I just saw a quote by a user that Monero has an "opaque blockchain" which I don't think is correct.
Monero has a private blockchain, in the the sender and receiver are always protected from knowing each other, but (correct me if I'm wrong here) the amount of money moving across the blockchain is still visible in some respects.
If someone sent 300,000 Monero across the blockchain, then observers would be able to see that a large amount of money moved today but not be able to pin it down to a particular user or transaction time (with proper mixin settings)
I thought that with the new CT ring developments coming out, people wouldn't be able to tell what amount of monero is being transacted unless you have the right key which shows you the amount for that particular transaction? Wouldn't this be a non issue with the upcoming developments? In theory yes. It has not been implemented yet into monero so testing needs to happen over months to come. For now AP is right you can see how much is moved and when. But not who sent to who specifically. Also you can't really tell it moved between two people. Much of it could be change going back to the sender and it could be someone moving from one wallet to another. Above comments about CT are correct. However, even with CT, using math an observer can still verify that the coins spent are equal to the coins received. You just can't tell the number. |
|
|
|
idk but it doesn't really sound like a hard problem to fix
Hello? Building fault tolerate decentralized systems is an extremely hard problem. |
|
|
|
The hashing code btw in dash is still not optimized so even for cpu miners who know what they do there were big improvements possible. This is due to a fact that a standard crypto library called sph is used http://www.saphir2.com/sphlib/ which is unoptimized C code. TIL. And they complain that Monero didn't have optimized code for a few weeks after launch? Yikes. |
|
|
|
@AP, I didn't read your entire post, it's an offtopic as I got from the beginning, create a new thread if you want to continue, please.
It's clearly off topic for the Bitcoin section. The original post on this thread talked about being used on a sidechain (where there is no distribution issue), so I guess on topic. But the rest of the discussion is Alt for sure. |
|
|
|
That's not a good argument. If there are comparable competing cryptocurrencies and one of them is subsided by some altruistic or ideological rich sponsor or by indirect monetization and the other expects users to pay, then users will likely choose the former. File your fairness complaint with the market.
Evidence? It is self evident. |
|
|
|
I believe that time will eventually show that pre-sales simply don't work to do anything but temporarily enrich the launchers. Crowdfunding works. Look at kickstarter. Cryptocurrencies are fantastically complicated projects, that take years to develop - how do you propose the developers live while working full time on one of these projects? That's not a good argument. If there are comparable competing cryptocurrencies and one of them is subsided by some altruistic or ideological rich sponsor or by indirect monetization and the other expects users to pay, then users will likely choose the former. File your fairness complaint with the market. |
|
|
|
That's not a simple regression. That's creating a model based on your own opinion of what matters.
Litecoin doesn't have any real first mover advantage either, except by being first to be the second to become big enough for you to consider it worthy of excluding. Say what?
So basically "makes no difference at all" is just something you made up.
I stand by that. Arguing that bitcoin and it's clone have the biggest market caps *because* of their distribution model is crazy; for a long time there were no alternatives, that is why they have found such a following. I didn't argue anything. I pointed out that your statement isn't supportable by any clear evidence. That doesn't even make it incorrect, but unsupported. |
|
|
|
If there were an easy way to have the block time automatically adjust itself to usage, such an algorithm would probably set it very high right now and then decrease if and when usage increases.
This is an interesting idea I've pondered myself. The blocktime is a 'guess' by the software which aims to achieve a certain blocktime by looking at the current hash rate of the network and assigning a difficulty to the next problem which should be solved in approximately the desired blocktime, right? So what would be wrong with looking at total transactions attempted instead and adjusting the difficulty to target something between 2 minutes and 10 minutes based on transaction volume? I think we can agree that 2 minutes is about as fast as blocks should be targeted, given current network technology. I think it's also pretty accepted that more than 10 minutes isn't necessary [and could be dangerous if the network experiences a sudden loss of mining power]. Let's say that currently the network only sees <1 transaction a second and as a result of this sets the block time to the maximum of 10 minutes. Each successive 'target blocktime' is calculated based on the current attempted transactions this block. If it sees a massive and sudden influx of transactions, it retargets a new blocktime very quickly - the very next cycle. If it sees a slow increase in transaction volume it will gradually adjust it's difficulty multiplier so that instead of a 10 minute target we move down to 9, then 8.... all the way down to the arbitrary 2 minute minimum. (with no minimum we would open up the network to possible attack by way of people attempting to force the blocksize too low with too many transactions, but setting a minimum seems possible). Thoughts on this? Transaction volume is pretty easy to use as a denial of service attack, as reasonable fees are pretty low. Normally that doesn't do much other than take up space but if you can force the block time lower too it might encourage more spam. |
|
|
|
That's why I proposed a real auction with a moderator. But we need sellers too, not just buyers, to make that work.
