Could Monero replace Bitcoin soon?

[dinofelis]

Monero is clearly being pumped right now by folks who intend to switch to Z-Cash when it launches. Not saying Monero lacks merit, just that it's more fun and games than anything else at the moment. The vol is attractive as well.

If I cared about privacy I would not use cryptographic software implemented by former IDF, paid by the Israeli government.  The likelihood that these people are SIGINT operatives is overwhelming.  It's like accepting NSA-coin as your privacy cover.

Is it even remotely reasonable to trust the supply of ZCash?  The incentives to subvert this are potentially astronomical, and the act itself will be undetectable,  until the hyperinflation sets in.

Indeed, the "trusted setup" is a funny concept in a trustless, distributed environment.  This could be rendered trustworthy if each potential participant in ZCASH were be a member of the trusted setup.  As such, you know of yourself that you are "fair", and if ALL users collude, that's their affair, isn't it !

So ZCASH's system seems to be a perfect way of having an anonymous trusted PRIVATE block chain between a finite, and a priori known number of participants that don't need to know eachother.  But it cannot be trusted by newcomers afterwards (the old boys can collude against you).  In fact, ZCASH's system is a kind of Proof of initial stake to the extreme. 

The last time I reviewed their proposal and code, the sheer size of the proofs rendered the system incapable of scaling to any significant usage traffic.  Has that been fixed?

This is my main problem with it.  The trusted setup is a problem of principle, but I could eventually live with it.  But you can only use "anonymity" with such a chain bloat that you can do it for only a few transactions if I understand well.  If ZCASH were to use anonymity systematically, it would be like monero using ring signatures with a few million of signatures or so.

I think the main selling point of ZCASH is that it can sell fake anonymity to believers.  And as most people are not sufficiently technically aware of all these aspects, there might be many many believers.   As such, a believers' trusted setup is not a problem.  Many people don't REALLY need anonymity, they only need to believe it.  Those that really need it might be in trouble of course.

[1715202217]

1715202217

[TechSharesteam]

Of course not,but,who's care? Most of the investors just want to earn more BTC

[J Gambler]

Bitcoin = Public Ledger
Monero = Private Ledger

Everything else = Pump n' Dump / Speculation

you are right here bitcoin is public where people choose to use bitcoin as they currency because they can do many in bitcoin where they can exchange in into another coin , they can do gambling activities etc , and trading also in monero is private where some people don't know what is it for now

[phishead]

Of course not,but,who's care? Most of the investors just want to earn more BTC

At this point Bitcoin acts like fiat... Yeah, sure these "investors" might just want Bitcoin out of it, but those same people just want to double or triple their fiat, not have there wealth in and transact in crypto currencies.

So when they get out of the markets with their precious Bitcoin/fiat ; I say good riddance.

[psomas2]

Its not possible no coin will ever overtake bitcoin. Bitcoin will always be the king and there will be other jesters and jokers and queens but only one king.

[owlcatz]

Its not possible no coin will ever overtake bitcoin. Bitcoin will always be the king and there will be other jesters and jokers and queens but only one king.

Yeah, I remember people saying that about Netscape Navigator back when the internet was born and they commanded 50 USD to see it in color.

How did that work out for them again?

You just can't say that, nobody can. Sorry. Thanks.

Edit bad comparison, but you get the point. Innovation breeds more of the same and so on.

[bbc.reporter]

Monero is clearly being pumped right now by folks who intend to switch to Z-Cash when it launches. Not saying Monero lacks merit, just that it's more fun and games than anything else at the moment. The vol is attractive as well.

If I cared about privacy I would not use cryptographic software implemented by former IDF, paid by the Israeli government.  The likelihood that these people are SIGINT operatives is overwhelming.  It's like accepting NSA-coin as your privacy cover.

Is it even remotely reasonable to trust the supply of ZCash?  The incentives to subvert this are potentially astronomical, and the act itself will be undetectable,  until the hyperinflation sets in.

Indeed, the "trusted setup" is a funny concept in a trustless, distributed environment.  This could be rendered trustworthy if each potential participant in ZCASH were be a member of the trusted setup.  As such, you know of yourself that you are "fair", and if ALL users collude, that's their affair, isn't it !

