Computers have parts worth money, even a 4-5 year old amd or intel cpu. and Motherboard and ram. Asic machines will be paperweights.
They're only worth a small fraction of the new value at that point, so this is a small difference. |
|
|
|
Looks like I have hundreds of outgoing connections, most of them to the same place. Anybody else seeing this: Small subset shown below. This is the output from print_cn [OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(292501)/43(292502) state_befor_handshake 292502
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(275834)/43(275835) state_befor_handshake 275835
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(301611)/43(301612) state_befor_handshake 301612
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(266446)/43(266447) state_befor_handshake 266447
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(328905)/43(328906) state_befor_handshake 328906
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(263989)/43(263990) state_befor_handshake 263990
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(261053)/43(261053) state_befor_handshake 261053
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(248175)/43(248176) state_befor_handshake 248176
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(337317)/43(337317) state_befor_handshake 337317
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(249778)/43(249779) state_befor_handshake 249779
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(325645)/43(325646) state_befor_handshake 325646
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(250469)/43(250470) state_befor_handshake 250470
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(327231)/43(327232) state_befor_handshake 327232
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(328115)/43(328116) state_befor_handshake 328116
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(284679)/43(284680) state_befor_handshake 284680
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(244825)/43(244825) state_befor_handshake 244825
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(334726)/43(334726) state_befor_handshake 334726
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(269099)/43(269099) state_befor_handshake 269099
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(326648)/43(326649) state_befor_handshake 326649
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(272517)/43(272518) state_befor_handshake 272518
[OUT]27.32.51.54:18080 0 71(245019)/43(245019) state_befor_handshake 245019
|
|
|
|
Any jump over 2-3% is bad.
Imagine buying a machine for $100. With a theoretical 15% increase every jump. In the first 10 days the machine makes you $10, then days 10-20 it makes only $8.40, then days 20-30 it makes $6.70. So the first 30 days it has made you $25.10. Based on my experience the first month a miner will make 70% of its lifetime ROI if the btc price stays steady.
If the jumps fall to 2-3% or even lower (which will happen at some point, probably sooner than most assume) then miners will return a lot less than 70% of their lifetime output in the first month. Eventually they will be more like regular computers with a ~3 year industrial lifespan. |
|
|
|
One minute blocks that are of size ~1 KB (most of the blocks right now) double the likelihood of a miner getting a block. Selfish mining only becomes a severe issue when blocksize becomes large. You're the one who is concerned about the reward being too small in 10-20 years??!! Obviously the goal is to create a design that is sound for the long term, not focus on a couple of weeks of easy mining when there are hardly any transactions on the network. As was pointed out before, solo mining for small (one computer) miners will sooner or later (most likely sooner) become non-viable whether blocks are one minute or two minute blocks. Maybe not in the first week, but if the coin thrives, it won't be long at all. This was a very short-sighted reason to speed up the blocks. I'm not referring to selfish mining in any case, just regular (random) orphans. If it takes 3 seconds to propagate a block across the network, then with 60 second blocks you will have about 5% random orphans (where two different people solve a block at the same time; only one will survive). This gets much worse when the blocks get bigger (take longer to verify and forward at each hop). If it takes 10 seconds to propagate you are looking at 16% orphans. Pools reduce orphans by concentrating hash rate and directly communicating with the hashers in a star pattern instead of a p2p. You won't be solving a block at the same time as one of your pool-mates very often (due to longpoll/stratum) and the pool will solve on top of its own blocks more quickly than any foreign blocks, so it will win more races. These effects combine to give pools a huge economy of scale. Even with those 1k blocks you describe, there are already plenty of orphans, just look at the daemon output. Bytecoin with 2 minute blocks still has a lot of orphans too. Satoshi was no idiot when he picked 10 minutes, and didn't just pull that number out of his ass. That may be slight overkill but 1 minute is going way too far in the other direction. |
|
|
|
WTB 5k MRO for 1 bitcoin
PM sent |
|
|
|
If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.
