XMR/AEON Developer Smooth Investigation

[smooth]

None of that matters if your own mining is profitable. Why does it mater if someone else makes more?

Didn't you just argue a while back that it's wrong to make more?

No, in fact I said that 100% of coins have someone making more because they are more clever (programming, hardware design,etc.) or because they live someplace with cheap electricity, etc. There is nothing wrong with that outcome in general, as long as the process is reasonable (not ninja-launched in the middle of the night ahead of the promised schedule, etc.)

[1715090157]

1715090157

[1715090157]

1715090157

[1715090157]

1715090157

[1715090157]

1715090157

[1715090157]

1715090157

[minersday]

None of that matters if your own mining is profitable. Why does it mater if someone else makes more?

Didn't you just argue a while back that it's wrong to make more?

No, in fact I said that 100% of coins have someone making more because they are more clever (programming, hardware design,etc.) or because they live someplace with cheap electricity, etc. There is nothing wrong with that outcome in general, as long as the process is reasonable (not ninja-launched in the middle of the night ahead of the promised schedule, etc.)

So it's OK?, if you can make more when hiding it cleverly, then doing it in public? Which one is worse?

[TPTB_need_war]

I'll just say that for example mining is not that transparent, because you don't know who has figured out how to rent AWS, etc. Renting nearly always makes more sense than buying hardware.

This is incorrect.

I did the math in 2014 when I was evaluating my PoW hash and VPS or hosted dedicated servers renting was definitely far advantageous to buying hardware for any scenario where the price was increasing fast and the emission curve was declining fast (which is nearly always the case for any coin worth mining).

One could aggregate more hashrate faster reinvesting mined coins from rented VPS than the slower return of capital from buying.

Math doesn't lie.

[smooth]

None of that matters if your own mining is profitable. Why does it mater if someone else makes more?

Didn't you just argue a while back that it's wrong to make more?

No, in fact I said that 100% of coins have someone making more because they are more clever (programming, hardware design,etc.) or because they live someplace with cheap electricity, etc. There is nothing wrong with that outcome in general, as long as the process is reasonable (not ninja-launched in the middle of the night ahead of the promised schedule, etc.)

So it's OK?, if you can make more when hiding it cleverly, then doing it in public? Which one is worse?

Individual miners, who are private actors, can do whatever they want, and there is nothing you can ever will be able about that even if you wanted to. A large part of the purpose of mining is to be permissionless, meaning by definition "anything goes". The only thing that might happen is the system could fail for various reasons.

People launching a coin, promoting a business, etc.are public, and are open to criticism if they set up things in a manner which is dishonest, unethical, or unsound.

[smooth]

I'll just say that for example mining is not that transparent, because you don't know who has figured out how to rent AWS, etc. Renting nearly always makes more sense than buying hardware.

This is incorrect.

I did the math in 2014 when I was evaluating my PoW hash and VPS renting was definitely far advantageous to buying hardware for any scenario where the price was increasing fast and the emission curve was declining fast (which is nearly always the case for any coin worth mining).

One could aggregate more hashrate faster reinvesting mined coins from rented VPS than the slower return of capital from buying.

Math doesn't lie.

You are assuming the equipment does not have residual value. I have also done the math for various reasons (not just coin-related). Cost per cycle is much lower off-cloud in general (of course there are exceptions, promotional discounts, etc.)

[TPTB_need_war]

I'll just say that for example mining is not that transparent, because you don't know who has figured out how to rent AWS, etc. Renting nearly always makes more sense than buying hardware.

This is incorrect.

I did the math in 2014 when I was evaluating my PoW hash and VPS renting was definitely far advantageous to buying hardware for any scenario where the price was increasing fast and the emission curve was declining fast (which is nearly always the case for any coin worth mining).

One could aggregate more hashrate faster reinvesting mined coins from rented VPS than the slower return of capital from buying.

Math doesn't lie.

You are assuming the equipment does not have residual value. I have also done the math for various reasons (not just coin-related). Cost per cycle is much lower off-cloud in general (of course there are exceptions, promotional discounts, etc.)

$200 for used hardware versus $millions for more coins obtained  

If you believe in a coin, you mine the hell out of it with rented hardware or even better rented bots.

Btw, launch by mining can never be transparent, because we don't know who purchased a 10,000 bot miner for $100. I don't have the skills to deploy a bot net. Do you?

