[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency

[monero]

Just in case anyone missed it amidst the flurry of activity, the I2P team as also posted about our partnership here:

https://geti2p.net/en/blog/post/2014/05/25/Monero-partnership

We look forward to continuing to bring about real innovation and improvements for our users in a way that doesn't risk their privacy and security by adding bloated dependencies, potential insecurities, and additional attack surfaces.

- updated by fluffypony

[1714868072]

1714868072

[1714868072]

1714868072

[1714868072]

1714868072

[1714868072]

1714868072

[AlexGR]

New Windows binaries are available that are compatible with the fee update and tx size restrictions.

This should solve the cheap-attack-to-fill-the-blockchain-with-crap vector?

[KFR]

I have joined to minemro.com Tnx for new pool.

Minemro.com Tnx new pool is really nice
Come on do it brother
 

Congrats on first block found @ minemro.com.  HR growing, looking good. 

[tacotime]

New Windows binaries are available that are compatible with the fee update and tx size restrictions.

This should solve the cheap-attack-to-fill-the-blockchain-with-crap vector?

For the most part, but there are other DoS vectors that still need to be addressed that I won't go into detail about.

[Keyboard-Mash]

The problem I see with constant-reward inflation is that if we expect the network and transaction volume to grow over time, then we can expect the value to perpetually trend upward and never stabalize (more work, same reward).  A fixed percentage block reward, if sufficient, leaves little incentive for transaction witholding attacks and spiraling fees.  I actually think the best solution is a variable, "smart" inflation based on volume/hashrate that you and I talked about in the economy thread. However, that brings its own challenges and I feel a 1% debasement to be a reasonable first step.

A finite money supply is the exact cause of the four issues stated above, and constant-reward inflation is just a fancy-pants way of making a finite money supply look like it isn't finite.  The significance of that static block reward will perpetually drop until we're right back in the same situation.  The block reward must always be proportionally significant, or we will have a problem.

I've spent a night thinking about it and I've come up with a few more thoughts about this.

Both constant reward and constant % inflation will serve the exact same purpose for years to decades.

Consider both of these most likely simulations (provided by drawingthesun):

0.33333333 MRO released every 60 seconds.
http://pastebin.com/GwQJQzje

Inflation at 1%
http://pastebin.com/3K0dMnZe

1 - For 1% inflation, at year 18: Year: 18.000000 Coin: 21530654.562360 Coin Increase: 213174.797647
2 - For .3 subsidy, at year 20: Year: 20.000000 Coin: 21503999.964960 Inflation: 0.821425%

For 1 and 2, the total coins in circulation have a difference of about 26,655, which is about .123% of the inflated simulation and .124% of the fixed reward. After years 18-20, they begin to diverge and the inflated supply yields many more coins than the constant reward supply. My point here is that this is a long time to make a more informed decision about whether or not a fixed subsidy, fixed inflation, variable of either, or some mix of all of these would be a correct move for the currency. Up until almost 2 and a half decades from right now is the time I am talking about, where both of these routes serve the exact same function (within <<.1% thresholds)

With our most recent update, Taco has set a tx size limit that won't drop the subsidy of more than 9% of the intended value. What this means to me is that a targeted inflation of 1% or 2% may very well have an actual effect of being a .91% or 1.82% inflation. As such, any targeted fixed inflation will yield a window of uncertainty where it will be .91% - 1% or 1.82% - 2% fixed inflation. Before I can be convinced that a constant inflation model is appropriate, that uncertainty would need to be removed. At least with a fixed reward subsidy, we have a solid model for 25 years that people can plan their futures accordingly. At least with the constant reward, we continue to have an uncertain emission only to the day that that is put into effect.

What I'm getting at here is that ... with the rather large amount of time between now and 25 years ... I think we're really just splitting hairs. Unless the constant reward model was subject to the same extra uncertainty about the emission of the coin that will definitely be present in the inflation model, I don't see this as a necessary change that needs to be tackled right this second. I just simply don't think there will be blood in the streets over this in two and a half decades. It's a tough issue definitely, but this is something I have full faith that anyone capable of making decisions in the future will be able to solve. Of course, I'd like only the best to happen after 2.5 decades, but I'm just not convinced that the fixed inflation is more correct than the fixed subsidy right now. The best we can provide them is an open door to either fix the issue or change it into something better, when if the time comes.

