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

[smooth]

You are right now harming the coin with these discussions.

Since the discussion started the price has gone up (not a whole lot, but its measurable). Other factors are always at work of course.

Like you, I believe that stability is important to value, but I see that as future stability. If we were proposing annual redesign meetings for the life of the coin, that would be very different and far worse. How to get there and what helps or hurts are certainly things about which reasonable people can disagree though.

What we are talking about now is something that has been a source of strong disagreement since the very origin of the coin, and has never been properly discussed much less resolved, outside of a single poll that was poisoned by Bytecoin sock-puppets. People are worried about shills sneaking into the MEW, but that was blatant and actually had a direct impact on the design of the coin, something MEW can't do. I see this question as something of a special case, given the peculiar history and origin of this particular coin.

These coins are all speculative assets being priced on the basis of expected future value. We can afford to make a correction or two now with the expectation that makes it more stable (and more valuable) later, not less.

[1714764266]

1714764266

[1714764266]

1714764266

[sparky999]

 I see this question as something of a special case, given the peculiar history and origin of this particular coin.

This is certainly an idea that I could get on board with - if a convincing argument can be made that the original emission schedule is somehow 'corrupt' (for want of a better word) then I could potentially get on board with some form of change conducted in some manner. The details of which would need to be debated.

[binaryFate]

Like you, I believe that stability is important to value

Got your point about seeking future stability.

However there is another aspect in danger here: fairness between holders across time. Any change would split monero holders forever into the before-change holders and the after-change newcomers. The latters criticizing the formers for the advantage they got over them. Serious drawback for adoption to be carried forever.                 
                         

[smooth]

However there is another aspect in danger here: fairness between holders across time. Any change would split monero holders forever into the before-change holders and the after-change newcomers. The latters criticizing the formers for the advantage they got over them. Serious drawback for adoption to be carried forever.                  

Definitely a valid point. If it were not addressed adequately could very well spell the undoing of any change, and I'm not sure whether or not it can be.

Likewise about there being a possible silent majority that would be strongly against it. Again I'm not sure how we could know whether there is or not.

I have some ideas to handle this in a way that I believe is absolutely 100% fair to everyone, but hard to implement. Perhaps we consider that at a later time when there are less pressing issues.

[sparky999]

That's the thing, the practicality of verifying that  a change is a majority decision is hard enough. Let alone even fairly defining a majority of what.
There are a multitude of systems that are all arguably fair but could provide drastically different results in a vote.

[aerbax]

...

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.

I cloned again this morning and everything appears to syncing perfectly.  Thanks again!

[iourzzz]

Like you, I believe that stability is important to value

Got your point about seeking future stability.

However there is another aspect in danger here: fairness between holders across time. Any change would split monero holders forever into the before-change holders and the after-change newcomers. The latters criticizing the formers for the advantage they got over them. Serious drawback for adoption to be carried forever.                 
                         

Totally agree. It's the real risk for future adoption and possible criticism. But this risk is comparable with the one regarding the lack of funds in the hands of developers for solid progress in development.

But there are definitely other ways to solve it. Not only the abrupt change of rules during the crisis.

[rdnkjdi]

However there is another aspect in danger here: fairness between holders across time. Any change would split monero holders forever into the before-change holders and the after-change newcomers. The latters criticizing the formers for the advantage they got over them. Serious drawback for adoption to be carried forever.                  

Definitely a valid point. If it were not addressed adequately could very well spell the undoing of any change, and I'm not sure whether or not it can be.

Likewise about there being a possible silent majority that would be strongly against it. Again I'm not sure how we could know whether there is or not.

I have some ideas to handle this in a way that I believe is absolutely 100% fair to everyone, but hard to implement. Perhaps we consider that at a later time when there are less pressing issues.

I agree 100% to flattening the emission curve to benefit later adopters.  Sadly it also benefits early adopters before the curve by slowing things down early.  So maybe it benefits late & early adopters at the expense of middle adopters?

But more than that on a fundamental discussion like this would be figuring out how to "vote" with real monero supporters.

On idea is to have people spend Monero for a vote that goes into the dev fund.  Since we are massively underfunded I like the idea of pitting two groups against each other in a fundamental vote and throwing the proceeds at the dev fund.

(I do think what money has been spent by the devs needs to be documented - and the dev fund needs to be transparent)

Another is to have a 3 month (or even 1 month) escrow.  This should get rid of a lot of the bytecoin shills.  Instead of proving they just have the coins (buy from market, vote, sell) they have to send to a pre-determined escrow and the coins are released after 1 - 3 months.

