The Strange Birth & History of Monero, Part III: Decentralized team
You can read here part I (by americanpegaus). This is the post that motivated me to make the part II. Now i'm doing a third part, and there'll be a final 4th part. This is probably too much but i wasn't able to make it shorter. Some will be interested in going through all them, and maybe someone is even willing to make a summary of the whole serie :D. Monero - an anonymous coin based on CryptoNote technology https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.0 Comentarios de interés: -4: "No change, this is just a renaming. In the future, the binaries will have to be changed, as well as some URL, but that's all. By the way, this very account (monero) is shared by several user and is meant to make it easier to change the OP in case of vacancy of the OP. This idea of a shared OP comes from Karmacoin. Some more things to come:
A website (URL will be monero.cc)
A GUI wallet
" (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6362672#msg6362672) -5: “Before this thread is too big, I would like to state that a bug has been identified in the emission curve and we are currently in the process of fixing it (me, TFT, and smooth). Currently coins are emitted at double the rate that was intended. We will correct this in the future, likely by bitshifting values of outputs before a certain height, and then correcting 1 min blocks to 2 min blocks. The changes proposed will be published to a Monero Improvement Protocol on github.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6363016#msg6363016) [tacotime make public the bug in the emission curve: token creation is currently 2 times what was intended to be, see this chart BTC vs the actual XMR curve, as it was and it is now, vs the curve that was initially planned in yellow see chart] -14: “Moving discussion to more relevant thread, previous found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6364026#msg6364026 I have to say that I am surprised that such an idea [halving current balances and then changing block target to 2 min with same block reward to solve the emission curve issue] is even being countenanced - there are several obvious arguments against it. Perception - what kind of uproar would happen if this was tried on a more established coin? How can users be expected to trust a coin where it is perceived that the devs are able and willing to "dip" into people's wallets to solve problems? Technically - people are trying to suggest that this will make no difference since it applies to reward and supply, which might be fair enough if the cap was halved also, but it isn't. People's holdings in the coin are being halved, however it is dressed up. Market price - How can introducing uncertainty in the contents of people's wallets possibly help market price? I may well be making a fool of myself here, but I have never heard of such a fix before, unless you had savings in a Cypriot bank - has this ever been done for another coin?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364174#msg6364174) -15: “You make good points but unfortunately conflicting statements were made and it isn't possible to stick to them all. It was said that this coin had a mining reward schedule similar to bitcoin. In fact it is twice as fast as intended, even even a bit more than twice as fast as bitcoin. If you acquired your coins on the basis of the advertised reward schedule, you would be disappointed, and rightfully so, as more coins come to into existence more quickly than you were led to believe. To simply ignore that aspect of the bug is highly problematic. Every solution may be highly problematic, but the one being proposed was agreed as being the least bad by most of the major stakeholders. Maybe it will still not work, this coin will collapse, and there will need to be a relaunch, in which case all your coins will likely be worthless. I hope that doesn't happen.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364242#msg6364242) [smooth tries to justify his proposal to solve the emission curve issue: halve every current balance and change block target to 2 min with same block reward] -16: “This coin wasn't working as advertised. It was supposed to be mined slowly like BTC but under the current emission schedule, 39% would be mined by the first year and 86% by the fourth year. Those targets have been moved out by a factor of 2, i.e. 86% mined by year 8, which is more like BTC's 75% by year 8. So the cap has been moved out much further into the future, constraining present and near-term supply, which is what determines the price.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364257#msg6364257) [eizh supports smooth’s plan] -20: “So long as the process is fair and transparent it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone. Correcting this now will avoid people accusing the coin of a favourable premine for people who mined in the first week.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364338#msg6364338) [random user supporting smooth’s idea] -21: “Why not a reduction in block reward of slightly more than half to bring it into line with the proposed graph? That would avoid all sorts of perceptual problems, would not upset present coin holders and be barely noticeable to future miners since less than one percent of coins have been mined so far, the alteration would be very small?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364348#msg6364348) -22: “Because that still turns into a pre-mine or instamine where a few people got twice as many coins as everyone else in the first week. This was always a bug, and should be treated as such.