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

[OrientA]

Slowing down the emission is a good idea to distribute the coin for longer period. We can achieve that by increasing the block time from 1 min to 3 min. We can implement that with 1 second block time increase per week. When XMR is adopted more in commerce, we can reduce the block time slowly, from 3 min to 1 min. The main reason to do that is that I found there is no transaction in most of the mined blocks.

Adjusting the emission in anyway is a terrible idea. I don't know if those suggesting it are simply selfish, incompetent or just have an overwhelming sense of grandeur.

I do not have many XMR. If we slow down the emission, more people can mine it for longer term in the future.

[1714945164]

1714945164

[1714945164]

1714945164

[1714945164]

1714945164

[1714945164]

1714945164

[1714945164]

1714945164

[nakaone]

Slowing down the emission is a good idea to distribute the coin for longer period. We can achieve that by increasing the block time from 1 min to 3 min. We can implement that with 1 second block time increase per week. When XMR is adopted more in commerce, we can reduce the block time slowly, from 3 min to 1 min. The main reason to do that is that I found there is no transaction in most of the mined blocks.

Adjusting the emission in anyway is a terrible idea. I don't know if those suggesting it are simply selfish, incompetent or just have an overwhelming sense of grandeur.

I do not have many XMR. If we slow down the emission, more people can mine it for longer term in the future.

the problem with slowing the emission rate is that we create a worse off/ better off situation which differs from the beginning of the emission "contract" - that said nobody cares if we change the blocktime due to technical reasons and adjust the emission rate accordingly.

regarding the financing of development, I think this is the most crucial point in the evolution of monero. a development solely driven by donation does not work. I could write a wall to explain why this is different to the early days of bitcoin

[sparky999]

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

Seriously now, this is a piece of software, not a religious doctrine. That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

That does not mean that something necessarily is broken, but "sanctity" precludes even considering it.

It is an economy that people bought into because of a set of basic rules that were presented to them - changing those rules is a material change to the original contract. The only way it could ever be considered is by obtaining a 50% majority of coins in favour of the changes and even then I would still be against it.

[Nekomata]

XMR is the future.

[sparky999]

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

It deeply concerns me to hear you say that.

What do you think would happen if bitcoin developers turned round tomorrow and said we are changing the emission schedule because this new one is better we think?

[sparky999]

agreed, I only speak for myself if Monero changes the emission I'm out.

I rather see it stagnate for months with no development if some devs thinks they are not getting their fair cut.

I feel the same way. Whilst I am not the largest Monero holder my exit would certainly move the price.

[oda.krell]

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

Seriously now, this is a piece of software, not a religious doctrine. That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

That does not mean that something necessarily is broken, but "sanctity" precludes even considering it.

It is an economy that people bought into because of a set of basic rules that were presented to them - changing those rules is a material change to the original contract. The only way it could ever be considered is by obtaining a 50% majority of coins in favour of the changes and even then I would still be against it.

Which essentially means, if it would come to that, you recommend to go against an economic majority because it is different from your minority view (EDIT: in this scenario. Not saying your view is necessarily the minority view). Yes, makes sense.

It's really pretty simple: if the change of the original rules is perceived as so terrible that a large number of early buyers are sufficiently turned off, then a) there won't be an economic majority supporting the change, and b) if there would be an economic majority in support of changes, the early buyers in the minority can still sell. Wondrous how markets work like that.

[nakaone]

what about icebreakers proposal for some kind of an postmine, which could be auctioned for financing development? For some reason I did not make entirely clear for me I think this is quite a good solution

[smooth]

the problem with slowing the emission rate is that we create a worse off/ better off situation which differs from the beginning of the emission "contract" - that said nobody cares if we change the blocktime due to technical reasons and adjust the emission rate accordingly.

yep

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

Seriously now, this is a piece of software, not a religious doctrine. That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

That does not mean that something necessarily is broken, but "sanctity" precludes even considering it.

It is an economy that people bought into because of a set of basic rules that were presented to them - changing those rules is a material change to the original contract. The only way it could ever be considered is by obtaining a 50% majority of coins in favour of the changes and even then I would still be against it.

agreed, I only speak for myself if Monero changes the emission I'm out.

