rpietila Altcoin Observer

[Brilliantrocket]

You're intentionally creating a system where a small number of insiders get an advantage. I'm not saying you can't do it, just don't purport to call such a situation fair. No one forced you to use a crippled hash, a little bit of effort at the start could have prevented this.

[fluffypony]

If it was there for the purpose of giving someone an advantage, it really isn't the same thing. Ideally, optimization would not be necessary, because a crippled hash wouldn't be used.

Consider that Monero was launched by thankful_for_today, and inherited the crippled hash function from Bytecoin. None of the 7 members of the Monero core team were involved in the launch, nor did any of us mine it right away.

I looked back at my IRC logs - othe asked me on 2014-04-26 if I'd heard of it, over a week after it had launched. Here's a typical example of our early conversations:


[2014-04-26T14:07:42+0200] <othe> cant get boost installed here > 1.5.3
[2014-04-26T14:07:56+0200] <fluffypony> I've gotten boost 1.55 installed
[2014-04-26T14:07:58+0200] <fluffypony> the problem is
[2014-04-26T14:08:06+0200] <fluffypony> when it tries to statically link the executables
[2014-04-26T14:08:12+0200] <fluffypony> it isn't linking the boost libs
[2014-04-26T14:13:59+0200] <othe> [ 46%] Building CXX object src/CMakeFiles/wallet.dir/wallet/wallet_rpc_server.cpp.o Linking CXX static library libwallet
[2014-04-26T14:14:01+0200] <othe> that one?
[2014-04-26T14:14:12+0200] <fluffypony> no after that
[2014-04-26T14:14:20+0200] <fluffypony> Linking CXX executable simplewallet
[2014-04-26T14:14:22+0200] <fluffypony> all of those
[2014-04-26T14:14:25+0200] <fluffypony> Linking CXX executable bitmonerod


We couldn't even get it to run properly, much less mine with any sort of magic miner! That very day tacotime, NoodleDoodle, othe, and myself, started talking about it and discussing things like if it could (conceptually) merge-mine with Bitcoin clones and so on (even though othe and I were still struggling to get it to work). The rest, as they say, is history.

[vuduchyld]

What do you guys think of just using volume as a way of gauging public interest in alts?

Problem is it's hard to watch volume since the data differs. I watch volume on these four sites:
https://coinmarketcap.com/
http://www.cryptocoinrank.com/
http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/coins/info
http://cryptmarketcap.com/
If you research thoroughly, you'll see that much data is misleading since each of them don't include all exchange data. Some coins have only one (or two) exchanges that are relevant for their trading, and data from other exchanges just muddies the water. I've starting building my own tool to watch emerging coins, but it's just such a hard work to do it properly, and for the time being I'm still doing it manually, believe it or not it's just easier.

Do you have any way of looking at 20 day or 30 day volume statistics?  It's damn near impossible to find anything in table form other than 24 hour stats, which only gauge interest RIGHT NOW. 

I'd like to be able to sort by market cap and 20 or 30 day average volume.  That would, to me, be FAR more valuable in gauging public interest over a period of time.  Those 24 hour spikes and valleys are ridiculous.

[iCEBREAKER]

You're intentionally creating a system where a small number of insiders get an advantage. I'm not saying you can't do it, just don't purport to call such a situation fair. No one forced you to use a crippled hash, a little bit of effort at the start could have prevented this.

I will call such a situation fair.  And I will be correct, because it's 100% organic and natural for a small number of insiders to get an advantage.  Dr. Nakamoto is the prime example of this.  He deserves every Satoshi he mined, not some looting second-hander mewling for more free stuff.

What isn't natural is your utopian idea that everyone can be completely equal, without distinction, and that such an arrangement has sole claim to being "fair."

    The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell's equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
    —Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1927)

[rpietila]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

Please quantify this advantage in terms of % of the eventual coin supply of 18.4 million.

Advantage after 20 yrs or so is not relevant to defining a fair launch. Fair launch is used to describe multiple factors during the first few days/week/months of a coins existence.

Please answer the question. I am not here to argue, but to quantify the unfairness against that of other coins.

Fluffy demonstrated already that none of the current dev team were even involved with the coin when it was already trading in an organized way in the OTC. So any unfairness in mining can be quantified by:

%reduction of cost * %of network * daily supply * #of days.

