 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »
|
|
Hello Stephen.
Some problems I found in the OP:
- The linked specifications file doesn't seem to exist.
- The reward policy link requires authentication.
- Your linkedin link requires authentication. There is probably another way to link to it, though I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't, as linkedin has become so aggressive in their spam and tries to make everyone register.
I have read the paper and really liked it. Wouldn't it be good to add a little summary in the OP and insist on reading the paper, as most people tend to skip the links? Because at first sight, for someone who skips the paper, it seems like there aren't even any ideas on the concrete solution yet.
|
|
|
|
Forgive me for saying this again, but using inflation as a means to pay miners (or anyone else) sounds a lot like a government "trick".
It is, in a way, except that it's exactly Satoshi's trick that makes these coins possible. Since the network has no access to resources from outside the network, it can only rely on internal resources to reward miners. Which basically comes down to issuing coins out of thin air. No one disputes that this is how PoW coins work. The only issue is what happens "in a long time" when the rewards diminish to near zero or zero. If you don't like issuing coins out of thin air, then you really can't like Satoshi-style PoW coins. You wouldn't be alone, BTW, there are plenty of critics. Obviously there is a difference between issuing coins until certain max cap is reached (or at least tending towards a limit - as in calculus -), and issuing coins forever at an ever growing rate (which is what happens when you set a % of inflation). One resembles the mining of gold, the other one is exactly like fiat. |
|
|
|
It is well established that finite money supplies don't work over the long term.
Not a promising strategy in a currency.
Gold has done just fine for thousands of years. There are only two reasons why nobody spends it: - The problems it has due to its physical nature - Government bans But a lot of people including the biggest banks use it as a store of value, hence the price it has. Smooth was just telling us how he sees economics as a pseudoscience, and I agreed. So please don't say things like "it is well established that" inflation is good and deflation is bad. It's like a fallacious appeal to authority. Precisely one of the things Satoshi wanted to experiment was going against mainstream economics. If we want Monero to succeed, we shouldn't change every aspect of Bitcoin. Nobody says crypto inflation is "free" money. That's the point. All new coins require work, inflation or not.
I know. I'm just saying it's unfair to make people pay for services they don't use. The discussion would be easier if instead of saying "inflation will pay for that" we simply said "savers will pay for that". If it is true that inflation is not an incentive for spending, then we are in trouble because fiat does have incentive to spend, and we won't be able to compete.
Agreed. And I think this is the case and we are in trouble, unless we back off from this idea that inflation is good for a currency that people is not forced to use. For a currency that people is forced to use, it's not good or bad, it simply doesn't matter for its survival because people will have to use it anyway. But it's bad for the people. - Hoarding + privileged mining = shrinking supply in circulation
- Little to no block reward means tx witholding and competitive fee escalations
- Perpetually increasing value means disincentivized spending
- Perpetually increasing tx fees mean disincentivized spending
What is the takeaway here? You are punishing the spenders.
I wouldn't say you are punishing spenders, since you are not forcing them to do anything, and you are not stealing anything from them. In the case of an inflationary currency you are punishing the savers by stealing from them. You could say they shouldn't have saved in such a currency to begin with, but where will that leave the price? There is a common belief that the amount of transactions is far more important for the price than the savers/investors, which is absolutely false. Number of transactions is only an interesting indicator that the currency has a lot of utility, that it's accepted everywhere. Utility drives the price up, spending for no reason does not. One guy above was even suggesting that we punish stale coins, and that we move our coins for the sake of it. That's dogma right there. If you, like me, want to see the price go "to the moon", what you want is savers/investors. It's a virtuous circle, and we have seen it on Bitcoin: Investors jump in, price goes up, mining becomes more profitable which brings more hashing power, therefore more security, which makes it more interesting for more conservative investors, prices goes up, we hit the news, and so on. Also nobody answered this: What's wrong with using offchain transactions for small buys? That way nobody is punished, not even spenders. |
|
|
|
Ok, you say it forces consolidation. That doesn't seem intuitive at all. Do you have any evidence for it? All PoW coins seem to favor consolidation. I don't think it has anything to do with the relation between fees and inflation. Can you elaborate on this?