It wouldn't centralize the network, at least not initially.The larger miners would still solo mine. The people with one little laptop would still get something, instead of getting nothing at all for days and quitting. I'm solo mining bytecoin even though its hash rate is twice this coin. What centralizes a network is having the block target too short. Like one minute. Look at all the one minute coins, they are all dominated by one or two huge pools. Smaller pools can't compete because they orphan too much. And, yet, the target for this coin was changed from two minutes to one "for solo mining," which is patently absurd. Even one week into it, and solo mining is already chasing small miners away. Having a two minute (or longer) blocks with at least one pool would be far better. Nobody involved with this coin seems to care about these sorts of fundamental issues, which is why I doubt this coin is the right vehicle. Its still early though, things may turn around, and yes there are talented team members. That is the one source of promise I see here. |
|
|
|
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.
Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money. It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN). BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now. If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.) Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is. |
|
|
|
That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.
Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money. |
|
|
|
So what you are saying is this coin will have a reward curve that is in fact nothing at all like bitcoin (which has neither such fast emission nor a fixed final reward)? Fair enough, but not as advertised.
Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it. We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to. In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea). Obviously not what either of us intended to be getting when we started mining, but I don't think there is a long term harm in the 1 minute blocktime and current subsidy schedule. I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin. At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch: 1. No GUI 2. No web site 3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent) 4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on). 5. No effective team behind it at launch 6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail) I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure. I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.). We can do better. It's probably time to just do better. |
|
|
|
We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room "Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward" To vote type Where # is what you vote for. Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me. So what you are saying is this coin will have a reward curve that is in fact nothing at all like bitcoin (which has neither such fast emission nor a fixed final reward)? Fair enough, but not as advertised. |
|
|
|
its not about me not mining a block. its about being 5 days late and not mining anything. its about me having a normal computer chip with 6 threads and not being able to mine anything 5 day later. while few people own 150k+ coins already.
You should get a block a day or so. There may be something wrong with your setup, but then again it could be luck. I mine bitcoin on p2pool and sometimes when we had a hash rate for one block per day we've gotten no block for 4-5 days. It happens. |
|
|
|
Theres a lot of miners. its not like there are only a handful of miners.. I went all weekend and didn't find a block on hashrate 11.xx. You people are going nuts over some of this stuff. Its like a scrypt release if your GPU mining solo and there is high demand guess what, you don't get blocks! Happens to me all the time. Luckily with this it can be mined in the background and even a low hashrate should net a few blocks by the end of the week
If you went all weekend at 11 and didn't find a block you either got VERY unlucky or something is wrong with your setup. You should get a few block per day at that rate. |
|
|
|
But I'm ok about emission change in case majority will agree. I'm just against existing balance changes. Not because of my personal balance (in case we will change emission I will send 50% of my balance for giveaway) but because other people balances aren't to be changed without their own decisions.
If you cut the rewards in half then the value of existing coins double. This is exactly the same as early adopters voting to grant themselves matching free coins, which close to the definition of a premine. You recognize this and that's why you are volunteering to donate 50% of your coins. I volunteered to do something similar during the meeting (there is a log somewhere so this can be verified). But a voluntary system like that won't work because there will likely be greedy short-sighted people who don't do it. If we have a public donation process and we get virtually all the early adopter coins donated this way, then it could work. But if not then this will not work. Emission formula can be changed the way that will not result in immediate halving block reward but still will change curve slope. This way previous coins will not be considered as instamine and curve will be much better. Actually the effect of such a change will be that block reward descrease speed will be a bit faster. Is this a solution? Sounds plausible, but I'm not sure. You still may end up with a lot of coins going to early adopters. If you don't cut the rewards quickly and significantly, then its more and more coins continuing to go to early adopters, making the problem worse. We considered increasing the cap as a solution, but that means exceeding the size of uint64 for atomic units. That seemed like a mess. There are certainly all types of curves though. We can consider alternatives. Can you post alternatives you consider plausible here? Here's one idea on fixing the emissions without adjusting coin balances. We temporarily reduce the emission rate to half of the new target for as long as it takes for the total emission from 0 to match the new curve. Thus there will be a temporary period when mining is very slow, and during that period there was a premine. But once that period is compete, from the perspective of new adopters, there was no premine -- the total amount of coins emitted is exactly what the slow curve says it should be (and the average rate since genesis is almost the same as the rate at which they are mining, for the first year or so at least). This means the mining rewards will be very low for a while (if done now then roughly two weeks), and may not attract many new miners. However, I think there enough of us early adopters (and even some new adopters who are willing to make a temporary sacrifice) who want to see this coin succeed to carry it through this period. The sooner this is done the shorter the catch up period needs to be. |
|
|
|
There is no need for new fork. Issues can be resolved. I go with what majority wants. Give up coins, keep coins, whatever. Time to move coin towards future and be very strong. Sometimes there is a need, and premining or allegations thereof are a good reason to leave the stigma behind with a fresh start. This coin is a fork of bytecoin for exactly that reason. I'm still hopeful we can fix this one though. |
|
|
|
|
I think we should wait and see if we can come to some kind of consensus on fixing BMR/MRO. If not then another fork is needed to finally get a nice clean coin that can showcase the CrypoNote technologies with issues of premines, rushed launches, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure what to do about the curve, I will think about that, and maybe others have ideas.
