I agree with you, were you mining to that wallet from a pool? I think a good way to find a middle ground in the situation is to have pools use a minimum payout per address (like 1 MRO maybe?). It could, if done correctly, take care of blockchain bloat and keep you from having to pay unnecessary transaction fees by having to send multiple payments, now that the block size limit is decreased. I don't think that the pools currently support a minimum payout yet, so maybe someone else has ideas about this?

Also, I thought the fee was .0005? Am I wrong?

Have you tried really small amounts? The transfer being too big is cause by many small inputs coming together. Like in effect, if someone sent you 3 moneros and then sent those same 3 to someone else, then the transfer would be relatively small in size (bytes). But, if someone sent you .01 moneros 300 times, to make 3 moneros then your transfer would be really big in size (bytes). It's just how the protocol works for now. There's usually nothing you're doing wrong. Have you tried sending extremely small transaction sizes? like .1 MRO? Also, are you trying to send to or from poloniex?

I think we have boolberry and ducknote now too, both based on CN technology

Yeah, shows up in troll box, and then someone shows up who claims to have mined only 500 million in an entire year. Then basically says he hasn't done anything with them because "he checked and they're still there", but there are services he can't share that he probably uses all the time.

Troll box pump attempt for sure! They're getting creative now though, usually they stay contained in the box but now they're all over the place.


edit: Also, that site ... there's no pgp keys to verify the author of the site. Don't know what's up but that's a flag for me.

Well, not my favorite thing to explain ... because as far as I can see there's really no reason for yet another fork of a CN coin, but I'd rather people do things safely and correctly ... so to get on the new fork just delete all your blockchain/p2pstate data and re-open the daemon. It will re download the chain and you should be on the right fork.

Are you using windows? Simpleminer needs a .bat file to run it correctly, and a pool to connect to. you can mine from simplewallet solo mining unitl a pool shows up

The blue text is an orphan block, now replaced by a correct block on the network. Happens very often and is expected.

Gonna try a new blockchain, maybe on a fork.

Edit: Confirmed on a fork, slight faith in dev not doing something underhanded restored.

Now this has occurred over ten times in the last ten minutes. Looks like a fail launch to me, assuming there's nothing underhanded going on here.

2014-May-30 17:02:29.874953 [miner 0]Found block for difficulty: 13236
2014-May-30 17:02:29.874953 [miner 0]Timestamp of block with id: <7585a086b98b3d
9c50cd40573ac002ab52d30c78dcfee13678203899112a91f8>, 1401483744, less than media
n of last 30 blocks, 1401484169
2014-May-30 17:02:29.884953 [miner 0]Block with id: <7585a086b98b3d9c50cd40573ac
002ab52d30c78dcfee13678203899112a91f8>
have invalid timestamp: 1401483744
2014-May-30 17:02:29.894953 [miner 0]ERROR ..\..\src\cryptonote_core\cryptonote_
core.cpp:368 mined block failed verification


I could just be on a fork though.

I'd be very worried about this one .. this has come up about 5 times already with many different computers. Be safe ... it's a fork from a brand new account. Don't put this on a computer you care about. If this is fud .. sorry bro but somethings off when this comes up :

2014-May-30 16:53:47.722717 [miner 4]ERROR ..\..\src\cryptonote_core\cryptonote_core.cpp:368 mined block failed verification

That's adorable. Imagine running a multi-million dollar business and having all of your competitors see all of your financial transactions. Good luck getting them on board with that one.

"Why did you give "x" a discount and not us?"
"I noticed you did lots of business with 'x', so we bought them out, good luck!"
"Why does 'x' get paid a higher salary than me? Can you give me a raise?"
"Hello sir I see you're doing business with your long time private partner, allow me to offer you the same service for a 10% discount"
"I see you're taking bids for 'x' project, and now I can see the prices that have been submitted .. let me put in a discount"
...along with hundreds of other problems.

