Incorrect. That would be the case with a nonlinear scheme. But with a snapshot spin off where balances are proportional there is no manipulation possible by doing it in the future. There is simply a cutoff, known to everyone, where buying coins before that point gets you the new coins and buying coins after (presumably at a lower price) does not. In fact doing it in the past has more potential for manipulation as several people have already stated.

No, after 20 years the inflation rate won't change much at all. At 1% it would hypothetically take roughly 70 years to double the money supply thus reducing inflation in half. In fact it will take longer (because the percentage rate is decreasing each year).

The reduction in the rate of inflation is extremely slow and will at some point likely be exactly offset by the rate of lost coins, resulting in perpetual mining rewards but a real money supply that is effectively fixed. It sounds like a contradiction but it isn't. I describe this more precisely and estimate a possible ending money supply for Monero at 31 million here.


Correct, but to be fair Bitcoin also doesn't suffer the most severe form of it for 100+ years until the block subsidy run out entirely.

You are assuming a retroactive self-serving block is chosen, which it may be. In that case, yes, those who bought or dug after the block would be disadvantaged. I'm guessing whoever is choosing the block would not be among them (at least not to a significant degree).

If the block to be chosen is assigned is in the future as I recommend, then everyone can decide whether to buy (or sell or dig) before or after the split.

Neither coin has an inbuilt advantage and certainly everyone will not switch to it. I will likely abandon a coin that has no ongoing distribution mechanism to bring in new users and especially if it was distributed according to an arbitrary self-serving block. Maybe the new coin will have a good trading value short term given the reduced supply, which is fine with me. I'll get more for my new coins when I dump them.

I don't know what will happen to the old coin, and neither do you. If the idea of a coin with a distribution mechanism going to non-dust holders of BTC/LTC/DOGE was a good idea then it should still do fine. If not then it will die a natural death. There is no need to try to prop it up.

That's exactly what I said in my last line.

But someone who does do that will have to face danonthehill's accusation of having choosing an arbitrary self-serving block to decide distribution until the end of time. Maybe that is an acceptable cost.

dooglus said he was planing to support both as long as each version of the site makes enough to cover costs.

You don't, if you want to be even remotely fair about it. "The digger" has the same legitimate ownership of his CLAMs as anyone else.

Does anyone really think that it would be anything other than a joke to target (primarily) one particular person to have their CLAMs invalidated?

I have a hard time imagining any suggest that with a straight face.

But as I said earlier, a new coin can use whatever distribution it wants, however absurd. You could assign coin balances randomly for that matter.

As I suggested earlier, the cutoff should be announced well in advance so people have an opportunity to position themselves accordingly. For example, if an exchange has not committed to honor the distribution then you can withdraw from it.

They can buy whichever coin they want, or both of them, assuming either or both coins still have a market in the future. That is never guaranteed with any coin.

Currently it does have low transaction volume. Early on it had huge transaction volume because the newly-developed pool software was very stupid in how it did payouts (every single miner no matter how small was paid out on every single block). Later there were two spam attacks. When refreshing from the beginning you will have to scan through that first several months with high volume before reaching the current, relatively low, volume.

A version history at least indication of what was changed would be nice.

Yes and there has been no uptake. The only coins I'm staking at the moment are my own. A few people have said they are interested in using my service in the future. Okay, whatever.


Also, after you successfully stake you can't move the coins (including the original ones, not just the reward) until it matures. As you say you can reduce the burden by splitting up coins, but it it still exists, and serves to enrich those who don't actively transact at the expense of those who do (of course this is a slow gradual process over time).

That isn't by itself a bad thing but if the staking reward is too high this serves as a disincentive to use and an incentive to hoard. How that trades off against the incentive to stake and security of the network I don't know (though as long as the stake is all in one place the latter is a waste/sham anyway).


It isn't a gamble if you are a bank and get paid to keep excess reserves at the Fed. That is literally zero risk denominated in USD. There are other effectively zero risk investments that pay interest that is often similar or even higher than the inflation rate, but those often aren't available to smaller investors or to those using actual cash (i.e. for active transactional purposes).


It isn't exactly the same of course. I said there is resemblance, not an identity.


The question is staking or not staking (the latter because your holdings are too small to bother or because you actively use them to transact), not between staking and selling. But if you want to consider selling, then alternately and equivalently call that buying something else i.e. a form of investing that will be feasible for smaller holders or those actively transacting because costs (both direct and indirect costs such as time and inconvenience) will be too high. So again this serves to transfer wealth to larger static static holdings (i.e. hoarding).


I would think that the history here of all places would discourage trying to create a fair lottery with a blockchain (especially one without PoW). It is harder than it looks.

TPTB_need_war has donated the domain ion.cash to the AEON project. While that domain is not identical to our name, it is similar and the domain could be used for some sort of affiliated or independent project that supports AEON, or just redirected.

However, the issue we have had is that transferring the domain to his registrar to ours has not been working for some reason. I'd like to not spend any more time on this so I'm looking for a volunteer to manage the process of getting the domain transferred. PM me if you are willing to do this.

This is a good idea, but first impressions aren't the only question to ask with logos. Another is distinctiveness. Once a brand begins to become known and acquire a reputation, then the brand and logo will become associated with that reputation. Obviously at this point right that association doesn't widely exist at all, but once it does the main attributes of the logo that are important are that it is easily recognizable and that it at least doesn't undermine the values associated with the brand. The logo itself does not have to create or convey those values from the start. (Perhaps good if it does, but not essential.)

Yes the exchanges that don't want to bother are the ones I was most concerned about. In that case the best approach is to give people enough notice to move coins off the exchange to JD or their own wallet.

One issue with a new coin is making sure that on-exchange holdings are done fairly. Ideally this would have the exchange giving the new coins to account holders but if not then second best is probably to give enough notice so people who want to claim their new coins can withdraw from the exchange first.

In this particular case it does seem that a huge portion of the total (dug) supply is on JD so as long as JD handled the split that way for the most part it would be okay.

Corrections, clarifications or any different perspective from Boolberry advocates are welcome and will be added to the AEON Pruning FAQ (at least if well written). Especially, but not exclusively, this part:


I noticed in reading that just now one additional distinction: Boolberry does not have the limitation of being unable to rescan an old wallet from a pruned node. I'll add that to the FAQ when I update it.

There is more to it. The chain is only secure because it is moving forward. Thus to rewrite the chain someone needs to keep up with the rest of the miners. If miners stop then you can take as long as you want to solve a block (for example one hour per block with 1/6 hash rate), you don't have to do it within 10 minutes to keep up. Thus you could rewrite the chain with only a fraction of the original hash power used to create it.

You would just receive a proportional amount of the new coin. No need to trade, though of course you could always trade one coin for the other with an exchange or OTC trade.

What's "overwhelming support"?

I have nonzero CLAMs and I certainly don't support some sort of change that grabs undug claims that (according to the big pretty graphic in the OP) people already own.