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

[oda.krell]

@windjc

Your recent shilling in here is as transparent as it is pathetic.

If feigned outrage ("Oh my! You guys have manipulating whales!", or: "How dare you discussing the emission of a coin I do not even hold!") is really the best you can do, it's probably better if you head back to your amateur hour coin Boolberry.

Oda. We've chatted on multiple forums/chat rooms. I've never BSed you. I've been honest with you always.

In fact, today we exchanged PMs about where you and I stood as speculators vs. true advocates. I think we were very honest with each other.

I honestly don't agree with what Risto is purposing here. If you do, that's cool. But I don't.

I am not making any misdirections about where my long term interests are, hell, I openly tell whoever ask what my book looks like (how many people in the "anon" world do that??).  

These decisions would hurt XMR and BBR (short term), imo. But I guess, since Im obviously misdirecting, then I must believe these are great ideas and would help XMR tremendously. As I am so transparent in my dishonesty and all.

Fair enough. If you don't trust the way this coin is run, divest (you did so already, as I understood). Zero objection to that.

If you feel the need to criticize how this coin is run, go ahead and make an argument. No objection to that either.

What is transparent (and, frankly, unnecessary) are your latest rhetorics in here:

rpietila is known to be a large holder, no revelation there. Also, the dev team has stated multiple times that their decisions are guided by their own compass, plus community input. Finally, there is zero precedence of "the whales" pushing through decisions, it's complete conjecture. But you barge in here anway pretending this coin is about to be taken over by some sinister whale cabal.

Same for the emission discussion: the state of the actual discussion so far is "some are for it, some are against, it's probably better to not seriously consider it now anyway". Yet you pretend we're one moment away from changing it on a whim, complete with strawmen arguments why some of us supposedly want to change it ("greedy coin holder and their short sightedness").

There are honest, sometimes blunt discussions. I've seen some of that on the last pages, and I enjoyed it, even if I didn't agree with everything that was said. And then there's inflammatory derailing of a discussions - that's what you've been doing in your last 5 or 6 posts in here. Together with the knowledge that you are a "whale" in a competing coin (oh, the irony), I'm going to assume that's more than just an issue of posting style, but most likely a calculated effort to stir up emotions.

I'm up for a serious discussion about whatever you care about at any time. But I'm not going to respond to complete non-issues (whales that might or might not do something at some point) as if it were a relevant topic of debate.

[slapper]

Ideally, the development team is non-financially motivated, but since they are

We are not, but tell me how we'll pay the developers and the consulting and everything? Have you cake and eat it? How much did you donated? How much ALL  OF YOU holders donated?
Answer: not enough. Now if you have a solution, we are all ears. You are calling us greedy and I take it as a personal insult.

Wait, Risto says you are one of the 7 developers. But you pay someone else to develop? :Mind Blown:

[windjc]

@windjc

Your recent shilling in here is as transparent as it is pathetic.

If feigned outrage ("Oh my! You guys have manipulating whales!", or: "How dare you discussing the emission of a coin I do not even hold!") is really the best you can do, it's probably better if you head back to your amateur hour coin Boolberry.

Oda. We've chatted on multiple forums/chat rooms. I've never BSed you. I've been honest with you always.

In fact, today we exchanged PMs about where you and I stood as speculators vs. true advocates. I think we were very honest with each other.

I honestly don't agree with what Risto is purposing here. If you do, that's cool. But I don't.

I am not making any misdirections about where my long term interests are, hell, I openly tell whoever ask what my book looks like (how many people in the "anon" world do that??).  

These decisions would hurt XMR and BBR (short term), imo. But I guess, since Im obviously misdirecting, then I must believe these are great ideas and would help XMR tremendously. As I am so transparent in my dishonesty and all.

Fair enough. If you don't trust the way this coin is run, divest (you did so already, as I understood). Zero objection to that.

If you feel the need to criticize how this coin is run, go ahead and make an argument. No objection to that either.

What is transparent (and, frankly, unnecessary) are your latest rhetorics in here:

rpietila is known to be a large holder, no revelation there. Also, the dev team has stated multiple times that their decisions are guided by their own compass, plus community input. Finally, there is zero precedence of "the whales" pushing through decisions, it's complete conjecture. But you barge in here anway pretending this coin is about to be taken over by some sinister whale cabal.

