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

[aminorex]

It's healthy to discuss curve tuning in the interests of long-term health of the coin and its economy.  Tedious, perhaps, but healthy.  

Y'all have an instamine reaction formation.  You do realize people criticize monero as an instamine because its curve is too aggressive, don't you?  The fact is, "instamine" will be thrown at you no matter what you do.  The correct thing to do is what is best for the health of the coin and its economy in the long-term.  Opinions on that may vary, but the instamine bugaboo has nothing to do with it.  If you reduce emission rate, you will be giving more people the chance to participate in mining at favorable rates -- and that is the exact opposite of instamining.  It will aid dispersion.  

A healthy ecosystem is what will empower monero to change the world for the better.  I think slow and steady appreciation is the best possible scenario.  It will attract risk-averse investors and will encourage currency use.  Personally, I will focus on software and ties with enterprises, merchants -- I see that as less difficult than pressing a case for curve reforms .

The idea of screwing future buyers is ludicrous to me.  People buy or not at their own discretion.  If they buy it is because they deem it better to buy than not to buy.  I will certainly buy more monero if emission is reduced than  I would if it is unchanged, simply because I will have a better expectation of price stability.

On the other hand, the market will fix this problem soon enough.  It will just adjust the price down until it corresponds to the emission rate.

[1714109791]

1714109791

[1714109791]

1714109791

[1714109791]

1714109791

[smooth]

It's healthy to discuss curve tuning in the interests of long-term health of the coin and its economy.  Tedious, perhaps, but healthy.

Tedious and useless. This has already been decided and is considered part of the social contract. It won't change unless the entire dev team behind this coin breaks up and blows away, because there is 100% unchangeable agreement on this point.

There will likely be a change to allow for some perpetual rewards on the back end, as was stated up front. That was the motive for wanting a flatter curve from the start: It was meaningful rewards out for a longer period of time, not trying to tinker with inflation and "pump" up the value. That important goal will instead be achieved using the second method, as I have described.

There will not be tinkering with the curve.

If you don't like it, please exit now, and head on over to QCN or some other curve-tinkering clone.

Otherwise, let's have healthy discussion about things that might actually happen with this coin.

[eizh]

It's healthy to discuss curve tuning in the interests of long-term health of the coin and its economy.  Tedious, perhaps, but healthy.  

Y'all have an instamine reaction formation.  You do realize people criticize monero as an instamine because its curve is too aggressive, don't you?  The fact is, "instamine" will be thrown at you no matter what you do.  The correct thing to do is what is best for the health of the coin and its economy in the long-term.  Opinions on that may vary, but the instamine bugaboo has nothing to do with it.  If you reduce emission rate, you will be giving more people the chance to participate in mining at favorable rates -- and that is the exact opposite of instamining.  It will aid dispersion.  

Having a longer mining horizon doesn't necessarily increase a future user's access to a coin. It increases a future miner's access to it. But in the long run, mining is dominated by professionals so this group diverges from the mainstream. Bitcoin and Litecoin are examples of this. An ordinary user is largely restricted to buying it on the market, which is available regardless of the emission curve. So the egalitarian aspect of the argument exists, but it plays out weakly in the real world.

The main reason you want a long mining horizon is so that you can have a blockchain that's secure without relying on tx fees. Of course, it merely delays the problem: the permanent fix is a minimum block reward, which MRO will have in some form.

[xulescu]

It's healthy to discuss curve tuning in the interests of long-term health of the coin and its economy.  Tedious, perhaps, but healthy.

Tedious and useless. This has already been decided and is considered part of the social contract. It won't change unless the entire dev team behind this coin breaks up and blows away, because there is 100% unchangeable agreement on this point.

There will likely be a change to allow for some perpetual rewards on the back end, as was stated up front. That was the motive for wanting a flatter curve from the start: It was meaningful rewards out for a longer period of time, not trying to tinker with inflation and "pump" up the value. That important goal will instead be achieved using the second method, as I have described.

There will not be tinkering with the curve.

If you don't like it, please exit now, and head on over to QCN or some other curve-tinkering clone.

Otherwise, let's have healthy discussion about things that might actually happen with this coin.

I think it is quite myopic to think like that. The backlash over premining is not that it changes the rules, but that it changes them to the interest of those already in power. This is what the whole crypto world was supposed to solve.

