|
None of the above.
Monero (XMR) as the leading Cryptonote coin has no fixed blocksize limit and so no built in TPS limitation. It can scale easily with the growth in Bandwidth, CPU, Memory, Storage etc. It is currently 14 on the list.
|
|
|
|
I would second the stay away from Seagate advice. I had a Seagate Drive fail on me after 4 years. I went with 3 TB WD Red drives when I built my RAID 6 array (18TB Raw 12TB home partition on Ubuntu) back in 2013. Now of course I would use 6TB WD Red Drives and build an array roughly twice the size for about the same cost.  By the way Bitcoin (XBT) accounts for a mere 37.0 GB, Namecoin (NMC) comes in at 2.5 GB and Monero (XMR) comes in at 4.1 GB. I run full nodes for all three. |
|
|
|
It was the 1MB blocksize issue that brought me to Monero in the first place.
What's the UXTO growth situation for Monero? I assume since it's a different codebase, the stack won't overflow like Bitcoin's. Monero uses adaptive blocksize limits so this is simply not an issue. The maximum blocksize is calculated dynamically and can scale with demand. This is all explained in section 6.2 of the Cryptonote paper. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf There is a penalty to the miner for mining an oversize block which is why if one calculates what the total emission of XMR to today according to the formula and compares it with the actual number of XMR emitted today the actual number is slightly less. This difference is due to the cumulative effect of these block penalties. Many people think of Monero as a privacy / fungibility currency; however in reality the fact that Monero does not have the fixed blocksize problem is a critical benefit of Monero that is poorly understood by many both inside and outside of the Monero community. This is now becoming more apparent given the debate over the 1MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
It is a valid theory and one that can explain why this debate is going nowhere.
|
|
|
|
Litcoin is not the answer here, neither is Doge and most other alt-coins. Why because they also have the same fixed blocksize issue and furthermore those communities have done nothing about fixed blocksize limits in spite of the debate that has been raging in the Bitcoin community for years. In order to use an alt-coin as part of a hedge against the 1 MB blocksize limit on needs to spend the time, do the research and pick an alt-coin that does not have this issue. Otherwise it is just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. someone has proposed maidsafe, but you can't even call it an altcoin, right now every alt is affected by this, because they are just clone, i don't know right now if coin that run with cryptonote are affected to, but certainly they are, it's not a problem for those alt because they have still ridiculous numbers of Transactions per second, that's why newbie like "hund" can't see the difference Cryptonote coins are not affected because they use adaptive blocksize limits. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf That is why I went with Monero (XMR) as part of my hedge, but please do your research first. Edit: By the way many people in the Monero community are not aware of this issue, they see the coin as a privacy / fungibility coin. |
|
|
|
...
"Doing nothing" is also a choice and that option has just as many supporters if not more than Gavins' poop.
It can be an option but one must be prepared to hold the XBT oneself for a few years until the dust settles without moving the coins on the blockchain. The idea is that after the fork one's coins will be valid on both chains. Then one simple waits until the market picks the winning chain. This could very easily be a very wild ride. |
|
|
|
Litcoin is not the answer here, neither is Doge and most other alt-coins. Why because they also have the same fixed blocksize issue and furthermore those communities have done nothing about fixed blocksize limits in spite of the debate that has been raging in the Bitcoin community for years. In order to use an alt-coin as part of a hedge against the 1 MB blocksize limit on needs to spend the time, do the research and pick an alt-coin that does not have this issue. Otherwise it is just jumping out of the frying pan into the fire. |
|
|
|
Silly XT altcoiners  No XT is the way to save Bitcoin, and yes there are alt-coin solutions to this problem. |
|
|
|
Gavin has little choice but to take this course of action as Bitcoin cannot continue crippled by the 1 MB limit. This is not a new debate. As the following thread dating back to 2010 demonstrates. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.0;all Yes I have brought it back from the dead twice, but Bitcoin can not continue without dealing with the 1 MB limit for another two years, so I doubt I can do this a third time.  |
|
|
|
Time to revive this thread again. Gavin is now taking action on the 1MB limit. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1074701.0;allEdit: I doubt Bitcoin will remain viable in two years time if the 1 MB limit is not addressed, so I will not be able to revive this thread a third time. |
|
|
|
i know it is hard to guess but when do you guys expect a significant rise in prices?
do you think it will still be happen this year?
