I have issues with dash as well, but you won't see me raising them in a Monero thread. This thread is under hands-free moderation, so we need to police ourselves. I think the decent thing to do, if you want to badmouth some other coin, is to take it to an appropriate thread. Go to the lion's den, or stake out a neutral ground. Don't please drag Monero into your beef. If there are observations relating to speculation, please take them to a speculation thread.
You mean like how you don't drag your beef with Core and consequent Bitcoin Obituary badmouthing into Monero threads?  Making XMR supporters look like we need/want Bitcoin to fail in order for our success isn't a decent thing to do. As the long-term leader by market cap (and soda machines) in the privacy-coin space, Dash is entirely relevant to XMR discussion. Making XMR supporters all look like sharks attacking DASH constantly isn't a decent thing to do, either - you do it on a regular. Fluffypony, smooth, dnaleor, and dEBRUYNE "attack" DASH fraud for the same reasons (instamined, centralized, bad crypto, snake oil HYIP marketing, etc.) I do. Oh noez!  Quick, fetch your crying towel and have a good sniffle!  |
|
|
|
Monero does what no other anonymous coins can do and
I do mean ALL of them. Once we have the GUI wallet, I think we will
probably cross the .01 threshod within months. And I am not sure
dash will be able to maintain its price then.
I heard the backdoor slam as the Dasholes left the building yesterday, they couldn't take another day of gains for Monero. I can remember the days not so long ago the Dash/Dark people were over here trashing Monero. Their volume has gone low and the price has been dropping. Pre-Mine scam coins do that in the long run. Prior speculation about Dash market cap leaking into Monero looks more legitimate every day. Pity the poor DashHoles. They had such great hopes for Livecoin (the Russian scam exchange) and Exmo (their newest scam exchange). And the Evan's Gate cargo cult truly believed CNY pairs on Bitfinex/BTC38 would lift their scam's outlook back to the heady days of Darkcoin hype. Alas, 'twas not to be. Anyone who wanted Darkcoins bought them years ago, and nobody wants the post-hamfisted-rebrand Dash trash. The funny thing is that now matter how bad the charts get and how low the volume slumps, DashHole cheerleaders always post rosy predictions about incoming pumps. And despite all the whining about Poloniex ('zomg it's not fair you can short Dash, zomg Polo favors Evil Monero, boo hoo hoo!'), almost no volume has moved away from there. LIVECOIN  EXMO DASH |
|
|
|
I have issues with dash as well, but you won't see me raising them in a Monero thread. This thread is under hands-free moderation, so we need to police ourselves. I think the decent thing to do, if you want to badmouth some other coin, is to take it to an appropriate thread. Go to the lion's den, or stake out a neutral ground. Don't please drag Monero into your beef. If there are observations relating to speculation, please take them to a speculation thread.
You mean like how you don't drag your beef with Core and consequent Bitcoin Obituary badmouthing into Monero threads? Making XMR supporters look like we need/want Bitcoin to fail in order for our success isn't a decent thing to do. As the long-term leader by market cap (and soda machines) in the privacy-coin space, Dash is entirely relevant to XMR discussion. Point about speculation taken; I'll move the convo to our trollbox thread since it was more about price than technology.  Back on topic: Why doesn't Polo have an ETH/XMR pair?  Polo's top two coins, one of which saved them from their stolen losses and the other that made them the #1 altcoin exchange, are not available for direct conversion? Why bother having XMR pairs at all if only low volume shitcoins are listed? |
|
|
|
limiting Bitcoin to 7000 nodes exclusively in data centers undermines the DIVERSITY of its network (and thus its interesting antifragile property).