Same for the emission discussion: the state of the actual discussion so far is "some are for it, some are against, it's probably better to not seriously consider it now anyway". Yet you pretend we're one moment away from changing it on a whim, complete with strawmen arguments why some of us supposedly want to change it ("greedy coin holder and their short sightedness").

There are honest, sometimes blunt discussions. I've seen some of that on the last pages, and I enjoyed it, even if I didn't agree with everything that was said. And then there's inflammatory derailing of a discussions - that's what you've been doing in your last 5 or 6 posts in here. Together with the knowledge that you are a "whale" in a competing coin (oh, the irony), I'm going to assume that's more than just an issue of posting style, but most likely a calculated effort to stir up emotions.

I'm up for a serious discussion about whatever you care about at any time. But I'm not going to respond to complete non-issues (whales that might or might not do something at some point) as if it were a relevant topic of debate.

If emissions are not being serious discussed and Risto isnt a proponent of changing them then I stand corrected. I am not the definitive source and if I was incorrect I apologize.

[steeldog803]

I hold a lot of monero and I do not support this.

I believe such a distribution is a betrayal of ideology that will divorce this coin from all seriousness.

[canonsburg]

Can't some type of token be created to help fund the development of Monero?

Since pre-mine, insta-mine, fast-mine, whatever-mine are off the table, how about creating a separate "token", from which a substantial amount is awarded to the development of Monero.

Since the MEW is "independent" from the core Monero, they can issue a "MEW Token", maybe some type of PoS fork (NXT, NODE, etc --- why another type of crypto, because you don't want to be a competing type) from which an acceptable percentage is awarded to the development of Monero. The MEW can also distribute the remaining Tokens as some type of promotion (free for all?), and establish some type of market which allows it to trade for XMR. The funds will then allow for the development of XMR but without the nastiness that goes with it and this way, the XMR emission and "social contract" remains untouched.

[smooth]

Can't some type of token be created to help fund the development of Monero?

Possibly

Since pre-mine, insta-mine, fast-mine, whatever-mine are off the table

Nothing is off the table.

Since the MEW is "independent" from the core Monero, they can issue a "MEW Token", maybe some type of PoS fork (NXT, NODE, etc --- why another type of crypto, because you don't want to be a competing type) from which an acceptable percentage is awarded to the development of Monero. The MEW can also distribute the remaining Tokens as some type of promotion (free for all?), and establish some type of market which allows it to trade for XMR. The funds will then allow for the development of XMR but without the nastiness that goes with it and this way, the XMR emission and "social contract" remains untouched.

Why would these have any value at all?

[smooth]

I hold a lot of monero and I do not support this.

I believe such a distribution is a betrayal of ideology that will divorce this coin from all seriousness.

Please do not take this as a personal insult because it is not intended that way, but merely as a statement of facts.

When a Newbie account that no one has ever heard of before shows up and claims to own "a lot of monero" and states a position on something, it suggests that some external party of some potential significance is sufficiently threatened by something as to use use shills (likely paid) to attempt to derail something. In a competitive environment it is highly likely that whatever it is that party opposes would be good for us.

Obviously it can't be known if you individually are a shill (nor can you disprove it so please don't bother replying to try), but after a while a pattern emerges.

[xulescu]

@smooth and others,

Before the BCX episode we had a lengthy exchange on the subject of funding. I suggested (and others agreed) that before more extreme measures are deployed, we will attempt to crowdfund. I agree that donations in this form do not work out. I also agree that riding on transaction fees is a small amount. I have asked for that goddamn spreadsheet that takes little time and effort to make and it seems to me you just don't like the idea but don't want to say so out front.

My point was (and still is) that even regular donations would be more successful if there was some TRANSPARENCY on where the funds went and will go in the future. You countered that exposes you and the recipients to legal risk. Well, given that the community trusts (and has to trust) you already, the spendings do not need to be verifiable. And i can't believe that a simple explanation like amount x to hosting, amount y to developers, amount z to security/crypto experts really exposes you so much.

There are two main ways to crowdfund and both can be employed at the same time. Kickstarter for fiat and larger exposure, Anon's escrow for cryptos. It doesn't even have to be the core who organizes it (after all fundraising is really MEW's cup of tea).

