Okay let's consider this an official proposal then, open for comments: Once the base reward declines below 0.3/minute, then reward will switch to inflationary at a target rate of 0.8888888....%/year (actual rate may deviate slightly in practice due to variations in block rate, block reward penalty, rounding, etc.) I suppose this is a bit of a late vote, but still wanted to express an opinion on this one for the record. Looks like Moo had a very special find there, I'm all-in for the 8/9 inflation rate!  |
|
|
|
Figure I could stop by to say that I'm running the latest wallet without issues (and a single masternode). I didn't have to reconfigure anything at all, but I suppose that's because I was already setup to use a config file when I had the previous wallet versions. The standard windows wallet would be nice though.  |
|
|
|
My one complaint is that the Ziftrcoin team has been generally too quiet. Would be nice if they'd speak up to the community every now and then, even if just to let us know how things are going.  |
|
|
|
|
Awesome release Epsy! I'm out for a few more days and can't reliably reach my rig for the time being, but can't wait to test this out.
The pool (& algo) switching will be super handy, great work indeed!
|
|
|
|
I'm against changing the minimum block size, this is a perfect case for Monero adaptability and if theres demand it should go up by the algorithm. No need to change IMO. While I would agree with you in principle, there are other things to consider. Will follow up with discussion on the linked thread. |
|
|
|
Do you guys think my new AMD miner will change anything?
Short term, I think not. Long term, I think it certainly will. |
|
|
|
Isn't this way over thinking it? Just let everyone invest as much as they want to, and devide the total currency supply proportionately to each persons contribution.
If you are prepared to fully trust the developers to not be buying their own tokens, sure, it's as good a solution as any. This approach does not rock my boat I should add. One might even say I have trust issues. |
|
|
|
Let's see. They can sell out all 250 million shares at say a fair value of $250,000 initial market cap, $250,000 cash, and 0% for themselves. Or they can set prices at $0.1 per share, sell only 0.1% of the shares so they get the $25,000 cash, $2.5 million market cap and 99.9% for themselves. Then as the price drops to a tenth to $0.01 those investors who didn't buy in the ICO come rushing in to buy the dip, and they still get their $250,000 cash and retain 90% for themselves. Hopefully you understand now why the market cap of Dash is entirely meaningless. *Note I am not asserting what I think the initial valuation of Iota should be. I have no idea. $1 million? Will depend on many things that are learned between now and launch, etc.. And I have no interest in expressing any opinion on the valuation. Then again, as you said, maybe not all investors are equally astute...
That would include those who can't do arithmetic.  Granted, my statements fall into the very subjective matter of what one considers to be a high or low price per share, and in effect, the initial valuation of Iota. Arguing the arithmetic posted is utterly pointless, as we have fundamentally distinct views on the potential realizations of demand and price. Funny enough, going by your own example, I draw quite different investment indicators and conclusions. I will not debate this further as I wish for my particular valuation to remain my own. Personally, I see unproven technology for emerging markets as being an extremely high risk investment, and I will value it accordingly. Talents and accomplishments might become extremely valuable (if functional success is delivered), but comparatively speaking, the product itself, is of little value, especially when it can be replicated/cloned/forked to exhaustion.
I don't agree. This is a valid concept. Micro transactions will become increasingly relevant in the coming years. And I don't see copycats as a major threat, or necessarily diminishing a projects value in such a meaningful way as you do. Reread my post. I did not say this was an invalid concept, nor anything even remotely close. In fact, I generally agree with your statement over the relevance of micro transactions in the coming years. However, I place no certainties on one technology or product succeeding over another, and I take no future achievements for granted (wide scale adoption being a key one), in this, or any other complex system still in development. So, you know, ... high risk. |
|
|
|
|
Arux compiled it before for the folks here to test.
Maybe he can have another go at it when he's around.
|
|
|
|
Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':
Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)
This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).
Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...
