I'm not sure, if a miner holds many coins they are inclined to leave as many as possible sitting idle so that their mining rewards in 10 years are higher. Anything like this can be gamed too easily.
If you leave coins idle past the shelf time, you get diluted. It's an incentive to move coins. Incentives to move coins are good for the economy. As I see it, there is no downside to the game. It's just a question of how much win there is. (Probably one would cap the maximum emission, so that massive hoarding would not be incentivized.) I don't really see how moving coins to yourself is good for the economy. In fact it seems like a waste of resources, though the benefit of certainly over lost coins might be worth it. |
|
|
|
Fantastic data here. Anybody aware of an update . . . more recent data?
Yes. Someone did a paper using a statistical test for causality and concluded that price leads difficulty. I don't have a link though, but it is on this forum somewhere. |
|
|
|
Sorry, it is only for Mac OS X 10.9 (and hopefully OS X 10.10, but I didn't test that yet).
You didn't answer to the previous question: why not releasing sources? Obviously because they want to extract a 0.2% wallet fee and can't do that if people can just recompile with the fee removed. Another reason may be that the source is not clean enough to be usefully (or non-embarrassingly) released. I do not intend either comment above to be judgmental BTW, just explanations. There will be open source GUI wallets soon enough. |
|
|
|
Wait.... wat. How is Monero innovative? How, being a fork of Bytecoin it can be innovative?
It was originally intended specifically as a clean relaunch to break away from the shady premine and other questionable practices (sock puppet accounts, fake claims of stores and services, etc.) associated with Bytecoin, which is exactly what it did. The Monero project and community has since evolved to become far more innovative, as described by tacotime several posts back. I also notice that one of the Monero pools (enabled by the open source pool implementation sponsored by the core team) has now released a beautiful looking native MacOS wallet. Pool! Not "devs" =)) I view that as a good thing. What matters is the strength of the community and economy. I'd rather see a robust and decentralized community developing code and services than some central committee of developers doing everything. In fact we have explicitly encouraged this by offering open bounties for independent developers to work on important components such as the open source pool implementation (now widely used by all cryptnote forks) and GUIs (still under development). But I view fully-independent effort such as this new wallet as even better. |
|
|
|
- Are implementing electrum deterministic wallets (code is already done)
I think I saw that this was finished and pushed already .. but can anyone please give a good rundown of what this is/does? Sounds pretty cool! It gives you a bunch of words that you can use to recreate your wallet from a paper backup or even memorized. |
|
|
|
|
Supersedes all previous offers
selling 30m for 0.9 BTC (30m minimum) expires end of day UTC 6/11
|
|
|
|
Wait.... wat. How is Monero innovative? How, being a fork of Bytecoin it can be innovative?
It was originally intended specifically as a clean relaunch to break away from the shady premine and other questionable practices (sock puppet accounts, fake claims of stores and services, etc.) associated with Bytecoin, which is exactly what it did. The Monero project and community has since evolved to become far more innovative, as described by tacotime several posts back. I also notice that one of the Monero pools (enabled by the open source pool implementation sponsored by the core team) has now released a beautiful looking native MacOS wallet. |
|
|
|
Monero is just a cheap, lazy fork that steals/syncs the BCN code every weekend...
I can' t even figure out how you make this stuff up since there have been no new code on BCN to "steal/sync" for around two weeks, and even before that there was more development going on directly on the Monero fork. Take a look at the commit histories on github. Facts. They don't even have a fucking wallet... because they can't steal it from the BCN devs.
There are at least two prototype wallets, both developed within the Monero sphere and sponsored by the Monero community. When complete they will likely be adopted by the other cryptonote forks (at least the ones that actually have active developers at all). Nothing wrong with that -- open source is supposed to work that way. Again, get your facts straight. Stealing intellectual property is 1000 times worse... That's nice, since no IP stealing has occurred. Learn what open source means. And gmaxwell has NEVER endorsed Monero...
