Bitcoin blocksize is alread at 0.7 MB: https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-sizeBitcionXT was supposed to be solution to this problem. If it dies, that what it means for bitcoin? Its only a matter of time when the block size hits the limit of 1MB. BitcoinXT is a temporary solution to this problem. One that replaces the 1 MB blocksize limit with an 8 GB blocksize limit over a period of time. Sort of like replacing an 80 byte punchcard with 640KB worth of RAM. Edit: 640K RAM should be enough for anyone.  |
|
|
|
...
seriously plug it all day Monero is a shills joke here fullstop.
legend u'd think u'd know better.
Then show me another POW coin that has a long term solution to the blocksize / fee market issue other than "bury your head in the sand". By the way the reason I even found out about Monero in the first place is because I was researching this very issue back in 2014. I have been following the blocksize issue and the "bury your head in the sand" response from the Bitcoin community since early 2012. |
|
|
|
Altcoins can be the answer. If the Bitcoin network is too busy at any time, people can use altcoins like Litecoin or Dash for example.
Both Litecoin and Dash have the same fixed blocksize issue as Bitcoin, so in the long run neither of them can be considered a solution. It is far from a simple problem, if it is possible at all, to create a fee market in the absence of a block reward even with a fixed blocksize. If one then allows the blocksize to scale with demand this may actually be impossible to attain. One needs to look for a POW coin that has both an adaptive blocksize limit and a minimum perpetual reward and that leaves Monero as the altcoin fix to the blocksize issue. |
|
|
|
... Only 5% left to go now  It is funded in a little over a day. This is actually very good. |
|
|
|
...
But they do care about btc, because they accept it. It does not matter for customers what they do with btc, if people pay with btc for vpn or email. The same it does not matter what they do with fiat if you pay by paypal.
But I think you might be right in one thing, i.e. exchanging crypto to fiat. This maybe a problem. Most secure vpn and emails providers are from europe, because well, you cant trust any service from usa due to spying and backdoors everywhere. Thus, most privacy focused providers, such as tutanota, zenmate, protonmail, ghostmail, lavamail, etc. are from europe. And exchanging monero to fiat might be not supported by exchanges they use to change btc to their local currency. Maybe they would have to go Monero->BTC->Fiat (on condition they their exchange even support monero), which only introduces additional and unnecessary transaction fee, as compared to BTC->Fiat.
Quite apart from the privacy / fungibility arguments in favor of Monero, if Bitcoin transactions do not confirm or become very expensive to confirm because of the 1 MB blocksize limit, merchants, payment processors and exchanges will be looking for alternatives to Bitcoin that do not have this problem. As for transactions where the merchant or payment processor converts back to fiat, there is always a minimum holding time between the customer purchasing the crypto currency and the final conversion back to fiat that will increase the market value of the crypto currency. Edit: I do agree that direct Monero - fiat exchanges will be a very significant plus for Monero |
|
|
|
Monero needs now to go up if it is worth to continue the project.
The price is so low that it basically still indicates the project is going to fail.
Basically true of all of crypto. I would say it indicates that it won't succeed in any big way soon. Longer term discounting is harder to interpret. One has to ask some fundamental questions here: 1) What is the biggest problem currently facing Bitcoin, and by extension "all crypto" today? 2) Which coin(s) has / have a solution to the above problem that works? Edit: The problem is not privacy / fungibility |
|
|
|
orderbook reflects current uncertainty. uncertainty regarding btc short-mid term price developement, even uncertainty on how xmr will react during a btc and/or altcoin bubble (i think many saw the ltc pump as a preview on how it might look like)
this even makes supporting the bids difficult. why should i buy 50 btc to support the bids when the risk of btc falling back to 200$ is very real?
No, i take what i get every day and many do the same. small trades, easy going.
bids never really reovered from when they first vanished durin polo's kyc stunt and have been declining ever since.
any news on the fiat exchanges? no news for long time and moneroinvestment.com still recommends xstock.io, but nothing is happening there. who has insght?