This works out to a meager percentage of total coins, with even more meager value. The value is important because the coin was trading when all (supposed) unfairness happened, so to gain an equal footing with the unfair person, you only needed to buy the coins at the then (low) price.

Is it also unfair that I have bought a large stash of coins with the money that I unfairly earned with BTC, and prior to that, silver, and prior to that, working hard in the fields?

[drawingthemoon]

Consider that Monero was launched by thankful_for_today, and inherited the crippled hash function from Bytecoin. None of the 7 members of the Monero core team were involved in the launch, nor did any of us mine it right away.

You are misinformed. You and othe are not really "developers" anyways. You are more marketing and strategy and busy with propaganda. tacotime is the only real developer and quite frankly sad to see him now being involved with this.

Check in BitMonero launch thread. eizh, tacotime, smooth were all there since Block1. Smooth was selling BMR since the beginning and had immenese mining power at his disposal. (Not dissing smooth. You guys keep spreading false propaganda and nowadays outright lies, knowingly or otherwise and dragging some others down with your shit).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0

[fluffypony]

Consider that Monero was launched by thankful_for_today, and inherited the crippled hash function from Bytecoin. None of the 7 members of the Monero core team were involved in the launch, nor did any of us mine it right away.

You are misinformed. You and othe are not really "developers" anyways. You are more marketing and strategy and busy with propaganda. tacotime is the only real developer and quite frankly sad to see him now being involved with this.

Check in BitMonero launch thread. eizh, tacotime, smooth were all there since Block1. Smooth was selling BMR since the beginning and had immenese mining power at his disposal. (Not dissing smooth. You guys keep spreading false propaganda and nowadays outright lies, knowingly or otherwise and dragging some others down with your shit).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0

We're not really developers? You know this how? Do you have our CVs lying around? You are not qualified to make the sweeping statements you've made, unless you can qualify it with some sort of tangible evidence.

I never said that we didn't mine Monero at all, but your assertion that we had some sort of magically powerful miner is factually incorrect. Your assumption that smooth was mining Monero en masse is also incorrect. The general consensus among us in those very, very early days was that there was no reason for Monero to exist. Choice quotes from smooth, for instance:

I'm starting to doubt there is really a good reason for this besides people wanting to pump and dump. The original is starting to get more and more traction in the community (beyond what may or may not exist on the darknet). It will be hard for a clone to overcome that lead.

If anything I'd propose a bitcoin spin-off clone instead. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

eizh, too, also didn't think much of Monero at launch:

I've been mining BCN and I'll support it just because I firmly believe in the need for anonymity, but there would be a tinge of regret that we could've had something better.

That their opinion changed later as the truth of Bytecoin's premine was revealed and Monero progressed only goes to prove that it moved in the right direction.

You are a troll account with a troll nickname spreading troll nonsense with no evidence.

PS. At least eizh doesn't have that tinge of regret right about now:)

[drawingthemoon]

Consider that Monero was launched by thankful_for_today, and inherited the crippled hash function from Bytecoin. None of the 7 members of the Monero core team were involved in the launch, nor did any of us mine it right away.

You are misinformed. You and othe are not really "developers" anyways. You are more marketing and strategy and busy with propaganda. tacotime is the only real developer and quite frankly sad to see him now being involved with this.

Check in BitMonero launch thread. eizh, tacotime, smooth were all there since Block1. Smooth was selling BMR since the beginning and had immenese mining power at his disposal. (Not dissing smooth. You guys keep spreading false propaganda and nowadays outright lies, knowingly or otherwise and dragging some others down with your shit).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0

We're not really developers? You know this how? Do you have our CVs lying around? You are not qualified to make the sweeping statements you've made, unless you can qualify it with some sort of tangible evidence.

I never said that we didn't mine Monero at all, but your assertion that we had some sort of magically powerful miner is factually incorrect. Your assumption that smooth was mining Monero en masse is also incorrect. The general consensus among us in those very, very early days was that there was no reason for Monero to exist. Choice quotes from smooth, for instance:

I'm starting to doubt there is really a good reason for this besides people wanting to pump and dump. The original is starting to get more and more traction in the community (beyond what may or may not exist on the darknet). It will be hard for a clone to overcome that lead.

If anything I'd propose a bitcoin spin-off clone instead. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

eizh, too, also didn't think much of Monero at launch:

I've been mining BCN and I'll support it just because I firmly believe in the need for anonymity, but there would be a tinge of regret that we could've had something better.

