It can easily become a non issue or even have a positive impact if solar power keeps growing in market share of electricity production. The current reality is that solar is already competitive with coal for the production of electricity in India. http://www.sciencealert.com/india-says-the-cost-of-solar-power-is-now-cheaper-than-coal. Furthermore the theoretical efficiency of solar panels is upwards of 80% while the best commercial solar panel efficiencies are around 20%. Prices of solar panels are also likely to continue to fall. Solar power by its very nature has peaks and valleys that are not in line with electricity demand and furthermore there are major advantages to decentralized generation of solar electricity. People's rooftops vs dedicated land for solar panels. All of this creates a situation where using excess solar power to mine crypto currencies can make a lot of economic sense and make solar even more competitive with fossil fuels or nuclear. In addition this complements during the summer the heating of buildings with the "waste" heat from crypto currency mining in the winter argument mentioned in the article. The paradox is that crypto currency mining can have a net positive environmental / carbon reduction impact by making solar an economic alternative where otherwise it would not be. Edit: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-06/wind-and-solar-are-crushing-fossil-fuels |
|
|
|
...
No we don't, the ability to have and hold value without monitoring is an inalienable right afa I'm concerned and i think everyone should hold that belief.
I agree. In addition privacy and anonymity are needed in order to ensure fungibility in crypto currencies, and fungibility is is a necessary requirement of money. Then there is of course the adaptive blocksize in Monero which ensures that there is no arbitrary limit on the number of transactions per second. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the link. I see two issues here. First there is the very small miner reward that has already caused the difficulty to fall drastically and then there is the delay in the difficulty adjustment that is causing the very slow blocks. The latter phenomenon is seen in other SHA 256 coins, for example Freicoin, where a sudden drop in hashrate is not reflected in a corresponding drop in difficulty. This can cause the hashrate to fall even further in a vicious circle and lead to very slow blocks. Freicoin is a good example because it has a tail emission from the demurrage. This shows that the slow blocks are not caused by a lack of a tail emission or very low emission alone, although a very small emission can aggravate the problem. The slow blocks are for the most due to the recycling of old ASIC Bitcoin miners to mining other SHA-256 coins. This can lead to sudden drops hashrate that cause the slow blocks because of the delay in difficulty adjustment. I do not see this been an issue with Bitcoin since Bitcoin is by far the lead SHA256 coin. The very small block reward in Ixcoin on the other hand is a warning of what can happen to Bitcoin security wise. |
|
|
|
...
The early price of 3000 bitcoin is not relevant. The volume was very small.
I would not call the volume the opening 4 hour candle on Poloniex "very small". Here are the stats.in XBT Open: 2500.00000000 Close: 29.00000000 High: 3299.99999999 Low: 2.04800000 Wtd Avg: 136.27585386 Vol: (XBT) 1744.1Vol: (ZEC) 12.79903 Date: Oct 28 16:00 The peak 5 min candle is even more telling Open: 1099.99999999 Close: 2000.00000000 High: 3299.99999999 Low: 1000.00000000 Wtd Avg: 2071.67289070 Vol: (XBT) 238.91Vol: (ZEC) 0.117019 Date: Oct 28 18:50 To put the 4 hour and 5 min XBT volumes for the peak in perspective the current daily volume for ZEC on Poloniex is around 380 XBT. The high of 3299.99999999 XBT (~2.4 million USD) was established on high volumes and defined the start of a correspondingly brutal bear market that still has a lot of life left. This makes the ATH very relevant from a technical analysis point of view. ZEC remains trapped in a brutal bear market of the developers own creation. https://poloniex.com/exchange#btc_zecEdit: The combination of the artificially slow start with a marketing campaign at launch that was more suited for a large IPO set up the early investors for a major fail. |
|
|
|
|
Is there a link to the Ixcoin emission curve and how it compares to Bitcoin's emission curve?
|
|
|
|
...
There are presently limits to Bitcoin's TSP, but there is no limit to how valuable those 2-7 tx are. Hence Bitcoin's destiny to become high powered super money used for settlement between institutions which issue their own tokens backed by BTC.
...
