The GUI will come with the Monero rebase. That makes more sense than trying to resurrect the mostly-unmaintained Cryptonote GUI code, which was the original plan.

In a year I expect that we will be well into running the new rebased version with the Monero development progress from the past two years (LMDB, GUI, etc.) along with our own enhancements (lightweight crypto, offchain secure private messages, etc.). Hopefully the AEON community will have grown and begun to offer some signature services that are unique to AEON.

If the valuation continues to hold and improve, then the development/donations stash (which has not been touched since the miner development, except to add to it from our seed nodes mining; see below) will be able to significantly contribute to funding development. The first thing I would want to fund is a high quality mobile wallet, as I have already sketched out how to do proper trustless SPV-style wallets for cryptonote, but unfortunately no one has yet put resources into implementing it.

80% of what Visa does is very aggressive and optimistic. I won't say it is impossible. Indeed Monero doesn't have "hard limits" and if we are willing to put the nodes in data centers (even many data centers spread around the world), then the transaction rate can be very, very high compared to Bitcoin. Bitcoin could also do this if it put nodes in data centers, but it would also need a social consensus to remove the hard limits and design ways to do that (dynamic block size, etc.). Monero would new fewer design changes or perhaps none at all.

The reddit link posted here quotes some numbers that are CPU-only and ignores bandwidth and storage concerns (as stated there). Even cheap consumer-grade storage isn't really a concern though, up to about 100 TPS. Bandwidth will be okay for some people in some markets and a show stopper for others. But it can be done.

So, ultimately, what it comes down to is we are limited more by the physical technologies (CPU, bandwidth, and storage; mostly bandwidth) and how that ties in with the desired degree of centralization, and not by hard limits in the coin design itself.

Not driven by store of value, that part is correct. But it wasn't ideological. OWS was ideological and both OWS and grass-roots Bitcoin promotion pre-VC were both largely motivated by the same thing (response to corruption and systemic failure) but that doesn't mean the latter was also ideological. It wasn't. People were trying to actually implement a better mousetrap.


Not exactly. The obvious failures simply made people more open to trying new things that held some perceived promise to be better. It is a bit like being more willing to try a different job when you have been out of work for a while than when you are already employed but perhaps not in the ideal situation. It often takes some sort of disruption for people to break free of inertia.

But that break from inertia has a limited lifespan. By 2012-2013, the crisis and bank bailouts was old news and regular people stopped being open to "a better way" or interested in looking at it. Speculators, VC, and cryptos/tinfoils still were somewhere between open to it and highly interested, but not regular folk.


Some people dump their Steem tokens on exchanges, but not anywhere near all. I've looked at the transaction flows and I don't see that happening (my guess is that mostly the crypto-heads are the ones who dump and the people brought in from outside crypto don't dump as much if at all). However, the bigger problem is the stagnant growth at 5k-10k users.

Again that should be pretty obvious with respect to Bitcoin as I included 2009 in my original statement, when essentially no one even know Bitcoin existed.

But there were hints of actual behavior somewhat later that support the idea. The concept and push for people buy coffee and do online shopping with Bitcoin (pre-VC) was not just tinfoils. There was an element of youthful enthusiasm there that came from seeing it as an alternative to traditional banks and payment systems. Now, no youth would pursue such a thing, because the enthusiasm would be directed elsewhere, to things people actually care about.

This is why the social media rewarding aspect of Steem has potential; because it is something people might actually care about. I don't think we know quite yet how that is going to turn out. I so don't like seeing little to no growth, but the potential for unexpected explosive growth due to some-unexpected-thing-that-has-unexpected-consequences is still there, I think.

There are probably other models of tying the distribution to something people care about, so people already have it and actually using it becomes the path of least resistance instead of a hurdle to overcome.

I think we are talking past each other and no I'm talking about Joe and Sally Sixpack, not traders or nerds.

They hadn't heard of Bitcoin of course, especially not in 2009 (most nerds hadn't either) so I obviously didn't mean that.

What I meant is that they were ready to try an alternative. Highly motivated and on a large scale in terms of numbers.

They did not have an alternative because they didn't know about Bitcoin, the technology wasn't ready even if they did, and cash in the mattress only goes so far. So they just kind of grumbled, a few protested, and mostly did nothing (what could they do, really?).

The difference is that now there is no interest to go even one millimeter out of ones way to stick it to the banks or get away from banks. People just don't care. Everything seems more or less okay. That is all too distant and attention spans don't span that far. Sticking with what you know is the path of least resistance without strong motivation to change, and there isn't one. Even outside of specifically banking, traditional bank-linked payment methods such as mobile payments and app stores do everything people in developed markets want to do. No need for anything else.

You have talked in the past about addressing adoption in developing markets and that may work. In (most) developed markets right now, it isn't going to happen.

If there is a bubble, (a larger group of) speculators will get excited and invest, probably in the form of ETFs or something else that fits within the existing system and makes it easy. It will do nothing to spread adoption beyond speculation.

Agree with you r0ach. tldr people are happy with dollars. Disagree they know or even intuitively know about rough cnonsensus attacks and all that shit. Just happy with their Big 4 banks, credit/debit cards, and USD. Simple as that.

