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

[smooth]

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).

There no successful coins other than bitcoin. The second largest coin is 5% of bitcoin's market cap. The third largest is 1%.  It gets rapidly worse from there.

If there is ever a successful coin other than bitcoin (unclear, but maybe) it will take new approaches, not anything like any of the current alts.

Personally I don't believe hash algorithm even matters very much. By focusing on that you are getting distracted from anything that does (or at least might) matter.

[1715348632]

1715348632

[1715348632]

1715348632

[1715348632]

1715348632

[eizh]

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.

Name maybe, but emission schedule is in no way minor. It's one of the defining features of a coin. If you're off, the network becomes unsustainable in the long run. One could argue BTC is successful because it incentivizes miners for at least a decade or two.

[tacotime]

I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair.  I'm an early adopter.  This halves my money, and it's what I want to do.

There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network.  In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not.  So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins.  To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 2^64-1 atomic units to accommodate this.

Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run.  It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now.

We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news.  Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.

[jasemoney]

eizh I believe as long as theres a reward, if the coins valuable enough it will be worth it to mine.  But aside from that I don't care if the coin changes the number I guess I'm with tacotime.  You all have a better grasp on the scheduling and usability for longevity than I do absolutely.  If i end up with 100 instead of 200 and the coins better off I'm cool with that.  

[smooth]

There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network.

It's not microscopic at 9 or 10 years, with the revised schedule. Take a look at the graph a few posts back. With the original schedule, that is more the case. With the revised schedule this is more an issue of 20 years out.  

I'm not positive but I think most of the other alts such as doge have much shorter schedules, so the issue is more urgent there.

[tacotime]

There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network.

It's not microscopic at 9 or 10 years, with the revised schedule. Take a look at the graph a few posts back. With the original schedule, that is more the case. With the revised schedule this is more an issue of 20 years out.  

I'm not positive but I think most of the other alts such as doge have much shorter schedules, so the issue is more urgent there.

Yeah it's a little less dire now, I will calculate inflation percent soon and we can collectively decide if it's too low after a certain time.

It's a problem with Bitcoin too, so we could also ignore it and wait to see how Bitcoin eventually handles it.

[r0ach]

There no successful coins other than bitcoin. The second largest coin is 5% of bitcoin's market cap. The third largest is 1%.  It gets rapidly worse from there.

If there is ever a successful coin other than bitcoin (unclear, but maybe) it will take new approaches, not anything like any of the current alts.

Personally I don't believe hash algorithm even matters very much. By focusing on that you are getting distracted from anything that does (or at least might) matter.

You are the one that does not understand the big picture.  Why was Dogecoin successful at all and has beaten Bitcoin in daily transactions several times?  The answer is market penetration.

A currency is useless without high market penetration.  Guess what algos give the highest market penetration?  GPU.

When people try to CPU mine and earn 1 penny a day due to botnets, most people cease to bother doing so, and the coin dies from lack of interest.

The future of PoW, if GPU only can't be achieved, is Myriadcoin style coins where you can mine with anything and receive some kind of reward.

[smooth]

There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network.

It's not microscopic at 9 or 10 years, with the revised schedule. Take a look at the graph a few posts back. With the original schedule, that is more the case. With the revised schedule this is more an issue of 20 years out.  

I'm not positive but I think most of the other alts such as doge have much shorter schedules, so the issue is more urgent there.

Yeah it's a little less dire now, I will calculate inflation percent soon and we can collectively decide if it's too low after a certain time.

There will be some time when its still likely to be a problem. Almost everyone agrees with this, although I guess there are a few die hard bitcoin originalists who don't see a need to change ever.

I'm less sure about the solution though. I'd rather some mechanism that provides whatever rewards are necessary rather than trying to guess at that 20 years ahead of time, but I'm not sure at all what mechanism that is. Some small inflation rate is probably better than nothing.

[jasemoney]

Roach the algo takes 3.5 GB ram to run on the original, Its not a walk in the park for a cpu...

[tacotime]

There no successful coins other than bitcoin. The second largest coin is 5% of bitcoin's market cap. The third largest is 1%.  It gets rapidly worse from there.