I rather see it stagnate for months with no development if some devs thinks they are not getting their fair cut.

perhaps we see another fork like with the bitmonero, anything can happen if the community is backstabbed.

I can't speak for anyone else but for me it has nothing to do with a fair cut. My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely. Of course it is fair to disagree on that point. Regarding voting if we were to do that it would not surprise me if such a thing could well be supported by 50%+ and not just because some whales support it but also because a great many people sincerely believe the emission of this coin is just too fast and that will impede success down the road. We are being forward looking.

Please try not to attempt to marginalized these view with inflammatory language such as fair cut or backstabbed.

[sparky999]

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

Seriously now, this is a piece of software, not a religious doctrine. That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

That does not mean that something necessarily is broken, but "sanctity" precludes even considering it.

It is an economy that people bought into because of a set of basic rules that were presented to them - changing those rules is a material change to the original contract. The only way it could ever be considered is by obtaining a 50% majority of coins in favour of the changes and even then I would still be against it.

Which essentially means, if it would come to that, you recommend to go against an economic majority because it is different from your minority view (EDIT: in this scenario. Not saying your view is necessarily the minority view). Yes, makes sense.

It's really pretty simple: if the change of the original rules is perceived as so terrible that a large number of early buyers are sufficiently turned off, then a) there won't be an economic majority supporting the change, and b) if there would be an economic majority in support of changes, the early buyers in the minority can still sell. Wondrous how markets work like that.

I see your point, I was really trying to say that at or around 50% I think the status quo should continue. I'm not sure what the appropriate number for change would be economics suggest 50% obviously my personal view is that for such substantial changes that number should be closer to 60% for various reasons.

[smooth]

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

It deeply concerns me to hear you say that.

What do you think would happen if bitcoin developers turned round tomorrow and said we are changing the emission schedule because this new one is better we think?

I think bitcoins chances of success would go up (depending on what the were doing of course as it is certainly possible to make bad changes)

[Atrides]

So, I just recompiled bitmonerod, and now it seems to be stuck on block 232616. Here's some of the output:

2014-Sep-25 00:59:26.151813 [P2P5][188.232.142.138:18080 OUT]Sync data returned unknown top block: 232616 -> 232692 [76 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-25 00:59:32.237618 [P2P5][188.232.142.138:18080 OUT]Sync data returned unknown top block: 232616 -> 232692 [76 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-25 00:59:38.255829 [P2P8][188.232.142.138:18080 OUT]Sync data returned unknown top block: 232616 -> 232692 [76 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-25 00:59:44.404735 [P2P8][188.232.142.138:18080 OUT]Sync data returned unknown top block: 232616 -> 232692 [76 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started

Did I do something wrong?

I'm in the same boat (and the same block).  I'm wondering if it's due to everyone I'm connected to not being on the latest rev.  

Smooth, my diff says:
2014-Sep-25 01:04:34.991768 BH: 232616, DIFF: 1074246915, HR: 17904115 H/s

You can check diff-height on all pools via FrokGuard:

http://forkguard.com/

[sparky999]

 My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.
 

The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions.

You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak.

[smooth]

So, I just recompiled bitmonerod, and now it seems to be stuck on block 232616. Here's some of the output:

2014-Sep-25 00:59:26.151813 [P2P5][188.232.142.138:18080 OUT]Sync data returned unknown top block: 232616 -> 232692 [76 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-25 00:59:32.237618 [P2P5][188.232.142.138:18080 OUT]Sync data returned unknown top block: 232616 -> 232692 [76 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-25 00:59:38.255829 [P2P8][188.232.142.138:18080 OUT]Sync data returned unknown top block: 232616 -> 232692 [76 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-25 00:59:44.404735 [P2P8][188.232.142.138:18080 OUT]Sync data returned unknown top block: 232616 -> 232692 [76 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started

Did I do something wrong?

I'm in the same boat (and the same block).  I'm wondering if it's due to everyone I'm connected to not being on the latest rev.  

