Bitcoin Forum
May 25, 2019, 02:33:39 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 [767] 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 ... 2039 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency  (Read 4560747 times)
Nekomata
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 99
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 03:15:39 PM
Last edit: April 19, 2015, 05:26:32 AM by Nekomata
 #15321

XMR is the future.
1558751619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558751619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558751619
Reply with quote  #2

1558751619
Report to moderator
1558751619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558751619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558751619
Reply with quote  #2

1558751619
Report to moderator
1558751619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558751619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558751619
Reply with quote  #2

1558751619
Report to moderator
GET 25 FREE SPINS AT REGISTRATION
GET 100% BONUS ON FIRST DEPOSIT
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1558751619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558751619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558751619
Reply with quote  #2

1558751619
Report to moderator
1558751619
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1558751619

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1558751619
Reply with quote  #2

1558751619
Report to moderator
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1129



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 03:25:50 PM
 #15322

If rpietila wants to change emission curve, and we also don't want to come off as preminers, couldn't we instead do this:

Change the initial supply to 36 million over 20 years, or even 72 million over 50 years?

In my opinion no. It still comes off as an instamine (or more broadly shady/scammy) that the original rewards were based on some (larger) fraction of 18 million then everything is shifted such that future rewards become a smaller fraction of 36 million.

TrueCryptonaire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 03:27:28 PM
 #15323

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

Yes, everything should be considered and discussed, price is already down and Monero has plenty of haters already, little harm being done.

I refrained earlier but now I think its time to discuss.

The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).

Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).
Liquid71
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 842
Merit: 1000


There is NO Freedom without Privacy


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 03:28:14 PM
 #15324

So I guess the pump whales are in dump mode..BCX must have forced this pump and dump crew to end their little party early. Anticlimactic end for a pump and dump shitcoin with this much hype and drama surrounding it, thought their would be more fireworks. Undecided

TooDumbForBitcoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638
Merit: 1001



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 03:35:44 PM
 #15325

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

Yes, everything should be considered and discussed, price is already down and Monero has plenty of haters already, little harm being done.

I refrained earlier but now I think its time to discuss.

The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).

Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).

1.  no buyers for dally mined coins?  No problem, reduce the emission rate.
2.  no sellers for daily mined coins?   No problem, increase the emission rate.
3.  repeat 1 and 2 as needed
4.   Decentralization?  What's that?



▄▄                                  ▄▄
 ███▄                            ▄███
  ██████                      ██████
   ███████                  ███████
    ███████                ███████
     ███████              ███████
      ███████            ███████
       ███████▄▄      ▄▄███████
        ██████████████████████
         ████████████████████
          ██████████████████
           ████████████████
            ██████████████
             ███████████
              █████████
               ███████
                █████
                 ██
                  █
veil|     PRIVACY    
     WITHOUT COMPROMISE.      
▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂▂
|   NO ICO. NO PREMINE. 
   X16RT GPU Mining. Fair distribution.  
|      The first Zerocoin-based Cryptocurrency      
   WITH ALWAYS-ON PRIVACY.  
|



                   ▄▄████
              ▄▄████████▌
         ▄▄█████████▀███
    ▄▄██████████▀▀ ▄███▌
▄████████████▀▀  ▄█████
▀▀▀███████▀   ▄███████▌
      ██    ▄█████████
       █  ▄██████████▌
       █  ███████████
       █ ██▀ ▀██████▌
       ██▀     ▀████
                 ▀█▌




   ▄███████
   ████████
   ███▀
   ███
██████████
██████████
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███
   ███




     ▄▄█▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀█▄▄
   ▐██▄▄██████████████▄▄██▌
   ████████████████████████
  ▐████████████████████████▌
  ███████▀▀▀██████▀▀▀███████
 ▐██████     ████     ██████▌
 ███████     ████     ███████
▐████████▄▄▄██████▄▄▄████████▌
▐████████████████████████████▌
 █████▄▄▀▀▀▀██████▀▀▀▀▄▄█████
  ▀▀██████          ██████▀▀
      ▀▀▀            ▀▀▀
TrueCryptonaire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 03:38:19 PM
 #15326

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

Yes, everything should be considered and discussed, price is already down and Monero has plenty of haters already, little harm being done.

I refrained earlier but now I think its time to discuss.

