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

[drawingthesun]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

I'm reading the paper but am not seeing why their time stamp idea would eliminate unlinkability, you really need to explain your point AnonyMint, because you're being so vague here.

Also the programmed self destruction does not really apply to Monero. We have both a smooth emission and immortal supply.

(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

[fluffypony]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

I'm reading the paper but am not seeing why their time stamp idea would eliminate unlinkability, you really need to explain your point AnonyMint, because you're being so vague here.

Also the programmed self destruction does not really apply to Monero. We have both a smooth emission and immortal supply.

(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

There is some talk around that (a minimum block reward) - tacotime had some nice thoughts around it, and we'll wrap it up into a proposal and put it out there soon-ish.

[minimila]

FUD'ers are a good sign of someone seriously being afraid of a stronger and better competitor

just quick owerview of dwarves features different from the other pools:

* diff graphs + handy Profit Calculator

* the possiblity to determinate SEPARATELY each worker

* powerful dedicated FAILOVER servers wordwide with 64GB RAM, SSD in RAID for more Stability. all miners' shares are calulated from all servers!

* mining directly to an exchange

* longer than half of year experience in a pool operating, code refactoring and pool-programming

* dwarfpool is not standart MPOS, but self-developed and optimized project on Phyton, that's why our miners get the most open and transparent statistic possible!
it's not just "the most reliable" with balance, submitted and hashrate ))










sorry for blue graphs, the website will be completely ready next days  

more features to come 


I'd say check some time and compare the resut and quality of pools )) old does not mean better


ou, not forget 1% fee forever for members who will come now, from Wednesday 16.07 fee will increase to 2%  

[rpietila]

(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

What are the inputs that must be considered when setting the eternal inflation parameters for a PoW coin? From technical perspective, I mean.


From economical perspective, 100 years of growth at 2% APR is 624% per century. Granted, century is a long time, but also the current system with its wasteful resource acquisition and general footprint on pristine nature, cannot continue 1-2 more centuries with this growth rate.

On the other hand, gold production of about 1.2% (historically higher ~2%) can be regarded as near optimal, because gold has held its value vs. oil in the last decades.

If the economic and population growth abate, 0% is of course optimal as you cannot go lower.

=> The quick thinking would point to 0.5%-2% bracket, and it must be percentage, not a fixed amount.

This is a really important matter. A 1%-point fail can easily destroy the coin. (see silver inflation in 1850-1870 for instance how a precious metal was destroyed)

[Anon136]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

I'm reading the paper but am not seeing why their time stamp idea would eliminate unlinkability, you really need to explain your point AnonyMint, because you're being so vague here.

Also the programmed self destruction does not really apply to Monero. We have both a smooth emission and immortal supply.

(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

There is some talk around that (a minimum block reward) - tacotime had some nice thoughts around it, and we'll wrap it up into a proposal and put it out there soon-ish.

Are you speaking of a perpetual minimum block reward? Like from now until the universe dies? I have been strongly in favour of this idea for a long time. The economics are sound. Though it may be a pr nightmare.

[dreamspark]

(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

What are the inputs that must be considered when setting the eternal inflation parameters for a PoW coin? From technical perspective, I mean.


From economical perspective, 100 years of growth at 2% APR is 624% per century. Granted, century is a long time, but also the current system with its wasteful resource acquisition and general footprint on pristine nature, cannot continue 1-2 more centuries with this growth rate.

On the other hand, gold production of about 1.2% (historically higher ~2%) can be regarded as near optimal, because gold has held its value vs. oil in the last decades.

If the economic and population growth abate, 0% is of course optimal as you cannot go lower.

=> The quick thinking would point to 0.5%-2% bracket, and it must be percentage, not a fixed amount.

This is a really important matter. A 1%-point fail can easily destroy the coin. (see silver inflation in 1850-1870 for instance how a precious metal was destroyed)

Risto, read the economy thread if you havent and continue the discussion there. This will be far better than it getting lost in here.