That their opinion changed later as the truth of Bytecoin's premine was revealed and Monero progressed only goes to prove that it moved in the right direction.

You are a troll account with a troll nickname spreading troll nonsense with no evidence.

PS. At least eizh doesn't have that tinge of regret right about now:)

Are you kidding me? Ask eizh, tacotime and smooth to post here if they mined from launch or not.

You are nothing but a dumb cheerleader who has forced himself onto this coin as a "core" team member. You are not needed. This coin will be better off without dumb propagandists like you and it will really take off then.

[canonsburg]

You are nothing but a dumb cheerleader who has forced himself onto this coin as a "core" team member. You are not needed. This coin will be better off without dumb propagandists like you and it will really take off then.

You are nothing but a dumb troll who has forced himself onto this thread as a "neutral" observer. You are not needed. This thread will be be better off without dumb trolls like you and it will really be better off then.

[fluffypony]

Are you kidding me? Ask eizh, tacotime and smooth to post here if they mined from launch or not.

You are nothing but a dumb cheerleader who has forced himself onto this coin as a "core" team member. You are not needed. This coin will be better off without dumb propagandists like you and it will really take off then.

You made the accusation, why don't you provide evidence to support your accusation?

The rest of your diatribe is ridiculous vitriol that attempts to invent political issues where there are none, and speaks to events and people you do not know and thus cannot speak of. Ad hominem attacks on people you don't know have never worked in the history of the Internet, so I'm quite unsure why you imagine it's going to work now.

Do you, inside your mind, think that when you post what you posted that people will come flocking out of the woodwork and go "you're right - that fluffypony is a dumb propagandist and needs to go!" Is that what you believe will happen?

And now that I think about it - why hide behind a pseudonym that's barely a pun? What's the harm in using your own account?

I'm done responding to you. This conversation ends now, from my side.

[btc-mike]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

Please quantify this advantage in terms of % of the eventual coin supply of 18.4 million.

Advantage after 20 yrs or so is not relevant to defining a fair launch. Fair launch is used to describe multiple factors during the first few days/week/months of a coins existence.

Please answer the question. I am not here to argue, but to quantify the unfairness against that of other coins.

Fluffy demonstrated already that none of the current dev team were even involved with the coin when it was already trading in an organized way in the OTC. So any unfairness in mining can be quantified by:

%reduction of cost * %of network * daily supply * #of days.

This works out to a meager percentage of total coins, with even more meager value. The value is important because the coin was trading when all (supposed) unfairness happened, so to gain an equal footing with the unfair person, you only needed to buy the coins at the then (low) price.

Is it also unfair that I have bought a large stash of coins with the money that I unfairly earned with BTC, and prior to that, silver, and prior to that, working hard in the fields?

I will answer your questions once we are done discussing fair launch.

To their credit, the Monero devs found and released the fix to crippled hash function early. But it was there at launch.

Even though the amount involved is small in the big picture, and the current devs were unaware, the crippled hash function does effect fari-launch status.  

If we take a step back, you said your definition of fair launch is:

1. No premine, instamine or ninjamine.
2. Exchange as soon as possible.
3. Marketing as soon as possible.

Do we agree that intentionally crippled hash functions do not belong on your list?

[drawingthemoon]

Are you kidding me? Ask eizh, tacotime and smooth to post here if they mined from launch or not.

You are nothing but a dumb cheerleader who has forced himself onto this coin as a "core" team member. You are not needed. This coin will be better off without dumb propagandists like you and it will really take off then.

You made the accusation, why don't you provide evidence to support your accusation?

The rest of your diatribe is ridiculous vitriol that attempts to invent political issues where there are none, and speaks to events and people you do not know and thus cannot speak of. Ad hominem attacks on people you don't know have never worked in the history of the Internet, so I'm quite unsure why you imagine it's going to work now.

Do you, inside your mind, think that when you post what you posted that people will come flocking out of the woodwork and go "you're right - that fluffypony is a dumb propagandist and needs to go!" Is that what you believe will happen?

And now that I think about it - why hide behind a pseudonym that's barely a pun? What's the harm in using your own account?

I'm done responding to you. This conversation ends now, from my side.

I will provide proof. I want eizh, tacotime and smooth to lie first, which is basically what you are forcing them to do.

Get off your high and mighty horse. I wouldn't be "conversing" with dumb propagandists to begin with if you hadn't invented the lie that "core" team members weren't mining from the beginning. There were  more than 25 of us in the IRC chat from Day 1.  

