Monero most likely coin to challenge Bitcoin

[toknormal]

Why keep this whole structure of central banks, commercial banks, and all this BS, if we can just use crypto *directly* ?

There are lots of reasons why crypto - at least in its present form - cannot be used "directly". Some are economic and others are simply practical.

For a start, an SQL database server out performs any blockchain based transaction system by many orders of magnitude. Blockchains were not designed for supporting high volume commercial trading interfaces but for manifesting a basis for a peer-to-peer token which would serve as a store of value. (For example, all trading that goes on in exchanges is done in a database off blockchain, otherwise it would take forever. The same would go for supermarkets if they ever denominated the price of cabbages in BTC).

The question of whether we use crypto directly or not is really one of price denomination rather than transaction technology since the commercial realm does not care how prices are denominated and can transact in any configured currency. That will be case whether Bitcoin or any other crypto sweeps the world as the universal denomination of value or not.

Secondly, you've got to take into consideration that - notwithstanding the corrupt practices in the fiat system that lead to the current debt bubble - we're not living in the middle ages where economies moved at snail's pace compared with today. In a dynamic economy who's size varies from year to year there are only two choices:

A. use a fixed supply currency and experience wild price fluctuation that arbitrarily bankrupts half of industry and allows the other half to make supernormal profits

B. use a variable supply based on liquidity demand to stabilise prices and create a more predictable economic environment for business

In practice, B happens anyway, even if A prevails because companies will use derivatives to hedge themselves against inflation, interest rate exposure and exchange rate exposure, thereby adjusting the overall effective money supply via the market instead of via central banks.

You were claiming initially that a non-transparant block chain COULD NOT be a sound monetary bookkeeping system in which people can have trust.  First of all, you're contradicted by fact: there are non-transparent block chains that ARE valued on the market.

Indeed. I accept that and I don't have a leg to stand on right now in that respect because, for example, Monero has one of the largest marketcaps at the moment.

All the same it is not in widespread use so we don't know. We cannot see these concepts playing out at large scale, where small subtleties in a speculative market can become a toxic ball and chain in a real one.

We can, however usefully talk in terms of archetypes which may be more instructive than arguing over anecdotal use cases. Bitcoin's white paper alludes to the fact that Gold serves to some extent as the archetype for its monetary role. That archetypal analogy extends beyond mining to the idea of a tokenised unit of value that can be merged and de-merged with other "nuggets" (addresses) as they are mined. With gold the concept of "privacy" is extrinsic. i.e. the "vault" does the privacy bit, not the gold (albeit it is anonymous in terms of ownership and fairly fungible). There is no concept of ownership, only possession.

Cryptonote, on the other hand, follows an archetype much more closely based on a record keeping model used by banks where a blockchain address is likened to an "account" assigned to a particular individual. Thats why the privacy aspect features strongly. It further consolidates its deference to the banking archetype by excluding even read-only access of a given address to anyone at all except the particular individual who possesses a private key to that address (or their nominees via the viewkey).

This is a very different approach and consequently is likely to engender a very different monetary role to bitcoin. I've argued that such a technology is destined to do what it was designed for - private record keeping. But the implications of that are also that it cannot be an electronic commodity in its own right, only a record of such and sure enough, thats the role it seems to be taking since people are using it to launder bitcoin between product sales though the fundamental store of value is still bitcoin.

You argue that it can be a token of value in its own right - fair enough. It may be that one leads to the other and a symbiotic relationship prevails between the two which makes that possible. All the same I'd say that the obscured blockchain is the weaker of the two for the reasons I set out in my first post in this thread - that it provides fundamentally a technological service, not a monetary one and therefore will be valued accordingly and simply be dropped when a cheaper or more efficient one comes along that does the same job.

[Bobo81]

I think there is hype actually with monero but perhaps that will be over...

[axxo]

I think there is hype actually with monero but perhaps that will be over...

