Bitcoin Forum
April 23, 2019, 03:09:31 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 ... 2035 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency  (Read 4554348 times)
dewdeded
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1011


Monero Evangelist


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2014, 01:36:03 AM
 #16301

It's easy. Moneropool.com owner should sell/redirect his "unhealthy" traffic to other pools and just charge a fair fee from them.

Just set a maximum of hash power like 30% and if this is reached transparantly redirect new incoming mining traffic/connections via load balancing to other pools, that are intrested in getting this traffic. The balancing should be done transparently (like transparent HTTP proxys), meaning its automatically the miner doesnt have to change something/his setup.

I would propose the pool that receives the traffic and MP.com do an 75%/25% split on the fees, earned from the traffic they got fro MP.com.  (in other words: the mining traffic buying pool is paying a 25% charge for MP.coms service of providing this mining traffic/miners)


You guys get what I am trying to say. And obvious this isnt new or rocket science. It's the exact same thing e.g. ghash.io & coinotron did in history, when they got much % of the hashpower of BTC/LTC.

The question is how can the moneropool.com owner be motivated to setup this kind of solution.
1556032171
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1556032171

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1556032171
Reply with quote  #2

1556032171
Report to moderator
1556032171
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1556032171

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1556032171
Reply with quote  #2

1556032171
Report to moderator
1556032171
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1556032171

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1556032171
Reply with quote  #2

1556032171
Report to moderator
100% New Software
PC, Mac, Android, & HTML5 Clients
Krill Rakeback
Low Rake
Bitcoin Poker 3.0
Bad Beat Jackpot
SwC Poker Relaunch
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1736
Merit: 1099


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 01:43:13 AM
 #16302

I'm so tired...
Guys can you please post that missive so that I can go to bed?...  Cheesy

Smooth said that fluffypony was travelling, so there could be some delay.

Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
BanditryAndLoot
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10

Activity: 350


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:31:59 AM
 #16303

Grabbed this from the DRK thread, thought that anyone trading on Poloniex would like to know .. seeing as how Poloniex is such a large part of our volume.

http://altcoinpress.com/2014/10/fincen-ruling-us-government-ramps-up-war-on-cryptocurrency/

Looks like the site is having trouble:

Quote
The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) today issued two administrative rulings regarding digital currency. And the government has apparently decided to go with the nuclear option.

The first ruling published today relates to the application of FinCEN regulations to a virtual currency trading platform, while the second ruling discusses the application of FinCEN regulations to a virtual currency payment system.

In ruling FIN-2014-R011, FinCEN states that any and all cryptocurrency exchanges must become licensed as a money transmitter including crypto-only exchanges:

    As explained in the Guidance, a person is an exchanger and a money transmitter if the person accepts convertible virtual currency from one person and transmits it to another person as part of the acceptance and transfer of currency, funds, or other value that substitutes for currency.

In ruling FIN-2014-R012, the agency confirms that any and all payment processors are obliged to register as money transmitters, significantly increasing the cost of entry in becoming a digital payments provider.

    As described above, the Company is an exchanger under the Guidance because it engages as a business in accepting and converting the customer’s real currency into virtual currency for transmission to the merchant. The fact that the Company uses its cache of Bitcoin to pay the merchant is not relevant to whether it fits within the definition of money transmitter.

Once labeled a money transmitter, a business wishing to continue operating must pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to become licensed in each of the 50 states. And that’s only the beginning of the regulatory costs and legal hoop jumping.

paperworkIn addition, companies are required to register with FinCEN, conduct a comprehensive risk assessment of its exposure to money laundering, implement an Anti-Money Laundering Program based on such risk assessment, and comply with various record keeping, reporting and transaction monitoring obligations, in addition to meeting several other requirements.

It is interesting to note that the government classifies Bitcoin as a digital “property” for taxation purposes, but as a digital “money” for regulatory and licensing purposes.

Do you think Bitcoin can survive this latest atomic bomb blast? Log in below using your favorite social media network and weigh in on the discussion.

And it's only at the end of fall, that we discover it was naught but the wind that knew when one particular leaf was to fall from one particular tree, only to land in one distinct spot .. to be left for an eternity, and waste its time in a wait sublime. C0A2A1C4
generalizethis
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1023


Facts are more efficient than fud


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2014, 02:33:51 AM
 #16304

Why is the XMR emission curve so much steeper than with other PoW coins?  Is there a benefit to flattening out sooner?

Bit of a sore point that one, the emission curve is something we got stuck with from the original incarnation of Bitmonero, which had an autocratic solo dev who knew best.... It was then forked by the current team and so you can tell what the people preferred, but the emission curve stayed.

Really nice to have that info, thank you.  How big of a problem does this pose to an investor?