Barring this, you can notice very strong opinions for and against the post-mine, for and against the miner fee, for and against changing the emission curve. I am not debating them, but it should be obvious to all by now they are very controversial and all damage trust in one way or another.

So why not just fucking do the noncontroversial stuff first? It was also semidecided that a month is sufficient time for the fundraise.

Seriously, what am I missing?

[GreekBitcoin]

@smooth and others,

Before the BCX episode we had a lengthy exchange on the subject of funding. I suggested (and others agreed) that before more extreme measures are deployed, we will attempt to crowdfund. I agree that donations in this form do not work out. I also agree that riding on transaction fees is a small amount. I have asked for that goddamn spreadsheet that takes little time and effort to make and it seems to me you just don't like the idea but don't want to say so out front.

My point was (and still is) that even regular donations would be more successful if there was some TRANSPARENCY on where the funds went and will go in the future. You countered that exposes you and the recipients to legal risk. Well, given that the community trusts (and has to trust) you already, the spendings do not need to be verifiable. And i can't believe that a simple explanation like amount x to hosting, amount y to developers, amount z to security/crypto experts really exposes you so much.

There are two main ways to crowdfund and both can be employed at the same time. Kickstarter for fiat and larger exposure, Anon's escrow for cryptos. It doesn't even have to be the core who organizes it (after all fundraising is really MEW's cup of tea).

Barring this, you can notice very strong opinions for and against the post-mine, for and against the miner fee, for and against changing the emission curve. I am not debating them, but it should be obvious to all by now they are very controversial and all damage trust in one way or another.

So why not just fucking do the noncontroversial stuff first? It was also semidecided that a month is sufficient time for the fundraise.

Seriously, what am I missing?

I agree with that idea. What is the thinking against crowdfunding?

[TheKoziTwo]

I suspect the current discussion about emission change is the result of two things.

1. Large holders
2. Price decline / stagnation

I also believe that stagnation and price decline is very healthy, and that emission change is NOT the solution.

The "problem" we have right now is very high inflation, ~20k XMR @ 0.004, we're talking 80 BTC every single day. Price at 0.01 and we're talking 200 BTC daily. Who will absorb all this? Who does so currently? Sure, there is some new adopters consistently coming in, but imo not enough. I believe the vast majority of inflation is absorbed by current large holders. I know many old timers have been buying monero and I think their "bags" are getting heavier and heavier. Who currently own 5k+ XMR and owned more 5-6 months ago (miners excluded)?

At some point, people will reach their limit. Once they reach that % purchasing more can not be justified, perhaps the allocated % ends up being much higher than originally intended too. If the price starts dropping when you really shouldn't buy more, it's not as fun now is it? So perhaps there is some fear that the price will decline until the inflation can absorb it, and that despite being early in the game, they may even end up in the red for a while. The long awaited journey "to the moon" may not come for potentially years. And if it comes right now, it will likely be short lived.

By slowing down emission, large holders will no longer have to worry as much about decline, in fact, that could even trigger a rally. They think. But I fear it may backfire, and have the opposite effect. If the rules of the game is changed midway people will lose confidence. Only the fact that this is even being discussed affect the price, I know some have already sold monero because of this.

Make no mistake about it, changing the fundamental rules may have major impact on trust in the currency. People will start to wonder: What will change in the future? Can we trust the promises? Why did early adopters get this advantage? As binaryFate put it, the community will split in two, those who got in before the emission change, and those who came after. But who will come in after?

Emission change is at it's core a way for early adopters to pre-mine a currency. The slower emission will not allow for accumulation in the same manner.

So I think what is really going on here is large holders / early adopters looking to maximize their short term gains without really considering the impact these choices may have on the future of the coin and the trust in it.

This suggestion seems to be a rather desperate attempt (with inconvenient timing) to keep the price from falling. Well, this may sound harsh but perhaps the price should fall. Monero has been priced very high right from the beginning. If inflation cannot be absorbed by the market naturally, the market will find a new price, naturally. You want the price to stay where it is or go up, get more people involved! We don't need this price fixing attempt to "save" the price (I'm not saying this is the intention of everyone suggesting this change, it just indicates it).

[smooth]

@smooth and others,

Before the BCX episode we had a lengthy exchange on the subject of funding. I suggested (and others agreed) that before more extreme measures are deployed, we will attempt to crowdfund. I agree that donations in this form do not work out. I also agree that riding on transaction fees is a small amount. I have asked for that goddamn spreadsheet that takes little time and effort to make and it seems to me you just don't like the idea but don't want to say so out front.