If there is ever a successful coin other than bitcoin (unclear, but maybe) it will take new approaches, not anything like any of the current alts.

Personally I don't believe hash algorithm even matters very much. By focusing on that you are getting distracted from anything that does (or at least might) matter.

You are the one that does not understand the big picture.  Why was Dogecoin successful at all and has beaten Bitcoin in daily transactions several times?  The answer is market penetration.

A currency is useless without high market penetration.  Guess what algos give the highest market penetration?  GPU.

When people try to CPU mine and earn 1 penny a day due to botnets, most people cease to bother doing so, and the coin dies.

The future of PoW is Myriadcoin style coins where you can mine with anything and receive some kind of reward.

No.  The second biggest cryptocurrency is Liteoin.  I CPU mined Litecoin for months.  It was a CPU coin at generation and was flooded with botnets and large computing clusters early on.  The coin succeeded despite this, because eventually a GPU algo came out.  I'm sure we'll see the same thing for the cryptonote hashing algo.

Myriadcoin introduces vulnerability when miners hop between difficulties and the difficulty of one hashing algo for GPU goes down and another goes up.  It's not a proper solution.  We saw a similar thing with RUCoin (which had SHA256 and scrypt) and the coin failed.

You seem to forget what the function of this is: money.  As long as people find the privacy afforded to be favourable, it will have a usage and monetary value.  This is the whole point.

[the_darkness]

Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run.  It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now.

We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news.  Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.

I think this is the right attitude. Like you I stand to "lose" from this decision in having my early mining halved, but I welcome it. Given how scammy the average coin launch is, I think maximizing fairness for everyone is the right move. Combining a fair distribution with the innovation of Cryptonote tech could be what differentiates Monero from other coins.

[r0ach]

We saw a similar thing with RUCoin (which had SHA256 and scrypt) and the coin failed.

If you're saying weighting can cause a big disturbance from a minor shift in hashing, that phenomenon seems much less likely to occur with 4 algos instead of 2 if weighted properly.

It's obviously also much more cartel proof.

People like Gmaxwell seem to claim that a group like KNCminer would create ASICs for all four chains.

I don't really see groups like that monopolizing all four chains into eternity, especially if each algo is radically different from one another.

[tacotime]

We saw a similar thing with RUCoin (which had SHA256 and scrypt) and the coin failed.

If you're saying weighting can cause a big disturbance from a minor shift in hashing, that phenomenon seems much less likely to occur with 4 algos instead of 2 if weighted properly.

It's obviously also much more cartel proof.

People like Gmaxwell seem to claim that a group like KNCminer would create ASICs for all four chains.

I don't really see groups like that monopolizing all four chains into eternity, especially if each algo is radically different from one another.

They aren't radically different.  All you need to implement is an instruction cache that does most of the normal transformations for hashing algorithms (eg bit rotations).  Then you can make an ASIC for any hashing algorithm that can be implemented in 20k-100k circuits.  scrypt was neat in that it required some memory, but then they made ASICs with memory.

[abit2slo]

is MRO equal to BMR? what's going on?

[smooth]

is MRO equal to BMR? what's going on?

Rename: Bitmonero -> Monero

[BitcoinForumator]

When I command "start_mining ..." I get this message:

Error: mining has NOT been started: daemon is busy. Please try later

[bengtåke]

When I command "start_mining ..." I get this message:

Error: mining has NOT been started: daemon is busy. Please try later

The daemon is likely still synching the blockchain

[abit2slo]

will there be any other changes? hard-fork with reduced emission?
do you want to orginize smth like the "core dev team" or the "Secret Monero Community"? why does thankful_for _today as main dev doesn't participate in discussion?
everything i see there is pretty strange. just like bytecoin (BCN)  

[thankful_for_today]

Hello!

It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming.

But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by bitcointalk.org people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum.

Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless.

In case of hardfork that isn't supported by majority of miners the network will split into two nets with low-power fork and high-power not-forking branches. I don't think that this will be good for anybody.

Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?

[imready2rock]

Hello!

It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming.

But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by bitcointalk.org people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum.

Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless.

Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?

Seems alright to me. You should create a voting instructions tho, cause it's not looks like an easy process