Take the anti-capitalist paranoia back to your Bernie Sanders MeetUp; we don't need it here.
when a blockstream shill who has tried portraying himself as an anti-capitalist, then goes and tells anti-capitalists to shoo off.. you know for certain that blockstream really is capitalist, and the cover of secrecy is finally being unveiled Where did I portray myself as anti-capitalist? Anti crony-capitalist to be sure, but I'm no pinko. You are so far off base you might get captured by the Taliban.  Only the code matters. Do you disagree, or have you found a way to indict the code with your paranoid guilt-by-association conspiracy theories? |
|
|
|
There should be no such thing as a main implementation, and if there is a reference implementation like there is now, power and control should be taken away from this point of centralization.  Bitcoin is consensus critical. And thus the implementation is the spec. If you feel that's a "point of centralization" perhaps you should move on to greener pastures, like your friend Mike Hearn has already done. |
|
|
|
large blocks alone cannot even begin to get us anywhere even remotely near Visa scale
I respectfully disagree with the above statement and Monero is extremely well positioned to prove it false. All I will say is that when one has written code for a mainframe computer with a total memory capacity of 2 MB using punched cards as the data input method one has a very different perspective on the subject. Edit: By comparison a mini computer of the day would have a total memory capacity of about 2 KB and use a teletype and paper tape reader / punch as the data input output methods. I also programmed on those. That's nice. Reminds me of my childhood, making what I would later find out are called " Demos" using BASIC on a 256 k Tandy XT with no hard drive. And there was no mouse, so using the paint program required copious amonts of arrow keys and space bar.  Alas, our ancient history and nostalgic reveries have no bearing on the current fact that sig_op verification scales as a quadratic of the tx size. You are entitled to your opinion, but not your own facts. EG: The Toomininstas are confronting the same problem the Gavinistas did, which is that multiplying a tiny number such as 3tps by another tiny (ie sane) number such as 2 or 4 or even 8 still only produces another tiny number such as 6tps or 12tps or 24tps.
You can't get to Visa tps from here. Our only realistic path to Visa is orthogonal scaling, where each tx does the maximum economic work possible.
Right, card payments are currently at around 5000 TPS on a _year round_ average basis, with highest day peaks probably at over 100k TPS. And that is now, these figures have been rapidly growing. These are numbers high enough that just signature processing would completely crush even high end commercially available single systems. Even if you took some really great drugs and believed plain-old-bitcoin could get anywhere near matching that in the near future while having any decentralization remaining.... so what? it wouldn't be close again after just a couple more years growth. A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages or otherwise the rocket equation will eat your lunch... packing everyone in clown-car style into a trebuchet and hoping for success is right out. Combined the major card networks are now doing something on the other of 5000 transactions per second on a year round average; and likely something on the order of 120,000 transactions per second on peak days.
The decentralized Bitcoin blockchain is globally shared broadcast medium-- probably the most insanely inefficient mode of communication ever devised by man. Yet, considering that, it has some impressive capacity. But relative to highly efficient non-decentralized networks, not so much. The issue is that in the basic Bitcoin system every node takes on the whole load of the system, that is how it achieves its monetary sovereignty, censorship resistance, trust cost minimization, etc. Adding nodes increases costs, but not capacity. Even the most reckless hopeful blocksize growth numbers don't come anywhere close to matching those TPS figures. And even if they did, card processing rates are rapidly increasing, especially as the developing world is brought into them-- a few more years of growth would have their traffic levels vastly beyond the Bitcoin figures again.
No amount of spin, inaccurately comparing a global broadcast consensus system to loading a webpage changes any of this.
So-- Does that mean that Bitcoin can't be a big winner as a payments technology? No. But to reach the kind of capacity required to serve the payments needs of the world we must work more intelligently.
