I hear you, and would be more inclined to lean towards conspiracy as well, but I was observing the DRK thread from early on and he placed a few WTB orders on the board before the coin ever hit an exchange. Why do that if you already have a secret stash? Anyway all I was really trying to say was that for coins like DRK and MRO, ninja launch, small instamine, or whatever you want to call it will do little to scare most people off when they see how much the coin has to offer in contrast to the other 99%.
I guess nobody's gonna know for sure, the story is what it is and the future will be built on top of it. What matters most is that he grew into the developer role well, and it will be great to see how all these new privatized currencies play out when new capital comes into the picture -- which is exactly what the privacy is inviting. That, I'm excited for most. We're at the beginning of a major change on the cryptocurrency landscape, and it's more than easy to tell. |
|
|
|
Launch issues were negligible in my eyes as far as DRK went because most miners didn't care anyway. 90% of them were out looking for another scrypt clone to point their GPUs at, CPU coins had a bit of a stigma about them at the time.
Your opinion doesn't really detract from nor justify the fact that the reason for the instamine was due to an incorrect coding of difficulty retargeting, something that would have been realized in a testnet if it had been in a testnet for even a day. For a guy that took the time to put x11 together, who is so intent on doing everything himself, and so intent on using the testnet -- don't you think he'd want to spend at least a day on mining it before release? I get that the amount is negligible to a lot of people, but what's not acceptable is that I just can't believe it was an accident. Great developer overall, and a great community . . but the jumpy decisions to tie up the supply in some kind of tax or cause shocks scared me away. Hope nothing but growth for them, but I'm too scared to go back. |
|
|
|
The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided. Well the pool on the forum failed to get a majority but there is zero protection against ballot stuffing with newbie accounts so who knows what that really means. If we had a voting mechanism in the coin itself we could use that to get a more reliable vote, but we don't. I do agree there is a widespread objection about either taking coins away or giving early miners an unfair advantage, so it likely best to just leave it the way it is and implement a longer term fix to the somewhat overly fast curve over the scale of years/decades as eizh mentioned. Can this be resolved with something like slowly moving the block target to 2 or 2.5 or x minutes over the course of a few years? At this point, it would probably be much more favorable to come up with long-term, barely visible solutions rather than shocks. I don't know the protocol though -- you guys do so I'm probably just making it harder than it needs to be. It sounds like you're in favor of somehting like this too. I get what you're saying about ballot stuffing, lots of new accounts in this thread. I understand the need to have a correction, but is there any way to cause it to appear as a crawl rather than a shock? I'd rather lose a miniscule amount every day rather than rip out a tooth all at once . . if possible. |
|
|
|
The emission curve vote was rejected by a bit over 60% earlier when there were fewer people involved so it will fail by even larger margin now. The reason is simple: the OTC exchange has a pretty sizable volume and the amount of hardware dedicated to this coin is getting larger. Part of how people price the currency unit or decide how much hardware to dedicate to mining it is to compare the amounts they gain to the eventual maximum supply. Amount relative to current supply also matters, certainly even more, but it's undeniable that the former is involved. People have been making these decisions based on the current curve.
In order to fairly implement an emission curve change, we need to retroactively adjust everything mined up to that point. If we don't, it's an instamine where the early adopters changed the rules in the middle of the game to benefit themselves. But on the other hand, a retroactive adjustment means miners/buyers/sellers all made decisions on false information. This is why there were a lot of complaints about "taking my coins away" earlier.
So the most agreeable thing to do is to leave the curve as it is. About 8 years from now, we'll have a problem where the block reward is fairly small and miner don't mine for nothing. The solution to that is to implement a minimum subsidy. This would cause a sub-1% inflation that decreases over time and keeps miners happy to ensure network security. tacotime will probably implement this in hard fork in the near future.
Thanks eizh for explaining, I missed this news that this was what was decided. |
|
|
|
i here tft is no longer part of the project. so is he forking or relaunching bytecoin under new name and new parameters (merged mining with flatter emission curve.) also. what is the end consensus for the emission curve for monero. will it be adjusted.
just curious.
