@SparkIt. Aeon is presently back in a situation of uncertainty and it could clearly go below 20k satoshis. It's also showing that the code rebase will not change anything, but let's see what the community decides on ASICs. It might be Aeon's chance to get out of Monero's shadow and get the market's attention.
Code rebase will do a lot since then exchanges will be able to add AEON. It will actually become an usable coin. And small blockchain will give you chance to fast sync full node. I dont see a reason why not it would also become useful to some. That's I reasoned with myself last year. I thought "damn it, it's fast Monero only without GUI. When will a usability the coin will fly up." And I was very glad that these arguments let me more than recoup the investment. In fact, it would be my best investment, but I decided that even $8 is not the goal to which the coin goes and I sold only 15% of the balance. I'm still sure AEON has the future. I totally agree with all of this, but let me try to add one more thing on top of all of that. There are so many academics in the core team and research lab over at Monero that will eventually come across some contradicting ideas as to code improvements. I think you can almost be certain that Monero will always chose the most secure ways to be anonymous which might bloat the block chain even with bullet proofs down the road. We can never know what new PoW schemes they might figure out to be more secure, or even quantum resistant that doesn't require trusted set ups... However, you can be sure the Aeon will choose the more light weight and "mobile friendly" routes while benefiting from the code "options" we get downstream because of using the same code base (at least for right now). |
|
|
|
To add to that: Anyone who wants to continue sending transparent Bitcoin transactions can do so by staying on-chain. Anyone who wants to remain private would currently either use a tumbler or not use Bitcoin to begin with. In other words, neither transparency nor privacy can be forced by an outside party, regardless of LN's existence.
Either way, I'd also argue that cryptocurrencies should stay private, where possible. The way I see it the main reason for transaction transparency is to ensure that the money supply is not manipulated. If we can ensure the integrity of Bitcoin's money supply without depending on transparency I see little reason not to do so.
I feel that there shouldn't be optional privacy with a currency, and therefore is the hole in the whole lightning network plan. If you want the end result for having Bitcoin to be fungible then you need to have every single transaction to not have the ability to be traced which ultimately leads to coins being "tainted" and viewed to be dirty and not accepted at exchanges. Excellent point. On the other hand I'm not sure if, in the long run, a fully anonymous cryptocurrency would not simply get banned from (KYC/AML compliant) exchanges altogether. Especially since transparent alternatives exist. So far privacy-focused cryptocurrencies have been left alone, but who knows if it stays that way once they grow big enough. If the majority of people use LN for their everyday transactions the question of "taint" may become moot either way, since it would affect most of the available money supply. There are already exchanges that are starting (?) to gain some popularity that are completely decentralized and somewhat anonymous there self either by the software or method of payments. Localbitcoins (not decentralized) uses P2P means of exchange (meetup with cash, cash in mail, cash deposits, etc.) which allows more anonymity in the eyes of the government. ... Also you have bisq.io which uses Tor and run through your own nodes (decentralized) and allows paying through somewhat similar means to localbitcoins. Point being I wouldn't necessarily be holding up the white flag in hopes of a truly anonymous currency being able to thrive in a massive KYC/governmental regulatory overhaul of the cryptocurrency markets. The game is still early, who knows what will happen  Having any form of centralization, which would be the bartender in this case, that needs to verify settlement of the ledger then I have issues...
I'm sorry, honestly I'm not really that read up on how LN works because whenever I read about this part that seems to be a form of centralization, my mind doesn't find it interesting anymore. Who would be the "bartender"?
