Thanks. You are annoying and pretentious but you aren't dumb. I'll have to take some time to digest this.
When I am trying to win over the affection a lot of people, it won't be with words. I have a couple of 1 million user software accomplishments in my resume already. Comments like these are exactly the reason why you annoy me so much. Why can't you just rely on your arguments instead of appealing to authority. Who the he'll cares how many people used your software. Good arguments aren't made bad if no people used your software and bad arguments art made good if a billion people used your software. No one cares how wonderful you think you are. |
|
|
|
Ok so im reading the mini blockchain whitepaper. It appears to be a marginal improvement in some ways but it doesnt address the fundemental difficulty in scaling blockchains. The scalability problem doesn’t have anything to do with the size of the blockchain. It comes from the fact that each actor's transactions must be verified by all other network participants. Its the same math as network effects, except its a negative network effect.
Suppose actors make 1 transaction per minute.
1 actors = 0 verifications because he doesnt need to verify his own transactions.
2 actors = 2 transactions per minute. 2 * 2 actors = 4 transactions verifications. They dont need to verify their own so 4 - 2 = 2.
3 actors = 3 transactions per minute. 3 * 3 = 9 verifications. they dont need to verify their own so 9 - 3 = 6.
4 actors = (4*4)-4=12
5 actors = (5*5)-5=20
ect...
0,2,6,12,20,30,42,56,72
This very quickly gets out of hand when you consider that there is a cost associated with verifying a transaction. even if that cost is infinitesimal.
Actors (users) are not verifying nodes, so you math is slightly incorrect in that respect. However, your point remains valid that transactions scale O(NxN) by Metcalf or Reed's law. And verifying nodes probably don't scale by N actors. However, Metcalf's law doesn't tell you the frequencies at which actors do transactions. Visa is currently at about 6000 transactions per second, so this can be verified with a single Intel CPU, so no problem for verifying nodes. Scaling up to 6 billion people and micro transactions (more frequent transactions) might present a scaling problem. I've looked at Lamport signatures schemes that can verify 100,000+ transactions per second on a single i7 cpu. Since verifying nodes tend to be pools with considerably more resources (amortized over a large amount of hashrate), then a 10 - 100 cpu farm (or a Tilera 64 core cpu) is not unfathomable without destroying decentralization of pools. Long-term the solution is simple. An ASIC for verification will scale sufficiently to 6 billion and micro transactions. In short, no problem! Mini-block chain addresses the problem of block chain size and its impact on decentralization of mining. Cryptonite does not include anonymity however. Thanks. You are annoying and pretentious but you aren't dumb. I'll have to take some time to digest this. |
|
|
|
You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.
A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential. I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well. Don't conflate the growth of the value and adoption of the coin, with a fixed percentage. Come on now. Your IQ is higher than this. You are strawmanning. He only said a constant % rate of growth causes exponential growth. Nothing about the value of anything. Incorrect. He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin. I getting close to putting you on ignore because you are causing me to make noise posts in order to correct your careless noise. You don't read and comprehend before you post. Hey before you do that though can you take a look at my response to your claim that miniblockchain addresses the scalability problem. |
|
|
|
You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.
A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential. I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well. Don't conflate the growth of the value and adoption of the coin, with a fixed percentage. Come on now. Your IQ is higher than this. You are strawmanning. He only said a constant % rate of growth causes exponential growth. Nothing about the value of anything. Incorrect. He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin. I getting close to putting you on ignore because you are causing me to make noise posts in order to correct your careless noise. You don't read and comprehend before you post. You are getting very close to my ignore list as well. Maybe we are a good match for each others ignore lists. |
|
|
|
|
My computer broke and I'm on a tablet now so I won't be very active for a few days. See you guys in a few days
|
|
|
|
You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.
A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential. I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well. Don't conflate the growth of the value and adoption of the coin, with a fixed percentage. Come on now. Your IQ is higher than this. You are strawmanning. He only said a constant % rate of growth causes exponential growth. Nothing about the value of anything. |
|
|
|
So I've been trying to think what I could do to help the community. My last idea didn't work out. So I was thinking, what if I made it super easy for people to acquire monero.
1) Send bitcoin to address through blockchain.info with a note attached containing your monero address. (or alternatively digitally sign your monero address with what ever bitcoin address you send from)
2) I use that much bitcoin to perform a market order on the exchange
3) I send how ever much monero I am able to buy to your monero address
Would anyone be interested in this service. You benefit because you don't have to make an account a poloniex or find people in the otc. I benefit because people buying pushes up the price and i hold a monero or two myself.
The only thing is that maybe going onto the exchange and buying yourself is easy enough that this isnt worth it but im curious what you guys think. if this sounds like a service that would be super valuable to you than who am I to judge.