But how about some kind of crowdfunding solution.
We try to raise, say 80% of he extra coins (40% of total coins in circulation) as donations for a fundraiser. If we don't reach the goal, everyone gets their coins back, everything stays in terms of reward curve, and those of us who want a slow, bitcoin-like schedule just move to a new coin. If we get 80% of the extra coins donated, then we cut the rewards. Yes, up to 20% freeloaders get to keep their extra coins, but that's at least a much smaller premine. Maybe not 100% perfect but the fundraiser could do some good (bounties for GUI wallet, etc.), this could still come out as a net gain for the coin.
|
|
|
|
But I'm ok about emission change in case majority will agree. I'm just against existing balance changes. Not because of my personal balance (in case we will change emission I will send 50% of my balance for giveaway) but because other people balances aren't to be changed without their own decisions.
If you cut the rewards in half then the value of existing coins double. This is exactly the same as early adopters voting to grant themselves matching free coins, which close to the definition of a premine. You recognize this and that's why you are volunteering to donate 50% of your coins. I volunteered to do something similar during the meeting (there is a log somewhere so this can be verified). But a voluntary system like that won't work because there will likely be greedy short-sighted people who don't do it. If we have a public donation process and we get virtually all the early adopter coins donated this way, then it could work. But if not then this will not work. Emission formula can be changed the way that will not result in immediate halving block reward but still will change curve slope. This way previous coins will not be considered as instamine and curve will be much better. Actually the effect of such a change will be that block reward descrease speed will be a bit faster. Is this a solution? Sounds plausible, but I'm not sure. You still may end up with a lot of coins going to early adopters. If you don't cut the rewards quickly and significantly, then its more and more coins continuing to go to early adopters, making the problem worse. We considered increasing the cap as a solution, but that means exceeding the size of uint64 for atomic units. That seemed like a mess. There are certainly all types of curves though. We can consider alternatives. |
|
|
|
But I'm ok about emission change in case majority will agree. I'm just against existing balance changes. Not because of my personal balance (in case we will change emission I will send 50% of my balance for giveaway) but because other people balances aren't to be changed without their own decisions.
If you cut the rewards in half then the value of existing coins double. This is exactly the same as early adopters voting to grant themselves matching free coins, which close to the definition of a premine. You recognize this and that's why you are volunteering to donate 50% of your coins. I volunteered to do something similar during the meeting (there is a log somewhere so this can be verified). But a voluntary system like that won't work because there will likely be greedy short-sighted people who don't do it. If we have a public donation process and we get virtually all the early adopter coins donated this way, then it could work. But if not then this will not work. |
|
|
|
The emmision is actually ~3 times more then bitcoin, BTC started with 50 per block (10 minute), we have atm ~17,5 coins per block (1 minute). This is 50 vs 175 per 10Min, so we are not even close to the Bitcoin emmision. Double the block time and we are close, bring the emmision to 21 and we are even closer. How to implement a proper way? I dont know but i know i will vote with hashing power to get this fixed, even if i'm gonna loose half of my coins.
Yes, but this coin slows down continuously, while bitcoin only slows down after 4 years. You are making the comparison at the very beginning of the 4-year period, when this coin has its highest reward. Looking at 3.9 years, the reward on this coin will have declined, but bitcoin will still be the same. I think it still ends up being a little bit faster than bitcoin, but closer than your calculation suggests. As I said a few posts back, I'd like to see the graph with bitcoin overlaid for comparison. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