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364370#msg6364370) [smooth wants to be sure they can’t be stigmatized as “premine”] -23: “No, not true [answering to "it makes no difference what the number is... n or n/2 is the same relative value so long as the /2 is applied to everyone"]. Your share of the 18,000,000 coins is being halved - rightly or wrongly.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364382#msg6364382) [good point made by a user that is battling “hard” with smooth and his proposal] -28: “+1 for halving all coins in circulation. Would they completely disappear? What would the process be?” -31: “I will wait for the next coin based on CryptoNote. Many people, including myself, avoided BMR because TFT released without accepting input from anyone (afaik). I pm'ed TFT 8 days before launch to help and didn't get response until after launch. Based on posting within the thread, I bet there were other people. Now the broken code gets "fixed" by taking away coins.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364531#msg6364531) -32: “What you say is true, and I can't blame anyone from simply dropping this coin and wanting a complete fresh start instead. On the other hand, this coin is still gaining in popularity and is already getting close to bytecoin in hash rate, while avoiding its ninja premine. There is a lot done right here, and definitely a few mistakes.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364574#msg6364574) [smooth stands for the project legitimacy despite the bugs] -37: “Since everything is scaled and retroactive, the only person to be affected is... me. Tongue Because I bought BMR with BTC, priced it with incorrect information, and my share relative to the eventual maximum has been halved. Oh well. The rest merely mined coins that never should have been mined. The "taking away coins" isn't a symptom of the fix: it's the fundamental thing that needed fixing. The result is more egalitarian and follows the original intention. Software is always a work-in-progress. Waiting for something ideal at launch is pretty hopeless. edit: Let me point out that most top cryptocurrencies today were released before KGW and other new difficulty retargeting algorithms became widespread. Consequently they had massive instamines on the first day, even favorites in good standing like LTC. Here the early miners are voluntarily reducing their eventual stake for the sake of fairness. How cool is that?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6364886#msg6364886) [this is eizh supporting the project too] -43: “I'm baffled that people are arguing about us making the emission schedule more fair. I'm an early adopter. This halves my money, and it's what I want to do. There's another change that needs to be talked about too: we don't believe that microscopic levels of inflation achieved at 9 or 10 years will secure a proof-of-work network. In fact, there's a vast amount of evidence from DogeCoin and InfiniteCoin that it will not. So, we'd like to fix reward when it goes between 0.25 - 1.00 coins. To do so, we need to further bitshift values to decrease the supply under 264-1 atomic units to accommodate this. Again, this hurts early adopters (like me), but is designed to ensure the correct operation of the chain in the long run. It's less than a week old, and if we're going to hardfork in economic changes that make sense we should do it now. We're real devs turning monero into the coin it should have been, and our active commitment should be nothing but good news. Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6366134#msg6366134) [tacotime brings to the public for first time the tail emission proposal and writes what is my favourite sentence of the whole monero history: “Fuck the pump and dumps, we're here to create something with value that people can use”] -51: “I think this is the right attitude. Like you I stand to "lose" from this decision in having my early mining halved, but I welcome it. Given how scammy the average coin launch is, I think maximizing fairness for everyone is the right move. Combining a fair distribution with the innovation of Cryptonote tech could be what differentiates Monero from other coins.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6366346#msg6366346) -59: “Hello! It is very good that you've created this thread. I'm ok about renaming. But I can't agree with any protocol changes based only on decisions made by bitcointalk.org people. This is because not all miners are continiously reading forum. Any decision about protocol changes are to be made by hashpower-based voting. From my side I will agree on such a decision only if more than 50% of miners will agree. Without even such a simple majority from miners such changes are meaningless. In case of hardfork that isn't supported by majority of miners the network will split into two nets with low-power fork and high-power not-forking branches. I don't think that this will be good for anybody. Such a voting is easy to be implemented by setting minor_version of blocks to a specific value and counting decisions made after 1000 of blocks. Do you agree with such a procedure?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368478#msg6368478) [TFT appears after a couple days of inactivity] -63: “In few days I will publish a code with merged mining support. This code will be turned ON only by voting process from miners. What does it mean:
miners supporting merged mining are to update their nodes and miners. New miners will issue blocks with modified minor_version field indicating they are ready to accept AuxPoW blocks. But no AuxPoW blocks will be issued before 75% of last 1000 blocks will have a positive vote (a changed minor_version).
miners not supporting will not update but will still be able to mine and accept blocks. In case of successful voting they will have to switch to new code. In case of voting failed they can stay on old version.
