[ANN][MRO] Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology

[sussex]

Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026

I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it.

Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin. How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems.

Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which *might* be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up.

Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price?

I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?

This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.

Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph?

That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?

[1714853835]

1714853835

[1714853835]

1714853835

[smooth]

Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026

I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it.

Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin. How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems.

Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which *might* be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up.

Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price?

I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?

This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.

Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph?

That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?

Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week.

This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.

[sussex]

So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.

No, not true. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.

Also, a favourable premine for early adopters is far from uncommon - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are arguments for each.

[smooth]

So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.

No, not true. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.

Also, a favourable premine for early adopters is far from uncommon - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are arguments for each.

Right, and no one involved with this coin wanted or wants a favorable premine. Well, maybe other than you, that is.

[sussex]

Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026

I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it.

Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin. How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems.

Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which *might* be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up.

Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price?

I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?

This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.

Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph?

That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?

Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week.

This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.

I hardly think that significantly less than 1% over the course of a week or so constitutes an instamine.

The crypto world is pretty brutal, bitcointalk even more so - I'll watch with interest and shut up in the meantime.....  

[sussex]

So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.

No, not true. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.

Also, a favourable premine for early adopters is far from uncommon - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are arguments for each.

Right, and no one involved with this coin wanted or wants a favorable premine. Well, maybe other than you, that is.

Oh here we go........

I have valid questions, brush me off if you want, the questions will remain.

[smooth]

So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.

No, not true. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.

Also, a favourable premine for early adopters is far from uncommon - I'm not saying it's right or wrong, there are arguments for each.

Right, and no one involved with this coin wanted or wants a favorable premine. Well, maybe other than you, that is.

Oh here we go........

I have valid questions, brush me off if you want, the questions will remain.

I already said you made valid points. It was a screw up, and fixing it can't be done in a perfect way. We're trying to choose the least harmful fix. They all have down sides.

[cocoakrispies]

+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?

It's not even been a week. Nothing is lost, besides a couple of auctions. Continuing on a path that would provide an excessive emission is far more detrimental than causing some level of discomfort with the small group involved right now.

End of the day, if you're here now and have been here . . you're still an early adopter.

I think this would set a strange trend for setting debasement in the currency . . but at this point we're all just a group of people who ran a hash function for a week . . not part of some game-changing currency.

Give it a shot and if it all goes to hell make a new fork.

[smooth]

I think this would set a strange trend for setting debasement in the currency

It's not debasement. Debasement is issuing more coins, making existing coins worth less. The proposed bug fix is essentially a reverse stock split where every two old coins are exchanged for one new coin.

The extra coins being combined into one coin are coins you should not have received under the "close to Bitcoin's original curve" schedule that was advertised. To argue that bugs can't be fixed is absurd.

If there were a bug that gave some people a million extra coins for no reason in bitcoin or any other coin, you can bet there would be a fix to remove those coins.

As you say, this is all an experiment. If people abandon the coin in droves because of the reverse split, then that will be a useful experiment and we can all get on with our lives with some other coin. Most of us believe that the value of a coin with the cryptonote feature set, no-premine, no-instamine, no-tax, and a bitcoin-like reward schedule is compelling. We'll see if that turns out to be correct.

[smooth]

+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?

The existing block chain would not change, of course. What would happen is that if you were using the new version of the wallet, the old coins would be displayed using a value half as large as what is actually in the block chain. New coins would be displayed using their actual value. When the old coins are moved, the miner would adjust their value on the block chain to be new coins. So in a sense, the fix is mostly cosmetic.

[btc-mike]

I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote.

Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people.

Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.

[smooth]

I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote.

Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people.

Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.

What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes.

Let's not make the perfect the enemy of the good. I think we can fix this in a way that makes nearly everyone happy and does minimal damage, but if not, then a new coin is certainly possible.