I am a holder and would buy more if the curve was flattened and the current holders' accounts halved. "Half ma coins" is not the target audience. The change is against the current owners and for the future owners. The reason those in power do it is because they are more heavily invested (financially or otherwise) and therefore more risk adverse. They prefer -EV bets that increase the coin's long term success.

That is my argument for the holders, for the non-holders and the core of the associated PR campaign. Monero can be the coin that does things better, even in terms of policy.

Edit: i sometimes feel like the Monero community temporarily forgets the scope we aim for. If successful at what it pretends to become, Monero will not be drug dealers and shady biz money, but instead it will be the People's Republic of Offshore. There is a large difference in audience between the two.

[xulescu]

Having a longer mining horizon doesn't necessarily increase a future user's access to a coin. It increases a future miner's access to it. But in the long run, mining is dominated by professionals so this group diverges from the mainstream. Bitcoin and Litecoin are examples of this. An ordinary user is largely restricted to buying it on the market, which is available regardless of the emission curve. So the egalitarian aspect of the argument exists, but it plays out weakly in the real world.

I thought the point of CPU-only was that users are miners and run the network in a decentralized cost that most absorb invisibly as some small bump in power bill cost.

[eizh]

Having a longer mining horizon doesn't necessarily increase a future user's access to a coin. It increases a future miner's access to it. But in the long run, mining is dominated by professionals so this group diverges from the mainstream. Bitcoin and Litecoin are examples of this. An ordinary user is largely restricted to buying it on the market, which is available regardless of the emission curve. So the egalitarian aspect of the argument exists, but it plays out weakly in the real world.

I thought the point of CPU-only was that users are miners and run the network in a decentralized cost that most absorb invisibly as some small bump in power bill cost.

This is the ideal that Satoshi pursued and is part of CryptoNote's marketing. But I don't think anyone expects it to play out like that because it's yet to be demonstrated in the real world. Most likely a GPU miner for the CryptoNight algo will be developed soon, though with a smaller advantage than seen in scrypt.

[smooth]

Having a longer mining horizon doesn't necessarily increase a future user's access to a coin. It increases a future miner's access to it. But in the long run, mining is dominated by professionals so this group diverges from the mainstream. Bitcoin and Litecoin are examples of this. An ordinary user is largely restricted to buying it on the market, which is available regardless of the emission curve. So the egalitarian aspect of the argument exists, but it plays out weakly in the real world.

I thought the point of CPU-only was that users are miners and run the network in a decentralized cost that most absorb invisibly as some small bump in power bill cost.

This is the ideal that Satoshi pursued and is part of CryptoNote's marketing. But I don't think anyone expects it to play out like that because it's yet to be demonstrated in the real world. Most likely a GPU miner for the CryptoNight algo will be developed soon, though with a smaller advantage than seen in scrypt.

Technically a GPU miner doesn't necessarily mean that users can't mine. Nearly all new computers now have some kind of GPU, and that will increasingly be the case in the future. The main question is how big an advantage you get from building a particular specialized type of GPU rig over perhaps somewhat less efficient common computers. When you get huge advantages as with BTC or LTC, then users mining doesn't really exist. But if the advantage is small, then regular users can still mine. So we will just have to see how this plays out.

That's not really the point though. Users may mine, and if that works out to help keep the network descentralized, great. But mining rewards will be an increasingly unimportant way people receive the coins they want or need. They will primarily get them in some sort of trade (either trading for other assets or performing services and being paid in coins).

EDIT: I'd add that if this doesn't turn out to be the case, that won't really be a surprise (as many intelligent comments have been made about CPU mining being impossible), and will merely leave this coin in the same position as every other coin with respect to mining. Its anonymity features will not be affected.

[Shrikez]

I know I know...but are there any news/developements regarding a GUI release?

[TTM]

I know I know...but are there any news/developements regarding a GUI release?

Developing a dedicated GUI wallet for CryptoNote coins is a time-consuming task. Please be patient, you could have to wait months.

[Shrikez]

I know I know...but are there any news/developements regarding a GUI release?

Developing a dedicated GUI wallet for CryptoNote coins is a time-consuming task. Please be patient, you could have to wait months.