It will probably answer some of your inital questions too.


https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597878.200

[Anon136]

(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

What are the inputs that must be considered when setting the eternal inflation parameters for a PoW coin? From technical perspective, I mean.


From economical perspective, 100 years of growth at 2% APR is 624% per century. Granted, century is a long time, but also the current system with its wasteful resource acquisition and general footprint on pristine nature, cannot continue 1-2 more centuries with this growth rate.

On the other hand, gold production of about 1.2% (historically higher ~2%) can be regarded as near optimal, because gold has held its value vs. oil in the last decades.

If the economic and population growth abate, 0% is of course optimal as you cannot go lower.

=> The quick thinking would point to 0.5%-2% bracket, and it must be percentage, not a fixed amount.

This is a really important matter. A 1%-point fail can easily destroy the coin. (see silver inflation in 1850-1870 for instance how a precious metal was destroyed)

I don't think he was talking about an X% increase in coin supply. He was talking about a perpetual 1 coin per block. You will notice that with each new block 1 coin is a smaller percentage of the total money supply. Eventually it will become so small that the value of securing a marginal unit from loss due to carelessness will be less than 1 coin per block. And thus we would reach an equilibrium where about 1 coin per block was lost due to carelessness and 1 coin per block is created in mining. The beauty of a proposal like this is that it leads to a stable money supply. No deflation or inflation.

[drawingthesun]

(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

What are the inputs that must be considered when setting the eternal inflation parameters for a PoW coin? From technical perspective, I mean.


From economical perspective, 100 years of growth at 2% APR is 624% per century. Granted, century is a long time, but also the current system with its wasteful resource acquisition and general footprint on pristine nature, cannot continue 1-2 more centuries with this growth rate.

On the other hand, gold production of about 1.2% (historically higher ~2%) can be regarded as near optimal, because gold has held its value vs. oil in the last decades.

If the economic and population growth abate, 0% is of course optimal as you cannot go lower.

=> The quick thinking would point to 0.5%-2% bracket, and it must be percentage, not a fixed amount.

This is a really important matter. A 1%-point fail can easily destroy the coin. (see silver inflation in 1850-1870 for instance how a precious metal was destroyed)

I don't think he was talking about an X% increase in coin supply. He was talking about a perpetual 1 coin per block. You will notice that with each new block 1 coin is a smaller percentage of the total money supply. Eventually it will become so small that the value of securing a marginal unit from loss due to carelessness will be less than 1 coin per block. And thus we would reach an equilibrium where about 1 coin per block was lost due to carelessness and 1 coin per block is created in mining. The beauty of a proposal like this is that it leads to a stable money supply. No deflation or inflation.

I think rpietila knows I was talking about a fixed supply (per year), rpietila is advocating a fixed percent instead of fixed amount.

I believe that rpietila has good reason to oppose a fixed amount, and this topic needs more discussion. I originally wanted a fixed amount, then a fixed percent (0.5% to 1%) but that has it's own issues because we cannot know how many coins are lost, and then I went back to thinking a fixed amount would be better.

It's a very hard thing to get right, and we might have only one chance.

Anon136 , the trouble with lost coins is as they become worth more and more they will become lost less and less as people take better care of them.

[AnonyMint]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

I'm reading the paper but am not seeing why their time stamp idea would eliminate unlinkability, you really need to explain your point AnonyMint, because you're being so vague here.

Don't read the paper (the timestamp idea was debunked already). Read my posts. My posts in the linked thread are not too vague.

If I am correct, it appears that unlinkable block chains can defeat the ephemeral 50+% double-spending attacks by having excruciatingly slow payments.

Whereas with my proposal, the linkable block chains can instead defeat it with an equivalent delay between the time a payment is final and the funds can be re-spent.

That appears to be a major disadvantage for unlinkable block chains. I reiterate that more peer review is needed before we accept this hypothesis as fact.

[Anon136]

(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

What are the inputs that must be considered when setting the eternal inflation parameters for a PoW coin? From technical perspective, I mean.


From economical perspective, 100 years of growth at 2% APR is 624% per century. Granted, century is a long time, but also the current system with its wasteful resource acquisition and general footprint on pristine nature, cannot continue 1-2 more centuries with this growth rate.

