|
Reduced escrow fee to 1/2%. This is supposed to be for large to very large trades so that should be enough.
|
|
|
|
Seniors only?
Anyone can post but whether anyone will trade with them is another matter. Also why not a few other parings?
I'm not opposed to doing other pairings. What do you have in mind? |
|
|
|
what you don't understand is this: the technology of XCN is so great, the inflation is part of a great long-term fair distribution plan
Since I've been critical of some things, for balance I will point out that this is probably my favorite part of this coin. No it likely won't have a massive pump (and perhaps the pumps it has already seen have been too high -- I believe this), but that means the price will stay low enough for people to buy in or mine at reasonable difficulties for a long time. Coins that want to shut the door after a few early adopters get in are great for pump-and-dump purposes but have no real chance long term. It also means serious, potentially existential and possibly unfixable, problems with mining incentives that plague most other coins (including at some point Bitcoin) don't come up for many, many decades. |
|
|
|
The OP does not use any facts to support why bitcoin would be such a large part of the global economy. I personally think that bitcoin will be successful over the long term but I don't think it will ever reach reserve currency status which would essentially be needed to reach these numbers.
There are other ways to get close. For example, replacing gold as a store of value gets to about $100K. That likely wouldn't happen for decades though. |
|
|
|
but the coin will not be relaunched, nor will the developer's design decisions be revisited. Perhaps we can let the market take it from here?
You don't know that. I'd definitely fork it, toss the PoW and relaunch it myself if I weren't already busy with other things. If someone else wants to do it, it may happen. It would actually be a bad bet to say this coin won't be forked. Whether those inevitable forks get any success is hard to say. Launch problems definitely help forks, but it is a question of degree. |
|
|
|
does anyone have the expertise to pull a "rich list" from the XCN blockchain? i think this is important to establish for those of us worried about the early mining issues, and the possibility of the majority of the circulation owned by very few top wallets. this unknown is the only thing preventing me from buying XCN.
I would caution that there is no way to know how many wallets/addresses someone controls. Whoever is running that miner that is getting 20+% of the coins is either pretty dumb, or wants to be discovered, because if he just mined into 10-20 different addresses no one would have ever found it. |
|
|
|
I do take issue with muddying the waters on an otherwise interesting and innovative coin by throwing in an unproven and immature PoW. PoW is cryptography. Cryptography is hard. This was a blunder. LOL everything about this coin is unproven and highly experimental. We designed an entire CRYPTO-currency here, the PoW algorithm should be the least of your worries, it's probably the most trustworthy aspect of the coin compared to all the other new ideas implemented in this coin. I guess we are going in circles, but that is why it should have been the least of your worries in developing it. But to each his own. There is no doubt in my mind this coin would be seeing more early success (and that, often, later success builds on early success) had a mature PoW been used. Perhaps there is no doubt in your mind that I am wrong. I guess that's why altcoins are so much fun. |
|
|
|
Good theory, except that NoodleDoodle wasn't even a team member at the time. He discovered the first issue on his own, as an independent miner, and made us aware of it. If he were a scammer he would have just kept that to himself I guess, but instead he worked with us to get it released and that collaboration led to him becoming part of the team. To be clear though, the official team was not really announced or even fully defined until Missives #1 which came a month or so later.
Please forgive the reply to myself but I would rather quote and correct here rather than edit and be accused of some kind of cover up or deception. After checking my notes, ND was indeed part of the original team (though as I said the team wasn't really defined as such), and my recollection was incorrect. He wasn't quite as active in some of the early discussions, but he was definitely a part of it. Still, if his intention was to scam he would have just kept his discovery to himself. He didn't. Instead he released his discovery and continued to work on further miner improvements for public release. This is clearly off topic for BBR and I apologize for polluting the thread with it, but there seems to be a bit of XMR hate here. Guys, work on building your own coin (and indeed borrowing good ideas from one another), not trying to succeed by tearing down another one. That's what we do. |
|
|
|
start mining and offset this one large miner.
Correction, we don't know there is "one" large miner, we just know of one. Not the same thing at all. Moreover, we don't know that releasing one GPU miner will create any kind of parity. There may still be highly optimized miners lurking, since the algorithm has gotten so little scrutiny. Several of the developer's statements about it have been contradicted by dga, who is clearly expert on the subject. You have your arguments for existing PoWs not being very good, and you might be right, I take no position on that really. If you had/have ideas for PoW, then publish them and get peer review, or push them out on an otherwise uninteresting coin and let the world take a whack at breaking it. I do take issue with muddying the waters on an otherwise interesting and innovative coin by throwing in an unproven and immature PoW. PoW is cryptography. Cryptography is hard. This was a blunder. Don't roll your own crypto http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/2202/lessons-learned-and-misconceptions-regarding-encryption-and-cryptology/2210#2210 |
|
|
|
XMR's propaganda against BBR has really hurt this coin undeservingly. It is almost like the camp wants to ensure that this coin gets obliterated while they can surely tolerate scam coins which are based on the Bitcoin protocol, thrive and have valuation even more than XMR or approaching XMR. dga's post was a real eye opener.