What you are describing is security through obscurity, I favor security through ubiquity. What I described is security though DIVERSITY (in conjunction with diffuseness/defensibility/resiliency). I didn't say nodes should ONLY exist in obscure Asian jungles and Florida swaps, to the exclusion of ubiquity. I said those far-flung geographically/politically obscure full nodes are essential complements to the high bandwidth ones hosted in data centers (not, as you dishonestly imply, replacements for them). That would be plainly obvious if you hadn't omitted the quote(s) to which you were purportedly responding. Knock off the lying by omission and context redaction, or GTFO. |
|
|
|
I updated http://bit.ly/xmrcharts with some XMRDASH charts now. Check the tabs to see all charts: * XMRUSD all time line chart + marketcap * XMRUSD 100 day candlestick chart * XMRBTC all time line chart + marketcap * XMRDASH all time line chart * XMRDASH 100 day candlestick chart edit: these will also be added to my website soonish. Nice.  XMR/XAG and XMR/XAU plz! Maybe CNY and EUR too. |
|
|
|
there might be an outcry over monero similar to the hissy fit Chuck Schumer had over bitcoin. A spark can turn into a wildfire of public outrage, fanned by the powers that be, and for example the NSA might apply its computing power to attacking monero. I think that scenario is unlikely, but it's possible. Chuck Schumer is among the highest paid whores working the NY-DC circuit. The shameful, obscene things that filthy, corrupt SOB will do with his mouth for money would make Max Hardcore blush (or vomit in disgust). But he did kick off Bitcoin's Great Rally to $1200, by grandstanding in a press conference, next to a laptop his interns got logged in to Silk Road ("ZOMG ITS EBAY FOR SCAARY EEVIL DRUUGS"). So Roger Ver has nothing on Schumer in terms of Bitcoin evangelism. IMO we should contact Schumer as 'concerned citizens/banksters' and try to get him to perform a similar dramatic act with Monero as the subject. Convince Schumer Monero is the biggest threat to his cushy phony-baloney mouth-whoring job, and we will reap PR dividends for years to come!  |
|
|
|
The global average does not make any sense. You need only 7000 enterprise level 1Gbps full nodes and mining nodes to keep the system decentralized, and rest of the slow internet user can just use SPV nodes. And you can already do it today. In 5 years, those full nodes can be upgraded to 10Gbps
You are the one who isn't making sense. I have no idea why ICEBREAKER even lets you spread nonsense here. People who run nodes don't really have an incentive (aside from businesses and miners?) to spend even more money on them. Even if we disregard the cost in advanced countries, exactly how do you plan that node operators in third world countries to upgrade to 1 Gbps (not to mention 10 Gbps)? Oh right, they don't matter for you (IIRC you mentioned the network being okay with 100 nodes; I could be mistaken). I let johnyj spread nonsense because that creates a teachable moment. For example, his nonsensical assertion about the network only needing "7000 enterprise level 1Gbps full nodes and mining nodes to keep the system decentralized" provies an ideal opportunity for educating him about the role DIVERSITY plays in a DIVERSE/diffuse/defensible/resilient (AKA "decentralized") network. Thanks to his nonsense, we now have the chance to point out that limiting Bitcoin to 7000 nodes exclusively in data centers undermines the DIVERSITY of its network (and thus its interesting antifragile property). The Visa-killing 1000tps-on-Layer-One thing johnyj wants isn't Bitcoin. Bitcoin lives in diverse niches, deep in the jungles of Asia and swamps of Florida; it cannot be shut down by a few phones calls to some (uninvested/unintersted) NETOPS guys at a few dozen COLO facilities. What johnyj wants is something I call CoinbaseCoin. CoinbaseCoin is what we'd get if we prematurely (IE prior to post-fiat Cryptopia) restrict Bitcoin to data centers, ignoring the engineering requirement it be above the law. When Bitcoin has accomplished its primary mission of disrupting central banking and ensuring Chancellors may no longer consider bailouts for TBTF banks, then we may relegate most full nodes to data centers. But until we usher in the Golden Age of Satoshi, full nodes must be kept in places where the long arm of the BIS cannot easily reach. |
|
|
|
Now (with current volume as high as it is) is the appropriate time to bug the folks at Kraken about offering XMR trading pairs.