I never claimed that he did. I said that he identified the technology as interesting and significant. Enough so as to make the secret of its existence being kept by 1000+ extraordinary and unlikely. |
|
|
|
Among all possible cryptocurrencies Dogecoin had the best branding so far.
But it didnt help it though.
Strongest brand? I would probably agree. But "best" branding? Maybe not. When people look at it and think it is a joke, that is not necessarily the image you want.
This is controversial. I personally thought it was some kind of a joke.
Inspite of this it went insanely viral and even outshined mother bitcoin. If we're now talking about it, who has the best branding in cryptoworld? I dunno people talk about all kinds of epic failures. Also, going viral doesn't even require branding. |
|
|
|
But would this be ethical? It sounds like Smooth might be inclined to say "no." But like you implied, creating ASICs ahead of time would require a huge investment that might become wortheless if the experiment failed.
I'm not making an ethical judgement here, I'm just saying that people will view this largely the same as a premine, because it is. The DRK example keeps coming up because of the alleged extreme instamine of supposedly 50%. You could in some sense do a spin-off and then instamine so many coins (say 50% of the remainder) that that the spun-off coins become insignificant, or at least much less significant. This has little to do with the spin-off technique though. There are all kinds of crappy things you can do with a coin after the spin off. |
|
|
|
And as I said, it is still likely to be questioned if the developer is uniquely "well-prepared" to mine and ends up mining a disproportionate amount because others are unaware of it or not uniquely well-prepapred (sometimes compounded by a low starting difficulty and bad difficulty adjustment algorithms that give a huge advantage to all miners -- but especially developers -- who get in early).
I think our goals in this thread should be to establish the spin-off technique so that any mining shenanigans become transparent (e.g., by promoting the use of the blockhash timestamp in the header file). Once this is done, I don't see how mining can be controlled any further. The developers could say they didn't mine upon launch, but they could do so anyways without anyone knowing. And I still question whether this would even matter. Do you disagree? I'm not sure which part you are asking about. I think the mining marketplace and the developer's role in that marketplace could matter, but I also agree that is not really relevant to this thread. |
|
|
|
Last night I downloaded the Windows wallet and left it for 6 hours downloading the block chain.
It started at "56 Days behind" and ended up completing.
Then this morning, when I launch the daemon, it starts downloading all over again !! - 56 days behind.
Any ideas why this is happening ?
It is supposed to checkpoint to disk, but apparently it didn't. Double check that you don't have a disk problem (out of disk space, etc.) and once it syncs up the next time, type "save" in the daemon window. |
|
|
|
Among all possible cryptocurrencies Dogecoin had the best branding so far.
But it didnt help it though.
Strongest brand? I would probably agree. But "best" branding? Maybe not. When people look at it and think it is a joke, that is not necessarily the image you want. |
|
|
|
Yeah, that's kinda wierd .. I didn't even make the connection before that if the inventors of the technology approve .. then why don't all of us? It's brutal to suffer actual malice because someone "made a fork" especially when it's totally supported.
Maybe someone should ask them on their website what their views on forks are .. rather than trying to use it as some kind of derogatory term?
