I do not think that anyone can be certain that even a tail emission will be sufficient to solve this problem. For tail emissions (or finite) cryptocurrencies to work, a cryptocurrency would have to be a great success. I don't believe cryptocurrencies that aren't a great success can work at all. They're both insecure and useless. So in designing, you might as well design with the assumption of great success because other possibilities don't matter. |
|
|
|
Deleted as suggested
Most of your off topic posts are noise, that thread is used for general discussion. Why do you care about marketing anyway, you say this coin is a failure. If you want to respond to this do it in the announce thread.
Feel free to delete this smooth. {Wink} <<<--- look no RED!
|
|
|
|
May I please ask where is the official Monero thread on BCT where I can post my marketing thoughts freely and be on topic? Is there no official thread for Monero for discussing marketing   Probably not. It is an open source project, not a product. If you want to market a product, you should probably team up with people who are offering Monero-based products such as MyMonero, CryptoKingdom, etc. (or create your own such product and market it, of course). There was a Monero Economy Workgroup (run by Risto) which was to promote and coordinate such product activities but it seems there was little sustained interest from him or others and it is being disbanded. |
|
|
|
1. This account "louisdor" account is very likely to be "crypto_zoidberg" (based on post history and pattern of logging in often without posting)
Good thinking. Looks like there may be more activity soon: We hope that Alpha will be available in january.
We want to do everything really good.
|
|
|
|
Where is Dev?  Last Active: 2015-12-04, 16:29:40 |
|
|
|
So , are all those bin file requests from Windows Users ? (I'm on OSX — didn't have that issue )
...
I'm guessing the seed node(s) that is (are) hard coded into the client is (are) down. I don't see exactly where that is defined in the source code after a few minutes of looking tho... They're in src/cryptonote_config.h Found it, thanks: const std::initializer_list<const char*> SEED_NODES = {
"seed.digitalnote.org:42080",
"seed.ducknote.org:42080"
};Ping works on ducknote (64.34.219.46) one but no response on digitalnote (5.9.13.37). You can start the node with --add-exlcusive-node and see if it is able to start communicating. Ping success means there is hardware and an OS but not necessarily a node. |
|
|
|
Smooth is demanding that I post my marketing thoughts in a separate thread from my technical thoughts, breaking the conversation continuity up across multi-threads. It was not my desire to post again in this Monero Speculation thread, but it is only official Monero thread I am aware where I can post marketing thoughts that impact speculation decisions on Monero. Where on BCT is the official Monero thread for having open discussions? You can create your own thread(s) with whatever topic(s) you want.
When a thread starter creates a thread with a specific topic, off topic posts are not allowed, and on a self-moderated thread the thread starter can set any rules for participation (I guess as long as the rules don't conflict with forum rules). That is a forum rule, not my rule.
Posts about marketing that directly relate to speculation (are causing price to drop/increase, will cause price to drop/increase, etc.) are on-topic here, as long as it isn't repetitive. Repeating points already discussed recently is not allowed.
|
|
|
|
So , are all those bin file requests from Windows Users ? (I'm on OSX — didn't have that issue )
...
I'm guessing the seed node(s) that is (are) hard coded into the client is (are) down. I don't see exactly where that is defined in the source code after a few minutes of looking tho... They're in src/cryptonote_config.h |
|
|
|
Are you saying ETH was a custerfuck when it comes to funding? Because that sounds to me like nothing other than sour grapes.
No, I meant the entire process from the fundraising to the time they (pretty much) ran out of money with a late release satisfying few of the stated objectives. The fundraising itself went fine, as far as I could tell. They did abort once, reorganize and start over, but not really a disaster in that. |
|
|
|
"Socialism" is loosely defined as "social ownership and democratic control of the means of production."
That is more like the definition of "communism". It is the dictionary definition of socialism in English. If you want a different meaning, use a different word, or qualify your usage. Socialism definitely does not imply state ownership The above quote states control, not necessarily ownership. "Control or regulation" would also be an okay definition, but this seems redundant to me. |
|
|
|
I can post the IRC log but it's long and rather pointless.
