|
The high Judge of the competition talks:
Everything is in place for giving the orange numbers for this month "after the 3rd day of the month". However, because acting on them requires some time, it is not reasonable to keep the deadline for submission of entries intact. Therefore, the submission of entries deadline for Round 6 is postponed for 72 hours. Same kind of action was taken in Round 1 and everything is still fine.
The next post will contain the numbers.
|
|
|
|
The supermajority (perhaps not of the people, but of the supporters of various altcoins) believe that the initial emission period should be rather short, to "get rid" of the pesky "inflation", so that the coin can "start rising in value".
I believe they are hoping in vain, because the "new money" not yet invested, does not see such a coin as a very interesting investment and do not buy it. So instead of a rise, a fall in value is the result.
The only way around this is to grow the real economy of the coin big enough, before the declining emission really hits. This can hardly be achieved in 1 year, so a considerable longer time before half is emitted should be the case.
How does "new money"'s perception of the coin change if the inflation period is long? I mean, what benefits are there in the long inflation period for investors? How is growing economy of the coin dependent on the length of the inflation period? to put it simple you need enough inflation to network and as little as to keep it as a store of value in a foreseeable future. What you said - the latter part - is exactly the fallacy.  |
|
|
|
|
The supermajority (perhaps not of the people, but of the supporters of various altcoins) believe that the initial emission period should be rather short, to "get rid" of the pesky "inflation", so that the coin can "start rising in value".
I believe they are hoping in vain, because the "new money" not yet invested, does not see such a coin as a very interesting investment and do not buy it. So instead of a rise, a fall in value is the result.
The only way around this is to grow the real economy of the coin big enough, before the declining emission really hits. This can hardly be achieved in 1 year, so a considerable longer time before half is emitted should be the case.
|
|
|
|
Okay I post them right away after compile, provided that I get the info from nikke. Sorry that this competition went wrong I also feel bad  Lucky me I did not promise for this month, otherwise would feel pressured  |
|
|
|
|
My short take on this, is that the following must be considered:
- Perpetual network security (inflation must always be high enough to secure the network - typically only a problem in the late stage that most coins have not addressed)
- Perception of premine (BCN was rejected outright because the coin was 82% mined when it hit the public; IMO the same will happen with whatever coin and fully regardless if it has been "fair" all the time, the mere fact that it is used by a smallish number of people when it hits the latter part of its issuance is enough to convey this perception, even BTC is problematic in this sense already)
=> Therefore the optimal coin issuance should be either connected to the growth of its economy (which is problematic to do trustlessly, and has not been tried in any coin except perhaps emunie that I don't know about) or tailored to hit its mature phase only when the userbase of the coin is established.
I urge you to read it again because most of the pundits believe that exactly the opposite is good for the coin.
|
|
|
|
what in gods name do you seriously expect when you come here and say your first Altcoin is Monero ?
I expect serious consideration from my peer group consisting of people in my level, and also those who believe that by learning from me they can reach higher. Never before or after, I have bought into another altcoin, so it is a great thing for me, which I gladly share with my supporters. As for moderated vs. unmoderated threads, the main issue is S/N-ratio. It's possible to buy sockpuppet work for $0.12-$0.20 per message. Just to take an example, NewLiberty posts here and the opportunity cost for him to write these messages is certainly about $100. It is possible to inundate his reasonable and insightful messages below a pile of junk at a price much cheaper than it is for him to write them. This is an economic attack which wears down the good posters so that in the end only the junk remains. (self)Moderation is a way to mitigate it. If you feel your contribution is not welcome, you can refrain from posting into such threads and do not lose anything. NewLiberty's readers gain by not needing to wade through the pile of junk when they are interested mainly in NewLiberty's contribution and the insightful responses to it. We have decided to continue posting in Bitcointalk, so you'll just have to accept it. If any of my posts infuriates you, consider the fact that I am not talking to you. I am talking to people who want to listen to me and learn from me. A humble button titled "Ignore" is there if my contribution is not welcome. |
|
|
|
