you mean non-miners as a forum users?

It is not only a technical issue. I understand that in a technical sense you can decline to merge mine, but in an economic sense you can not. Merge mining NMC with BTC is worth about 1%. Still most people do it, but not all.

We likely will not have a situation like that here, because there is no bitcoin with a value that far eclipses every other coin.

If NMC mining were say 10% or more of the value of BTC mining, then everyone would have to merge mine or they would not be able compete. Difficulty would go up due to the extra revenue received by the other miners (so they would buy more mining gear, because it is 10% more profitable), and then anyone who doesn't merge mine will lose money.

That is what I want to avoid.

Not especially forum users. no.  People running nodes that aren't mining still have to validate the blocks, otherwise you get a different kind of split. Or alternately if people don't like what the miners are doing they may simply stop using the coin. Miners are not the only stakeholders in a coin, just one important one.

There will soon be a web site, and other ways of communicating. Now the forum is pretty central, but that will likely not always be the case.

So in trying to make an informed decision, regardless of how the vote comes to pass, I would find it tough to do so right now.

One of you is saying that there was no mistake in the emission formula, while the other is. I'm not asking which I should believe . . I'm asking for a way to verify this -- or at least one that doesn't rely on me just resting my personal opinion on either of you.

How can I get started on understanding the emission curve?

The quote I posted "close to Bitcoin's original curve" is from the original announcement here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0

I think there was also some discussion on the thread about it being desirable to do that.

At one point in that discussion, I suggested increasing the denominator by a factor of 4, which is what ended up being done, but I also suggested retaining the block target at 2 minutes, which was not done. The effect of making one change without the other is to double the emission rate from something close to bitcoin to something much faster (see chart a few pages back on this thread).

how are you gonna ask all the coin-people? it's impossible and useless.
miners are the main people in the net. 'cause if they don't like the changes and stop mining and supporting the net, coin will die at once. so kinda of "miners referendum" via hashrate power is enough.

Yes, I see that sticking "close to BTC original curve" is the aim, and can make my own decision on whether or not which level of adhesion to that is desirable. I was wondering how to mathematically and graphically verify both claims . . and was looking for a way to measure.

For all I know right now, none of the emission comes close to anything BTC ever was . . so I've decided to construct a model of both emissions using my computer . . so that I may visually observe predicted emission%/time.

This is a very engaging discussion, you both make very valid points, and it's hard not to be torn in an instance like this. With TFT's claim that there was no mistake and yours that there is, I've no choice but to make graphs.

Full node operators have to approve as well, even if they don't mine, or the network breaks. Unless there is a lightweight wallet or a web wallet (which there isn't), then full node operators are everyone running a wallet.

Now in practice most of them are just going to download whatever software is on the official web site, which is fine. But if you do something a lot of them really don't like, they can refuse to upgrade and you can't force it on them, even with a majority of hash rate. Your blocks just wont' propagate to their nodes and all that hash rate might as well be mining a different coin.

There is a graph here, on page 2 of this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6365132#msg6365132

But don't let that discourage you from checking things out on your own. Independent checking can only help.

I'd like to see a graph like that one with bitcoin's curve overlaid.

The emmision is actually ~3 times more then bitcoin, BTC started with 50 per block (10 minute), we have atm ~17,5 coins per block (1 minute). This is 50 vs 175 per 10Min, so we are not even close to the Bitcoin emmision. Double the block time and we are close, bring the emmision to 21 and we are even closer. How to implement a proper way? I dont know but i know i will vote with hashing power to get this fixed, even if i'm gonna loose half of my coins.

I'm happy the Bitmonero attracts so much interest.
I'm not happy that some people want to destroy it.

Here is a simple a clear statement about plans: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582670

We have two kind of stakeholders we have respect: miders and coin owners.

Before any protocol changes we will ask miners for agreement. No changes without explicit agreement of miners is possible.

