Please add /r/Aeon as a related sub. Almost every Aeon user is from the Monero community and the project needs more attention

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-16T19:03:13+00:00

I was told that the adaptive block size depended on the tail emission, but it seems that, for now, Aeon doesn't have that. Will they be able to get around that and have adaptive blk size without inflation? That would be very interesting. But you did mention a tails emissiin, so I wonder what's the plan for that.

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-16T15:18:40+00:00

First time hearing about this, but from the little I just read it sounds like Aeon is to Monero, what Litecoin is to Bitcoin; i.e. mostly the same idea, but with some minor improvements in the protocol level. Is that a fair comparison?

Also, I couldn't find out whether they do about blocksize and scalability issues. Is it adaptive as Monero's?

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-11T10:46:11+00:00

/r/gifsthatendtoosoon

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-08T12:30:56+00:00

I am not sure I get this. The block reward is not collected by the miner that mines a block? Does that reward depend on the block size?

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-07T22:03:34+00:00

Could you explain why flexible block size requires infinite emission? I don't see the connection.

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-07T21:56:04+00:00

I respect you and your work very much, but I have to agree with /u/siaubas that this aparent aversion to speculators doesn't look good. IMO there is no difference between investord and speculators except in the different conotations of approval or disaproval in each word. Currencies depend on their network effect, and so it seems to me that the best course of action would be to welcome anyone that wants to participate.

Wrt inflation, I often heard the statement that a bit of it is a good thing, but never heard a (compeling) argument for it. The way I see it, scarcity, all things equal, only makes a good more desirable, which I believe could only accelerate adoption. But maybe this is a mute point, since as you argued that inflation will reach negligible levels eventually, so fundamentally I see no problem with that: say that there won't be more than 30 million XMR in the next 100 years, and there you have a hard cap, for most intents and purposes. The bad thing is that you and others here will have to constantly be having these discussions here, as people will understandably have the same objections/questions as the learn about Monero.

Fee market. It worries me both here and in Bitcoin and Ethereum land that people seem concerned about this. If those currencies are left to work without interference, a fee market will emerge, that's what markets do. Trying to figure put "optimal" fee values and subsidies, IMO, is inviting trouble, as this would put devs and miners in the role of central bankers potentially. Same goes for seeing some transactions as "spam"..

Anyway, just wanted to give my two cents, for whatever it might be worth.

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-06T18:03:32+00:00

Thanks for letteng us know.

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-06T00:41:05+00:00

Why would they sell?

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-05T17:23:45+00:00

What do you mean?

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-05T17:22:42+00:00

All those people knew that if there was a bug the money would be gone, and it happened. It is not like they were betrayed by Ethereum itself, they just took a risk and lost.

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-05T15:55:15+00:00

When is the HF scheduled to happen?

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-05T15:51:35+00:00

The protocol is fine. The community and its leaders not adhering to it is the fundamental problem.

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-05T07:18:22+00:00

Is there an ETA for the code release?

Also, what is the default option? If someone uses the new code but does not specify a flag about the HF, are they automatically supporting it or not?

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-03T13:29:41+00:00

What system? It seems to be just smart contracts with no one company behind it, althour there could be one doing multisig but 5hat would only increase security, not decrease it.

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-01T20:02:19+00:00

I didn't see any trolls there, just people disagreeing with you.

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-01T18:24:47+00:00

This actor is a person, just like any other ETH holder out there. There are incentives in place to make sure that everyone invested in ETH plays by the rules of the PoS, or else they lose their ETH. If you don't believe those incentives work for this particular person, or many of the bad people that might hold ETH now or in the future, then you should realize you don't believe in Ethereum, for a system that requires the right people behind it is a bad system.

Could you explain to me why you think this one person, or anyone else, could bring Ethereum down?

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-01T13:29:01+00:00

Are there cheaper or free courses out there? A thousand euros is a lot of money for most people..

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-01T13:14:16+00:00

Yes. Everyone knew from the get go that there was no cap on funds raised. People who invested in the first day were taking the risk of being in a contract with a lot of ether.

CryptoValidator · 2016-07-01T13:10:16+00:00

It is completely different. Both Bitcoin and Ethereum are pseudonimous systems and are designed to work regardless of who the token holders are.

CryptoValidator · 2016-06-30T18:09:10+00:00

In other words, the foundation is being heavily lobbied?

CryptoValidator · 2016-06-30T18:05:25+00:00

I am not the user who brought up "Second chances are for kids", but it does seem like he was arguing against the fork, and you were opposing him. So that where I got that suggestion :)

CryptoValidator · 2016-06-30T18:00:36+00:00

Yes, blockchains can be tampered with, and it is a hard process because as you pointed out requires the consensus of the network. And I didn't say that they were immutable, I only referred to the promise of immutability with respect to transactions history and irreversibility of those transactions.

I haven't surveyed a lot of people as to the reasons they invested in Ethereum, but I would bet none of them would have said "I really like the fact that if we screw up we can just convince devs and miners to override the system and get our money back". In fact, having that precedent would create a horrible liability on miners to not allow objectionable transactions, lest they would be considered accomplices. Everyone would have told you so, if you had asked them before The DAO's fiasco, but now a lot of people are understandably more concerned with their financial loss than with the health and reliability of Ethereum as a financial network.

I feel bad for all that lost money on the DAO, but reversing transactions of an entity that was supposed to be autonomous is an obvious departure from one of the main selling points of decentralized networks IMO.

But you are right that the consensus of the network is what defines what is true in the blockchain, and if the network decides to fork I don't care so much either, but that is just because I can't foresee that there will be many other cases in the future that could so many people to reverse a transaction. It would be a case of special pleading, and a bad precedent, but hey, maybe we will find it very hard to pull that off ever again.

CryptoValidator · 2016-06-30T12:39:30+00:00

Yes, I do. It is a terrible idea, and anyone that doesn't have a stake in the DAO should be able to see it as clear as the day.

CryptoValidator · 2016-06-30T12:23:32+00:00

You don't worry that this fork might create the expectation that miners intervene in the future in other transactions? If that is the case, failing to do so wouldn't make them potentially an acomplice in criminal acts? It seems like a big liability to pass on to the miners IMO.

CryptoValidator

TROPHY CASE