[Zer0Sum]

The problem I see with constant-reward inflation is that if we expect the network and transaction volume to grow over time, then we can expect the value to perpetually trend upward and never stabalize (more work, same reward).  A fixed percentage block reward, if sufficient, leaves little incentive for transaction witholding attacks and spiraling fees.  I actually think the best solution is a variable, "smart" inflation based on volume/hashrate that you and I talked about in the economy thread. However, that brings its own challenges and I feel a 1% debasement to be a reasonable first step.

A finite money supply is the exact cause of the four issues stated above, and constant-reward inflation is just a fancy-pants way of making a finite money supply look like it isn't finite.  The significance of that static block reward will perpetually drop until we're right back in the same situation.  The block reward must always be proportionally significant, or we will have a problem.

I've spent a night thinking about it and I've come up with a few more thoughts about this.

Both constant reward and constant % inflation will serve the exact same purpose for years to decades.

Consider both of these most likely simulations (provided by drawingthesun):

0.33333333 MRO released every 60 seconds.
http://pastebin.com/GwQJQzje

Inflation at 1%
http://pastebin.com/3K0dMnZe

1 - For 1% inflation, at year 18: Year: 18.000000 Coin: 21530654.562360 Coin Increase: 213174.797647
2 - For .3 subsidy, at year 20: Year: 20.000000 Coin: 21503999.964960 Inflation: 0.821425%

For 1 and 2, the total coins in circulation have a difference of about 26,655, which is about .123% of the inflated simulation and .124% of the fixed reward. After years 18-20, they begin to diverge and the inflated supply yields many more coins than the constant reward supply. My point here is that this is a long time to make a more informed decision about whether or not a fixed subsidy, fixed inflation, variable of either, or some mix of all of these would be a correct move for the currency. Up until almost 2 and a half decades from right now is the time I am talking about, where both of these routes serve the exact same function (within <<.1% thresholds)

With our most recent update, Taco has set a tx size limit that won't drop the subsidy of more than 9% of the intended value. What this means to me is that a targeted inflation of 1% or 2% may very well have an actual effect of being a .91% or 1.82% inflation. As such, any targeted fixed inflation will yield a window of uncertainty where it will be .91% - 1% or 1.82% - 2% fixed inflation. Before I can be convinced that a constant inflation model is appropriate, that uncertainty would need to be removed. At least with a fixed reward subsidy, we have a solid model for 25 years that people can plan their futures accordingly. At least with the constant reward, we continue to have an uncertain emission only to the day that that is put into effect.

What I'm getting at here is that ... with the rather large amount of time between now and 25 years ... I think we're really just splitting hairs. Unless the constant reward model was subject to the same extra uncertainty about the emission of the coin that will definitely be present in the inflation model, I don't see this as a necessary change that needs to be tackled right this second. I just simply don't think there will be blood in the streets over this in two and a half decades. It's a tough issue definitely, but this is something I have full faith that anyone capable of making decisions in the future will be able to solve. Of course, I'd like only the best to happen after 2.5 decades, but I'm just not convinced that the fixed inflation is more correct than the fixed subsidy right now. The best we can provide them is an open door to either fix the issue or change it into something better, when if the time comes.

What if you are wrong? 

[sonoIO]

The problem I see with constant-reward inflation is that if we expect the network and transaction volume to grow over time, then we can expect the value to perpetually trend upward and never stabalize (more work, same reward).  A fixed percentage block reward, if sufficient, leaves little incentive for transaction witholding attacks and spiraling fees.  I actually think the best solution is a variable, "smart" inflation based on volume/hashrate that you and I talked about in the economy thread. However, that brings its own challenges and I feel a 1% debasement to be a reasonable first step.

A finite money supply is the exact cause of the four issues stated above, and constant-reward inflation is just a fancy-pants way of making a finite money supply look like it isn't finite.  The significance of that static block reward will perpetually drop until we're right back in the same situation.  The block reward must always be proportionally significant, or we will have a problem.

I've spent a night thinking about it and I've come up with a few more thoughts about this.