We will never take away or discount any coins that are already emitted. This is the way we respect coin owners.

All other issues can be discussed, proposed and voted for. I understand that there are other opinions. All decisions that aren't supported in this coin can be introduced in any new coin. It's ok to start a new fork. It's not ok to try to destroy an existsing network.

Can you make a voting post on bitcointalk that will help us to understand what is the desired emission schedule?

Sounds like there's probably going to be another fork then. Sigh.

I guess it will take a few tries to get this coin right.

The problem with not adjusting existing coins is that it make this a premine/instamine. If the emission schedule is changed but not as a bug fix, then earlier miners got an unfair advantage over everyone else. Certainly there are coins with premines and instamines, but there's a huge stigma and such a coin will never achieve the level of success we see for this coin. This was carefully discussed during the team meeting, which was announced a day ahead of time, and everyone with any visible involvement with the coin, you included, was invited. It is unfortunate you couldn't make it to that meeting TFT.

Yes, but this coin slows down continuously, while bitcoin only slows down after 4 years. You are making the comparison at the very beginning of the 4-year period, when this coin has its highest reward. Looking at 3.9 years, the reward on this coin will have declined, but bitcoin will still be the same.

I think it still ends up being a little bit faster than bitcoin, but closer than your calculation suggests. As I said a few posts back, I'd like to see the graph with bitcoin overlaid for comparison.

We don't have to behave like Federal Reserve System and to change parameters just because meeting participants are ok about this.

But I'm ok about emission change in case majority will agree. I'm just against existing balance changes. Not because of my personal balance (in case we will change emission I will send 50% of my balance for giveaway) but because other people balances aren't to be changed without their own decisions.

Copy coin?

If you cut the rewards in half then the value of existing coins double. This is exactly the same as early adopters voting to grant themselves matching free coins, which close to the definition of a premine. You recognize this and that's why you are volunteering to donate 50% of your coins. I volunteered to do something similar during the meeting (there is a log somewhere so this can be verified). But a voluntary system like that won't work because there will likely be greedy short-sighted people who don't do it.

If we have a public donation process and we get virtually all the early adopter coins donated this way, then it could work. But if not then this will not work.

Emission formula can be changed the way that will not result in immediate halving block reward but still will change curve slope. This way previous coins will not be considered as instamine and curve will be much better. Actually the effect of such a change will be that block reward descrease speed will be a bit faster.  Is this a solution?

Sounds plausible, but I'm not sure. You still may end up with a lot of coins going to early adopters. If you don't cut the rewards quickly and significantly, then its more and more coins continuing to go to early adopters, making the problem worse. We considered increasing the cap as a solution, but that means exceeding the size of uint64 for atomic units. That seemed like a mess.

There are certainly all types of curves though. We can consider alternatives.

I'm ready to develop new fork that will suit us all.
Waiting for your thoughts there: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582746

Link messed up?

My bad, sorry. Now it's ok.

Can you post alternatives you consider plausible here?

I'm not sure what to do about the curve, I will think about that, and maybe others have ideas.

But how about some kind of crowdfunding solution.

We try to raise, say 80% of he extra coins (40% of total coins in circulation) as donations for a fundraiser. If we don't reach the goal, everyone gets their coins back, everything stays in terms of reward curve, and those of us who want a slow, bitcoin-like schedule just move to a new coin. If we get 80% of the extra coins donated, then we cut the rewards. Yes, up to 20% freeloaders get to keep their extra coins, but that's at least a much smaller premine. Maybe not 100% perfect but the fundraiser could do some good (bounties for GUI wallet, etc.), this could still come out as a net gain for the coin.

And what is the ideal emission curve?

strange ... just search on internet and find this ..