This assessment of Bitcoin destiny as "high powered super money used for settlement between institutions which issue their own tokens backed by BTC" could in fact be very accurate. What Bitcoin is not becoming is a platform for individuals to make transactions among them selves without the need for a "trusted" third party. This reality is fundamentally different from the original purpose of Bitcoin as presented by Satoshi Nakamoto. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf 1. Introduction
Commerce on the Internet has come to rely almost exclusively on financial institutions serving as trusted third parties to process electronic payments. While the system works well enough for most transactions, it still suffers from the inherent weaknesses of the trust based model. Completely non-reversible transactions are not really possible, since financial institutions cannot avoid mediating disputes. The cost of mediation increases transaction costs, limiting the minimum practical transaction size and cutting off the possibility for small casual transactions, and there is a broader cost in the loss of ability to make non-reversible payments for non-reversible services. With the possibility of reversal, the need for trust spreads. Merchants must be wary of their customers, hassling them for more information than they would otherwise need. A certain percentage of fraud is accepted as unavoidable. These costs and payment uncertainties can be avoided in person by using physical currency, but no mechanism exists to make payments over a communications channel without a trusted party.
What is needed is an electronic payment system based on cryptographic proof instead of trust, allowing any two willing parties to transact directly with each other without the need for a trusted third party. Transactions that are computationally impractical to reverse would protect sellers from fraud, and routine escrow mechanisms could easily be implemented to protect buyers. In this paper, we propose a solution ... What is becoming clear is that Bitcoin is not the solution here and that another crypto currency at least has a chance of becoming the solution.  |
|
|
|
...
Do you have a better explanation that accounts for the observable fact heavily funded bitcoin companies failed to produce the kinds of spectacular results Silicon Valley expects, even as the value of bitcoin itself continues to climb? Speculating about motivations and fretting about EVIL BLOCKSTREAMCORE doesn't count; your personal status as disgruntled isn't an argument that leads to a falsifiable (ie useful) hypothesis.
...
Very simple. If the maximum transactions per second is capped to somewhere between 2 tps and 7 tps this places a limit on the growth of a Bitcoin company, say for example a payment processor, no matter how much venture capital the company may raise. This explains, the weak performance of existing Bitcoin companies, the fall in new venture capital for Bitcoin companies and Bitcoin companies seeking greener pastures outside of Bitcoin. Take for example Walmart. Walmart is currently at war with VISA over merchant fees. This is manifested in both litigation in the United States and trials in Canada where Walmart is testing not accepting VISA in certain stores. A Bitcoin payment processor could make a very good case on how they can process retail transactions for Walmart using Bitcoin for a fraction of what VISA charges. The trouble is that if such a Bitcoin payment processor were to succeed they would not be able to deliver since if only a small fraction of Walmart's sales were to be made using BItcoin the Bitcoin network would not be able to handle it. Furthermore we are not talking cups of coffee here, The typical Walmart retail sale is way more than that. There is a reason why virtually every Bitcoin company is pushing for an increase in the Bitcoin blocksize. If it were as simple as increasing the blocksize in Bitcoin this would have been done a long time ago. The trouble is that the small block point of view also makes extremely valid points since without creating some kind of scarcity in the blocksize there is no way to force the fees in Bitcoin to rise in order to provide an incentive the miners once the block reward runs out. So in this respect Bitcoin is caught between a rock and hard place with one group arguing for the rock and the other group arguing for the hard place. As I have mentioned before the only working solution I have seen that allows for both security and a market based adaptive blocksize is what we have in Monero or something very similar. This requires a tail emission, which is fundamentally against the Bitcoin social covenant. This whole issue is becoming highly relevant to not only both BItcoin and Monero, but also to most other crypto currencies as more and more market players recognize the issues involved. Any market participants trading in or investing in crypto currencies would be wise to inform themselves on this issue and its ramifications. Edit: https://blockchain.info/ |
|
|
|
The market seems to think a step closer to the GUI is positive....
The GUI will bolster XMR up significantly. That is see that is stronger which WILL support the price. Up is more likely, down is less likely.
The lack of it has held XMR up.
Priced in? To a certain extent, yes - but the lack of a GUI has had a negative effect, too.
