Scaling "10 times better" is frankly pretty ridiculous.
It may be, on the lower side. It could be worse than 10x. What's your blockchain size right now? Blockchain size is not a measure of scalability (and as I said there is no useful numeric comparison of "scalability"), but the size is something like 2.5 GB. So bitcoin is like 25x in terms of blockchain use, but has 2k-3k txs per 10 minutes. Monero, from the looks of it, has not even 10 txs in the last hour. The 2.5 GB is not proportional to the past hour, nor is the past hour representative of all hours. A huge portion of of the entire chain, perhaps half or more, was created within the first few months due to immature pool software doing payouts stupidly, and also when there is occasionally much higher activity (during pumps, mostly). Bitcoin also didn't have that sort of usage for whole lifetime; for the first year or two it was close to dead, and up until last year the usage was significantly lower. With 2k-3k tx/block during its entire life, Bitcoin's blockchain would be much more than 25x bigger. Overall these sorts of crude comparisons just don't make sense, and just show you are more interested in trolling than thinking. Actually, now that you mention it, I haven't even factored that BTC's blockchain is 7+ years old vs 2 years old of XMR. Anyway, let's make a hypothetical here. How much bloat would Monero generate for 20.000 tx per day (1/10th of what bitcoin does), at a relatively low mixin level 3. A typical transaction is like that is 2-3 KB compared to maybe 0.5 KB on bitcoin (rough numbers), so a ratio of about 5x. That's still not a valid comparison, because if people ever use any kind of mixing services on Bitcoin (and they do), that makes up part of the higher tx volume and reduces the effective ratio. BTW, the same argument has been made by Adam Back with respect to CT's larger transactions. You have to compare not only transactions numbers and size, but adjust for some sort of equivalent level of functionality per transaction. |
|
|
|
Scaling "10 times better" is frankly pretty ridiculous.
It may be, on the lower side. It could be worse than 10x. What's your blockchain size right now? Blockchain size is not a measure of scalability (and as I said there is no useful numeric comparison of "scalability"), but the size is something like 2.5 GB. So bitcoin is like 25x in terms of blockchain use, but has 2k-3k txs per 10 minutes. Monero, from the looks of it, has not even 10 txs in the last hour. The 2.5 GB is not proportional to the past hour, nor is the past hour representative of all hours. A huge portion of of the entire chain, perhaps half or more, was created within the first few months due to immature pool software doing payouts stupidly, and also when there is occasionally much higher activity (during pumps, mostly). Bitcoin also didn't have that sort of usage for whole lifetime; for the first year or two it was close to dead, and up until last year the usage was significantly lower. With 2k-3k tx/block during its entire life, Bitcoin's blockchain would be much more than 25x bigger. Overall these sorts of crude comparisons just don't make sense, and just show you are more interested in trolling than thinking. |
|
|
|
Scaling "10 times better" is frankly pretty ridiculous.
It may be, on the lower side. It could be worse than 10x. What's your blockchain size right now? Blockchain size is not a measure of scalability (and as I said there is no useful numeric comparison of "scalability"), but the size is something like 2.5 GB. |
|
|
|
Smooth has pointed out that metadata isn't the problem that Monero was designed to solve That is true, the problem is largely independent. If your network traffic is being spied up, then you will have the same or worse (probably much worse) problems with Bitcoin or Dash or any other coin. Also, no one involved with Monero has ever claimed it is 'NSA-proof'. The most we have ever said is that it continues to improve and could possibly, someday, reach a point of being reasonably NSA-proof if coupled with good OPSEC (as something like PGP might be considered today), but that is certainly not a realistic short term goal. Yeah because if he considers bitcoin as "broken" due to its scaling which is 10 times better than monero, then monero ...isn't broken Scaling "10 times better" is frankly pretty ridiculous. There isn't any clear metric by which one would define a numeric comparison "scaling". In some ways Monero scales better than Bitcoin, in other ways worse. In some of the most important ways (such as bandwidth required for full nodes), they are very close. Bitcoin might have a small edge if you ignore additional Bitcoin traffic created by JoinMarket and other forms of mixing in order to try to do (worse) what Monero does natively. Anyway, scaling has little if anything to do with what experts call "bad crypto". In fact, making crypto worse and using smaller key sizes, etc. could help with scaling. |
|
|
|
Wait.. PoW is just 4 weeks?