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3651/5840329046_aa2180925a.jpg


I think it's cool that "cubic B" also reminds me number 8 ... 1 byte = 8 bit ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byte)

A vote system works, Miners and holders, anyone with a daemon open can vote.  Any holders not paying attention can be reached via the trading thread... Its not like the coins spread far from the tree.  Who would be running a node and not mining and not hear about a change?  Isn't there a way to broadcast messages to the daemon I may be wrong, but if there is just put a repeating statement in there for the next few days thet either people will participate in a voting structure, or to come here and see whats up.

I generally agree with smooth. I just dont want another fork. I am starting getting bored of cryptos dividing themselves all the time...

please, find a solution :D

This seems as if we've uncovered something that risks both seriously damaging this coin, and quite possibly creating a fork for no real reason.

Rather than debate amongst just ourselves, why doesn't someone introduce this coin to CN on their forum like I've seen asked many times in the last week?

Following that, perhaps they will be able to help us mold the wheat and chessboard problem into a stretched exponential that more closely matches the bitcoin growth trajectory?

It's clearly not as simple as "change an 18 to a 20 or 21", this requires a pretty detailed analysis that's going to demand more than data tables and 20 hours . . and very likely the experience that naturally came with having discussed this many times over the last two years will be an invaluable insight.

I do have to admit ... choosing Bitcoin's exact path as your desired goal may prove to be an arbitrary choice, as it's not really bounded by natural laws . . but if you're willing to accept that that emission is natural and the correct way a cryptocurrency in 2014+ should progress then by all means make the choice.

I have full confidence in both the intelligence and competence of the present group, that we can avoid a total fork and come out better as a whole. So, please, someone show me that you've at least mentioned this to CN?

Litecoin.

Remember, Litecoin was done exactly for this purpose: GPU-hostile, that's why they used Scrypt (source (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=47417.0)). As they said, they wanted it to be fair.

Plus, remember that Cryptonote also has at least two other advantages:
- ring signatures
- no-fixed-limit (well, less than bitcoin)

ATM, #bitmonero @freenode. We'll probably create a #monero channel eventually.

I don't have a machine with a decent CPU. Does it mean I will forever banned of mining and will have to resort to buying? Talk about fairness. What about the increasingly growing mobile phone and tablet-only population?

Can botnet pose a threat to other miners of this coin ? It is CPU mining so there is a chance that hackers turn their botnet into a mining farm, that would be unfair for miners. I know program run on 64 bit OS only but there are decent number of infected PC are 64-bit.

I hope you launch an official website for this project soon.

it's only fair that crappy hardware makes for poor mining...

Fuck-ninja-premine coin (read about Bytecoin operating silently since 2012).

You have crappy hardware, you deserve to suck.
You have a crappy job, you deserve to suck.
Sound way too much like social darwinism to me. I don't believe crypto should follow the "rich get richer" scheme. On top of hurting most people sense of justice (and some animals too, experiment have been done on this, Economic inequality does more harm than good (http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson)). I am in for the society, not just for my petty wallet. I refuse to accept as a fact that crypto must leave behind poor people.

Very rough website online, monero.cc (http://monero.cc/) (in case you asked, the domain name was voted on IRC, like the crypto name and its code). Webdesigner, webmaster, writers... wanted.
The way of voting shall be explained there

Hell, I started get pissed ...

Every time I refresh (in about every 5 mim) I receive about 200 new blocks ..

When I try to mining I always get error:
mining has NOT been started: possible lost connection to daemon ..

Thoughts like this, misinterpreted, are the very face of evil. Without an incentive to prosper, what means do I have by which I would ever share you my thoughts?

It's not that you have crappy hardware, it's that you purchased the very best your money could afford. You are rewarded accordingly.

It's not that you have a crappy job, but that that is the best job your mind is suited to -- based on your own capability. Again, you are rewarded accordingly.

The situation you are in is reliant on you in this scheme, not that society dictated that you deserve them. That is the world I see with cryptocurrencies.