We'll never know for the reason that there's a humongous monero supporters everywhere.

[btcxyzzz]

• Monero is screwed up from conception in that it trashes the very thing that makes bitcoin valuable - blockchain transparency

Plain nonsense. Money should be anonymous, transactions should be anoymous, that's the only way to go. Praising blockchain transparency is poltron mentality. Who else should be interested in transaction except 2 parties involved? State?

[dinofelis]

Why keep this whole structure of central banks, commercial banks, and all this BS, if we can just use crypto *directly* ?

There are lots of reasons why crypto - at least in its present form - cannot be used "directly". Some are economic and others are simply practical.

For a start, an SQL database server out performs any blockchain based transaction system by many orders of magnitude. Blockchains were not designed for supporting high volume commercial trading interfaces but for manifesting a basis for a peer-to-peer token which would serve as a store of value. (For example, all trading that goes on in exchanges is done in a database off blockchain, otherwise it would take forever. The same would go for supermarkets if they ever denominated the price of cabbages in BTC).

I agree that cryptocurrencies as designed today have a fundamental problem with very high volumes.  Bitcoin has a hard limit, others, like monero, can adapt, but at a certain point, the block chain growth becomes so large, that with present technology, this is problematic.  Maybe a 500 TB block chain is not a problem in the future ; for the moment, it is.

That said, there could be solutions to that.  Off-chain is one answer.  But "grouping transactions together" could be another one.  Suppose that a supermarket receives 300 transactions per minute from its customers.  There could be a kind of cryptographic technique, style zcash, that allows this supermarket to combine these 300 transactions into one single big one.  I don't know of any block chain that implements this at the moment (because no need: the only block chain that has problematic high volume at the moment is bitcoin, and there, it is hitting a hard protocol limit) ; but if so, it would again be something like an "obfuscated cryptographic proof that these transactions were OK without showing them".

Honestly, if the idea is NOT that crypto goes more or less mainstream in the long run, I fail to see the point of it.

The question of whether we use crypto directly or not is really one of price denomination rather than transaction technology since the commercial realm does not care how prices are denominated and can transact in any configured currency. That will be case whether Bitcoin or any other crypto sweeps the world as the universal denomination of value or not.

It is a chicken-and-egg problem.  When a currency is really used as a denominator, a property, called "stickiness of prices" occurs, which calms the price fluctuations and stabilizes the currency value.  But people will only accept denominations in a crypto when they think it is stable enough.

Secondly, you've got to take into consideration that - notwithstanding the corrupt practices in the fiat system that lead to the current debt bubble - we're not living in the middle ages where economies moved at snail's pace compared with today. In a dynamic economy who's size varies from year to year there are only two choices:

A. use a fixed supply currency and experience wild price fluctuation that arbitrarily bankrupts half of industry and allows the other half to make supernormal profits

B. use a variable supply based on liquidity demand to stabilise prices and create a more predictable economic environment for business

Crypto doesn't have to have limited supply.  Bitcoin has a limited supply in 130 years.  Monero has tail emission.  You could easily provide for a slightly inflationary currency.  BTW, our currency is NOT stable.  We've suffered an inflation of a factor of 23 since one century.

And there's another regulatory inflation: the NUMBER of cryptocurrencies.  If you have 300 different cryptocurrencies, each with a fixed supply, and you create 700 more cryptocurrencies, eating in the same store of value market, you have also a form of inflation.  If a cryptocurrency hard forks, you also have a form of inflation.  So there is an inherent variable money supply, by the number of cryptocurrencies/hard forks and their relative market caps.

The crypto market is much more elastic than one would naively think.

[vokain]

• Monero is screwed up from conception in that it trashes the very thing that makes bitcoin valuable - blockchain transparency

Plain nonsense. Money should be anonymous, transactions should be anoymous, that's the only way to go. Praising blockchain transparency is poltron mentality. Who else should be interested in transaction except 2 parties involved? State?