Just not how business is done man. They're not gonna buy into it, because it'll turn normally reasonable people into rats. I can see it sustaining consumerism at best.

But by all means, enjoy the one-man shops and desperate consumers .. anon/private tx's will be inviting the real money. You still have the ability to track transactions with even CryptoNote. I'd like to not devolve this thread into anon vs non-anon though .. it's speculative at best.

Will follow your thread from now on! Thanks for keeping us in the game .. without you staying up for insane amounts of time I can only imagine that someone might have just made a miner they didn't want to share (although I don't think they would have been able to put the kind of time necessary into it) . I think tomorrow I'm going to start up all my machines again and mine with them rather than just keeping the daemon up and solo mining on just one comp .. had to turn them off last week due to sad stuff .. but that's over now so I guess it's time to get back into the pools!

Yes, actually it's been increasing rapidly with multiple updates the last few weeks.

One of the most recent updates takes advantage of AES acceleration in newer hardware (allowing you to maximize on 4 threads), while I believe the newest one takes advantage of the lightly used threads (not sure of the exact mechanism so if someone knows please correct) and fully maximizes the processor. I'm pretty sure NoodleDoodle/Wolf/LucasJones worked on the AES acceleration, but only saw Wolf talking about further maximization on top of that.

Last I heard this hasn't changed, the original news was they're going to re-consider it in a couple months .. which was followed by adding Bytecoin for voting to the exchange just looked and I didn't see it on their list .. maybe I remembered wrong? Not sure of the reasons for their decision, but can respect it currently as we're on three other exchanges.


You don't have to have a payment ID at all unless you're transferring to an exchange. It's used for the exchange to separate your money from someone else's .. because otherwise it's totally anonymous and they don't know who sent what. If that's the case and you are sending to an exchange, add it as follows (your setup is correct otherwise):

transfer 2 [Address you want to send Monero to] [# of coins] [payment ID]

I think you're misunderstanding. The implication is that if you rally enough support .. then go and fork the coin. It happened with QCN, and if you think there's enough support for it then by all means follow through. You may not have immediate dev support, but they may come either way

I support sticking with their decision. I worry that the distribution might be a bit on the fast side, actually I think most would agree on that; however, most also seem to be able to live with the decision given the downsides of changing that rule, for this coin, mid-game.

Edit: I'm only talking about the emission curve here, not the block time. I haven't yet formed enough of an opinion to throw total support at it. I would hope that the reward would scale with the block time, though .. in order to maintain the same emission .. regardless of the time that is settled on.

edit 2 : The absolute worst case scenario that can happen with this issue is that we don't achieve 100% penetration. To which I would say that perhaps, 100% isn't necessary. It's pure speculation to say that 100% penetration is needed. Consider Bytecoin, whose main audience is a closed community, if you take their word that they are who they say they are. Albeit we're not privy to it, it's an economy nonetheless. They have an exchange rate, described by their original picture of .001 BCN = .1 BTC. We see its value at a couple satoshis. Though this would fail a fungibility test, they still have an economy according to them .. and are doing just fine from the looks of it. Opposite this, if 100% is required .. then we've only extended the time in which it will be achieved.

I'm coming to the conclusion that there are very wide random instabilities with the daemon and 32 bit platforms.

I was able to get it working on windows vista 32 bit, with no problems before last week (the comp hasnt been on since then). Maybe it has something to do with 32 bit windows 7? I don't know if any of the daemon relies on .net (i'm pretty sure it does have some dependencies because it didn't work until i had updated the computer) .. but are you fully updated?

Keep in mind that a month ago, this software was not accessible at all on 32 bit systems. It's a new update that I imagine still has a few bugs to sort out.

I know aminorex has initiated contact/is working with a third party on getting a mobile wallet up and working, would that better suit your needs for the time in which the bugs can be worked out? Or maybe do you have a different version of windows that you can try?

