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

[David Latapie]

blockchain.bin will not be written unless "save" is used in bitmonerod.  Save after synching and before exit.

"exit" should suffice, since exit automatically starts a "save" before it exists.
At least this is the way it works with BCN.

[1713569057]

1713569057

[1713569057]

1713569057

[1713569057]

1713569057

[tacotime]

We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room

"Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"

To vote type

Code:

vote 2 #

Where # is what you vote for.

Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.

[mickey_miner]

blockchain.bin will not be written unless "save" is used in bitmonerod.  Save after synching and before exit.

"exit" should suffice, since exit automatically starts a "save" before it exists.
At least this is the way it works with BCN.

Yes that.  Not meaning to spread confusion.

[David Latapie]

We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room

"Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"

To vote type

Code:

vote 2 #

Where # is what you vote for.

Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.

Please summarise below the pros and cons of each solution.

Edit with the answers:
<tacotime> change emission: need to bitshift old values on the network or double values after a certain block.  controversial.  not sure if necessary.  can be difficult to implement.
<tacotime> keep emission: straightforward, we don't keep change emission or block time.
<tacotime> change final reward is simple.  if (blockSubsidy < finalSubsidy) return finalSubsidy; else return blockSubsidy;

[smooth]

We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room

"Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"

To vote type

Code:

vote 2 #

Where # is what you vote for.

Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.

So what you are saying is this coin will have a reward curve that is in fact nothing at all like bitcoin (which has neither such fast emission nor a  fixed final reward)? Fair enough, but not as advertised.

[knightcoin]

We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room

"Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward"

To vote type

Code:

vote 2 #

Where # is what you vote for.

Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.

COOL !!!
but,
I already saw people at voting-system just following the crowd ( such as; check where the majority is going to and follow the trend, because I know am not expert )

so I am not expert either and I'm not really sure the implications among options ... but as Albert Einstein quoted... If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

[David Latapie]

I already saw people at voting-system just following the crowd ( such as; check where the majority is going to and follow the trend, because I know am not expert )

so I am not expert either and I'm not really sure the implications among options ... but as Albert Einstein quoted... If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

That's why I asked for explanations and got them on IRC. Go vote there #bitmonera @freenode.

[tacotime]

So what you are saying is this coin will have a reward curve that is in fact nothing at all like bitcoin (which has neither such fast emission nor a  fixed final reward)? Fair enough, but not as advertised.

Yeah, well.  We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it.

We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to.

In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).

It's unlikely that uint64 values will ever overflow given these numbers, and we can make it so that the max coins at any address is 2^64-1 (so if you have more you just split them up).

Obviously not what either of us intended to be getting when we started mining, but I don't think there is a long term harm in the 1 minute blocktime and current subsidy schedule.

[knightcoin]

I already saw people at voting-system just following the crowd ( such as; check where the majority is going to and follow the trend, because I know am not expert )

so I am not expert either and I'm not really sure the implications among options ... but as Albert Einstein quoted... If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough.

That's why I asked for explanations and got them on IRC. Go vote there #bitmonera @freenode.

yep thanks for channel .. but what IP:PORT ? sorry I am old school not really believe in DNS table ...

[smooth]

So what you are saying is this coin will have a reward curve that is in fact nothing at all like bitcoin (which has neither such fast emission nor a  fixed final reward)? Fair enough, but not as advertised.

Yeah, well.  We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it.

We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to.

In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).

Obviously not what either of us intended to be getting when we started mining, but I don't think there is a long term harm in the 1 minute blocktime and current subsidy schedule.

I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.

At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:

1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)

I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.

I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).

We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.

[eizh]

I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.

At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:

1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)

I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.

I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).

We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.

The website does exist now, it's just not particularly informative yet. But, I agree that thankful_for_today has severely mislead everyone by stating the emission was "close to Bitcoin's" (if he's denying that /2 rather than /4 emission schedule was unintentional, as he seems to be). I'm also against BCN merge mining. It works against the goal of overtaking BCN and if that's not a goal, I don't know what we're even doing here. I'll dedicate my meagre mining to voting against that.

That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.

[smooth]

That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.

Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.

[eizh]

That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.

Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.

It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN). Will that change with a relaunch of a relaunch that has a website, GUI, and Mac binaries? Only one way to find out: someone get on it. It'd be especially interesting if this new coin was late enough that taco already had a GUI for MRO. I don't know how that would go, but I have a guess.

[mickey_miner]

That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.

Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.

It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN). Will that change with a relaunch of a relaunch that has a website, GUI, and Mac binaries? Only one way to find out: someone get on it. It'd be especially interesting if this new coin was late enough that taco already had a GUI for MRO. I don't know how that would go, but I have a guess.

What need help with?  I know webpage but limited with other programming skills

[eizh]

That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.

Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.

It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN). Will that change with a relaunch of a relaunch that has a website, GUI, and Mac binaries? Only one way to find out: someone get on it. It'd be especially interesting if this new coin was late enough that taco already had a GUI for MRO. I don't know how that would go, but I have a guess.

What need help with?  I know webpage but limited with other programming skills

You can contact David Latapie. He was asking for help with this.

[smooth]

That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.

Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.

It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN).

BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now.

If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.)

Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.

[knightcoin]

That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.

Except that this is a relaunch and clone already. It's starting with two strikes against it on that basis alone. Add the other issues I outlined, and it is very questionable whether it can succeed, unless of course its intended goal is not to succeed on its own, but to poison the well against other bytecoin clones. Who would have the incentive to do that? Follow the money.

It was gaining on BCN in diff within a relatively short time, so it seems it was on target (currently 280k = 560k in BCN).

BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now.

If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.)

Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.

my non tech fellow ... is it really anon am I be able to buy my g19 now?

[tacotime]

I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.

At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:

1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)

I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.

I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).

We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.

There's no point in fragmenting talent.

If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code.

Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially.  Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client.

If people want a pool, they can make one.  There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though.  Surely you must feel this way.

[knightcoin]

I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin.

At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:

1. No GUI
2. No web site
3. Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
4. No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
5. No effective team behind it at launch
6. No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)

I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure.

I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.).

We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.

There's no point in fragmenting talent.

If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code.

Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially.  Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client.

If people want a pool, they can make one.  There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though.  Surely you must feel this way.

my vote is back to root
after all is that what crypto is all about ... isn't it ?

[smooth]

If people want a pool, they can make one.  There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though.  Surely you must feel this way.

It wouldn't centralize the network, at least not initially.The larger miners would still solo mine. The people with one little laptop would still get something, instead of getting nothing at all for days and quitting. I'm solo mining bytecoin even though its hash rate is twice this coin.

What centralizes a network is having the block target too short. Like one minute. Look at all the one minute coins, they are all dominated by one or two huge pools. Smaller pools can't compete because they orphan too much. And, yet, the target for this coin was changed from two minutes to one "for solo mining," which is patently absurd. Even one week into it, and solo mining is already chasing small miners away. Having a two minute (or longer) blocks with at least one pool would be far better.

Nobody involved with this coin seems to care about these sorts of fundamental issues, which is why I doubt this coin is the right vehicle. Its still early though, things may turn around, and yes there are talented team members. That is the one source of promise I see here.