The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).

Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).

1.  no buyers for dally mined coins?  No problem, reduce the emission rate.
2.  no sellers for daily mined coins?   No problem, increase the emission rate.
3.  repeat 1 and 2 as needed
4.   Decentralization?  What's that?

For case number 2 there is a bitcoinlike solution: the whales and early guys sells to noobs.
The heart of the problem is that Monero becomes fully mined way too fast at current block reward.
bigj
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 198
Merit: 100



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 03:51:33 PM
 #15327

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

Yes, everything should be considered and discussed, price is already down and Monero has plenty of haters already, little harm being done.

I refrained earlier but now I think its time to discuss.

The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).

Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).

1.  no buyers for dally mined coins?  No problem, reduce the emission rate.
2.  no sellers for daily mined coins?   No problem, increase the emission rate.
3.  repeat 1 and 2 as needed
4.   Decentralization?  What's that?

For case number 2 there is a bitcoinlike solution: the whales and early guys sells to noobs.
The heart of the problem is that Monero becomes fully mined way too fast at current block reward.

I cant see why the current emission rate is too fast. It's still a long way to go before "all" coins are mined.
surfer43
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 250


"Trading Platform of The Future!"


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 04:00:59 PM
 #15328

If the problem is there is too short a time before the emission runs out, simply double the final supply.

Changing the emission is a ridiculous concept. Then what differentiates you from any other BCN fork? Oh wait, it was an ultra-fair community premine for the fairest coin that ever existed because.. because.. it was the first fork of BCN that conforms to our ever-changing concept of fairness!! In other words, Monero is fair because it is Monero.

DRK had too much of an instamine, a little is OK and completely justified because the "community" did it. Wink

TrueCryptonaire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 04:09:33 PM
 #15329

If the problem is there is too short a time before the emission runs out, simply double the final supply.

Changing the emission is a ridiculous concept. Then what differentiates you from any other BCN fork? Oh wait, it was an ultra-fair community premine for the fairest coin that ever existed because.. because.. it was the first fork of BCN that conforms to our ever-changing concept of fairness!! In other words, Monero is fair because it is Monero.

DRK had too much of an instamine, a little is OK and completely justified because the "community" did it. Wink

As I said before, touching the total number of coins is touching in the fundamentals but touching in the emission curve is a fixing the problem of almost instamine.
TrueCryptonaire
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 04:10:46 PM
 #15330

I think the main argument on changing the emission is the coin will die in a few years when it is almost mined into dryness.
Sure I can take the current inflation and buy little by little more but then there is an issue of community premine, too.
It is fairer for the next adoptors to get some inflation, too. They most likely do not want to be the reason for price increase.

Touching the total coin supply is too horryfying idea even to consider.

I'm more horrified of not considering everything.

Yes, everything should be considered and discussed, price is already down and Monero has plenty of haters already, little harm being done.

I refrained earlier but now I think its time to discuss.

The problem with changing the total coin supply is touching in the fundamentals of the coin and therefore much scarier idea than just slowing the emission rate down.
In other words, changing emission rate is like a fixing a bug (bug= too fast emission which can be seen there is no buyers for the daily mined coins and therefore a lot of emission and thus future network security power is wasted).

Touching the number of coins is inflationary and touching the emission curve is simply fixing the problem that we have (community pre-mine).

1.  no buyers for dally mined coins?  No problem, reduce the emission rate.
2.  no sellers for daily mined coins?   No problem, increase the emission rate.
3.  repeat 1 and 2 as needed
4.   Decentralization?  What's that?

For case number 2 there is a bitcoinlike solution: the whales and early guys sells to noobs.
The heart of the problem is that Monero becomes fully mined way too fast at current block reward.

I cant see why the current emission rate is too fast. It's still a long way to go before "all" coins are mined.


In just a few years the block reward is merely <1 XMR/block.
surfer43
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 504
Merit: 250


"Trading Platform of The Future!"


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 04:14:11 PM
 #15331

If the problem is there is too short a time before the emission runs out, simply double the final supply.

Changing the emission is a ridiculous concept. Then what differentiates you from any other BCN fork? Oh wait, it was an ultra-fair community premine for the fairest coin that ever existed because.. because.. it was the first fork of BCN that conforms to our ever-changing concept of fairness!! In other words, Monero is fair because it is Monero.

