Don't hate.

I agree with you. CK is a "Monero thing". We should find our own path.

(That is just my opinion, If CK wants to accept AEON I'm not going to actively discourage them.)

There is no maximum (unless there is a bug, so as you say it is useful to test). It is limited only by physical size of the data.

exf5

The original is here, having been imitated countless times since. I appreciate the flattery.

* smooth toots own horn

This seems to be the problem. Maybe some sellers will show up but so far every effort I've made both privately and publicly to try to create larger block liquidity has failed for lack of sellers.

The electricity costs on these low end nodes can be extremely low, especially without mining (with mining, the mining revenue, even if small, should offset some of the cost). For example, a Raspberry Pi 2 runs a Monero node reasonably well and uses about 2 watts. So something like 3 USD per year. The more powerful nodes use more power but even at 30 USD per year that's still reasonably favorable compared to a VPS or a regular PC.

Because they have mostly failed as developments, and especially as you say for ongoing development. Huge gains don't constitute success from my perspective if it just means getting a big pump and then engaging in a long march toward zero while interest fades and the original promoters and developers move on to their next big score. Of course the final chapter has not been written on most of these coins, but the outline of the story seems to be the same for all (or at least most) of them.


Perhaps now you understand my support for Monero's model as an inclusive open source project, where there are donations in cash, but most donations are in kind (collaborative development by ecosystem stakeholders). It struggles at first by comparison with ICOs, instamines, etc. but if you care about staying power, it is hard to beat.

It is a proven model that successfully develops core software infrastructure and has many examples of projects that has succeeded for decades (including, for a shorter time so far, Bitcoin, which BTW, entirely dwarfs all the "successful" coin projects you cite). I don't know that there is another applicable model with a similar track record.

It is open source (I think), so anyone can fork it and compete. In that sense it is similar to Boolberry's mining payments to developer feature, or a premine. Anyone can fork it but if you want to use the original network (i.e. the developer created useful network effects) you are going to pay the developer.

As far as securities law, you would have to ask them. I do know there are some differing opinions (by which I mean actual professionally researched legal opinions) about what sorts of coin structures are legal. I have no idea if they are going that route or just ignoring the law.


That kind of seems to be the case with Boolberry. For a long time the developer was almost entirely absent (and is still mostly absent), yet while no serious technical obstacles exist, there was not really the incentive to fork it to remove the developer mining payments, so he's still getting them, and people continue to demand and use the coin, a little.

I understand that you want someone to pay you to develop. I hope that works out.

I'm deeply skeptical of coins intended to function as currency also serving as a funding vehicle. I don't rule it out but so far every effort has not gone terribly well. Maybe there are exceptions but they are hard to find.

I think Sia has probably the most promising model now (separate the coin from the project funding with a second token backed by a dedicated revenue stream), but that's still a work in progress so we'll see.


No.

That's the same or likely better (since you also have to add the rest of the system overhead for the GPU system) efficiency for the CPU without the need for fans and a second device (size, assembly effort, etc). It is half the total hash rate, but that isn't really huge difference in terms of making a contribution to the network with a low-maint, cheap-to-operate device. Personally I'd rather have something that sits there completely silent for 10 years with zero attention from me than twice the hash rate. If I want more hash I can buy two. But I agree that is a value judgement.

Still it is hard to build that for an attractive price point <$300, so kind of irrelevant right now.


I doubt you can get 33 W GPU, CPU, HD, etc in a box with no fan. I don't even know whether the GPU can run fanless on its own. If I search for fanless 750-ti all I see are water cooled things (EDIT: I found some with heat pipes and massive heat sinks, but you still have to remove the heat from the box). Though maybe the low power usage of cryptonight mining means a custom built low-efficiency cooling solution could work. I still doubt you will get it in a box. The best you can likely achieve is a well designed box with one quality, relatively expensive, fan (which might last several years) that draws air across multiple devices for cooling. Even that would be a nice design accomplishment.


I think you can get some high efficiency CPUs that are on raw boards or possibly even socketed where you can design and build your own box. When I've looked for that I've generally found them even more expensive though, so I disregarded it.

That is not the only concern no. But the existance of that concern points to others.

And remember your own comments about avoiding complexity. Your response to this or that issue here is to add another patch (time penalty, autoburn, etc. etc.). Likely an indication of being on the wrong track. This is common in crypto.

I don't claim that the spin off method has no negatives, but I think the others are worse, for reasons that get to the heart of why crypto exists in the first place. It is okay that you disagree, though. Different approaches make for experimentation and learning.


I don't recall that. If I did I retract it. I don't know what is best about distribution.