Smooth, my diff says:
2014-Sep-25 01:04:34.991768 BH: 232616, DIFF: 1074246915, HR: 17904115 H/s

Please make a new clone from github one more time. There was a bad commit that got removed but then got reapplied later. Some people ended up with the wrong one. Everything is fixed now afaik.

[sparky999]

You need to be able to say these are the things that we can change and these are the things that are core to the coin.

My opinion is the emission curve shouldn't be changed as in my opinion it is core to the coin. Despite the likely economic benefit to me if I were to take the other side.

[oda.krell]

The sanctity of the original features be they good or bad must be respected.

Seriously now, this is a piece of software, not a religious doctrine. That it function well takes precedence over sanctity, and if something is broken, perhaps by design, we should fix it.

That does not mean that something necessarily is broken, but "sanctity" precludes even considering it.

It is an economy that people bought into because of a set of basic rules that were presented to them - changing those rules is a material change to the original contract. The only way it could ever be considered is by obtaining a 50% majority of coins in favour of the changes and even then I would still be against it.

Which essentially means, if it would come to that, you recommend to go against an economic majority because it is different from your minority view (EDIT: in this scenario. Not saying your view is necessarily the minority view). Yes, makes sense.

It's really pretty simple: if the change of the original rules is perceived as so terrible that a large number of early buyers are sufficiently turned off, then a) there won't be an economic majority supporting the change, and b) if there would be an economic majority in support of changes, the early buyers in the minority can still sell. Wondrous how markets work like that.

I see your point, I was really trying to say that at or around 50% I think the status quo should continue. I'm not sure what the appropriate number for change would be economics suggest 50% obviously my personal view is that for such substantial changes that number should be closer to 60% for various reasons.

Agreed then.

And I'll even add, "50% of what?", which is a tricky question: a majority of users? a majority of funds? a mining majority? (in my own understanding, "economic majority" is not necessarily identical to "fund majority", but also includes network influence and "soft influence" like community standing - but because of its fuzzy definition, you can't really put "economic majority" in that sense into a vote)

Also: do we require a simple majority or an absolute majority?

Not impossible to come to come to a solution on those topics, but I'll freely admit, it'll be a pain to agree on the decision making process on this matter.

[sparky999]

Not impossible to come to come to a solution on those topics, but I'll freely admit, it'll be a pain to agree on the decision making process on this matter.

Just one of the reasons why the status quo is better.

I have to get on with my day but I would like to add that prior to today's discussion I was still accumulating Monero I have now changed to simply holding what I have and will continue to remain in this state until a clear and final decision is made regarding these types of changes. So whatever the DEV's decide I would urge them to do so in an expedient manner as uncertainty is the the worst of all options.

[rpietila]

 My interest in making changes would but entirely motivated by wanting to see the project succeed and believing that such changes make that more likely.
 

The problem with this philosophy is that at some point you are simply playing God with your own opinions.

You run into so many ethical questions that if nothing else it is simpler to have certain things laid out in a fixed state until the end of time so to speak.

For the readers, it might be interesting to know that smooth is a member in the core team + also has a large stake in MEW hinting that he is one of the most involved people in Monero. If they make bad decisions in the core team, his personal investment also suffers.

The beauty of MEW is that everyone may voice their own opinion and vote for it, and the majority wins. Even then, the core team may totally independently decide whether to act according to the guidance or not.

Mostly, the matters that MEW is interested in do not even require the core team to implement. In these cases it is very easy - the burden of implementation rests totally on the ones who voted in favor.

MEW is not trying to force the majority opinion on anyone. The rationale for voting is to measure the support on initiatives. For me personally, it would be a great tragedy if I spent my time doing something that most would not even want to use. Submitting my ideas to economic vote before implementation, saves me from many griefs.

[sparky999]

The beauty of MEW is that everyone may voice their own opinion and vote for it, and the majority wins. Even then, the core team may totally independently decide whether to act according to the guidance or not.

Majority of what?

One man one vote?
One coin one vote?
Ranking systems?

It's all arbitrary. I wish I could continue this discussion some more but I can't right now. I will try and come back later today or tomorrow.

[sparky999]

What happens when the 4th 5th or 6th vote gets ignored by the DEV's at what point does MEW decide to find new DEV's and fork the coin?