Could Monero replace Bitcoin soon?

[socks435]

Well we dont know but i heard that bitcoin is the only one can stay remain.. and monero is just alternative.. or other altcoin is just alternative that can never replace bitcoins.

[1714217676]

1714217676

[1714217676]

1714217676

[1714217676]

1714217676

[vokain]

Well we dont know but i heard that bitcoin is the only one can stay remain.. and monero is just alternative.. or other altcoin is just alternative that can never replace bitcoins.

You heard... from who?

[numismatist]

Mining makes the difference. If Bitcoin further insists on staying inside China mostly, will just fail.

[toknormal]

A lot of dreaming going on in here.

Well, dream on but sorry to tell you that an obscured blockchain does not ever have a snowball's hope in h*ll of becoming more valuable than a transparent one - not where unbacked "money" is concerned at least.

All they are good for is being a decentralised private bookkeeper, or transporting something that already has value (such as fiat or bitcoin   ).

You do not support "privacy" in a blockchain by obscuring the very thing that endorses its value. See if you can get a look-in on the steady drip of business development that goes on in transparent blockchain - until then I'd say that exchange-based pumping & dumping remains the best hope

[vokain]

A lot of dreaming going on in here.

Well, dream on but sorry to tell you that an obscured blockchain does not ever have a snowball's hope in h*ll of becoming more valuable than a transparent one - not where unbacked "money" is concerned at least.

All they are good for is being a decentralised private bookkeeper, or transporting something that already has value (such as fiat or bitcoin   ).

You do not support "privacy" in a blockchain by obscuring the very thing that endorses its value. See if you can get a look-in on the steady drip of business development that goes on in transparent blockchain - until then I'd say that exchange-based pumping & dumping remains the best hope

[...]

To wit, the firm sees blockchain technology as nothing more than a “fundamentally new type of database technology.” And as far as Goldman’s interests are concerned such as high-volume commercial transactions and sharing data between partners, it expects private blockchains to reign supreme.

[...]

The report further explains
Private or ‘permissioned’ blockchains behave in the same way as the public blockchain, except that the identity of anyone who attempts to access the blockchain must be validated against a list of pre-validated market IDs. We believe that the vast majority of commercial blockchain applications – particularly in capital markets – are likely to use private or permissioned blockchains.

[toknormal]

Quote Goldman Sachs all you like. They didn’t invent cryptocurrencies and no-doubt make exactly the same mistake as people in this therad are doing - of projecting a banking model where a person is sysnonymous with an account onto a public blockchain, which is nothing like a bank.

“Your money” is not stored on a blockchain. “Your money” is stored in a bank account with your name on it. On the other hand a blockchain is a public resource that may or may not have some value. By obscuring the outputs, all you’re doing is diminishing that value.

Bitcoin has people crawling all over it day in day out, scrutinising every last address and dialoging over it. The fact that thats possible is about the only thing that actually turns such an unbacked resource into “money” because although every nook and cranny can be scrutinised, it can’t be controlled. That fact is what makes your private key have some power - and therefore value.

With blockchain based unbacked “money”, you do not endorse the value - everyone else does. So turn that into a little “private club” where you need a private key to even see it, let alone touch it and you can have your provacy but forget it being worth anything

Privacy is something that each individual manages in their own way. It's not the job of the "money to support privacy. (Fungibility is a different thing). Give people something of value and they'll soon find their own ways to keep it private 

[vokain]

Quote Goldman Sachs all you like. They didn’t invent cryptocurrencies and no-doubt make exactly the same mistake as people in this therad are doing - of projecting a banking model where a person is sysnonymous with an account onto a public blockchain, which is nothing like a bank.

“Your money” is not stored on a blockchain. “Your money” is stored in a bank account with your name on it. On the other hand a blockchain is a public resource that may or may not have some value. By obscuring the outputs, all you’re doing is diminishing that value.

Bitcoin has people crawling all over it day in day out, scrutinising every last address and dialoging over it. The fact that thats possible is about the only thing that actually turns such an unbacked resource into “money” because although every nook and cranny can be scrutinised, it can’t be controlled. That fact is what makes your private key have some power - and therefore value.

With blockchain based unbacked “money”, you do not endorse the value - everyone else does. So turn that into a little “private club” where you need a private key to even see it, let alone touch it and you can have your provacy but forget it being worth anything

All money is is some arbitrary medium people use to transfer things of value for other things of value.
Does it matter what the medium is?
By obscuring the outputs in a medium, one increases the value in said medium for people that want those outputs obscured. Transparent options still exist.