No problem, just asking. Let's hope the coin will keep people's interest long enough in this 10 new altcoins/day environment.

[xnbya]

This keeps happening and diff resets. Is that a problem? Mining on minemro.com.

Code:

...

The daemon was playing up, I've restarted it now so it should stop doing it, although its not a major problem, it just meant that the connection was being reset.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Wealth centralization occurs in currencies with very large inflation.  Wealth is Zipf distributed.  Live with it.  If you want a coin amenable to progressive taxation, starting with privacy enhanced monero is the wrong place.  States will tax bitcoin and redistribute.  They are unlikely to redistribute monero.  I have respect for the view that better distribution leads to a healthier economy, lifting all boats.  I have no respect for confiscation by inflation.  Building a bully, a robber, into the coin will not win you friends.

Constant reward solves the problem of mining incentives quite adequately because a non-exponential growth in supply will never exceed the growth of the economy, and thus the reward will appreciate at roughly the same rate as the growth of the economy.  It is perfectly balanced, by its very nature.   An exponential reward just creates bifurcated dangers:  Either it devalues the coin, or else it over-incentivizes miners, resulting in a huge waste of hash (electrical) power.  The probability of reward value tracking the growth of the economy is approximately zero in an exponentially growing reward system.

Personally, I would not invest in a currency with exponential supply, period.  It has no future because it will not be adopted by the majority of users.  It will fail to attain monopoly control if its niche. Since I am not going to be invested in such a currency, I will never use it: I have a disincentive to use it because that detracts from the currency in which I am invested.  I think this is a majority view, among cryptocurrency early adopters.  Thus it would be ill-advised to invest time, energy, creativity, or funds into such a currency.

Constant reward is superior to bitcoin.  And that's a very favorable thing to have said about a fledgling crypto. The history of exponential money supply growth on the other hand is a history of disaster and tragedy.

I cannot disagree more. You're telling me you want an anonymous coin, that has high adoption, that perpetually increases in value, that is resistant to centralization and comes at no cost? Good luck.

Wealth centralization occurs in currencies with very large inflation.  Wealth is Zipf distributed.  Live with it.

We're all going to die someday. No point in being healthy, I guess? Fixed inflation can greatly discourage wealth centralization.
Constant-reward inflation is effectively a fixed money supply. Not to mention a constant reward is the same as a decreasing reward, which is the primary concern that started this debate in the first place!

I find these posts from AnonyMint to be quite relevant:

In the Quantity Theory of Money a constant money supply requires that the economy can grow only if the velocity-of-money circulation rises exponentially or the price level declines exponentially, neither of which are plausible for a healthy economy.

we can't have freedom without diluting the money supply. Selfish savers want their past efforts to be a perpetual friction on the backs of those new innovators. Rather a small, reasonable debasement (or demurrage) provides a balance to neutralize the parasitic rent that usury has on society.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=354573.msg3816209#msg3816209
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342848.msg3788809#msg3788809
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=342007.msg3788782#msg3788782

........

Why are you so selfish as a saver that you don't want to pay 2.5% - 5% per year to fund the security of mining to keep it decentralized so the government can't come tax + confiscate 50+% of your savings? You know that even gold is debased at 2 - 2.5% per year.

The new coin goes out to the people who are the miners, especially with a provably cpu-only coin.

The increased value of the coin and the increased productivity gains (Q in the Quantity Theory of Money) in the society due to not having the government meddling will far exceed that 2.5% - 5% per year cost.

Selfish people deserve the corporate top-down controlled fully compliant government's coin.

[smooth]

Wealth centralization occurs in currencies with very large inflation.  Wealth is Zipf distributed.  Live with it.

We're all going to die someday. No point in being healthy, I guess? Fixed inflation can greatly discourage wealth centralization.

If you are going to have these general economic debates, I ask you, please, take it elsewhere.

These economic debates can go on for weeks at a time, or longer. In fact this one has been raging, at some level, since this coin was created over a month ago. We have people coming here literally asking how to get their wallet to work. They need help. They want to know how to mine, or mixin counts mean, or whether there are important new patches. There's is really no other place to get this important information. 

Continuing to clog up the thread with economics does no one any good. Drive away the users who aren't economics wonks and there will soon be no coin left to argue over.