Both constant reward and constant % inflation will serve the exact same purpose for years to decades.

Consider both of these most likely simulations (provided by drawingthesun):

0.33333333 MRO released every 60 seconds.
http://pastebin.com/GwQJQzje

Inflation at 1%
http://pastebin.com/3K0dMnZe

1 - For 1% inflation, at year 18: Year: 18.000000 Coin: 21530654.562360 Coin Increase: 213174.797647
2 - For .3 subsidy, at year 20: Year: 20.000000 Coin: 21503999.964960 Inflation: 0.821425%

For 1 and 2, the total coins in circulation have a difference of about 26,655, which is about .123% of the inflated simulation and .124% of the fixed reward. After years 18-20, they begin to diverge and the inflated supply yields many more coins than the constant reward supply. My point here is that this is a long time to make a more informed decision about whether or not a fixed subsidy, fixed inflation, variable of either, or some mix of all of these would be a correct move for the currency. Up until almost 2 and a half decades from right now is the time I am talking about, where both of these routes serve the exact same function (within <<.1% thresholds)

With our most recent update, Taco has set a tx size limit that won't drop the subsidy of more than 9% of the intended value. What this means to me is that a targeted inflation of 1% or 2% may very well have an actual effect of being a .91% or 1.82% inflation. As such, any targeted fixed inflation will yield a window of uncertainty where it will be .91% - 1% or 1.82% - 2% fixed inflation. Before I can be convinced that a constant inflation model is appropriate, that uncertainty would need to be removed. At least with a fixed reward subsidy, we have a solid model for 25 years that people can plan their futures accordingly. At least with the constant reward, we continue to have an uncertain emission only to the day that that is put into effect.

What I'm getting at here is that ... with the rather large amount of time between now and 25 years ... I think we're really just splitting hairs. Unless the constant reward model was subject to the same extra uncertainty about the emission of the coin that will definitely be present in the inflation model, I don't see this as a necessary change that needs to be tackled right this second. I just simply don't think there will be blood in the streets over this in two and a half decades. It's a tough issue definitely, but this is something I have full faith that anyone capable of making decisions in the future will be able to solve. Of course, I'd like only the best to happen after 2.5 decades, but I'm just not convinced that the fixed inflation is more correct than the fixed subsidy right now. The best we can provide them is an open door to either fix the issue or change it into something better, when if the time comes.

Couldn't agree more. Now, only the block can be fixed e.g. @ 3% inflation, at which the issue will be addressed.

[Keyboard-Mash]

What if you are wrong? 

Heh, I'd be okay with that. I like to think that my children can have at least some say in the future. I don't have the reach to plan out every single detail of their lives. Hell probably half the people trying to come up with a solution for this right now will probably be retired by the time it becomes an issue.

I do know we're not wrong for pressing forward with enhancing CryptoNote technology right now, and i2p is a great direction. I also feel that having some form of inflation is a good direction. I'm making the claim that the next generation will have a much more experienced viewpoint that will more correctly answer the question than I, or any of us, can. Some things, this being one of them IMO, can have a pin in them; however, it's not wrong to continue thinking about it.

[damiano]

hashrates looking good

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Keyboard-Mash, your point regarding the exact certainty of the inflation is valid, but if it's not going to matter for a couple decades anyway, why bother with a constant-reward inflation at all? It's clearly inferior and temporary for the reasons I already stated (unless someone can refute my arguments? So far nobody has bothered addressing them in detail).

I cannot trust the decision makers of the future because I don't know who they will be, which is why I prefer to address such problems sooner than later, before powerful influencers can sway the currency's direction away from public interest.

[blaaaaacksuit]

hashrates looking good

Block rewards looking better.

[bitwho]

who is mining all the coins?

pools all together barely add to 600Kh/s ... who is mining all the coins?

i know http://extremehash.com/ one minute was showing 218 Khs then the next went to 28 KHs. it was too fast to think all the users moved out themselves. it seems like it was one user.

has anyone seen this effect? all the pools now are going for hrs, some even a day with out a single block.