Only the hype about the GUI may be priced in. What cannot be priced in is actual demand increase/supply decrease due to more people hodling more Monero safe and snug in their own Fluffyboxen. Some of those people may be DNM users and some may be investors. The point is all the various CLI averse folk (aka drooling masses) will have an easy point and click method to take coins off the exchange(s) and conveniently use them for whatever they want. That creates the feedback conditions needed for a price spiral, as increased network effects intensify XMR's status as a Giffen good. There is also the class of potential XMR investors who have eschewed (or limited their) exposure until the core devs prove they can ship their GUI. Apparently "fat protocol" investments are quite au courant, so that class may be much larger than we imagine. http://qz.com/861721/bitcoin-prices-are-at-a-2016-high-despite-silicon-valley-having-soured-on-the-currency/
Fat protocolsBitcoin is an instrument of financial speculation; what value the traders see in it remains open to interpretation. But there are some clues. A new theory is emerging in Silicon Valley, led by prestigious investors like Union Square Ventures, about bitcoin’s worth. It’s what Union Square Ventures’ Joel Monegro calls the “fat protocol”—and it’s driven by the failure of heavily funded bitcoin companies to produce the kinds of spectacular results Silicon Valley expects, even as the value of bitcoin itself continues to climb. Venture capital has usually been rewarded for investing in the application layer of the technology stack. Facebook and Google, for instance, are basically mega-popular applications built on top of the hypertext transfer protocol, the foundation of the web. But cryptocurrencies buck the trend. The underlying protocol keeps growing in value but the companies building applications never get anywhere close to that. All the bitcoin in circulation is worth $12.5 billion (and ethereum is worth over $700 million), for instance, but the biggest bitcoin companies are only valued at several hundred million, Monegro estimates.
The rule of thumb when it comes to fat protocol investing is this: “The market cap of the protocol always grows faster than the combined value of the applications built on top,” as Monegro puts it. The reason: Successful cryptocurrency applications drive up demand for the currency, or more specifically, the tokens that are coded into the currency’s protocol. For instance, when Dread Pirate Roberts dreamed up Silk Road, people embraced the idea of e-commerce for drugs, driving up demand for bitcoin to pay for them. An example that doesn’t involve contraband might be the Bitfinex exchange coming up with a peer-to-peer margin-trading mechanism, which presumably prompted more people to buy bitcoins to trade. Polychain CapitalThe fat protocol rule, and the underlying feedback loop animating it, might explain bitcoin’s current price rise. Union Square Ventures and fellow bitcoin bull Andreessen Horowitz are shifting their bets accordingly. They’re now increasing their exposure to bitcoin itself, if not by buying coins directly, then by taking stakes in companies that do. One such company is Polychain Capital, a new cryptocurency hedge fund. Andreessen Horowitz and Union Square Ventures have pumped $10 million into the firm, and into the fund itself. Polychain founder Olaf Carlson-Wee won’t say much about how his fund invests, except that it’s long-only and the goal is to get into blockchain assets at an early stage. IMO Bitcoin and Monero are the best, fattest protocol tokens easily obtainable by anyone with access to Bitfinex or Shapeshift.  I do agree the fat protocol model is applicable at the early stages of the protocol's development and adoption as is the case at this stage with Monero. I am not so sure it is applicable to a more mature coin such as Bitcoin. It's application to Bitcoin may be more an indication of the anticipation of Bitcoin protocol moving away from transactions on the blockchain to transactions on secondary layers such as the Lightning Network. This is fueled to a large degree by the fixed blocksize limit in the Bitcoin protocol. The following quote from the legal agreement of Circle may be indicative of this shift. https://www.circle.com/en/legal/intl-user-agreement You can use your Circle account to buy bitcoin for sale on other registered platforms and exchanges or to sell bitcoin acquired from other registered platforms and exchanges. You cannot use your Circle account to (i) buy bitcoin for sale to individuals through peer-to-peer brokerage services or unregistered exchanges (such as LocalBitcoins, Craigslist, eBay or similar websites), (ii) sell bitcoin that you have acquired directly from individuals through peer-to-peer brokerage services or unregistered exchanges (such as LocalBitcoins, Craigslist, eBay or similar websites), or (iii) buy or sell bitcoin on behalf of anyone else. Such activities might be in violation of applicable law - so we can’t allow it. The difference between the dream and the reality in Bitcoin is becoming more apparent each day. |
|
|
|
A major namecoin client upgrade is almost here, just been merged to master branch. It is based purely on latest bitcoin core v0.13.1 with an integrated 'Manage Names' tab for easy and simple namecoin names and id management, registration, sending names, receiving names, trading for namecoins.