I will just present a quick list of recent developments re: me and Monero - We rested after the "BCX attack/FUD" was put to rest. We haven't written the chronology yet. There is a proposal in the MEW concerning whether we officially expose the instigators or refrain from doing this and just hope that they will stop the dirty tricks and rather concentrate on building a strong community in their own coin instead. In Monero even this kind of things are decided by the community. - David Latapie is in charge of the membership and communication affairs of the MEW, I will more be in charge of the internal affairs. - To celebrate David's nomination to the Hotel Manager of the Grand Hotel Malla and the simultaneous nomination of him, me, and NewLiberty to the executives of MEW, we decided to have a Grand Dinner. The dinner lasted 8 hours. The pic is with Maria Jones from CoinTelegraph. - I met again the provider of "20 Monero Pizzas", Andres Jaadla the mayor of Rakvere (the county capital of Malla). He still does not have Bitcoin, only Monero. Yet he is building a Smart House Competence Centre in the town. His strong wish was that we arrange a Bitcoin ATM in the lobby of this state-or-the-environmental technology new construction. - In Tallinn in the Reception by Ambassador of Azerbaijan yesterday, my team (me, David and Dr. Choo) was introduced to many well-connected people including Ambassadors and Ministers. The contacts did not immediately lead to anyone buying Moneros but that was only because the event was just an introduction cocktail party. - Monero still seems much easier to sell to both junior and senior people alike than Bitcoin. It seems evident that the recent attacks have made the speculator community to shrink in size (because all my friends have just bought more, someone has to have been selling..) but this will be compensated with senior non-crypto people entering in. Unfortunately for altcoiners, there is not much early adopter advantage if you continue to sell this cheap, even at a loss. - I have a high level of trust both in the core team and in the executives and members of MEW, that in the next few weeks we can make the ecosystem of Monero much stronger. Also the infrastructure developments and services are constantly maturing behind the scenes. The future looks bright to me, and I will have more time myself to contribute now, as the 1.5-week conference is once again over |
|
|
|
Why do you attack me? I got out at the right time which is the absolute best thing that one could possibly do (improves holdings of the coin greatly when getting back in lower).
@OP even though I don't like you I have to agree with you for once.
Monero should be banned here so they finally get it.
Yes, I seriously think this way. Neglecting to open an own forum and posting there (like all other major coins do!) is extremely bad for the health of the coin. People hate the coin and I don't want to see that. Unfortunately a lot of Monero supporters aren't helping it by constantly attacking other users. It's a mess. One of the things that the MEW will address is this utter bullshit. There is (list is not conclusive but you get the idea): - no neglecting to open an own forum since there are Monero forums, IRC groups etc, plenty of them - no general hatred towards Monero, only a short list of pestilent sockpuppets, probably costing their masters not much, a few "honest" trolls, and similarly few people who are confused because of misunderstandings and sockpuppets' & trolls' actions - no monero users are attacking other users. People posing as monero users do. I invite all the trolls to join MEW and then vote on the matters, since if you do not do it, it will become evident to all that you do not own any monero and are just trying to confuse things! |
|
|
|
Who else is glad that they got out when Monero still had a lot more value than now?
If I were to get in again at this point I would've increased my holdings greatly
I have now spent more than a week in Malla, and after getting used to the normal life, this trollfest just feels... sad. I understand many of the people behind accounts created to attack Monero, and also to "support" it in stupid ways, really need the money. But still, sad, is the word. We are now starting the work. With the MEW. The focus of Monero has never been in the short term. We are doing important long term projects and decisions. So if dear reader wants to get involved, please check the moderated threads, it is obviously quite stupid for us to even write on the trollfest threads. |
|
|
|
I left that out of the speculation, since a hit would have been quite easy in the headlights from 20 meters.
Have a manned security station with a gate. Have a spike belt to flatten tires of the unwelcomed. Guns are your friend. If I choose that line of defence, it never ends. If I cannot be harassed in my place, my car may accidentally blow up. Or I may get suicided in a hotel room or unexpectedly jump to the icy sea from a Tallinn ferry. I believe it's much better to be friendly with everyone, while not sacrificing truthfulness, and have powerful friends. |
|
|
|
Hi! I read the whole thread and the air is so clear here |
|
|
|
I would respectfully request that if you insist on discussing this, that any and all comments or posts discussing ideas around "dev blocks", miner tax, adjusting the emission curve, threats to sell your stash if X happens, calls for the core team to wade through walls of posts and make some comment, and anything of that nature be taken to the MEW thread or anywhere else.
Let's, please, solidify ourselves and retain some degree of unity as we restart our activities and reevaluate our priorities, and we can have these in-depth and controversial discussions once the smoke has cleared.