[smooth]

I'll just say that for example mining is not that transparent, because you don't know who has figured out how to rent AWS, etc. Renting nearly always makes more sense than buying hardware.

This is incorrect.

I did the math in 2014 when I was evaluating my PoW hash and VPS renting was definitely far advantageous to buying hardware for any scenario where the price was increasing fast and the emission curve was declining fast (which is nearly always the case for any coin worth mining).

One could aggregate more hashrate faster reinvesting mined coins from rented VPS than the slower return of capital from buying.

Math doesn't lie.

You are assuming the equipment does not have residual value. I have also done the math for various reasons (not just coin-related). Cost per cycle is much lower off-cloud in general (of course there are exceptions, promotional discounts, etc.)

$200 for used hardware versus $millions for more coins obtained 

If you believe in a coin, you mine the hell out of it with rented hardware or even better rented bots.

Btw, launch by mining can never be transparent, because we don't know who purchased a 10,000 bot miner for $100.

10,000 bot miners don't matter if there are millions of people mining, and the experience with Monero shows over time that claims of botnets are overblown. My theory, unproven but consistent with observed data, is that mining on botnets is pretty expensive because bots have a cost and lifetime and mining burns them up too fast.

With slow start rewards, it doesn't matter much if someone throws bots on it early, they'l never accumulate a large portion of the supply anyway. Good for them, they'll probably become early advocates, and promote the coin in some markets you'd never reach otherwise.

[TPTB_need_war]

...It was an exception of Monero due to the newness of the technology and the high level of investor demand that it stayed profitable there for several months (even with public unoptimized miners).

Which was in part a function of Darkcoin popularizing anonymity, you are correct about that, but it was also in part a function of the fair and transparent launch, visible integrity of the team, etc. because that brought investors who had rejected Darkcoin, Bytecoin and others.

Some people might have the perspective that Monero brought people who were savvy miners and saw an opportunity to hijack Cryptonote and mine it for themselves.

And then managed to have enough clout to hoodwink a lot of others into siding with the coin with the most clout.

Thus you can clearly see how politics enters the picture. I sure do hate politics. I wish I could be free from it.

You don't know who has optimized code, even GPU optimized, etc.

None of that matters if your own mining is profitable. Why does it matter if someone else makes more?

Why are you worried if a few people own most of the coin then?

Of course it matters. The entire point is we want distribution to be widespread to maximize network effects, interest, and maximize the power of the free market when transparency and liquidity are maximized.

[minersday]

None of that matters if your own mining is profitable. Why does it mater if someone else makes more?

Didn't you just argue a while back that it's wrong to make more?

No, in fact I said that 100% of coins have someone making more because they are more clever (programming, hardware design,etc.) or because they live someplace with cheap electricity, etc. There is nothing wrong with that outcome in general, as long as the process is reasonable (not ninja-launched in the middle of the night ahead of the promised schedule, etc.)

So it's OK?, if you can make more when hiding it cleverly, then doing it in public? Which one is worse?

Individual miners, who are private actors, can do whatever they want, and there is nothing you can ever will be able about that even if you wanted to. A large part of the purpose of mining is to be permissionless, meaning by definition "anything goes". The only thing that might happen is the system could fail for various reasons.

People launching a coin, promoting a business, etc.are public, and are open to criticism if they set up things in a manner which is dishonest, unethical, or unsound.

So you are saying that if people(individual miners) instamined a coin publicly when it was launched, before the diff got adjusted it is OK. It's OK for me because it's honest..

[noobtrader]

If that's true, then why aren't you trolling the monero thread constantly pointing out the fact that it was launched as a scam because of its intentionally de-optimized miner? Don't you owe that to the users and investors of XMR? I think daily reminders at a minimum should suffice. Get on it!

Because it was not intentionally (or otherwise) de-optimized by the then-or current-developers of Monero, who were the ones who in fact optimized it and released the fixes as open source, to the great inconvenience and frustration of those trying to stay ahead with optimized private miners. This is well-documented; there is no dispute over it.

So you are admitting that monero was released with a scam miner that had been intentionally de-optimized, but you are claiming that you had no knowledge of the scam code you continued to push on your users? Are we supposed to just take your word on this?

"Admitting" that it was likely deliberately de-optimzed by the Bytecoin/CN scammers from which Monero was forked? We're the ones who originally discovered and reported exactly that!