You are the cancer of Monero. Don't drag others down to your level. You sound better in altcoin threads making a joke out of yourself getting into arguments with others when there is none needed.

Edit: smooth wasn't in IRC on Day 1. eizh and tacotime were there. smooth was mining but offline in IRC and setting up OTC thread.

[Pale Phoenix]

What do you guys think of just using volume as a way of gauging public interest in alts?

Problem is it's hard to watch volume since the data differs. I watch volume on these four sites:
https://coinmarketcap.com/
http://www.cryptocoinrank.com/
http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/coins/info
http://cryptmarketcap.com/
If you research thoroughly, you'll see that much data is misleading since each of them don't include all exchange data. Some coins have only one (or two) exchanges that are relevant for their trading, and data from other exchanges just muddies the water. I've starting building my own tool to watch emerging coins, but it's just such a hard work to do it properly, and for the time being I'm still doing it manually, believe it or not it's just easier.

Do you have any way of looking at 20 day or 30 day volume statistics?  It's damn near impossible to find anything in table form other than 24 hour stats, which only gauge interest RIGHT NOW. 

I'd like to be able to sort by market cap and 20 or 30 day average volume.  That would, to me, be FAR more valuable in gauging public interest over a period of time.  Those 24 hour spikes and valleys are ridiculous.

Here are a few more to add to your tool chest.

The front page of BitcoinWisdom (https://bitcoinwisdom.com/) has aggregated daily, 7 day, and 30 day volume information for the 35 most widely traded coins on the major exchanges. It's far from ideal, but it does have an active developer.

Another interesting site, which I've just recently run across, is Coin Gecko (https://coingecko.com). It tracks various social media & Github statistics and also assigns each coin a (less useful, IMO) liquidity score and an overall score based on all of the metrics tracked.

Finally, Bit Info Charts (http://bitinfocharts.com) offers a wealth of information about major coins, and is the only one I've found that shows coin emission stats (rewards per block, rewards last 24hr).

Cheers!

[Polycoin]

Im going to dump all the boolberry I got(150,000)

Then, Im going to dump all the quarckoins I got (2,037,000)

[lebing]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVHpnixj88

Relax Guys, Monero is solid - all is well. 

[illodin]

You're intentionally creating a system where a small number of insiders get an advantage. I'm not saying you can't do it, just don't purport to call such a situation fair. No one forced you to use a crippled hash, a little bit of effort at the start could have prevented this.

I will call such a situation fair.  And I will be correct, because it's 100% organic and natural for a small number of insiders to get an advantage.  Dr. Nakamoto is the prime example of this.  He deserves every Satoshi he mined, not some looting second-hander mewling for more free stuff.

What isn't natural is your utopian idea that everyone can be completely equal, without distinction, and that such an arrangement has sole claim to being "fair."

That doesn't mean that you should purposefully create even more unfair environment. It's about giving the coin a chance to succeed by using a PoW that many people can mine and hold, not just a small insider miner group who has 90% of the net hash because small time miners stop mining. This will just invite a fork that uses an established algo to take over. And, who knows what this 51%+ of total hash in the hands of an insider group can do.

And, regarding the 10 or 20 year mining period and how much the first 6 months or a year matters - well, I doubt anybody really expects any of these coins to exist in 10 or 20 years, the insider mining group is looking to liquidate asap most likely and move on to the next exotic PoW launch.

[nioc]

Are you kidding me? Ask eizh, tacotime and smooth to post here if they mined from launch or not.

You are nothing but a dumb cheerleader who has forced himself onto this coin as a "core" team member. You are not needed. This coin will be better off without dumb propagandists like you and it will really take off then.

You made the accusation, why don't you provide evidence to support your accusation?

The rest of your diatribe is ridiculous vitriol that attempts to invent political issues where there are none, and speaks to events and people you do not know and thus cannot speak of. Ad hominem attacks on people you don't know have never worked in the history of the Internet, so I'm quite unsure why you imagine it's going to work now.

Do you, inside your mind, think that when you post what you posted that people will come flocking out of the woodwork and go "you're right - that fluffypony is a dumb propagandist and needs to go!" Is that what you believe will happen?

And now that I think about it - why hide behind a pseudonym that's barely a pun? What's the harm in using your own account?

I'm done responding to you. This conversation ends now, from my side.