Scrutiny can control Bitcoin if a state coerces businesses to blacklist/flag certain tainted bitcoins (yes it's happened).

We can continue leaving the market to decide the value of privacy in a blockchain.

[toknormal]

Scrutiny can control Bitcoin if a state coerces businesses to blacklist/flag certain tainted bitcoins (yes it's happened).

You can't "hide" the blockchain form the state without simultaneously hiding it from everyone else as well - i.e. the majority of the population who don't hold private keys and on who'm you're depending to endorse its value.

Anyway, this whole idea of treating blockchain "cash" as if it's a credit paradigm - where bookkeeping for an individual's state of credit doubles up as 'money' and therefore needs to be hidden from view is slightly ludicrous.

The obvious solution is to de-couple the problem of fungibility from the priorities of transparency (as every other cash medium since the dawn of man has done) and create a fully transparent AND fungible blockchain. That objective is achieved by showing the outputs but mitigating the build up of regular patterns in the blockchain such that one balance is practically indistinguishable from another in all respects other than address.

[St.Stephan]

ZCash and Komodo both have better anon implementations. Komodo will be backed by full hashing power of BTC.

Monero does not have any particular monopoly on anything.

[vokain]

Scrutiny can control Bitcoin if a state coerces businesses to blacklist/flag certain tainted bitcoins (yes it's happened).

You can't "hide" the blockchain form the state without simultaneously hiding it from everyone else as well - i.e. the majority of the population who don't hold private keys and on who'm you're depending to endorse its value.

Population doesn't always need to know everything to know enough

ZCash and Komodo both have better anon implementations. Komodo will be backed by full hashing power of BTC.

Monero does not have any particular monopoly on anything.

Did it matter, does it now? Stephen would answer if he only knew how... ♫

[Anon136]

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

PS well done Team Monero, pretty smooth hard fork from what I can tell

Is this for real? Is this signed with a reliable public key that we know for sure belongs to satoshi?

[vokain]

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

PS well done Team Monero, pretty smooth hard fork from what I can tell

Is this for real? Is this signed with a reliable public key that we know for sure belongs to satoshi?

I think it's been months but to my present awareness I don't think anyone's proven that it's not real

[Anon136]

words

Yea. Swiss bank accounts. Nobody ever wants those.

[scintilla]

Could Monero replace Bitcoin soon?

NO, NOT EVER.
There are many other coins which much more better than this crap. Only monero trolls will make this marketing strategies, just don't get into it. 

[vokain]

words

Yea. Swiss bank accounts. Nobody ever wants those.

maybe not anymore

http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-got-a-swiss-banker-drunk-2015-2
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-09/which-we-learn-cia-was-instrumental-breaking-swiss-bank-secrecy-code

[Anon136]

words

Yea. Swiss bank accounts. Nobody ever wants those.

maybe not anymore

http://www.businessinsider.com/cia-got-a-swiss-banker-drunk-2015-2
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-06-09/which-we-learn-cia-was-instrumental-breaking-swiss-bank-secrecy-code

I was talking more about the idea than the specific thing. But yea actual literal swiss bank accounts don't work any more as I understand it. The rich are now using dummy corporations and shell companies as seen in the panama papers. A right pain in the butt it sounds like. Just buying monero would be so much easier and more practical if it had sufficient liquidity.

[vokain]

I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list.  I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus.  However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.

The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth.  When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement.  Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto.  Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it.  By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.

They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be.  However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions.  For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network.  Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution.  I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.

If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project.  Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust.  This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.

Satoshi Nakamoto

PS well done Team Monero, pretty smooth hard fork from what I can tell

Is this for real? Is this signed with a reliable public key that we know for sure belongs to satoshi?

I think it's been months but to my present awareness I don't think anyone's proven that it's not real

addition: Does anyone have anything at all signed by   Satoshi's PGP key?

[dinofelis]

You can't "hide" the blockchain form the state without simultaneously hiding it from everyone else as well - i.e. the majority of the population who don't hold private keys and on who'm you're depending to endorse its value.

You are still repeating this, aren't you. 

Anyway, this whole idea of treating blockchain "cash" as if it's a credit paradigm - where bookkeeping for an individual's state of credit doubles up as 'money' and therefore needs to be hidden from view is slightly ludicrous.

