[ANN] AEON: Scalable, private, mobile-friendly cryptocurrency

[jakals]

cuda 2.1 supported and optimized nvidia gpu miner would be great !

edit:can anyone compile this for me ? https://github.com/moneromooo/ccminer-cryptonight

I am assuming that you are referring to a Windows version.
Freshly compiled using Cuda 6.5, with support for all compute versions from 2.0 all the way up to 5.2, but untested.
You will definitely need a very recent driver.

Here you go:
Aeon-ccminer-x86-cuda65.zip

hey wolf0 can you optimize this miner without dropping support for cuda 2.1 ?

[sammy007]

hey wolf0 can you optimize this miner without dropping support for cuda 2.1 ?

I don't think that Wolf acts like a magic tablecloth

[Phantas]

hey wolf0 can you optimize this miner without dropping support for cuda 2.1 ?

I don't think that Wolf acts like a magic tablecloth

Agreed; I'm a developer, not a miracle worker.

for me, you and smooth you are miracle workers.

[americanpegasus]

I'd like to bring up the subject of changing the tail Aeon emission.  If I should make a topic about this in the Altcoin section, I can do that.  
  
I agree with Smooth that a fixed number is just as good as any other fixed number.  (0, 1, or infinity principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_one_infinity_rule).  Therefore it makes no sense to change Aeon's tail emission to any other fixed number other than Monero's.  
  
My proposal is that we already have a 'zero' tail-emission coin: Bitcoin.  
We also already have a '1' tail-emission coin: Monero.  
  
I suggest we consider making Aeon the first coin to embody the 'infinity' principle.  I am suggesting an inflationary tail emission.  We could either limit it to 1% or some other low number (such as Phi, 1.618%) or ask some mathematicians and economists what they believe the ideal inflation is for a currency intended to encourage spending.  
  
I make this proposal after establishing a large position in Aeon, so that people realize that I am fully willing to be one of the one's primarily affected by the inflationary proposal.  I believe it will allow us to permanently incentivize miners with a pure PoW coin that will always have at least 1% per year to mine so that we don't have to ever worry about miners abandoning our network.  
  
I believe there is a place in a global economy for assets of all three classes: deflationary, disinflationary, and inflationary.  The problem with fiat is not that it is inflationary; it is that its inflation can be adjusted manually to any number with only the consent of a small group at the head of the oligarchy.  If fiat had a perpetual and firm inflation rate it could continue to serve its intended function: to be a spendable currency.  
  
Therefore I propose two things, in addition to using Aeon as a testbed for Cryptonote concepts: we change the tail emission of Aeon to be % that will enable actual (but very slow) inflation of the currency and we create a mission statement that Aeon aims to be a spendable ledger (vs merely a private store of value), and will incorporate new technologies of scale (as they are invented) that enable that purpose.  
  
If you agree or disagree, feel free to make your opinion heard - especially if you are a developer, large miner, or large holder.  If you want to move the inflationary discussion to a separate topic, we can do that too.

[wasref]

I'd like to bring up the subject of changing the tail Aeon emission.  If I should make a topic about this in the Altcoin section, I can do that.  
  
I agree with Smooth that a fixed number is just as good as any other fixed number.  (0, 1, or infinity principle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_one_infinity_rule).  Therefore it makes no sense to change Aeon's tail emission to any other fixed number other than Monero's.  
  
My proposal is that we already have a 'zero' tail-emission coin: Bitcoin.  
We also already have a '1' tail-emission coin: Monero.  
  
I suggest we consider making Aeon the first coin to embody the 'infinity' principle.  I am suggesting an inflationary tail emission.  We could either limit it to 1% or some other low number (such as Phi, 1.618%) or ask some mathematicians and economists what they believe the ideal inflation is for a currency intended to encourage spending.  
  
I make this proposal after establishing a large position in Aeon, so that people realize that I am fully willing to be one of the one's primarily affected by the inflationary proposal.  I believe it will allow us to permanently incentivize miners with a pure PoW coin that will always have at least 1% per year to mine so that we don't have to ever worry about miners abandoning our network.  
  
I believe there is a place in a global economy for assets of all three classes: deflationary, disinflationary, and inflationary.  The problem with fiat is not that it is inflationary; it is that its inflation can be adjusted manually to any number with only the consent of a small group at the head of the oligarchy.  If fiat had a perpetual and firm inflation rate it could continue to serve its intended function: to be a spendable currency.  
  
Therefore I propose two things, in addition to using Aeon as a testbed for Cryptonote concepts: we change the tail emission of Aeon to be % that will enable actual (but very slow) inflation of the currency and we create a mission statement that Aeon aims to be a spendable ledger (vs merely a private store of value), and will incorporate new technologies of scale (as they are invented) that enable that purpose.  
  
