The hashrate of Monero did *mysteriously* rise from the mid 14MH/s to over 19MH/s and the price didn't even rise to warrant the rise in hashrate so someone out there must be doing something.
That happened 2 weeks ago. Could've been a botnet, but there were improvements to tsiv's ccminer fork + fixes to Claymore's AMD miner etc. that could equally be responsible for it. A "mysterious" rise would be for it to double up in an hour. |
|
|
|
In this instance we were just talking about a superior anon technology. Not a perfect currency. Just that one aspect.
Anyone speculating in anything fundamentally has to consider hypothetical situations and their associated probabilities.
My original question of whether or not being ready to hard fork XMR was the general consensus among the community still stands. I've found it incredibly rare for any community or dev team to ever be willing to change. Litecoin, Dogecoin, Bitcoin being the three largest examples. If Monero development is taking a more agile approach I would find that interesting.
Right now XMR is a bleeding edge crypto. Is the plan for it to constantly retain that position? There are big rewards for staying on top off all the latest trends and technologies, but that also comes with larger risk of course.
There are two problems. The first is that new technology (and I'm not talking about altcoin gimmicks, I mean ZeroCoin specifically) may introduce brand new, untested cryptography. What happens when you have millions of users and huge merchant adoption uptick? You can't play with people's money by opening them up to risk, so you stick with what is tried and tested. The other problem is that it's not us who makes that decision. We may have some degree of swing now, but even right now - if we suddenly decided to introduce something stupid like doubling the block time without doubling the block reward, what would happen? Miners would ignore our changes, someone would fork the repo, and they'd continue development without us. None of this means that Monero will eventually reach a point where change is impossible, it's just that some changes will be ill-advised until another cryptocurrency has demonstrated its value and cryptographic soundness over many years, and other changes may never live to see the light of day because miners will refuse to accept it. The upshot of this is that even if something like ZeroCoin is the holy grail and they've solved the obvious trust issue and they are absolutely certain no other exploits in the software exist (which will take years) it will still be a struggle for them to have any sort of adoption based on technology alone. There are WAY too many other variables at play. |
|
|
|
Wouldn't be easier for people to just start over with a new currency than deal with a hard fork?
Exactly. The confidence in Monero after the hard fork will be shuttered. It's much better to admit it and try again with new coin than to let the whole concept limp in the future because of the initial design problems. If this hypothetical "perfect" cryptocurrency is ever designed, we can cross that bridge then. Hypothetically telling everyone how the hypothetical users of a cryptocurrency would react to a hypothetical hard fork brought on by the introduction of a hypothetical perfect cryptocurrency is...well...nothing more than your hypothesis. |
|
|
|
300 mb a day at Bitcoin volumes? Holy shit, it's worse than I thought. I'd say the project's success or failure hinges nearly 100% on your ability to reduce bloat. Anonymint said it won't happen, but it'll be fun to watch you guys squirm and writhe as you try. I'm still open to making an investment in Monero, it all depends on whether you guys are useless or not.
We aren't squirming or writhing, we're merely rolling our eyes at those constantly returning to eat their own vomit on the topic. It gets tiresome. It took Bitcoin 5.5 years to reach those transaction volumes, and loads of merchant adoption. I'm confident we will have solved the "problem", or it will be shown to be a non-issue, long before we reach the middle of 2019. Until then, there are far more important things for us to focus on than rush out a compromise that "solves" the issue but has the nasty side-effect of compromising privacy. If we do solve this it will be a collective effort from us and some terribly clever people, and it will be a verifiably cryptographically sound method that does not reduce the anonymity set. |
|
|
|
You do realise that the number of transactions and users per day of Monero is MINIMAL (probably even less than 0.01% of bitcoin) The true ratio is closer to 3% Because it has happened so fast people do not understand how Monero has eclipsed 99% of altcoins. It is now #3 or #4 in terms of exchange volume. Blockchain volume ranking is probably comparable. http://www.coingecko.com/Exchange volume is not a blockchain transaction. The number of transactions occurring on the Monero blockchain per day compared to bitcoin is minuscule. smooth isn't an idiot. Those are two separate points he's making and they are unrelated, you're conflating them: 1. Monero's average daily transactions are currently at around 3.3% of Bitcoin's average daily transactions. 2. Monero is consistently in the top 10 coins by exchange volume (often 3rd or 4th). CoinGecko gives a nice overview of liquidity, or Coinmarketcap -> sort by volume is also a good indicator. Exchange volume is very variable, of course. |
|
|
|
Now my point being, whether it is Monero (likely at this point in time due to its tech) or another crypto down the line, blockchain bloat will be the least of the intended target audiences worries. These are the same people you are targeting who pay much higher fees in the real world for these services and a bigger blockchain is in reality a joke in comparaison.