Never too early to start asking, but IMO Kraken won't GAF about XMR until we (at minimum) surpass Dash's market cap. ATM XMR isn't a big/deep enough pool for whales to swim in comfortably, but I am 99.9% certain we will get there Soon ®. Nice to see lending rates shooting up to 0.5%. This is where I berate all the cheap+stupid+greedy fuckwits who are lending their coins for dust (especially those locked into rates <0.1%), when, by not trying to undercut their fellow lenders, they could have enjoyed an actual return commensurate to the risk entailed by keeping coins online in a likely-to-be-Gox'd exchange. I told all of you it was silly and counterproductive to effectively subsidize loans with below-market desperation rates. I told all of you offering 0.001% loans when there was no demand was like screaming into a vacuum. 0.5% daily is (without compounding) 183% annual yield. 1 XMR lent at 0.5% provides the same return as 500 lent at 0.001%. Can you hear me now? Was it worth playing crabs-in-a-bucket to get tacoshi dust, while those of us willing to cooperate rather than compete enjoy our fat, juicy ROI?  (Apologies in advance to anyone lending ~free coins in order to set a trap for shorts. I love you MoonWhale!!!!) |
|
|
|
Why sell an amazing coin?
1. 80% of net hash are botnets 2. No one uses it, blocks carry no transactions ( http://chainradar.com/xmr/blocks). 3. Obsolete - Ethereum Serenity release will include a ring signature dapp (confirmed by Vitalik) Can you prove "80% of net hash are botnets?" And isn't it better for botnets to mine XMR rather than be kept busy sending spam or ddosing hapless Classic fail-nodes? At least two BTC core devs said they use Monero as a privacy layer for Bitcoin. Are you calling them liars? How long until Serenity is released? Can you prove its ring sig implementation won't be broken like Shen broke Shadowcash's? And where is the link to Vitalik confirming ETH's privacy dapp will use RingCT (hidden amounts) instead of just normal cryptonote? |
|
|
|
If I am interpreting the book correctly, there should be two more jump cycles before our new friend is full, and the price will stabilize north of 400 (conservatively) in about a week.
Let's speculate about why MoonWhale is feasting like a duck prior to migration. Perhaps they have insider info about upcoming listings on high volume exchanges. Perhaps those new exchanges will offer XMR/EUR, XMR/USD, and XMR/CNY. Perhaps Polo is going to offer an ETH/XMR pair? Perhaps this moment of uncertainty about the imminent hard fork is MoonWhale's last chance to accumulate cheap XMR before the price is driven up by influx of fiat. Right now, only BTC (and Dash/ETH) market caps may easily leak into XMR's. But what happens when quadrillions of fiat fun-bux have a smoother path into XMR, as the friction caused by the BTC middleware layer is removed? Fun fact: Although Polo is by far the largest Dash exchange, its volume is now so relatively low you have to scroll down to find it. You also have to scroll down past the first page to find Dash on (volume sorted) CMC. How nice to see that instamined scam coin languishing in obscurity while XMR shines at the top, second only to ETH! |
|
|
|
Moore's law wasn't intended to last forever. However it deals primarily with miniaturization and not direct performance improvement.
Ok, so when AI will write the assembly language then stuff will become efficient, thats good, but that also wont last forever. Eventually you will hit a hardcap on efficiency and the growth curve will become logarithmic.
The stupid classic supporters on the other hand want exponential growth forever, which will eventually end bitcoin, inevitably. When the gains from AI designed compilers and architectures flatten out, we'll design AI that creates better AI.  |
|
|
|
But they told me Classic was Core with only a 2 MB block size limit It was. Well, that plus a nice guard against malevolently-created blocks. A couple of releases ago. But there have been improvements since. Do try to keep up. Improvements such as whatever is popular on Consider.it? |
|
|
|
Mow thinks the Bitcoin community should simply allow the Bitcoin Core contributors to get back to work. He stated, “I think what we need to do is give the Core team time to write the code . . . These debates and the drama takes time away from them, and it slows the developers down.” Classic formula for success: 1. Slow down development with debates and drama 2. Complain about slow development 3. 4. Profit! |
|
|
|
Are sigs in the witness data immune from malicious tx via lots of sigs?
