What i dont get is, why didnt this great majority of people that wanted ethereum not to fork vote against it in the first place?
Because miners are only part of the community. |
|
|
|
...
Cool but from the perspective of the investors there should be some capital gain to make it attractive to hold. So far only dumps we have seen and a couple bubbles that form the shape of a hand showing the middle finger.
One has to take into consideration the overall inflation rate not just the current emission here. The market value of the of the Monero crypto currency as a whole is determined by the market capitalization and not by the price of each individual coin. So for example if the market capitalization were to increase say by another factor 3 (approximately the increase of the current market capitalization from the market capitalization at the time of the ATH in 2014) the price would not fall by another 70%!The big mistake people are making here is to extrapolate technical analysis appropriate for stocks to the start up phase of a POW crypto currency. If Monero were a stock and its market capitalization were 3X that of its previous ATH in 2014, its price would also have to 3x that of the price at the ATH. That would be over 10x its current price. Edit: This extrapolation of technical analysis back to the launch date works reasonably well with Ethereum because of the ICO launch, and also somewhat though nowhere as well as with Ethereum with Dash (because of the instamine), but fails with Monero. |
|
|
|
Here is something interesting. This of course would work with Bitcoin and other in the clear blockchains. https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/eu-central-database-bitcoin-users/...
The inclusion of virtual exchange platforms and wallet providers in the directive will not fully address the issue of anonymity connected to virtual currency transactions since a large part of the virtual currency environment will remain anonymous as users can also transact without exchange platforms or wallets, the proposal noted.
To counter the risks related to the anonymity, national FIUs should be able to associate virtual currency addresses to the identity of the owner of virtual currencies. In addition, the possibility to allow users to self-declare to authorities voluntarily should be considered.
The proposal defines “virtual currencies” as “a digital representation of value that is neither issued by a central bank or a public authority, nor necessarily attached to a fiat currency, but is accepted by natural or legal persons as a means of payment and can be transferred, stored or traded electronically.”
... but not with Monero Edit: Here is the original document. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/criminal/document/files/aml-directive_en.pdf |
|
|
|
Everything is moving more slowly than I anticipated. But we still hurl towards 2021.
For Monero I am not going to give time until 5 years. I think it is too long time and most likely there will be better alternative before that. If there is no real growth this year, I am pretty unsure if this project will ever grow to any significiant measures. If Monero project fails, I think it is not time to blame anyone - just move on in life. There will be new opportunities also down the line. How are you measuring growth? Price or Market Capitalization? There is a big difference. https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/monero/#chartsEdit: ... but not for long. See the post above. |
|
|
|
yes i do,
so the ethereum classic block explorer even tho it say the address has 0 eth, it actually still does?
and if it is there, because I moved my ether out of the address to a new address on the officical chain, I am safe from replay attacks?
thanks for you help pal
I would re sync the classic chain using the original pre fork wallet, and see what it tells you rather than rely on a third party block explorer. Make sure to make separate backups of both the ETC and ETH wallets. |
|
|
|
Hi guys,
so I have a cold wallet pre hard fork with eth in it,
on the forked chain i made a new address and moved my eth from my origional address to it.
I then deleted the chain and synced the ethereum classic one, put my origional wallet back in,
but there is no ethereum classic in it,
shouldnt I have both ethereum classic and ethereum,
I dont understand what i did wrong
anyone care to help
many thanks
Do you have a backup of the original, before the ETH transaction, cold wallet? The ETC should be there. |
|
|
|
eth classic will need a hard fork too in order to keep dapps related to the correct chain, everyone ignores it
i speculate that it will be all fun and idealistic for a few days, then the profits from ETC will go back to ETH
Why would ETH not need to fork again for the same reason? |
|
|
|
|
Yes. The above is my current understanding.
This is actually a discrete optimization problem.
For a small number of transactions one can test all the possibilities to find the optimum; however this may become computationally expensive to the miner if the number of transactions to include becomes very large.
For a very large number of transactions, with each individual transaction size very small when compared to the blocksize, a simple solution would be to add transactions in order of per KB fees, while testing each addition for an increase in revenue (total fees - penalty). When adding transactions causes a decrease in revenue, stop adding transactions.
It may be simplest to choose between one of the two cases above depending on the number of transactions and their individual size relative to the block size.
|
|
|
|
|
Which could create an interesting buying opportunity if it is dumped hard. The time to buy is when there is lots of blood on the streets.
|
|
|
|
Or one can simply wait for a while before spending the XMR. Consider someone gave you 50 USD worth of Bitcoin say in January 2011, Waiting for a while before spending the Bitcoin would have made a lot of sense.
I did not see a time limit in the OP's post by when the Monero had to be spent.
Thats right! There aint no time limit. But its important to specify where u would spend it ~CfA~ Most likely an all cash market price offer on some fancy piece of real estate in a prime market. |
|
|
|
|
Or one can simply wait for a while before spending the XMR. Consider someone gave you 50 USD worth of Bitcoin say in January 2011, Waiting for a while before spending the Bitcoin would have made a lot of sense.
I did not see a time limit in the OP's post by when the Monero had to be spent.
|
|
|
|
With Monero the attacker cannot be selective, but he can still lobby/influence/deceive users into supporting a fork to "undo" something of consequence (by rolling back the chain to before it happened).
