If you are going to have these general economic debates, I ask you, please, take it elsewhere.

These economic debates can go on for weeks at a time, or longer. In fact this one has been raging, at some level, since this coin was created over a month ago. We have people coming here literally asking how to get their wallet to work. They need help. They want to know how to mine, or mixin counts mean, or whether there are important new patches. There's is really no other place to get this important information. 

Continuing to clog up the thread with economics does no one any good. Drive away the users who aren't economics wonks and there will soon be no coin left to argue over.

Technically a GPU miner doesn't necessarily mean that users can't mine. Nearly all new computers now have some kind of GPU, and that will increasingly be the case in the future. The main question is how big an advantage you get from building a particular specialized type of GPU rig over perhaps somewhat less efficient common computers. When you get huge advantages as with BTC or LTC, then users mining doesn't really exist. But if the advantage is small, then regular users can still mine. So we will just have to see how this plays out.

That's not really the point though. Users may mine, and if that works out to help keep the network descentralized, great. But mining rewards will be an increasingly unimportant way people receive the coins they want or need. They will primarily get them in some sort of trade (either trading for other assets or performing services and being paid in coins).

EDIT: I'd add that if this doesn't turn out to be the case, that won't really be a surprise (as many intelligent comments have been made about CPU mining being impossible), and will merely leave this coin in the same position as every other coin with respect to mining. Its anonymity features will not be affected.

Tedious and useless. This has already been decided and is considered part of the social contract. It won't change unless the entire dev team behind this coin breaks up and blows away, because there is 100% unchangeable agreement on this point.

There will likely be a change to allow for some perpetual rewards on the back end, as was stated up front. That was the motive for wanting a flatter curve from the start: It was meaningful rewards out for a longer period of time, not trying to tinker with inflation and "pump" up the value. That important goal will instead be achieved using the second method, as I have described.

There will not be tinkering with the curve.

If you don't like it, please exit now, and head on over to QCN or some other curve-tinkering clone.

Otherwise, let's have healthy discussion about things that might actually happen with this coin.

The logic checks out insofar as these guys (whether they entirely realize it or not) are arguing if favor of the instamine approach of mining a lot of cheap and easy coins really fast, then (once they have theirs), slowing inflation way down to boost price.

It's not going to happen, but that's the logic behind these posts.

Thank you for doing that. Solo mining is the best way to secure a network. Everyone who can possibly do so should just solo mine. A coin with small pools and a lot of solo mining is a strong coin. A coin with one or two very large pools dominating the network is a joke. Look around the space of coins and you will see what I mean.

1 minute blocks totally fail the Starbuvks challenge. Are you going to stand there at the from the of the line waiting for 1 minute before they give you your coffee?

Orhpans are not just an issue for miners. As a seller, with a high orphan rate you can't be sure that even that one confirmation you did wait for is enough. The transaction might disappear if the block is orhpaned! So you will definitely want to wait for more confirms. Often people will accept 1-confirm bitcoin transactions because bitcoin has such a low orhpan rate. If a tranasction is in one block, you can be about 99% sure it will stay in the chain forever. That's not true for coins with too-fast block times any many orphans and reorgs.

The only way the starbucks challenge works is with some different kind of technology beside just a block chain. Green addresses, green multisig, off-chain transactions, etc. Block time has nothing to do with it.

Type save in the daemon window. Wait for it to finish saving. Go back to wallet and try again.

Yes a block time of two minutes is much better (but to avoid changing the emission curve or effective difficulty would have twice the reward per block) and I really want to see that happen. It is somewhat complicated by being a hard fork but we still will probably do it.

This would likely be accused of being an instamine (i.e. giving the people involved in the first month twice the number of coins, then shutting the door on everyone else).

We tried to propose some other ways of making this change early on, and it came reasonably close to happening, but it is much harder to do now.