So ZCASH's system seems to be a perfect way of having an anonymous trusted PRIVATE block chain between a finite, and a priori known number of participants that don't need to know eachother.  But it cannot be trusted by newcomers afterwards (the old boys can collude against you).  In fact, ZCASH's system is a kind of Proof of initial stake to the extreme.  

The last time I reviewed their proposal and code, the sheer size of the proofs rendered the system incapable of scaling to any significant usage traffic.  Has that been fixed?

This is my main problem with it.  The trusted setup is a problem of principle, but I could eventually live with it.  But you can only use "anonymity" with such a chain bloat that you can do it for only a few transactions if I understand well.  If ZCASH were to use anonymity systematically, it would be like monero using ring signatures with a few million of signatures or so.

I think the main selling point of ZCASH is that it can sell fake anonymity to believers.  And as most people are not sufficiently technically aware of all these aspects, there might be many many believers.   As such, a believers' trusted setup is not a problem.  Many people don't REALLY need anonymity, they only need to believe it.  Those that really need it might be in trouble of course.

I have a question. If zcash will continue to release using the "trusted set up" then there is a high chance that it will be bashed by the known people of crypto. So I ask, what do you think is the better option for the zcash development team? How can they eliminate the trusted set up? Do they have to start from scratch?

[aminorex]

I have a question. If zcash will continue to release using the "trusted set up" then there is a high chance that it will be bashed by the known people of crypto. So I ask, what do you think is the better option for the zcash development team? How can they eliminate the trusted set up? Do they have to start from scratch?

You quoted one proposed resolution.  It may be that there are problems with it, due to bit mixing, but if everyone could destroy *part* of the key, it might be feasible to trust the set-up.  I have not worked through the math, so I am commenting from ignorance, but also from generally applicable principles.  Once the number and diversity of the required conspirators becomes large enough, a practically useful number of non-participants will deem the result trustworthy.

It's not my only reservation, or I might consider it resolvable.  The number of serious reservations makes resolution of all of them seem unlikely.

[dinofelis]

Its not possible no coin will ever overtake bitcoin. Bitcoin will always be the king and there will be other jesters and jokers and queens but only one king.

Remember Louis XVI...

[Innocant]

Its not possible no coin will ever overtake bitcoin. Bitcoin will always be the king and there will be other jesters and jokers and queens but only one king.

The bitcoin is the king at the moment as it is still developed actively.
If that does not happpened in the future, it will be replaced.

[dinofelis]

I have a question. If zcash will continue to release using the "trusted set up" then there is a high chance that it will be bashed by the known people of crypto. So I ask, what do you think is the better option for the zcash development team? How can they eliminate the trusted set up? Do they have to start from scratch?

You should take my answer with a grain of salt, because I haven't totally understood yet the trusted setup system.  What I understand of it, grossly, is this:

you need a "private key" (a random number) X that will be the generator of two different but related public keys, p and q, that both serve to produce zero-knowledge proofs.  One is the "proving key" and the other is the "verifying key".  There is a kind of one-way function from X to p and q, so from X you can find p and q, but from p and q (which are public) you cannot trace back to X.  So essentially, if you want to construct a proof that you own an unspent coin in a given list, you use p, and anyone can use q to verify that that is the case, without knowing WHICH coin you own in the list.  You cannot construct a second proof using the same p and the same coin.  However, the point is that with the knowledge of X, you can construct a fake proof that will be still verified by q.  So you can "prove" as many times as you want that you owned a coin, and hence, you can create as many proofs of transactions as you want (which will be valid further on and hence are "new coins").

This comes down to saying that he who knows X, can create as many coins as he wants, and nobody is ever going to find out.

Now, visibly, they have a method to have several independent generations of X1 making pp1, X2 making pp2 and so on, and one can then combine pp1, pp2, .... pp18 into a final couple (p,q) whose corresponding X can only be deduced if you know at the same time X1, X2, ...X18.  It is sufficient that one of these X is missing, and the final X is un-knowable, which is the goal.