In a competitive market prices converge to marginal cost. In the case of transactions, this includes things like the cost of electricity to actually verify the transactions as valid, bandwidth, and the increased risk of orphans if you include more transactions in your block. It does not include the cost of performing proof-of-work. The only way miners who are "paid by transactions" are able get paid for performing proof-of-work is by overcharging by the transactions themselves, and they can only do this if they have some sort of market power. Thus it is impossible for mining to be competitive if proof-of-work is paid by transaction fees. It also results in further destructive incentives, as miners try to scoop up and horde transactions (for example using a sybil attack), since transactions are no longer competitively priced, but no represent a source of profit to be "mined." There is also the free rider argument. If long-term-holders just hold and don't perform transactions (i.e. generate fees), miners won't do work, and the block chain won't be secure. The holders could do the mining themselves, but again only if they collude. Individually the incentive is for each holder to sit out and let the others holders pay the costs. The higher transactions fees go (to pay for proof of work, remember?), the greater the incentive to just sit on your coins and not pay them. This only reaches an equilibrium if some individual or group acquires all or most of the long-term holdings, so that individual or group can pay the mining costs without being exploited by free riders. Failing that, you have insufficient security, and likely such a coin will never become very successful (this includes bitcoin, although I think its possible now that bitcoin becomes a version of fiat). So no structural mining reward means either extreme concentration of power, either in mining or holdings or both. Pricing remains an issue though, as no one has come up with a good model for how much mining should be performed, and how it should be paid for. "None" is clearly wrong though, in the proof-of-work model. Using proof-of-stake (if that can be made to actually work) or something else is another question. Bitcoin can't be a version of fiat even if it is consolidated. For example: - Miners can't steal your savings - Miners can't add inflation or anything like that, because they can't change the protocol No one will hold forever just because it is deflationary. And even if someone does, he doesn't need to secure his own coins. Like I said your coins can't be stolen. You only need security at the time of receiving money, because you don't want to be played by a double-spender. Of course you also want security for the coins to hold value. But everyone spends. You can't live without spending. Imagine a world in which Bitcoin has reached its full potential. There will be no "Herp derp, I will hoard coins and only spend fiat". Even today, bitcoiners like myself are already paying for everything or almost everything in Bitcoin, simply by refilling their wallet after a spend, or periodically. A deflationary currency won't make you do anything you don't already want to do. Not letting people save is just cruel. Forgive me for saying this again, but using inflation as a means to pay miners (or anyone else) sounds a lot like a government "trick". "Not enough money? No problem, just print more! Steal from the savers! Those idiots, lol!". I have one example that might help further explain the unfairness of this. Imagine a person that is a huge saver, very responsible, very austere life, only spends on what he needs, and is always thinking about his and his family's future. If there is inflation, at some point the person won't be able to earn any more money. At some point, the percentage that is taken from him will be equal to what he earns. How is this possible? How can this be fair? One should be able to do whatever one wants with his own wealth. Want to save everything for harsher times? Good for you. No "Hey, u have too much! Gimme some!" bullshit. I definitely think PoW consolidation is bad, and I'm excited about proposals like this one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=584719.0But I continue to disagree on that inflation can stop consolidation, or that it will let miners not "overcharge". Transactions cost what the free market decides they cost. If transactions end up being too expensive for small buys like a soda, I don't see what's the problem. Just use offchain transactions (like Satoshi predicted) or a separate and less secure currency (which you could think of as a subtype of offchain transactions). Also, if you let miners live without transaction fees, won't they be able to manipulate us by overcharging? If you don't pay a huge fee, they don't add your transaction. They don't need it anyway, because inflation will pay for everything. Nothing good can come up from giving people free or unconditional money. But if they need your transaction fees, an equilibrium will be reached between their need for the fees and your need for the service, or else they will run out of business. |
|
|
|
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.
It's not. But keeping coins moving is. Any waste of resources in this instance is negligible. But I am more likely to spend coins if I am consciously aware of them as a resource, as would be required in order to move them. The good for the economy part is emission which compensates for lost coins. They will have higher velocity than average. Inflation is not an incentive to spend unless you are forced into using only that currency, like governments do to their own people. Do you have plans on forcing everyone to use Monero? Because if you don't, this will fail. I love everything about this coin, except for the inflation. And I talked to many bitcoiners and they independently arrived to the same opinion. One of the main uses for Bitcoin that a lot of people like, is as a store of value. It rewards saving, like gold, as opposed to what fiat does, which punishes saving and responsible spending. This also has ethical implications, like supporting or not consumerism and its ecological impact. Why do you want to force people into buying things they don't need? The economy can't grow undefinitely, sometimes it has to shrink for the benefit of the world and all of us. If someone is selling a product that people don't need anymore, what's wrong with him moving into something else? Why not "force" him into building things we need (if anything at all), instead of forcing us into buying them anyway? Inflation goes against the free market in that sense. Also, if you want the price to go up, there's nothing better than having people use it as a store of value. Being able to use the currency (utility) also drives the price up, though not immediately (but the good news can have a fast effect). Forcing people into spending it won't. And it will certainly not attract new savers. I consider virtually all macroeconomics to be junk science) but from a practical one. I agree. I'm not saying "This is true because my teacher said so". I only had one class of economics at school and it sucked, it was all dogma. I'm just using observation and logic. Everyone is free to tell me "your observation/reasoning is wrong because X". I want to continue to pay miners without relying on transaction fees, because the latter forces consolidation, and worse, to give miners the market power to charge more than marginal cost.
