The better retort would be to argue that the as the adoption increases, the price will rise so the fixed size (in coins) tail reward has an adaptive valuation.
But I will retort that the value of shorting also scales up accordingly.
Shorting can't erase the cost due to PoW (burning energy). It can only erase a cost from loss of value of a holdings (PoS and other methods that claim to turn holding coins into "virtual miners"). If attacking a coin causes its price to decline, shorting can return a profit. If that profit exceeds the cost due to PoW, then it erased it. Cover the short, stop the attack. Repeat if the price rises again. Yes but if the attack doesn't succeed, the energy burn cost is still there (i.e. risk of failure) If, by contrast, you try to attack a coin almost costlessly via PoS exploits and if your attack doesn't succeed then your your coins nor your short loses value. Then you can just try again, until you succeed... I agree that "coins will go down in value" does not enhance the security of PoW; that would attempting to impute a some sort of stake-based incentive to mining, as some do, and that is flat out wrong, or at best, very weak security. |
|
|
|
uh... u were missing the point, the point is that no one care to use Monero if there is no improvement aside from anonimity. so what if Monero has the ultimate best anonimity  anonimity benefit scammer more than it benefit regular joe. Uhhhh...actually, it benefits the black marketeer more than it benefits the average Joe. And this is where we enter a somewhat thorny zone, relating to the fate of the United States and other advanced economies. Do you think that Donald Trump is a monster? Do you think his plan to build a wall for which "Mexico will pay for it" via confiscating remittances is monstrous? If so, then you're implicitly rooting for illegal immigrants to join a black market - a black market for remittances. Do you think that the cashless society would be an Edward-Snowden nightmare? If so, then you're implicitly rooting for ordinary Joes to (partially) join a black market - a black market for regular goods and services that the future authorities have red-flagged. Those "regular goods and services" might be as innocuous as certain frowned-upon books. Look at the mileage that Bill Nye the Censor Guy has gotten for his proposal to jail "deniers." It's speculative political questions like these which keep me interested in Monero. I could be wrong, and I admit that I'm a sucker for certain varieties of declinism. But all is not well in Pleasantville, and Monero - even if its use cases are solely confined to "real" black markets - can be seen as a kind of escape hatch for ordinary Joes if they need to hide what they do with their money. The "black market" arguments assume that the only source of oppression is from governments. The current reality is that a very significant amount of censorship and oppression is from entrenched corporate power. Some examples: 1) WikiLeaks suffered an economic blockade that was orchestrated illegally by Visa, MasterCard, Paypal and a host of major banks. There nothing "black market" about using Monero do an end run around an illegal corporate economic blockade. 2) Apple used DRM to censor the teachings of the Dali Lama, and has used DRM to censor all sorts of free speech. It used DRM to censor Bitcoin from 2009 - 2014 and is currently using DRM to censor Monero. 3) Amazon used DRM to censor George Orwell's 1984. 4) The MPAA and host of corporate interests tried to push the SOPA Internet censorship bill through the US Congress. When that failed they turned to waging a clandestine war against free speech and civil liberties on the Internet by attacking Google using Attorney Generals at the state level. The ultimate irony is that this attack on freedom and civil liberties was exposed as a result of the Sony server hacks. These hacks have been attributed to the Government of North Korea. The fact that even one of the most oppressive governments on the planet can strike such a worldwide blow for freedom and civil liberties illustrates the true evil in the MPAA. I can continue but there are many "white market" products and services that are currently censored by entrenched corporate power to provided a major market for Moenro . as usual u all assume that monero will perform as advertised. even if it does, dozen of other more capable and popular coin are implementing anonymity too. so, i still think that monero could be irrelevant in few years if there is no improvement. See rebuttal above. Monero is privacy-centric yes, but its merits are a package that is not even close to be replicated by any other project. |
|
|
|
VESTS are locked STEEM that get voting rights, dilution protection (essentially interest approximately equal to inflation), and can only be withdrawn over a period 104 weekly payments. Something >90% (maybe much higher, I haven't checked recently) of the STEEM supply is locked up in VESTS.
Should we lock up STEEM purchased from Bittrex in VESTS? But if you do you won't get them back for 2 years? "Over two years" not "for two years". When you transfer from vesting it schedules 104 equal weekly payments. The first is in one week. As for what you "should" do, you will have to make your own trading and investment decisions. |
|
|
|
[1] Note this means the tail reward security of Monero will be very weak and insufficient.