DRK had too much of an instamine, a little is OK and completely justified because the "community" did it. Wink

As I said before, touching the total number of coins is touching in the fundamentals but touching in the emission curve is a fixing the problem of almost instamine.


I am 99% positive that touching the emission curve is touching in the fundamentals.

The instamine problem is made worse when changing the emission curve without retroactively changing the current supply (i.e. 1 old XMR = 0.5 new XMR). I guess we can just call instamining solving the problem of an instamine.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1129



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 04:18:32 PM
 #15332

If the problem is there is too short a time before the emission runs out, simply double the final supply.

Changing the emission is a ridiculous concept. Then what differentiates you from any other BCN fork? Oh wait, it was an ultra-fair community premine for the fairest coin that ever existed because.. because.. it was the first fork of BCN that conforms to our ever-changing concept of fairness!! In other words, Monero is fair because it is Monero.

DRK had too much of an instamine, a little is OK and completely justified because the "community" did it. Wink

As I said before, touching the total number of coins is touching in the fundamentals but touching in the emission curve is a fixing the problem of almost instamine.


I am 99% positive that touching the emission curve is touching in the fundamentals.

The instamine problem is made worse when changing the emission curve without retroactively changing the current supply (i.e. 1 old XMR = 0.5 new XMR). I guess we can just call instamining solving the problem of an instamine.

I remind everyone that the design of this coin has always included a perpetual reward for mining incentives:

Quote
A minimum subsidy may be implemented in the future with <1% inflation to preserve mining incentives

In that case there is no specific finite supply so it makes no sense to talk about "doubling the supply."

generalizethis
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1708
Merit: 1031


Facts are more efficient than fud


View Profile WWW
October 05, 2014, 04:20:41 PM
Last edit: October 05, 2014, 05:21:48 PM by generalizethis
 #15333

If the emission curve for xpm is the worst, then isn't the opposite emission curve the best, or near best?

XPM destroys its own inertia by making it harder to hit a block as the mining power is turned-up and easier to hit a block as the mining power is turned-down. Wouldn't reversing this allow a coin keep its inertia going until the last coin is mined? Why fight it with an arbitrary block reward setting? If BTC had used a non-arbitrary system for block reward, they wouldn't hit adoption walls caused by exponential shifting in prices. The thought is that more people are drawn to BTC as the price increases, but let's at least consider for the sake of argument, that people are driven away from BTC as the price increases, for fear of losing their initial investment and being tagged a bag-holder.

Just a thought.




nioc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 04:22:12 PM
 #15334

I am not advocating anything.

In the first year 40% of the coins are mined.  That is 6 months from now.  Unless something is done quickly, which seems virtually impossible, almost 1/2 the coins will have already been mined.  How can any changes be made at that point?

ETA:  I just read smooth's point about continued emissions but I believe the point still stands.
Oscilson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 434
Merit: 250



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 04:23:35 PM
 #15335

I am not advocating anything.

In the first year 40% of the coins are mined.  That is 6 months from now.  Unless something is done quickly, which seems virtually impossible, almost 1/2 the coins will have already been mined.  How can any changes be made at that point?

We need a coin with much slower emission.
nioc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 04:28:03 PM
 #15336

I am not advocating anything.

In the first year 40% of the coins are mined.  That is 6 months from now.  Unless something is done quickly, which seems virtually impossible, almost 1/2 the coins will have already been mined.  How can any changes be made at that point?

We need a coin with much slower emission.

Is it true?  LOL

If so how with Monero?

If can't then..............................


Damn edit again.  I remember not too long ago people touting Monero's emission.  What happened?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2142
Merit: 1129



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 04:45:55 PM
 #15337

I am not advocating anything.

In the first year 40% of the coins are mined.  That is 6 months from now.  Unless something is done quickly, which seems virtually impossible, almost 1/2 the coins will have already been mined.  How can any changes be made at that point?

ETA:  I just read smooth's point about continued emissions but I believe the point still stands.

I agree and disagree.

In one sense the concept "of 40% of the coins" doesn't even exist, so arguing on that basis isn't very meaningful.

On the other hand, it does make sense to speak of 40% of the coins that will be mined during the initial period of faster mining. It isn't quite as clear what that means though, but it does make this whole emissions curve sound a bit more like an instamine doesn't it?