What do you think about the plausible possibility that hundreds of thousands and possible millions of AEON are lost forever given the long time this coin was inactive? I think that is somewhat plausible. It would be more plausible if I hadn't been at least a little active making sure it had a seed node and patching it (which was discussed on the thread), but even so people may have given up and deleted, lost, or just forgotten about their coins when it wasn't on any exchange. |
|
|
|
There's this Tronsmart Ara x5 for $150 which is fanless, has an Intel Atom x5-Z8300 CPU (2MB cache and supports AES-NI!), 2GB of RAM, and 32GB eMMC. Unfortunately the cache on Atom is 1 MB for each 2 cores, thus not usable for Cryptonight. Well, usable but the performance is poor. The power usage on those is so low that the mining efficiency still isn't terrible, but it is mediocre. It has USB ports so when the internal storage runs out you can plug in a drive and keep going. |
|
|
|
In fact on this basis alone your statement that it "makes no difference at all" isn't supportable. How about we try a simple regression between presale and no-presale. Any guesses on the coefficient?
Sure. You should probably leave bitcoin and litecoin out of it, since they have the first mover(s) advantage. That's not a simple regression. That's creating a model based on your own opinion of what matters. Litecoin doesn't have any real first mover advantage either, except by being first to be the second to become big enough for you to consider it worthy of excluding. Say what? So basically "makes no difference at all" is just something you made up. |
|
|
|
Presale fail. How can someone be smart enough to understand mathematics and computer science well enough to launch one of these but not understand that no pre-sale coin can ever become a world standard for value (or will succeed against nearly impossible odds if it does)? Look at coinmarketcap, there a bunch of presale funded coins in the top 10 - it makes no difference to performance at all. None of them have become the world standard of value and using market cap as a metric is suspect due to the "sell one coin to a friend" problem especially in anonymous ICOs where no one can really tell whether they have ever been distributed by an effective market process. Whether such a coin can in fact become a world standard of value in the future is unclear, so I'm not quite as negative as AP. All those coins in the top 10 are nowhere close to Bitcoin's value though (which in turn is nowhere close to any existing world standard of value). So it seems fairly doubtful at this juncture. In fact on this basis alone your statement that it "makes no difference at all" isn't supportable. How about we try a simple regression between presale and no-presale. Any guesses on the coefficient? But as CfB says if there technically isn't a way to distribute over time then it needs to be done another way. That much is certainly true. |
|
|
|
I proposed a large block auction for buyers and sellers on the Speculation thread hereIf you are interested in trading AEON 25k or more please join on that thread and indicate your interest. Especially sellers, since there seems to be more buyers than sellers. That means as a seller you may very well be able to command a premium (no guarantees of course). If there is participation this will be a real auction with a moderator and a set ending time so trades can occur. Discuss at Speculation thread (link above). |
|
|
|
(buyer)
(buyer)
This seems to be the problem. Maybe some sellers will show up but so far every effort I've made both privately and publicly to try to create larger block liquidity has failed for lack of sellers. I think sellers are expecting an unreasonable price for their AEON. Which is fine, if they believe in it long term then perhaps they should hold onto it, but it's frustrating when people offer large blocks and don't accept above market price offers for it. I think currently (and I probably shouldn't even say this yet because I don't own any AEON) we should expect that at a minimum Polo will eventually pick up AEON and the price will jump up, even if Smooth only makes minor improvements from here on out. It's probably a pretty good place to park some small-time speculator assets. On the other hand, the network doesn't need people parking money into it - it needs people playing with it and transacting with it. This Aeon auction thread (which I don't want to bump any more) really annoyed me. No end date and it is unclear if the seller ever wanted to sell at all. Maybe if nothing is done liquidity will gradually build as development proceeds. I need more patience! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1201232.0That's why I proposed a real auction with a moderator. But we need sellers too, not just buyers, to make that work. |
|
|
|
If block time is modified to 2 minutes then it should last longer. Also, you can always add an external storage.