If you don't have inflation (or demurrage, which I consider equivalent) how are you going to pay miners?
You are going to have to pay them one way or another. I only see two ways: inflation or transaction fees. The former would be paid by everyone (inflation is not free money), the latter only by those who need to transact. I don't know why you believe it's right to make everyone pay for a service they are not using. That sounds a lot like a government. What's wrong with letting people pay for the services they use? Nothing good can come out from letting people (in this case the senders) spend money that isn't theirs. Let's imagine an extreme scenario: A currency with zero fees. People would generate a ton of transactions they don't need at all, just because it's free. It would also attract trolls and spammers, and other scourges. That can't happen if it is their own money they are spending. Ok, you say it forces consolidation. That doesn't seem intuitive at all. Do you have any evidence for it? All PoW coins seem to favor consolidation. I don't think it has anything to do with the relation between fees and inflation. Can you elaborate on this? |
|
|
|
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.
It's not. But keeping coins moving is. Any waste of resources in this instance is negligible. But I am more likely to spend coins if I am consciously aware of them as a resource, as would be required in order to move them. The good for the economy part is emission which compensates for lost coins. They will have higher velocity than average. Inflation is not an incentive to spend unless you are forced into using only that currency, like governments do to their own people. Do you have plans on forcing everyone to use Monero? Because if you don't, this will fail. I love everything about this coin, except for the inflation. And I talked to many bitcoiners and they independently arrived to the same opinion. One of the main uses for Bitcoin that a lot of people like, is as a store of value. It rewards saving, like gold, as opposed to what fiat does, which punishes saving and responsible spending. This also has ethical implications, like supporting or not consumerism and its ecological impact. Why do you want to force people into buying things they don't need? The economy can't grow undefinitely, sometimes it has to shrink for the benefit of the world and all of us. If someone is selling a product that people don't need anymore, what's wrong with him moving into something else? Why not "force" him into building things we need (if anything at all), instead of forcing us into buying them anyway? Inflation goes against the free market in that sense. Also, if you want the price to go up, there's nothing better than having people use it as a store of value. Being able to use the currency (utility) also drives the price up, though not immediately (but the good news can have a fast effect). Forcing people into spending it won't. And it will certainly not attract new savers. |
|
|
|
Hi guys. I need some help if you don't mind.
1. I just followed Linux 64bit binaries to download the wallet. Why binaries if it's open source, Is this legit?
2. I'm running chakra (arch based / kde) no will to change to something else. So hopefully it'll work. I see I have 4 files: bitmonerod, connectivity_tool, simpleminer, simplewallet. What do I start? Is it enough to just execute:
./simplewallet --generate-new-wallet wallet.bin
??
3. Once I generate new wallet what do I need / do to backup it ?
Thanks.
3. You only need to back up the keys file, and you only need to do that once. |
|
|
|
When I first started my wallet, I didn't encrypt it. How can I encrypt it now? I'm using simple wallet.
Another question: How does the Monero wallet decide what other signatures to use to sign a transaction when I say to use n signatures? Does it select them randomly from the blockchain?
Thanks!
I'm pretty sure it's encrypted - always. There's no ability to create an unencrypted wallet. Yea but I can spend from my wallet without typing a password. So it must not be encrypted. My guess is that your password is empty. That doesn't make it plaintext, it just makes it trivial to guess the password. Just looking at the code... I think it is possible that there is no PW set. if(!command_line::has_arg(vm, arg_password) ) { LOG_ERROR("Wallet password not set."); return 1; } Not the best code to prove it but it's 2am and I need to sleep.  Best to use additional encryption anyway - or generate a new wallet w/ a password and send to there. The wallet software is still evolving though as the PW doesn't seem changeable. Can you give examples of additional encryption? I'm kinda new to cryptography. If you want to encrypt your keys file for storing it somewhere else safely or print it you can do this on Linux: # Encrypt:
$ openssl aes-256-cbc -base64 -in file -out file.aes-256-cbc.enc
# Decrypt:
$ openssl aes-256-cbc -base64 -in file.aes-256-cbc.enc -out file -d
|
|
|
|
When I first started my wallet, I didn't encrypt it. How can I encrypt it now? I'm using simple wallet.