I think they are since the transaction is hashed differently if the transaction uses witnesses. The different hashing method allows for faster hashes by using midstates which can be reused for every signature verification. well that's good, but would be nice to see it explicitly instead of having to assume. oh, thanks for the URL about segwit implementation, that helped me understand it a lot better James Explicitly stated here: SF Bitcoin Devs Seminar: Key Tree Signatures https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcQLWeFmpYg |
|
|
|
Seems there are an awful lot of offers there grasping for pennies. Hardly worth the effort?
I recall earlier posts suggesting 0.1% as a minimum asking rate, and given the particulars, that seems reasonable. Less than that... To each his own, I guess. Though I don't see how you could get a reasonable rate when there are plenty of offers at next to nothing. I tried to raise group consciousness above the 'crabs in a bucket' level, but it seems people prefer a race to the bottom mentality, as they insist on underpricing their assets and thus functionally subsidize loans. They won't win anything for placing in that race, because when XMR is down or flat there is no demand for loans at any rate, and when it spikes the cheap, nearly free loans are quickly gobbled up. The winning/optimal strategy is to offer coins starting around 0.1%, ignore the shitlords grasping for pennies, let them act as cannon fodder during loan demand spikes, and sit back as those stuck defending/maintaining short positions are forced to pay reasonable rates (or cover at a loss). |
|
|
|
Absent the Schnorr sigs enabled by segwit, 2mb blocks would require "other general tweeks" in the form of restricting old style quadratic scaling sigs to some magic number maximum.
The initial depoyment of SegWit will not enable Schnorr signatures, will it? Won't they require a hard fork anyway? Even with Schnorr signatures, the miners would still have to accept old-style multisigs produced by old clients, right? Then an attacker could still generate those hard-to-validate blocks, no? As a temporary fix, a soft fork can be deployed limiting the max number of signatures. Even a low limit like 100 is no restriction, only a small annoyance for the few users who would want to use more It woudl be a good use of an "arbitrary numerical limit", like the 1 MB limit was when it was introduced. But there is no logical reason why signature validation should take quadratic time. That is a bug in the protocol, that should be fixed by changing the algorithm -- with a hard fork if need be. (By the way, [for a couple of hours today]( https://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/transactions?from=1458258715516&to=1458259562505) there was an apparent "stress test" where each transaction was 10 kB long (rather than the usual 0.5 kB). Was the "tester" trying to generate such troll blocks?) Good questions. Let's try reading the fantastic manual: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/01/26/segwit-benefits/#linear-scaling-of-sighash-operationsLinear scaling of sighash operations
A major problem with simple approaches to increasing the Bitcoin blocksize is that for certain transactions, signature-hashing scales quadratically rather than linearly.
Linear versus quadratic
In essence, doubling the size of a transaction increases can double both the number of signature operations, and the amount of data that has to be hashed for each of those signatures to be verified. This has been seen in the wild, where an individual block required 25 seconds to validate, and maliciously designed transactions could take over 3 minutes.
Segwit resolves this by changing the calculation of the transaction hash for signatures so that each byte of a transaction only needs to be hashed at most twice. This provides the same functionality more efficiently, so that large transactions can still be generated without running into problems due to signature hashing, even if they are generated maliciously or much larger blocks (and therefore larger transactions) are supported.
Who benefits?
Removing the quadratic scaling of hashed data for verifying signatures makes increasing the block size safer. Doing that without also limiting transaction sizes allows Bitcoin to continue to support payments that go to or come from large groups, such as payments of mining rewards or crowdfunding services.
The modified hash only applies to signature operations initiated from witness data, so signature operations from the base block will continue to require lower limits. |
|
|
|
Core could propose a 2mb hard limit be implemented first, as 2mb is also on their to do list? (nothing else. no other general tweeks) Absent the Schnorr sigs enabled by segwit, 2mb blocks would require "other general tweeks" in the form of restricting old style quadratic scaling sigs to some magic number maximum. Even Gavin concluded that was a Bad Idea, because otherwise we get obnoxiously construed troll blocks that take a minute or longer to process. And that means more empty blocks, because miners aren't going to stop mining while the troll blocks complete validation sigops. Please stop suggesting and advocating nonsense and misinformation about " The One Simple Trick To Scale Bitcoin That Core Doesn't Want You To Know." |
|
|
|
I think it's reasonable to assume that the big FUD storm regarding bitcoin blocksize had made more bitcoiners interested in diversifying into altcoins, I've notice a trend of high profile bitcoin figures voicing support for various altcoins or jumping on the BTC FUD train.
