...
The fees only rise temporarily so their isn't an economic incentive for miners to attack the blockchain with spam
Cryddit has already identified a scenario where there is an economic incentive. I suspect that if proper simulations are run one can show this scenario is just the tip of the iceberg. |
|
|
|
Seems to me that if Blockstream is to open-source their stuff, pretty much anyone could take it and run. Normally people open-source stuff because that is exactly what they hope will happen. It seems in character with the work that many of those associated with Blockstream have previously demonstrated.
Self profit comes from proprietary gains. When you release your stuff as open source you give away the chance to have proprietary software and thus the profit. I don't believe the argument that blockstream is looking for profit when they stay with core development. This is simply not true. There are many ways to monetize Free Libre Open Source Software. Ever heard of Red Hat? https://www.google.ca/finance?cid=663462Edit: Red Hat has been a much better investment than Microsoft over the last 12 years. |
|
|
|
...
4. If all of these methods were fully compromised then you have a situation that at its worst is no worse than Bitcoin. In all reasonable probability it is likely to be better.
...
Actually even in that very unlikely scenario Monero would be well ahead of Bitcoin because of the adaptive blocksize limit. |
|
|
|
...
It's true that the expenses for mounting such an attack are smaller (hence reward greater) as real transactions become more numerous.
Sadly, it is also true that the mining coalition can make more money than that by driving up fee prices to the point where people only fill half a block.
It may actually be a lot worse, since it would be profitable for other smaller miners to join the attack creating positive feedback. One would have to run simulations to get a proper handle on this. My instinct is that this could potentially spiral out of control where "fake" transactions dominate the mined blocks and only the most price resistant "real" transactions remain. |
|
|
|
We already know what the issues are. I don't see the point of them wasting money and making lives more difficult than they need to be. Perhaps we should club together and stress test their wonderful service that'll save us all until it becomes unusable.
It is not that simple. Whether this attack is profitable or not depends on the ratio of real transactions to the blocksize limit and what percentage of the hashpower the attacker controls. Cryddit is on to something here. |
|
|
|
...
The mathematical fact is that as long as the maximum block size is smaller than twice the number of "real" transactions that people will pay increased fees for, it costs less for a mining coalition to drive fees up by making bogus transactions, than the coalition can reap in increased fees. (assuming the coalition is at least 38% of the mining power) You don't have to take my word for it; Do the math.
This is a simple but revealing analysis. In fact this attack is favored even more as the ratio of "real" transactions to the fixed block limit increases. |
|
|
|
With current emission the daily coins costs only a few thousands of dollars (around 7 000 usd - I know pathetic)).
It is funny the markets are not able to rise to higher level.
There need to be some incentive to actually hold and buy Moneros.
Many people do not download source code and compile themselves. So they are pricing based on binaries that are over 8 months old. |
|
|
|
Orderbook looks like shit..no support!
maybe if we paint a double bottom though
The manipulative character of the ask side is visible all the way here..  I would not be too scared of the weak bid side, it's proven many times that you can sell XMR low, but buying it low is a more difficult thing to do  I am far more interested in the what is going on with development; in particular the ever widening gap between the tagged 0.8.8.6 build and the current builds in master, https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero, than in the order book. These fundamentals do not look good for the Monero bears at all. Edit: The current blocksize issue in Bitcoin, may provide some short term solace to the Monero bears, but this will likely be at the expense of some medium and even long term pain. |
|
|
|
...
Perhaps not. But I'd say it is quite naive to think that technological advancements will continue to exponentially grow to infinity, as many seem to believe around here. In fact, Moore's Law seems to be unraveling as we speak. Just ask Intel what just happened to their tick-tock model.....
So the solution is to hard code into the protocol no technological change? Or to only allow those who have a vested interest against the technological change to approve it, such as the "red flag laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws in the 19th century? That is what is really naive. Huh? This is more ridiculous polemics. Just because I am suggesting that Moore's Law (and its application in BIP 101) are unscientific and without basis in reality, that doesn't mean that I prefer "no technological change." This is called a strawman argument, and it's the same strawman that is being repeatedly employed around here against people who support solutions other than BIP 101. Not supporting BIP 101 =/= not supporting progress, or larger blocks..... Actually I also do not support BIP 101 because it has a 8GB hard blocksize limit. |
|
|
|
...
Perhaps not. But I'd say it is quite naive to think that technological advancements will continue to exponentially grow to infinity, as many seem to believe around here. In fact, Moore's Law seems to be unraveling as we speak. Just ask Intel what just happened to their tick-tock model.....
So the solution is to hard code into the protocol no technological change? Or to only allow those who have a vested interest against the technological change to approve it, such as the "red flag laws" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_flag_traffic_laws in the 19th century? That is what is really naive. |
|
|
|
Anyone who supports a Bitcoin blocksize protocol that does scale with technological change is saying that LN is a replacement. After all how many governments, let alone individuals, in 1959 could afford to pay for 1000 warehouses full of punched cards? Yet to day many individuals can afford a 4 TB hard drive.
I don't know how many times we have to go through this, but static storage space is simply one element of the transaction rate, and not a very significant one compared to bandwidth and other things. Casual observers should be warned that anyone who focuses on the _static storage_ aspect of the blockchain is either to ignorant to pay much attention to, or is engaging in blatant propaganda. Usually it's the latter. So we wish to compare the cost of sending say 1 MB of data today as an email attachment with the cost of sending an 1 MB telegram in 1959 instead? Edit: Or how about the cost of downloading 1GB of data from a sever in another part of the world with the cost of sending 1 GB of data over the telegraph network in 1959? |
|
|
|
...