Another question: How does the Monero wallet decide what other signatures to use to sign a transaction when I say to use n signatures? Does it select them randomly from the blockchain?
Thanks!
I'm pretty sure it's encrypted - always. There's no ability to create an unencrypted wallet. Yea but I can spend from my wallet without typing a password. So it must not be encrypted. Someone mentioned the wallet won't be encrypted if you don't suffix it with ".bin". Not sure if true. |
|
|
|
|
Please put Monero back, it's the only altcoin that matters to be honest.
|
|
|
|
pump and dump
Registered: June 03, 2014
It's funny how new members call it pump and dump, while hero members see value in it. Let me guess, you are just another darkcoiner. |
|
|
|
Why should I invest in this coin, what makes it better than other coins?
- It's based on Cryptonote, which you could say is the first significant innovation in the altcoins world. It allows us to have anonymous transactions, much better than the Darkcoin fad (which is just CoinJoin but badly implemented). - It uses the blockchain technology, but is not a Bitcoin copy/paste, it's a complete rewrite. - The dev team is very competent, they even started a partnership with I2P. - Lots of Bitcoin early adopters including myself loved it at first sight. That's no coincidence. - Gregory Maxwell, Bitcoin core dev and creator of CoinJoin, talked very well about the way ring signatures are used here. - Fair launch, no ninja-mine, etc. |
|
|
|
|
#1 Bitcoin - network effect
#2 Monero - anonymity thanks to ring signatures, fair launch, great dev team
#3 Shibecoin jk :p
|
|
|
|
People are still using SMS? The MYR devs are thinking micro-transfers in the 3rd world... MYR did triple at one point today. I live in the third world and everyone uses whatsapp. Then if you guys are so ahead of the curve... Explain to me why an innovative team did it... and why the price tripled. The future is all about convenient smart devices... not 10 GB blockchains, etc. Penny stocks can be pumped easily. Just look at Darkcoin, Dogecoin, etc., all of which went up much higher than your coin. Dogecoin is worth more than Monero.... Every cryptocoin is a penny stock.. That's what I'm saying, no? I'm not the one who claimed pump = innovation. |
|
|
|
People are still using SMS? The MYR devs are thinking micro-transfers in the 3rd world... MYR did triple at one point today. I live in the third world and everyone uses whatsapp. Then if you guys are so ahead of the curve... Explain to me why an innovative team did it... and why the price tripled. The future is all about convenient smart devices... not 10 GB blockchains, etc. Penny stocks can be pumped easily. Just look at Darkcoin, Dogecoin, and many other copycoins, all of which went up much higher than your coin. That doesn't make them innovative. |
|
|
|
People are still using SMS? The MYR devs are thinking micro-transfers in the 3rd world... MYR did triple at one point today. I live in the third world and everyone uses whatsapp. |
|
|
|
People are still using SMS? |
|
|
|
|
Monero is back in Bittrex, they renamed it to XMR.
|
|
|
|
This is the first altcoin I like too. Bytecoin has brought us some serious innovation. Let's hope Monero can deliver with its fair launch and everything else.
Btw, is there any info available about the developer? Does he fully understand the design and code of the project he forked?
If there is one Bytecoin clone that has a active community and support from respected members its Monero. Lots is going on and the core people involved are mostly early adaptors of BTC. This should give you some trust i guess? About the developer. The coins was launched by TFT and got supported by the early BCN fans. After the community wanted to propose stronger feature's TFT handed over the coin to the community and XMR evolved from 1 dev to a group of people with a lot of crypto experience and a heart for doing things the proper way (not the typical alt clone dev's). They already fixed some core issues that where present in BCN, optimised the hashing, developed a pool, standalone miners, a QT wallet and also new RPC calls. All these things are build on top of the BCN code so yes, they understand the code better each day. Hope this answerrs your question Thanks! It helps, though I would like to read it myself. Is there a list with their names/pseudonyms or other credentials? There is zero info in the website and OP. And what is TFT? |
|
|
|
|
