If you want to join right now head over to the Gold auction and secure a dividend-paying chunk of this limited resource. Otherwise you will have to wait and lose precious stone.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=831625

For some references, see

http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~parkes/cs286r/spring07/papers/myerson.pdf

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0906.1019v1.pdf

Sorry for the hijack, this is the last post I make on the topic.

Emphasizing this important difference from the last auction for clarity.

0.$$

In my understanding, it doesn't work like that. You get the same rate on the first 2000 CKG no matter if you have 2k or 200k of them.

For future auctions, make the price be the first nonwinning bid. This way you get a pure multi-VCG auction with nice preference revelation properties.

2k @ 0.3

100 votes
Proposal 2 v3

I think it's clear at this point we need to rephrase the vote options. If you agree with what I say and vote the other way than I do, it means we read different things in the same options. Maybe have more options to support, like:

1. Stay here completely, for the medium term. Do not use the Monero forum or only use it sparingly.
2. Keep public facing stuff here, private stuff on the Monero forum.
3. Let the market decide - in the meanwhile, there is going to be duplication and overhead to maintain two centres.
4. Start moving to the Monero forum now or immediately after a successful vote, close most threads here, keep the remaining ones as mostly-announcements, finish transition in ~1 month or so.
5. Move to the Monero forum immediately after a successful vote and keep a minimal presence here, or none at all.

My 100 votes would go with (4).

Sorry man, trolling at this level gets old so fast it's not even funny by the time I start.

shutup n00b i lavitate like chriss angle

stop n00bings its patethic

AM/TFM hates centralized everything. He'd rather if everything came from the bottom up. His bottom, supposedly.


lol lberty if u thnk u cn jst CLONE prefection leik dat u must b rly butthurt yo rofl if ure so smarrt how cum u cant fgure it out that

ZERO GRAVITAS MEANS ZERO "WEIGTH"

In reply to a concerned citizen gentleman,

UBERcoin ANNouncement
Launching the latest and last cryptomoney

Total emission: 1337 coins.

Emmision schedule: 72 hours of UBERPoW special hashing function (using special FDIV instruction that makes it 100MHz proof). After that, switch to DERPoS, or Distributed Entropic Regenerative Proof of Stake, the final generation in PoS staking technology. Staking interest is pegged to a basket of ECB and BoJ refi rates, adjusting programmatically as a linear combination of the two.

Launch: to be decided by an hourly D20 roll, with LAUNCH if the dice never stops spinning on a corner.

Moar tech: state of the art ANONOSITY, ultrafast synking, fast blocks, BCI capable wallet "spend with the power of your mind", Web 9000.1 ready, smart contracts, smarter DAC management, super-Turing complete block chain.

JOIN THE REVOLUCION NAO!!

100 votes for #2.

I propose we keep 2, maximum 3 threads open here and otherwise move to the Monero forum. Doing all interaction here is clearly past the point of diminishing returns. That being said, the exposure to The Hub Of Crypto is a tremendous value and also a way to accommodate those who are not mainly interested in Monero and do not wish to follow or sign up for another forum.

That being said, while I suggest starting moving now, I think it's a mistake to rush it. Once the decision to move is reached, either the move happens organically or there was a problem with the decision making and consensus was not actually achieved. Plus, given the Monero forum is proprietary code, there are surely rough edges, security weak points or scaling issues with the new software. Let's give it a few weeks to mature.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and put practical quantum computers in the same box with practical cold fusion and room temperature superconductors. It's happening in the next 10-20 years for the last 50 years or so.

Let's not forget that AnonyMint is, in his own words, a man of analysis, not solutions. He's threatened everyone with his ubercoin for at least a year now. As we say on the Internet, tits or GTFO.

Analysis is always welcome, of course.

slowclap.wav


slowclap.wav

I mostly agree with what you said. After all, the consumer market for anonymity is not yet rattled by the actions of the TLAs. This is one reason why BBR's emission curve is better than XMR's. No argument here. At this point at least, also taking into account the limitations of existing cryptos in general and CN in particular, our target is anonymous sparse transactions (such as sophisticated investors/speculators and other money managers with a pretty aggressive risk profile for holding, and private commercial entities for transfers).

I understand this is not your vision of The Anonymous Crypto and frankly is it not ours either. But there are steps to ubiquity and many barriers that have not been acceptably analyzed, much less solved. So until we have the slightest clue how to put things together to make a crypto system that checks all requirements for TAC we've decided to take the most advanced partial solution and try to refine it conservatively. BBR has a more aggressive approach.

We believe pruning the ring signatures is not conservative enough. We believe changing the PoW hash is not conservative enough. Any of these beliefs can change in the future.

I hope this makes it more clear.

And I've already answered you with this: (don't get circular on me here)


I wholly agree with very clean code and the simplest crypto that is sufficient. I doubt anyone would challenge that.

You cannot just say "trusting nobody doesn't work with minichains, and that is the only idea for decentralization, thus I'll pretend the trust issues are PEDANTIC TRIVIALITIES".

In BBR's solution, the linear advantage that full nodes get does not solve any scalability issue (especially so for thin nodes) and introduces the trust / security model problem that is in no way a trivial pedanticry. Commiting the ring signatures with an additional "full" hash for each block would alleviate that problem, but still trusts "anybody" stores the signatures.

And to add to all that, open source is not the holy grail in code vetting. I will name three issues from recent memory that had different direct causes, but the same primary cause:

1. Heartbleed
2. Shellshock
3. Block 202612

The primary cause is "just because anyone can do it doesn't mean anyone will do it", both in terms of open source vetting and in terms of storing the signatures. It is a tragedy of the commons.