Sorry there is no difference from a premine. They can buy up most of the coins thus limiting the supply and thus they can set an artificially higher price per share for the ICO (some fewer investors are willing to pay a higher price than other investors, i.e. not all investors are equally astute). Review the math of my post again. Remember all ICO from other investors money ends up in their pocket, no matter how many coins they buy. [...] I disagree. A higher price per share (artificial or not), naturally balances the forces of (developer) greed vs (investor) demand. The higher the price, the more investor interest is dissipated on account of the lesser upside potential, and in the extreme case, one ends up left with a minority of investors/users, as well as has severely handicapped the adoption potential. Then again, as you said, maybe not all investors are equally astute... With a low enough price per share, the ICO naturally sells out. In such instance, would the developer trade a bit of external funding for some pie of their own token? Maybe. Would they do this for a significant portion of the total tokens for sale? Doubtful. Personally, I see unproven technology for emerging markets as being an extremely high risk investment, and I will value it accordingly. Talents and accomplishments might become extremely valuable (if functional success is delivered), but comparatively speaking, the product itself, is of little value, especially when it can be replicated/cloned/forked to exhaustion. |
|
|
|
|
Re: Premine vs PoW vs ICO vs User ID vs 'a life of crime':
Why not simply make a fixed number of tokens available, at a fixed price per token?
(If not sold out, any unsold tokens would then be provably burned)
This way, developers can still buy their own tokens, but in doing so, they are competing with the other users/buyers. Any tokens bought up by the developers, are tokens that become unavailable for someone else to buy. This is much better than the usual premine, in the sense that the developers are trading a portion of potential outside funding, in exchange for whatever tokens they buy for themselves (aka, putting their money where their mouths are, because they then become a truly interested party, after funding).
Tying up to an existing coin (or coins) seems interesting as well. That would likely attract the widest user foundation, though possibly at the expense of most (all?) of the funding potential...
|
|
|
|
Im having some trouble getting my wallet to sync,
Its stuck with 66364 blocks remaining,
It is version 1.2
Any suggestion?
Unless you had just downloaded the wallet in the past couple of days, you will not have the necessary version. A "fixed" 1.2 had been posted just recently, precisely to address this issue. So, check the OP, download the latest, should be all good to sync from scratch (I have not checked myself, didn't happen to need it). |
|
|
|
|
So transaction security is actually reliant on the subsequent transaction volume for the overall network?
I imagine that the picture above would look quite different if the attacker simply chooses to mount his attack during a period of negligible transaction volume (thus low weight build-up on the legitimate tangle). I'm probably missing something (or a lot)...
|
|
|
|
Plenty of bounties still available. Looking for more games and faucets in particular right now as well as mobile (staking and non) wallets
Please see PM. Thanks! |
|
|
|
Please XMR community/devs - don't let these changes turn XMR into a pozni!
Less than 1% inflation is acceptable as it will compensate the lost coin and commensurate with the economic growth. Assuming economic growth of 1% a year and lost coin of 0.1% a year, the effective value of monero increase 0.1% a year. Looks like TooDumbForBitcoin was somewhat confused by the possible change to double the block spacing. To be perfectly clear, if/when block spacing changes, the block reward will change as well, such that in the end, the daily emission is exactly the same as before. No changes, no ponzi... Or was this about something else?  |
|
|
|
I would be surprised if you were to report that it was mining fast  That is a low power mobile Nvidia chip, of the oldest generation still supported (Fermi architecture). The fact that it can mine is neat and all, but it's certainly not going to be fast by any measure. Should also note that generally speaking, CPU's are just as good (if not better) at mining Aeon than GPUs, much like so happens with the parent algorithm, Cryptonight. The performance balance between GPUs and CPUs might change eventually, as GPU miner development is very much active at the moment, but I don't expect that the scale will end up favoring GPUs (or not by much anyhow). |
|
|
|
I'd been talking to Yobit to get DigiCube on their 'freecoins' page, which is basically a faucet system. I now have the details and we can run another faucet there, and this could help balance the interest/activity between Yobit and C-Cex. Dev: Will you send me some coins (and bounty) to get this giveaway going? You'll have my address already in PM, or I can send you the Yobit address instead as that is where the coins will need to go. Either way is fine, no loss in transaction fees anyhow  My plan was to set the faucet with 24 hour dripping periods (users can only claim coins once per day), and setting the drip amount to 0.01 DigiCube. Cheers! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