By your stated logic, you fail to understand that money is just a tool that we have all agreed on to be the very representation that you have done work. Because you have less of it does not mean that you should have more of it. I'll not have that logic. Because your mind is capable of being in control of more of it, is the reason you should have more of it.

In this sense, any monetary system will leave behind those that do not wish to contribute . . not those that do not have a wallet of a certain size.

Are you on par with this logic, or will I be expecting you to raise questions of income redistribution next? The article you quoted explains that when the gap becomes too large, there are problems. Not that a gap exists at all.

I've just downloaded Windows binaries and daemon is syncing. I have few technical questions:

- Where is the blockchain stored in my computer (Windows/Linux/OSX) ?
- Can i copy whole blockchain to another computer with another wallet so i don't have to download blockchain again ?
- About mining, can i mine MRO on another computer and point the rewards to a random address (using the command posted on OP) of my own without having that wallet on that mining computer ?

I also notice that there was blocks generated 12 days ago (in daemon) but the coin is launched on 18th which is 6 days ago ?

That's normal. Syncing takes time and you can't mine as long as syncing is not done. Yes, it is frustrating, I know :) Avoid closing down the daemon, even if you plan to start it up again two minutes later. For unknown reasons, it always take time to resync, even if you properly stopped the daemon with the "exit" command.

On windows  Blockchain stored appdata/roaming like most coin but you have to save from app.

On linux blockchain stored /home/**user**/.bitmonero

Wallet bin file stored in directory you run simplewallet from.

You can copy blockchain no problem

You not need wallet on mining computer.  Just point miner to wallet as outline OP


Please someone correct if I wrong.

There is no need for new fork.  Issues can be resolved.  I go with what majority wants. Give up coins, keep coins, whatever.  Time to move coin towards future and be very strong.

This one is acceptable.

This one is not. Lot of very smart people did not have the required luck money to go the best school, or even more simple the right disposition of mind to fllow the educational patterns of the school system. Consider gifted people, people with disabilities...

Skillful day-trader get a lot of money out of crypto. Do they contribute to the crypto? No. I wish to contribute much more than average Joe, (for instance here on monero). Will I be in the monero's richlist? Probably not (except by donations, I guess). Granted, you could say that if I really want to contribute, I'll find a way to buy an expensive rig, setup a botnet or what else. Still, I'm not convinced. Hard workers are not necessarily hard earners and the other way around.

We're going politics (I started it, I know), I just don't agree with this vision of life, I beliieve in a better mix between interventionism (income redistribution) and liberalism (rewarding initiative), and NXT is going in that direction (not enough if you ask me, since most bounties requires you to be a coder, but that's a start).
But better not to continue on this one this would lead us nowhere and certainly probably not in improving monero.

The only file i see in AppData\Roaming\bitmonero is p2pstate.bin. Is this because the syncing is not completed yet ? How to "save from app" as you said ?

Block chain need to sync.  Then type "save" in window of bitmonerod.  It will save blockchain

When type save there may be scrolling in window.  Just ignore type save and then enter.  It will say storing blockchain and blockchain stored.

i just put all my computers mining in 1 address. I will let you know if everything goes fine. I used

start_mining [wallet address] [threads]    on bitmonerod

That is correct way mine to one address.  Good luck :)

wait what? :o things started smelling bad ... how did you get that information ?

In the bitmonerod.log file:


I guess Bitmonero was actually online 1 week before the 'official release'.

I posted a graph, but independent checks are good. For BaseReward, TFT did >>20 in BMR instead of the >>18 used in BCN (equivalent to division by 2^2), but then doubled the block time from 120s to 60s so the overall slowdown is 2^1. Unfortunately, that's 2^1 from a very fast emission schedule of BCN and nothing like BTC (as advertised in the OP). I'm surprised he's now denying this a bug. I don't mind hashrate-based vote, though, or an entirely different solution. However, an emission "close to BTC" should be implemented because that's what we all thought we were mining.


print_block in the daemon gives the timestamp of a block in Unix epoch time. I see block 1 being mined on 1397818193, which is April 18th 10:49:53 GMT exactly as advertised so I don't see how that's possible.