Would probably be more interesting if you make it as automatic as possible (ie, immediate) with a fixed price. Fixed price not being absolute of course, but something like poloniex + N%. Not knowing how much XMR you'll get when sending your BTC would be very hard to most people, I think. I don't know enough about security to make something like this and not get hacked. |
|
|
|
|
So I've been trying to think what I could do to help the community. My last idea didn't work out. So I was thinking, what if I made it super easy for people to acquire monero.
1) Send bitcoin to address through blockchain.info with a note attached containing your monero address. (or alternatively digitally sign your monero address with what ever bitcoin address you send from)
2) I use that much bitcoin to perform a market order on the exchange
3) I send how ever much monero I am able to buy to your monero address
Would anyone be interested in this service. You benefit because you don't have to make an account a poloniex or find people in the otc. I benefit because people buying pushes up the price and i hold a monero or two myself.
The only thing is that maybe going onto the exchange and buying yourself is easy enough that this isnt worth it but im curious what you guys think. if this sounds like a service that would be super valuable to you than who am I to judge.
|
|
|
|
I translated the monero.cc Getting started page to Bulgarian. I wrote the first news about Monero in Bulgarian ( http://changetheworldwork.com/cryptonote-monero/) and it got cited and linked in a popular Bulgarian exchanges ( https://coinfixer.com/novini/cryptonote-nov-protokol-za-kriptovaluti/) and ( http://bitcoini.com?r=489 ). I helped many new members to get easier into Monero by providing user support whenever I could. Last but not least I generated a Brainfuck ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck) code to print "Monero is the best!" to the screen: ++++++++[>+>++>+++>++++>+++++>++++++>+++++++>++++++++>+++++++++>++++++++++>+++++++++++>++++++++++++>
+++++++++++++>++++++++++++++>+++++++++++++++>++++++++++++++++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<-]>>>>>>>>>>---.+++<<<<<
<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-.+<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>--.++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>---.+++<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>++.--<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>-.+<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>.<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>+.-<<<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>+++.---<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>.<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----.++++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>.<<<<<<
<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>---.+++<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>.<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>++.--<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>---.+++<<<<<
<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>+++.---<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>----.++++<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>+.-<<<<.
Ok pm me your address. |
|
|
|
Ok so im reading the mini blockchain whitepaper. It appears to be a marginal improvement in some ways but it doesnt address the fundemental difficulty in scaling blockchains. The scalability problem doesn’t have anything to do with the size of the blockchain. It comes from the fact that each actor's transactions must be verified by all other network participants. Its the same math as network effects, except its a negative network effect.
Suppose actors make 1 transaction per minute.
1 actors = 0 verifications because he doesnt need to verify his own transactions.
2 actors = 2 transactions per minute. 2 * 2 actors = 4 transactions verifications. They dont need to verify their own so 4 - 2 = 2.
3 actors = 3 transactions per minute. 3 * 3 = 9 verifications. they dont need to verify their own so 9 - 3 = 6.
4 actors = (4*4)-4=12
5 actors = (5*5)-5=20
ect...
0,2,6,12,20,30,42,56,72
This very quickly gets out of hand when you consider that there is a cost associated with verifying a transaction. even if that cost is infinitesimal.
Maybe the miniblockchain addresses this criticism and I just missed it though.
I've been perpetually confused as to how the finite miniblockchain scheme can possibly be used to enforce data consensus in a byzantine generals problem-like network. I'd appreciate it if someone could ELI5 it to me. It does it by having a blockchain and in that blockchain they store a merkel root hash of the database of all active addresses and their balances. In essense it solves it exactly the way bitcoin does, just at its core its being used to enforce consensus on a record of account balances rather than a record of transactions. |
|
|
|
can this also be done in the past - I am not entirely sure if I want to make it a) public and b) if someone else did the same - I think we all profited by that quite massively  10 monero donated in nakaone's name to the development fund |
|
|
|
|
Ok so im reading the mini blockchain whitepaper. It appears to be a marginal improvement in some ways but it doesnt address the fundemental difficulty in scaling blockchains. The scalability problem doesn’t have anything to do with the size of the blockchain. It comes from the fact that each actor's transactions must be verified by all other network participants. Its the same math as network effects, except its a negative network effect.
Suppose actors make 1 transaction per minute.
1 actors = 0 verifications because he doesnt need to verify his own transactions.
2 actors = 2 transactions per minute. 2 * 2 actors = 4 transactions verifications. They dont need to verify their own so 4 - 2 = 2.
3 actors = 3 transactions per minute. 3 * 3 = 9 verifications. they dont need to verify their own so 9 - 3 = 6.
4 actors = (4*4)-4=12
5 actors = (5*5)-5=20
ect...
0,2,6,12,20,30,42,56,72
This very quickly gets out of hand when you consider that there is a cost associated with verifying a transaction. even if that cost is infinitesimal.
