...] If you are operating under capped or metered bandwidth the optimized method to do a sync is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=652305.msg12285629#msg12285629This is probably somewhat more bandwidth-efficient than even downloading an old Boost-style bootstrap. When 0.9 is released, the bootstrap will switch to an export format that is more bandwidth efficient and will be a good alternative to the above, somewhat complex, procedure. The bandwidth limits are mostly useful for controlling other users' ability to sync from your node, or for limiting current bandwidth usage below your physical speed for connection sharing purposes. If you slow down your own syncing, it will just take longer, and the same overall bandwidth will be used anyway. If you limit bandwidth below the rate of actual usage you will just drop off the network, though current usage level is low enough that isn't likely to be an issue yet. This method can be very useful in the following situation. Let us say one has a fully synchronized node on a desktop and one wishes to also have a fully synchronized node on a mobile device. One connects the mobile device to the local LAN (for example a home or business network) and then uses the above method to force synchronization with the existing LAN node at the much higher LAN speed and bandwidth without using or paying for ISP (WAN) bandwidth. Edit: Of course in this situation the user could easily trust the node if they also created it. |
|
|
|
coinmarket cap is a waist of time, coingecko is a waste of time.... the only thing that matters is the code. Monero wins.
Code which has been developed over the last year but is not yet part of a tagged release is likely the main reason for the significant difference between CoinGecko and CoinMarketCap for Monero. |
|
|
|
Quick question... How does coingecko rank every coin? Like how can doge coin be #3 when the price is so low?
... becasue CoinGecko looks at a lot more than just capitalization which in many cases can be easily manipulated. If there is a marked discrepancy between the CoinGecko and capitalization rank of a coin, I would pay very close attention to that coin. |
|
|
|
...
Disclosure of Dash Evolution imminent, T minus 9 days....
It will be very interesting to see what impact this disclosure will have on the price. |
|
|
|
Dash is at 7 so.....not impressed.... The spread between the Coingecko ranking 7 (Namecoin just passed us) and Coinmarketcap 16 is really significant. The implication is that Monero is severely undervalued at this point. The other coin with a significant positive spread is Namecoin 6 vs 11 indicating it is also undervalued although Namecoin has narrowed the spread recently, Some significant negative spreads indicating over valuation Ripple 5 vs 2 and Steller 18 vs 8 ouch. As for Dash slightly overvalued 9 vs 6. |
|
|
|
|
30. Rb2
Prevents a4 and leaves the option of Ra1 open. I do not like the idea of of Re1 where both rooks and the king are left on a potential knight fork. The queen side is where I see the potential opportunity for us.
|
|
|
|
The likely result is transaction fees would go down to zero. So now how do you secure the net work in the absence of an emission?
The block reward subsidizes all transactions until it doesn't. Then you pay to play. Maybe the miners include your transaction and maybe they don't. If they don't, then you offer a higher transaction fee. What's the issue? The issue is that competition among the miners will drive the price down to zero since there is no longer scarcity in the blocksize, This effectively eliminates the difficulty in POW since there is no economic incentive to mine. The small block crowd do make a valid point here. Edit: With no blocksize limit and no emission it is to the advantage of a miner to include all transactions regardless of fee price. |
|
|
|
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg8810#msg8810It would be nice to keep the blk*.dat files small as long as we can.
The eventual solution will be to not care how big it gets.
But for now, while it's still small, it's nice to keep it small so new users can get going faster. When I eventually implement client-only mode, that won't matter much anymore.
There's more work to do on transaction fees. In the event of a flood, you would still be able to jump the queue and get your transactions into the next block by paying a 0.01 transaction fee. However, I haven't had time yet to add that option to the UI.
Scale or not, the test network will react in the same ways, but with much less wasted bandwidth and annoyance.
The orthodox bitcoin stance is to eliminate the block size limit altogether. But it seems that some people have decided to revise that. Making the block size bigger is now seen as the heretical position. Incredible. This runs into the opposite problem. Effectively infinite supply. The likely result is transaction fees would go down to zero. So now how do you secure the net work in the absence of an emission? Edit: We see now see how intractable the blocksize in Bitcoin is. Both sides can make very valid points. |
|
|
|
...
I'm glad to see you no longer pushing your fake 'all-or-nothing' version of the substitution effect. That's progress I can work with.