I believe it was eizh, or tacotime, I don't remember which.

WOW...

i learn alot of thing,  Thank you for clarification

FYI, in case you are not aware the tacotime and eizh I mentioned above were and are Monero core team members, as was and is NoodleDoodle who did most of the early work to fix the miner.

thats hard to know, they all anon u know.

Sure you ware welcome to labor under the delusion that tacotime, NoodleDoodle, eizh, or myself (or othe) are affiliated with the Cryptonote/Bytecoin team because we are anonymous. I assure you that will be laughed off the forum by anyone who is familiar with the history.

wow thats very gentlemen LOL, btw i didnt say that you were them  

i just stating the truth, which they are all anon dev.

I think anon dev is unethical.  dozen of coin which were created by anon dev actually scam. and those serious coin like ethereum, storj, maid, dash, and even bitcoin are now managed by real dev, not anon dev.

EDIT : btw im still shocked that monero is actually a clone, wow...

[TPTB_need_war]

I'll just say that for example mining is not that transparent, because you don't know who has figured out how to rent AWS, etc. Renting nearly always makes more sense than buying hardware.

This is incorrect.

I did the math in 2014 when I was evaluating my PoW hash and VPS renting was definitely far advantageous to buying hardware for any scenario where the price was increasing fast and the emission curve was declining fast (which is nearly always the case for any coin worth mining).

One could aggregate more hashrate faster reinvesting mined coins from rented VPS than the slower return of capital from buying.

Math doesn't lie.

You are assuming the equipment does not have residual value. I have also done the math for various reasons (not just coin-related). Cost per cycle is much lower off-cloud in general (of course there are exceptions, promotional discounts, etc.)

$200 for used hardware versus $millions for more coins obtained  

If you believe in a coin, you mine the hell out of it with rented hardware or even better rented bots.

Btw, launch by mining can never be transparent, because we don't know who purchased a 10,000 bot miner for $100.

10,000 bot miners don't matter if there are millions of people mining, and the experience with Monero shows over time that claims of botnets are overblown. My theory, unproven but consistent with observed data, is that mining on botnets is pretty expensive because bots have a cost and lifetime and mining burns them up too fast.

With slow start rewards, it doesn't matter much if someone throws bots on it early, they'l never accumulate a large portion of the supply anyway. Good for them, they'll probably become early advocates, and promote the coin in some markets you'd never reach otherwise.

If someone gets $1000 of coins for $100, while every normal JoeBlow gets $150 of coins for $100, the free market is not operating with transparency. It is an opaque market and thus not efficient.

Besides mining hands all the capital to electric and hardware companies. We enslave ourselves      

And giving preference to those who are savvy miners over every normal JoeBlow who might want to invest, thus not achieving maximum distribution.

And you wonder why Monero is stuck in mud. 

[smooth]

You don't know who has optimized code, even GPU optimized, etc.

None of that matters if your own mining is profitable. Why does it matter if someone else makes more?

Why are you worried if a few people own most of the coin then?

Of course it matters. The entire point is we want distribution to be widespread to maximize network effects, interest, and maximize the power of the free market when transparency and liquidity are maximized.

Obviously I meant in the context where you can profitably mine, pretty much as much as you want, without anything special, like Monero in the first few months. You, AnonyMint/TPTB, personally, could have made money mining, maybe even a lot. You could perhaps have used that money to support something bigger and better, I don't know.

This was not a design goal, just a realistic observation about how things are.

Of course, I don't think it is a good idea to set up a system where people can get huge advantages, but there will always be some advantages, and if the distribution is gradual (not concentrated into a few hours) then that these things happen from time to time doesn't matter much.

[smooth]

EDIT : btw im still shocked that monero is actually a clone, wow...

It's not a clone, its a fork, and this was intended. There is 100k+ lines of code development since it forked, as discussed a few pages back. Stop trolling.

[smooth]

None of that matters if your own mining is profitable. Why does it mater if someone else makes more?

Didn't you just argue a while back that it's wrong to make more?

No, in fact I said that 100% of coins have someone making more because they are more clever (programming, hardware design,etc.) or because they live someplace with cheap electricity, etc. There is nothing wrong with that outcome in general, as long as the process is reasonable (not ninja-launched in the middle of the night ahead of the promised schedule, etc.)