I personally would prefer to read the transcript than your one-sided summary of what transpired. Plz don't be offended. If you can't produce it, then it didn't happen. I can confirm that the chat happened, and in a brief glance at the transcript it looked authentic. I can't confirm that it wasn't edited at all. |
|
|
|
Such as BitcoinEXpress's dram with Monero like 1.5 years back..
And on that point smooth didn't just say well, i don;t recall any of that story etc.
Nope.. he blindly went on to call me a liar etc.
You are a liar. You insisted that BCX fixed the coin, when no such thing happened (all that happened was FUD). Every time you post about this stuff you lie more. |
|
|
|
What is missing from your analysis smooth is that at what level of featureness are businesses willing to embrace block chains. I argue CN/RingCT is below the acceptable level and can not be raised to that level because the fundamentals are not End-to-End principled (also because can only make the payers, payees, and values obscured and not any type of script and other aspects of the block chain data). Business will prefer private databases where they can hide all the data until public block chains mature enough to do so. Public block chains promise more interoption and network effects, once we can make them truly private.
There is no feasible technology to do non-trivial scripts using zksnarks at this time. It doesn't exist. Zerocash is pushing the limits already. While there may be a market for zero knowledge smart contracts on a blockchain, that doesn't even matter because it can't be implemented. Perhaps if you think that is the only market that exists you should just take a break and come back to the space in a few years and reevaluate. You are cherry picking points. zk-snarks scripts wasn't my only nor even my main justification. Afaik, zk-snarks can implement any circuit if one accepts the proving time and verification time (there might also be some other resource constraint such as RAM but I think not), with proving time being much worse than verification time. And one would expect that it can be radically sped up with ASICs to enable more complex circuits to be verified in realistic time! All of this is entirely consistent with what I said about coming back in a few years. The proving and verification times for Zerocash, with the most simple scripts possible, are barely feasible to use, and even that might be disputed. The point is there are very likely some simple scripts that can surely be done with zk-snarks in realistic times, and which are very useful for businesses interopting on the block chain. IoT is one likely candidate and probably many more.
Implementing custom scripts for specific use cases is way out of scope for Monero as I understand the project. But it is open source after all, so if interesting pull requests are submitted they would probably be merged (after sufficient testing and review). That could include "useful" scripts along with an open source zksnark library. "build it and they will come after 5 years" is a nice pitch to speculators, but in my line of work I had to produce a marketed product to earn an income. You worked in (programming for) finance (something you acknowledged recently in public post) thus I assume you never had to do this. So I understand that in for-profit software the mantra is "ship it, sell it", otherwise projects go on and on and on and are never finished. Again consistent with take a break and come back when the technology is ready for a "build it, ship it, sell it" approach. Also this is entirely irrelevant to Monero since Monero is an open source project not a product. So off topic for the thread. Please respect the thread starter, the forum, and the community and try to stay on topic. |
|
|
|
What is missing from your analysis smooth is that at what level of featureness are businesses willing to embrace block chains. I argue CN/RingCT is below the acceptable level and can not be raised to that level because the fundamentals are not End-to-End principled (also because can only make the payers, payees, and values obscured and not any type of script and other aspects of the block chain data). Business will prefer private databases where they can hide all the data until public block chains mature enough to do so. Public block chains promise more interoption and network effects, once we can make them truly private.
There is no feasible technology to do non-trivial scripts using zksnarks at this time. It doesn't exist. Zerocash is pushing the limits already. While there may be a market for zero knowledge smart contracts on a blockchain, that doesn't even matter because it can't be implemented. Perhaps if you think that is the only market that exists you should just take a break and come back to the space in a few years and reevaluate. |
|
|
|
So can we conclude that Monero's underlying cryptonote technology will not be the best privacy technology forever?
Can we conclude that Monero is one of the few fully functioning private cryptocurrency networks currently?
