LOL, but not a bad idea.

Interesting fact. .88888... (infinite 8s -- what could be better than that?) = 8/9

Inheriting Monero's parameters was implied here, as this coin was launched as an a pure (exact, other than branding) clone of Monero, and further my communication with the original developer when it was handed over strongly suggested that was intended. The only ambiguity comes from Monero's tail reward not having being implemented at the time this coin was launched, so the original forked code for this coin didn't have any tall reward at all. What was in the Monero design but unimplemented at the time (and somewhat ambiguous) was "less than 1%". I think it best that we keep within those parameters and not just make something up out of thin air a year and a half after launch.

Less than 1% can mean 1% for all practical purposes though. Just the slightest bit of rounding down is sufficient to satisfy <1%.

There has been some confusion about this for some time:


I don't know whether Tails and Monero are compatible but if not 64 bit support doesn't seem to be the reason. (The new Monero can be built for 32 bit also.)

Good points. On the bold, I suggested discussion, not a vote. These forum votes are a sham anyway. I will do exactly what you said: weigh input and make a decision.

Yes but it is a manual process for them and may take a week or longer. If you don't receive it for a few days you might want to open a ticket.

Yup. More activity does make everything "more mixed" overall (larger haystack to hide the needle) but it doesn't matter for individual transactions the way it does for coinjoin type techniques or centralized mixers. You are mixing with all transactions that have ever occurred in the past (and even in a slightly different sense ones that will happen in the future), not just the ones happening now. The other techniques only mix between transactions happening at the same time.

As I said earlier I'm pretty sure what will happen is they will either relist it because its value and volume grows enough to make it compelling, or they will wait for a database version so the cost of supporting it isn't so high. For an exchange that runs dozens of wallets, needing several gigabytes of RAM for one coin is a big expense.

It's not just XMR. So many alts are in the general neighborhood of -40% over the past 30 days which translates to constant USD price, and they have tracked BTC as it has rallied. People trading these alts seem to believe that they shouldn't participate in BTC's fiat price gains at this stage. Maybe it will need BTC's higher prices to be sustained and not turn out to be a short-lived bubble.

The main exception as a subset seems to be the 'BTC-E alts' (LTC, NMC, PPC) which are down less (so up in fiat terms)

Notice how Bytecoin is largely immune from the selloff that has affected nearly every alt. More evidence that there is no fact no real market for it. Either that or Bytecoin is closer to Litecoin in its properties as an asset than it is to most other alts. I'll go with the former theory.

Even if the miners vote against the reward, the reward is just deferred. If miners ever vote for the reward in the future, the deferred rewards will be paid out. So it is pretty much a 1% premine, with a lock released slowly (and at an uncertain rate). The only way to get rid of the reward entirely is to hard fork.

Boolberry has no trailing reward at all, it just goes down exponential to zero eventually like Bitcoin.

On the matter of reducing the percentage every year that seems so close to a fixed tail reward amount that it doesn't seem worth pursuing as a distinct option. As I stated on reddit I prefer a fixed reward as it has self-stabilzing properties. In erok's case of burning, the fixed reward becomes a higher percentage. regrowing the money supply more quickly. If none is burned or lost, then the percentage shrinks. This tends toward a constant money supply that is a function of the average long term burn/loss rate.

But I think an small exponential percentage is not bad either. At 1% inflation, at most (assuming no burn/loss) 50% of the share of wealth of a holder who does nothing else to add value to the economy is redistributed over 70 years (sort of a lifetime, though this might be longer in the future). Even in that case the amount of wealth may still increase if the value of the total money supply grows >1%/year. I have no problem with that.

There is clearly a sentiment in the market that most alts should drop as Bitcoin rises and maintain (approximately) their fiat value. With the possible exception of LTC. That has been the prevailing market action for a month or more.

I agree with that but not top 10, yet. And the only way it could stay out of the top ten with the higher value is if you assume not many more coins would be dug up. The digger has shown that false and I doubt he'll be the last one. At the current price with 5 million dug up that's a 3.5 million market cap which seems fair to me. Just staking alone adds 500k coin per year too.

Since I quoted in this thread above, it has been edited again:


Previous archived version:


Earliest archived version


What happened before or in between or other versions that weren't archived I have no idea.

I'm guessing that may be some kind of database glitch. Maybe all of the old data from before AEON was delisted and then relisted is being combined into one day.

The GUI code exists and can even be compiled and tested, but without the functional node connected to it. https://github.com/monero-project/monero-core

The main issue is that there is no point in hooking it up to the current clunker release of a node that takes 8-10 GB of RAM. Once the new release is done and some further work is done to modularize/libraryize the code better the two can easily be merged.

Here is the 30 day altlist from bitcoinwisdom. TLDR: virtually every alt is down big against BTC, but anything down <33% is up vs USD. XMR is #4 on this list. LTC is #1 and interestingly has lost the least (not counting the noise at the bottom). The +39% is not really an alt it is GHS (BTC mining contract). ETH not shown but is down about 25%. It is interesting to speculate about why all alts are doing so poorly. Is it just BTC sucking up all the attention money with its rally, or is there something else to it?

I'm a little confused.

What did JM say that you agree with?

In your last sentence what are you suggesting?

Did you miss my post above? Dash indeed does now claim precisely "no premine" in its rewritten OP which removed all of the original coin parameters and history:

I don't think you can prove that most of the posts are simply to piss people off. Even if it does piss people off.

The problem with your argument is that a coin thread is not for "fans" of a team who are there to have fun. It is an open discussion of the the coin, including positives and negatives.

To make a specific example, there someone named "toknormal" on the Dash thread who consistently posts positive comments about Dash, often repetitive in nature on narrow perspectives such as (his take on) "monetary properties" or technical analysis usually showing a positive outlook (and likewise the same repetitive, often inaccurate, negative comments about competing coins). He does this often and posts in a similarly cheerleading manner almost every single day.

toknormal's, consistent, frequent positive posts about Dash on the Dash thread, often focusing on the same set of subtopics are no more or less legitimate than TheDasher's consistent, frequent negative posts about Dash on the Dash thread.

If you want to engage on a public forum, you don't get filter negative opinions just because "fans" might find it unpleasant to read them. Such fans can go elsewhere for a forum focused on feel-good cheerleading.