I concur with my team mate fluffypony. A proposal has been made within MEW on this matter and that is the best place to discuss it. if you think the community will ever accept changes on emission or a dev block you are 100% wrong :p I want to agree with the core team members fluffypony and smooth here: The question of possible slashing of emission rate, with no change in total number of coins, will be addressed in due time in MEW first. It will be thoroughly discussed. Then it will be voted upon. Iff the votes are overwhelmingly in favor of a change, we will expect the change to happen. If not, there will be no change. The most difficult situation would be a close call or a strongly divided community, but we have the resources to handle these cases also. Only after it is clear if the community favors the change, will the devs even need to care about it. This lets them concentrate on their work (which admittedly they have a lot in front of them) and the MEW can concentrate on funding them (we already raised 2,500 XMR for the devs in 2 days). The discussion about the topic is very intriguing, but since it requires community vote instead of a I-yell-louder-with-more-sockpuppets-than-you contest (which btw was the way how the emission was voted upon last time, and the quickmine won over a more moderate curve), I exhort everyone who wants to have a vote, to join MEW. |
|
|
|
The beauty of MEW is that everyone may voice their own opinion and vote for it, and the majority wins. Even then, the core team may totally independently decide whether to act according to the guidance or not.
Majority of what? One man one vote? One coin one vote? Ranking systems? It's all arbitrary. I wish I could continue this discussion some more but I can't right now. I will try and come back later today or tomorrow. Most everything is arbitrary. That should, however, not lead to nihilism, believing that a bad modus operandi is equal to a good one. While a perfect one may not be possible to find, the aspiration to a better one should still be our aim. The founding fathers of the united States (sic), at least some of them, believed in that revolutions every once in a while are necessary, because a political system cannot make provisions for its own overthrow - there are limits to what can be accomplished inside the system. Yet they clearly saw that some system was necessary to wage a war of freedom from the greatest Empire on Earth until that time, plus for the building of a nation and guarding its independence from then on. We all know that it did not work out - at first the Constitution was amended, then it was enshrined, then it was mummified, and then it was essentially overthrown by the federal takeover of the liberties that were fought for, more than 200 years ago. The only real attempt of rebellion/revolution/reinstating the rights that the federal government was about to take away, was quenched with a military action in 1861-1865. From then on the freedoms have been on a descent. The following piece by NewLiberty won the Bitcoin Supernode Essay Contest early this year: Supernode Decision Making
Various proposals are considered but primarily differentiated between identity and investment.
Both types of systems are essentially voting systems, with the primary difference being the criteria for voting power. There are many different systems for voting, but these can be set aside for now.
Political systems have historically centered around identity based voting, but are also heavily influenced by investment into presentation of the messages upon which voters may base their voting decisions. These decisions are primarily government centered and usually determine high level office holders, taxation, spending, and etc.
Financial systems have historically centered around investment as the principal criteria for voting power. Shareholders may vote their shares or assigning them to others by proxy, large shareholders may be given board membership to make more detailed decisions.
For the Bitcoin Supernode system, the rationale for selecting one of these over the other, whether voting is representational of investment or identity can be determined by the focus and agenda of the supernode system.
The Bitcoin Supernode system has been described as a fundamental advocacy for the expansion and protection of the uniqueness of Bitcoin, through education and a focus on significantly increasing the liberty in the world, especially economic liberty.
This agenda and focus bridge both the political and financial arenas, however the mechanism of action of a supernode is primarily financial in activity, rather than political. This suggests that there may be some blending of both types of decision making, but where to draw the line between these?
For financial activity, investments, business development, and spending on education these are each financial decisions primarily. More narrowly, education and liberty activities may be political in nature. The natural blend here is facilitated by the identity based discussion and lobbying of ideas and proposals, with the financial based decision making of whether or not to fund such initiatives.
The element most fundamental to the supernode concept in making this determination is maximizing liberty, and any constraint on liberty for any end must be carefully considered. In this structure, individual identities have maximal liberty in a) forwarding their proposals, b) providing discussion and c) decision-support activities, while preserving the financial liberty of those funding the efforts as to whether the initiative will be funded.
Maximizing liberty through this structure the supernode benefits from encouraging the wealth of mental activity toward its goals, and likewise encouraging the wealth of funding those goals by maximizing the liberty of each. Individuals are free to advocate or not, and investors are free to fund or not.
Ancillary benefits to this method is its resistance to exploitation through pseudo-identity constructions. Members of a supernode would otherwise have an inappropriate incentive to create identities for the simple purpose of forcing investment through force of numbers. This incentive does not exist in the advocacy role as many similar comments and suggestions do not expand the wealth of options and can be reduced to a single choice among the available choices. Investment based voting does not bear the same risk as the expense of creating the investment is outweighed by the power influenced by that investment mathematically.