S**t , I wasted my time on this coin. Dev mined for few days before releasing with 1 minute block time, and now he wants it to be 2 minutes block time, and call it a fair launch.  I'm waiting for more fair CN coin, with better name, which will not be changed every couple a days. Will try HoneyPenny. Going back to BCN, at least there is a pool, and not forks every day. Monero release was rushed. Let it die.

Or you could check the timestamp yourself instead of listening to some random guy on the internet who just registered today. There's a "help" command in the daemon and wallet, you know.

Brand new account. Why do I get the feeling "kantriboy" is a puppet? :D

You wrong.  Coin launched 18th.  Original OP dev not want to change block time but willing to put for vote.  Why you try and spread false information?  You can mine any coin you choose.  Why is name so important?  More to a coin than name and fancy logo.  This coin is good and issues will be resolved with vote to make any changes.

Very suspect that new account make that post.  People always try destroy coin for selfish reasons.  They have selfish motives likely for talking bad about the coin.

Ok, that is ok. Sorry, perhaps date on his computer is different(1 week ahead). But BMR had rushed launch

Exact instructions so that this dies down.  ::)

print_block 1 in the daemon (not wallet) terminal.

It will give block_id, versions, and then timestamp, which should say 1397818193. You can convert this here: http://www.onlineconversion.com/unix_time.htm

As you can see: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:49:53 GMT

People always find problems with launch for any coin.  No coin launch pleases everyone.

i can't confirm with the print_block command because syncing is not completed yet. But my log clearly show that there are blocks generated 7-13 days ago, i still can't explain it. Here is the first part of my bitmonero.log

http://pastebin.com/6WtgF26g

And yes, my date/time settings on my computer is perfectly accurate, you can see in above log (i live in GMT+7)

i'm thinking, is this because network already changed from 1-minute to 2-minutes block, and my deamon calculate based on this, then returned wrong date of blocks ?

thanks ...

No, a hard fork is required for that change. Nothing has changed yet from BMR, discussion are still ongoing on the exact nature of the vote, or the fix, or whatever it'll be.

I don't know how "X time behind" is estimated, but checking the timestamp on the blockchain is the most direct way to determine when a block was mined, including the genesis. You can try it after you're finished syncing.

how can I write msg on block if I find one ?

Coin launched on Fri, 18 Apr 2014


print_block 1
block_id: <771fbcd656ec1464d3a02ead5e18644030007a0fc664c0a964d30922821a8148>
{
  "major_version": 1,
  "minor_version": 0,
  "timestamp": 1397818193,
  "prev_id": "418015bb9ae982a1975da7d79277c2705727a56894ba0fb246adaabb1f4632e3",
  "nonce": 813497413,
  "miner_tx": {
    "version": 1,
    "unlock_time": 61,
    "vin": [ {
        "gen": {
          "height": 1

http://www.epochconverter.com/
Convert epoch to human readable date and vice versa

  e  [batch convert timestamps to human dates]

timestamp": 1397818193
GMT: Fri, 18 Apr 2014 10:49:53 GMT
Your time zone: 4/18/2014 3:49:53 AM GMT-7

Correct! It's just something cosmetic because of changed block time (from 120 to 60)

Der the chain is going at 2x what was expected so the daemon while syncing sees a height of 9500+ and thinks its been 2 weeks not 7 days.  feel free once your synced to check the unix times like everyone placed in here and quit being Elmer Fudd.

We have around 10000 blocks mined now, if 1 block each minute then release date at 6 days ago make sense. I just dont understand how daemon make log like that. Lead dev should take a look into this problem.

