That is the best way to make sure you don't lose your coins but it is also useful to back up the wallet cache file itself since it contains useful extra information beyond the minimum needed to recover coins (payment ledger, per-tx keys for proving payment).

11.11% is out of date, and was never correct anyway.

The total inflation is now about 8.5% (declining by 0.5% per year to a minimum of 0.9%), only portion of which impacts SP.

No it wasn't this is a fraud. Backdating was used to hide the 80% fraudulent premine.


No it isn't. Dashcoin was/is (not sure if it is still active) a fork of Bytecoin. Dashcoin and Dash are not the same.

Name calling is not a persuasive argument. There is good research and theory pointing both to ASICs being positive and negative so the issue is a lot more nuanced. Appealing to your alleged superior maturity actually demonstrates the opposite.

You may be right. What I would prefer and what may be possible aren't necessarily the same thing.

BTW, my views on this have nothing to do with Bitcoin and I don't even think Bitcoin is a very positive example when it coms to ASICs. For all we know Bitcoin's price could very well be much higher if the mining ecosystem were healthier.

Okay, I'm not a credentialed expert on accents, but it sure sounded Russian (or perhaps some nearby variant) to me. I also recalled it sounding like it may have been run through a mild voice changer.

It was certainly not American or British sounding, nor any native English speaker.

There are some interesting perhaps non-intuitive conclusions. They mention some of them in the non-technical summary or AMA:

1. An increase in the cost of mining implies a reduction in the coin value. Some have claimed that mining cost or energy cost backs the value of a coin given its cost of creation (or similarly, the claim that botnets reduce the coin value since their cost of mining is lower), but this appears not only wrong, but backwards.

2. ASICs increase hash rate security (and therefore coin value) but may reduce it due to reduced miner decentralization, so the effect is ambiguous (and depends on the relevant, and generally unknown, constant factors). Of course, the Monero community is aware of the second consideration, given the recent decision to fork out ASICs, but the ambiguity may be under appreciated. Personally I find it quite troubling and would prefer a way to win on both sides rather than grapple with a potentially intractable tradeoff.

3. There are multiple equilibria in any coin, one being the coin price at zero (so no mining rewards, no security, no value., etc.) This may be obvious but we don't see it much. However, it appears to reinforce the notion that a coin can completely fail.

4. Non-linearity can produce price and hash rate spirals. If someone spikes the price (say Roger Ver buying into Monero in 2016) and the hash rate follows, this can improve perceived security and perceived value to the point where the new value is self-sustaining. Perhaps this can occur by hash rate increases as well (even potentially due to ASICs or botnets joining the network). I guess this can happen in the other direction too (possibly leading to complete failure, i.e. #3?)

5. There is an optimal inflation rate that is not zero. Some amount of inflation subsidizes mining which increases the hash rate and then coin value so it is therefore self-supporting. This has been alternately stated many times in the past as avoiding the free rider problem where holders who do not transaction still benefit from mining security. It is actually quite obvious to most people who understand economics but remains highly controversial among Bitcoiners.

Reminder: As with most if not all of economics, this is only an idealized model, and doesn't necessarily accurately represent reality. Lessons may be learned from it, and they may be valuable, but they risk being wrong if the model is wrong.

Nice work.  BTW, 'Jenny' did a youtube and had a Russian accent. I don't have a link to it, nor do I know if it is still up.

Useful link to a non-technical summary of the paper: https://imperialcollegelondon.app.box.com/s/u1qark0r6cvdvzj4vp5s3xyfo9tkpjt8

Interesting comment relevant to ASICs in Monero:

Okay that requires modeling loss aversion which is considered 'irrational' and usually excluded from most (non-behavioral) economics, including this paper. Though of course not being rational doesn't make it any less real.

Probably one would want to include the degree of loss aversion in the model, for example, different classes of miners probably differ, but I won't pretend to suggest how.

In this paper increasing hash rate causes higher coin value/price due to greater perceived (and I suppose actual) security. I guess that is a similar result though via a different mechanism.

Probably true although the arc should perhaps emanate from security or legitimacy (both downstream of hash rate) rather than hash rate itself. Hash rate in and if itself isn't valuable, only what it accomplishes.

Also, the paper I linked doesn't attempt to model purely speculative value, although speculation based on a future value of the network is considered. As such the paper follows the structure of the diagram as-is, somewhat (increased hoarding would occur due to increased expected adoption). "Expected" not being mentioned in the diagram is perhaps a flaw.

Interesting paper on Bitcoin economics. Since Monero follows a nearly-identical PoW structure the paper can be applied to Monero as well.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3142022

The paper attempts to analyze and even in some cases quantify some of the structure incorporated into this famous diagram:

Well, look at the code. There is no plain english write up AFAIk, but it is open source after all.

The innermost loop is changed which is probably what you would want to burn into hardware directly for maximum efficiency, especially if you had no reason to expect such a change to be made.

Going forward there is more risk that ASICs may be built in a more flexible manner.

It was chosen as a round number a little below 1%


No, the fees scale with the block size.

There is a minimum that will be reached and then it won't decline any more (though since it is a fixed amount, it will become a smaller and smaller percentage over time). This has been discussed numerous times and we eventually decided on keeping the same emission rate as Monero, as it has been since the beginning. So the fixed amount will be 0.3 per minute, but with 4 minute blocks that ends up being 1.2 AEON per block.

Also, please don't double post the exact same thing to both threads.

He doesn't know anything, he's just an miserable and angry person with various crypto axes to grind. Its sad actually. Don't give him too much attention, he's absolutely not worth it.

There is a minimum that will be reached and then it won't decline any more (though since it is a fixed amount, it will become a smaller and smaller percentage over time). This has been discussed numerous times and we eventually decided on keeping the same emission rate as Monero, as it has been since the beginning. So the fixed amount will be 0.3 per minute, but with 4 minute blocks that ends up being 1.2 AEON per block.

No

The other "projects" (if they are actually real projects) are opportunists who came along and decided to adopt the old fork, mostly because ASIC manufactures want their own coin to mine. There are no existing team members involved with that at all.