Now there is a legitimate and valuable use for the Bitcoin Lightning Network technology such providing security to Bitcoin exchanges for example, but it is not a replacement for on chain Bitcoin transactions.
...
Who said they were? Is there anything about LN which precludes people from using Bitcoin? I, for one, welcome any option which allows me to use the strength of Bitcoin as a backing yet not spam the blockchain with my inconsequential activity. 99.99% of my activity simply does not need the extreme security offered (currently) by being a perminent fixture in the native Bitcoin blockchain. Anyone who supports a Bitcoin blocksize protocol that does scale with technological change is saying that LN is a replacement. After all how many governments, let alone individuals, in 1959 could afford to pay for 1000 warehouses full of punched cards? Yet to day many individuals can afford a 4 TB hard drive. |
|
|
|
I wish we could have VISA and beyond levels of transactions on-chain including micro and picotransactions, but can anyone explain me how this is done while keeping super low fees, while keeping nodes decentralized (size and bandwith being spread worldwide so most countries can run full nodes as a single individual)? How do you do this?
This would be the perfect Bitcoin but a lot of people has questioned this and I never saw an answer that didn't present a compromise.
Does anyone seriously believe that the VISA network of today could function using the punched card and tabulating machine technology of the 1940's and 1950s? Yes this is when some of the major Credit Card brands started. This is the first Diner's Club card. http://f.tqn.com/y/history1900s/1/S/Z/J/dinersclub2.JPG. The "perfect" Bitcoin may not be entirely possible today, but given the current rate of technological advancement will be very likely in the very near future. The real issue here is will Bitcoin be the VISA or the Diner's Club of crypto currency? |
|
|
|
To understand the financial incentives that Blockstream has here and the corresponding conflict of interest it is very important to see the video and review the technical paper on the Bitcoin Lightning Network Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zVzw912wPoTechnical Paper: https://lightning.network/lightning-network-paper.pdfThe Bitcoin Lightning Network is a way of creating Bitcoin banks where the deposits are cryptographically guaranteed on the Blockchain. This is done by a combination of multi signature and cascading time locked transactions. Blockstream particularly with its close relationship to the Bitcoin core developers would be in a very good position to become one of these banks, provide services to these banks or both. For this to work the transaction fees on the Bitcoin network have to be high and if technology pushes the actual costs drastically down (as has been the historical case) then an artificial scarcity in the form of low Bitcoin blocksize limits is necessary. Now there is a legitimate and valuable use for the Bitcoin Lightning Network technology such providing security to Bitcoin exchanges for example, but it is not a replacement for on chain Bitcoin transactions. Consider a multinational logging company called Treestream. Their biggest customer makes punched cards. Think on how disruptive a single 4 TB hard drive can be. It actually replaces 1000 warehouses, full of punched cards, such as this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card#/media/File:IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg. Now does anyone seriously expect Treestream to fund the development of 40 TB SSD drives? |
|
|
|
|
This could also explain the 32 MB hard limit in BIP 100.
|
|
|
|
As for Monero not being spendable, there's a service where you can pay with XMR everywhere Bitcoin is accepted. Easy and simple. --> xmr.to Considering BCN, start here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0And that seems to be only the tip of the iceberg. Ahh. Yes the above thread boils down to: Is Bytecoin an 82% premine (The most likely scenario) or an 82% ninjamine (The "official" Bytecoin version)? |
|
|
|
|
The solution I am using is a mix of XMR (Monero) and CAD (Canadian Dollars). One can of course change the CAD for another fiat currency USD, EUR, CHF etc. The low capitalization of XMR vs XBT is a double edge sword. It means the upside is way higher but so is the downside. By diluting the XMR with fiat one can offset the impact of the low capitalization.
My estimate is that a 20% - 25% Monero with 80% - 75% fiat can work based on the past performance of alt-coins vs Bitcoin during a Bitcoin boom. A more aggressive investor (some who would for example borrow money of buy Bitcoin) could increase XMR component.
Edit: Think of Bitcoin as beer and Monero as port. (4% - 6% alcohol vs 20% - 22% alcohol)
|
|
|
|
This is the earliest I have found. A proposed patch to fix the problem. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0;all and the following response: Applying this patch will make you incompatible with other Bitcoin clients.
+1 theymos. Don't use this patch, it'll make you incompatible with the network, to your own detriment. We can phase in a change later if we get closer to needing it. |
|
|
|
... and I'm open for suggestions regarding hosting the file. I've heard rumor that mega's not the place to drop files anymore, so i came across this: http://wikisend.com/http://drop.io/always wonder how these sites do it for free. Maybe they're using the slack model, where you become dependent on the data you've hosted with them and BAM they go surprise, you gotta pay for access now!! The lock in typically by control over the domain names that is used to link to the content. If the content is moved then all the links are broken. As for monetization of the lock in, here is an extreme, but simple example: How much DASH or BCN can one earn by placing ads on the site once Monero grows? |
|
|
|
...
The problem with BIP 100 is that it allows an attacker with 21% of the hash rate to arbitrarily dictate the block size cap and set it to the minimum.
Yes. This is a very valid point. Please read the BIP at least once. I have. Perhaps you can explain something about the following: "Votes are evaluated by dropping bottom 20% and top 20%, and then the most common floor (minimum) is chosen." What does "the most common floor (minimum)" mean in this context? Some have interpreted it to mean that the lowest vote of the remaining 60% becomes the next size cap. That would result in the possibility detailed above (a 21% takeover). Assuming that's not correct, why the use of "floor (minimum)" at all? Why not use the median vote? Median vote would make more sense. Defining what is being proposed here in terms of pseudo-code would clarify this. Still even after giving BIP 100 the benefit of the doubt the 32MB hard fork limit remains a serious issue. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