Is there any way to see current hash rate of whole network. I tested on my laptop it show i have 0.5 - 0.6 (Hash/s or KHash/s ????). I guess i can't be a miner  ;D

Divide the difficulty by 60 to get network hashrate. It's H/s not kH/s (this algo is tough on computers). It also ramps up over a few minutes so you might go higher.

FYI, I am at 3,5 with a Mintbox 2 passive nettop.

Sometimes there is a need, and premining or allegations thereof are a good reason to leave the stigma behind with a fresh start. This coin is a fork of bytecoin for exactly that reason. I'm still hopeful we can fix this one though.

I agree, it's like fall in love for your high-pair hand on preflop ... but as poker sometimes teaches, we need to wait to see the flop, and see how the game unfold ...

been mining for hrs with 4h and on other comp at 2h.... nothing found. yet 150k coins out out already. well that was yesterday. more now that more blocks are found...

whats the point to keep mining this. if i will find 15 coins in 24 hrs while others have in tens of thousands. This was suppose to be a fork of bytecoin to fix their problems...

but if i cant mine this. few days from lunch , how will this be appealing later?

also there must be an enhances miner or a private mining pool mining this. there no way 150k coin are mined in 5 days but i can't mine any with 2-4 H

Here's one idea on fixing the emissions without adjusting coin balances.  

We temporarily reduce the emission rate to half of the new target for as long as it takes for the total emission from 0 to match the new curve. Thus there will be a temporary period when mining is very slow, and during that period there was a premine.

But once that period is compete, from the perspective of new adopters, there was no premine -- the total amount of coins emitted is exactly what the slow curve says it should be (and the average rate since genesis is almost the same as the rate at which they are mining, for the first year or so at least).

This means the mining rewards will be very low for a while (if done now then roughly two weeks), and may not attract many new miners. However, I think there enough of us early adopters (and even some new adopters who are willing to make a temporary sacrifice) who want to see this coin succeed to carry it through this period.

The sooner this is done the shorter the catch up period needs to be.

did you just tell him to go fork himself?  ;D

Theres a lot of miners. its not like there are only a handful of miners.. I went all weekend and didn't find a block on hashrate 11.xx.  You people are going nuts over some of this stuff.  Its like a scrypt release if your GPU mining solo and there is high demand guess what, you don't get blocks!  Happens to me all the time.  Luckily with this it can be mined in the background and even a low hashrate should net a few blocks by the end of the week

1word

diff

If you went all weekend at 11 and didn't find a block you either got VERY unlucky or something is wrong with your setup. You should get a few block per day at that rate.

its not about me not mining a block. its about being 5 days late and not mining anything. its about me having a normal computer chip with 6 threads and not being able to mine anything 5 day later. while few people own 150k+ coins already.

this coin was forket because it was too late to mine Byte coin and %80 already were mined in bytecoin. this coin was forket to give people a new chance to use cryptonotes. it was suppose to be fair.

Well guess what, it is not.

disclaimer: i currently own 0 bytecoin, have not tried to mine byte coin due to all the coins being mined already.

You are not the first one to tell us this. This is very strange. I have a low-end computer and I get a block around once a day. Granted, it mines 24/7 and I mined from day one. I also remember that on the first day I did not get anything, but I was mining with only one thread.

I don't know what to tell you, really apart from the fact that you are not the only. I guess you enter "refresh" on the wallet, right?

yup constantly.

could it be that a private pool is mining the blocks ? there is minergate pool for bytecoin.

Could the old miner of bytecoin have found this and probable using more enhanced miners to mine this?

i dont get it. at average 400 cpus in 5 day. with an average of 15 H for 5 days thats like 30,000 coins a day, 20k with an average of 10H...


who mined this coins?

why in gods name are you posting ANN topics in main ?

there is no conceivable way in hell you didn't know better.

if you do this ? i'm out .

Could the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful miner be explained by one having a recent intel-cpu with hardware AES support?

You must make sure blockchain is synced before start mining.  If not then miner just sits. 

You should see :

You are now synchronized with the network. You may now start simplewallet.

