Monero Supply Audit
Public Apology I am going to do my best to identify and account for the actions I have taken that negatively impacted Monero.
Church of Monero Intention: Unite the community in Spirit and create a fun workgroup where members can learn about Monero. Outcome: Offended many of the Monero developers and contributors for my use of Religious symbollism.
Gender Equality Reddit Post Intention: Make a joke about how it is impossible to prove the gender of online accounts. Outcome: Some people found this joke distasteful and concerned them about the public image of Monero.
Korean Translation Intention: Translate Monero documents into Korean. Outcome: Challenge ErCiccione's position by proposing to facilitate Korean translations.
Konferenco Flier Intention: Promote the Konferenco with an art piece and collect donations to cover expenses to attend the Konferenco. Outcome: Mislead the community into retweeting and forwarding my personal QR Code on a Konferenco flier.
DEFCON AMA Intention: Answer questions about the Monero Village. Later, utilize a censorship resistant technology to highlight unfair treatment. Outcome: Almost get the Monero Village banned from DEFCON and get banned from many Monero channels, including the Church of Monero Channel.
I am told I have made moral mistakes that need to be addressed and apologized for before I can be a welcomed member of the Monero Community. How do you assess the basis of morality? Are intentions an important consideration in your moral calculus? Or are outcomes more important?
My intentions here are pure. Monero is an experimental technology with specific use cases. I apologize for the outcome of my actions in pursuit of developing this technology.
I think we still do not understand what Money is and I do not feel comfortable calling Monero "Sound Money" until there is an audit and simplified proof of the Monero supply.
As I understand, there are two calculations that need to be performed. 1) Total Monero supply based on block rewards. 2) Feasibility of inflating the supply with counterfeit range proofs.
(2) May not be possible to prove with certainty, because the vulnerability might require significant compute power. That said, the degree to which such compute power could be deployed is a worthwhile consideration.
I have included my public apology in this proposal in the hopes that I can resolve dispute within the community and come together to work on this research.