My point was (and still is) that even regular donations would be more successful if there was some TRANSPARENCY on where the funds went and will go in the future. You countered that exposes you and the recipients to legal risk. Well, given that the community trusts (and has to trust) you already, the spendings do not need to be verifiable. And i can't believe that a simple explanation like amount x to hosting, amount y to developers, amount z to security/crypto experts really exposes you so much.

There are two main ways to crowdfund and both can be employed at the same time. Kickstarter for fiat and larger exposure, Anon's escrow for cryptos. It doesn't even have to be the core who organizes it (after all fundraising is really MEW's cup of tea).

Barring this, you can notice very strong opinions for and against the post-mine, for and against the miner fee, for and against changing the emission curve. I am not debating them, but it should be obvious to all by now they are very controversial and all damage trust in one way or another.

So why not just fucking do the noncontroversial stuff first? It was also semidecided that a month is sufficient time for the fundraise.

Seriously, what am I missing?

You are missing that someone else raised the issue of the emission curve and I think developer block funding (not 100% sure about the latter) in a rather formal process which means the question won't go away and must be addressed.

On the matter of crowd funding I am still in favor of it and will see that it gets done when we get a few minutes to do it. It requires cooperation between numerous parties who are involved with the different work items that have been under way if slowly for some time.

Unfortunately this can't stop the discussion of the reward curve for the reason stated above.

[NewLiberty]

Ideally, the development team is non-financially motivated, but since they are

We are not, but tell me how we'll pay the developers and the consulting and everything? Have you cake and eat it? How much did you donated? How much ALL  OF YOU holders donated?
Answer: not enough. Now if you have a solution, we are all ears. You are calling us greedy and I take it as a personal insult.

Wait, Risto says you are one of the 7 developers. But you pay someone else to develop? :Mind Blown:

How is the notion of teamwork so complicated for you?  Some programmers have more means than others.  Why would it bug you if one buys the lunches for another?  Everyone does better if they aren't worried about where the next meal comes from. 

[dEBRUYNE]

I suspect the current discussion about emission change is the result of two things.

1. Large holders
2. Price decline / stagnation

I also believe that stagnation and price decline is very healthy, and that emission change is NOT the solution.

The "problem" we have right now is very high inflation, ~20k XMR @ 0.004, we're talking 80 BTC every single day. Price at 0.01 and we're talking 200 BTC daily. Who will absorb all this? Who does so currently? Sure, there is some new adopters consistently coming in, but imo not enough. I believe the vast majority of inflation is absorbed by current large holders. I know many old timers have been buying monero and I think their "bags" are getting heavier and heavier. Who currently own 5k+ XMR and owned more 5-6 months ago (miners excluded)?

At some point, people will reach their limit. Once they reach that % purchasing more can not be justified, perhaps the allocated % ends up being much higher than originally intended too. If the price starts dropping when you really shouldn't buy more, it's not as fun now is it? So perhaps there is some fear that the price will decline until the inflation can absorb it, and that despite being early in the game, they may even end up in the red for a while. The long awaited journey "to the moon" may not come for potentially years. And if it comes right now, it will likely be short lived.

By slowing down emission, large holders will no longer have to worry as much about decline, in fact, that could even trigger a rally. They think. But I fear it may backfire, and have the opposite effect. If the rules of the game is changed midway people will lose confidence. Only the fact that this is even being discussed affect the price, I know some have already sold monero because of this.

Make no mistake about it, changing the fundamental rules may have major impact on trust in the currency. People will start to wonder: What will change in the future? Can we trust the promises? Why did early adopters get this advantage? As binaryFate put it, the community will split in two, those who got in before the emission change, and those who came after. But who will come in after?

Emission change is at it's core a way for early adopters to pre-mine a currency. The slower emission will not allow for accumulation in the same manner.

So I think what is really going on here is large holders / early adopters looking to maximize their short term gains without really considering the impact these choices may have on the future of the coin and the trust in it.

This suggestion seems to be a rather desperate attempt (with inconvenient timing) to keep the price from falling. Well, this may sound harsh but perhaps the price should fall. Monero has been priced very high right from the beginning. If inflation cannot be absorbed by the market naturally, the market will find a new price, naturally. You want the price to stay where it is or go up, get more people involved! We don't need this price fixing attempt to "save" the price (I'm not saying this is the intention of everyone suggesting this change, it just indicates it).