In addition,
Monero's voluntarily transparent (see: viewkeys)

[toknormal]

In addition,
Monero's voluntarily transparent (see: viewkeys)

LoL. Voluntary if you're already a key holder.

Blockchain transparency means that ALL can see every address whether they're a key holder or not.

See here.

(You also need to be able to do this whether you're a key holder or not).

[cryptimus prime]

Bitcoin is more transparent then bank transfers. Everybody can see how much you own and track all transactions. Why would any sane person prefer this over usual bank transfer or a privacy protected blockchain like XMR?

Selling BTC "transparency" as a feature instead of a weakness is just funny.

[toknormal]

Bitcoin is more transparent then bank transfers. Everybody can see how much you own and track all transactions. Why would any sane person prefer this over usual bank transfer or a privacy protected blockchain like XMR?

A blockchain address is not a bank account.

Thats the whole design folly of "obscured" blockchains - they impose a flawed, record keeping archetype on cryptocurrency just because thats what people are used to.

You do not "own" an address. A blockchain is a public ledger over which you may have some control by means of a private key. The fact that it's public is what gives your private key its value in the first place. If you make the public part of the blockchain "private" (as well as the private part) you just trash the value.

Ok, so the public address is hidden - who cares. A fully transparent blockchain will always be far more valuable than an obscured one.

[obit33]

Bitcoin is more transparent then bank transfers. Everybody can see how much you own and track all transactions. Why would any sane person prefer this over usual bank transfer or a privacy protected blockchain like XMR?

A blockchain address is not a bank account.

Thats the whole design folly of "obscured" blockchains - they impose a flawed, record keeping archetype on cryptocurrency just because thats what people are used to.

You do not "own" an address. A blockchain is a public ledger over which you may have some control by means of a private key. The fact that it's public is what gives your private key its value in the first place. If you make the public part of the blockchain "private" (as well as the private part) you just trash the value.

Ok, so the public address is hidden - who cares. A fully transparent blockchain will always be far more valuable than an obscured one.

who cares? Do you know how many people are trying to hide their wealth in the world, don't you see the 'evolution' we are in, more oppressive government, negative interest rates, financial repression... they're coming for your money... they will keep coming and they will rob you blind... Blockchainanalysis makes it perfectly possible to identify your entry-point in the blockchain and discover all your addresses, so they can know exactly how much you own and calculate how much you must give them...

an obscure blockchain based on mathematical and cryptographic principles so it can't be tampered with is far more valuable then a public ledger where you, your neighbour and the governement know exactly what you have, what you're doing with it, and if they feel the need, can just proclaim your 'money' void...

But I have a feeling you just don't want to get this, I can't believe a person would resort to such illogical arguments if he wasn't defending a hidden agenda... Your hidden agenda is 'Dash' and losing the privacy fight against monero... So now you guys are coming out that a public blockchain is a feature and privacy actually doesn't matter this much... come on... we're all grown-ups here...

good luck dude

[dinofelis]

Bitcoin is more transparent then bank transfers. Everybody can see how much you own and track all transactions. Why would any sane person prefer this over usual bank transfer or a privacy protected blockchain like XMR?

A blockchain address is not a bank account.

Thats the whole design folly of "obscured" blockchains - they impose a flawed, record keeping archetype on cryptocurrency just because thats what people are used to.

You do not "own" an address. A blockchain is a public ledger over which you may have some control by means of a private key. The fact that it's public is what gives your private key its value in the first place. If you make the public part of the blockchain "private" (as well as the private part) you just trash the value.

Ok, so the public address is hidden - who cares. A fully transparent blockchain will always be far more valuable than an obscured one.

I have the impression that we are running in cycles.  "block chain" and "address" are only ONE means to implement a monetary token.

A monetary token needs to display a "right to spend" and a "power to transmit".