That is good news, Once it comes out I will be upgrading. |
|
|
|
This is a mandatory upgrade that is required for the hard fork that is scheduled for January 05, 2017 and also for the GUI. Thanks. |
|
|
|
This is a mandatory upgrade that is required for the hard fork that is scheduled for January 05, 2017 and also for the GUI. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
I am assuming the OP is looking at creating a brain wallet and memorizing it. Furthermore there is no access for six years. The objective is a coin or coins that are likely to be around in six years and would keep or appreciate in value. A portfolio approach can be very useful if one or more of the coins fails entirely. This is a risk with all crypto. I am not including assets such as fiat or precious metals since this may not be a practical option for the OP.
I would not recommend Bitcoin at all because of the blocksize debate. If the current paralysis continues for six years there is a very significant chance that Bitcoin could loose a major part of its value. Furthermore the lack of a tail emission in Bitcoin lies at the heart of the blocksize debate in Bitcoin, since there is no long term solution to securing Bitcoin and allowing a blocksize increase, that has been proposed with just transaction fees I would want exposure to one or more coins with a tail emission. My choice would be:
1/3 Litecoin.
Litecoin is a good choice since it has considerable history and stability, has 4x the block capacity of Bitcoin and is very well placed to learn from Bitcoin's mistakes while being very similar to Bitcoin. Litecoin does have the same fundamental problem is this area as Bitcoin; however it has the opportunity to learn from Bitcoin and is further behind in the emission curve. I would consider this the "traditional" part of the portfolio.
1/3 Monero
Ok I am biased in favor of Monero since I am a Monero holder and core team member. Monero is very well placed to benefit from a blocksize crisis in Bitcoin because Monero has an adaptive blocksize and a tail emission. It is also based on an entirely different codebase from Bitcoin. The fungibiliy / privacy / anonymity aspect of Monero becomes also a real bonus here.
1/3 Dogecoin
This is actually a very effective hedge for a failure in Monero because it also has a tail emission but is otherwise very similar to Litecoin and Bitcoin.
Edit: Disclosure. At this time I hold a position in Monero, but do not hold positions in Litecoin or Dogecoin.
|
|
|
|
|
My target on the downside for ZCash next year is way lower than 0.02 XBT; however I still see 0.02 XBT before Christmas this year to be very optimistic for the bears. This is a very healthy bear market but one has to allow time for the block reward inflation to support this bear market. I voted: No, it will next year.
|
|
|
|
I suggest to everyone to don't enter this as long as the full reward is active (i.e. in 33 days).
I would consider this to be a way to short a time frame. 6-9 months would be more appropriate in my opinion. Let us do some very simple math here. ZEC block 1036, just currently mined, has a total block reward of 0.6476 ZEC. In 34 days the block reward will be 12.5 ZEC. So here is the math. If the demand for ZEC remains constant, which is a massive if since it requires keeping up the hype for over a month, then the price per ZEC would drop by an additional factor of over 19x. to around 0.3 XBT or around 214 USD. Let us not forget the peak was around 2.4 million USD. In addition, one would expect this bear market to gain some momentum on the downside, with a base starting point of a drop of around 99.99%. The question of how many 9s, will it be 99.999% or 99.9999% etc., before a bottom is reached remains to be seen. Edit: I get the feeling that someone really overreacted to the criticism of the Dash instamine here, with this linear ramp up of the block reward over 34 days. Well I was wrong this bear market has been more brutal than my estimate of 0.3 XBT I made back in October. |
|
|
|
...
I used to sort of support that argument, but I no longer do. But I will not argue it (now).
Any way, I am not vying to attack Monero and I think it is probably still undervalued.
I am sure we can agree that the best use of my time is to STFU and actually code something. It is really annoying to have someone who hasn't produced anything tangible talking incessantly from his theory soapbox.
Thanks for the discussion.
I am fine with this. Thanks for the interesting and stimulating discussions |
|
|
|
This "refutation" is based upon the concept that if a virtual currency focuses on something other than micro-transactions it will be shut down by the the "state".
My quoted logic had nothing to do with the "state". Edit: Monero is not even suitable for micro transactions by design, with minimum transaction fees likely to remain around or above 0.01 USD over time in real terms. This is not to say that micro transactions are not a viable market in its own right, but rather than there are likely much better suited solutions for this market. The opportunity for Monero in the micro transactions market may actually be in the on and possible off ramps for these solutions. So for a virtual currency focused on micro transactions Monero is not even a competitor.