I don't know how much this can be up-scaled from 18 to a much higher number, but I would propose the following:
On a bulletin board like bitcointalk, one could have a thread where up to a large N (say, 1000) people post their own calculation of ppi.
Once this number of contributions is reached, one calculates publicly the final p and q.

This is a bigger set of people than the 18 celebrities one would have to trust, and you can be part of it.  There will (hopefully) be many known accounts posting their version.

Now, in order for this to fail, ALL those people posting (you included, if you posted) have to collude.  As long as your contribution is in there (and this YOU know of course), you can trust the trusted set-up because you did this yourself, and you know that you aren't colluding (or if you are, you will profit from it too ).

In fact, if N is very large, there is no point in excluding one's contribution.  If your contribution is excluded, you know there's something fishy.  If one doesn't reach, on a given date, the number N, but only K, there's no problem in COMPLETING the list with N - K extra generations of pp.  These may be all from the same person, that's no problem.  As long as there is, within the list K (of which *you can be member*) ONE SINGLE person keeping/erasing his Xk, the system is OK.

The big difference with "18 celebrities" is that ANYONE can be part of the trusted set-up.  You included.  So, or you aren't interested in which case it doesn't matter, or you are interested, in which case you can be part of it (and if you find out that it fails, you know that ZCASH is unreliable).

Of course, that doesn't change anything for newcomers afterwards, but 1000 or more people on a forum are maybe more prone to contain one honest person rather than 18 celebrities.

[BitFinnese]

Bitcoin = Public Ledger
Monero = Private Ledger

Everything else = Pump n' Dump / Speculation

you are right here bitcoin is public where people choose to use bitcoin as they currency because they can do many in bitcoin where they can exchange in into another coin , they can do gambling activities etc , and trading also in monero is private where some people don't know what is it for now

As far as I agree on this but there are far more better coins than monero, in my opinion and it will never replace bitcoins because of several issue.  One of it is the anonymity where government will always battle since they want a full control over currencies.  I think this thread is created by monero fanatic anyway i respect  your stand.

[Whtwabbit]

Bitcoin = Public Ledger
Monero = Private Ledger

Everything else = Pump n' Dump / Speculation

you are right here bitcoin is public where people choose to use bitcoin as they currency because they can do many in bitcoin where they can exchange in into another coin , they can do gambling activities etc , and trading also in monero is private where some people don't know what is it for now

As far as I agree on this but there are far more better coins than monero, in my opinion and it will never replace bitcoins because of several issue.  One of it is the anonymity where government will always battle since they want a full control over currencies.  I think this thread is created by monero fanatic anyway i respect  your stand.

Could you name 2 coins "far better" than Monero, Thanks

regarding "the government will always battle for full control" are you going to battle back or you prefer government having access to all your private information?

Thanks

[yelllowsin]

Bitcoin scales much better than Monero anonimity tech. If you just look at the number of transactions that fit in 1 block in the monero chain and make the calculations of how many bytes are needed to perform 1 transaction you would know it. That's why they are pumping this coin as hell because it cannot achieve mass adoption in the long term and they know it  .

Bloated chain

[dinofelis]

Bitcoin scales much better than Monero anonimity tech. If you just look at the number of transactions that fit in 1 block in the monero chain and make the calculations of how many bytes are needed to perform 1 transaction you would know it. That's why they are pumping this coin as hell because it cannot achieve mass adoption in the long term and they know it  .

There are two different issues here.  There is the "technological nuisance" of a big block chain, which is the case of monero, and there is the protocol-limited hard limit on the size of blocks, such as in bitcoin.  Monero can handle just any block size, but of course, the bigger it gets, the more there is a technological nuisance (the finite size of disks, computers and networks).  Monero can in principle do 10000 transactions per second, but in practice, with current technology, that's difficult.  Bitcoin can't, because of the 1MB block size limit, period.
You could say that bitcoin could hard fork over it, but they didn't.  It is a different value proposition: bitcoin is making the choice of having a limited number of (big) transactions.