Ooooh but that's the beauty of LN! The bartender is... the Bitcoin blockchain. You open your tab with the Bitcoin blockchain, you close your tab with the Bitcoin blockchain. That's it. Just some bits of smart-contract magic and PoW as we know and love. The only difference between the Bitcoin blockchain and your usual bartender is that the Bitcoin blockchain is incredibly distrustful and asks you for an advance deposit. But hey, being distrustful is part of a blockchain's job. And you can still use your money any way you like. That's pretty cool... I'm not that knowledgeable of the hash function and cryptography of how that would work, but look forward to reading more about it.  |
|
|
|
So a while back I remember coming across this article and happened to come across it again and was wondering what people on here thought: https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/04/moneySo let me quote the more important part I would want to see debated: The issue, as the piece explains, is that deflation in the unit of account leads to unemployment, thanks to the fact that wages generally don't adjust downward. Mr Hearn suggests that the idea that deflation might be costly is controversial among economists. I must disagree; it really isn't. Economists would love it if he were right that deflation didn't matter—that money, in economists' parlance, is neutral. If wages adjusted quickly and cleanly then they could go back to applying really straightforward classical economic models and everyone's life would be simpler. But the data are very clear on this point; wages are "sticky", and so deflation in the currency in which wages are set is costly.
...
One final point: I think it is a mistake to view deflation or zero inflation as the idyllic, uncorrupted state of a monetary system. Money is not a natural thing. It's a technology that society deploys to meet certain needs. Different monetary systems imply different things for the price level in an economy, with vastly different distributional consequences. To say that one set of distributional consequences is right while another is not would be wrong; they are what they are and society chooses which it prefers. There are costly side effects to -2% inflation or 0% inflation just as there are to 2% inflation or 15% inflation. My personal view is that the societal consensus behind low but positive inflation that prevails at the moment makes a lot of sense.
It makes an interesting point. I mean for one thing we have seen a unit of account in somewhat recent terms, which was backed by another limited unit of account (gold standard). But we never got to see what happened long term if we just kept the gold standard and didn't tamper with it. What would happen as more humans came into the world and population doubled, tripled, and so on? Would wages be able to keep up with a currency that has a hard limit? |
|
|
|
Blockchain should be transparent and be able to register all transactions. If LN allows off-chain small transactions for performance purpose, fine, but how to ensure transparency ? I disagree with this. Bitcoin should be private and fungible, and Lightning offers significant privacy improvements. It is a plus. To add to that: Anyone who wants to continue sending transparent Bitcoin transactions can do so by staying on-chain. Anyone who wants to remain private would currently either use a tumbler or not use Bitcoin to begin with. In other words, neither transparency nor privacy can be forced by an outside party, regardless of LN's existence. Either way, I'd also argue that cryptocurrencies should stay private, where possible. The way I see it the main reason for transaction transparency is to ensure that the money supply is not manipulated. If we can ensure the integrity of Bitcoin's money supply without depending on transparency I see little reason not to do so.I feel that there shouldn't be optional privacy with a currency, and therefore is the hole in the whole lightning network plan. If you want the end result for having Bitcoin to be fungible then you need to have every single transaction to not have the ability to be traced which ultimately leads to coins being "tainted" and viewed to be dirty and not accepted at exchanges. I might not understand well the final process of registration of the balance sheet on the blockchchain, will it show all transactions between Alice and Bob ? So many questions Thanks all. Think of Lightning as going to a bar. You go to the bartender and open a tab. When the bar closes you settle your tab and leave. Having any form of centralization, which would be the bartender in this case, that needs to verify settlement of the ledger then I have issues... I'm sorry, honestly I'm not really that read up on how LN works because whenever I read about this part that seems to be a form of centralization, my mind doesn't find it interesting anymore. Who would be the "bartender"? |
|
|
|