Cash isn't a "credit paradigm", not more than "a piece of gold" would be a credit paradigm.  The aspect of cash that is used here, is the fact that 1) you can see that it is genuine  2) you can see that the other one is holding it, and is now transferring it to you  3) you can verify that after this transfer, it is now yours and not his any more IS ALL THAT IS NEEDED.

In other words, 'cash' or 'piece of gold' physical transfer comes down to proving a right to spend, and verify that that right to spend is uniquely transferred to you.

You don't need to have the whole history of the transactions of that dollar bill, or of that piece of gold.  You don't even have to know when it was printed, or when it was dug up as real gold.  You only need to have SOME WAY to know it is GENUINE, and that it is now yours and not the spenders' any more. 

THAT is the idea of cash.  With cash, or with gold, the laws of nature (Fermi's exclusion principle, deep down) is taking care of that.

With electronic coins, that's harder, because making perfect copies is possible.  So one needs A MECHANISM to prove the right to spend.  The most naive one is the open ledger.  But it is not the only one.  A cryptographic proof of right to spend is just as good.

You could say: "hey, before I accept this piece of gold, PROVE ME that it has been dug up in a true gold mine, and prove me that this piece of gold hasn't been double spend (I don't believe in the laws of nature).  Show me all transactions of that piece of gold since it was dug up."  That's the "I want an open block chain".
Or you could say: "I believe in the laws of nature, and I analyse this, and it is true gold, so yes, this is good enough".  That's the cryptographic proof.

Another "open block chain paradigm" is: show me where this dollar bill has been made, and show me all intermediate transactions that dollar bill underwent.  Once I verify the veracity of this, I will accept the dollar bill as real.  Or you could verify that it is a genuine dollar bill, and leave it at that.

The obvious solution is to de-couple the problem of fungibility from the priorities of transparency (as every other cash medium since the dawn of man has done) and create a fully transparent AND fungible blockchain. That objective is achieved by showing the outputs but mitigating the build up of regular patterns in the blockchain such that one balance is practically indistinguishable from another in all respects other than address.

You are right that by limiting transactions to "single input/single output" and using each address only once, you could almost achieve the same.  That would essentially mean that if I pay you 3 bitcoin, I would have to submit 300 000 000 transactions, to 300 000 000 addresses of yours, from 300 000 000 addresses of mine.    After about 100 000 blocks on the bitcoin block chain, only for this simple transaction, I would have achieved that

[toknormal]

Cash isn't a "credit paradigm", not more than "a piece of gold" would be a credit paradigm.

I wasn't calling cash a credit paradigm. I was saying that obscured blockchains use bank accounts as their primary archetype rather than an anonymous commodity like gold by virtue of the fact that they ascribe blockchain addresses to people in the way a bank account does and gold doesn't.

That is folly because you then have to live with a whole load of conflicting priorities. For example, have you ever tried verifying a transaction in Monero ? You can't, because verification (by visual inspection - not by some meaningless transaction number) means observing 2 balances, not 1. It means verifying that the balance at one address moved in one direction and the balance at the other address moved in the other direction by the same amount. Monero only makes 1 of those balances visible because it throws every other priority out of the window for the sake of supporting this one flawed archetypal characteristic of bank accounts - obscurity.

It's also the reason why its proponents bang on about 'privacy' to the exclusion of everything else - they have no choice. Hence the heavy use personal pronouns that always characterises their dialog when discussing blockchain addresses which is nonsense because an address no more represents a person than a peice of gold does. The fact that some off-chain information may lead to knowledge of who controlled a particular address at a particular time doesn't fundamentally change that fact because blockchains are not carrying "your money", they derive their value from the fact of being a public resource that you may have some control over.

[vokain]

Cash isn't a "credit paradigm", not more than "a piece of gold" would be a credit paradigm.

I wasn't calling cash a credit paradigm. I was saying that obscured blockchains use bank accounts as their primary archetype rather than an anonymous commodity like gold by virtue of the fact that they ascribe blockchain addresses to people in the way a bank account does and gold doesn't.

That is folly because you then have to live with a whole load of conflicting priorities. For example, have you ever tried verifying a transaction in Monero ? You can't, because [...]

...you weren't given permission, unless you are the sender or recipient of the funds, or a recipient of the viewkey of the transaction.