Monero devs already made those improvements. See the below quote. It refers to a well known privacy issue on CN coins. We've had a fix for this in the development for weeks now after corresponding with a Bitcoin core devs that should be more effective than the solution for Boolberry, we're just waiting until the core of the software is more mature before we roll it out. Just curious, can you(or someone) point me where exactly in sources did they fix it ? May be i miss something, but as i konw they have the same core as bytecoin and didn't made a hardfork yet. See last few replies -- celestio misspoke. Ok. So, you going to make hard-fork in XMR to fix this ? Future plans will be discussed....in the future  I would add though, that we are not convinced that the BBR approach is obviously the best one. It has disadvantages, I'm pretty sure you are already aware of them, and have decided on what you believe to be the appropriate trade offs. We will do the same. With respect to the trade-offs, I will leave it to you to discuss your own coin rather than make comments that could be interpreted as "trashing" another coin (not intended that way in any case). |
|
|
|
Monero devs already made those improvements. See the below quote. It refers to a well known privacy issue on CN coins. We've had a fix for this in the development for weeks now after corresponding with a Bitcoin core devs that should be more effective than the solution for Boolberry, we're just waiting until the core of the software is more mature before we roll it out. Just curious, can you(or someone) point me where exactly in sources did they fix it ? May be i miss something, but as i konw they have the same core as bytecoin and didn't made a hardfork yet. See last few replies -- celestio misspoke. |
|
|
|
Monero devs already made those improvements. See the below quote. No, not these improvements specifically, but we have a plan in place to address the same issues, after some other changes are made first (database, etc.) |
|
|
|
If bounty donations count (and I don't see why they wouldn't), well I'm looking forward to my crates of diamonds. |
|
|
|
I don't actually see anything wrong with off-blockchain, as long as you end up holding the actual coin at the end of the day.
Again, this is another technical consideration that grandma is not likely to understand. Who's the authority? Blockchain.info? or JP Morgan Chase? There is always the possibility that the masses will embrace the wrong authority and the blockchain becomes irrelevant (back to fiat we go). You are assuming the masses hold most of the wealth, that is likely false. Yeah grandma may do the wrong thing. George Soros probably won't. For that matter, her grandkids (or theirs) probably won't either. It's a bit like getting scammed on the internet today. Grandma is a far higher risk than the grandkid. |
|
|
|
I feel we would still need new coins being minted to keep the economy from going stale.
There are lost coins at least. Without new coins the money supply will definitely shrink forever. |
|
|
|
My point was more intended to say that there are possible alternatives to relying on tx fees and/or eternal emission to sustain network security, but if the accepted expert opinion is that some level of eternal emission is in fact a good thing then that's even better!
I don't think there is any "accepted expert opinion" on the matter. We are still waiting for the first cryptocoin to demonstrate sustained success for a long period of time (more than a few years), and that includes bitcoin. |
|
|
|
The point is, will the general public know the difference (or care)?
I don't know about the general public, but big money does know the difference. Counterparty risk is a widely-recognized concept. Already (even before Bitcoin has entered a real financial adoption phase), there notable people in the finance world describing it as an asset without counterparty risk, and therefore interesting and potentially valuable. I see bank notes having a hard time getting real traction when the notes have no real advantage over the coin. My fear is they won't need an advantage if the easy credit/convenience factor is high enough. I already see this becoming a problem with visa/mastercard processing off-chain bitcoin transactions. The public will embrace the middle-men we originally sought to eliminate. I don't actually see anything wrong with off-blockchain, as long as you end up holding the actual coin at the end of the day. Obviously people will get goxed and goxed and goxed again, but eventually they will learn, and tools (hardware wallets, etc.) will improve along the way. |
|
|
|
The point is, will the general public know the difference (or care)?
I don't know about the general public, but big money does know the difference. Counterparty risk is a widely-recognized concept. Already (even before Bitcoin has entered a real financial adoption phase), there notable people in the finance world describing it as an asset without counterparty risk, and therefore interesting and potentially valuable. I see bank notes having a hard time getting real traction when the notes have no real advantage over the coin. |
|
|
|
I have my doubts about the prospects of monero as I’ve been reading lots of unflattering things concerning their devs’ team.