I never have. There are too many 'non-marginal use cases for the average person' to list here, given The true value that Bitcoin brings to the table is not "everyone gets to write into the holy ledger", it is instead "everyone gets to benefit from sane and non-inflationary financial instutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain". And that's not even accounting for the additional capacity enabled by SC+LN. The second question is you feigning obtuseness and being snotty. You can do better than that; you know damn well if you want higher tx priority you simply have to pay for it. You also know RBF makes that arrangement flexible, adaptive, and dynamic. It would be great if you could stop pretending Bitcoin's Layer 1 was created (and/or is able) to replace commercial banking, cash, plastic, and Starbucks gift cards while remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient. Please do the engineering. I have done the engineering. Please see this link. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg. This is a picture taken during my lifetime. Now try to run the current VISA network using punched cards and tabulating machines. Credit cards existed before this picture was taken. If they are using LN or some other off chain solution there are using some kind of bank by another name. If they are using a side chain they are using an alt-coin by another name In both the above cases there remain the serious security issues that smooth has mentioned in a prior post, in particular how do you secure the Bitcoin main chain. So my solution was to move from Bitcoin to a combination of XMR and CAD. I have both the solutions above. The "sidechain" XMR and the "bank" CAD. Of course if you want a higher TX priority you have to pay for it. In a normal market It also means that if people offer to pay more for TXs they get an increase in supply of TXs. It is here where Monero TXs behave as a normal market. If there is an increase in demand, leading to an increase price it results this in an increase is supply. With Bitcoin TXs no matter how much the demand and price increase there is no increase in supply, and therein lies the fatal flaw in the Bitcoin TX market and by extension in Bitcoin itself. The whole point of Bitcoin was to replace the bank for certain transactions, not to create a "better" bank so davout is dead wrong here. |
|
|
|
It would be nice if the blocksize were actually a problem. There's never been a time when paying 5 cents wouldn't get your transaction processed quickly. We're talking about a theoretical problem that's based on people using BTC for some non-marginal use. Realistically, that won't happen this year, and probably won't happen next year or the year after that.
Just wait. Edit: It is already having an impact most notably on price and venture capital investments. The current Bitcoin bear market has been longer than any previous one. Of course what could easily happen is there is little apparent impact because people simply stay away from Bitcoin. Also the fact that transactions are still going through with a small fee premium is what is giving people a false sense of security. |
|
|
|
...
You are falsely conflating everyone switching ("nobody really cares about Bitcoin any more") with loss of marginal use cases (EG SatoshiDice and coffee). That's not how the substitution effect works. What actually happens those who gain the most value from Bitcoin stay and those who gain the least switch. That is basic economics.
When oil prices rise, we demand/produce/consume (IE substitute) more coal, nat gas, and alt energy instead. That doesn't mean nobody really cares about oil any more.
With a 1 MB blocksize limit one has 3 tps (reasonable practical estimate) for the current Bitcoin network. This translates into approximately 95 million transactions per year. So here are some questions: What non marginal use cases do you expect the average person to be able to use Bitcoin for? Do you expect on average those transactions to be mined within that average person's life expectancy? That of their children? That of their grand children? That of their great grand children? Please do the math. |
|
|
|
...
That doesn't necessarily follow. I didn't look at it in depth at all, but it seemed that they are prioritizing all associated transactions: deposits going to their known addresses (user initiated, user controls keys) and withdrawals (BTCC initiated, owned); perhaps also user to user transactions, which would be controlled by them as well, but I think using the chain for that is a waste.
It means that Bitcoin ceases to be a peer to peer network and becomes a network for clearing transactions involving MSBs and banks. We already have fiat currencies for that. Edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm Worth reading in this context. |
|
|
|
...
It's a given that with relatively small blocks the Bitcoin main chain would not be place where most transactions are done (obvious). It isn't a given that means transactions would then move to Monero or Dash (or LTC or DOGE). They could in theory move to Bitcoin side chains or Lightning or something else closer to the Bitcoin sphere.
That still leaves the issue of what happens if the Bitcoin main chain has hardly any transactions as the block rewards run out. A small but highly-secure chain that serves as a monetary anchor for other transactional systems rather than as a platform for transactions directly makes much more sense if the rewards don't diminish down to nothing, but there is really no way to get there with Bitcoin's fixed supply.
This is exactly the fundamental problem with Bitcoin and I would argue that Litecoin has exactly the same problem. Dodgcoin could save itself by adding an adaptive blocksize since they have already made the hard social covenant change of a tail emission. Dash is an unknown until we see exactly what Dash Evolution will be (supposedly in around 18 months), in its current state it also has the same problem. Bytecoin (premine / ninjamine) not withstanding also runs into this issue. Go down the market capitalization list and the first POW coin that has long term viability is Monero. Edit: Anything built upon the Bitcoin main chain will fail if the Bitcoin main chain fails and this includes Lightning, side chains etc. |
|
|
|
Why do I do these posts?
to talk some sense into my nonsense. Yes, I misread it. There is no premium, its for their customers. ... those who hold bitcoin at BTCC... so, unless they are using a deterministic style wallet, the premium is the control of your bitcoin. So, give us your keys, we'll give you faster transaction times. It is getting even worse than I thought. Bold my emphasis |
|
|
|
...