Sometimes we step too far away from the real world problems that can be solved and dwell too much on smaller technical issues that are definatly acceptable in some situations in regards to the solutions they offer.
I'm saving this to quote later;) It's an excellent point, and it mirrors some of my thinking. I'm unsure as to whether we will have a cryptocurrency in the next, say, 5-10 years that will tick *all* of the boxes. There are always going to be compromises. Is a disk space/bandwidth compromise (especially when coupled with with access to light wallets / multisig web wallets) a particularly bad one? I tend to think not. That's not to say we aren't going to try solve the bloat "problem", but it also means that we don't have to figure out an uncompromising solution right now. Rehashing this over and over again isn't going to make a solution present itself any faster (not directed at you, just speaking in general). |
|
|
|
What I find funny is that none of the MRO devs are attacking bcx the same way they did others that spoke of these issues. Is that because bcx will kill MRO dead if they do? If I were you guys I would try and figure out what Cryptsy has to do with bcx sudden interest in Monero. I find that to be an interesting connection, anyone else?
We've already pointed out that the difficulty flaw he found is incorrect (until demonstrably proven otherwise), and the blockchain "bloat" attack is something that we are aware of and are monitoring. Any coin with sufficiently low value (ie. new) is susceptible to a bloat attack until it becomes too expensive to do so. BCX does not have some magical power to "kill MRO dead". We have not "attacked" anyone who "spoke of these issues" in the past (although I certainly can get snappy when an argument becomes circuitous). Nobody has ever raised an issue with the difficulty retarget algorithm (because there is none that anyone has demonstrably found), and the general issue of blockchain bloat (inasmuch as the blockchain is linearly larger than Bitcoin's) has been discussed at length and various solutions / non-solutions suggested. Again: it's something we are going to solve, but it will not be something we solve right now. I'm just curious what bcx meant by "bitjohn will determine the outcome". What does Cryptsy have to do with this and what is their connection to bcx?
I have dealt with BigVern quite a bit, and so I asked him about it directly. He spoke to BitJohn, who said the following: [7/25/14, 12:59:43 PM] Bit John: hmmm not me lol
[7/25/14, 1:00:29 PM] Bit John: Only thing I could see being remotely close to the monreo "quote" would be me saying do to its API that being cryptonotes its harder for us to integrate like other coins
[7/25/14, 1:01:10 PM] Bit John: But I did see BCX talking about attacking it
Any conclusions drawn from this is an exercise best left to the reader. |
|
|
|
IMPORTANT
Monero must provide the ability for transparent transactions.
It already does - baked into the protocol is the ability to reveal the one-time key for a transaction in such a way that you will be able to confirm the amount and recipient for someone. What that will look like in practice remains to be seen, and we are looking at ways of doing this (such as a signed message for that tx) that literally can be made public without a reduction in the anonymity set. |
|
|
|
Yes I read the whitepaper. Of course i would be lying if i said that i understood all of it. I do think I understood it well enough to see the value in cryptonote especially as compared to other proposed anonymity schemes. I was also aware that there is technically no way to prevent people from revealing this information. People could reveal every single bit of information about their transactions except for their private key if they wanted.