[cocoakrispies]

I think this would set a strange trend for setting debasement in the currency

It's not debasement. Debasement is issuing more coins, making existing coins worth less. The proposed bug fix is essentially a reverse stock split where every two old coins are exchanged for one new coin.

The extra coins being combined into one coin are coins you should not have received under the "close to Bitcoin's original curve" schedule that was advertised. To argue that bugs can't be fixed is absurd.

If there were a bug that gave some people a million extra coins for no reason in bitcoin or any other coin, you can bet there would be a fix to remove those coins.

As you say, this is all an experiment. If people abandon the coin in droves because of the reverse split, then that will be a useful experiment and we can all get on with our lives with some other coin. Most of us believe that the value of a coin with the cryptonote feature set, no-premine, no-instamine, no-tax, and a bitcoin-like reward schedule is compelling. We'll see if that turns out to be correct.

Yes, debasement is devaluing the current value (Something that occurs when issuing more coins). As trades have already occurred at a certain price . . eliminating half of the coins will only serve to raise the value of the currency from what it was yesterday. That is quite the opposite of debasement is what I was getting at . . sorry if I was unclear.

In setting a trend for debasement by establishing minimum block rewards, this is a strange start. All I'm saying. Not that it's a terrible one, and certainly not that this is debasement.

I understand the bug, and completely agree that it should be fixed. I will also be choosing to stick with this coin because of the bold move being taken. You guys seem to know what you do very well, and that's worth quite a lot.

[smooth]

You guys seem to know what you do very well, and that's worth quite a lot.

Thank you for the kind words. I agree with you that the quality of the team is really important. When I evaluate any project that's the number one thing I look for. I'm very pleased with the quality of the team that has come together around this coin.

[mickey_miner]

Fix is good. Need to be done.  I mine  and hold coins but understand why fix is neccessary.  I willing to have reduced coins to make future of coin strong.

[GreekBitcoin]

I also agree that the fix is good. Since everyone's coins are halved noone gains and noone loses. And since this stops instamine more people will get to mine it as first adopters which is always good.

[eizh]

I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote.

Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people.

Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.

Since everything is scaled and retroactive, the only person to be affected is... me.   Because I bought BMR with BTC, priced it with incorrect information, and my share relative to the eventual maximum has been halved. Oh well. The rest merely mined coins that never should have been mined. The "taking away coins" isn't a symptom of the fix: it's the fundamental thing that needed fixing. The result is more egalitarian and follows the original intention.

Software is always a work-in-progress. Waiting for something ideal at launch is pretty hopeless.

edit: Let me point out that most top cryptocurrencies today were released before KGW and other new difficulty retargeting algorithms became widespread. Consequently they had massive instamines on the first day, even favorites in good standing like LTC. Here the early miners are voluntarily reducing their eventual stake for the sake of fairness. How cool is that?

[eizh]

Here's a graph I made showing the change of new (red) vs. old (blue) emission schedule. It's coins in circulation vs. blockchain age in years (goes up to 16). We're basically at 0 on the x-axis right now and the magnitude of the slope around there represents the early miner advantage. It's being substantially reduced to follow the flatter BTC-model as originally advertised. There's also a minimum subsidy to preserve miner incentives (and hence blockchain security). The dashed black line is the maximum supply neglecting that minimum subsidy.

[r0ach]

Relaunch with a GPU algorithm unless a Myriadcoin style PoW setup can be achieved.  Name the last successful CPU only coin...it doesn't exist (no, Bitcoin doesn't count).

[jasemoney]

I think you guys are being hyper-critical of minor pieces, the name, the emission schedule etc. So many coins released with such less care, I'd hate for this crowd to get stuck on the small stuff.  No exchanges have worked with CryptoNight based coins yet, C-cex was having a hard time... The general crypto community are unfamiliar with what CryptoNote based coins can bring to the table and why it is important.
 (and while im typing) Roach why would we every switch to gpu if you want to mine a gpu coin pick from the hundred available theyre released every day.