IIRC, Monero's sig_op/verification is vastly improved over Bitcoin's first generation technology, but there is also an elastic (ie scaling) reward penalty for large blocks. So the idea that Monero, using some kind of Giant Block Superweapon, is going to dethrone Bitcoin, is not supported by the facts. Even if Monero gradually and without penalty accommodates larger blocks, they will never be able to shovel 5k-120k tps onto Layer One. |
|
|
|
LOL, the DashHoles can't even build a soda machine without it devolving into a total shitshow as they fight over budget scraps. In a few months, we will look back on the stripper-fronted soda machine as the high-water mark of the Evan's Gate cult movement. |
|
|
|
We can't really toss away 99% of the possible contractors just because we want them to take market risk, which they're uncomfortable with. I would say it's very important for our growth, to allow us to work with as many contractors as possible.
Why not only work with people who actually believe in your product? Paying them in Dash only creates more incentive for them to do a good job. As an example of the 'eat-your-own-dogfood' approach working very well, see https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required. We raise funds in our own currency, and pay devs in that same currency. Most funding requests are done in less than two days. Once nice feature of this method is that only the people who believe something is a good idea have to pay for it to be done. There is no moral hazard from a vocal minority forcing the silent majority to go along, via printing more and resultant inflation, nor is their any bickering over proposal priority/propriety. You're already seeing the problems with zero-sum quarreling over scraps, as the soda machine people fight with the marketing or whatever people. Go away. We don't need your shit were already dealing with enough right now in terms of people accusing people of being trolls and being dishonest about thier motives. And I'm trying to make a point and you are just helping whoever is trying to censor me flood out my posts. If you care about YOUR cause, go there and spend your time there, as I am doing in this community. If you want to just cause people to have a bad day, you are a shitty person and need to go find some help. We have better things to discuss than your horseshit. LOL. Don't take it out on me just because Dash's Slack has been ruined by the Dash community. Do you have any comment about the content of my post? Or are you just here to shoot the messenger? |
|
|
|
We can't really toss away 99% of the possible contractors just because we want them to take market risk, which they're uncomfortable with. I would say it's very important for our growth, to allow us to work with as many contractors as possible.
Why not only work with people who actually believe in your product? Paying them in Dash only creates more incentive for them to do a good job. As an example of the 'eat-your-own-dogfood' approach working very well, see https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required. We raise funds in our own currency, and pay devs in that same currency. Most funding requests are done in less than two days. Once nice feature of this method is that only the people who believe something is a good idea have to pay for it to be done. There is no moral hazard from a vocal minority forcing the silent majority to go along, via printing more and resultant inflation, nor is their any bickering over proposal priority/propriety. You're already seeing the problems with zero-sum quarreling over scraps, as the soda machine people fight with the marketing or whatever people. |
|
|
|
small bocks will lead to bitcoin banks who will process transactions for you.
Not really desirable imho.
For small transactions extremely desirable. For big transactions not. It works out perfectly  Exactly. Nice catch, noticing dnaleor failed to distinguish between (the economics of) small and large tx. The mistaken notion that trustless payment channels like Lightning are "bitcoin banks" is equally invalid. Even if it was true, the "bitcoin banks" would be kept sound and honest by the transparent/auditable nature of the blockchain(s). Finally, let's reiterate that large blocks alone cannot even begin to get us anywhere even remotely near Visa scale, no matter how we wish they could. |
|
|
|
Well that escalated quickly! Even though we've seen that movie before, the magnanimous Monero Mustangs' monumental munificence continues to astound me. What is the expected release date for this?
 |
|
|
|
Some sort of anonymous coin WILL succeed, if cryptocurrencies are here to stay. With people like Mike Hearn declaring Bitcoin has failed, and really traction slowing down, it's not an absolute guarantee that cryptocurrencies won't become a passing fad yet.