No. Alts will rise when BTC rises, what may take several years. See this picture, taken from the wall observer thread:  According to the picture, the next big rise will happen in 2019 Under normal circumstances I would agree with you, but what is keeping XBT down right now is the uncertainty over the 1 MB blocksize limit. XMR is the leading alt-coin that does not have this issue. So it takes only a very small amount of hedging people selling XBT for fiat but also buying a small amount of XMR as a hedge to markedly impact the price of XMR to the upside. Edit: What has a better risk to return ratio in most scenarios: A 75% USD, 25% XMR or B 100% XBT? I say the issue of the 1MB blocksize limit makes A the far superior choice both in terms of the upside potential and the downside risk. |
|
|
|
|
I voted for XT. I really do not see keeping the 1MB blocksize limit as a viable option for Bitcoin. Furthermore I have felt this way for a very long time. I invite anyone to look at my posts on the subject.
|
|
|
|
The WTF chill creeping my skin - I get almost anytime thinking about POW. Power ... wasted.
A major misunderstanding regarding Proof of Work is that the work is "wasted." In reality, you have to consume one resource to create another. Fiat money "printing" only works because the system is centralized and the value is legally upheld. I have serious doubts that PoS can work in a decentralized system. its worse - its hypocrisy, people waste all kinds of resources on the most stupid things, but securing a decentralized p2p currency is somehow absurd! This is an old line by POSers that simply want to gain more coins doing nothing but sitting on them, POW is fair and with Monero is also more efficient compared with Bitcoin because of the algorithm. There is a simple solution to this issue. There a common application where electricity is turned into heat and this is not "wasted electricity" namely space heating. This is a situation where POW mining has zero environmental impact. Furthermore because using electricity to produce heat only makes sense when the heat is required on a decentralized and distributed basis it actually increases the strenght of the POW network. When it is -30 C outside the heat has way more value than the electricity. |
|
|
|
... Update on this matter: This was already addressed in MRL-0004 (see 2.1) -> https://lab.getmonero.org/pubs/MRL-0004.pdf and will be implemented with a hardfork in the foreseeable future. I spoke to fluffypony and moneromoo about it on IRC, whole conversation is below in the pastebin. I figured this is easier than making a small summary (conversation isn't that long). http://pastebin.com/Mrbyt3WuI am well aware of MRL-0004. The issue is that asking people to use a mixin of 3 before the implementation of (i) on page 13 of MRL-0004 is what is causing the problem. As the wallet implementation stands now, as far as I can see, a mixin greater than 1 only works for transactions with at most 2 decimal places since these would be legal under MRL-0004. There is also the issue of not being able to prevent the use of illegal inputs since these would have to be spent into legal inputs with a mixin of 0 or 1 before they can be spent with a mixin greater than 1. Edit: It is easy to understand why an exchange that tries to implement a mixin of 3 goes back to a mixin of 1 after numerous failed transactions. |
|
|
|
...
Although I agree that 25k is a lot of monero right now it wouldn't be if it went back up to its high of 5 or 6 dollars. This limit would make it hard for people who like to hop in and out of currency unless they keep their crypto on the exchange. I wonder if they will make exceptions.
If Monero goes up in price for this to be an issue the market will solve this problem with exchanges that are not limited to a 25,000 USD withdrawal per day and / or multiple exchanges in different jurisdictions. The best solution to this kind of problem is a wide diversity in exchange providers, exchange types, jurisdictions etc. |
|
|
|
Mixin with a count greater than 1 needs also the breaking out of transactions into powers of 10 down the the lowest level of precision used. So for example 0.00012959874 gets broken down into 0.00010000000, 0.00002000000, 0.00000900000, 0.00000050000, 0.00000009000, 0.00000000800, 0.00000000070, and 0.00000000004. Otherwise these remainder amounts are unique and cannot be mixed. Furthermore for this to work this change needs to be implemented ahead of the mixin change to provide enough transactions in the blockchain for the actual mixing to work. This needs to be addressed at the protocol level.