On the other hand, gold production of about 1.2% (historically higher ~2%) can be regarded as near optimal, because gold has held its value vs. oil in the last decades.

If the economic and population growth abate, 0% is of course optimal as you cannot go lower.

=> The quick thinking would point to 0.5%-2% bracket, and it must be percentage, not a fixed amount.

This is a really important matter. A 1%-point fail can easily destroy the coin. (see silver inflation in 1850-1870 for instance how a precious metal was destroyed)

I don't think he was talking about an X% increase in coin supply. He was talking about a perpetual 1 coin per block. You will notice that with each new block 1 coin is a smaller percentage of the total money supply. Eventually it will become so small that the value of securing a marginal unit from loss due to carelessness will be less than 1 coin per block. And thus we would reach an equilibrium where about 1 coin per block was lost due to carelessness and 1 coin per block is created in mining. The beauty of a proposal like this is that it leads to a stable money supply. No deflation or inflation.

I think rpietila knows I was talking about a fixed supply (per year), rpietila is advocating a fixed percent instead of fixed amount.

I believe that rpietila has good reason to oppose a fixed amount, and this topic needs more discussion. I originally wanted a fixed amount, then a fixed percent (0.5% to 1%) but that has it's own issues because we cannot know how many coins are lost, and then I went back to thinking a fixed amount would be better.

It's a very hard thing to get right, and we might have only one chance.

Anon136 , the trouble with lost coins is as they become worth more and more they will become lost less and less as people take better care of them.

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

[AnonyMint]

Hey guys, let's say 10% of coins are lost, then 1% of 10% is 0.1%. You are worried about nothing.

[drawingthesun]

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

What is terrifying about it?

What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year?

[AnonyMint]

This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat.

If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution.

Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review.

I'm reading the paper but am not seeing why their time stamp idea would eliminate unlinkability, you really need to explain your point AnonyMint, because you're being so vague here.

Don't read the paper (the timestamp idea was debunked already). Read my posts. My posts in the linked thread are not too vague.

If I am correct, it appears that unlinkable block chains can defeat the ephemeral 50+% double-spending attacks by having excruciatingly slow payments.

Whereas with my proposal, the linkable block chains can instead defeat it with an equivalent delay between the time a payment is final and the funds can be re-spent.

That appears to be a major disadvantage for unlinkable block chains. I reiterate that more peer review is needed before we accept this hypothesis as fact.

I attempted to summarize my thesis more comprehensibly.

[AnonyMint]

(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

What are the inputs that must be considered when setting the eternal inflation parameters for a PoW coin? From technical perspective, I mean.

You have to fund mining, but I guess that is an economics consideration.

From economical perspective, 100 years of growth at 2% APR is 624% per century. Granted, century is a long time, but also the current system with its wasteful resource acquisition and general footprint on pristine nature, cannot continue 1-2 more centuries with this growth rate.

On the other hand, gold production of about 1.2% (historically higher ~2%) can be regarded as near optimal, because gold has held its value vs. oil in the last decades.

The larger the annual % of your money supply that you spend on mining, then assuming your mining hasn't been destroyed with ASICs as is the case for Bitcoin, then the more new people can come into the coin via mining.

Mining could be the most efficient way to introduce new users to the coin, as it doesn't require AML, KYC, fraudulent exchanges, etc..

Do you want a Mt.Gox and Coinbase driving your coin's adoption, or do you want to get the coins directly to them?

Investors should understand that a larger (reasonable, not pump & dump levels of) debasement is going to drive more adoption and thus avoid the problem that happened to Bitcoin wherein it fell into a log-logistic adoption rate (instead of logistic, as I showed) and this is the reason the price will not be moving up as fast as it had been in the past.

In my view 1% is myopic. Gold has never been a widely adopted currency. Never! It was always debased bronze, etc..

Go for 3 - 10% instead!

If the economic and population growth abate, 0% is of course optimal as you cannot go lower.

It is possible to remove coins from the supply via demurrage.