[drawingthesun]

I agree with Alex. The emission is far too fast.

I can't see monero gaining value with the huge release as it is stands.

Supply will increase 600% in the next 48 weeks.

This logic doesn't check out. With the CryptoNote emission formula, the faster the emission, the faster the reduction in inflation.

If this was Bitcoin (constant reward) at the same age, supply would've increased ~1000% over the next 48 weeks (216k to 2.59 million).

If this was QuazarCoin (4x slower clone) at the same age, supply would've increased ~750% over the next 48 weeks (255k to 2.17 million).

As you can see when you do the math, (1) CryptoNote is already anti-inflationary by design and (2) a flatter emission actually draws out the inflationary phase.

Why the obsession with price per coin, anyway? What matters both for the individual and for the overall MRO market is price*amount. Price is lower, but the amount is correspondingly higher. There's always 42 Coin for those who want a high price per coin. Unfortunately, you might only own a tenth of one coin.

I never realized that Bitcoin and QCN had that much increase in comparison.

The logic checks out insofar as these guys (whether they entirely realize it or not) are arguing if favor of the instamine approach of mining a lot of cheap and easy coins really fast, then (once they have theirs), slowing inflation way down to boost price.

Not true, I looked at MRO and how 6 million coins will be mined in the first year and tried to compare it to both Bitcoin and our direct competitor QCN.

I was under the impression QCN would increase much slower over the same time period than MRO, and I didn't want MRO to lose out against QCN for that reason.

However eizh has pointed out that my analysis is incorrect. I'll have to re-run the numbers.

[drawingthesun]

Continuing to clog up the thread with economics does no one any good. Drive away the users who aren't economics wonks and there will soon be no coin left to argue over.

Agreed.

How long until a Monero forum is up and running? We desperately need a Bitcointalk of our own in some fashion. The Monero community is growing fast and we can't have all the topics of interest in this thread.

[NeuroticFish]

I have more and more often issues with the transaction size. Last time the biggest amount I was able to send was 0.15 MRO at a time.
I am using monero.win.x64.experimental.0526.

Is it a known issue? Is there anything I can do about it?

Thank you.

[smooth]

I have more and more often issues with the transaction size. Last time the biggest amount I was able to send was 0.15 MRO at a time.
I am using monero.win.x64.experimental.0526.

Is it a known issue? Is there anything I can do about it?

Thank you.

Are you receiving very small payments? You will need to combine those into larger chunks first to be able to combine them even more. You can't spend too many previous payments in one go.

[dreamspark]

I have more and more often issues with the transaction size. Last time the biggest amount I was able to send was 0.15 MRO at a time.
I am using monero.win.x64.experimental.0526.

Is it a known issue? Is there anything I can do about it?

Thank you.

Its due to how many inputs you have, Im guessing your mining to that address?

Theres not really a lot you can do as far as Im aware.

[smooth]

I have more and more often issues with the transaction size. Last time the biggest amount I was able to send was 0.15 MRO at a time.
I am using monero.win.x64.experimental.0526.

Is it a known issue? Is there anything I can do about it?

Thank you.

Its due to how many inputs you have, Im guessing your mining to that address?

Theres not really a lot you can do as far as Im aware.

You have to create a second wallet, then send the coins from the first wallet to the second wallet in bigger chunks than you received them. Keep doing that and you can build up outputs of whatever size you want.

[NeuroticFish]

I have more and more often issues with the transaction size. Last time the biggest amount I was able to send was 0.15 MRO at a time.
I am using monero.win.x64.experimental.0526.

Is it a known issue? Is there anything I can do about it?

Thank you.

Its due to how many inputs you have, Im guessing your mining to that address?

Theres not really a lot you can do as far as Im aware.

You have to create a second wallet, then send the coins from the first wallet to the second wallet in bigger chunks than you received them. Keep doing that and you can build up outputs of whatever size you want.

Yes, I am mining to that address and my hashrate is not very big, so the inputs are very small.
Still, it's extremely frustrating to transfer so small amounts and all the pools I know mine directly to wallet.
Am I the only one with this problem??


Transferring from one of my wallets to another in small chunks would be tax free or less frustrating? I doubt it. And then it would be no benefit at all in this.