Febo
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 1085



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 05:09:28 PM
 #15338

I like the emission curve it will keep coins cheap for some time for everyone to buy them. Emission drastically decreased till now and will continue in future. Half year from now, no one will even think this is necessary, since wil be to little new coins fro all that will want to buy them. When volumes are low of all coins, yes it can happen that there is to much fresh mined moneros come to exchanges, but will not last to long.

.BitDice.               ▄▄███▄▄
           ▄▄██▀▀ ▄ ▀▀██▄▄
      ▄▄█ ▀▀  ▄▄█████▄▄  ▀▀ █▄▄
  ▄▄██▀▀     ▀▀ █████ ▀▀     ▀▀██▄▄
██▀▀ ▄▄██▀      ▀███▀      ▀██▄▄ ▀▀██
██  ████▄▄       ███       ▄▄████  ██
██  █▀▀████▄▄  ▄█████▄  ▄▄████▀▀█  ██
██  ▀     ▀▀▀███████████▀▀▀     ▀  ██
             ███████████
██  ▄     ▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄     ▄  ██
██  █▄▄████▀▀  ▀█████▀  ▀▀████▄▄█  ██
██  ████▀▀       ███       ▀▀████  ██
██▄▄ ▀▀██▄      ▄███▄      ▄██▀▀ ▄▄██
  ▀▀██▄▄     ▄▄ █████ ▄▄     ▄▄██▀▀
      ▀▀█ ▄▄  ▀▀█████▀▀  ▄▄ █▀▀
           ▀▀██▄▄ ▀ ▄▄██▀▀
               ▀▀███▀▀
        ▄▄███████▄▄
     ▄███████████████▄
    ████▀▀       ▀▀████
   ████▀           ▀████
   ████             ████
   ████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ████
▄█████████████████████████▄
██████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████▄                 ▄████
████████▄▄▄     ▄▄▄████████
  ▀▀▀█████████████████▀▀▀
        ▀▀▀█████▀▀▀
▄▄████████████████████████████████▄▄
██████████████████████████████████████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████                   ▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▄
█████                   ██          ██
█████                   ██          ██
█████                   ██          ██
██████████████████▀▀███ ██          ██
 ████████████████▄  ▄██ ██          ██
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██          ██
             ██████████ ██          ██
           ▄███████████ ██████▀▀██████
          █████████████  ▀████▄▄████▀
[/]
PeaMine
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 792
Merit: 506



View Profile
October 05, 2014, 05:35:35 PM
 #15339

I downloaded the latest blockchain and daemon/wallet, but when I start it, it crashes saying it can't load the blockchain from storage file, generating genesis block, then crashes.
I downloaded the blockchain again, same issue.
I deleted the blockchain file and its running and synchronizing, but at the current rate will take days, it's stuck on block 801 for half an hour now, but is still using a lot of network.
Modern PC with 8GB of RAM and 16GB virtual ram, 3770 processor, 64bit Windows 7.

Datacenter Technician and Electrician
nioc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008


View Profile
October 05, 2014, 05:41:55 PM
 #15340

I am not advocating anything.

In the first year 40% of the coins are mined.  That is 6 months from now.  Unless something is done quickly, which seems virtually impossible, almost 1/2 the coins will have already been mined.  How can any changes be made at that point?

ETA:  I just read smooth's point about continued emissions but I believe the point still stands.

I agree and disagree.

In one sense the concept "of 40% of the coins" doesn't even exist, so arguing on that basis isn't very meaningful.

On the other hand, it does make sense to speak of 40% of the coins that will be mined during the initial period of faster mining. It isn't quite as clear what that means though, but it does make this whole emissions curve sound a bit more like an instamine doesn't it?








Maybe I'm a little slow but if the concept of 40% of the coins doesn't exist, how can you use it to compare it to an instamine?

Does it make any difference if I say 40% before the tail?  If so how much practical difference really is there?

I just can't see how the emissions can be changed after a very significant % has been mined. 

I understand I am viewing this from ignorance, that is very limited experience, knowledge and perspective. 
Pages: « 1 ... 717 718 719 720 721 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 739 740 741 742 743 744 745 746 747 748 749 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 [767] 768 769 770 771 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812 813 814 815 816 817 ... 2039 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!