The "right to spend" has to derive from a proof, belief, reasonable expectation that that RIGHT IS LEGIT.  That's all there needs to be.  In order for a right to spend to be legit, it has:

1) to be created in a legit accepted way OR
2) to have been uniquely transmitted from a former legit "right to spend".

From the moment that one can have sufficient trust, belief, reasonable expectation that such is the case, then the right to spend is legit, and the token can act as a monetary asset.

The EXACT WAY in which the trust, belief, reasonable expectation of legit right to spend is achieved, is not important, from the moment that people can trust, believe, or reasonably expect it to be true.

One way is "through physics".  Physical objects, essentially through Pauli's principle and the fact that they are made up of fermions, automatically induce a "right to spend" if you physically hold them.  If I have a piece of genuine gold to show you, physics guarantees me that or I dug it up (legit "creation" of the monetary token), or someone gave it to me and doesn't have it any more right now.

Another way is "with an army of accountants".  That's how the fiat world works, with "legit rights to spend".

And another way is by having some computer derived proof of such.  That can be through a transparent block chain where the software can verify, hopping from transaction to transaction, back to the moment of creation (mining).  But that can also by another block chain mechanism, where a cryptographic proof is delivered that such transactions took place.

And maybe in the future we will invent still other schemes to prove the legit right to spend.  The exact way in which this is achieved, doesn't matter, from the moment that it is sound.

[MHopkins]

Monero is the answer."

I just watched Keiser last night. His guest was pumping Monero.

Usually this marks the top for any coin. Check out the terminal bear markets for Quark, MAX and START - it always happens after a Max Pump 

[toknormal]

Blockchainanalysis makes it perfectly possible to identify your entry-point in the blockchain and discover all your addresses

There are no "entry" and "exit" points in a blockchain (other than in the mining process).

You're obsessed with this banking terminology as if it's some kind of door you walk through and open an account that has your name on it forever. Cryptocurrency blockchains are a million miles away from that but good luck in trying to convince everyone of it. You might as well try to convince them that because you own a set of keys to your office you therefore own your employer's company.

With respect, you're the one that doesn't seem to get it. It doesn't matter what the blockchain shows - addresses, transaction numbers, nothing at all - who t.f. cares. ALL the information about you has to be gleaned off chain. So what if somebody discovered that I happened to control a particular address at some point in time ? It doesn't mean anything and it certainly is a whole lot different from transferring money from my bank account to another's.

You think a blockchain where you can't see the addresses is any more protection than one where you can ? You guys are deluded. The interface with the commercial world is a common denominator that everyone has to deal with whether it's Bitcoin, Monero or a lump of gold under your bed.

You make the asset less transparent, all you're doing is corrupting it and diminishing its value - bottom line.

(On the other hand, hey - they're coming for you. Better go and hide in your little de-linked bunker   r.o.t.f.l)
 

[obit33]

Blockchainanalysis makes it perfectly possible to identify your entry-point in the blockchain and discover all your addresses

You make the asset less transparent, all you're doing is corrupting it and diminishing its value - bottom line.

I still don't get how you get to this point... Cash isn't less valuable because it's more private than a bank account... au contraire, cash offers more freedom to do what one wants... but oh well, we'll have to agree to disagree then, future and 'the market' will tell who's right...

good luck anyway

[toknormal]

I still don't get how you get to this point... Cash isn't less valuable because it's more private than a bank account... au contraire, cash offers more freedom to do what one wants... but oh well, we'll have to agree to disagree then, future and 'the market' will tell who's right...

I'm not saying maximum anonymity shouldn't be persued - it should. The reason that cash or gold is anonymous is because each note or bar looks more or less like any other. There is minimum distinction between one unit of the money and another.

But "privacy" is a very different thing from fungibility. It implies hiding something from view completely. If you listen to David Latapie's presentation on Monero a couple of years ago for example, he doesn't stop going on about how it's "invisible". Privacy is not the same thing as fungibility or anonymity.