So it's OK?, if you can make more when hiding it cleverly, then doing it in public? Which one is worse?

Individual miners, who are private actors, can do whatever they want, and there is nothing you can ever will be able about that even if you wanted to. A large part of the purpose of mining is to be permissionless, meaning by definition "anything goes". The only thing that might happen is the system could fail for various reasons.

People launching a coin, promoting a business, etc.are public, and are open to criticism if they set up things in a manner which is dishonest, unethical, or unsound.

So you are saying that if people(individual miners) instamined a coin publicly when it was launched, before the diff got adjusted it is OK. It's OK for me because it's honest..

I'm saying that the individual miners are not to blame for playing the hand they are dealt, but if you set up a system that is dysfunctional or corrupt, then you are to blame for doing that.

Now TPTB thinks that mining as it exists today is dysfunctional, even without obvious abuses, and he's entitled to his belief, but it is entirely unproven. It will be more interesting if he can demonstrate something better, making mining as it exists today obsolete (and then we can look back and say it was, indeed, dysfunctional).

Outside of that we have to look at the range of mining that exists, some of which is much more corrupt and dysfunctional than others.

[illodin]

While no launch or mining system is ever perfect, at least we have some idea how to do a decent (mining) launch now. The main improvement I would make now if launching a new coin is slow start (ramp up mining rewards from a very low base at launch to their normal level over over some period of months to perhaps 1-2 years).

To play devil's advocate a little, that sort of launch would allow only botnets and industrial/professional miners to mine. Fast mining at the start at least gives those lucky small time hobbyists happening to refresh the ANN forum at the launch a chance to get lucky before the professionals take over.* The other method will make the rich richer, and other can potentially make a few poor ones rich as well. If you believe the former is the best option, then why not skip the distribution by mining completely and distribute directly to BTC holders according to their holdings?

* Although professionals are likely auto-refreshing the announcements or have paid others to refresh and have alerts and quick-scripts to start instamining for the last couple of years.

[TPTB_need_war]

You don't know who has optimized code, even GPU optimized, etc.

None of that matters if your own mining is profitable. Why does it matter if someone else makes more?

Why are you worried if a few people own most of the coin then?

Of course it matters. The entire point is we want distribution to be widespread to maximize network effects, interest, and maximize the power of the free market when transparency and liquidity are maximized.

Obviously I meant in the context where you can profitably mine, pretty much as much as you want, without anything special, like Monero in the first few months. You, AnonyMint/TPTB, personally, could have made money mining, maybe even a lot. You could perhaps have used that money to support something bigger and better, I don't know.

This was not a design goal, just a realistic observation about how things are.

Of course, I don't think it is a good idea to set up a system where people can get huge advantages, but there will always be some advantages, and if the distribution is gradual (not concentrated into a few hours) then that these things happen from time to time doesn't matter much.

So you do admit then that opaqueness is a cost.

It would actually been more efficient for me to just buy XMR on a liquid exchange, so that is why I think decentralized exchanges are so important, because I can not qualify for KYC.

And besides I don't want to hassle of signing up an account and researching if the exchange is reliable, etc..

I'd prefer to just be able to exchange directly from the wallet.

I better not have to download any damn client to run a wallet.

I didn't invest in XMR because I don't believe in it. I still see all cryptoland as stuck in the Stone Age. Basic things that should be easy as point and click are not.

[minersday]

Because it was not intentionally (or otherwise) de-optimized by the then-or current-developers of Monero, who were the ones who in fact optimized it and released the fixes as open source, to the great inconvenience and frustration of those trying to stay ahead with optimized private miners. This is well-documented; there is no dispute over it.

Yeah right?
And we should just take your word for it?
Isn't this just the thing you are against for?

almost reminds me of this...
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. - Bill Clinton.

[smooth]

Because it was not intentionally (or otherwise) de-optimized by the then-or current-developers of Monero, who were the ones who in fact optimized it and released the fixes as open source, to the great inconvenience and frustration of those trying to stay ahead with optimized private miners. This is well-documented; there is no dispute over it.

Yeah right?
And we should just take your word for it?

No, that's why it matters that it is well documented.

[TPTB_need_war]

Yeah I've got one of those (a dick).

smooth, I think Monero people have tried to claim that mining for all made their coin the fairest launch. Yet we see even the emission curve declined egregiously faster than Bitcoin (and I pointed that out last year).