ALL block chain based cryptos have a fundamental problem with scaling as long as they keep all history.  So chain pruning is necessary, and it is true that monero has a problem with that, as by definition of anonymity, one isn't supposed to know whether a specific transaction is actually spend or not.  Apart from this pruning impossibility in monero, and possible but not implemented in bitcoin, there is no difference in principle in scaling: both chains scale proportionally to the historical number of transactions.

AEON, as far as I understand, wants to implement a pruning of the past.  One could limit the life time of a coin (you are obliged to transact it, say, at least once every 5 years) ; that would allow for a block chain that only contains the full 5 years, and only headers before from the genesis block.

[aminorex]

Bitcoin scales much better than Monero anonimity tech. If you just look at the number of transactions that fit in 1 block in the monero chain and make the calculations of how many bytes are needed to perform 1 transaction you would know it. That's why they are pumping this coin as hell because it cannot achieve mass adoption in the long term and they know it  .

Bloated chain

Corrective medicine for disinformation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3yrazw/what_is_moneros_theoretical_maximum_transaction/

Monero does not have the practical scaling limits that Bitcoin has.  Bring on the volume.  I mean, really, bring on the organic transaction volume, please!

[candy27]

The number of people who are interested in privacy is small. It is limited to some paranoid people (who may have a genuine reason for being paranoid) and those who are operating outside the law (buying stuff on the darknets).

Sure Monero might take away some of the dark business from bitcoin. But it can't scale beyond that. Remember, bitcoin was king of the darknets in 2012 - it had the whole market to itself. And BTC had a small marketcap at the time, because that is what the whole darknet market looks like - small in the grand scheme of things. Offline, cash is still king. Online a cryptocurrency needs to go mainstream to grow.

[obit33]

The number of people who are interested in privacy is small. It is limited to some paranoid people (who may have a genuine reason for being paranoid) and those who are operating outside the law (buying stuff on the darknets).

Sure Monero might take away some of the dark business from bitcoin. But it can't scale beyond that. Remember, bitcoin was king of the darknets in 2012 - it had the whole market to itself. And BTC had a small marketcap at the time, because that is what the whole darknet market looks like - small in the grand scheme of things. Offline, cash is still king. Online a cryptocurrency needs to go mainstream to grow.

do you know what 'fungibility' is?

[dinofelis]

Sure Monero might take away some of the dark business from bitcoin.

Are there still idiots using bitcoin on the dark nets ?  That's pretty dangerous I would think.

But it can't scale beyond that. Remember, bitcoin was king of the darknets in 2012 - it had the whole market to itself. And BTC had a small marketcap at the time, because that is what the whole darknet market looks like - small in the grand scheme of things. Offline, cash is still king. Online a cryptocurrency needs to go mainstream to grow.

But bitcoin didn't grow much (as currency use) since then, did it ?  There has been some adoption, like VPN and VPS, but I don't see how that couldn't also be used by monero ; after all, many of those are in the same privacy business.  There have been some spectacular cases of buying a car and so on with bitcoin, but my impression was that the use of bitcoin as a currency, to buy goods and services other than crypto, hasn't grown much since then.

Yes, bitcoin's *market cap* became much bigger, but that's essentially financial speculation, not use as a currency.  My very rough impression is that bitcoin's *currency* market cap isn't much more than, say, $10 or $20 per coin.  (I explained elsewhere what that number means).

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, it is really the impression I have.

[yelllowsin]

Bitcoin scales much better than Monero anonimity tech. If you just look at the number of transactions that fit in 1 block in the monero chain and make the calculations of how many bytes are needed to perform 1 transaction you would know it. That's why they are pumping this coin as hell because it cannot achieve mass adoption in the long term and they know it  .

Bloated chain

Corrective medicine for disinformation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3yrazw/what_is_moneros_theoretical_maximum_transaction/

Monero does not have the practical scaling limits that Bitcoin has.  Bring on the volume.  I mean, really, bring on the organic transaction volume, please!

The problem i was addressing was not how many transactions per second a coin can perform, but the total size of the blockchain after having to perform so many transactions along the years. If Monero ever achieved the number of transactions of the Bitcoin network, how many Gigabytes of space do you think it would be required in your hard disk to store the blockchain?

I will leave the calculations for yourself...as this is a comparison between Monero and Bitcoin.