Hm, our conversation seems to have moved away from being centered around Monero itself and is now toward addressing fundamental economic theories. Anyone that has contributed so far, has my attention ... specifically for the fact that you even have an opinion on the matter. That's rare enough right now.

Anyways, I'm going to make a point that I've tried to make before in the past .. that I didn't at the time have the ability to unfold even a little bit. I mentioned that value must be able to be stored into a currency, to a point. It cannot flow too fast outward, nor should the value pour into the currency too fast else there will be major over-concentrations of value.

Before I go into it, my views of inflation can be understood rather well by this article: http://www.drlwilson.com/Articles/INFLATON.htm  . Specifically, if you think constantly increasing the money supply (exponential growth) in order to target an inflation is the most acceptable thing to do, please consider the largely ineffective, even possibly detrimental, tool used most recently by a group of relatively intelligent people: Quantitative Easing.

These people have been thinking about these problems of "wealth concentration" for much longer than us here at Monero (them years-decades, us a month), they are more than us and are much better equipped to actually put the tool to work than us. They still came up with something that didn't work. That's why I say we go with what's worked for 6000 years, a constant supply (effectually a constant depreciating inflation, an exponential decay of debasement being added yearly) of "money" until someone or some group of people has a much better picture of the situation at hand. Just because the understood inflation rate of gold can be reported to be as high as 2.5% (I've personally found numbers closer to 1.5%) does not mean it's been historically that high. I would rather think it's been historically lower, much lower than even 1.5% ... but perhaps someone will be great enough to provide me proof of either?

Continuing this argument, allow me to make an idiotically simplistic strainer analogy. Consider a situation where you are trying to fill up your strainer under a kitchen faucet. In this comparison, the water itself is value, the flow of the water is a variable we can never be able to predict (and the main reason I say we stick with what's worked for 6k years, and go w/ constant supply) is the speed at which value flows into this simplistic economic system. The size (or number) of the holes is the targeted inflation you want, and the size of the strainer is comparable to constant supply (where the height of the container itself grows constantly).

What I think we want is a situation where we can fill the strainer to the brim, without overflow and without the strainer being totally empty. When you say things like 5% inflation could be necessary ... well I think that's a situation that won't hold water .. too many holes. On the opposite hand, keeping the number of holes the same ... while increasing the actual size of the strainer will give the ability to hold more water over time (while also having a form of debasement, though less relative to the amount in existence today). The balance between the two can only be reached with an accurate understanding of the faucet and the speed at which it will likely pass your strainer water, and exactly how many holes we need as well as the height of the walls at any particular time. We are in a point where we don't have a clue where this is leading, thus my previous stance that either of the most likely situations will give adequate time in which the issue may be solved.

Specifically, I have to believe that wealth must concentrate to a point (the brim), else the entire system loses value too quickly (out the holes). We will end up in a situation where, one day in the future, in under 24 hours the entire money supply existing today will be created in less than an instant with un-damped exponential growth that would be invited with a constant inflation.

I realize that this is probably a miserable analogy, and I think it's been better attributed to dilution of a fluid ... but I was just so excited. Either way, I'm focusing on the micro scale of the viewpoint of one person wallet (indicating that wealth may concentrate because one person may have multiple wallets) -- while I feel the fluid dilution analogy would be better at describing the system as a whole

I still maintain that the creation of a damped harmonic function, by combining an exponential decay (constant supply) with an exponential growth (constant inflation) of supply will be the only correct solution to this. I also maintain that the exponential decay (of increased money supply) model achieved through constant supply has worked for 6000 years, and can provide the historical basis to most likely work until a correct solution is discovered.

I just feel that the 4 points you presented can be answered with both inflation and constant emission for 25 years .. after that, I agree that we can't trust the decision makers of the future.

But .. if, in 25 years, the hot topic of the day is what the inflation of Monero should be ... I'd consider that a hell of a win.