This idea has already been implemented and used in Monero with ring signatures and you can get a basic ELI5 version of it with this video some guy in the community made. The only difference with what you are saying is that you aren't sending a transaction through only one person, but rather you are sending a transaction that is made possible by using past signatures on the blockchain as decoys, and only key images can help the recipient verify that the payment hasn't been sent before. CT came afterward in terms for Monero, so before you were able to tell the coin amounts being transacted... but how the code is right now with everything in place and also about to be upgrading to a mandatory ring signature of 5 to 7, I'm not ashamed to be colored impressed every time I learn more about it. Only problems is scalability, but with the possibility of adding bullet proofs on the horizon, it looks like it won't last that long. Not trying to shill, just trying to say that your idea already sort of exists. Hmm.. nope, I don't think so. CoinSwap is very different to Ring Signatures / CoinJoin. In a Ring Signature ( or a CoinJoin ) the anonymity set is still the size of the inputs to the transaction. The inputs match the outputs in some fashion. With CoinSwap the anonymity set is the size of ALL CoinSwap transactions going on at that time on the whole chain. This is potentially MUCH larger, especially if everyone started using it by default. So that ALL transactions were CoinSwaps. With CoinSwap + CT - there would be ZERO information on-chain about who was sending what to who. You would pay X in secret, and they would pay Y (all done in such a way that no one can scam each other). There would be nothing linking your payment to Y. The CT is required, because Without it, either you all send the same amounts ( not cool ) or it is obviously trivial to see which transactions are linked (check the amounts). But With it.. BOOM! Hmm, ok I just assumed you were just talking about coinjoin and didn't realize "coinswap" was talking about a different method of allow anonymity of the sender. Is there a paper on this that you can link to me? Also I'm curious how this could scale at all. I mean I couldn't even fathom trying to scale something that takes every tx in the chain history (or possibly just block??)... I mean I guess bulletproofs could maybe help but still... things would get so exponentially big. Not to mention coinswap + CT hides sender and amount, but does nothing for the recipient from what it sounds like. |
|
|
|
LOL, what? There are hundreds of blockchain projects under way, hundreds more than I can count. And by the way. Bitcoin was not even released 10 years ago. Blockchain was not in the minds or vocabulary of code writers until about 2014 and not commonly discussed until 2016. Where are you getting your information? Under way is different in my mind than being actively used by normal people. Once I go to a place like Walmart or BestBuy and see some start up company sell a software program based on the blockchain to average ordinary people will I see it as the beginning. (referencing how AOL did things of course). I know there are projects that are being worked on, but I have yet to see things that I feel will last past the ICO phase... There were tons of start up businesses and people buying up domain names like crazy in the early internet (like Google and Amazon, etc.), but we could never even begin to imagine what those two companies would become later in the future (all because of the Internet). At the time we just thought that Google was only for searching the internet (if maybe you weren't able to find it on askjeeves, lol) or buying a book online... |
|
|
|
Roughly it's just 10 years since the introduction of Blockchain technology, we got Bitcoin and Ethereum which utilizes it.
With these two, new different innovations are carefully added layer by layer and it surely takes time. For me BTC and ETH aren't designed for mainstream usage, they need a next layer of services to expand.
Give it 20 more years for mainstream version of blockchain-based technology to surface, or non-cryptocurrency applications are maybe on the way because of today's fame.
Technology isn't always fast-paced in development, except if there's competition over a scarce market.
In Blockchain related technologies like Bitcoin, people are making money without even helping the development, developers aren't gaining any profits from improving the code (only a sense security) and there's too much money involved that any revisions and additions must be meticulously tested that takes a lot of time.
This isn't smartphone's GPU/Processor Technology that are "sold" to customers then "forget them" aside from warranties.
I mean it makes sense though... with a revolutionary type of idea that wasn't really thought of before, it takes humans a bit to be able to wrap their head around it and be able to see ways to apply those concepts into "real life" type of things. What I'm trying to say is that it the concept of the internet was developed in the late 60's, early 70's... humans were able to make those ideas a reality by starting to test out e-mail and other communications of the net in the 80's or so... and then you have instant messaging, AOL, VoIP, forums, Amazon, Google, blah blah blah being popped up and utilized all over the place. The thing is, is that I believe we are still in the 80's (edit: or very early 90's)... No true companies are out there that utilize the block chain except to be on->off ramps for fiat->crypto->other crypto-> fiat.
