You realize the rewards for this coin are gradually reduced in half over ten years?

Please compare this with DRK and report your conclusion.

Let's start with this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=716331.0

It can evolve to meet the needs of those participating, if any.

There is no longer any structured service/directory provided by this thread as (unlike when this thread was created) there are numerous other ways to trade XMR now including many exchanges, Bisq decentralized exchange, OTC desks, etc.

Thread to discuss and/or arrange large OTC (off-exchange) trades in Monero XMR. By large we generally mean a minimum of 5000 XMR but that is only a guideline. Feel free to discuss any smaller amounts that not readily tradable on an exchange.

I will edit this post (below) to include a summary of indications of interest that are PMed to me or posted to the thread. This will be relatively unstructured, not a formal "order book." Unless otherwise indicated, all indications listed here are non-binding and serve only as a starting point for negotiation.

I will escrow trades for 1/2%. This can include presubmitting coins to me with a pricing limit so a counterparty can complete the trade directly with me or a more traditional escrow arrangement where the coins are sent only after a deal is agreed. Presubmitting carries a non-refundable fee of 10 XMR payable in advance, but applied against the 1/2% escrow fee if a trade occurs.


Buying interest
statdude: Feel free to approach me via PM for large XMR buys if you don't trust the exchanges
dEBRUYNE: Want to buy 2500 XMR @ 0.0035, so basicly 8.75 BTC total. Feel free to PM! Can also join irc channel if needed
rpietila: I might be in the market for these. I can aggregate coins for large buyers, and buy up big lots from sellers. 10-50k (EUR/USD trades possible, with markup)
rontus: I would like to buy ~65k Moneros at Poloniex spot price
David Latapie: I have very large buy orders from external entities. Contact me for arranging a deal

Selling interest
saddambitcoin: selling 5000 XMR @ 0.025 BTC each!
rpietila: I might be in the market for these. I can aggregate coins for large buyers, and buy up big lots from sellers. 10-50k  (EUR/USD trades possible, with markup)

I'm pretty sure he has no actual authority over how you allocate your time.

Nothing will prevent someone from running a node over i2p and mining on it if they choose to. They may have increased latancy (more orphans) and some bandwidth issues (longer initial download time, although downloading from a Torrent as is done with Bitcoin would be another option), but that is a tradeoff they will make for increased privacy.

It is Esperanto (neutral international language) for coin but it is also similar to various words for coin or money in many other languages. The intention was to be global in scope and target audience.

See post #1 on this thread for a list of pools including information about fees.

Not a bad idea. I wonder how to organize it though. I occasionally get PMs but rarely do I hear from both sides at the same time.

Big traders don't want to show their hand, so listing on a thread is probably not going to work.

False.

Add, at least:

3. The attacker can refuse to mine on top of certain blocks

(Which prevents such blocks from ever being accepted into the longest chain.) The protocol allows that as well. I'm still not quite sure if this is a complete list.

But your 2. would only be correct if you did not include the phrase "to cause economic harm." The protocol is agnostic about why something is being done.

You don't need to resort to power law wealth for masternodes to be Sybil attacked. If they are an investment that is priced for a market return then someone who wants to also use them to spy has a competitive advantage. That being the case one should expect that every masternode in a competitive market is secretly spying. Similar to your argument about who is providing Tor bandwidth for free.

I doubt they would "destroy their investment" by spying, as with all intelligence sources the spying would be kept secret in order to protect its value.

Core team is listed on the official Monero thread: tacotime, eizh, smooth, fluffypony, othe, davidlatapie, NoodleDoodle

It does not include drawingthesun or dga although dga has contributed code (PoW) and DTS may have contributed as well (I don't know there are a lot of contributors now).

No. The economics are quite different.

Forking makes economic sense when the mining gets too far ahead of the adoption, because new adopters gain more by adopting a coin without the legacy holdings than they lose by adopting a coin with smaller network effect.

Bitcoin was far more highly adopted (and less mined) by the time Litecoin came along which is why Litecoin was never able to eclipse Bitcoin the way Monero has eclipsed Bytecoin.

I explained that it has to do with exponential growth. If you have 100 live nodes and and you add 100 users, each of whom has to download the chain, then each of those 100 nodes has to on average upload the entire chain. That's a lot of upload for nodes on asymmetric or metered connections. If you have 1000 live nodes and add 100 nodes then it's only a 10% of the blockchain upload for each of them.

So over time this will likely become less of a problem, using the p2p will be okay.

That said, it's still an issue for Bitcoin. If you run a full node you often have to be very careful about upstream network usage. QoS features were identified as a need years ago, but still not added (the recommended work around is to use router QoS features, but that's not really a full substitute)

Also, bitcoin implemented exactly the feature I described for untrusted download of a static blockchain: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=145386.0

Are you mentally ill, stupid, or just being deliberately offensive and dishonest?

I already explained to you there was no "large dev team" at launch. There was one guy (TFT) who worked on it very part time, and a few of us who commented a bit on the thread and agreed with the premise of forking (at the time it was more of a relaunch) off from the 82% BCN ninjamine/premine, plus a few minor fixes). That is all there was. No team, no audit, no review. In fact some suggestions were made by the community to slow down the launch. They were ignored.

All of this is verifiable by looking back at the old postings, so you don't have to take my word for it.

It doesn't mean they or anyone are necessarily scammers. It means you, as an inexperienced member of the community should not deal with them.

If you always you a reputable escrow you will not get scammed. That does not mean that if you don't use escrow you will (necessarily) get scammed. Logic is a bit hard sometimes.

But you should relaunch because someone else mined more than I did.

You are correct, but we consider the verification time acceptable for installing a full node at this time. There are 1440 blocks per day. At 50 blocks/sec per core that is less than 30 seconds per day single threaded. A year of blockchain is 3 hours. If multithreaded on a quad core this will be under an hour. In practice I doubt that p2p downloads are that fast now anyway.

Also, with increasing usage of the network, (constant) PoW will become a smaller portion of block verification time anyway.

We may switch to a faster or different PoW at some point, who knows. But we don't see an urgent need for it.


Sorry but you are mistaken. You are confusing a local problem with a global problem. They might switch to another node, but then the other node just gets overloaded. We have real world experience with a rapidly growing network and in practice almost every accessible node gets overloaded (or at least heavily loaded) with chain download traffic. And that is even with some users downloading the static chain, though at the time we were not encouraging it as strongly.

Exponential growth rate of the network will slow down at some point and this will cease to be an issue (new users as a fraction of existing nodes will be smaller). But it is a real issue if the growth rate is high.

Two minor technical corrections:

1. The centralization aspect of this will likely be removed at some point, as done by bitcoin. The static blockchain will still be verified (once).

2. The primary reason for a static blockchain download is not PoW verification, it is to reduce load on the p2p. Relatively few p2p nodes are accessible for incoming connections, so the ones that are get hammered very hard by new nodes connecting and downloading the block chain. Periods of rapid adoption are the worst, because there are so many new users downloading the block chain. We encourage (and spend money to host) the static downloads to reduce the load on existing nodes. High load in turn leads to fewer people being willing to operate accessible nodes, which makes matters even worse on the ones who do.

Yes but the extreme chaos of launches is easily avoided using the approach gmaxwell suggested to me (and I paraphrased above).

Slowly ramp up the rewards. The first day is always a cluster fuck. At best it is an honest cluster fuck, at worst we have some well known instamine scam coins.

Far better to simply reduce the value and significance of everything that happens very early.

This is a valid point.

What was the last invention that was as profoundly novel as Satoshi's invention of a scarce information good?

I don't know, they are very few and far between.