The same procedure is suitable for all other protocol changes.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368720#msg6368720) [And now he is back, TFT is all about merged mining] -67: “We don't agree that a reverse split amounts to "taking" coins. I also wouldn't agree that a regular forward split would be "giving" coins. It's an exchange of old coins with new coins, with very nearly the exact same value. There is a very slight difference in value due to the way the reward schedule is capped, but that won't be relevant for years or decades. Such a change is entirely reasonable to fix an error in a in coin that has only existed for a week.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368861#msg6368861) -68: “There were no error made in this coin but now there is an initiative to make some changes. Changes are always bad and changes destroy participant confidence even in case these changes are looking as useful. We have to be very careful before making any changes in coins” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6368939#msg6368939) [TFT does not accept the unexpected emission curve as a bug] -72: “You are wrong TFT. The original announcement described the coin as having a reward curve "close to Bitcoin's original curve" (those are your exact words). The code as implemented has a reward curve that is nothing like bitcoin. It will be 86% mined in 4 years. It will be 98% mined in 8 years. Bitcoin is 50% mined in 4 years, and 75% in 8 years. With respect TFT, you did the original fork, and you deserve credit for that. But this coin has now gone beyond your initial vision. It isn't just a question of whether miners are on bitcointalk or not. There is a great team of people who are working hard to make this coin a success, and this team is collaborating regularly through forum posts, IRC, PM and email. And beyond that a community of users who by and large have been very supportive of the efforts we've taken to move this forward. Also, miners aren't the only stakeholders, and while a miner voting process is great, it isn't the answer to every question. Though I do agree that miners need to be on board with any hard fork to avoid a harmful split.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369137#msg6369137) [smooth breaks out publicily for first time against TFT] -75: “I suppose that merged mining as a possible option is a good idea as soon as nobody is forced to use it. MM is a possibility to accept PoW calculated for some other network. It helps to increase a security of both networks and makes it possible for miners not to choose between two networks if they want both:
BCN only miners will continue to mine BCN
BMMRO only miners will continue to mine BMMRO
merge miners will mine both at the same time (now some of them mine BCN only and other - BMR only)
Important things to know about MM:
MM doesn't imply that BMR is smaller or has a less hashpower. In case BMR will has more mining power than BCN it will simply accept less BCN blocks.
MM doesn't force BMR users to have BCN chain on their HDD - BCN chain isn't neede to verify blocks
MM doesn't require any specific parent chain. Miner decides himself which parent chain to use: BCN or any other chain supporting the same PoW method.
Actually the only change that goes with MM is that we are able to accept PoW from some other net with same hash-function. Each miner can decide his own other net he will merge mine BMR with. And this is still very secure. This way I don't see any disadvantage in merged mining. What disadvantages do you see in MM?” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369255#msg6369255) [TFT stands for merged mining] -77: “Merged mining essentially forces people to merge both coins because that is the only economically rational decision. I do not want to support the ninja-premined coin with our hash rate. Merged mining makes perfect sense for a coin with a very low hash rate, otherwise unable to secure itself effectively. That is the case with coins that merge mine with bitcoin. This coin already has 60% of the hash rate of bytecoin, and has no need to attach itself to another coin and encourage sharing of hash rate between the two. It stands well on its own and will likely eclipse bytecoin very soon. I want people to make a clear choice between the fair launched coin and the ninja-premine that was already 80% mined before it was made public. Given such a choice I believe most will just choose this coin. Letting them choose both allows bytecoin to free ride on what we are doing here. Let the ninja-preminers go their own way.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369386#msg6369386) [smooth again] -85: “One of you is saying that there was no mistake in the emission formula, while the other is. I'm not asking which I should believe . . I'm asking for a way to verify this” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369874#msg6369874) [those that have not been paying attention to the soap opera since the beginning do not understand anything at all] -86: “The quote I posted "close to Bitcoin's original curve" is from the original announcement here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0 I think there was also some discussion on the thread about it being desirable to do that. At one point in that discussion, I suggested increasing the denominator by a factor of 4, which is what ended up being done, but I also suggested retaining the block target at 2 minutes, which was not done. The effect of making one change without the other is to double the emission rate from something close to bitcoin to something much faster (see chart a few pages back on this thread).” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6369935#msg6369935) [smooth answers just a few minutes later] -92: “I'm happy the Bitmonero attracts so much interest. I'm not happy that some people want to destroy it. Here is a simple a clear statement about plans: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582670 We have two kind of stakeholders we have respect: miders and coin owners. Before any protocol changes we will ask miners for agreement. No changes without explicit agreement of miners is possible. We will never take away or discount any coins that are already emitted. This is the way we respect coin owners. All other issues can be discussed, proposed and voted for. I understand that there are other opinions. All decisions that aren't supported in this coin can be introduced in any new coin. It's ok to start a new fork. It's not ok to try to destroy an existsing network.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6370324#msg6370324) [TFT is kinda upset – he can see how the community is “somehow” taking over] -94: “Sounds like there's probably going to be another fork then. Sigh. I guess it will take a few tries to get this coin right. The problem with not adjusting existing coins is that it make this a premine/instamine. If the emission schedule is changed but not as a bug fix, then earlier miners got an unfair advantage over everyone else. Certainly there are coins with premines and instamines, but there's a huge stigma and such a coin will never achieve the level of success we see for this coin. This was carefully discussed during the team meeting, which was announced a day ahead of time, and everyone with any visible involvement with the coin, you included, was invited. It is unfortunate you couldn't make it to that meeting TFT.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6370411#msg6370411) [smooth is desperate due to TFT lack of interest in collaboration, and he publicly speaks about an scission for first time] -115: “Very rough website online, monero.cc (in case you asked, the domain name was voted on IRC, like the crypto name and its code). Webdesigner, webmaster, writers... wanted.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6374702#msg6374702) [Even though the lack of consensus and the obvious chaos, the community keeps going on: Monero already has his own site] -152: “Here's one idea on fixing the emissions without adjusting coin balances. We temporarily reduce the emission rate to half of the new target for as long as it takes for the total emission from 0 to match the new curve. Thus there will be a temporary period when mining is very slow, and during that period there was a premine. But once that period is compete, from the perspective of new adopters, there was no premine -- the total amount of coins emitted is exactly what the slow curve says it should be (and the average rate since genesis is almost the same as the rate at which they are mining, for the first year or so at least). This means the mining rewards will be very low for a while (if done now then roughly two weeks), and may not attract many new miners. However, I think there enough of us early adopters (and even some new adopters who are willing to make a temporary sacrifice) who want to see this coin succeed to carry it through this period. The sooner this is done the shorter the catch up period needs to be.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6378032#msg6378032) [smooth makes a proposal to solve the “emission curve bug” without changing users balances and without favoring the early miners] -182: “We have added a poll in the freenode IRC room "Poll #2: "Emission future of Monero, please vote!!" started by stickh3ad. Options: #1: "Keep emission like now"; #2: "Keep emission but change blocktime and final reward"; #3: "Keep emission but change blocktime"; #4: "Keep emission but change final reward"; #5: "Change emission"; #6: "Change emission and block time"; #7: "Change emission and block time and final reward" Right now everyone is voting for #4, including me.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379518#msg6379518) [tacotime announces an ongoing votation on IRC] -184: “ change emission: need to bitshift old values on the network or double values after a certain block. controversial. not sure if necessary. can be difficult to implement. keep emission: straightforward, we don't keep change emission or block time. change final reward is simple. if (blockSubsidy < finalSubsidy) return finalSubsidy; else return blockSubsidy;” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379562#msg6379562) -188: “Yeah, well. We need to change the front page to reflect this if we can all agree on it. We should post the emissions curve and the height and value that subsidy will be locked in to. In my opinion this is the least disruptive thing we can do at the moment, and should ensure that the fork continues to be mineable and secure in about 8 years time without relying on fees to secure it (which I think you agree is a bad idea).” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6379871#msg6379871) [tacotime] -190: “I don't think the proposed reward curve is bad by any means. I do think it is bad to change the overall intent of a coin's structure and being close to bitcoins reward curve was a bit part of the intent of this coin. It was launched in response to the observation that bytecoin was 80% mined in less than two years (too fast) and also that it was ninja premined, with a stated goal that the new coin have a reward curve close to bitcoin. At this point I'm pretty much willing to throw in the towel on this launch:
No web site
Botched reward curve (at least botched relative to stated intent)
No pool (and people who are enthusiastically trying to mine having trouble getting any blocks; some of them have probably given up and moved on).