In the MEW, we explored several different grounds for basing the votepower. The aim was to gain the best possible legitimacy as the representation of the owners of the XMR. We went through different ideas, ranging from provable stake to semi-provable stake (via forum bragging) or reputation. The method selected was in the end very straightforward - 1 XMR "invested" in MEW gives 1 vote. We dropped all additional qualifications since we found that they were ineffective in protecting against Sybil attacks, and did not really add but rather subtract legitimacy that we aimed to have as the collective of the owners based on their stakes. Adding other requirements would have alienated the large not-connected owners and made this a club. Ideally, the votepower would also require provable holdings. The ideal way to prove them does not exist, however. The questions such as this, therefore become easier to handle: I suggest the dev team to put an end once and for all to this discussion with an official note that they wont be changing anything related to that.
Unlike most coins (some afaik do have a direct stake-based voting), Monero has an economic community vote. Whenever 10% of the community feels that any matter is important enough to be discussed and voted upon, it will be done. According to our charter, MEW disregards non-member attempts to influence its action, welcoming the interested parties to become members instead.
I exhort you (and tacotime whom you quoted) to become members if you want to be part of this discussion. Exhorting the devteam to take a collective stance on a matter that does have strong opinions by both sides, in a public forum with no ground of measuring legitimacy, is reckless at best and outright trolling at worst. We already suffered (well, gloriously defended against) a trolling attack, and do not want the pot to be stirred needlessly. There is consensus among the developers and the MEW that nothing that relates to the emission will be decided hastily. This will not be the first issue that the MEW handles. We develop our decision making process first with other matters that are less prone to knee-jerk responses to "sell all our coins" (I know this from experience since the MEW already has members in both emission camps that have promised to sell all they have if the opposite side wins  ) |
|
|
|
My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.
The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions. You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak. For the readers, it might be interesting to know that smooth is a member in the core team + also has a large stake in MEW hinting that he is one of the most involved people in Monero. If they make bad decisions in the core team, his personal investment also suffers. The beauty of MEW is that everyone may voice their own opinion and vote for it, and the majority wins. Even then, the core team may totally independently decide whether to act according to the guidance or not. Mostly, the matters that MEW is interested in do not even require the core team to implement. In these cases it is very easy - the burden of implementation rests totally on the ones who voted in favor. MEW is not trying to force the majority opinion on anyone. The rationale for voting is to measure the support on initiatives. For me personally, it would be a great tragedy if I spent my time doing something that most would not even want to use. Submitting my ideas to economic vote before implementation, saves me from many griefs. |
|
|
|
What's the update on funding efforts? (This is for Devs and MEW). With the effort that was put in over the last few days and continues to be put forth, I think some people might want to give back A thank you can only go so far. The devs (core team) and MEW are different entities. The funding requirements mainly arise from the work that is coordinated by the devs. The monthly burn rate for developing Monero by the 7 core team members and several specialists, is significant. So far there has not been an efficient mechanism for recouping the costs already paid by the devs, and supplying the ongoing efforts. Our developers are so great that it is not fitting for them to go around begging for donations, they have rather concentrated on their excellent work and paid the outside help from their own pocket. A great reason for MEW to even exist is that it can support the development. 50% of MEW membership fees are directed to the developers from the onset. So joining MEW automatically aids the development. More than 2000 XMR are thus received, from the founding members alone. MEW has a voting system where the community can vote on matters related to Monero. Some members have brought it to me (as Operational Executive, it is my job to arrange the voting if 10% of the votepower so requires) to exhort the devs that Monero software should be developed to include some or all of these: - a one-time bonus block that gives coins to the development (similar to premine that the other coins have, but "post-mine" and smaller in percentage); - Permanent diversion of some % of the block rewards to the development; - Slowing of emission curve, whose side effect would be that coins mined prior to the change would be considered a sort of fast mine. At this point it might be able to rally the owners of the privileged coins to donate large chuncks to the developers, since their remaining coins may likely gain in value. It must be further underlined that:
a) the core team cannot stop the MEW members from taking whatever to be voted upon, so merely the fact that something is being discussed and/or voted in MEW, does not mean that the core team is at all behind it, and may be against it, or not even considered it. b) if such proposal to do something with the software passes, the MEW's authority to enforce it stops there. The developers may do whatever with their coin. Since some of the core team members are also in MEW, their voting may indicate whether the resolution is likely to be implemented in the core team. The purpose of MEW is to be a legitimate and functional way to find out what the coin owners think how things should be developed. The owners of the coin are an important peer group to the developers, eg. for a reason that the aggregate demand for ownership determines the market cap (price of the coin). In any way you can donate to the developers directly to the donation address. Also hopefully even today, the MEW (in the mouth of David Latapie, the Members Executive) will announce that the membership is opened for everybody starting at 10 XMR entry fee. Personally I believe excess funding leads to problems with prioritization, thus the "lean and hungry" approach will lead to better results. Concerning Monero, however, the funding situation has been ridiculous for too long already, and if the MEW is allowed to help, the problem will be put to rest even this year. |
|
|
|
He was posting that as evidence that everything was running as planned, not trying to make false claims.