"Insufficient" is unclear because there is no unambiguous definition of how much is sufficient. In large part it depends on the decentralization of mining. If mining is decentralized then you only need a small (but still nonzero) incentive because any miner can't really do anything other than follow the longest chain rule. While raw hash rate attacks are possible (i.e. temporarily centralizing mining by incurring a cost), in a larger system they will have significant cost and will only succeed as long as the ongoing cost is paid. If mining is highly concentrated by nature then you are really only relying on the weak linear security of the block reward itself, and maybe not even that, because miners (e.g., hypothesized Chinese cartels) have all sorts of perverse incentives. Your statement would be correct if you added ", assuming mining becomes centralized as I have claimed it will." I will argue my statement was correct as stated, because there are other parties with significant resources and incentives who may not be mining normally but once the hashrate declines to the tail reward cost, they can then decide it is easier to attack the coin. It is still ambiguous what is "sufficient". The better retort would be to argue that the as the adoption increases, the price will rise so the fixed size (in coins) tail reward has an adaptive valuation.
But I will retort that the value of shorting also scales up accordingly.
Shorting can't erase the cost due to PoW (burning energy). It can only erase a cost from loss of value of a holdings (PoS and other methods that claim to turn holding coins into "virtual miners"). BTW, I would suggest that Tragedy of the Commons is an ineffective analogy for explaining whatever it is you are trying to explain because obviously-intelligent people such as ArticMine don't understand it. It may be that you are entirely correct, but if you want to communicate effectively you need a differently-worded explanation. |
|
|
|
[1] Note this means the tail reward security of Monero will be very weak and insufficient.
"Insufficient" is unclear because there is no unambiguous definition of how much is sufficient. In large part it depends on the decentralization of mining. If mining is decentralized then you only need a small (but still nonzero) incentive because any miner can't really do anything other than follow the longest chain rule. While raw hash rate attacks are possible (i.e. temporarily centralizing mining by incurring a cost), in a larger system they will have significant cost and will only succeed as long as the ongoing cost is paid. If mining is highly concentrated by nature then you are really only relying on the weak linear security of the block reward itself, and maybe not even that, because miners (e.g., hypothesized Chinese cartels) have all sorts of perverse incentives. Your statement would be correct if you added ", assuming mining becomes centralized as I have claimed it will." |
|
|
|
I wonder what price will be like once withdrawn vests start rolling in? I don't understand what vests are for. Are you implying a dump is coming? VESTS are locked STEEM that get voting rights, dilution protection (essentially interest approximately equal to inflation), and can only be withdrawn over a period 104 weekly payments. Something >90% (maybe much higher, I haven't checked recently) of the STEEM supply is locked up in VESTS. |
|
|
|
Quote from: r0ach on April 18, 2016, 08:36:11 PM
Wasn't the Bitpay solution the one where there's no negative incentive for continuously inflating the block size over time? I haven't really spent any time examining any of the adaptive block size proposals, but it's obviously not as simple as just coding up something that sounds logical if you're unable to identify all the various game theory and attack vectors involved.
John's answer
I've never seen a proposal other than mine that had working code. Fixed block sizes "by design" are attack vectors. You cannot keep growing the block size, this does not work as it is nothing more than a "fixed variable" since it only grows. If transaction's grind to a halt you end up with 100 MB blocks that could be targeted. I've solved the problem in a deterministic way that does not break consensus rules and XVC is moving forward with it so we never have to think about it again. Shocked
Report to moderator
John Connor
Vcash Chief Architect
Website - Offical ANN
Monero and prior to that Bytecoin has had working dynamic block size code since early 2014. It has been proven in the wild against three at least spam environments, one due to poorly-written pool code and twice against malicious attacks. every body knows that monero copy&paste bytecoin code. Whichever you prefer, debating between BCN and XMR is obviously off topic here. Either way the claim that there is no prior working code is wrong. |
|
|
|
I believe it's not only CPU miners that are at stake here. Even signatures could be validated 2-4 at a time, on the same subroutine, to get SIMD benefits. So scaling is affected as well. It would need the main routine to be adjusted accordingly instead of sending 1 for processing (per thread) to 2-4 (per thread) and expect back 2-4. Heck, even cracking speed could be improved.
Signatures should eventually be verified on GPUs (or similar SIMD units that get integrated into CPUs in time). That will happen when it is needed. CPU SIMD instructions are kind of interesting but also kind of narrowly-targeted. Processing large amounts of data in a fixed pipeline will still be more efficient on GPU-type architectures. |
|
|
|
Quote from: r0ach on April 18, 2016, 08:36:11 PM
Wasn't the Bitpay solution the one where there's no negative incentive for continuously inflating the block size over time? I haven't really spent any time examining any of the adaptive block size proposals, but it's obviously not as simple as just coding up something that sounds logical if you're unable to identify all the various game theory and attack vectors involved.
John's answer
I've never seen a proposal other than mine that had working code Monero and prior to that Bytecoin has had working dynamic block size code since early 2014. It has been proven in the wild against three at least spam environments, one due to poorly-written pool code and twice against malicious attacks. |
|
|
|
1) The miner's main routine sends to the hashing routine 2 (SSE) (or 4 for AVX) inputs for checking, not one.
2) A hashing routine with 2 (or 4) inputs and 2 (or 4) outputs.