I will provide proof. I want eizh, tacotime and smooth to lie first, which is basically what you are forcing them to do.

Get off your high and mighty horse. I wouldn't be "conversing" with dumb propagandists to begin with if you hadn't invented the lie that "core" team members weren't mining from the beginning. There were  more than 25 of us in the IRC chat from Day 1.  

You are the cancer of Monero. Don't drag others down to your level. You sound better in altcoin threads making a joke out of yourself getting into arguments with others when there is none needed.

Edit: smooth wasn't in IRC on Day 1. eizh and tacotime were there. smooth was mining but offline in IRC and setting up OTC thread.

Which one were you?

[smooth]

Are you kidding me? Ask eizh, tacotime and smooth to post here if they mined from launch or not.

Not that its really anyone's business, but ...

I did not mine from launch, and got zero of whatever blocks might have been mined at very low difficulties on the first day.

I was skeptical of how it was being handled and thought BCN (which I had been mining by then for some time) would probably continue to dominate. I was not involved with the launch in any way other than giving some feedback on the thread (which was ignored).

I started mining a few days later when the interest level started picking up and I thought I could stimulate some liquidity with some auction and trading threads.

EDIT: OTC trading thread was started 4/22. Coin launched 4/18.

[darkota]

You're intentionally creating a system where a small number of insiders get an advantage. I'm not saying you can't do it, just don't purport to call such a situation fair. No one forced you to use a crippled hash, a little bit of effort at the start could have prevented this.

I will call such a situation fair.  And I will be correct, because it's 100% organic and natural for a small number of insiders to get an advantage.  Dr. Nakamoto is the prime example of this.  He deserves every Satoshi he mined, not some looting second-hander mewling for more free stuff.

What isn't natural is your utopian idea that everyone can be completely equal, without distinction, and that such an arrangement has sole claim to being "fair."

That doesn't mean that you should purposefully create even more unfair environment. It's about giving the coin a chance to succeed by using a PoW that many people can mine and hold, not just a small insider miner group who has 90% of the net hash because small time miners stop mining. This will just invite a fork that uses an established algo to take over. And, who knows what this 51%+ of total hash in the hands of an insider group can do.

And, regarding the 10 or 20 year mining period and how much the first 6 months or a year matters - well, I doubt anybody really expects any of these coins to exist in 10 or 20 years, the insider mining group is looking to liquidate asap most likely and move on to the next exotic PoW launch.

Thing is, a unfair environment was Not created purposefully, since the issue was fixed within a very short time period. I agree with icebreaker, this is no perfect world, as perfection is impossible.

[itod]

What do you guys think of just using volume as a way of gauging public interest in alts?

Problem is it's hard to watch volume since the data differs. I watch volume on these four sites:
https://coinmarketcap.com/
http://www.cryptocoinrank.com/
http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/coins/info
http://cryptmarketcap.com/
If you research thoroughly, you'll see that much data is misleading since each of them don't include all exchange data. Some coins have only one (or two) exchanges that are relevant for their trading, and data from other exchanges just muddies the water. I've starting building my own tool to watch emerging coins, but it's just such a hard work to do it properly, and for the time being I'm still doing it manually, believe it or not it's just easier.

Do you have any way of looking at 20 day or 30 day volume statistics?  It's damn near impossible to find anything in table form other than 24 hour stats, which only gauge interest RIGHT NOW. 

I'd like to be able to sort by market cap and 20 or 30 day average volume.  That would, to me, be FAR more valuable in gauging public interest over a period of time.  Those 24 hour spikes and valleys are ridiculous.

Here are a few more to add to your tool chest.

The front page of BitcoinWisdom (https://bitcoinwisdom.com/) has aggregated daily, 7 day, and 30 day volume information for the 35 most widely traded coins on the major exchanges. It's far from ideal, but it does have an active developer.

Another interesting site, which I've just recently run across, is Coin Gecko (https://coingecko.com). It tracks various social media & Github statistics and also assigns each coin a (less useful, IMO) liquidity score and an overall score based on all of the metrics tracked.

Finally, Bit Info Charts (http://bitinfocharts.com) offers a wealth of information about major coins, and is the only one I've found that shows coin emission stats (rewards per block, rewards last 24hr).

Cheers!

These three are excellent sites, wealth of information. However, I think vuduchyld was asking for a simple plot of volume data per coin, like we have for low/high/open/close for a selected period. I don't think that such graphs exist, at least not in public.