If you agree or disagree, feel free to make your opinion heard - especially if you are a developer, large miner, or large holder.  If you want to move the inflationary discussion to a separate topic, we can do that too.

how much aeon do you own

[americanpegasus]

how much aeon do you own

 
  
1% of the initial proposed emission.  This is all that I plan to acquire.  My plan is to hold the vast majority of this until such time that Aeon is either a spendable currency, or worthless.  
  
Regardless, barring some unforeseen emergency, I can't see selling any of this until at least Aeon is worth $1.00 USD each (if that ever occurs). 
 
Other than that, I'm just happy to be on the forefront of money and provide the Aeon with some real-world scarcity and value.

[wasref]

how much aeon do you own

 
  
1% of the initial proposed emission.  This is all that I plan to acquire.  My plan is to hold the vast majority of this until such time that Aeon is either a spendable currency, or worthless.  
  
Regardless, barring some unforeseen emergency, I can't see selling any of this until at least Aeon is worth $1.00 USD each (if that ever occurs). 
 
Other than that, I'm just happy to be on the forefront of money and provide the Aeon with some real-world scarcity and value.

yes same here i see it going it higher but soon to be in 100k sats range

[americanpegasus]

yes same here i see it going it higher but soon to be in 100k sats range

 
  
Agreed, even after me attacking the ask stack for two days, we are still only at #82 on the coinmarketcap list.  When you look at the cryptos near us, it's laughable where we stand.  Of course, this is likely a long and multi-year road.  
  
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the tail emission, as smooth has indicated he is amiable to changing to whatever, but the community must come to a consensus on it (and ideally without a lot of fighting).  As for speculation, we should move any further such talk to the speculation topic over on the Altcoin board though: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1197508.120

[Johnny Mnemonic]

It would be great to see a "smart inflation" of sorts, where the rate of debasement is determined somehow by the transaction volume. This way, the money supply grows in proportion with the network.

I imagine this can be achieved by looking at the average block size or transaction fee over a fixed period and adjusting the block reward accordingly.

[GingerAle]

It would be great to see a "smart inflation" of sorts, where the rate of debasement is determined somehow by the transaction volume. This way, the money supply grows in proportion with the network.

I imagine this can be achieved by looking at the average block size or transaction fee over a fixed period and adjusting the block reward accordingly.

yes! This! If money velocity is high (i.e., there are a lot of transactions in a block), that means money is valuable and people are using it, and therefore minimal (to zero) inflation is necessary. If money velocity is low (there are few to little transactions in a block), that means money is \too valuable so people aren't spending it. Of course we're diving headforward into economic theory.... of course here there'd be a maximum inflation rate and a minimum, being 0. Of course the magic number question is then what is the proper velocity of money.

[americanpegasus]

It would be great to see a "smart inflation" of sorts, where the rate of debasement is determined somehow by the transaction volume. This way, the money supply grows in proportion with the network.

I imagine this can be achieved by looking at the average block size or transaction fee over a fixed period and adjusting the block reward accordingly.

yes! This! If money velocity is high (i.e., there are a lot of transactions in a block), that means money is valuable and people are using it, and therefore minimal (to zero) inflation is necessary. If money velocity is low (there are few to little transactions in a block), that means money is \too valuable so people aren't spending it. Of course we're diving headforward into economic theory.... of course here there'd be a maximum inflation rate and a minimum, being 0. Of course the magic number question is then what is the proper velocity of money.

 
  
Great stuff guys.  I made a topic over on the Economics board to solicit opinions and I'll quote this as well.  Perhaps you guys have even coined a new concept, "smart inflation". 
 
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1234667

[Johnny Mnemonic]

If money velocity is high (i.e., there are a lot of transactions in a block), that means money is valuable and people are using it, and therefore minimal (to zero) inflation is necessary. If money velocity is low (there are few to little transactions in a block), that means money is \too valuable so people aren't spending it. Of course we're diving headforward into economic theory.... of course here there'd be a maximum inflation rate and a minimum, being 0. Of course the magic number question is then what is the proper velocity of money.

I'd argue the opposite on all points. Increase in velocity means the economy is growing and so should the money supply. When spending slows, so does distribution.

Also, there would be no maximum or minimum inflation. Only what is precisely necessary given the current conditions.

[americanpegasus]

I would disagree with you.  One of the intentions of inflation is to incentivize spending vs. HODLing.   If there is little activity, then people aren't spending. 
 
Never forget: the purpose of money is to enable intelligences to meaningfully transact with each other.. (I don't specify humans because eventually humans will need a way to meaningfully transact with robots).   It is a language of value,  and the equivalent of little transaction volume is a quiet room. 
 
Though sometimes quiet and solemn rooms are useful, the goal of language is not to be quiet.  It is to create valuable noise between each other.  Therefore, the more noise, the better.  When there is lots of 'noise' and activity there is little reason to increase the supply past a certain minimum rate (I feel there should always be a minimum).  When people begin saving too much and not spending enough, this behavior should be encouraged via a gradual debasement of the currency. 
 