[OrientA]

I agree 100% to flattening the emission curve to benefit later adopters.  Sadly it also benefits early adopters before the curve by slowing things down early.  So maybe it benefits late & early adopters at the expense of middle adopters?

Hope it is not a horizontal line. A slower emission will do for me, such as half every 6-10 years. I reckon the life expectancy of XMR 1.0 will be much longer than 50 years.

[oda.krell]

Yeah, that's not how it works...

Warning ominously that the mere discussion "hurts the coin", then happily jumping into the discussion explaining why emission change is bad.

(Important note, by the way: I'm sure everyone in this discussion is aware of it, but maybe not every silent reader is: this is about the *speed* of the emission, not the total number of emitted "units") Just to be perfectly clear.

Discussions like this are a necessary part of a community project like this, in my opinion. A bit like the Scottish referendum, I think: it's necessary to have it, and after it's done, every side should accept the result.

It's true that there was already a vote on this matter about half a year ago, but the community was much smaller back then, the proposal unworkable in a way (return mined coins), and it was mainly addressed at miners afaik.

So I think *having* this discussion is fair enough. We're not a religion where "the code" is some unquestionable gift from the gods. On the other hand, I understand the concern that a *never-ending* discussion on this topic will hurt the value.

So, I'm fine with postponing this discussion when a) the current attack (or "attack") is long forgotten, and b) we have secured more funding for the devs. But eventually, this discussion will have to be had, because I know I'm not the only one who is in this project for the long run , who is worried about the prospect of emission being as fast as it is.

[rdnkjdi]

who is worried about the prospect of emission being as fast as it is.

If the solution for future adoption is to slow it down though.  The later that conclusion is reached - the more damage has been done.

[Nekomata]

XMR is the future.

[tempusr]

Can anyone tell me what happened?About twenty-four hours ago,I sended 10 XMR to my account on mintpal plartform ,but I still don't  receive any XMR coins,What happen?please help me,thanks


http://nb.baidupcs.com/file/09d8cba0d685893dcab630f2c6b23ad9?fid=2302147323-250528-352818782664868&time=1411657124&sign=FDTAXER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-UO7FD6RvwZC2dtRzke9U5HM1DRs%3D&to=nbb&fm=Nin,B,T,t&newver=1&newfm=1&flow_ver=3&expires=8h&rt=sh&r=409269212&mlogid=2161294598&vuk=2302147323&vbdid=3477857793
http://nb.baidupcs.com/file/631142f444f4d12bfe3877013517b0ae?fid=2302147323-250528-817633268953823&time=1411657129&sign=FDTAXER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-VkInpe0CgP63NNkHx7Cx3QoRQVA%3D&to=nbb&fm=Nin,B,T,t&newver=1&newfm=1&flow_ver=3&expires=8h&rt=sh&r=838769748&mlogid=4237898471&vuk=2302147323&vbdid=3477857793
http://nb.baidupcs.com/file/631142f444f4d12bfe3877013517b0ae?fid=2302147323-250528-817633268953823&time=1411657129&sign=FDTAXER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-VkInpe0CgP63NNkHx7Cx3QoRQVA%3D&to=nbb&fm=Nin,B,T,t&newver=1&newfm=1&flow_ver=3&expires=8h&rt=sh&r=838769748&mlogid=4237898471&vuk=2302147323&vbdid=3477857793

[tempusr]

Can anyone tell me what happened?About twenty-four hours ago,I sended 10 XMR to my account on mintpal plartform ,but I still don't  receive any XMR coins,What happen?please help me,thanks

http://d.pcs.baidu.com/thumbnail/09d8cba0d685893dcab630f2c6b23ad9?fid=2302147323-250528-352818782664868&time=1411653600&sign=FDTAER-DCb740ccc5511e5e8fedcff06b081203-xfq%2BmRvQKP1NpWPz0HId%2FyVHJe8%3D&rt=sh&expires=2h&r=402572072&sharesign=unknown&size=c710_u500&quality=100

You have to contact Mintpal, they are the worst Monero exchange so good luck.

i see,thanks your quick reply

[fluffypony]

(I do think what money has been spent by the devs needs to be documented - and the dev fund needs to be transparent)

Every cost is detailed and noted in a document the entire core team has access to. However, there is information in that document that could potentially compromise people who wish to remain pseudonymous / private (eg. the transaction ID of BTC payments reveal their address). Coupled with that is the very real probability of the information being used to criticise us, which means we'll waste more time explaining why we spent X on Y than on getting things done.

We can fix the first problem by not revealing transaction IDs, for instance, but then there's no verification of the information.