I think microtransactions are the big enchilada. And not just monetary microtransactions. Anonymity is so incredibly unrealistic and it is fighting against the socialism. Please see my prior post which was a refutation of the tinfoil hats. I have more debate with them at the following thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1665943.0Although I originally was a tinfoil hat and originally touted the importance of anonymity, I am now coming to the realization that we don't win by hiding from society. We win by changing the economy of society. The key here is first Fungibility https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fungibility, then Privacy and only last Anonymity. One does not need to consider a war zone to understand the value of fungibility; however it is important in that scenario also. Monero delivers fungibility, Bitcoin for example does not thanks to the likes of https://www.chainalysis.com/ |
|
|
|
...
ArticMine here you are again posting your inkblots. Slow down and try to understand your mistakes. Go take some quiet time and think for a while before you respond, so you don't fill up thread with useless noise.
I am saying that is as the "transaction-related costs" approach the minted block reward, then the Tragedy of the Commons in transaction fees results. This has nothing to do with a fixed per KB transaction fee, but rather the costs of actually processing the transactions. You have to factor in that costs include the fact in proof-of-work mining, that a 0.1% hashrate miner must propagate and validate 100% of the systemic transaction volume (yet he is only paid 0.1% portion of the total systemic rewards, and probably even paid less because of selfish mining and asymmetric propagation costs due to mining on the wrong chain part of time).
And any way, the entire discussion is irrelevant, because regardless, the economies-of-scale in proof-of-work dictate that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So you are just wasting your time any way arguing about the transaction fee aspect.
The inevitable mining cartel (presuming Monero becomes economically relevant) will dictate transaction fees in Monero as well, and also control the mining and all the bad impacts (censorship, deanonymization, etc) that come with it.
Sorry. Better luck next time.
Again a false assumption bold since there is no explanation how this is supposed to happen in the presence of a fixed tail emission. This assumption is up against: 1) The Equation of Exchange in economics. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange MV = PQ. What is being assumed here is to increase Q without a corresponding decrease in P. Or to put it in simpler terms one cannot expect a 100x increase in the number of transactions (Q) in Monero without a corresponding increase in 1/P (purchasing power) of the tail emission in Monero. 2) The fall in real terms of the unit cost of the "transaction related costs". The best example of the latter is the credit card industry. The transaction throughput of the VISA network today would not be possible with the technology of 1949 (punched cards, tabulating machines telegraph lines etc. ) This is relevant because the business model that was conceived in 1949 for Diner's Club, retail payments of high margin luxury goods and services (Tiffany & Co.). fails today when it is applied to very low margin retail purchases of commodity items (Walmart). We do not see American Express at war with Tiffany & Co but we sure see VISA ar war with Walmart. I wonder why. Edit 1: The only other variable in the equation of exchange that can change is V (The velocity) and changing V would require a change in use of the coin. M is set by the protocol and cannot be changed. One time changes in V and the slight increase in M due to inflation are more than compensated by the drop in real terms of the unit cost of the "transaction related costs". Edit 2: One cannot simply extrapolate what are valid assumptions in Bitcoin to Monero without running into some very serious problems. I expect V to be on the order of 10 - 100 for a microtransaction coin for use on all the activities we do on the Internet. So a minted block reward in the realm of ~1% would require transaction-related costs that are less than 0.01 - 0.1%. Yet microtransaction values may be so small that actual costs may be higher than that. Most damning is my additional point which you did not respond to: You have to factor in that costs include the fact in proof-of-work mining, that a 0.1% hashrate miner must propagate and validate 100% of the systemic transaction volume (yet he is only paid 0.1% portion of the total systemic rewards, and probably even paid less because of selfish mining and asymmetric propagation costs due to mining on the wrong chain part of time).
So for the control over mining to remain decentralized and for their to be a viable fee market, this means the 0.1% hashrate miner has to have transaction-related costs in the realm of 0.0001 - 0.001% of the tiny microtransaction values of transactions. You may argue that Monero will be a coin for high valued transactions and you don't think microtransactions are important, and I will rebut by arguing that it will not survive then as a system of money: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg16969596#msg16969596https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1693466.msg16993233#msg16993233https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1685115.msg16993524#msg16993524Also although costs will decline over the decades, transaction volumes can also increase at that rate or faster than Moore's law. And lastly, as I said arguing about your tail reward is pointless, because it can't stop the economies-of-scale which cause proof-of-work (in Monero, Bitcoin, etc) to be a power vacuum which is a winner-take-all economic system. You didn't even address this point:And any way, the entire discussion is irrelevant, because regardless, the economies-of-scale in proof-of-work dictate that it is a winner-take-all power vacuum. So you are just wasting your time any way arguing about the transaction fee aspect.