Not exactly, it is still 4.76% (1 PoW block out of every 21 blocks) indefinitely. |
|
|
|
...
Everyone had a fair chance to mine this. Just because a lot of people could not figure out how to do it, does not mean they could not have with a little work. All it took was reading the thread.
Didn't the dev(s) basically admit that the whole reason they relaunched was because they were unsuccessful in instamining to the degree that they intended to avoid an IPO (for legal reasons)? No, they did not admit that, though it was alleged. |
|
|
|
|
If you read about it on this thread, don't buy it. These threads are magnets for pumpers.
If there are any good buys out there at all, it will be something that you find, not something that finds you.
|
|
|
|
I don't care that I can do all sorts of chemical tests to verify the validity of the gold, I want to see how much each account has on a public blockchain.
Hey. You got me there - you'd better ask the holders  The Monero holders or the gold holders? |
|
|
|
I'm asking to see the public blockchain, where everyone can see all the balances. Do you realise you're talking about gold ? Yes, I would like to see the public balances. Please post a link. I don't care that I can do all sorts of chemical tests to verify the validity of the gold, I want to see how much each account has on a public blockchain. |
|
|
|
I think you misread my message. I want to see the account balances of the gold 'public blockchain', not the atomic number.
Your trying to push the idea that because someone can hide a piece of gold under their bed, that means obscured blockchains can have "value". No, I'm not. I'm asking to see the public blockchain, where everyone can see all the balances. I'm afraid it doesn't work like that I'm afraid that you making up your own concepts of 'monetary properties' doesn't work like that, with or without infographics. Make up whatever you want, of course, just don't expect anyone else to care. |
|
|
|
Just show me the public blockchain for gold. Where can I see all the account balances? Gold is a public blockchain in its own right, not an obscured one. Identifiable out in the open, by atomic number, by anyone who cares to inspect it. Gold futures on the other hand are not a public blockchain. They are contracts which you cannot see and are kept private due to the fact that they're anonymous. But then again, gold futures are tier 2 monetary media - a piece of paper that is backed by gold. So even by that analogy: Gold = Part of the "metals" public blockchain with address 79 in the periodic table that is inspectable by anyone Gold futures = obscured blockchain that is only any use as long as its "backer" exist (the metal) I think you misread my message. I want to see the account balances of the gold 'public blockchain', not the atomic number. Where are they? Link or GTFO. |
|
|
|
And the "real deal" is a public blockchain.
Just show me the public blockchain for gold. Where can I see all the account balances? |
|
|
|
Mixin 0 wasn't too scientific though, was it?  1. Who developed Cryptonote with unrestricted mix 0? 2. Who analyzed the issue and published the analysis of the problem (also with mix 1)? 3. Who developed and published a proposed fix prior to implementing and deploying it? 4. Who implemented and deployed a fix? There's your answer. My answers: 1. Cryptonote/Bytecoin 2. Monero 3. Monero 4. Monero, Boolberry (partially), and AEON |
|
|
|
|
Smooth witness
I’m ‘smooth’, well known and active in the cryptocurrency community since 2011, core team member of Monero and lead developer of AEON.
I have not been involved with Bitshares or other DPoS so operating a witness node is new to me. However, I have years of experience with development and deployment of high availability mission critical infrastructure, HPC big data, along with various cryptocurrency nodes, mining operations, and services. I’ve also been mining and operating steem nodes since the launch in March 2016.
I am one of the largest holders of STEEM independent of the original team, and my objective in operating a witness node includes working to ensure that the network is secure, reliable and scalable, in order to protect and grow the value of my stake. Although my identity is not public, I do not and have not ever operated any sock puppets or other misleading identities, and my five-year history in the community provides ample objective support for such a statement. Further, I state unequivocally that I have no affiliation with the steemit team, any of the steem developers, or any of the other witness operators outside of our normal online interactions. Thus I can promise that my witness node will be operated in fully-independent manner, faithful to the network rules and the best interests of my own stake and that of the other stakeholders.