IS there some private pools? is there a better optimized miner? is a pool with 50 workers can not find a block then there means some one has some massive hashrates

somethings fishy is happening

[RentaMouse]

New UK/EU based MRO mining pool now available at http://cryptonotepool.org.uk/

Was nearly ready a couple of days ago but then decided to do another 24hrs testing with the 0.8.8 release to avoid being upset by small block rewards

Hosted on dedicated server at datacentre, uses the Zone117x open source Cryptonote Mining Pool. New miners are welcome to email support for help getting started!

[RentaMouse]

who is mining all the coins?

pools all together barely add to 600Kh/s ... who is mining all the coins?

i know http://extremehash.com/ one minute was showing 218 Khs then the next went to 28 KHs. it was too fast to think all the users moved out themselves. it seems like it was one user.

has anyone seen this effect? all the pools now are going for hrs, some even a day with out a single block.


IS there some private pools? is there a better optimized miner? is a pool with 50 workers can not find a block then there means some one has some massive hashrates

somethings fishy is happening

Funnily enought I've just been looking at mining pools, moneropool.com has been averaging around 1MH/s most of the day, and minergate has around 200KH/s as well. I suspect there is still some EC2 cloud mining going on, hopefully noone has launched a botnet yet...

[blaaaaacksuit]

who is mining all the coins?

pools all together barely add to 600Kh/s ... who is mining all the coins?

i know http://extremehash.com/ one minute was showing 218 Khs then the next went to 28 KHs. it was too fast to think all the users moved out themselves. it seems like it was one user.

has anyone seen this effect? all the pools now are going for hrs, some even a day with out a single block.


IS there some private pools? is there a better optimized miner? is a pool with 50 workers can not find a block then there means some one has some massive hashrates

somethings fishy is happening

Pool total is more like 1500kh/s.

[emontmon]

who is mining all the coins?

pools all together barely add to 600Kh/s ... who is mining all the coins?

i know http://extremehash.com/ one minute was showing 218 Khs then the next went to 28 KHs. it was too fast to think all the users moved out themselves. it seems like it was one user.

has anyone seen this effect? all the pools now are going for hrs, some even a day with out a single block.


IS there some private pools? is there a better optimized miner? is a pool with 50 workers can not find a block then there means some one has some massive hashrates

somethings fishy is happening

solo mining is still viable. perhapse majority of hash rate is still solo. i for one dedicate about 200 h/s solo and about 84 to pool.

[Keyboard-Mash]

Keyboard-Mash, your point regarding the exact certainty of the inflation is valid, but if it's not going to matter for a couple decades anyway, why bother with a constant-reward inflation at all? It's clearly inferior and temporary for the reasons I already stated (unless someone can refute my arguments? So far nobody has bothered addressing them in detail).

I cannot trust the decision makers of the future because I don't know who they will be, which is why I prefer to address such problems sooner than later, before powerful influencers can sway the currency's direction away from public interest.

I just feel that the 4 points you presented can be answered with both inflation and constant emission for 25 years .. after that, I agree that we can't trust the decision makers of the future.

But .. if, in 25 years, the hot topic of the day is what the inflation of Monero should be ... I'd consider that a hell of a win.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Also, regarding your previous question about how much inflation is appropriate, the short answer is I don't know.  1% is probably adequate for keeping miners happy, but probably not enough to prevent wealth centralization.  I imagine that would require a significantly larger debasement to prevent (maybe 4% or 5%... maybe higher).

The minimum effective level of inflation should be whatever is necessary to stabilize the coin's value.  Of course this will change at any given moment depending on volume and network size. Such inflation (flat value) will not protect the network from centralization, however, as money would not move fast enough to discourage it.

[smooth]

solo mining is still viable. perhapse majority of hash rate is still solo. i for one dedicate about 200 h/s solo and about 84 to pool.

Thank you for doing that. Solo mining is the best way to secure a network. Everyone who can possibly do so should just solo mine. A coin with small pools and a lot of solo mining is a strong coin. A coin with one or two very large pools dominating the network is a joke. Look around the space of coins and you will see what I mean.

[eizh]

who is mining all the coins?

A large percentage of the network is cloud mining. Some of these users keep, some others dump. The price of Monero (and CPU coins in general) is partially set by the equilibrium profitability of cloud mining. It's the same situation as GPU farms or ASIC farms, except determined by the spot instance price instead of the cost of electricity.