It's hard to not be interested in it and eagerly await people figuring out a way to "use" the blockchain. |
|
|
|
Most of the current 'use cases' are indeed horseshit. I don't think anyone outside of a few nutters cares about decentralised file storage or dog walking ICOs. I'm pretty confident not one single project built on top of the base layers that's around now will be around in five years.
However this very moment today try sending some money from your bank in Denver to a holiday rental in Sumatra and see how long that takes, how much that costs and whether it'll ever bother to arrive. There is so little comparison to Bitcoin it's pitiful and it's genuinely bizarre that it's still considered acceptable in these fast paced times.
As for other applications I think overall we'll see a curve of actual usage very similar to the dotcom bubble. No one'll know what to do with it. They'll drive prices sky high anyway. It'll collapse. Someone will figure out what to do with it and then it'll take over the world.
The most compelling uses probably still haven't been conceived yet.
Just purely based on speculation... I can imagine that decentralized apps, better yet just the ability to have contracts be created on the blockchain in a decentralized matter, will be purely beneficial to business at first with very niche needs; as it was with the very early days of the internet. I really think decentralized contracts/apps will become beneficial to the average person, but I think it will be quite a long time before people actually work and create their own things on the blockchain. Regular people tend to flock to centralized businesses as of right now... there will have to be a huge change of mentality of everybody to actually take matters in their own hands and be responsible for themselves rather than having the crutch that is "customer service" |
|
|
|
I don't know if I'm so convinced by your three arguments here except for the second one. Having a stable economy with a deflationary currency unit might pose a problem just in terms of how would you go about assigning wages to ordinary people in Bitcoin rather than fiat? Central banks take into account a lot of things like population growth, inflation considerations, global economy considerations, etc. ... I'm not at all justifying the reason why the central banking system should be used, I'm just saying that there are other considerations when thinking about actually making Bitcoin the major payment everyone should accept. This is an older article written in 2014, but it does a good job describing the problem at hand above. https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/04/money |
|
|
|
|
Here's the thing... there are many reasons why you should follow what you are passionate about and I can totally understand why either mining, trading, or whatever related to cryptocurrencies and doing that only for a "job" can be tempting, but there are other things you have to take into account.
It sounds like you are going to live in the US, and if that's the case you will probably be shocked at how expensive health insurance is. Good paying jobs will typically incentivize their employees with cheap health insurance too, as well as 401(k), etc.
All I'm saying is that if you are even somewhat passionate about the job you are being offered in the US, you should probably take the "actual" job rather than trying to make it on your own in crypto doing whatever you plan on doing.
|
|
|
|
This idea has already been implemented and used in Monero with ring signatures and you can get a basic ELI5 version of it with this video some guy in the community made. The only difference with what you are saying is that you aren't sending a transaction through only one person, but rather you are sending a transaction that is made possible by using past signatures on the blockchain as decoys, and only key images can help the recipient verify that the payment hasn't been sent before. CT came afterward in terms for Monero, so before you were able to tell the coin amounts being transacted... but how the code is right now with everything in place and also about to be upgrading to a mandatory ring signature of 5 to 7, I'm not ashamed to be colored impressed every time I learn more about it. Only problems is scalability, but with the possibility of adding bullet proofs on the horizon, it looks like it won't last that long. Not trying to shill, just trying to say that your idea already sort of exists. |
|
|
|
Why no one can track down the hackers who stole around $500million worth of NEM from japanese exchange. how do you keep your cryptocurrency?