We're open to a discussion about how we can solve this without opening the trollgates and without compromising anyone. However, I think that is a discussion we should table for a later stage, as right now we're covering the bulk of the costs out of our pocket so the only people we'd affect is ourselves:-P

[dEBRUYNE]

Can anyone tell me what happened?About twenty-four hours ago,I sended 10 XMR to my account on mintpal plartform ,but I still don't  receive any XMR coins,What happen?please help me,thanks

You have to contact Mintpal, they are the worst Monero exchange so good luck.

i see,thanks your quick reply

You better use poloniex, more liquidity there. Also I don't know if mintpal already defroze withdraws and deposits.

[NewLiberty]

However there is another aspect in danger here: fairness between holders across time. Any change would split monero holders forever into the before-change holders and the after-change newcomers. The latters criticizing the formers for the advantage they got over them. Serious drawback for adoption to be carried forever.                  

Definitely a valid point. If it were not addressed adequately could very well spell the undoing of any change, and I'm not sure whether or not it can be.

Likewise about there being a possible silent majority that would be strongly against it. Again I'm not sure how we could know whether there is or not.

I have some ideas to handle this in a way that I believe is absolutely 100% fair to everyone, but hard to implement. Perhaps we consider that at a later time when there are less pressing issues.

I agree 100% to flattening the emission curve to benefit later adopters.  Sadly it also benefits early adopters before the curve by slowing things down early.  So maybe it benefits late & early adopters at the expense of middle adopters?

But more than that on a fundamental discussion like this would be figuring out how to "vote" with real monero supporters.

On idea is to have people spend Monero for a vote that goes into the dev fund.  Since we are massively underfunded I like the idea of pitting two groups against each other in a fundamental vote and throwing the proceeds at the dev fund.

(I do think what money has been spent by the devs needs to be documented - and the dev fund needs to be transparent)

Another is to have a 3 month (or even 1 month) escrow.  This should get rid of a lot of the bytecoin shills.  Instead of proving they just have the coins (buy from market, vote, sell) they have to send to a pre-determined escrow and the coins are released after 1 - 3 months.

I like the idea of funding development, and funding mining too.

But...
Beyond the practicalities, the problem with voting is that the minority loses.  Whichever way it goes some will see what they bought, changed without their consent (and against their wishes) after they got it home.
If a vote were called, I suspect some folks would simply sell, and if it comes out the way they want, buy back.

Not everyone is so generous as we.

[wachtwoord]

However there is another aspect in danger here: fairness between holders across time. Any change would split monero holders forever into the before-change holders and the after-change newcomers. The latters criticizing the formers for the advantage they got over them. Serious drawback for adoption to be carried forever.                  

Definitely a valid point. If it were not addressed adequately could very well spell the undoing of any change, and I'm not sure whether or not it can be.

Likewise about there being a possible silent majority that would be strongly against it. Again I'm not sure how we could know whether there is or not.

I have some ideas to handle this in a way that I believe is absolutely 100% fair to everyone, but hard to implement. Perhaps we consider that at a later time when there are less pressing issues.

I agree 100% to flattening the emission curve to benefit later adopters.  Sadly it also benefits early adopters before the curve by slowing things down early.  So maybe it benefits late & early adopters at the expense of middle adopters?

But more than that on a fundamental discussion like this would be figuring out how to "vote" with real monero supporters.

On idea is to have people spend Monero for a vote that goes into the dev fund.  Since we are massively underfunded I like the idea of pitting two groups against each other in a fundamental vote and throwing the proceeds at the dev fund.

(I do think what money has been spent by the devs needs to be documented - and the dev fund needs to be transparent)

Another is to have a 3 month (or even 1 month) escrow.  This should get rid of a lot of the bytecoin shills.  Instead of proving they just have the coins (buy from market, vote, sell) they have to send to a pre-determined escrow and the coins are released after 1 - 3 months.

I like the idea of funding development, and funding mining too.

But...
Beyond the practicalities, the problem with voting is that the minority loses.  Whichever way it goes some will see what they bought, changed without their consent (and against their wishes) after they got it home.
If a vote were called, I suspect some folks would simply sell, and if it comes out the way they want, buy back.

Not everyone is so generous as we.

Yes, I'd be against any such change.

[aminorex]

who is worried about the prospect of emission being as fast as it is.

If the solution for future adoption is to slow it down though.  The later that conclusion is reached - the more damage has been done.

This is only true if there is a discontinuity in the emission.  If instead, there were a redenomination of the extant emission, the damage to adoption would not be an issue.
Current holders would be sacrificing some small present value in favor of anticipated future gains due to enhanced adoption.

[Monero Economy Workgroup]

It is our pleasure to announce that the MEW is officially opened. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=776479.0
Please read the OP, we updated it compared the original one.