It is sad that this thread has turned to be worship of me, but since the matter has surfaced: The Haikko conference for me was more like a dream. Dream that I would some day be able to own a hotel and a nice car and have Bitcoin people coming to me and we would have a nice time. Less than a year from taking that picture I already owned a manor in all respects larger than Haikko, and a car nicer than the one pictured. Even while writing this, I am having guests here starting the Bitcoin conference in these surroundings. I am a happy man because this dream has come true. Every time you post the picture I am feeling so grateful when I remember that back then I was having that as a mirage, a rented service, but now I have it in reality. With my friends. |
|
|
|
MEW has zero-tolerance on actual crimes, violence, deception, coercion, and scamming, in all their forms, by any individuals or groups. Members caught doing such things will be exposed and, if necessary, expelled.
These are the behavior that we acknowledge to be crimes. They are condemned. MEW does not however have legal or practical jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against MEW or its members, except by other members who have bound themselves to such arbitration by joining MEW. If actual crimes are committed against us, MEW may apply to outside LEO. After all, their purpose is to find and punish criminals, whereas MEW can effectively only find and expose them. In some cases exposing may not be enough. If we choose not to apply, the reason is more practical than ideological. LEO's do not have a great track record in solving cybercrimes in an equitable way. This what top-down organization forces, a guaranteed collective hell. I will prefer bottom-up freedom. Electronic stuff is just a game. You can still eat even you lose all your electronic digits. jesus said... No sir, I disagree. By refusing to obey authority, you are descending to the era before the flood, when the Earth was so full of violence that God had to destroy it. There is certainly a place for law enforcement, and when the current ones upon Earth become too corrupted, we will have to start our own. We are not there yet, so we humbly submit to the earthly authorities concerning actual crimes, while upholding our rights and freedoms. In the millennial kingdom, "righteousness reigns", and it will come about by every person submitting to Jesus' authority. Unless I misunderstood your meaning of the bottom-up, I would say I have to disagree. |
|
|
|
Snowden is a freakin hero, yet it seems no one really care.. blind sheeps in their consumerism prison, letting murica behave as they always do, bombing and comploting to rule (enslave) the world.
Snowden is right on par with MLK. Everybody knows that already. In which way should we "care" more? |
|
|
|
It's also possible that Poloniex is run by people who would be politically opposed to involving the state in what they might see as their personal affairs too.
Since the MEW is also established today, I may quote the relevant part of what we believe is the right way to handle these. MEW has zero-tolerance on actual crimes, violence, deception, coercion, and scamming, in all their forms, by any individuals or groups. Members caught doing such things will be exposed and, if necessary, expelled.
These are the behavior that we acknowledge to be crimes. They are condemned. MEW does not however have legal or practical jurisdiction to prosecute crimes against MEW or its members, except by other members who have bound themselves to such arbitration by joining MEW. If actual crimes are committed against us, MEW may apply to outside LEO. After all, their purpose is to find and punish criminals, whereas MEW can effectively only find and expose them. In some cases exposing may not be enough. If we choose not to apply, the reason is more practical than ideological. LEO's do not have a great track record in solving cybercrimes in an equitable way. So that nobody reads between the lines: It is absolutely too early to even suspect MEW of using dirty tricks, we currently have no such capability nor interest and if something happens now or later to anyone, it can in no way be our fault, because we do not do such things. We much like to remain the leader in fair altcoins and overall fair play, and since we are in no way all-in in this coin and have considerable resources outside of it, we can take much provocation, if someone thinks provoking us is wise and pays off. |
|
|
|
Maybe there is a third person involved, trying to profit and buy cheap.
This aspect should not be forgotten. Basically, the price of 1 XMR was 361-366 before the attack. Before the debacle, it actually was around 400. Using these as a baseline, just evaluate what is the % risk that Monero suffers from the attack, and how much, or is there even the chance to emerge out stronger. To further make the trading easy, the last 3 days seem to have the same volume-weighted average price of 316. That should be enough for successful trades. As usual, trading out of boredom only loses you fees and slippage. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