I’ve no idea if it’s true but part of it sounded pretty convincing to me.
Hey look an entire page of content-free one-line posts starting in Feb-March just like the other sock puppet troll accounts: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=242219;sa=showPosts;start=20Also, you guys really need a new script. This whole pattern of unflattering to offensive attack lacking in any evidence I have no idea if it is true but ... is getting old. |
|
|
|
Also, a finite money supply (this includes a fixed reward system) will only encourage banks to use the coin as lending leverage. This "fiatization" would not be difficult, as banks can simply loan out MoneroNotes(tm) at ultra low interest rates, that have the "Legal Tender" stamp of approval.
I'd rather have such debasement baked into the currency, so at least the new coins actually go back to the miners.
Would you accept MoneroNotes from a bank ? If it's "legal tender for all debts, public and private", and the interest rate is low enough, who wouldn't? I probably wouldn't. It is a no win scenario. At best the notes are worth the same as the underlying coin, at worst the bank goes bust and you are holding the bag. Why not just prefer the coin itself? Gold certificates make some sense because they are more portable than gold, can be made more easily in convenient denominations, can be transferred via book entry, etc. I see no real advantage to a MoneroNote, only disadvantage. |
|
|
|
|
Although it may not help you level up in the hall of fame, a good way to support development if you are a miner is to solo mine to the donation address. This also helps the coin itself directly by maintaining a full node and increasing decentralization. I recently shifted some of my mining gear to the donation address.
|
|
|
|
In regards to the second question, the other way to do so is FreiCoin's system, which over time destroys the balance of all accounts equally through demurrage. The FreiCoin devs insist that this is totally different from inflation, but I haven't been able to follow that argument (and it diverges into a lot of economics I'm not well versed in).
This is the main idea I was trying to get across earlier in the thread. Demurrage differs from inflation because inflation in PoW crypto is more complicated in that each coin has other value properties in addition to being simply a percentage of total value. If the total supply increases by 1%, that doesn't mean the value of each coin decreases by 1%. FreiCoin's demurrage does mean that because a percentage of coins are actually disappearing. This means a 1% demurrage is much more costly than a 1% inflation (in PoW crypto, that is).I largely agree with this. Proof-of-work has information value, showing that it is indeed not possible to obtain the coin (or gold or whatever) without incurring the corresponding cost doing work. Otherwise, you can never be sure what the cost would be. If gold mining were banned for a prolonged period of time, the price of gold would likely go down, because people would be unsure about how much it might cost to dig more gold out of the ground. I'm not sure how you have a sound freicoin-style demurrage coin without also having PoW (since I don't accept alternatives such as PoS as having been shown to be sound), so I'm not sure the two can really be viewed as alternatives. |
|
|
|
I actually think that transaction fees will be enough to support the miners without subsidy, because the miners will only process transactions with the highest fees. This only works if mining is monopolized, with miners unable to compete with each other. Otherwise, if Miner A will only accept a transaction if it carries an extremely high fee, then miner B will accept the transaction with a slightly lower but still high fee, and in turn miner C will process the transaction with an even lower (perhaps only moderately high) fee, and so on. The resulting bidding war will drive transactions fees back down to near marginal cost. If you accept that mining is monopolized, then you don't have a decentralized system at all. But in that case, yes, you can indeed just charge transaction fees. I don't believe a decentralized (non-monopolized) PoW system can be supported with transaction fees. |
|
|
|
Has a subsidized draw been considered? A minimum block reward paid when the fees cannot meet that minimum? This could be a flexible way to allow the health of the economy and value of the currency have at least partial determination over the inflation. Perhaps this is exactly what has been discussed and if so forgive me as I am getting up to speed.