Disagree and I wasn't even talking about nerds of any kind. Maybe you were out of touch being in the Philippines but in developed countries people were very willing to reexamine the status quo find an alternative to bankers and especially their bailouts. It was just colossally unpopular and very much at the front of mainstream financial desires for 2-3 years. Bitcoin wasn't ready to accommodate that demand, of course, or it may have actually happened.

Nobody cares now, except of course the tinfoil types who always care. I don't believe Dan's innovations are enough to overcome the network effect of the legacy system unless there is another push to make mainstream people want to get away from it (i.e. another major crisis with deeply unpopular bailouts or some other obvious clusterfuck).

Use the password reset with your owner key (I assume that is what you are referring to as the master key).



Both wrong. Bitcoin hasn't gone mainstream because mainstream is happy with USD/EUR/etc. and Bitcoin doesn't give them the order of magnitude advantages that are necessary to overcome the huge network effect.

This was less true in 2009-2011 in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. Many people were open to at least the possibility to think about replacing the existing system and be their own bank, even if that involved some compromises. Memories are short and now they are not.

Crypto as mainstream is waiting for the next financial crisis to even have enough potential to get off the ground that people are willing to really invest in trying to make that happen. For now it is fringe uses (though this includes some very large ones potentially, just not "mainstream"), experiments, and a solution in search of a problem.

What messages are reported by the daemon? Did you have an earlier failure and rescan the wallet or something? Connection issues?

Git is already decentralized. Every developer or even user (building their own) who has ever done 'git clone' has a complete copy of the entire repo which can be reposted on another git host for sharing.

More like the substance of the post, along with the post itself bringing it all to light. Nice job RYS

I do disagree, as we have covered countless times on this thread and others. There are numerous fastened coins that distribute all their coins in a few weeks or 50% per month or even 50% per six months.

With 50% every 18 months, Monero is somewhat faster than Bitcoin, offset by the fact that it gets slower than Bitcoin later, when the rewards stop dropping in half every 18 months, but Bitcoin's continue dropping by half every four years until reaching zero.


A PoW-distributed coin with half of the remaining supply distributed every 18 months, plus a perpetual maintenance reward.

Whenever I have described it that way to people, I've had not one single person respond by calling it a fastmine. They might reply that it is slightly faster than Bitcoin or just consider it okay and reasonable and not comment further at all, one or the other.

10 GB is probably barely enough for the file on disk, although the actual blockchain is only about 1/3 of that since (some optimization remains to be done on the efficiency of storage use).

The speed of syncing varies greatly depending on your hardware and bandwidth. I can sync from scratch in 1-2 hours but others report a few days.

There has been some discussion about this sort of thing. One obstacle is that Steem currently pays rewards only for 30 days. That makes it a poor fit as the primary platform to monetize anything with longer-term economic viability.

There was a bug that was just fixed by the devs. The site is being resynced and will return to normal asap, I'd guess in an hour or two.

The wallet name is just a file name and the password is used to encrypt the file. Neither is sufficient to recover a wallet. You need the seed words or private keys (view key and spend private key in hex) to recover a wallet.


Chinese is already supported I believe and other languages can be added by submitting a pull request to github (or sponsoring someone to do so).

EDIT: I just looked in github and apparently Chinese is not supported. I remembered there being a discussion about it a while back so I thought it had been added by now, but apparently that hasn't happened yet.


The keys file contains the private keys and also can give you the seed words (if the wallet is deterministic). A backup of the .keys file is sufficient to recover the coins in the wallet.


The other files hold a cache of some parts of the blockchain used by the wallet along with your transaction history. You won't lose your coins if you lose those files but it is good to keep them for the history part.


start_mining will send the funds to you wallet if and when you find a block. With only 3 threads it will take quite a while most likely (this is solo mining). Also the built in wallet/daemon miner only supports CPU. To mine on the GPU you will need to use a GPU miner (see the "getting started" page on most pools). Personally I have always liked the idea of pool mining with the GPU and solo mining with the CPU. The former gets you regular consistent payouts and the latter helps support the decentralization of the network and will occasionally (or more often if you are lucky) pay you a bunch more coins.

Won't be long. The countdown has started. (No inside info here, just stating the obvious.)


I don't agree (largely echoing sammy007's comment). The more centralized the mining with the more barriers to entry, the less efficient a mining network is in converting raw hash rate into real security. Raw energy burn is only a small part of the equation. It is more accurate to say that it is difficult to compare the security of the two because they are quite dissimilar in nature.

Monero's security in practice is quite significant. Someone on reddit asked about building a 500kh/sec mine. That would require about 500 or more devices (higher-end GPUs or CPUs) and still only be about 2% of the network hash rate (which will likely rise significantly if this repricing is sustained). Already and for some time Monero's network has ranked among the largest supercomputers and with the repricing may soon surpass all supercomputers. There is no "easy" attack on Monero's hash rate possible or likely.

I agree it is not yet usable by average users (i.e. "development version"), but it isn't correct to say it will "never get attention" when it is under active development


I don't either. Agree to disagree.

https://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/03/27/How-to-Launch-a-Crypto-Currency-Legally-while-Raising-Funds/

75% of the coins in that account are supposed to be used to pay for development (by selling them) and be given away to new users (each new account requires some vested coins in order to function).

The age of the github commits isn't really relevant. I've continued to use that repo whenever updates needed to be made for security issues for example.

I have been thinking that a new repo would be cleaner, since it would better preserve the commit chain.