To that end I have provisioned redundant enterprise-class hardware in a low-latency Tier 2 datacenter at an undisclosed location. This is dedicated hardware, not deployed on AWS or another cloud. There is more than ample excess CPU, memory, and storage to support rapid network growth, and all can be easily scaled as needed. Standby hardware is already online for fail-over, and backup witness nodes at additional locations will be added. In addition I will be providing a full-time seed node, currently located in AWS Singapore (IP below). These are fully updated with latest patches from github.
If you wish to support my witness node, please vote as follows:
vote_for_witness your-account smooth.witness true true
(If you have previously voted for ’smooth’, please change that vote to ’smooth.witness’ instead)
smooth.witness seed node: 52.74.152.79:2001
|
|
|
|
That's why when you are doing new design work, you carefully document and publish your designs and try to get people to read your paper and provide feedback. I don't know the details of whatever feedback TPTB provided there -- it may or may not have been helpful in particular -- but I know more generally that several qualified experts have also read it and helped to correct errors, clarify ambiguities, and improve the clarity of the presentation. Yes, that is how you do science. |
|
|
|
Was there any peer review of the InstantX white paper whatsoever? Was TPTB the first one to catch the error 1+ years later?
The "error" involves broken game theory for the attack vector. I'm referring to the "high school math error". That's not game theory, it is arithmetic. (Of course game theory would also be a very legitimate topic for peer review, but that wasn't what I was asking.) |
|
|
|
For higher order tiers (backed money, e.g. Bitcoin CT), obscured blockchains are acceptable.
If CT is ever implemented for Bitcoin itself (and segwit seems to make that more likely, even if only marginally), it will not be a higher order tier, it will be regular, ordinary main-chain Bitcoin transactions in which the amounts payable to each output are obscured (mathematically verifiable, but not visible in plaintext). You will no longer be able to look up addresses on a block explorer and see balances. If implemented on a side-chain, I would consider that "higher tier" although I guess perspectives differ somewhat. |
|
|
|
We are talking about ...jamming a transaction, after spending a shitload of money. And that's to jam 0.x% of instantx transactions that at worst will be confirmed 150seconds later per the casual block confirmation... that doesn't make any sense.
If it's a valid game theory scenario, and makes sense for the attacker, we'll see it happen. I don't see it happening.
I was talking about darksend spying, which you can't see happening, but is all but inevitable (and the only way out there is essentially an accidental miracle) given the incentives. Well, the more you mix, the lower the probabilities of bad actors affecting you. That's pretty much the same across the board, in all mixing scenarios, including Cryptonote mixin settings. I've already explained the critical difference between the two. One has an ongoing cost to bad actors, the other does not. The lack of any quantifiable cost means is that attacks are plausibly unbounded. More mixing will not save you. The OP however refers to the "highschool maths" from a TPTB post about InstantX.
Was there any peer review of the InstantX white paper whatsoever? Was TPTB the first one to catch the error 1+ years later? |
|
|
|
We are talking about ...jamming a transaction, after spending a shitload of money. And that's to jam 0.x% of instantx transactions that at worst will be confirmed 150seconds later per the casual block confirmation... that doesn't make any sense.
If it's a valid game theory scenario, and makes sense for the attacker, we'll see it happen. I don't see it happening.
I was talking about darksend spying, which you can't see happening, but is all but inevitable (and the only way out there is essentially an accidental miracle) given the incentives. InstantX has other issues, worse than jamming, as far as not seeing it happening, there really isn't any incentive to even jam right now (who cares?). If it got to the point where Bitcoin is or even beyond, with real reasons for various interests to attack each other, that could and likely would be very different. Analyzing soundness and especially over the longer term when it really matters is very different from just observing no one is attacking now. The same can be said for every single vulnerable system that has ever been attacked, looking at it the day before. |
|
|
|
I think you have to install the basic compiler tools first. The package is called build-essential. apt-get install build-essential You may or may not need boost. You would need it if compiling monero itself. Make sure you do not get boost 1.54 which has a bug and doesn't work. If your distro wants to give you that version try boost1.55-all-dev instead of boost-all-dev. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