We know the miner wasn't optimized on launch.

Isn't it time we come off the high horse?

Bottom line is we need to distribute the coin as transparently and widely as possible. That is my goal. No method can be perfect. But at least I don't want to worry about the accusations about mining optimization which are not proven for Monero. We have no way of knowing who had what optimization and when.

And at least with my proposal, everyone will be able to calculate the math that I documented.

The plan has been (unless we receive severe admonishment to do otherwise) to launch a coin with a series of ICOs, not just one. Each ICO would follow the prior one by a month or perhaps two (needs to be decided by the community). Each ICO would be 2X more coins than the prior one. Each ICO will be an auction format, where participants place a bid & qty in a transparent auction and then at the close of the auction, the top bids are filled and the rest refunded from the escrow agent (of course the community must select a trusted escrow agent who has a great reputation or perhaps we can design some sort of block chain escrow that is automated). The point of this is everyone can see the bids and adjust their bids during the auction period, so that there is a market pricing effect. We want an honest market result. This also insures the controlling group can not get any of the funds until after each (monthly or bimonthly) auction closes, thus the controlling group can not bid in the auction using other bidders' funds. This provides a mathematical proof that the controlling group can not own more than a certain amount of coins by the time all the planned ICOs are completed.

For example, assuming there will be 10 millions coins sold in ICO, the ICOs might be:

   32,768 x 10
   65,536 x 10
  131,072 x 10
  262,144 x 10
  524,288 x 10
-------------------
1,015,808 x 10 = 10,158,080 coins

The calculation for the maximum coins the controlling group could retain if they used all the proceeds of the auction to purchase their own coins of each subsequent auction is as follows.

Assuming the market driven auction price of the coin was constant across all ICO auctions, the controlling group could purchase 0 coins in first auction, 32,768 x 10 coins in 2nd auction, 65,536 x 10 in 3rd auction, 131,072 x 10 coins in 4th auction, and 262,144 x 10 coins in 5th auction. Thus the controlling group could own at most 491,520 x 10 coins or 48% of the ICO money supply.

Assuming the market driven auction price of the coin increased by 100% of each subsequent ICO auctions, the controlling group could purchase 0 coins in first auction, 16,384 x 10 coins in 2nd auction, 32,768 x 10 in 3rd auction, 65,536 x 10 coins in 4th auction, and 131,072 x 10 coins in 5th auction. Thus the controlling group could own at most 245,760 x 10 coins or 24% of the ICO money supply.

Assuming the market driven auction price of the coin increased by 300% of each subsequent ICO auctions, the controlling group could purchase 0 coins in first auction, 8,192 x 10 coins in 2nd auction, 16,384 x 10 in 3rd auction, 32,768 x 10 coins in 4th auction, and 65,536 x 10 coins in 5th auction. Thus the controlling group could own at most 245,760 x 10 coins or 12% of the ICO money supply.

The point is that no matter what happens with the prices of the ICO auctions, the maximum stake of the controlling group can be mathematically calculated.

The above calculations assume that the controlling group offers no bounties and pays for no development from the time of the first ICO until the last, which is not going to be the case. The controlling group is going to be attempting to spend the funds as quickly as possible...

Correction: upthead I made a mistake in that electric and hardware companies don't get the wealth effect as the coin appreciates in value. The point was the cost of the hardware and electricity is wasted capital.

Edit: one of important factors in distribution is giving a wide range of people the reason to obtain your coin. So to those who say a use case doesn't matter, I think they are delirious.

[smooth]

Obviously I meant in the context where you can profitably mine, pretty much as much as you want, without anything special, like Monero in the first few months. You, AnonyMint/TPTB, personally, could have made money mining, maybe even a lot. You could perhaps have used that money to support something bigger and better, I don't know.

It would actually been more efficient for me to just buy XMR on a liquid exchange, so that is why I think decentralized exchanges are so important, because I can not qualify for KYC.

I said mining was profitable, I didn't say that buying on an exchange has been profitable.

I don't think it would have been more efficient buy XMR unless you were a trader, because investing in it hasn't produced much in the way of profit (depending on buy timing you might be up a little, down little, close to, even, or less likely, if you were a retard, down a lot), so that is pointless i.e. inefficient.