I'm not sure what you are getting at here at all. All four of these seem to have peaked early and gone into a long slump. Ripple had a second pump but still ended up with another big decline and slump. Dogecoin had pretty much the same distribution method as Monero as far as I know, though maybe a bit faster (don't know the details).

What distinction are you trying to make here?

Well that was 100% of what was being debated on cypherdoc's thread. Not to say I told you so, but the fact is I have a better-developed understanding and refined intuition on these matters than most, likely a consequence of other background I have, but is not disclosed to my crypto pseudonym.

If there are other technologies that exist later, we can discuss them later.


No.

Remember (see above) arbitrage was the same argument being made with side chains. It works in orderly markets, but doesn't defeat unsoundness.

Sorry I mistyped. I meant well-defined in the sense of having a well-defined value or behavior as M approaches zero (which after all is the intent of al this). The point being that reducing both M and T at the same time inherently results in potentially wild price swings and instability, which do not exist if M is left constant.

Also, on the matter of burning being more informational, that can very well contribute to the problems. Game theory is complex and withholding information can have value, so if you force people to reveal information you may discourage them from taking the action (until a cascade or other instability requires them to do so). That is not really the intended outcome here but in game theory analysis, intent doesn't matter, outcomes do.

I'm not going to address the other points individually because I've stated my perspective, and I'm reasonably confident it is more correct (though may err in small areas as my effort to analyze this in precise detail has been limited). I also feel you will understand the issues in time, as you have (somewhat) on the question of sidechains. Thus there is no need to debate point by point. (You will note by the way that I likewise did not extensively debate point-by-point on sidechains and simply let you and others figure out over time what I had recognized earlier.)


In fact this is precisely what burning does. Spin offs do not create manic stampedes. So again we agree the goals but disagree on the analysis of various mechanisms. I'm content to leave it at that.

Also, in the case of a well-executed upgrade, the market will simply assign nearly all the value to the new coin virtually immediately. There is nothing for anyone to do really, other than claim their new coins (or have this done automatically by a wallet) and use them. The old coins will still exit, but become essentially irrelevant. People may wish to sell their old coins for a little bit of extra income, but keeping them as a low-value hedge is also okay to do (again much of this can be automated by wallets). Likewise in a well-executed upgrade everyone will probably just burn right away (though maybe not, as even small risks may encourage waiting, and it is impossible to hedge by holding on to your nearly-worthless old coins as in the other method).

The complex issues only occur with a poorly-executed upgrade, and that is exactly where you need the pricing mechanism of markets to dampen instabilities. In fact someone else on cypherdoc's thread reinvented the same mechanism to deal with the contentious hard fork debate (a block size increase being "a poorly executed upgrade" in my terminology because people disagree about whether it is even an upgrade at all), and he is absolutely correct that there is no other decentralized mechanism for deciding the outcome other than a market, so it is best to recognize that and design it to be orderly. So speculators will need to trade according to the best available information and users can either trade or not at their discretion (assuming prices are efficient it does't really matter what they do).

So if the developer never miscalculates or makes a mistake in strategy or implementation, then this distinction likely doesn't even matter. But misjudgments, and political disagreements are always a possibility, so I think it may matter in practice.

Is it possible to tell whether the claimed CLAMs being dumped now come from BTC or one of the other chains? Maybe that has been answered before, but I don't remember seeing it.

The best solution for a 10 year low- or no-maintenance device is to go completely fanless. Forget the GPU unless you can find something decent that is fanless and can be mounted in a fanless chassis (which requires very low thermal output) and instead use a high efficiency CPU with good hash rate like the one we talked about on IRC (hash rate is roughly 120 for 15 watts, possibly less) with a brick PSU. It might require maintenance if the HD dies, but that's about it. Switching to SSD would reduce that. Even with with HD you can't do it $300 though. Not quite yet, but maybe next year.

Unfortunately what kills the price here is that the really cheap CPUs (Celeron, Atom, etc.) can't mine XMR well, but many of them can mine AEON. If you accept a much lower hash rate and efficiency you can still do it, and probably come in below $300 for the whole system.

Everyone? Really? What about people who looked at CLAM and thought was overvalued so they didn't buy. Maybe some of these people are buying now (clearly someone is) or will buy if the price drops some more. We've already had one person on this thread state explicitly that he will buy if the price drops enough.

From a total value perspective SSDs (of equivalent size) are superior to HDs in almost every respect (reliability, performance, etc.). Thus even if capacity doesn't increase at quite the same rate as it did within the HD era, some increases along with the transition from HD to SSD is still consistent with continued rapid improvements in price-performance ("performance" taken broadly in the case of storage to include size).

Still following the game just didn't get a chance to vote on the last couple of moves. I like the moves we made though.

They ASSUMED incorrectly.


Why should the emission reflect a bad bet that some people made? That's absurd.