You cannot compare cryptocurrencies with exchanges. Both have entirely different system of working. Cryptocurrencies can never be hacked, unless an idiot or a careless wallet owner let that happen due his own foolishness. Cryptocurrencies use blockchain technology. Every day new blocks are being added to the blockchain. So if anyone who wants to hack it, he will have to hack all the wallets on the blockchain network which is impossible to do. This is true, you absolutely cannot trust a wallet you create Online on a centralized exchange service. You can pretty much say with 100% accuracy that if you don't posses and know the private key(s)/mneumonic seed to your wallet, then you do not own the coins that are within that wallet. When you open an account on an exchange, you might give them your info and create a user name and password, but all that doesn't matter on the blockchain... they know your private key to your wallet on there, so therefore they own your coins and you can't access them without the authority of the centralized party. |
|
|
|
This doesn't answer the question of it being a "safe currency" to accept for business transactions or to store wealth. Reason being is that all of the coins that were associated with the crime can/are traced throughout the coins life and carries some taint to them. Sure you can send your coins through mixers, but that is also pretty sketchy and you would have to trust the mixing sites, or the people you are mixing with in the first place... and that doesn't even guarantee you anything because you are probably mixing your coins with other tainted coins. |
|
|
|
I have noticed this too actually. I mean, how long did it take for the security chips to make it on the credit/debit cards and for stores to actually accept them? It took the longest time ever. And not only that but people where bitching the whole time too because it was a minor inconvenience to be told that you have to insert the chip rather than swipe. Things are always slower in terms of progress here in the good ole US.  It's a total disgrace. And when you realise how pathetic bank transfers there are and how much ATM use costs you also realise that BTC serves a useful purpose that simply isn't called for in Europe. In the EU there's masses and masses of innovation when it comes to banking. It's getting faster and more convenient all the time. It's still built on the same old crud of course but at least they attempt to be convenient. Yeah I can't really complain about banking here in my country (Belgium), with SEPA it's just cheap and easy to send payments to any country in Europe. Also banking + bitcoin is pretty well developed here too. I can just go to a Dutch exchange (Bitonic), pay with my debit card and receive Bitcoins instantly, without any transfer costs. Same for cashing out Bitcoins, I can send my Bitcoin to a Dutch exchange and have the money on my bank account the same day. Just out of curiosity, how is the P2P Bitcoin exchange market there? Have you ever tried using Bisq.io or localbitcoins? I'm curious because if SEPA is that easy and pain free, then I could imagine doing P2P exchanges in Europe would be just as painless and would have to ask you why you go to centralized exchange sites in the first place? Centralized exchanges are what link your personal identity to your wallet address, which therefore can be traced to every transaction you send from there forth. |
|
|
|
I'm also into this crypto market and prices are very unpredictable. So what I do is I buy and sell regularly but never sell at a loss means I buy monthly or weekly in small quantities whenever I get some extra money and sell some portion of it when I make around 20 to 30% profit and wait for some more time.
Luckily I didn't buy any bitcoins above 15K because I was worried that prices went up super fast and waiting for it to correct but it has corrected too much now. I too have some coins which bought above 10K but I believe prices will again go up so I will just wait.
Yep, very smart move. Honestly it's the same with a majority of investment, but please make sure you realize that Bitcoin is not an "investment" of a certain company, but rather an asset/currency that you are the only person who is responsible for in terms of it's corresponding private key. As for me personally, I like to make routine "investments" into whatever I feel is better at the time and hold until green no matter what. Whatever you invest consider that money gone, period. So for me as an example, I throw in money into crypto at times when I feel the crypto market is feeling bullish, and then I throw in money into stocks when I feel the stock markets are bullish, etc. Only sell when you are sure about the mid to long term outcomes look dire. |
|
|
|
It has slow transactions and the fees are high, and it is the cryptocurrency frontier. What do you think will realistically will take Bitcoins nr1 spot in the future? Bitcoin Cash maybe?  You forgot what makes made Bitcoin great in the first place.. The fact that it was digital, decentralized cash was at the main forefront of "why you would want to use Bitcoin". Now you see people trying to basically wish it to be more like a Visa type of payment system where it is faster, and more compliant with governmental laws; which is hilarious because it's like the total opposite of why Bitcoin was created in the first place. Look for coins that are more private and fungible by nature... those are the better coins because they are trying to achieve what Bitcoin failed to keep doing. |
|
|
|
|
Dude, I mean you can literally take out all the numerical values you have in the OP and insert numbers from "past moons" ago. People were also freaking out when it went up to like above a dollar and then $10, and back down to $2... It's all relative to the time you are looking at the market.
