Yes or when you exit or type save

You could implement something like that around line 1077, which is where fake_outs_count gets parsed from the transfer command.

However, it is a bit more complex to do right because there are cases where it is impossible to mix because there aren't enough outputs of the same size. This mostly happens with dust-type outputs but can also happen with large amounts. So in that case (maybe after a few tries because sometimes that helps) you would want to reduce the mix factor, maybe after getting confirmation from the user.

I disagree. The protocol as currently defined (by the code, though certainly the limit is also well known and well documented too) requires that all blocks be rejected if they exceed 1 MB. If you don't do this your blocks will be rejected (even if they aren't > 1 MB, if they build on blocks that are). It is not simply a matter of the reference client not creating 1 MB blocks itself. Every other client must follow the same rule or its blocks will be rejected. Even if a non-mining node doesn't create blocks but relays non-conforming blocks, it will be dropped and banned, so to participate in the network every relay node must also apply the same rule.

The reason a hard fork is needed is to change the protocol. That does not apply to Monero.

It is simpler than that. Unless some form of mixing is being used, every input of a tranasction has the same owner. So every such transaction and every output is directly linkable to that owner. If the owner is using stolen bitcoin or some other form of "bad" bitcoin then every output of that transaction is tainted.

If mixing is used, then you have the issues of effectiveness (are enough people using it at the same time, are their transactions of similar size) and trust (is the mixer going to steal your coins or keep records of which inputs correspond with which outputs).

There is no hard protocol-defined limit the way there is in Bitcoin. In the original Cryptonote white paper, hard coded constants are given as a reason to want to improve on Bitcoin. (Sections 2.4 and 6.2.2 at least.)

What the limits turn out to be in practice will a function of technology (bandwidth, storage, etc.) and how it is used.

I'm not sure where this 0.03-0.10 range comes from. There are plenty of 0.01 transactions that are < 1 KB.  Here is one from within the past hour:

http://chainradar.com/xmr/block/1b4a04fd1f2ce2ebc52a962f9a3b2278e647f9c51a512e1062a374a214db3178

It is even possible to have small transactions with mixins that still come in < 1 KB (so 0.01 fee) if they have a small number of intputs and outputs, though this one doesn't.

As for people not bothering to upgrade I think that says a lot about the perceived cost of the fees. 3 US cents seems to not concern a lot of folks if they can't bother to download an update.

Land auction

Smooth QC is selling by auction the current quarry site at 3-E (150 quadrats). Delivery is to take place on or after 1578.

The starting price is 1100 (7.333/q) and will decline by 50 every 24 hours from this post until sold.

EDIT: I had specified the wrong chapelry by mistake. Since the correct one is less proximate to developed areas the starting price has been lowered to 1100

It is true that I mined XDN from the beginning and there was no premine. However, you will note that tacotime didn't claim a premine, he claimed an instamine. Now on that score I must still respectfully disagree with him and agree with you. An instamine generally refers to the case where difficulty adjustment doesn't kick in fast enough and an enormous number of coins are mined quickly at very low difficulty (for example, DRK, where 25% were mined on the first day or something). The XDN difficulty adjustment worked well and the number of coins mined at the beginning was more or less in line with the published schedule, so I wouldn't call that an instamine.

It is also true that one month for reward having is an extremely fast reward schedule. I'd more properly call that a "fast mine."  Finally, it is also true that the ducknote->darknote rebrand, which one might imagine was planned from the start, happened after a few of these reward cuts meaning the bulk of the coins had been mined by the time the somewhat silly meme branding that many dismissed (though I did indeed like) was taken off and the more credible branding added. I understand that you have claimed other reasons for this reward schedule, yet the fact remains that nearly all of the coins were mined before darkNote existed.

P.S. Various comments are made and opinions expressed on the forum. Is it really necessary to respond in such a hostile and defensive manner when you disagree with something?

P.P.S. Are you affiliated with bytecoin or cryptonote in any way?

Yes, Minergate is obviously run by the same crew of bytecoin scammers. Barely anyone had a chance to even compile bytecoin when it was "discovered" and they were already operating a pool (10% pool fee originally btw).

Only if you buy into hitbtc being real. Otherwise...

Once you publish the payment id someone else could do a transaction claiming to be you for example showing less reserves than you are supposed to have, which could lead to confusion.

Better to post a hash of a new payment id, then the txid using that payment id.

Exactly. At which point the buyer will be willing to spend "better" money or the seller will be willing to accept "worse" money, or both.

So the bad doesn't drive out the good after all, in any meaningful sense that applies here.

That doesn't work. For a transaction to occur, buyer and seller must agree on the terms. If the buyer won't spend his money because he thinks it will appreciate, then the seller won't accept money he expects to depreciate. They have to meet in the middle somewhere.

Je suis Luke

To get there you have to believe that side chains make sense in the first place. The pure side chain seems to rely on merged mining and/or transaction fees as incentive, and there are lot of problems with both.

The model of side chains that makes the most sense to me is a chain that can function as a side chain for btc but also has its own coin to reward mining, not the idea that btc will be the only coin and mining will by rewarded by hopium to borrow a word used on the thread a few posts back. Once you accept this you have to reject the "there can be only one" idea though, which is a lot of what motivate the side chains concept. So I'm not sure the whole thing fits together at all.

If these asset platforms turn out to make sense then one can be added to Monero the way counterparty, mastercoin, or colored coins work on bitcoin. I'm skeptical of all of them, but ultimately Monero has no disadvantage here.

No that isn't what masternodes do. They mix up addressing information but the masternodes don't take possession of the coins.

It was discussed somewhat extensively here, including some details about how claims would be represented and processed: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

The last post on that thread reports someone who had implemented it as a proof of concept.

The discussion wasn't about changing the total supply or overall inflation, but about whether to have more inflation now and less later or vice versa. In any case, no such changes are being considered any more.


You are not alone. I don't think anyone knows what is going to happen.

Correct, but other hard fork issues could certainly turn political. We recently had a months long discussion about changing the emission schedule, and I wouldn't rule out other such disagreements in the future.

A hard protocol-imposed block size and capacity limit is one thing we don't have to worry about.

Thanks to our, er, friends at hitbtc

https://twitter.com/hitbtc/status/482546301272608768