Yes, but we are then talking about a different attack. An attack that does not rely on the historically proven and highly successful psychological techniques of rallying support against a manufactured enemy. For this reason I would expect this non selective type of attack to have a significantly lower chance of success. Edit: Rolling back the Monero block chain to reverse a particular transaction could create very significant collateral damage; which would be orders of magnitude harder to sell. |
|
|
|
...
A wise attacker would never make it obvious who the real target is. I assume that's your point.
Just like you can manufacture an "incident" to incite legislation, you can come up with an unlimited number of justifications for a hard fork.
Not really. My point is that the attacker first vilifies the target, and then rallies support against the "enemy". That is why selectiveness is crucial. I guess it could be possible to use this as cover for a broader attack: however the attack still relies on a clearly identified target that is first vilified and the rallying of the majority in the war against the newly created enemy. History, has over the ages, unfortunately proven how effective this can be. I am talking about overall human psychology, here which is way broader than just the specific application of these psychological techniques to attack a particular block chain. In the block chain case it fails with Monero because the attacker cannot be selective. |
|
|
|
|
My take is that this would not work for a generalized malicious hard fork.
There is some significant human psychology here. A key component is to convince the majority that the attack targets someone else. Some individual or group who is "evil" in some sense. In the Ethereum case this was the "evil" DAO "hacker" out to destroy Ethereum. For this reason selectiveness was critical here. People will react very differently if they presume they themselves are the target.
|
|
|
|
Just increased your total market cap by $60MIL overnight because someone legally exploited a hole in the technology worth...about $60MIL? Now you have the attention of the SEC Ethereum.
Actually I would say that when it comes to government agencies in the United States FinCEN would be the lead agency on this issue. If one acts as an MSB by reversing transactions then it seems to me that MSB registration become a legal requirement. Let us not forget the initial distribution of Ethereum here also. |
|
|
|
Sorry I missed the gist of your argument. Any one can hard fork. VB can, you can, I can, tokeweed can, even Donald Trump can.
The overwhelming majority of miners adopted the ETH chain. The ETC chain will eventually languish as a historical artifact. I hope crypto evolves better governance and we develop better processes for the maintenance and enhancement of p2p consensus systems.
I assume that you are not against forks in general because Monero was a fork.
Hard forks in general are not the issue here. In fact a hard fork can be considered a special case of proof of burn. What makes this particular hard fork different is the selectiveness. All the Ethereum holders were not eligible to participate in the proof of burn / hard fork, since all the Ether was not treated equally. In fact the very purpose of this hard fork was to change the ownership of funds. Monero has had several hard forks; however this kind selective of hard for would be virtually impossible to pull of in Monero because of Monero's design. |
|
|
|
Wow, this thread made it to page 3 with all the ETH threads cropping up in the past couple days. I don't think I've ever seen it so far down. Markets aren't doing much, but they will be....Soon.
This is hardly surprising. What has recently occurred in Ethereum forking a coin in order to reverse transactions has shaken the crypto currency scene to its very foundations, going all the way back to the original Bitcoin whitepaper. I responded to this in one of the many Ethereum threads. ...
But it's not good for cryptocurrency as a whole. It could (arguably) even hold Bitcoin back. The uncertainty caused by Buterin could hurt us all as supporters whether you're a developer, researcher, entrepreneur or speculator.
I agree. This sets a precedent that reaches all the way back to: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System by Satoshi Nakamoto https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. To understand why I am quoting the introduction to the above paper: 1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party. What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes. The implications of this for Monero are profound, since this kind of hard fork would be virtually impossible to pull of in Monero. In the case of Monero the censor is effectively blinded. On the other hand any time locked transaction in a transparent blockchain is vulnerable. Also coins under the control of someone who is prevented from moving those coins are also highly vulnerable to this kind of reversal attack. What makes this attack so significant is that it actually proves Satoshi Nakamoto incorrect. A decentralized proof of work blockchain is not enough to prevent the reversal of transactions, since in this case the attack was carried out by persuasion. Ethereum does not have a serious miner concentration issue, in fact it has one of the highest degrees of miner decentralization among POW crypto currencies. I urge the reader to read Satoshi Nakamoto's paper again to understand why Bitcoin was created in the first place. Then one can understand why this Ethereum fork is so profound. |
|
|
|
Again I say, if there's a person who caused a major uncertainty in the cryptocurrency scene, it is Buterin himself. He was warned but yet he still went on, manipulated the Ethereum community and politically railroaded the hard fork to happen.
I'd like to hear you substantiate that accusation. I for one agree with tokeweed on this. For better or for worse Buterin has shaken the crtpto currency scene to its very foundations going all the way back to the original Bitcoin whitepaper by forking Ethereum in order to effectively reverse transactions. I responded on this in another thread. ...
But it's not good for cryptocurrency as a whole. It could (arguably) even hold Bitcoin back. The uncertainty caused by Buterin could hurt us all as supporters whether you're a developer, researcher, entrepreneur or speculator.
I agree. This sets a precedent that reaches all the way back to: Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System by Satoshi Nakamoto https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf. To understand why I am quoting the introduction to the above paper: 1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need.
A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party. What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer distributed timestamp server to generate computational proof of the chronological order of transactions. The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes. |
|
|
|
|
Who says one had to purchase POS coins in order to attack. It is much cheaper to borrow them.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