Block time has been discussed many time previously. As Monero is not being used, just in distribution stage, even 10 min block time is acceptable. However, the community decides 1 min block time is fine. Block time will most likely be changed to 2 minutes *soon*. After the 0.9 release which will be released **very soon**. Yes, and the main discussion of this was on the official forum: forum.getmonero.org FWIW, I agree with OrientA, although no one really made that point in the discussion. If there were an easy way to have the block time automatically adjust itself to usage, such an algorithm would probably set it very high right now and then decrease if and when usage increases. |
|
|
|
Could you please estimate CLAMs inflation?
thanks
If you don't count claims I recently estimated it at 4% per month (from staking alone) but given the high rate of claims recently it is certainly dropping (since the rate of staking is constant the more coins there are the lower the rate of inflation). |
|
|
|
45k AEON, 20 days, 1.5% interest
0.5 btc.
Accepted. Post your BTC address, I will post a repayment address. 1DxdjX8KunCk153UP3Gb8rFQwY8XQu4ass Repayment address is 1DF3EpHm8oiyqFGiJ9gNLy4zEpa75fLm9c Upon funding, payment of 0.5075 BTC is due 2015-10-24, 00:00:01 UTC I do agree. Funded txid f4119852bd70fa5c8294d6edc0377bce8518f96bb9d61dce66bbb365867abc5f We have agreed to extend the loan to 2015-10-27, 00:00:01 In addition a further 0.50 BTC was lent with payback total of 0.5075 and collateral of 40k AEON, and finally 0.50 was paid back as part of another transaction. As part of the other transaction, 20K AEON was removed from collateral. Thus the remaining balance to be paid by the above date is 0.515 and the remaining collateral is 65K AEON. Agreed. Funding of the second loan: a76a85388543980924a4630568c0da20227759406237f9b3eb02f4472d2976b1 |
|
|
|
45k AEON, 20 days, 1.5% interest
0.5 btc.
Accepted. Post your BTC address, I will post a repayment address. 1DxdjX8KunCk153UP3Gb8rFQwY8XQu4ass Repayment address is 1DF3EpHm8oiyqFGiJ9gNLy4zEpa75fLm9c Upon funding, payment of 0.5075 BTC is due 2015-10-24, 00:00:01 UTC I do agree. Funded txid f4119852bd70fa5c8294d6edc0377bce8518f96bb9d61dce66bbb365867abc5f We have agreed to extend the loan to 2015-10-27, 00:00:01 In addition a further 0.50 BTC was lent with payback total of 0.5075 and collateral of 40k AEON, and finally 0.50 was paid back as part of another transaction. As part of the other transaction, 20K AEON was removed from collateral. Thus the remaining balance to be paid by the above date is 0.515 and the remaining collateral is 65K AEON. |
|
|
|
Holy shit, 200 mixin? Isn't it pretty unfeasible to ever trace a transaction even after just 3 mixin? 200 is like breaking matter down to quarks and reassembling it.  If there are many transactions, it is difficult to trace after 3 minxin. I think the point is that a stress test (or blockchain parse to check for available mixins) is useful technical information. People should know what the maximum possible mixin is so they don't accidentally exceed it. There is no maximum (unless there is a bug, so as you say it is useful to test). It is limited only by physical size of the data. And is limited to the amount of outputs that already exist to mix with? True for any particular point on the chain. That is generally growing though. |
|
|
|
I think that the price is simply showing that it is more pegged to the USD than BTC.
It has fluctuated around 35 to 40 cents for months now. I'll be initiating an insider buy in the coming weeks of anywhere from 10 to 20 whole Monero. I don't expect it will move the price much, but I'll let you know when I do.
20 Monero is only $8. Don't hate. Did not hate. I mine Monero with underclocked CPU, it is about 0.2 Monero per day. Good on you. For extra karma, solo mine! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