Don't need to ask because they've already stated their position. In fact they've offered to help! "We will help you establish your own CN-based cryptocurrency" https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6In fact they suggest forking as a development strategy "For the reference code consider Bytecoin (BCN) source code" https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=6#p8 |
|
|
|
bytecoin have every cool element to become top notch coin in the market ... it's only have 1 problem, premining, but also due the nature of true anonymity, blockchain analisys resistance, etc .. I think we'll never know who are the big stakes ... In my view that's why bytecoin is not bitcoin competidor, but complements it... my bet is that developers still holding the high stakes .. I don't know why ... if I have a big stake I would sell or give way now 1/2 of it while price is low to popularize and make better distribution, like ..as investing .. and hodl the other half for the time when the anonymous e-commerce will emerge to the general public ... I'm really not very excited with bytecoins clones ... but they have some legit points made ... I have a name suggestion for the next clone though  I can see how it's a premine to us. Maybe they were just trying to provide it as an example to show that the technology works. Sounds like they have their own economy that we can never really be a part of unless we're cypherpunks. I don't think their aim is to compete. I think their aim is to be as many "coins", "communities" and "forks" as possible in order to show that CN technology is superior! Maybe that's why they built the technology to have such a rough time scaling, because they think that thousands of small communities will be a better model for an economy that one large one? There is certainly no question that "CryptoNote" who claims to be the inventor of the underlying technology is supportive of multiple coins and they even identify "approved" implementations on their web site. So if forks, relaunches, whatever you want to call them, are good enough for the inventors then why not good enough for everyone else? Given a clean relaunch that is approved by the inventors of the technology without an 80% premine, I really can't see why anyone would choose the 80% premine version. Link: https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=162#p566 |
|
|
|
I view such claims as more evidence of deception and fraudulent intent. This to me makes absolutly no sense. Now you say that for two years they had fraudulent intent? For two years they did nothing to attempt to make money off this coin. I can't comment on what happened for two years since there is no verifiable evidence even supporting the existence of two years of activity. I'm talking about what has happened since this coin has surfaced. Implausible claims have repeatedly been put forward which suggests intent to deceive. Unless of course those claims, though implausible, turn out to be valid. I'm waiting for verifiable evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We can start with even ordinary evidence though. |
|
|
|
Whois record for bytecoin.org
Domain ID: D162497614-LROR
[b]Creation Date: 2011-06-11T03:36:44Z[/b]
Updated Date: 2014-05-12T11:50:51Z
Registry Expiry Date: 2014-06-11T03:36:44Z
Sponsoring Registrar:eNom, Inc. (R39-LROR)
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 48 The bytecoin domain name is three years old but if you look in wayback there was nothing related to the coin (or at all) on that domain until much more recently. We have no idea where the domain came from, it could well have been held by a domain speculator for years. Again, I'm looking for verifiable evidence in support of the extraordinary claim that a secret of this magnitude was kept by thousands of people for two years. I don't see it, therefore I don't believe the extraordinary claim. |
|
|
|
So, if the pools are sending dust to small miners, and dust gets eaten in transaction fees, how is this coin supposed to go mainstream. As in if the hashrate went up 10x it would just result in more dust.
Being fixed in the pool code, but meanwhile, mine on smaller pools. Don't mine on a pool where you are much less than 1% of the pool hash rate. |
|
|
|
I need your guys help.
I accidentally sent some monero to my poloniex wallet without my payment id and now i need the transaction ID to claim it.
My question is where do I find my log of transaction ID's in the wallet?
Rename your wallet.dat something else like wallet.dat_old and then load your wallet.dat.keys file and refresh. It will list out all the tx you ever made (you may have to log the terminal output). There is also a simplewallet.log file that should have it. |
|
|
|
It was MINED by THOUSANDS of people, yet completely unknown to the crypto community. You can't believe that now can you?
Sure, why not. Could you tell me how this is not a possibility in your mind? I can't speak for the previous poster but I can tell you that it is a near-zero possibility in my mind. It is hard to keep secrets and the cryptonote technology is incredibly interesting and important. I think gmaxwell (bitcoin core developer) described it here as one of the most significant developments since bitcoin (paraphrasing). Look at how quickly knowledge of Monero has spread throughout the bitcoin community and has become a "big thing." If it had been out there being mined by thousands of people, word would have almost certainly gotten out, and due to the significance of the technology would have spread rapidly. Some random poster claimed on this thread to have heard about it, and that is actually credible in the sense that (hypothetically) with thousands of people involved others would have heard about it. What is not credible is word of this hugely significant technology not spreading widely. Since I don't believe the claim of thousands of people keeping such a secret for two years, I view such claims as more evidence of deception and fraudulent intent. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