Of course, it's just my opinion.  I'm not an Economist and no expert in this matter.  I am just reasoning on my own.  Let's pursue further discussion of this over at the topic on the Economics board.

[DrkLvr_]

We could either limit it to 1% or some other low number (such as Phi, 1.618%)

My vote is a fixed low amount (Phi 1.618%)

[GingerAle]

If money velocity is high (i.e., there are a lot of transactions in a block), that means money is valuable and people are using it, and therefore minimal (to zero) inflation is necessary. If money velocity is low (there are few to little transactions in a block), that means money is \too valuable so people aren't spending it. Of course we're diving headforward into economic theory.... of course here there'd be a maximum inflation rate and a minimum, being 0. Of course the magic number question is then what is the proper velocity of money.

I'd argue the opposite on all points. Increase in velocity means the economy is growing and so should the money supply. When spending slows, so does distribution.

Also, there would be no maximum or minimum inflation. Only what is precisely necessary given the current conditions.

i think we hashed out something like this before... do you remember? maybe it was something related.

I guess the question that probably defines which side of the equation needs the pumping is "why is the spending slowing?" I'm no economist, but in our consumer economy, spending arguably slows when there is less disposable income. So what creates this disposable income - an amount of income above what is necessary for standard of living. So that amount necessary for standard of living... generally this increases over time. But is that due to inflation? Or does it actually cost more to live as time goes on?

So, from one angle, the above situation would benefit from distribution slowing during a contraction in velocity, so that the remaining disposable income becomes more valuable.

I think, perhaps, I get this turned around in my head when thinking about cryptocurrencies because the distribution, idyllically, is true distribution. I.e., in our contemporary economy, the "printing money" pumping during contractions, by definition, increases the money supply. As we have witnessed, however, this increase in money supply doesn't necessarily equate to an increase in distribution. This new money just gets jammed up at the highest levels of abstraction in our financial system, in a blatant and miserable reagenesque horse and sparrow. As evidence I submit all the reports of companies sitting on the largest piles of cash ever during the last recession.

In a properly functioning cryptocurrency economy, the distribution of money creation is true. I.e., everyone has a chance at the spigot. So in the case above wherein the disposable income has shrank, all of a sudden your node is spitting out more monero into your account.

and re: Only what is precisely necessary given the current conditions.... what *is* precisely necessary?

[americanpegasus]

I think if it's something we want to do, the important part is to agree that we want to do it quickly.  I believe that the exact rate we choose will matter less than the fact that we are choosing to create a permanent percentage based trailing emission.  
  
We can set a target minimum rate that our initial curve will reduce to after the first 18.4 million (perhaps Phi like the other guy said), and later we can perhaps devise a system of "smart inflation".  If no smart-inflation formula can be derived/agreed upon, then we'll use the hard figure we determined previously.  But the important part is to make that community decision very quickly if we will move to an inflationary block reward so that we disrupt the social contract as little as possible.  We want people interested in Aeon to walk into a system of agreed upon rules, not an improv sketch.  
  
It's important for me that the overwhelming majority of the community is on board with the principle of this idea though before we do it (at least 2/3rds; ideally more).
  

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I would disagree with you.  One of the intentions of inflation is to incentivize spending vs. HODLing.   If there is little activity, then people aren't spending.  

I don't think we disagree on anything. I really wanted XMR to be inflationary and argued quite a bit to that end, as I'm not convinced that a fixed block reward (relative to increasing supply) is enough to incentivize miners.

I recommend skimming the old XMR economics thread as a number of interesting arguments were made.

Risto said recently that he thinks wealth concentration in XMR is an issue, but a shrinking circulating supply is always the result in non-inflationary currencies, as money flows into the pockets of the rich and never back out.

However, "moar inflation" does not automatically mean more spending. You need enough to disincentivize hodling vs the opportunity risk of investing in productivity. Beyond that there's little incentive to spend (until you get to hyperinflation territory).

Thus, slowing distribution during low activity does not necessarily result in further reduced spending. It only eliminates the value dilution that we would otherwise experience if we maintained the higher rate of inflation during the slow period.

[btcluka]

Hi, I have some problem to start the miner aeon_gpu_miner_149debb, I get thise message: Error -1 when calling clGetDeviceIDs for number of device.

Kminer and Claymore miner for cryptonight algo works fine!

Sapphire 280x
Catalyst version 15.8 beta

Please help

[muchoman]

Hi, I have some problem to start the miner aeon_gpu_miner_149debb, I get thise message: Error -1 when calling clGetDeviceIDs for number of device.

Kminer and Claymore miner for cryptonight algo works fine!

Sapphire 280x
Catalyst version 15.8 beta

Please help

Uninstall Intel video drivers, disable integrated graphics from bios first, worked for me.

[Arux]

and check opencl info with clinfo.exe
typically at C:\Program Files (x86)\AMD APP SDK\3.0\bin\x86_64