You haven't been paying attention. There has been no XMR propaganda against BBR. We have always said that BBR is a legitimately innovative coin that stands apart from the other cryptonote clones. We don't always agree on the technical specifics of some of the changes but that takes nothing away from the effort that has gone into developing them. How many have ever questioned core team member NoodleDoodle selling the most amount of coins in the OTC thread since launch of BitMonero? His optimized miners never made it to github until several days later and yet the mindless Risto army slanders zoidberg.  Good theory, except that NoodleDoodle wasn't even a team member at the time. He discovered the first issue on his own, as an independent miner, and made us aware of it. If he were a scammer he would have just kept that to himself I guess, but instead he worked with us to get it released and that collaboration led to him becoming part of the team. To be clear though, the official team was not really announced or even fully defined until Missives #1 which came a month or so later. Shame on some of the "core team" and extended team members of XMR who have been spreading this vitriol/nonsense nonstop on the forums, reddit and other websites. Others just took the cue from them.
You are confused and misinformed. There has been no vitriol from the core team about BBR (as opposed to say BCN, where I would say any criticism has been well deserved, but opinions might differ). |
|
|
|
Right... go ahead, reduce the coins to 2 million, have them all mined within a week, premine it to the shit, but it's not a scam because you have a GPU miner available at launch. Actually I have a better idea. Let's keep everything the same and substitute a mature PoW that won't get scammed by the first guy who can compile a better miner for an algorithm that has never been examined or optimized by anyone before. It is possible that first guy might well not be the developers, but how does anyone tell the difference? You have never answered that question and you continue to ignore that avoiding conflicts of interest in a non-transparent trust-free environment includes avoiding, structurally, the possibility or appearance of same. Seriously, what were you thinking? You have all these great ideas for mini-blockchain, scalability, microtransactions, etc., and then you mess it up by trying to play PoW cryptographer, for part of the coin that adds no real value over 100 other PoW algorithms. Why? Oh, and since you have no premine or other scammy incentive to want to stay on this fork, you might as well just develop right on the other fork instead, and save someone the trouble of merging your changes. Why not? |
|
|
|
Peter R have you looked at my idea of pruning claims?
Yes I did. It certainly works, but now that I fully realize how small the Merkle branches are, I'm not sure it's worth the added complexity. Using 160-bit hashes, each Merkle branch is only ~21 x 21 = 441 bytes long. This is about the average size of a bitcoin TX. Of course, this 441 bytes is in addition to the signature and other claim TX details, but still the vast majority of claim TXs should come in less than 1 kB. A blockchain (with a tiny genesis block) that grows at less than 1 kB/claim seems very acceptable to me. Seems very reasonable. Makes the verification code tiny, with just a single input (root hash), no need to store a database of claims. So that makes sense. |
|
|
|
The only part that was relevant to economics got ignored:
Until people have obligations which can only be discharged in monero, there are no forced buyers, and volatility extremes will persist.
This may seem obvious to others, but I hadn't realized it so clearly before. The same is true of BTC. If you really want to build the coin, you have to bill in Monero.
That's a great point in bold. I wonder, though, if they have to be FORCED buyers...or if incented buyers count for something, as well. For example, Dell is now taking BTC. I bet they would take more if they offered a 5% (preferably more) discount on ALL BTC purchases (rather than the select few Alienware systems). It wouldn't have been a force, but it sure would incent buyers to discharge their debt to Dell in BTC. For Monero, the example that comes to mind is the XMR markets on Poloniex. When they opened those markets, to me that was a pretty big statement. They don't have, ya know, Dogecoin markets on Poloniex. I moved XMR from two other exchanges just because of greater liquidity. Not every coin (in fact not many coins at all) are behind the slash at Poloniex. I agree with you, there don't need to be forced buyers, just consistent buyers. Because there sure are consistent sellers (miners). To balance there needs to be some regular, ongoing buying for some reason other than speculation. I would count speculating on other coins (i.e. Poloniex situation) in that mix, although it is still speculation, and I'm not sure that counts as consistent buying unless interest in speculating on those other coins is growing. Otherwise you are fully relying on speculators to do all the buying, and that likely does imply higher volatility. |
|
|
|
Until recently trolls was spreading FUD propaganda about BBR and private GPU miner, but dga gave the chronology of the events. So, it turnd out to be only a FUD.