Hearn's whiny ragequit is a contrarian indicator (ie good news for Bitcoin). No idea wtf you are talking about wrt "traction slowing down." Did you miss Blockstream's $55 million Series-A announcement and GBTC's huge premium? The cryptocurrency genie isn't going back in the bottle. The e-cash toothpaste can't be put back into the tube. The blockchain horse is out of the barn, but by all means consider shutting the gate if you enjoy that sort of thing. |
|
|
|
Grand Master Szabo hitting Count Gavin with Force lightning....   |
|
|
|
Corporate backing for bitcoin/Bitcoin developers. No one else sees a problem with this?
Only the code matters. I don't see a problem with gigantic infusions of capital for Bitcoin development. Back/Maxwell/Wuille/Corallo/Russell/Timon/etc are Bitcoin All-Stars!  Take the anti-capitalist paranoia back to your Bernie Sanders MeetUp; we don't need it here. |
|
|
|
That thread just links back to Bitcointalk. Desperate for traffic much?  Now that the (hopelessly idealistic) Unlimiturd fad is over, Frap.doc's silly rump forum is also dying. And so, we Bitcointalkers again have the pleasure of his clique's company. Apparently you all have forgiven thermos for his sensor ships. Nobody even bothered to make an Unlimited #REKT thread. But that poor bikeshed collapsed under the weight of all the paint, didn't it? |
|
|
|
But in Monero's case, you tail-emission supporters broke *the* single biggest implicit contract: don't change the supply dynamics!! I loathe the fact that I bought-in to one economic model in 2014 and then a bunch of economic-meddlers decided to change the model out from under me. Yes, it's small relative to my holdings, but quite the slippery slope. That might as well be fiat, and the move *drastically* reduced my respect for the coin, the developers, and the community.
You bought in when exactly? Because the tail reward language was included in the original Monero OP from the initial instant of its creation on 2014-04-25. You might have a case if you were the bolded trade from the OTC thread below: 2000 MRO @ 0.000250 2014-04-24 02:03:21
2000 MRO @ 0.000400 2014-04-23 00:23:41
1000 MRO @ 0.000500 2014-04-22 03:57:27 Those, along with two auctions I ran that week (won by eizh and SlyWax) are the only known trades that occurred before the Monero OP (during the 5-day Bitmonero era). You can't be one of the last two because those were both NoodleDoodle selling to eizh. I also suspect the first one was NWO buying from pandher so you probably aren't that one either, but that isn't clear from the OTC thread. If that trade is not you, then you may have misunderstood the economic model, but it was not changed out from under you. ZOMG Monero was insta-traded and ninja-auctioned!!!1111! |
|
|
|
This will ultimately have to come to the end user trusting the service and the plugin provider. I trust (and verify) them about 100 XMR at a time. |
|
|
|
Shanghai Composite again down 1,5% at opening....
Damn the stock markets are developing into a blackhole...
'Don't touch Bitcoin because it's too volatile', all the Wall St types said  ' The financial crisis is over', all the Gavin types said |
|
|
|
^^ Option to allow plugins for XMR.to and ShapeShift.io, wow!!
So because it would allow shapeshift, does that mean the GUI would be able to hold Bitcoin too? No it means you could enter a BTC address and pay using the XMR in your wallet via xmr.to or shapeshift. Potentially, I suppose a plug in to hold BTC is not out of the question but that is not the originally envisioned use case. Can the plugin do https://www.changer.com/ also? A wallet that handles seamlessly handles spending/converting/hodling BTC and XMR is a great idea, because they are complementary. Ideally, it needs the i2p thingy too! And integrated MoneroDice gambling, of course! Perhaps even OpenBazaar? We're headed in that direction. We'll get there. At the rate good ideas get are getting funded, we'll have a Monero blimp over next year's SuperBowl. |
|
|
|
the same as Freebazaar
When Openbazaar is done, the Official Monero GUI will be released along with Freebazaar! Much timing! Very synergy! |
|
|
|
Nice! In 20 years or so, Natalia should replace Putin. Until then, she can prosecute me. I've been very bad!   |
|
|
|
[majoritarian moral hazard]
 |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
