Yes it's possible. The current algorithm is approximately keep choosing random outputs until it has enough (or maybe a little extra). That has some advantages in being unpredictable and disadvantages in being inefficient (and possibly others).

I suggest writing up a proposal and/or implementing it.

That said we don't know what that wallet might have looked like. If there's nothing but small outputs left in there and you try to spend a lot, you are going to get a lot of small outputs regardless of algorithm.

Wasn't otoh the guy who claimed to have dumped all of his XMR then posted an "after" screen shot where he was still hiding his XMR balance, or did I get him mixed up with some other troll?

If you are doing -verify 0 it means none of the data is being checked at all as it is added to the database. If the raw file is in any way invalid, you can end up with a bad blockchain in a corrupt database and never know it until later when "something" goes wrong.

This is probably okay if you are importing a raw file you exported yourself from a working node (other than bugs), but probably not a good idea to use if you are downloading a raw file (other than maybe an official one, after verifying the checksum), and also probably not the greatest idea at this point when the code is still experimental (unless you are doing it for the purpose of an experiment).

Is this on Windows? I remember seeing something about setting the block size smaller being a work around for that.

If you got the master HEAD from github then yes you are using the experimental database version. Your blockchain.bin file won't be used, it will create a separate directory within .bitmonero for the database files.

Yes your coins are still good, assuming minergate is still around. You might want to try to set up your own wallet and move your coins off when you get a chance. Never a particularly good idea of entrust your coins to a third party.

Update on Release Phoenix

Release Phoenix is a go!

I've successfully competed testing of:

1. New PoW
2. Block time switch to 4 minutes
3. Difficulty transition adjustment (prevents blocks from being mined too fast after switching to faster PoW)

I will be announcing a test release shortly, so people can try building and running on your own systems (it is set up to run separately from the main network).

Assuming no problems with the test release I will then push out a new general release with the hard fork set at some block in the future and a few other minor improvements.

Thank you Phantas. I will add to OP

If relying on actual information like github or blockchains rather than incorrect opinions makes someone come across like a scammer, then your scammer detector needs recalibration (we already know that of course).


The emissions were and are 1/4 the speed of bytecoin in terms of blocks (change of the speed factor from 2^-18 to 2^-20 = 1/4). That was the exact day of launch and I wasn't involved with development so at that point I didn't yet recognize that the block time change reduced that difference by half. Nevertheless, it still works out to 1/2 the speed of Bytecoin i.e. flatter.

Do try to stay on topic though.

What can I say? It was flatter and emontmon was incorrect in claiming otherwise, as clearly shown the source code on github, blockchain, etc.

If you want to base your opinions on other people's incorrect statements rather than primary sources, I can't help you.

Likewise one can look at a block explorer for Dash and see this, which bears no resemblance whatsoever to any of the published emissions formulas:

A true late adopter would be buying a low inflation coin regardless (unless the coin is specifically designed to maintain high inflation forever, but none of these are). The only question is whether that happens when things are actually somewhat mature and widely adopted (with correspondingly low risk), or is accelerated with a fast-mine (QRK/UNO) or an instamine (DRK) to quickly produce low inflation before there is any real adoption.

I would argue it also depends on price. A high inflation coin that is still in an early distribution phase will have a relatively low price, meaning it is easy, cheap, and low risk for early adopters to get in. The inflation is a viable trade off for the prospect of large gains if and when adoption occurs later.


No coins are there. If and when some are, we can look back and see which made it. The closest was probably Bitcoin starting back in the peak of SatoshiDice and Silk Road which happened when it had pretty high inflation (much higher even than now -- still pretty high)

Two, I think. Both decided against.


None that I know of. There was a brief discussion of it, but it never rose the the level of an organized survey or poll that I recall.


Something different?

Likewise, we could ask what would have happened if Evan didn't instamine Dash and didn't make a bunch of instaminer-, early-adopter- and insider-favoring monetary changes later. And of top if that we can ask what would have happened if Dash actually had sound technology?

I might be supporting it today!

Do you have any idea of the power usage? I'm guessing pretty high even though CryptoNight GPU mining is usually pretty low power for GPUs. The older ones didn't have very good power management though.

I have a lot of those gathering dust....

Because a huge part of the value proposition of cryptocurrency is that your holdings aren't subject to changes based on political or dictatorial whims. If not for that, you might as well stick with fiat which is more efficient and has an enormous first-mover advantage. Every such change to a coin weakens it by creating a precedent and reasonable expectation of further changes, and every attempted change that fails strengthens it for the same reason. You can see this already with people saying that they fully expect Evan to make more changes (and indeed he just change the mining yet again, redirecting some rewards to "voting" -- effectively an increase in the money supply). Conversely I doubt people expect Monero to make these sorts of changes.

Also as a practical matter reducing emissions, or worse, reducing supply, further concentrates early adopter and insider holdings and reduces the incentive for later adopters. Later adopters can reasonably ask the question why not just buy into something else where I too can be an early adopter with less risk, and they'd be right. There has to be a balance between incentives to early adopters and incentives to late adopters. If you front load scarcity and price increases, that can be great for traders and insiders, but you undermine late adopter incentives

Given the way adoption of cryptocurrencies generally has been glacial you might argue that increasing supply (diluting early adopter holdings in favor of slower-than-expected late adopters) makes more sense than decreasing it, except of course for the lack of stability issue discussed two paragraphs back.

In reality you have to get it very close to right from the beginning or you are screwed. Attempting to fix it will destroy it.

eizh's comments were a bit hyperbolic and likely out of frustration with the poor communication from TFT.

"it annihilated Quark and continues to plague DRK" -eizh

Quark: "Quark intended to mine 247 million coins within 6 months as part of it's fast distribution model"

DRK: "That means in less than 8 hours, almost 5% of the Darkcoins that ever will be created spawned in that 1/3 of a day"

(both from http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins)

So no there is not much similarity here at all.

"80% mined in such a short time (compare to BTC distribution which extends into decades" -eizh

This isn't even correct. BTC mines 80% in about 9.5 years, not decades.

Here's TFT's very first post about it (on the Bytecoin thread), even before the pre-ANN:


What was promised was "more flat" (later "flatter"). Flatter was delivered. Only a single speed speed factor was ever implemented, and was never changed. Close to bitcoin is subjective. Compared to Bytecoin or a lot of fast-mine (one week to one year) coins, it is certainly closer.

Please stay on topic. You are spamming the forum with anti-Monero rhetoric on inappropriate threads.

It was never "changed" in any way. You can disagree with the choice of speed (as I did and still do), fair enough, but you are lying if you claim it was "changed"

Unlike Dash, which clearly was changed.

I agree with ArticMine that it isn't FUD. If you have something on your computer (.NET runtime) that can execute .NET programs intended for Windows they you have increased exposure.

Is .NET Native available for Linux? If you can compile the application to a native Linux binary and use it without the .NET runtime installed, the issue with Windows malware wouldn't apply. At that point it is just programming language.