Can we conclude that off chain data (ip addresses) are something that needs to be addressed for all private cryptocurrency networks?
Can we conclude that a possible technical improvement to Monero would be some kind of zero-proof knowledge thing?
TPTB, I commend your enthusiasm, but one of the problems I think in this conversation is a lack of brevity. No one has time to read ALL of this, so things are missed, and you get frustrated. If you want to have useful discussions, it's probably better to not have paragraphs of text, regardless of how much needs to be said. Writing 1 paragraph is much more difficult than writing 10 pages.
Off the top of my head to return the favor for you not deleting posts and I may be missing a few points: - zk-snarks can be used to make any script anonymous, not just currency as for CN/RingCT
- Anonymity of Zerocash (ZC) is never compromised by compromising the masterkey, only the coin supply is.
- ZC makes the entire block chain a blob uncorrelated to meta-data, whereas CN/RingCT have distinct UTXO which can be so correlated.
- ZC doesn't require Tor/I2P thus has more degrees-of-freedom and is End-to-End principled, whereas CN/RingCT are not.
- Both ZC and CN/RingCT can lose anonymity or have undetectable increase in coin supply if the crypto is cracked.
- CN/RingCT has the lowest common denominator anonymity which is usually I2P, i.e. maybe 99% vs 99.999% for ZC.
- Businesses will favor the more provable, more End-to-End freedom choice of ZC.
- I think the chance of jail time when using CN/RingCT for any action that the State doesn't want you to do, is very high. The anonymity is not robust, as I summarized above.
- I can't think of any user adoption markets of any significant size of CN/RingCT, other than selling it to speculators. In other words, I view CN/RingCT as just another pump job albeit with some strong developers (who hopefully will get better leadership).
- I am saying that CN/RingCT is not a viable technology. So arguing that it is the best we have for now, IMO doesn't make much sense, unless that is just a sales pitch to speculators (again keeping in mind the Securities Law and the Howey test in the USA and the implications of leading speculators into an investment with misleading prospectus and not registered with the SEC).
As you digged deeper into the topic and talk about businesses adopting ZC rather than CN... does ZC have the option to be auditable? Real Businesses favor something that can be audited. Can you actually proof you own xxx Amount of ZC without handing over your whole keys? CN got Viewkey for that, what does ZC have? ( besides neither guesses, of what or what not businesses will adopt by us actually hold any fact or argument, as its not up to us but those who run the businesses. Sorry for the bad english hope you get the points ZC is very immature at this point. You can't even make payments with more than one output. No multisig or other sort of contracts, even simple ones. There is no "view key" though it has been mentioned that one could be added. For more complex contracts, the current approach will be infeasible for the foreseeable future (it is barely feasible for simple coin pours -- it takes 1 minute on a desktop). Eventually that stuff can be worked out (feasibility beyond a certainly point is not guaranteed though, just reasonable to expect eventually with technological advances), but we are talking about some indefinite future. There is always going to be some better technology on the horizon. By the time Zerocash becomes more mature, there will likely be something else on the horizon that is superior in various ways, yet itself not mature. And so it continues. |
|
|
|
People are stealing ETH tech... so how is buying the coin a smart move right now.... other than stealing their tech, limited speculation and limited commerce.....