So here is a question. Is your position that people who are trying to act transparently in the manner you have outlined have no effect what so ever on the privacy of individuals who are concerned about privacy. Or is your position that it has a very small or relatively small effect. If it is the latter than by what mechanism is the privacy of other individuals effected.
In fact, they could even reveal their private key on live TV if they wanted - as has happened with Bitcoin before:) To your second question: the general consensus is that it has a relatively small effect. Here's a dump from a short discussion that was on IRC about the matter the other day: smooth: it is similar to a sybil attack smooth: let's say a lot of people post their information publically, that is the same to an observer as the observer launching a sybil attack with all those third parties as owned identities There are solutions we are theorising at present that will reduce the effect of this, but please understand this is such an edge-case that we're taking about protection from an extremely sophisticated attacker with extremely large access to resources. Even in its current form with no edge-cases ruled out, Monero has a level of privacy heretofore unknown to "ordinary" persons who use Bitcoin. Sure, accessibility is an issue, and that is a long-term goal, but don't forget that Monero has an interesting value-proposition already. We will close the final gates and reduce risks to privacy as time progresses; we do not have to solve everything now. Our dedication and commitment to doing so transcends price fluctuations, FUD from those unfamiliar with the matter, or snide remarks on social networks. Let's not try solve every apparent problem now, but let's work towards solving these as a group and as a community:) |
|
|
|
Monero is a different league to bloat. We are talking 100+gb in a very short timeframe. Long term 5+ years even worse
And web wallets etc promotes centralization. Everyone will depend on a minor few for the blockchain. DDoS it and watch the coin die.
The Monero bloat is fine for now when you have like 100 users. For mainstream, the cryptonote tech isn't anywhere close to being a viable solution.
You're conflating - web wallets do not promote centralisation in and of themselves. Satoshi even theorised that there would be a reduction in the number of full nodes, and for convenience sake SPV would become more popular. At any rate, even if there were only a few non-mining full nodes it would largely be irrelevant - centralisation is only a concern on the mining side, hence the 51% pool problem that has plagued Bitcoin. I'm quite unsure as to why you're talking about "mainstream". We have alpha-level software that requires some comfort with the command line to operate. We keep saying this, but everyone keeps talking about "adoption" and "mainstream use". We're solving fundamental, extremely low-level problems, and well after they are solved we can consider "adoption" and "mainstream use". Thankfully, Bitcoin is also pretty impossible for "mainstream" use, so it's probably a good idea to either clearly define "mainstream" or get off the merry-go-round. At any rate, let me make this as clear as mud to everyone: Monero is far from ready for general consumption. We don't need to be reminded of that, since we're the ones saying it! Of course, usability is a long-term goal, and finding a solution to "bloat" (such as it is) falls squarely in the "usability" camp. |
|
|
|
Doesnt this impose a cost on people who want privacy? Having some of the network activity revealed allows concerned entities to deduce other information more easily. For example say you have a ring signature with 2 parties and the other party reveals which input is his, now they have deduced who the other participant is (atleast they have deduced his pseudonym, still not a good thing). This means that inorder to regain their privacy, people who want privacy now have to use a higher mixin count to achieve the same thing.
It seems to me that, unless this evaluation is totally wrong, this charity should just use bitcoin.