Maybe the miniblockchain addresses this criticism and I just missed it though.
|
|
|
|
Cryponite (not Cryptonote) already exists. It is proven in terms of there is an implementation in the real world. I'll look into it. |
|
|
|
Perhaps but neither of those two things are "yammering in this thread all day long"
You probably have 10 times more posts in this thread than I do. And i also dont claim to know how to solve the blockchain scalability problem. I shouldn't need to explain this. I already told you the Mini-block chain thread is public on this forum. I already told you it is incompatible with ring signatures. So I've already told you. You also already told me that you haven’t proven it. Sooooooo.... prove it smart guy. |
|
|
|
Perhaps but neither of those two things are "yammering in this thread all day long"
You probably have 10 times more posts in this thread than I do. And i also dont claim to know how to solve the blockchain scalability problem. I shouldn't need to explain this. |
|
|
|
Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.
What is terrifying about it? What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year? The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power. If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches. Maybe if you actually know how to make blockchains scalable. But if you dont than this argument doesnt hold. And if you do, than again, for the 10,000 time what are you doing here, please for christ sake go prove it. If your block chain can't scale then the entire discussion is pointless. Of course I know how to make block chain scale, but I am not going to tell you. And there goes your last shred of credibility. How so? If I knew how to solve such a problem, I'd make my own currency, not reveal it to a competitor. Perhaps but neither of those two things are "yammering in this thread all day long" |
|
|
|
(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)
What are the inputs that must be considered when setting the eternal inflation parameters for a PoW coin? From technical perspective, I mean. From economical perspective, 100 years of growth at 2% APR is 624% per century. Granted, century is a long time, but also the current system with its wasteful resource acquisition and general footprint on pristine nature, cannot continue 1-2 more centuries with this growth rate. On the other hand, gold production of about 1.2% (historically higher ~2%) can be regarded as near optimal, because gold has held its value vs. oil in the last decades. If the economic and population growth abate, 0% is of course optimal as you cannot go lower. => The quick thinking would point to 0.5%-2% bracket, and it must be percentage, not a fixed amount. This is a really important matter. A 1%-point fail can easily destroy the coin. (see silver inflation in 1850-1870 for instance how a precious metal was destroyed) I don't think he was talking about an X% increase in coin supply. He was talking about a perpetual 1 coin per block. You will notice that with each new block 1 coin is a smaller percentage of the total money supply. Eventually it will become so small that the value of securing a marginal unit from loss due to carelessness will be less than 1 coin per block. And thus we would reach an equilibrium where about 1 coin per block was lost due to carelessness and 1 coin per block is created in mining. The beauty of a proposal like this is that it leads to a stable money supply. No deflation or inflation. I would rater say that to achieve what you say anon, you need a fix x% per year of coin creation to counter the Lost "due to carelessness". I think that loss should be account for a percentage of the total market number of atomic coins. The problem is to define the "x" value, I agree that this is not easy. Instead, with a fix amount, it like saying in the limit of end of time that there is less and less people that are losing the coins due to carelessness. Maybe that thinking is also incorrect... In the end, maybe the creation of coin that should counter loss should not be count on x% or "y" fix number of coins per block, but be count in term of coin inactivity in the last "average life time" of a human life. After that time of inactivity, we can expect that the coins are lost, so they need to be replace... Maybe i didn't explain myself clearly enough. So lets say that each new block is introducing 1 monero. And lets say that people are losing 0.5 monero per block on average due to carelessness. So each new block is having 0.5 new monero be introduced into circulation on net. This causes inflation, which all other things being equal reduces the value of a unit of monero. Suppose this trend continues. If a monero is worth less, than it is worth less effort to secure it. Thus the less it becomes worth the less effort people put into securing it. Eventually if this trend continues enough the values will flip. So now now each block is introducing 1 new monero and people are losing 1.5 monero per block due to carelessness. This is causing deflation. Deflation increases the value of a unit of monero. Thus increases the value of precautions to ensure against loss due to carelessness. And the process repeats. |
|
|
|
Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.
What is terrifying about it? What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year? The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power. If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches. Maybe if you actually know how to make blockchains scalable. But if you dont than this argument doesnt hold. And if you do, than again, for the 10,000 time what are you doing here, please for christ sake go prove it. If your block chain can't scale then the entire discussion is pointless. Of course I know how to make block chain scale, but I am not going to tell you. And there goes your last shred of credibility. |
|
|
|
Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.
What is terrifying about it? What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year? The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power. If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches. Maybe if you actually know how to make blockchains scalable. But if you dont than this argument doesnt hold. And if you do, than again, for the 10,000 time what are you doing here, please for christ sake go prove it. |
|
|
|
Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.
What is terrifying about it? What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year? The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