ethereum is like a programming language that sits on top of the blockchain, but what stops someone from cloning ethereum and then just copying every single user created smart contract code into their platform and make it cheaper? aside from ethereum the platform being valuable, it depends on devs creating DAPPS inside the ethereum platform. and since the blockchain has to be transparent in nature, there's nothing stopping from someone else stealing someone elses hardwork in a dapp. once someone creates a dapp that is profitable, there will be many copy cats of it thats for sure. the lure of the smell of profits.... I see your point, but I don't completely agree with your reasoning. The same could be said about Bitcoin and Litecoin, but no one has been able to replicate their success for an extended period of time. Ethereum has garnered a network effect of its own as far as being the platform to build on when it comes to decentralized programming languages. It has also collected many interested developers and projects. Cloning its features does not automatically equal success. In fact, there are several coins that have implemented decentralized programming languages and have had little success, such as Crypti or all the coins that implemented automated transactions. I am not saying it's a good buy right now.. it has been pumped hard for two or three weeks. I did not participate in the IPO and have not bought any coins. I expect the price to come back down to earth eventually before purchasing. I buy and hold for long periods of time and am not interested in gambling to see if I can buy and sell before it comes back down. Mostly agree however Bitcoin and Litecoin were also not colossal clusterfucks when it comes to the fund raising, budgeting and leadership of the foundation and development group. (BTCF was, just not critical to development.) I'm not sure if that situation was so badly mishandled that an opening is still there for another such platform to take the lead, but they certainly tried. I also don't know how much of a market there really is for this model of decentralized programming languages, but still at the right price Ethereum is worth keeping an eye on. |
|
|
|
is there a staking pool planned? I currently found out about just-dices shared staking... but you have to invest your coins so it comes with a certain risk  I'd love to see dooglus setup a stake pool To be honest investing there is not really much of a risk. There is so much leverage on the site that any big losses/gains would be mostly hit others rather than you, as long as you don't leverage. The main advantages to staking yourself or via my pool are: 1. No 10% fee 2. Decentralize the network. 3. At some point in the future JD leverage might decrease, or large betting on the site might increase, in which case you would be taking more risk. You could in that case stop investing, assuming you were paying attention. The main disadvantage: 1. You have to trust me instead of dooglas. 2. No interactive web site showing your balance, supporting instant deposits and withdrawals etc. |
|
|
|
We are considering drastically lowering the coins required for a Masternode from 1000 to 1.
Not a good idea given that having too many masternodes would probably break something in the code, either outright or due to bad scaling. A modest decrease might be appropriate given that there won't be 2 million supply right out of the gate. |
|
|
|
Changing the PoW function is pretty crazy. It may be. The state of Bitcoin mining is also pretty crazy. |
|
|
|
Can it be Core and Classic instead of Core vs Classic ? My discussion with Jonathan Toomim in "Miner In World" WeChat group. http://pastebin.com/B8YQr5TQI'm working on a proposal for a rotating PoW changes to allow Core to survive Classic activation and bring an era of endless GPU mining to Core. Please take the time to read it and comment. Guy I think the problem you are trying to solve isn't real. I think Core and Classic will converge to friendly competition, and be on the same blockchain. There will not be an actual work between these two groups. My 2 cents. So, My estimation is that Core team will split. Some will continue to work on Core but on Classic chain, buy some will prefer to do PoW (and Transaction ID) change rather to submit to the new governance. Guy And you will be there to give new governance to it? He wants to start a central committee of hash and for him to be part of it. He does this out of his company falling apart. They went from giving huge bonus to all top level employees to being beat by Bitfury where no one with big orders will want a SP50. He is trying to find way to stay relevant. This is one attempt at it. He will not be able to do it. Seems like a pointless personal attack by you (even as I agree the committee is a dumb idea). The proposal from him I saw was for the term on the committee to be limited so even if he were on it, he wouldn't be on it for long. So what? So a company that lost in the asic race wants to start a new way of profit via committee. Spondoolies is growing unprofitable look at the data, they have to release after being public. If they won the asic race they would not be pushing for this. The SP50 sealed the deal on them going away, unless they can pull something like this. Have you read their company stats? How they going to profit from this? Competing with AMD or NVIDIA on GPUs? It's about trying to get all companies on same level. Do you not see he pushes from asics after losing on development? Mining on Bitcoin will not go back to GPU's its a attempt to go to something other then asic which they are losing at. They want to be on same level as bitfury, so change the protocol since cant match chips. They never had a problem when they were ontop and making tons. Only after they were beat in the asic development do they want to change protocol. I will not waste more time on Guy. Time to get back to work. How is Guy going to make money from this? Be specific. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