That's not the way it works. The "reveal" does not reveal which transaction it is, it reveals that they were involved in a transaction (this we could deduce already) and the exact amount (ie. let's ignore spurious outputs / change outputs), so it's not the same as revealing the one-time private key for a transaction. What we're talking about is a reveal that is no different to a screenshot of a person transacting (as has been posted in this thread) that contains full details of their transaction (destination address, amount, mixin count, payment ID). How exactly would you prevent that information from being revealed? You can't. Monero is meant to solve that exact problem - what happens if we know the address of the recipient? Can we do anything with it? It's a stealth address, so good luck getting anything out of that. Ring signatures are an additional layer on top of that, and they exist to protect you when a transaction is compromised. They're a level of ambiguity, not a level of anonymity. Privacy is accorded by the stealth addresses, ambiguity gives you plausible deniability in the event that someone else in in the signature group for a particular input is compromised. Edit: just to add, this stuff is inherent in the protocol. We're not suggesting changes, we're telling you what is already there. Reading the whitepaper is probably a good starting point to understanding why this exists in the protocol:) |
|
|
|
This is a scary thing to read. The jack of all trades will always be the master of none. Any one who makes transparent transactions reduces the anonymity of all other participants or forces them to pay a higher cost to regain the same level of protection. It imposes externalities on other actors. Anyone who wants transparent transactions can just go use bitcoin, there is no need to have a single network that does both when we have 2 networks, where each does one of the two. I hope this sentiment is not echoed by too many on the dev team. As dga has already pointed out, you don't want to create a scenario where guilt-by-association exists. Monero's privacy is a feature, but it's not the only feature. David's quote is misleading, he didn't mean that regulators can magically peer into the blockchain and trace transactions. He meant that in a situation where you run a charity, for instance, you would publish the viewkey along with some form of per-tx signature so regulators concerned with ensuring charities are run appropriately can peek into your books and see your accounts. Another use-case could be for a company to let its accountants, bookkeepers, and exco have visibility on the account and on the movement of funds. Or a married couple that want a shared account. Monero is private by default, transparent optional. The choice of whether privacy is relinquished for a particular wallet is the user's and the user's alone. |
|
|
|
So...lets see if I understand this correctly... 1) You have a ton of alt coins already...but you want to borrow more 2) You have hundreds of thousands in transactions in poker but you can't affort $500 to $1200 worth of some other alt coins? 3) You have been trading for 7 months, yet don't have enough money for your trading. Got it. Where can I send you money? I would like to be part of this right away!  lol - he reminds me so much of this dude: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=642090.0 |
|
|
|
1) meeh, fluffypony etc reaching across coins to create longer term solutions. Also taking steps to safeguard against regulatory issues by creating a friendlier climate in Norway e.g., registering orgs there. Norway would be many peoples' first choice and it is astonishing luck that meeh lives there. Norway consistently ranks at the top of many long term democracy indices on all rankings except those sponsored by the u.s. govt.
Spot on - both of the projects that PrivacySolutions will be focusing on will benefit both Anoncoin and Monero, and this is a formalisation that will allow us both to put time, effort, and money into realising those goals. |
|
|
|
we just buy a 1tb hdd for 40 bucks for the next 10 years
Absolute horseshit, let me tell you - NOBODY will download a 100 GB blockchain to use a currency. What about countries where internet speeds are not very high? What do you think happens in those countries with Bitcoin's current 20gb blockchain? Web wallets, SPV-style wallets, off-chain services, etc. etc. |
|
|
|
Java is used quite often in the business industry. You can't argue for a coin's success or failure based on the programming platform, especially when Java and C++ are concerned.
I think TimeKoin proves that to be incorrect;) I'm not going to argue one coin over another, but I do think having a Java dependency adds complexity, AND it adds a very undesirable attack vector on a machine that is used to store someone else's money. It's the reason we're working with the I2P team on i2pd to allow Monero to use i2p without the Java dependency - the additional attack vector is hugely undesirable. |
|
|
|
I have seriuos problem and i realy need help because i am out off ideas..i tryed everything  Last 7 days i cant send any coin from the wallet ..wallet normaly ascept coins i mine but just want send anything when i try to send in wallet windows he says OK ..money send BUT ITS NOT In block chain window says "some problem at write :An existing connection was forcibly closed by remote server" I try to install wallet on another computers ..just copy wallet.bin.keys and wait to blackchain update ..but same sht..i done i 5 times allreadu and i just dont know what to do anymore...wallet.bin.keys is not corupt ..i copied to few other places when i created wallet and everything worked good until last week...WHAT TO DO..i thing that network has some bug..why i cant send coins from my wallet when i could until last week  I wonder if you're not using an outdated wallet; did you get the Windows binaries from this OP? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