Pretty significant to be honest. Monero will have 18.4 million total/max coins. 14.72 million (80%) will be mined in the first 4 years. Currently, we're at 4.2 million in circulation.

The first 4 years, has heavy inflation. This gives investors an incentive to buy in at the end of that timeframe. And 4 years in crypto is a long time, with a significant chance that something better will come into the market.



14,720,000 X .75 = $25,200,000 @48 months

average yearly inflation: $6,300,000 for first four years or .25 (25%)

--------------------

2,760,000 X .75 =  $2,070,000 @??months


I'm a word guy, so correct away--I won't feel bad. Is it really that high? Or am I that high?

Wouldn't a longer/lower emissions curve benefit everyone? Bitcoin's around 10% and it hits pockets of inflation resistance that create downward pressure on the price. I'm a Deluezean at heart, so I believe volatility shows growth, but wonder if Bitcoin will hit an insurmountable dip that a better crypto can build from....




UnicornFarts
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:36:21 AM
 #16305

Grabbed this from the DRK thread, thought that anyone trading on Poloniex would like to know .. seeing as how Poloniex is such a large part of our volume.

http://altcoinpress.com/2014/10/fincen-ruling-us-government-ramps-up-war-on-cryptocurrency/

*Sigh* I need to pull mine off but I'm afraid to.  Maybe the devs have a webwallet.

With the ITO/ICO's Poloniex has gotten involved in (from what I understand)

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/sec-sends-inquiry-letters-hundreds-bitcoin-companies-unregistered-securities/

That might make it even worse.


Edit:  Looks like this news spooked someone - back down to 17's
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1078



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 02:52:29 AM
 #16306

Wouldn't a longer/lower emissions curve benefit everyone?

It wouldn't clearly benefit miners, unless the price went up enough to offset the reduced rewards. If some of the miners depart, the coin becomes less secure.

It wouldn't necessarily benefit the reputation or adoption of the coin, since it looks like an instamine. If you have been involved for the past six months, you got the benefit of large numbers of coins being minted and traded at low (and even increasingly lower) prices. Then mining gets cut and everyone but the early adopters gets to fight over a smaller supply, or pay up to buy from early adopters' stashes.

It also wouldn't necessarily benefit confidence in (and again reputation of) the coin. If it is considered acceptable to change once, it could be acceptable to change again. No one knows where that leads, and it is hard for anyone who is buying to know what he or she is buying.

Also a slower curve now means higher inflation later, for a longer period of time. Pay now or pay later?

This is not a the sort of change to be made lightly. I most certainly preferred a slower curve at the start. Now, I'm not sure the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.



generalizethis
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1680
Merit: 1023


Facts are more efficient than fud


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2014, 03:04:20 AM
 #16307

Wouldn't a longer/lower emissions curve benefit everyone?

It wouldn't clearly benefit miners, unless the price went up enough to offset the reduced rewards. If some of the miners depart, the coin becomes less secure.

It wouldn't necessarily benefit the reputation or adoption of the coin, since it looks like an instamine. If you have been involved for the past six months, you got the benefit of large numbers of coins being minted and traded at low (and even increasingly lower) prices. Then mining gets cut and everyone but the early adopters gets to fight over a smaller supply, or pay up to buy from early adopters' stashes.

It also wouldn't necessarily benefit confidence in (and again reputation of) the coin. If it is considered acceptable to change once, it could be acceptable to change again. No one knows where that leads, and it is hard for anyone who is buying to know what he or she is buying.

Also a slower curve now means higher inflation later, for a longer period of time. Pay now or pay later?

This is not a the sort of change to be made lightly. I most certainly preferred a slower curve at the start. Now, I'm not sure the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.





My thought is that price per coin would offset the loss in mining rewards, so the hash rate wouldn't be affected unless everyone migrated to larger pools to offset the lesser chance of reward.

See the point of acceptable change--how do you sell such a major strategical move?

Slower curve of inflation? Hmmm.... Maybe 2% with a hidden x% is something the bankers got right? 2% + x fee = how many years?

In Devs we trust.  Smiley

Come-In-Behind
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:15:52 AM
 #16308

Wouldn't a longer/lower emissions curve benefit everyone?

It wouldn't clearly benefit miners, unless the price went up enough to offset the reduced rewards. If some of the miners depart, the coin becomes less secure.

It wouldn't necessarily benefit the reputation or adoption of the coin, since it looks like an instamine. If you have been involved for the past six months, you got the benefit of large numbers of coins being minted and traded at low (and even increasingly lower) prices. Then mining gets cut and everyone but the early adopters gets to fight over a smaller supply, or pay up to buy from early adopters' stashes.