The inevitable mining cartel (presuming Monero becomes economically relevant) will dictate transaction fees in Monero as well, and also control the mining and all the bad impacts (censorship, deanonymization, etc) that come with it.
Sorry. Better luck next time.
Edit: apologies about the gloating. I am just letting out some pent up frustration about the way I felt about the way (some or most of the) Monero folk were so sure they were superior to everyone else. That had really alienated me and I admit it one of driving motivations I have. I understand the importance of building a community, but not a community that thinks that no other experimentation from outside can be valuable. Any way talk is cheap. So unless someone demonstrates a better way, then it is useless for me speculate verbally about what sort of community I would like to be a part of. IANAL This "refutation" is based upon the concept that if a virtual currency focuses on something other than micro-transactions it will be shut down by the the "state". Furthermore the state that is most likely to do this would be the United States. There is no doubt that when it comes to financial regulation the United States is the most critical jurisdiction largely because the United States dollar is still the de-facto world reserve currency. The regulatory status of virtual currencies in the United States has been very clear since March 2013 after the release of the guidance by FinCEN https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/shared/FIN-2013-G001.pdf. There are two critical questions here: 1) Does the virtual currency qualify as a "De-Centralized Virtual Currency" under the guidance? 2) Have the developers / creators etc., of the virtual currency engaged in money transmission? These questions are addressed in the guidance. A final type of convertible virtual currency activity involves a de-centralized convertible virtual currency (1) that has no central repository and no single administrator, and (2) that persons may obtain by their own computing or manufacturing effort. My personal comfort level with Monero is based on the following: 1) Proof of work crypto-currencies can meet this requirement provided there is no pre mine, post mine, diversion of block rewards to fund development, marketing, repayment of angel investors, etc. 2) A requirement for the creators, developers etc., to not be classified as money transmitters is that they "keep their hands out of the till" by not diverting any portion of the block reward towards a pre mine, post mine, development, marketing, repayment of angel investors, etc. Meeting the above requirements means that the only option for funding the development of the virtual currency is donations in kind, monetary or both in a classic Free Libre Open Source Software model with no mandatory repayments of "intellectual property". This eliminates traditional market based proprietary software models, and make funding via the capital markets effectively impossible. The reality is that with very few exceptions the vast majority of alt-coins fail the above test, largely because the initial jump-start of a FLOSS project is extremely difficult and at the same time the promised riches of the emission to compensate for the "intellectual property" are just too much of a temptation for most people. The net result of this is that most alt-coins are literally sitting ducks waiting for regulatory enforcement by FinCEN in the United States. There is also a large amount of denial in the crypto currency community over this as exemplified by comments such as "You didn't even address this point". Seriously just perform a search for "FIN-2013-G001" on BCT to see how many times I have posted a link to the above guidance. I will leave with the following quote from Jennifer Shasky Calvery, Director of FinCEN https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2016-08/20130613.pdf Those offering virtual currencies must comply with these regulatory requirements, and if they do so, they have nothing to fear from Treasury This is the reason I sleep soundly at night. I will leave it for the reader to consider what would happen to those who deliberately choose to ignore these regulatory requirements. Edit: Monero is not even suitable for micro transactions by design, with minimum transaction fees likely to remain around or above 0.01 USD over time in real terms. This is not to say that micro transactions are not a viable market in its own right, but rather than there are likely much better suited solutions for this market. The opportunity for Monero in the micro transactions market may actually be in the on and possible off ramps for these solutions. So for a virtual currency focused on micro transactions Monero is not even a competitor. |
|
|
|
I don't think it matters much even if the spammers have infinite money and just keep on doing this without stopping. If that is the case, then we'll just have to raise the default transaction price and increase the mining reward so that enough miners get on it to bring the confirmation time back down.
any spike in transaction spamming should in theory be met with an equal spike in increased hashpower going for the higher mining rewards, and it should all even out in the end.
This assumes the spam is actually mined. If it is not mined there is no cost to the spammer. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