Right now anything with more than 2 decimal places cannot be mixed with a mixin over 1 and this is the cause of these problems. Asking exchanges to use higher mixin levels is doomed to failure without addressing this mantissa issue at the protocol level.
just a quick idea (dunno if it is stupid), if merchants (exchanges) wont adopt it, from my understanding, you could just send the 1 mixin funds to your wallet and resend it with a mixin greater then 1, to another address you own, right? perhaps this can be done automatically, like generating an address in your wallet which you could mark as an "unclean" receiving address, and your wallet will automatically resend funds recieved to that address to another one of your addresses with a mixin greater then 1. What you are suggesting is a good temporary solution, just do not send any transactions with more than two decimal places and a mixin grater than 1 as there is a good chance they will fail. There is a very valid reason why exchanges are not implementing mixin greater than 1 and that is failed transactions leading to increased support issues. This needs to be addresed at the protocol level, otherwise it will continue to ba a problem. Any issue with bloat can be addressed via transaction size dependent transaction fees. If someone wishes to send a high precision high mixin transaction they should be able to provided they pay for it. |
|
|
|
|
Mixin with a count greater than 1 needs also the breaking out of transactions into powers of 10 down the the lowest level of precision used. So for example 0.00012959874 gets broken down into 0.00010000000, 0.00002000000, 0.00000900000, 0.00000050000, 0.00000009000, 0.00000000800, 0.00000000070, and 0.00000000004. Otherwise these remainder amounts are unique and cannot be mixed. Furthermore for this to work this change needs to be implemented ahead of the mixin change to provide enough transactions in the blockchain for the actual mixing to work. This needs to be addressed at the protocol level.
Right now anything with more than 2 decimal places cannot be mixed with a mixin over 1 and this is the cause of these problems. Asking exchanges to use higher mixin levels is doomed to failure without addressing this mantissa issue at the protocol level.
|
|
|
|
this bullshitcoin is still alive?  prepare your anus for sub 0.001 Just in case this is of interest. One can sell XMR short on Poloniex now. Lol, Is it true? Yes. https://www.poloniex.com/lending#XMR |
|
|
|
Is it a good thing to have MP on board? It seems pretty clear that Satoshi intended for larger blocks to come back (apparently original block size was 32 MB in bitcoin), and MP and his acolytes have been trolling hard to prevent any change and keep 1 MB blocks. XMR devs have committed to changing the code to add infinite inflation, 1% a year I think; is it unreasonable to think he would be virulently opposed to a significant change like this in Monero, even though it's essentially already agreed upon? Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing he if he is a Monero holder/supporter, just that maybe could be more trouble than it's worth...
Satoshi is gone, heres what the current devs say about it: https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/379ce5/the_lightning_network_requires_blocks_larger_than/crkspglPeter Todd is a developer. __The__ developer says that 20 MB blocks should be implemented in ~1 year, and I believe has already made public the code in a github repo. Also, I think it was pretty clear from some of satoshi's writing that 1 MB blocks were a temporary measure to combat spam, and he was considering (re-)raising the limit back in 2010: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 (he's even going to send out an alert telling people to update, just wait and see). Anyway, my point was that I'm not a fan of the tactics employed by Mircea Poopoo and his entourage in attempting to derail the increase in Bitcoin block size, what peripheral devs think not withstanding. Also, I know Monero has adaptive block size. I was commenting that Monero still needs to hard fork to implement permanent inflation rewards, and that maybe MP will be bellyache/troll similar to how he has over increasing bitcoin block size. It's kind of a scarcity issue along the same lines I think. I love these old threads. Two years since I brought the thread back from the dead by quoting satoshi and still nothing! |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