The risk of holding Bitcoin is certainly an issue with supporting bids on Polo. In a Bitcoin bubble I see Monero outperforming Bitcoin. There is considerable evidence for this in the performance of most alt-coins during a Bitcoin bubble. The more interesting question is how will Monero perform during a Bitcoin crash due to the blocksize issue. One one level one would expect Monero to also crash given the past performance most alt-coins during Bitcoin bear markets; however Monero has a very viable long tern solution to the Bitcoin blocksize issue due to adaptive limits and a tail emission, so it could actually boom in such a scenario. |
|
|
|
Storage (a hierarchy, in general), CPU power, and bandwidth are all potential bottlenecks and the future critical factor will depend in on the path of technological evolution which is difficult to predict. Most expect bandwidth, I believe.
Bandwidth is already a problem, because larger blocks already have a higher likelihood of being orphaned, and IMHO that's the point which makes blocksize discussion mostly hypothetical. Larger blocks are already unprofitable for miners, if they make large blocks it's out of goodwill. Storage is the second issue, but that is fixable in the long run through pruning: no point in storing and replicating historic transactions that have long been over-confirmed. Historic transactions are irrelevant for bitcoin as a storage or value or a mean of payment, they are useful for validating, but that could be replaced by automatic check points every few months f.i., and everything historic beyond the last checkpoint could be pruned, keeping only the UTXO. Yes but if orphan blocks is the only limitation, miners will simply demand a higher fee to overcome the probability of an orphan block. This will create a fee market. If the price of bandwidth drops then the fee will be driven down. All of this works provided that there is a block reward. |
|
|
|
...
It's not scalable,
There'll be a solution to the blocksize issue that lets bitcoin scale, one way or another. It's also worth observing that Bitcoin is currently the only crypto-currency operating at *any* sort of scale. ... I am not so sure. It is not that simple to come up with an adaptive blocksize limit, that also allows for a fee market to develop in the absence of a block reward. I am not convinced it is even possible. The Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limit formula works in Monero only because there is a tail emission. Take away the tail emission, as in for example Bytecoin, and the blocksize can grow to infinity with no penalty once the emission runs out. This prevents a fee market from developing, and could cause the difficulty and security to plummet. It is this kind of issue that gives credence to those in the Bitcoin community that oppose growing the blocksize. In any case I will believe a scaling solution in Bitcoin only when I see it, not before. |
|
|
|
With a population of 3.5 million, Puerto Rico could easily generate enough transaction volume that would overwhelm Bitcoin's 1 MB max blocksize limit. This could provide an opening not for Bitcoin, but rather for an alt-coin that has adaptive blocksize limits.
Interesting. So it is your position that merely increasing the block size limit will actually lead to adoption? "Build it and they will come" sort of thing? I think you'll have a tough time proving that claim. No my position is to make adoption possible. It seems that with adoption over the past 5-6 years, blocks are still at less than 50% capacity on average -- and that includes a considerable amount of spam that arguably does not need to occupy the blockchain. What makes adoption "not possible" in this instance? PayPal does 11.5 million transactions per day or appriximatly 133 transactions per second. https://www.paypal-media.com/assets/pdf/fact_sheet/PayPal_FastFacts_Q4_2014_FINAL.pdf Bitcoin maxes out at about 2 transactions per second. Please do the math. |
|
|
|
With a population of 3.5 million, Puerto Rico could easily generate enough transaction volume that would overwhelm Bitcoin's 1 MB max blocksize limit. This could provide an opening not for Bitcoin, but rather for an alt-coin that has adaptive blocksize limits.
Interesting. So it is your position that merely increasing the block size limit will actually lead to adoption? "Build it and they will come" sort of thing? I think you'll have a tough time proving that claim. No my position is to make adoption possible. |
|
|
|
|
With a population of 3.5 million, Puerto Rico could easily generate enough transaction volume that would overwhelm Bitcoin's 1 MB max blocksize limit. This could provide an opening not for Bitcoin, but rather for an alt-coin that has adaptive blocksize limits.
|
|
|
|
...
one could say bitcoin is becoming the sacrificial lamb for the crypto community.