Please note, that the blockchain will be saved only after you quit the daemon wi
th "exit" command or if you use "save" command.
Otherwise, you will possibly need to synchronize the blockchain again.

Then something

2014-Apr-24 13:05:02.847260 [P2P3][107.158.233.98:50217 INC] SYNCHRONIZED OK

Then start mining.  Blockchain needs to synched

The moderator was contacted (theymos, I think) to move the thread but did not act. Deleting it was the first option but someone have reply before it was possible

yes synched, i do receive that msg.

print_block height 10000 . says its only up to 9700 so i believe i am all synched. and been synched for a while. i will mine for one more day non stop and see that i get.

Yes this thread need moved to ANN section.  Why not mod move?

Yeah, we've been trying to get the thread moved but it looks like Alt Currencies has no moderator (formerly it was Salty Spitoon).

If mod not move then new thread in ANN with link to this thread and explain why

lol, classic ..

you going to like that video ...
The Wolf of Wall Street: Just the 'F' Words - Supercut
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn49DiI9Gag

You should get a block a day or so. There may be something wrong with your setup, but then again it could be luck. I mine bitcoin on p2pool and sometimes when we had a hash rate for one block per day we've gotten no block for 4-5 days. It happens.

Is this really anonymous?

Can anyone make a clearcut argument as to how it would not be?

you need more time.  Try showing up to HVC 5 days after launch with a desktop and seeif you solve a block.  Point your rigs at it Monero for 2 days and see what happens.  You can still gpu mine if you do that, and the computer is still usable, but claiming anyone who got here first is on the richlist is madness, theres 30k coins a day Doge puts out that number in a milisecond.  I would be interested to see the wealth distribution.  I mined since day1 and i have ~200 heck i feel cheated ;)

I can't find the exact location at the moment, but I read on the white paper (https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf) that it is not fully anonymous because full anonymity could not prevent double-spending. According to the author, still Cryptonote is easier to handle than Zerocoin (they do not talk about Darkcoin, which did not exist at the time they wrote the white paper. The white paper is I believe the best document to read.

"Error: wallet failed to connect to daemon (http://localhost:18081). Daemon either is not started or passed wrong port.
Please, make sure that daemon is running or restart the wallet with correct daemon address."

The daemon is running, started syncing with the network, and is according to its own log listening on its default port (log:  "Core rpc server initialized OK on port: 18081").

There's no local firewall, and I also started daemon and wallet with a different port number.

A telnet to localhost on port 18081 works, so someone is listening.

Do I have to wait until the daemon has fully synced?

Oh, and where is the blockchain persisted?

Yes.

Oh, and where is the blockchain persisted?

Thanks for the sync-info.

Unfortunately there's no blockchain.bin (searched the complete drive), but maybe I have to wait here also.

Hidden folder :)
Windows?

Hidden folders are visible...for now I'll just wait.

If nothing happens till tomorrow I'll build the Linux wallet.

If you're on Linux, did you try

You have to type save then enter in bitmonerod before it is written to hard drive

Edit:

must use "save" in bitmonerod before exit or synch from last save will not be written to har drive

user/appdata/bitmonero

blockchain.bin will not be written unless "save" is used in bitmonerod.  Save after synching and before exit.

"exit" should suffice, since exit automatically starts a "save" before it exists.
At least this is the way it works with BCN.

We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room

"Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"

To vote type

Where # is what you vote for.

Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.

Yes that.  Not meaning to spread confusion.

Please summarise below the pros and cons of each solution.

Edit with the answers:
<tacotime> change emission: need to bitshift old values on the network or double values after a certain block.  controversial.  not sure if necessary.  can be difficult to implement.
<tacotime> keep emission: straightforward, we don't keep change emission or block time.
<tacotime> change final reward is simple.  if (blockSubsidy < finalSubsidy) return finalSubsidy; else return blockSubsidy;

So what you are saying is this coin will have a reward curve that is in fact nothing at all like bitcoin (which has neither such fast emission nor a  fixed final reward)? Fair enough, but not as advertised.