Heh, I'd be okay with that. I like to think that my children can have at least some say in the future. I don't have the reach to plan out every single detail of their lives. Hell probably half the people trying to come up with a solution for this right now will probably be retired by the time it becomes an issue.

I do know we're not wrong for pressing forward with enhancing CryptoNote technology right now, and i2p is a great direction. I also feel that having some form of inflation is a good direction. I'm making the claim that the next generation will have a much more experienced viewpoint that will more correctly answer the question than I, or any of us, can. Some things, this being one of them IMO, can have a pin in them; however, it's not wrong to continue thinking about it.

Just my thought, late to add it here I guess.

I've spent a night thinking about it and I've come up with a few more thoughts about this.

Both constant reward and constant % inflation will serve the exact same purpose for years to decades.

Consider both of these most likely simulations (provided by drawingthesun):

0.33333333 MRO released every 60 seconds.
http://pastebin.com/GwQJQzje

Inflation at 1%
http://pastebin.com/3K0dMnZe

1 - For 1% inflation, at year 18: Year: 18.000000 Coin: 21530654.562360 Coin Increase: 213174.797647
2 - For .3 subsidy, at year 20: Year: 20.000000 Coin: 21503999.964960 Inflation: 0.821425%

For 1 and 2, the total coins in circulation have a difference of about 26,655, which is about .123% of the inflated simulation and .124% of the fixed reward. After years 18-20, they begin to diverge and the inflated supply yields many more coins than the constant reward supply. My point here is that this is a long time to make a more informed decision about whether or not a fixed subsidy, fixed inflation, variable of either, or some mix of all of these would be a correct move for the currency. Up until almost 2 and a half decades from right now is the time I am talking about, where both of these routes serve the exact same function (within <<.1% thresholds)

With our most recent update, Taco has set a tx size limit that won't drop the subsidy of more than 9% of the intended value. What this means to me is that a targeted inflation of 1% or 2% may very well have an actual effect of being a .91% or 1.82% inflation. As such, any targeted fixed inflation will yield a window of uncertainty where it will be .91% - 1% or 1.82% - 2% fixed inflation. Before I can be convinced that a constant inflation model is appropriate, that uncertainty would need to be removed. At least with a fixed reward subsidy, we have a solid model for 25 years that people can plan their futures accordingly. At least with the constant reward, we continue to have an uncertain emission only to the day that that is put into effect.

What I'm getting at here is that ... with the rather large amount of time between now and 25 years ... I think we're really just splitting hairs. Unless the constant reward model was subject to the same extra uncertainty about the emission of the coin that will definitely be present in the inflation model, I don't see this as a necessary change that needs to be tackled right this second. I just simply don't think there will be blood in the streets over this in two and a half decades. It's a tough issue definitely, but this is something I have full faith that anyone capable of making decisions in the future will be able to solve. Of course, I'd like only the best to happen after 2.5 decades, but I'm just not convinced that the fixed inflation is more correct than the fixed subsidy right now. The best we can provide them is an open door to either fix the issue or change it into something better, when if the time comes.

This has been reported to be 3-5x as well. It seems more of a speculative issue, as there are numerous ways that the blockchain bloat can be addressed. This has been discussed in the last few pages of the Monero thread in the last 24 hours.

Summary:

1 - 3d NAND flash being mass produced will greatly negate future storage considerations.

2 - Off chain transactions by route of a third party

3 - Removing the block chain below a certain transaction

Maybe you have better ideas? Again, it's a speculative issue .. but still something to consider.


This was also addressed today. Currently there is a MIP being worked on that would fix subsidy at .333333. There is active discussion on whether or not it would be more beneficial to support a fixed low inflation of about 1%, or a fixed emission of .333333. There was also talk of whether or not these values should be fixed or variable. The effects of both become apparent only years to decades after they would be implemented, but it is an active stance on moving toward a currency that does not have to survive on transaction fees alone. Do you have any particular tendency to favor an inflation or fixed subsidy?