This is similar to adaptive block sizing, which applies a penalty for generating blocks over the median size. The cost of the penalty is supposed to be mitigated by the value of the fees. My opinion is that this will not work well. Such a mechanism doesn't work for this reason: miners generate their own blocks and include whatever tx they choose too, however the smaller the block, the less likely it is to ever be orphaned. If there was an overlay PoS network (like for MC2) you could try and enforce tx being included into blocks even at some level of reward penalty, but naturally miners will just include as many high fee transactions as possible without destroying any of their reward. Such a method of securing a blockchain is highly experimental and may not work for other incentives reasons (that's for the MC2 thread). As PoW stands now, miners are free to manipulate the transaction volume/fees volume in the network as they desire, and so subsidy penalties will not really work. I disagree with my friend tacotime about the adaptive block sizes not working. I think they can work if the parameters are right. Certainly it won't work to expect miners to incur a large penalty, but a penalty function that is non-zero though still small relative to transaction fees can work; if users include a larger than normal fee, their transaction may get added to an otherwise full block (because the fee is higher than the penalty a miner would incur by adding it), providing faster service at a premium price. This in turn signals to the network that there is high demand and the block size should possibly be increased. The original implementation in cryptonote coins was clearly broken in at least few ways though (in fact not even fully implemented). On that we all agree. However, I agree with his argument for why the draw idea won't work. Miners are better off just not including transactions at all if they stand to get a reward instead of the fee. |
|
|
|
Regarding false accusations of any kind, we can't really be sure if it's true: more often than not we have nor the power, nor the time to find if the info is true or not so we don't usually remove them, same with avoiding moderation of (real or not) scams. A different reason regarding racism - according to the forum policy, it's allowed since it's considered a person's opinion, even if it's offensive, and the forum prides itself on free speech.
Racism itself isn't the same as accusing someone else of racism, but that likely falls within the first category. Thank you for the answer. |
|
|
|
I think these examples are more than enough to demonstrate the behaviour which is occurring - at any rate, the OP included no evidence at all, but we all agree that it is happening. Anyhow, these people have zero effect on the success of the coins - popularity is achieved by smart marketing and the inherent value of the underlying technology, not hype men.
I'm not sure the original concern was even about the success of a coin. It was more about behavior of purchased and sock puppet accounts spreading lies. The examples you came up with were cheerleading (though minimal in volume -- looks to me like something a single immature participant did in one day and then lost interest) but were not lies. Other than the one claiming I worked for him as a shill, which was in fact a lie (and a good example of the type of post cited by OP). My concern specifically is fraudulent and abusive (and likely libelous, possibly in some places criminal) behavior of making false accusations of criminal acts, racism, and other unethical or disreputable behavior or characteristics. If you think that is just fine because it happens to involve an altcoin, we disagree. I would actually like to hear from forum mods and/or admin whether false accusations of criminal acts or racism are acceptable uses. |
|
|
|
It is somewhat controversial because people have various pet economic theories about how "currencies" are supposed to be. These have little to nothing to do with the technical issue of maintaining a distributed proof-of-work blockchain (which I happen to think requires a mining reward, though I acknowledge that some believe transaction fees can work), so in a sense the two sides are often talking past each other. |
|
|
|
This may have already been covered, but has anyone addressed the problem that AnonyMint has brought up? He seems like a very smart guy, and this should be worth looking into. This is very preliminary, but it appears to me that all anonymous coins based on unlinkability will not be able to solve the very serious double-spend threat. If am correct, this is both a major and fundamental solution for longest chain rule of proof-of-work, but it also eliminates unlinkability as a anonymity solution. Sorry to say. Again this is preliminary, and needs more peer review. Dear Monero devs, please answer this stuff. My English is not well to understand what does AnonyMint speak about. I just feel, he sheds light on possible fundamental vulnerability that says unlinkability is not compatible with longest chain rule of proof-of-work. I may mistake. He's referring to the fact that private transactions are not compatible with one particular tweak he has come up with for how blockchains work. His tweak is not a generally accepted method at all, nor it is generally accepted that such a tweak is needed to address the issues raised (though this does not necessarily imply the opposite), and is not implemented in any coin whatsoever. tldr: not relevant to any existing coin |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