"FUD train" is a bit dismissive and papers over the fact that for the first time, Bitcoin is meaningfully handing key use-cases to alts. Core's roadmap that clearly has no regard for keeping on-chain fees as cheap as possible for as long as possible, is opening the door for alts to satisfy the demand for secure & cheap transactions. Further, Core stonewalling the community, and stagnating development that's actually meaningful to users is scary. Thus, the key thesis that Bitcoin can and will adapt when necessary, and/or adopt innovations from alt-coins (adaptive blocksize anyone?) when it's clearly advantageous to do so, is now empirically in question. So you can count me as one of the people who's been staunchly Bitcoiin-maximalist for *years*, but is now questioning Bitcoin's direction in a fundamental way that I have not before. There hasn't been an event in Bitcoin, until now, which threatens to fundamentally change Bitcoin's longterm vision and key value. So it's pretty darn reasonable for people to start looking elsewhere. I personally haven't converted any cold-storage BTC to alts, but as you note, I'm seeing long-time Bitcoiners do so (or at least talk about it) for the first time. Core and supporters may want to take notice before the reality that Bitcoin is not operating in a competition-free vacuum hits them in the face. There's still time to fix this. But not much. I am a Maximalist ('BTC's Holy Ledger is the Mother of All Blockchains and Father of All Settlement Networks'), but not a Maximalist Monopolist Supremacist ('only BTC should exist; all alts are scams Because Natural Monopoly and Reasons'). Like smoothie and many others, I've been advocating/predicting Nash equilibrium among Bitcoin and the (legtimate) alts since Litecoin was created. So spare us the strawman about delusions of Bitcoin "operating in a competition-free vacuum." Your FUD train is a FUD train, and deserves to be dismissed. Reiterating your train of FUD doesn't change that, but confirms everything Kozi said. Nothing fundamental in Bitcoin has changed; it still works almost perfectly. Your Chicken Little 'sky-is-falling' panic inducement has no effect on the Honey Badger. He doesn't really give a shit about your 'this-time-is-different-FOR-SURE' litany of fretfulness and "stonewalling/stagnating/scary" rhetoric of concern trolling. The world adapts to Honey Badger; he does not jump through the latest trendy software hoop every time some Panicky Penelopes feel like wetting their pants over losing use cases (marginal or otherwise) to altcoins. You even put the classic false sense of urgency in at the end of your post. Nice touch. Very good ad copy, what with the creation of a need/problem, offer of a solution, and final call to action. But sorry, no sale. Control variables like blocksize, which effect the economics and decentralization of e-cash/crypto experiments, are not going to be changed for no good reason. We'll have segwit ASAP, so let's calm down and avoid having a Hearnia.  The proper way to expand the experimental search of e-cash state space is by creating parallel experiments with adjusted parameters. It's best to have Bitcoin follow through on its commitment to limited/fixed blocks, while Monero tries a different approach with dynamic blocks. Bolting onto Bitcoin the latest shiny new altcoin thing only concentrates risk and reduces diversity of options available to users. |
|
|
|
It's a travesty that Coinmarketcap would not categorize ETH as significantly premined. What are they smoking?
For one glorious hour or so, CMC recognized Dash as **premined. Then some highly influential DashHole made a phone call, and the brief encounter with honesty ended. CMC = CoinTelegraph = Bytecoin/Dash/etc. scammers. Never Forget. A Scam Accusation thread for Gliss is long overdue.... He knows Dash was effectively premined, but hides behind semantics and technicalities to avoid stating that truth, preferring instead to list Dash among fairly launched (ie non-instamined) coins. Eschew CMC, embrace CoinGecko. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