It was not "FUD propaganda" to want to look at the number of coins mined before reasonable miners became public. I was frankly surprised at the similarity because I remembered the amount of time the coins were in this situation being very different, however what I forgot is that BBR has two minute blocks and XMR has one minute blocks, so the number of blocks ended up being about the same (and the coins per block are likewise about the same). I think it is a fair statement to say that both coins had a bit of growing pains that in an ideal world would have been avoided, but the net effect ended up being comparable. |
|
|
|
EDIT: One last point. Probably the best way to detect a mining botnet on your computer is to mine with it. If your hash rate drops then you know something is wrong, be it hardware failure, software failure, or a botnet. There is no way for a botnet owner to steal your hash rate without reducing your hash rate.
lol nice rationalization to mine on any and every computer you ever own or have access to  In case it was not clear I find botnets reprehensible and have nothing to do with them. That is independent of understanding the economics of it. I was just referring to your EDIT, that I left in the above quote, not implying you condone botting or netting or anything  Oh okay. Somewhere in the comments from the cryptonote folks, they describe their "one cpu, one vote" concept as including a (distant) vision that every computer, cell phone, etc. will be mining all the time. This makes the sort of botnets that exist today impossible. It also makes 51% attacks much harder since there is no idle capacity to use. For example, in this model Amazon's cloud nodes would just mine for Amazon when no one else is renting them. It also implies a change in the design of CPUs away from power scaling and efficiency at idle to efficiency at full load. Of course this is not happening in full form any time soon. We may move in that direction though. |
|
|
|
Botnet wranglers have an advantage over "normal" miners, and if they're not a dominant fraction of the mining that's happening, they should be able to mine with a comfortable profit while everyone else's net profit is driven to (close to) zero.
As I've said before, from the point of view of the coin network, botnets are just another form of mining rig. Assuming what you wrote above is true (though it is harder to understand the botnet owner's cost structure as you point out), this is not very different from someone mining with a 0.5 W/GH ASIC while someone else are still mining with older 1 W/GH ASIC. Obviously the guy with the 0.5 W/H has a higher profit margin, and the guy with the worst efficiency is barely breaking even. It is most certainly different to the computer owner, but I've also said before that botnet mining is very likely less socially harmful than other uses of botnets (spam, DDOS, etc.) because the costs are borne by the computer owner who is in the best position to either prevent it or address it. EDIT: One last point. Probably the best way to detect a mining botnet on your computer is to mine with it. If your hash rate drops then you know something is wrong, be it hardware failure, software failure, or a botnet. There is no way for a botnet owner to steal your hash rate without reducing your hash rate. lol nice rationalization to mine on any and every computer you ever own or have access to In case it was not clear I find botnets reprehensible and have nothing to do with them. That is independent of understanding the economics of it. |
|
|
|
This coin wasted itself in first 4 hours of existence. It's a GPU ambush. Pretty common scam nowdays, release a "cpu" coin, with a gpu miner ready at launch. Nice idea about minichains though. Wait for a clean release of it.
^^^ This. +1000 Even if it isn't a GPU ambush, which no one on the outside can ever know, it looks the same as one. If you want to avoid scams you pretty much have to avoid this coin (too?). A fork of this coin with a clean launch and a mature PoW has a real shot. |
|
|
|
Botnet wranglers have an advantage over "normal" miners, and if they're not a dominant fraction of the mining that's happening, they should be able to mine with a comfortable profit while everyone else's net profit is driven to (close to) zero.
As I've said before, from the point of view of the coin network, botnets are just another form of mining rig. Assuming what you wrote above is true (though it is harder to understand the botnet owner's cost structure as you point out), this is not very different from someone mining with a 0.5 W/GH ASIC while someone else is still mining with older 1 W/GH ASICs. Obviously the guy with the 0.5 W/H has a higher profit margin, and the guy with the worst efficiency is barely breaking even. It is most certainly different to the computer owner, but I've also said before that botnet mining is very likely less socially harmful than other uses of botnets (spam, DDOS, etc.) because the costs are borne by the computer owner who is in the best position to either prevent it or address it. EDIT: One last point. Probably the best way to detect a mining botnet on your computer is to mine with it. If your hash rate drops then you know something is wrong, be it hardware failure, software failure, or a botnet. There is no way for a botnet owner to steal your hash rate without reducing your hash rate. |
|
|
|
"but at starbucks if a customer wants a coffee, do you realise how long a minute is between the time of the customer paying"
I don't know about you but when I go to Starbucks I see almost every single customer using a Starbucks prepaid card. The only thing you need BTC for is to reload the card, which can take as long as necessary. |
|
|
|
Mobile processors are extremely optimised for electricity consumption. I don't know how many watts would 8 hours of night mining consume
Standard phone chargers are 1 A at 5 V or 5W, so running flat out for 8 hours is 40 WH = 0.040 kwh. At 15c/kwh that is 6/10 of one penny. So the "risk" here is really negligible. The key is to make it easy enough for people to do, so they don't need a reason to do it, they need a reason to not do it, and there really isn't one. And while low in power, these CPUs are very efficient in terms of compute power per watt. A billion of those is 5 GW. Even at 25% duty cycle that is over 1 GW. At 1 W/GH total bitcoin mining (120 PH) is currently around 120 MW = 0.120 GW. Cell phone CPU mining could be very significant if it became popular on a large scale. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