AM, pleases not that "fee market" should be plural, as both in- and out-of-band fee markets are needed to efficiently allocate the scarce resources of the network.
All the FUD about BTCC is overblown. Peter Todd already said RBF makes this mostly a non-issue, and Lightning will make us forget it ever happened.
The Gavinista big block fetishists (having lost their XT node/block/governance war) are just using anything available as a cudgel to beat up on Team Core, no matter how far fetched (because their intended audience is low-information redditards and MBAs, not True Bitcoiners).
Sure. Here is how the out of band market works. The fees in Bitcoin keep rising as growing demand hits the 1 MB blocksize brick wall. When the fees get high enough people start switching to Monero that does not have this problem. Then Monero becomes the dominant coin and the fees in Bitcoin fall as nobody really cares about Bitcoin any more. This is basic economics. If Monero does not step into the opportunity somebody else will. DASH for example cannot be faulted for at least trying. |
|
|
|
Edit: A DDoS against the Monero blockchain would the require the attacker to keep paying fees in order to maintain the blocksize at a given level.
I largely agree with your comments - the blocksize debate is not just limited to a simple technicality, it's a question for how Bitcoin can grow without pushing out many users/use cases that can't fit in under a high fee market. To the point quoted above, how does this work when the attacker is also a large Monero miner. The fees they'd be paying would largely go to themselves, no? There is still a loss with a miner spamming the network since they would only get their hash rate percent back. If they control say 5% of the hash rate they still have to pay the remaining 95%. In addition the would forgo the legitimate fee revenue and / or still have to pay the block penalty on over size blocks. So it would not be economically advantageous to spam the network. This however is not the case in Bitcoin where it can very advantageous for a miner to spam the network in the current situation of a fixed blocksize limit and close to full blocks. The miner spams the network in order to increase the overall fees against the fixed blocksize limit and can directly profit from this even with a small percentage of the hash rate. |
|
|
|
I think we can consider the draw offer as part of the move which means it wasn't a tie (yet):
29. b4 (ArticMine, XMRpromotions)
29. b4, offer draw (smooth)
I'm willing to change my vote to just b4 without the offer of a draw if needed.
I am fine with this. |
|
|
|
Maybe some Swiss banks will start offering XMR services. They have a track record on privacy.
Maybe they already are, but nobody knows and/or can't prove it.  welp, I appreciate the gesture, but again I will put out there that in no official capacity am I associated with monero - I just think the technology is cool and generally want to see civilization advance into the future by using new technological developments. I also found this interesting - Bitcoin giant BTCC launches priority blockchain transactions http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730there's a bitcointalk thread about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256357.0I can't decide if this is the natural development of bitcoin's current protocol, or if this is setting a bad precedent. Well, to be honest I think its a bad development. IMO, this is proof that bitcoin is losing its egalitarian nature. If you own 11% of the hash, you can demand a premium. Add on top of this that its impossible to determine whether or not these are mafia tactics... Furthermore, I speculate whether this type of system will ever have a chance of sprouting in the monero protocol. Our blocks would steadily increase in size during a blockchain DDoS (which I guess is the best name for the recent "stress tests"), so there would be a small window for a premium, but with our 2 minute blocks it would be short. Finally, I ponder what monero can do in the face of a blockchain DDoS. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that wouldn't be filtering of transactions by pool ops. But I guess after the fact, there could be some outfit that determines which transactions were crap, and could distribute a patch so that blockchain maintainers could "pull out the weeds" from their blockchain by pruning.... My take is that this kind thing is to be expected in Bitcoin given the fact Bitcoin does not have a solution to the blocksize / fee market issue. It is also indicative of a very serious problem in Bitcoin at a very fundamental level. I hate to say I told you so but this is the reason why I sold the vast majority of my XBT holdings for a combination of XMR and CAD. The fundamental problem Bitcoin faces is how to create a viable adaptive blocksize - fee market in the absence of an emission? It is for this reason, rather than personalities, that a solution to the blocksize problem in Bitcoin has not been found. The only viable solution that is currently working in a POW coin is both adaptive blocksize limits (Cryptonote coins) and tail emission Dodgecoin, Monero, Aeon). In the intersection above I am only aware of Monero and Aeon. Until a solution to the adaptive blocksize - fee market in the absence of an emission is found I must say that Bitcoin and Bitcoin clones together with Cryptonote coins that do not have have a tail emission will eventually be doomed. What we are witnessing above in Bitcoin may infact be the start of the death spiral. Edit: A DDoS against the Monero blockchain would the require the attacker to keep paying fees in order to maintain the blocksize at a given level. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