I don't think anyone's addressed the emission curve. It's a tough issue and I'm glad it seems like everyone's decided to wait. With more people coming in over time, we'd get a better vote of what people want . . rather than prematurely deciding. I would think it will need to be addressed soon though, if it's going to happen. Also, I don't know about tft. I would imagine he's reading the thread/irc often enough to hear the updates. Maybe posting under a different name? Maybe still contributing, quietly? It's too bad, he and amphibian seemed to have quite a bit to bring to the development of the coin. But the consensus was that not enough people wanted merge mining to make it a viable option for the coin. I do hope tft returns to the community, at least actively. Fortunately we still have many very experienced, talented and driven people keeping up with development. It seems HoneyPenny is implementing a merge-mining concept, so possibly they've paired up? There was a thread started for tft's/amphibian's fork, but it's been quiet for almost a week now. |
|
|
|
|
Nice movement on the spreadsheet exchange:
14.17 BTC volume so far for 5/5 -- a large amount for a spreadsheet exchange. That's 3.65x more than yesterday, and the price has went up from a .000442 average yesterday to .000796 (average for the day), a gain of 80%.
It looks like people are gaining a lot of trust in Smooth - a great thing, we're recovering from the departure of TFT, there's lots of news about a pool coming very soon, the blockchain didn't get stuck, the newest update was successfully pushed through, the hashrate doubled, and the miners have been optimized (even though there's currently a favor toward windows machines, but it sounds like that's being worked on).
Lots of great news! Looking forward to seeing even more new people posting every day.
|
|
|
|
First thought here is that I've won something. I feel like I'm winning every time I look at this. Even better is that nothing about the image says that there's a catch, just pure winning  The texturing on your second one makes me think of a record. Nobody can put down that they sound the best. |
|
|
|
The eye thing is kind of awkward for me. Any reason you put it there? Looks clean though!
I agree about eye, made it less active for convenience. "M" crossed out or closes the eye (supervision). It represents the anonymity of transactions in the system. From simple to complex:)  The de-emphasis revision brings out the M much better! I'm no longer constantly looking at the eye This might shift the undertone to that of being constantly watched for some though, but as usual it's probably just me that has that thought. I like the highlighted 'one', that's fantastic. Nice play here includes the sign being MRO, and that 'one' is left just works nice in my head. Like MRO is designed for me. Out of the three, #1 stands out the most. |
|
|
|
Coloring like Stablecoin! This makes me feel like the nostalgia is now within my reach. SBC made similar promises to what this coin offers, but the dev was unfortunately not able to deliver due to life taking precedence. This with the over-emphasized M makes me feel like I'm taking part in something big, powerful and exciting. |
|
|
|
Here my 2nd submission. A bit more metallic and minimalistic:  High-reshttps://www.dropbox.com/s/clr49weur0z9x5w/monero-logo%202.png
I like that the image in the center can be taken as both a B for bitmonero, or M for monero, or E for esperanto. It's got a nice symmetry to it that I can easily identify to all three of those things -- this is key for a logo. Have you thought about varying the colors? The green-on-green looks doesn't contrast great and would be harder to see what the logo is at smaller resolutions. Also, I feel like the green-white or full green look I see come up a lot has already been played out with Vertcoin.
I'm really not following you with the hat . . could you explain this a little more? I'm not seeing the symbolism.
Awesome ideas!