But seriously, no one knows... do your own diligence and make a decision that you are comfortable with, especially preparing yourself if BTC goes down to zero. Ask yourself if you feel the utility of BTC is worth that $15K you wish it to see at.
|
|
|
|
This kind of banking issue is never new. Youre right about how Bitcoin was created. To eliminate the traditional banking system and its greediness. It was created for us to have a financial freedom, free from ridiculous high transaction fees. But its sad to say that we cant get rid of it, since the bank is part of our system financially.
The fact that we can't "get rid of it" is an interesting one that relates a lot to economics. Here's an article from 2014 that proposes problems of a deflationary currency like Bitcoin that you can see why we would somewhat "need"? banks and other regulatory oversight in the economy: https://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/04/moneyHere they pose questions about how you would deal with increasing populations & wages, etc. |
|
|
|
I have noticed this too actually. I mean, how long did it take for the security chips to make it on the credit/debit cards and for stores to actually accept them? It took the longest time ever. And not only that but people where bitching the whole time too because it was a minor inconvenience to be told that you have to insert the chip rather than swipe. Things are always slower in terms of progress here in the good ole US. It's a total disgrace. And when you realise how pathetic bank transfers there are and how much ATM use costs you also realise that BTC serves a useful purpose that simply isn't called for in Europe. In the EU there's masses and masses of innovation when it comes to banking. It's getting faster and more convenient all the time. It's still built on the same old crud of course but at least they attempt to be convenient. Yeah I can't really complain about banking here in my country (Belgium), with SEPA it's just cheap and easy to send payments to any country in Europe. Also banking + bitcoin is pretty well developed here too. I can just go to a Dutch exchange (Bitonic), pay with my debit card and receive Bitcoins instantly, without any transfer costs. Same for cashing out Bitcoins, I can send my Bitcoin to a Dutch exchange and have the money on my bank account the same day. On an even brighter note, there are always better ways coming out in terms of enabling on and off ramps of fiat to BTC and vise versa. Take a look at localbitcoin.com or bisq.io for ways to deal without a centralized exchange service and give it a go a couple of times to get used to it. I believe it is really important to get acclimated now as opposed to later because I feel as time goes on there will be more and more incentive to do only P2P transactions to avoid regulations nations might force on its citizens. |
|
|
|
Then that brave someone would be a fool blinded by extreme greed. He/she is gonna lose big time in such a gamble. Reportedly, it takes at least 5 months to design, tape out and deliver ASIC chips; and the devs already declared that PoW will be modified at every scheduled 6-months fork thereafter (the deterrent).
This is assuming alot, for instance that you are starting from scratch. Lets not forget they could have been modifying their design since the moment the new algo was available. I'd say there's a lot of assumption in your statement as well. That's all we can do really -- assume or make educated guesses based on whatever facts we have. We don't know what these mofos would do...or don't do. They could always try but whether or not they will have success remains to be seen. Time will tell. The fact is that the "deterrent" now exist. Anyhow, to my understanding, the 5-month+ ASIC delivery time frame is just for the delivery of the wafers themselves. It doesn't include the time required for subsequent processes/fabrication/manufacturing (dicing, PCB design and fabrication, mounting, assembly of finished product, etc.). This would then amount to way over 6 months (beyond regular HF schedule) before a functional ASIC miner could be realized. Furthermore, I don't think the masks could be altered on-the-fly once they are created. I assume that any design change would necessitate the process of creating an entirely different set of masks (thereby requiring more time) which is very expensive. Please correct me if this assumption is inaccurate. To be honest I have no idea what it takes or doesn't take to get ASICs redesigned and manufactured, but fact of the matter is, is that I absolutely love the fact that the monero devs take an active stance against the status quo of having centralized miners be a "norm". It's just like when Riccardo took a huge stand up to people 'per-announcing' things in order to market them selves for the hype. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