You're implying here that every coin that gets mined is directly sold on exchanges. Personally I think only 50% is being sold on exchanges, maybe there are some OTC deals idk. I think holding 0.004 isn't really much of a problem. We've got many great things comming up which will increase adoption. Also IIRC rpietila posted the emission table here somewhere and in the beginning of january 2015 we're already down to 15k a day..

[TheKoziTwo]

You're implying here that every coin that gets mined is directly sold on exchanges. Personally I think only 50% is being sold on exchanges, maybe there are some OTC deals idk. I think holding 0.004 isn't really much of a problem. We've got many great things comming up which will increase adoption. Also IIRC rpietila posted the emission table here somewhere and in the beginning of january 2015 we're already down to 15k a day..

It could very well be that we can hold 0.004, but that's just stagnation. People want to see price increase, and when the adoption curve fails to satisfy them they want to modify the fundamentals of the coin and likely destroy the trust in the process. This is the wrong way to go about it, bring in more people instead and the price will raise naturally. If that can't happen it's better that the price falls until it reaches a new stable point.

[tacotime]

The only moves that I will commend with regards to emission are that if you don't like the emission, either fork and try to get people to use your fork or to just create a merge mined coin with a longer emission.

[dEBRUYNE]

You're implying here that every coin that gets mined is directly sold on exchanges. Personally I think only 50% is being sold on exchanges, maybe there are some OTC deals idk. I think holding 0.004 isn't really much of a problem. We've got many great things comming up which will increase adoption. Also IIRC rpietila posted the emission table here somewhere and in the beginning of january 2015 we're already down to 15k a day..

It could very well be that we can hold 0.004, but that's just stagnation. People want to see price increase, and when the adoption curve fails to satisfy them they want to modify the fundamentals of the coin and likely destroy the trust in the process. This is the wrong way to go about it, bring in more people instead and the price will raise naturally. If that can't happen it's better that the price falls until it reaches a new stable point.

Agree with that, the emission curve is choosen and we shouldn't change that. Only thing we can do is to speed up adoption which will drive up the price naturally like you said. Maybe the positive side of the agressive emission curve is that there is more incentive to speed up adoption. Second, with such high inflation there is less pump and dump going on, so people won't get burned as easily as in other pumps. (Have a look at CLOAK for example, which decreased 10 fold..)

[GreekBitcoin]

The only moves that I will commend with regards to emission are that if you don't like the emission, either fork and try to get people to use your fork or to just create a merge mined coin with a longer emission.

Just to be clear, that means that emission will remain like it is except obviously for what to decide for the final years OR that in case emission is changed we can always fork it and do whatever we want?

[smooth]

Ideally, the development team is non-financially motivated, but since they are

We are not, but tell me how we'll pay the developers and the consulting and everything? Have you cake and eat it? How much did you donated? How much ALL  OF YOU holders donated?
Answer: not enough. Now if you have a solution, we are all ears. You are calling us greedy and I take it as a personal insult.

Wait, Risto says you are one of the 7 developers. But you pay someone else to develop? :Mind Blown:

How is the notion of teamwork so complicated for you?  Some programmers have more means than others.  Why would it bug you if one buys the lunches for another?  Everyone does better if they aren't worried about where the next meal comes from. 

Multiple choice

1. Because he is a troll
2. Because he is a troll
3. Because he is a troll
4. All of the above

[tacotime]

The only moves that I will commend with regards to emission are that if you don't like the emission, either fork and try to get people to use your fork or to just create a merge mined coin with a longer emission.

Just to be clear, that means that emission will remain like it is except obviously for what to decide for the final years OR that in case emission is changed we can always fork it and do whatever we want?

Oh, sorry, I meant with regard to increasing inflation dramatically at the current time, not the perpetual inflation at year 10 as discussed a long, long time ago and which was generally well received by the community. This I am strongly in support of, but a lot of my support for this is in the anticipation that it will secure the network perpetually.

[cAPSLOCK]

The only moves that I will commend with regards to emission are that if you don't like the emission, either fork and try to get people to use your fork or to just create a merge mined coin with a longer emission.

Thank you.