Tomorrow I will try to recolor it maybe, but - unlike you - I don't immediately get associations with Vertcoin as long as it is not white-green or dark green The hat thingy: FOr me anonymity got always represented with either a padlock or a black person with a hat and maybe a question mark all over the face, like thisI got it now, it's been a long time since I've seen that image though. We could totally bring it back! Thanks for explaining. Yeah, I was being a little too into it when I said that it reminds me with Vertcoin .. more that it reminds me of St. Patrcik's Day .. makes me associate with luck, and of course money The new color scheme you have makes me think futuristic, which is pretty great! |
|
|
|
Made a revision to the mask logo -- think it looks cleaner than the last one:  I think this change makes the face look sexy/alluring rather than intimidating, definitely an improvement with the friendly matching "monero". Just an idea here -- every time I see the letter "B" now I think of bitcoin. Anyone think that it would be beneficial to claim the "M" or "m" in a similar fashion? Is that already done? The mask is pretty cool, immediately can associate with parts of the protocol that makes the coin. |
|
|
|
What happened here? It looks like the middle of the picture is missing? A problem with hoster ?   Yes, I think it was a problem with the hoster. It shows up now. I'm drawn to your key-design, not really sure why. It looks great -- maybe the metallic look and the happy looking shape of the M? The way you designed the shield design makes me think of warner brothers. It's a cool look, but I still think of them first. |
|
|
|
here's my suggestion  This is a cool idea. I feel like the orange you used takes too much from both bitcoin and bytecoin, any other color ideas? Also, the $ in the middle -- can you change it to the M with bars in it I've seen come up numerous times? I think that would look nice, what do you think? The logo guidelines tell us that a logo should be developed firstly in B&W ... when I post that I was just showing the conceptual idea ... I would like to show the letter "M" ; the conception of community and p2p all together ... I should get a better design program capable to work with layers etc... unfortunately I have no spare time ... but for anyone who liked it please feel free to do any modifications ... and if you get 300bmr and would like give some tip to me I'll be happy  ps-> there are a nice videos tutorials on Lynda.com about branding and logo design ... check out .. http://www.lynda.com/articles/6-attributes-of-good-logo-designA simple logo must be constant on all branding and collateral products too Thanks for the link, I don't know anything about logo creation . . but feel comfortable sharing what little thoughts I have when I see them. I also like that the 4 m's give the impression of abundance (for me at least), and symmetry is always a great thing to have. I think the bounty is up to 600 now, according to the new thread. |
|
|
|
my submission inspired by Esperanto jubilee symbol  I like this one a lot. Again, the green-on-green is already kind of played out by Vertcoin. I feel like the shapes would play on the contrast well with smaller sizes you provided. Not that this coloring is a bad idea, more that I think people will think of Vertcoin before Monero here. It looks very simple and clean -- symmetry seems to stand out a lot better with shapes instead of letters. |
|
|
|
Here is a cross post from the old thread: here's my suggestion This is a cool idea. I feel like the orange you used takes too much from both bitcoin and bytecoin, any other color ideas? Also, the $ in the middle -- can you change it to the M with bars in it I've seen come up numerous times? I think that would look nice, what do you think? I'm digging the liberal use of stars! But, they seem to be bottom-heavy and that leaves half of the image feeling light with the one lonely little star on top. Any reasoning for the stars? |
|
|
|
This is a cool idea. I feel like the orange you used takes too much from both bitcoin and bytecoin, any other color ideas? Also, the $ in the middle -- can you change it to the M with bars in it I've seen come up numerous times? I think that would look nice, what do you think?
Better to post in the new monero thread, the name has changed now. This thread should be locked by op Already did, actually I commented on all the logos that stood out to me there first. I don't think TFT will be locking the threads ever, so we're left with two logo threads it seems. Fortunately they're both for the same coin . . provided people are making logos for the coin I would hope they're able to piece together that the name is now Monero and not Bitmonero though. Maybe I have too much faith though I'll just cross-post everything to that thread. |
|
|
|
I'm digging the liberal use of stars! But, they seem to be bottom-heavy and that leaves half of the image feeling light with the one lonely little star on top. Any reasoning for the stars? |
|
|
|
here's my suggestion This is a cool idea. I feel like the orange you used takes too much from both bitcoin and bytecoin, any other color ideas? Also, the $ in the middle -- can you change it to the M with bars in it I've seen come up numerous times? I think that would look nice, what do you think? |
|
|
|
I like that the image in the center can be taken as both a B for bitmonero, or M for monero, or E for esperanto. It's got a nice symmetry to it that I can easily identify to all three of those things -- this is key for a logo. Have you thought about varying the colors? The green-on-green looks doesn't contrast great and would be harder to see what the logo is at smaller resolutions. Also, I feel like the green-white or full green look I see come up a lot has already been played out with Vertcoin. I'm really not following you with the hat . . could you explain this a little more? I'm not seeing the symbolism. Awesome ideas! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