Fungibility can be legitimately pursued without loss of blockchain transparency. You can make the blockchain fungible and still have a blockchain.info type total openness and accountability. The important thing is that if you want the entire world to endorse it as "money" then that transparency must not be dependent on holding a private key. A public key must be enough (...and I mean ADDRESSES, not meaningless transaction numbers).

[obit33]

I still don't get how you get to this point... Cash isn't less valuable because it's more private than a bank account... au contraire, cash offers more freedom to do what one wants... but oh well, we'll have to agree to disagree then, future and 'the market' will tell who's right...

I'm not saying maximum anonymity shouldn't be persued - it should. The reason that cash or gold is anonymous is because each note or bar looks more or less like any other. There is minimum distinction between one unit of the money and another.

But "privacy" is a very different thing from fungibility. It implies hiding something from view completely. If you listen to David Latapie's presentation on Monero a couple of years ago for example, he doesn't stop going on about how it's "invisible". Privacy is not the same thing as fungibility or anonymity.

Fungibility can be legitimately pursued without loss of blockchain transparency. You can make the blockchain fungible and still have a blockchain.info type total openness and accountability. The important thing is that if you want the entire world to endorse it as "money" then that transparency must not be dependent on holding a private key. A public key must be enough (...and I mean ADDRESSES, not meaningless transaction numbers).

I have to disagree... bitcoin becomes less fungible because it's less anonymous... Bitcoins can become 'tainted' because there's the possibility to look back in transactionhistory and identify coins that were used in shady transactions... so now you have 2 types of coins: pristine and 'tainted' --> so bye bye fungibility...

Transactionprivacy and unlinkability is a condition to remain fungible in my (humble) opinion... without it, fungibility evaporates... but again, we can disagree...

best regards

[Azael]

Monero is the answer."

I just watched Keiser last night. His guest was pumping Monero.

Usually this marks the top for any coin. Check out the terminal bear markets for Quark, MAX and START - it always happens after a Max Pump 

Keiser had a guest "pumping" Bitcoin on there as well. Jon Matonis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GiQEECNcZM in 2011.

[Azael]

But I have a feeling you just don't want to get this, I can't believe a person would resort to such illogical arguments if he wasn't defending a hidden agenda... Your hidden agenda is 'Dash' and losing the privacy fight against monero... So now you guys are coming out that a public blockchain is a feature and privacy actually doesn't matter this much... come on... we're all grown-ups here...

good luck dude

Couldn't quite put my finger on why he was acting so silly. Now I know.

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

[Azael]

I think there is hype actually with monero but perhaps that will be over...

We'll never know for the reason that there's a humongous monero supporters everywhere.

The Monero market cap is too small to accommodate the dark markets like Bitcoin in the earlier days. This works out one way and we have precedent.

The increase of market cap in Monero will cause the fundamentals to be utilized in a much larger way. It will absorb a larger DNM market share and create a stronger demand for the currency and make it easier to park or move larger and larger sums of money in the coin.

It is quite funny that nerds and criminals are the first ones to utilize new technology with merit since the two are so unlike another.

Monero will enter mainstream in the way Bitcoin did like early stages of shady markets and volatility to grow to a point where an economy has been successfully established and ordinary businesses accept it and daring economists speculate on whether or not it is a good investment.

The difference here is due to Monero fundamentals transactions will be as confidential as fiat ones with the one exception that you don't need to trust your bank with your information. Nobody will have it and it is how Bitcoin were supposed to be.

"The problem with Bitcoin for the masses is that very few will want to have their 'bank statements' broadcast publicly. Monero is the answer."

[bbc.reporter]

I have a question about Monero. Ok we are seeing that some people here are saying that Monero will be bitcoin's real challenger. Let me ask, how is the hashing power of Monero? Is the network strong enough to repel a 51% attack. I believe it will be the latest target for hackers, now with its new found high value and notoriety in the darknet markets.