It also wouldn't necessarily benefit confidence in (and again reputation of) the coin. If it is considered acceptable to change once, it could be acceptable to change again. No one knows where that leads, and it is hard for anyone who is buying to know what he or she is buying.

Also a slower curve now means higher inflation later, for a longer period of time. Pay now or pay later?

This is not a the sort of change to be made lightly. I most certainly preferred a slower curve at the start. Now, I'm not sure the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.





My thought is that price per coin would offset the loss in mining rewards, so the hash rate wouldn't be affected unless everyone migrated to larger pools to offset the lesser chance of reward.

See the point of acceptable change--how do you sell such a major strategical move?

Slower curve of inflation? Hmmm.... Maybe 2% with a hidden x% is something the bankers got right? 2% + x fee = how many years?

In Devs we trust.  Smiley

Interesting. What if Monero eventually became partly PoS, similar to Peercoin or partly DPoS like Bitshares? It would have annual % increase, so even after the entire supply is mined out, you still get a certain % of coins every year proportional the # of coins you hold?
David Latapie
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


Monero Core Team


View Profile WWW
October 28, 2014, 03:19:47 AM
 #16309

About the movie, we can start very simply by thinking about few questions around Monero :
 - How did you discover Monero ?
 - What interested you at first ?
 - Why are you supporting it ?
 - What is your contribution on the project ?
 - How do you imagine Monero in 3 years ?
You can add or remove questions. The point is to have something interesting to say on every point.
Having different answers will show the variety of people around the project but also how united people are.
Being that you are French I think you should produce the movie.

I will not do it alone. Everyone will participate and I'll find someone competent for the editing.
waxo has some professional contact with filmmakers. He lives in Paris, we are in excellent terms and I plan to see him at the beginning of December. Interested?

Monero: the first crytocurrency to bring bank secrecy and net neutrality to the blockchain.HyperStake: pushing the limits of staking.
Reputation threadFree bitcoins: reviews, hints…: freebitco.in, freedoge.co.in, qoinpro
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1652
Merit: 1005



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:27:01 AM
 #16310

It would have annual % increase, so even after the entire supply is mined out, you still get a certain % of coins every year proportional the # of coins you hold?

Just tell me what the wonder is the idea behind giving more coins in proportion of the existing coins? What does it accomplish?
BanditryAndLoot
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 70
Merit: 10

Activity: 350


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:28:21 AM
 #16311

waxo has some professional contact with filmmakers. He lives in Paris, we are in excellent terms and I plan to see him at the beginning of December. Interested?

Not sure about the level of seriousness about this film yet.

I could fish at a media outlet well known for Documentaries, Films, and Videos as well, if you would like?

I'll ask this weekend, or Monday about services or interests relating to such a thing. I think the last thing they covered was a bit different than Monero, in relation to alternative currencies, though.


And it's only at the end of fall, that we discover it was naught but the wind that knew when one particular leaf was to fall from one particular tree, only to land in one distinct spot .. to be left for an eternity, and waste its time in a wait sublime. C0A2A1C4
RentaMouse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:33:29 AM
 #16312

Grabbed this from the DRK thread, thought that anyone trading on Poloniex would like to know .. seeing as how Poloniex is such a large part of our volume.

http://altcoinpress.com/2014/10/fincen-ruling-us-government-ramps-up-war-on-cryptocurrency/

*Sigh* I need to pull mine off but I'm afraid to.  Maybe the devs have a webwallet.

With the ITO/ICO's Poloniex has gotten involved in (from what I understand)

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/sec-sends-inquiry-letters-hundreds-bitcoin-companies-unregistered-securities/

That might make it even worse.


Edit:  Looks like this news spooked someone - back down to 17's

I imagine some US based exchanges may find it desirable to move offshore sooner rather than later, but then one or two may feel there is more longterm value in staying and becoming more regulated as that would inspire more customer confidence. That would probably mean higher fees compared to the offshore exchanges, whether there is enough value in the altcoin market to support it I don't know.

All the more reason to be dealing in a currency that is inherently untraceable beyond the sender, limits the amount of data "they" can acquire with the addition of AML/KYC info to exchange accounts.

Pool admin @ http://cryptonotepool.org.uk/ - for miners who value reliability (and like orange)!
Currently donating all of our 1% pool fee to the dev fund - mine at CryptonotepoolUK and support XMR at no extra cost!
Come-In-Behind
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 182
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:39:26 AM
 #16313

It would have annual % increase, so even after the entire supply is mined out, you still get a certain % of coins every year proportional the # of coins you hold?

Just tell me what the wonder is the idea behind giving more coins in proportion of the existing coins? What does it accomplish?