=> The quick thinking would point to 0.5%-2% bracket, and it must be percentage, not a fixed amount.

This is a really important matter. A 1%-point fail can easily destroy the coin. (see silver inflation in 1850-1870 for instance how a precious metal was destroyed)

Apples and oranges.

Users couldn't mine silver.

In crypto-currency, your mining expenditures go right back to yourselves (unless you suffer the ASICs kiss of death).

Btw, there is no way to prevent ASICs. But the problem with ASICs is not their existence, but rather that they are not readily available on time to everyone in the same efficiencies. So if you want to defeat this problem, you've got to think about it a totally different way.

You think I haven't been working eh.

[Anon136]

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

What is terrifying about it?

What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year?

The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power.

[AnonyMint]

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

What is terrifying about it?

What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year?

The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power.

If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches.

By the time a currency reaches widespread adoption, it doesn't matter if it is a perfect store-of-value (actually no such thing exists), as that is the role of investments, gold and other alternatives.

[Anon136]

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

What is terrifying about it?

What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year?

The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power.

If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches.

Maybe if you actually know how to make blockchains scalable. But if you dont than this argument doesnt hold. And if you do, than again, for the 10,000 time what are you doing here, please for christ sake go prove it.

[AnonyMint]

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

What is terrifying about it?

What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year?

The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power.

If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches.

Maybe if you actually know how to make blockchains scalable. But if you dont than this argument doesnt hold. And if you do, than again, for the 10,000 time what are you doing here, please for christ sake go prove it.

If your block chain can't scale then the entire discussion is pointless.

Of course I know how to make block chain scale, but I am not going to tell you.

[Sebastien256]

(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

What are the inputs that must be considered when setting the eternal inflation parameters for a PoW coin? From technical perspective, I mean.


From economical perspective, 100 years of growth at 2% APR is 624% per century. Granted, century is a long time, but also the current system with its wasteful resource acquisition and general footprint on pristine nature, cannot continue 1-2 more centuries with this growth rate.

On the other hand, gold production of about 1.2% (historically higher ~2%) can be regarded as near optimal, because gold has held its value vs. oil in the last decades.

If the economic and population growth abate, 0% is of course optimal as you cannot go lower.

=> The quick thinking would point to 0.5%-2% bracket, and it must be percentage, not a fixed amount.

This is a really important matter. A 1%-point fail can easily destroy the coin. (see silver inflation in 1850-1870 for instance how a precious metal was destroyed)

I don't think he was talking about an X% increase in coin supply. He was talking about a perpetual 1 coin per block. You will notice that with each new block 1 coin is a smaller percentage of the total money supply. Eventually it will become so small that the value of securing a marginal unit from loss due to carelessness will be less than 1 coin per block. And thus we would reach an equilibrium where about 1 coin per block was lost due to carelessness and 1 coin per block is created in mining. The beauty of a proposal like this is that it leads to a stable money supply. No deflation or inflation.

I would rater say that to achieve what you say anon, you need a fix x% per year of coin creation to counter the Lost "due to carelessness". I think that loss should be account for a percentage of the total market number of atomic coins. The problem is to define the "x" value, I agree that this is not easy. Instead, with a fix amount, it like saying in the limit of end of time that there is less and less people that are losing the coins due to carelessness. Maybe that thinking is also incorrect...

In the end, maybe the creation of coin that should counter loss should not be count on x% or "y" fix number of coins per block, but be count in term of coin inactivity in the last "average life time" of a human life. After that time of inactivity, we can expect that the coins are lost, so they need to be replace...

[AnonyMint]

Btw, there is no way to prevent ASICs. But the problem with ASICs is not their existence, but rather that they are not readily available on time to everyone in the same efficiencies. So if you want to defeat this problem, you've got to think about it a totally different way.

You think I haven't been working eh.

Hint: does every user in the world need the most power efficient implementation of SHA-2 such that Intel would make it happen in every PC? No. This is why there is an ASICs problem for Bitcoin, wherein there isn't anymore equal access to efficiencies in mining.