With this point I must agree. |
|
|
|
...
well litecoin does have a solution to the none pressing matter this is. in any case the problem tearing the bitcoin community apart has little to do with blocksize.
and this all has next to nothing to do with what joe public would think whichever way the split goes.
Well at this point we have to agree to disagree. Those who believe that the 1MB blocksize matter in Bitcoin is a "non pressing matter" and that the problems that the Bitcoin community has are unrelated to the blocksize issue >> Litecoin. Those who believe that the 1MB blocksize matter in Bitcoin is a "pressing matter" and that the problems that the Bitcoin community has are very much related to the blocksize issue >> Monero. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the info. The idea is to make the cost of sending the spam comparable to the cost of cleaning up the spam, which makes a lot of sense. Min TX fees can work as an anti spam measure, and can be applied without hard forking the coin if enough nodes simply refuse to relay transactions without the min TX fee. |
|
|
|
...
And those issues regular people will understand. And if it starts happening at the level that it hinders using bitcoin, than people will start looking for alternatives.
The Bitcoin network is currently running at about 50% of its maximum capacity, without any "stress tests". https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=. So (1) is already happening. My take is that the Bitcoin market has started already to price this in, which is why "good news" is having little effect on the Bitcoin market other than to slow down the gradual decline. If (2) and (3) happen watch out, things could get very ugly. |
|
|
|
Right now given the 1 MB blocksize limit issue in Bitcoin and the reality that most other POW coins do not have a solution while Monero does, adaptive limits rather than privacy could actually be the killer application of Monero.
This is more technical point of view, which off course is also valid. But I really doubt that a regular user, even someone using bitcoins, understands and cares much about things such as blocksize, blockchain, POW, etc. Privacy and anonymity are the only things that most people, even those not using any crypto now, intuitively understand and can relate to real life scenarios. They may not understand or care about the technical details. What the will care about is: 1) That the Bitcoin network is limited to approximatly the current transaction rate and cannot grow. 2) That this will manifest in transactions taking a long time, if at all, to confirm (or in laypersons terms "clear"). 3) That the cost of using the Bitcoin network will skyrocket. 1) - 3) Will cause venture and or investment capital to run real fast. Edit: I do agree that the "nerdy" capital will likely flee first. |
|
|
|
---
litecoin has plenty over bitcoin, just one HUGE one for mass adoption. doesn't have an anon dev holding a billion dollar bag. anon dev may be cool in this community but in the real world tis a no brainer to avoid.
Yes this is a very valid point; however what is currently tearing the Bitcoin community apart is not Satoshi's coins. The problem facing Bitcoin today is what to do about the 1 MB blocksize limit. Monero has a solution right now, Litecoin does not. |
|
|
|
|
Right now given the 1 MB blocksize limit issue in Bitcoin and the reality that most other POW coins do not have a solution while Monero does, adaptive limits rather than privacy could actually be the killer application of Monero.
|
|
|
|
My take on the issue:
Any solution has to make spam expensive. Anything else is just adding further problems. That's why I like the solution implemented with Litecoins. Why does spam have to be expensive? if transactions are zero fee, then miners have no incentive to include them, so they'll just get filtered out and apply some mempool clearing system that forgets them after a certain time. If the transactions have a fee attached they are not really spam, so why not let supply and demand economics take care of the miners incentive? Because the miners incentives are not aligned with those of the network in a free floating block size scenario There is actually research indicating that this is not the case in the presence of a block reward. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/43331625/feemarket.pdf (Thanks to binaryFate for letting me know about this article). Essentially the miners will not include spam unless the fee meets a certain threshold because it increases the probability of orphan blocks. The tricky part, where the above is very likely true, is in the absence of a block reward. On another note: I am actually interested in the Litecoin solution regarding spam. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