That is normally how SIMD code is written yes. It is why structs of arrays is more SIMD-friendly than arrays of structs. (Good) GPU SIMD code including miners works just that way, even the first BTC miners I think. If you think CPU miners can be optimized the do more SIMD processing, and you are probably right in at least some cases, then go optimize and make some money. |
|
|
|
three tenets of unbacked electronic cash.
That you made up. Nothing wrong with that of course. Just noticing. |
|
|
|
Lies? I posted exactly the message I got from the forum bot when you deleted my post, which was not at all a lie. It was 100% factual. Good thing is, we don't need to argue about your scammy agenda-driven self-moderation any more, anyone who would like to discuss discuss things can do so here on this nice unmoderated thread. Enjoy! |
|
|
|
in the long run, moneros inflation is irrelevant tho... what matter is when all top 10 coin has anonymity implemented, how would xmr will stay relevant ASIC-resistant pure-PoW coin with many independent miners, fair launched, healthy distribution (objectively shown by high available liquidity), vibrant and inclusive open source project that demonstrably attracts developers, integrated into a privacy-centric development effort including the privacy-enhanced cryptocurrency and I2P router development, deployed and proven dynamic block size scalability, 2-year maturity. I just looked at the top 10 coins. None have a very strong subset of these qualities. There is no risk to Monero's differentiation in the foreseeable future. honestly i want to hear more good news from xmr community regarding their wallet, as i too once xmr holder and convert all of them when i realize xmr dev seem ignoring investors call for improvement. I guess you are not aware of the active project underway, funded by the community, to complete development of a brand new GUI wallet. If you were I doubt you would characterize that as 'call for improvement' being ignored. in other POV, ASIC-resistant pure-PoW CPU mineable coin are botnet paradise Maybe it is, I don't run botnets so I don't know. I do know I personally have miners running that are slightly profitable after paying for electricity and that add to the strength and decentralization of the network. I'm hardly the only one either. Botnets probably exist, large mining farms probably exist, but they don't shut anyone out. oh great news, ill wait for good news from Monero wallet development then. You can wait for a release or follow along in real time on github and the project thread at forum.getmonero.org |
|
|
|
in the long run, moneros inflation is irrelevant tho... what matter is when all top 10 coin has anonymity implemented, how would xmr will stay relevant ASIC-resistant pure-PoW coin with many independent miners, fair launched, healthy distribution (objectively shown by high available liquidity), vibrant and inclusive open source project that demonstrably attracts developers, integrated into a privacy-centric development effort including the privacy-enhanced cryptocurrency and I2P router development, deployed and proven dynamic block size scalability, 2-year project and code maturity, well-defined governance, strong experienced core team with diverse skills, proven forum funding system (crowdfunding). I just looked at the top 10 coins. None have a very strong subset of these qualities. There is no risk to Monero's differentiation in the foreseeable future. honestly i want to hear more good news from xmr community regarding their wallet, as i too once xmr holder and convert all of them when i realize xmr dev seem ignoring investors call for improvement. I guess you are not aware of the active project underway, funded by the community, to complete development of a brand new GUI wallet. If you were I doubt you would characterize that as 'call for improvement' being ignored. |
|
|
|
They have completed their project which will be bigger than Bitcoin is.
Impressive. I'm looking forward to testing your prediction. How long would you say is a fair time period? |
|
|
|
Smooth, how much resources do most nodes of coins need to run in comparison to VCash?
I don't know. Why don't you tell us about how Vcash nodes are different from other coins' nodes? |
|
|
|
hard to call a forum neutral when it is made by an XMR developer, but we will see.
Since it is not self-moderated I have no more control over it than anybody else (excluding forum mods). The only thing I could do is lock it, which I do not plan to do. |
|
|
|
Both coins have huge insider premines for a reason (so the devs can eat as they develop their products). Also known on Wall Street as EQUITY. Crypto coins are not equity and the misleading comparison is often made for scamming purposes (no comment on either of these coins in particular). The difference is that with equity you have a legal claim against the net assets of a business, with a coin you do not have any kind of claim on anything. Chill out dude? Are you a kop or something? Did you see me flashing a badge or arresting someone? I have an opinion, and I decided to share it. Use or ignore as you see fit. |
|
|
|
|
You can mine on pools with GPUs -- that is easy. It only becomes harder to mine with GPUs if you want to solo because then you need your own pool set up. The GPU miners can't connect directly to the daemon.
|
|
|
|
Both coins have huge insider premines for a reason (so the devs can eat as they develop their products). Also known on Wall Street as EQUITY. Crypto coins are not equity and the misleading comparison is often made for scamming purposes (no comment on either of these coins in particular). The difference is that with equity you have a legal claim against the net assets of a business, with a coin you do not have any kind of claim on anything. It is often valued solely on the basis of hype and promotion (and what you can resell it for to a greater fool). Again, those are general thoughts, and these coins may be different. I'm not commenting. So team STEEM is poised to produce a blockchain+GUI by July.
There is already a blockchain and as I understand it you can post content via the wallet. I haven't tried though, just mined. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