COOL !!!
but,
I already saw people at voting-system just following the crowd ( such as; check where the majority is going to and follow the trend, because I know am not expert )

so I am not expert either and I'm not really sure the implications among options ... but as Albert Einstein quoted... If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

That's why I asked for explanations and got them on IRC. Go vote there #bitmonera @freenode.

Yeah, well.  We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it.

We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to.

In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).

It's unlikely that uint64 values will ever overflow given these numbers, and we can make it so that the max coins at any address is 2^64-1 (so if you have more you just split them up).

Obviously not what either of us intended to be getting when we started mining, but I don't think there is a long term harm in the 1 minute blocktime and current subsidy schedule.

yep thanks for channel .. but what IP:PORT ? sorry I am old school not really believe in DNS table ...

I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.

At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:

1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)

I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.

I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).

We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.

The website does exist now, it's just not particularly informative yet. :) But, I agree that thankful_for_today has severely mislead everyone by stating the emission was "close to Bitcoin's" (if he's denying that /2 rather than /4 emission schedule was unintentional, as he seems to be). I'm also against BCN merge mining. It works against the goal of overtaking BCN and if that's not a goal, I don't know what we're even doing here. I'll dedicate my meagre mining to voting against that.

That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.

Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.

It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN). Will that change with a relaunch of a relaunch that has a website, GUI, and Mac binaries? Only one way to find out: someone get on it. It'd be especially interesting if this new coin was late enough that taco already had a GUI for MRO. I don't know how that would go, but I have a guess.

What need help with?  I know webpage but limited with other programming skills

You can contact David Latapie. He was asking for help with this.

BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now.

If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.)

Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.

my non tech fellow ... is it really anon ??? am I be able to buy my g19 now?

http://i59.tinypic.com/27y4vix.png

There's no point in fragmenting talent.

If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code.

Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially.  Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client.

If people want a pool, they can make one.  There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though.  Surely you must feel this way.

my vote is back to root
after all is that what crypto is all about ... isn't it ?

It wouldn't centralize the network, at least not initially.The larger miners would still solo mine. The people with one little laptop would still get something, instead of getting nothing at all for days and quitting. I'm solo mining bytecoin even though its hash rate is twice this coin.

What centralizes a network is having the block target too short. Like one minute. Look at all the one minute coins, they are all dominated by one or two huge pools. Smaller pools can't compete because they orphan too much. And, yet, the target for this coin was changed from two minutes to one "for solo mining," which is patently absurd. Even one week into it, and solo mining is already chasing small miners away. Having a two minute (or longer) blocks with at least one pool would be far better.

Nobody involved with this coin seems to care about these sorts of fundamental issues, which is why I doubt this coin is the right vehicle. Its still early though, things may turn around, and yes there are talented team members. That is the one source of promise I see here.

One minute blocks that are of size ~1 KB (most of the blocks right now) double the likelihood of a miner getting a block.  Selfish mining only becomes a severe issue when blocksize becomes large.  Very few tx are going through the network right now, and few reorgs have taken place.

Additionally, the network hash rate is now 4655 H/s.  A Core i7 2600k does 14 H/s in Ubuntu 13.10 and would represent 0.3% of the network and thus get  4.32 blocks per day.  Solo mining is for sure not out of the picture.

My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added.  And then we can discuss a new fork.  Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.

monero.cc is registered, website is forthcoming.

Ditto on this. If the intention wasn't to provide a clearweb launched alternative to BCN, then I don't see a reason for this fork to exist. BCN is competition and miners should make a choice.

+1 Even at the expense of how much I already "invested" in this coin.

Can you run Monero miner through TOR? If yes, what change would need to made to the bat file on the opening page? I'm using Windows.
thanks