No effective team behind it at launch
No Mac binaries (I don't think this is all that big a deal, but its another nail)
I thought this could be fixed but with all the confusion and lack of clear direction or any consistent vision, now I'm not so sure. I also believe that merged mining is basically a disaster for this coin, and is probably being quietly promoted by the ninjas holding 80% of bytecoin, because they know it keeps their coin from being left behind, and by virtue of first mover advantage, probably relegates any successors to effective irrelevance (like namecoin, etc.). We can do better. It's probably time to just do better.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380065#msg6380065) [smooth is disappointed] -191: “The website does exist now, it's just not particularly informative yet. :) But, I agree that thankful_for_today has severely mislead everyone by stating the emission was "close to Bitcoin's" (if he's denying that /2 rather than /4 emission schedule was unintentional, as he seems to be). I'm also against BCN merge mining. It works against the goal of overtaking BCN and if that's not a goal, I don't know what we're even doing here. I'll dedicate my meagre mining to voting against that. That said, you yourself have previously outlined why relaunches and further clones fail. I'd rather stick with this one and fix it.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380235#msg6380235) [eizh tries to keep smooth on board] -196: “BCN is still growing as well. It is up to 1.2 million now. If merged mining happens, (almost) everyone will just mine both. The difficulty on this coin will jump up to match BCN (in fact both will likely go higher since the hash rate will be combined) and again it is an instamine situation. (Those here the first week get the benefit of easy non-merged mining, everyone else does not.) Comments were made on this thread about this not being yet another pump-and-dump alt. I think that could have been the case, but sadly, I don't really believe that it is.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6380778#msg6380778) -198: “There's no point in fragmenting talent. If you don't think merge mining is a good idea, I'd prefer we just not add it to the code. Bitcoin had no web site or GUI either initially. Bitcoin-QT was the third Bitcoin client. If people want a pool, they can make one. There's no point in centralizing the network when it's just began, though. Surely you must feel this way.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6381866#msg6381866) [tacotime also wants smooth on board] -201: “My personal opinion is that I will abandon the fork if merge mining is added. And then we can discuss a new fork. Until then I don't think Monero will be taken over by another fork.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6381970#msg6381970) [tacotime opens the season: if merged mining is implemented, he will leave the ship] -203: “Ditto on this. If the intention wasn't to provide a clearweb launched alternative to BCN, then I don't see a reason for this fork to exist. BCN is competition and miners should make a choice.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6382097#msg6382097) [eizh supports tacotime] -204: “+1 Even at the expense of how much I already "invested" in this coin.” (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=582080.msg6382177#msg6382177) [NoodleDoodle is also against merged mining] This is basically everything worth reading in this thread. This thread was created in the wrong category, and its short life of about 2 days was pretty interesting. Merged mining was rejected and it ended up with the inactivity of TFT for +7 days and the creation of a new github repo the 30th of April. It is only 12 days since launch and a decentralized team is being built. Basically the community had forked (but not the chain) and it was evolving and moving forward to its still unclear future. These are the main takeaways of this thread:
The legitimacy of the "leaders" of the community is proven when they proposed and supported the idea of halving the balances for the greater good to solve the emission curve issue without any possible instamine accusation. Also their long-term goals and values rejecting merged-mining with a "primined scam"
It is decided that, as for now, it is “too late” to change the emission curve, and finally monero will mint 50% of its coin in ~1.3 years (bitcoin did it after 3.66 years) and 86% of its coins in 4 years (bitcoin does it in ~11 years) (was also voted here) (see also this chart)
It is decided that a “minimum subsidy” or “tail emission” to incentivize miners “forever” and avoid scaling fees will be added (it will be finally added to the code march 2015)
Merged mining is plainly rejected by the future “core team” and soon rejected by "everyone". This will trigger TFT inactivity.
The future “core team” is somehow being formed in a decentralized way: tacotime, eizh, NoodleDoodle, smooth and many others
And the most important. All this (and what is coming soon) is a proof of the decentralization of Monero. Probably comparable to Bitcoin first days. This is not a company building a for-profit project (even if on the paper it is not for-profit), this a group of disconnected individuals sharing a goal and working together to reach it. Soon will be following a final part where i'll collect the bitcointalk logs in the current official announcement threads. There you'll be able to follow the decentralized first steps of develoment (open source pool, miner optimizations and exchanges, all surrounded by fud trolls, lots of excitmen and a rapidly growing collaborative community.
Hello cryptocurrency lovers! Welcome to Coin-a-Year, the laziest series yet in the Coin-a-Day publishing empire. This year's coin is Nyancoin (NYAN). I originally covered Nyancoin in an article here in /cryptocurrency published January 4th, 2015. Without (much) further ado, I'm going to include the original report next, unmodified. This is unlike my Coin-a-Week series, where I use strikeout and update in-text. Because this is going to be a longer update, I'll just make all further comments and updates below, just realize that all information below is as of January 4th, 2015 and thus is more than a year out of date as of posting now, at the end of February 2016. Since I use horizontal rules as internal dividers in the original post, I'll use a double horizontal rule to divide the original text from this prelude and the following update. Coin-a-Day Jan 4th