You got me. I hadn't thought it out, was just pelting ideas in the open. But I have to say, Bitshares DPoS(Delegated Proof of Stake) is interesting. It would be interesting to see if it would benefit by incorporating it into Monero.
UnicornFarts
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:49:18 AM
 #16314

It would have annual % increase, so even after the entire supply is mined out, you still get a certain % of coins every year proportional the # of coins you hold?

Just tell me what the wonder is the idea behind giving more coins in proportion of the existing coins? What does it accomplish?

Secure the blockchain with PoS after there is no longer incentive enough to mine from miner rewards.
shojayxt
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 03:55:46 AM
 #16315

Wouldn't a longer/lower emissions curve benefit everyone?

It wouldn't clearly benefit miners, unless the price went up enough to offset the reduced rewards. If some of the miners depart, the coin becomes less secure.

It wouldn't necessarily benefit the reputation or adoption of the coin, since it looks like an instamine. If you have been involved for the past six months, you got the benefit of large numbers of coins being minted and traded at low (and even increasingly lower) prices. Then mining gets cut and everyone but the early adopters gets to fight over a smaller supply, or pay up to buy from early adopters' stashes.

It also wouldn't necessarily benefit confidence in (and again reputation of) the coin. If it is considered acceptable to change once, it could be acceptable to change again. No one knows where that leads, and it is hard for anyone who is buying to know what he or she is buying.

Also a slower curve now means higher inflation later, for a longer period of time. Pay now or pay later?

This is not a the sort of change to be made lightly. I most certainly preferred a slower curve at the start. Now, I'm not sure the advantages outweigh the disadvantages.





Changing the emission rate now should be a non starter.  The time to make that change has come and gone.  Just talking about it spooks some people.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2100
Merit: 1078



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:04:23 AM
 #16316

It would have annual % increase, so even after the entire supply is mined out, you still get a certain % of coins every year proportional the # of coins you hold?

Just tell me what the wonder is the idea behind giving more coins in proportion of the existing coins? What does it accomplish?

Secure the blockchain with PoS after there is no longer incentive enough to mine from miner rewards.

Unlikely, but perhaps someday someone like another Satoshi (or perhaps the original one!) will come along with a true innovation in that area. For now it is crypto snake oil.

https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf

"Distributed Consensus from Proof of Stake is Impossible"

Let's stick with what really works on this coin for now.
UnicornFarts
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:06:00 AM
 #16317

I hope so.  I hate PoS
e-coinomist
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1624
Merit: 1050


Money often costs too much.


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:12:17 AM
 #16318

Interesting. What if Monero eventually became partly PoS, similar to Peercoin or partly DPoS like Bitshares? It would have annual % increase, so even after the entire supply is mined out, you still get a certain % of coins every year proportional the # of coins you hold?

Interesting suggestions! How are the Techies about the working parts, someone want to explain?

I heard PoS is not exactly included in Ringsignatures. Just PoS would tackle that 75-percentage Botnet Pool issue, hitting two birds with one stone.
Wagering a bet ... a new CN coin, new emission curve and mining algorithm will popup. As mentioned Monero is a running story where you cannot really change it's direction or destination in between. Observed myself beeing bummed over the TX-fees change. The lesser you change afterwards, the better for reputation.
jwinterm
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1918
Merit: 1022



View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:16:09 AM
 #16319

Interesting. What if Monero eventually became partly PoS, similar to Peercoin or partly DPoS like Bitshares? It would have annual % increase, so even after the entire supply is mined out, you still get a certain % of coins every year proportional the # of coins you hold?

Interesting suggestions! How are the Techies about the working parts, someone want to explain?

I heard PoS is not exactly included in Ringsignatures. Just PoS would tackle that 75-percentage Botnet Pool issue, hitting two birds with one stone.
Wagering a bet ... a new CN coin, new emission curve and mining algorithm will popup. As mentioned Monero is a running story where you cannot really change it's direction or destination in between. Observed myself beeing bummed over the TX-fees change. The lesser you change afterwards, the better for reputation.

Dark/Ducknote has promised PoS in a cryptonote. I don't see how this is really possible, considering that if you reveal to the network the amount of coins you're holding (and possibly how long you've been holding them) how you/your address remains anonymous, but they're implementation is supposed to be revealed in the next several months, so...we shall see.
UnicornFarts
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
October 28, 2014, 04:19:00 AM
 #16320

So ... I'm sleepy but been staying up for the missives.  Is it worth staying up more :p
Pages: « 1 ... 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] 817 818 819 820 821 822 823 824 825 826 827 828 829 830 831 832 833 834 835 836 837 838 839 840 841 842 843 844 845 846 847 848 849 850 851 852 853 854 855 856 857 858 859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 ... 2035 »
  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!