QCN has a high inflation rate per day as well, in fact it might be higher. This is more a function of the age of the coin than anything else, and will drop rapidly over time. So as I say with respect to solo mining, just be patient and it will work out. Seeking instant gratification rarely ends well.

Nobody really knows what the "right" emission curve should be or if it even matters that much. Monero certainly doesn't have a crazy dumb emission curve like some shitcoins that nevertheless gained some popularity but will remain nameless. I thought it should be a bit slower, but not too much slower. Possibly QCN might be too slow. It seems good now but with the low base, but the inflation rate will stay very high for a very long time.

Anyway, I'm guessing that within reason it doesn't matter that much and other factors are more important.

Nothing recent.

This would be a good project for someone to take on. Would you like to do it?

I'm pretty sure there was a 30k QCN trade on the OTC thread. There are around 6K coins per day emitted on that coin so do the math. Yes I would say it is pretty concentrated.

You're still not adjusting for the number of coins. See comment above re: 42 by my friend eizh. Adjusting for number of coins, QCN is not 1.5 but about 0.375 of MRO.

But as you say speculators can do almost anything. QCN might well go above MRO (coin supply adjusted), I have no idea. I certainly see a lot more long term potential here though. Short term, buy whatever is going up (but only with money you can afford to lose).
 

In my opinion people will pick one coin to use, and the rest will fall by the wayside. Right now during the speculation phase, anything can happen, but as I pointed out QCN is still well below MRO if you adjust for number of coins. If you think, in looking at MRO and QCN, that people are ultimately going to place their confidence in QCN, then that's where you should focus. I happen not to believe that but I don't claim to have any special knowledge, just an opinion.

BTW, if all it takes to create a valuable coin is cloning one, then there will be no valuable coins at all. It doesn't matter which you pick, they are all worthless. I don't believe that either.

No you have to look at market cap as at least one factor, not just coin price. QCN mines 1/4 as many coins as MRO (for now, at some point the curves will cross). So it would have to be valued at 4x as much to be par. Think about it, if you have a coin where you only issue 0.1 coins per day, and assuming that coin had any kind of promise at all, the value per coin would be huge. The total market cap might not be any different though.

You're calculating it wrong.

The hash rate for QCN is 650k, MRO is 2.46m

Yes that is totally normal. Eventually there will be GUI wallets that self-update, but for now, enjoy the pioneer spirit!

It is definitely a good idea to combine small outputs into larger ones, otherwise it is impossible to ever make payments in larger amounts (the transactions will be too big). Now if you only ever make small payments then I guess keeping the original small outputs is fine. But for larger payments they won't work at all, or will be too large to allow mixing. As far as mixin count to use when doing that, I can't give a good answer, as I haven't looked at the issues that carefully. The tradeoff is how many of these small outputs you can combine in one go. If you can't combine enough, you may need to do multiple steps.

The size of each transaction is dependent only on its immediate sources, not prior transactions that fed into those. So if you have a zillion tiny outputs and combine them into a few larger ones, subsequent transactions are not affected at all by the previous tiny outputs, and will be quite small.

The mixin count causes a nearly-linear increase in transaction size (slightly less than linear because of fixed per-transaciton overhead). But the transaction size is a function of the number of inputs, not the number of coins. If you receive 10000 and then send 10000 that is going be the same size transaction for any given mixin count as it would be to receive 1 coin and then send 1 coin with the same mixin count.

I usually use a mixin count of 3-5, or perhaps 10 on transactions that I know are very small (in terms of transaction size, not coins). Even using 1 isn't too bad (i.e. much better than 0) because as the coins go through a series of mix=1 transactions they still eventually become mixed with everything and very hard to trace more than a few hops. I'll sometimes use 1 instead of 0 on large (again meaning large number of inputs) transactions.

It is not complicated to transfer large amounts -- unless the coins you sending were received as a whole bunch of smaller transactions. I have moved 10000 in one transaction. Maybe more than that, I don't remember.