rpietila Wall Observer - the Quality TA Thread ;)

[Erdogan]

Now...  Imagine that bitcoin and crypto (and Monero) is about to take our civilization the next order of magnitude up, and the apprehension you feel is justified.  
  
This is what the *whoosh* part of an exponential (or maybe even hyper-exponential) curve feels like, and we are lucky to be part of it.

This has been an idea I have been speaking about to friends for a long time.  They generally laugh and scoff when I say that the advent of cryptocurrency, when in full bloom, will be seen as an event in human history at least as important as the internet itself.  Being a subset of, or dependent upon the global network, it cannot arguably eclipse it entirely, but since it will be the store of human value it's fundamental nature raises it's importance quite a bit.  Cryptocurrency is the progeny of the internet.  But the child may in time rise to heights not possible for the father.

We naturally underestimate the vast importance of money.  All of us playing tiddlywinks with the future here on bitcointalk will look back with amazement saying "if we only knew".  The game we play is to uncover the clues to what will eventually be seen as inevitable and impossible not to have happened.

It is a very valuable fog we wander around in here, now in the present.

I say the same. It is epic.

[1714701258]

1714701258

[1714701258]

1714701258

[1714701258]

1714701258

[1714701258]

1714701258

[1714701258]

1714701258

[1714701258]

1714701258

[Bagatell]

Soon come. 

[dnaleor]

Adding additional features such as anonymity, 2fa, ect to the core protocol introduces more points of failure. For a global reserve currency, or at least for much higher levels of addoption, the best protocol will the the one with the fewest points of failure, mainly a coin that just manages UTXOs.  Any changes should be to improve security and optimise the existing system and existing features, not to add additional features, especially features that can be added outside of the core protocol.   So far, bitcoin is the simplest, most tried and true, most tested, and most optimized.  It will take a lot for another coin to take its place.

Anonimity isn't a "feature" of a coin, it should be a core fundamental.
Having anonimity means having fungibility. Bitcoin isn't fungible. That's a BIG problem for a (good functioning) currency.

And we should also note that the anonimity of XMR isn't "added" to the coin, the protocol revolves around fungibility through ring signatures and stealth addresses.

I agree with your other points. A protocol should not do fancy things, but anonimity isn't fancy.

edit: Dash uses pseudo-anonimity as a fancy thing, added through masternodes that has indeed a lot of points of failure. I don't blame them for that, they don't have a choice. The bitcoin codebase isn't capable of becoming fungibel.

[necrita]

Adding additional features such as anonymity, 2fa, ect to the core protocol introduces more points of failure. For a global reserve currency, or at least for much higher levels of addoption, the best protocol will the the one with the fewest points of failure, mainly a coin that just manages UTXOs.  Any changes should be to improve security and optimise the existing system and existing features, not to add additional features, especially features that can be added outside of the core protocol.   So far, bitcoin is the simplest, most tried and true, most tested, and most optimized.  It will take a lot for another coin to take its place.

Anonimity isn't a "feature" of a coin, it should be a core fundamental.
Having anonimity means heaving fungibility. Bitcoin isn't fungibel. That's a BIG problem for a (good functioning) currency.

And we should also note that the anonimity of XMR isn't "added" to the coin, the protocol revolves around fungibility through ring signatures and stealth addresses.

I agree with your other points. A protocol should not do fancy things, but anonimity isn't fancy.

edit: Dash uses pseudo-anonimity as a fancy thing, added through masternodes that has indeed a lot of points of failure. I don't blame them for that, they don't have a choice. The bitcoin codebase isn't capable of becoming fungibel.

The bitcoin codebase is very much fungible. That is one of its primary strengths. Hard/soft forks are part of the process of its becoming "perfect" money.

edit: fungible is probably not the best word to describe the codebase. More like it can incorporate changes to suit the need of the people using it.

[stefanf]

[/quote]

The bitcoin codebase is very much fungible. That is one of its primary strengths. Hard/soft forks are part of the process of its becoming "perfect" money.

edit: fungible is probably not the best word to describe the codebase. More like it can incorporate changes to suit the need of the people using it.
[/quote]

You can't hardfork cryptonote anonymity in bitcoin.

[HeliKopterBen]

Adding additional features such as anonymity, 2fa, ect to the core protocol introduces more points of failure. For a global reserve currency, or at least for much higher levels of addoption, the best protocol will the the one with the fewest points of failure, mainly a coin that just manages UTXOs.  Any changes should be to improve security and optimise the existing system and existing features, not to add additional features, especially features that can be added outside of the core protocol.   So far, bitcoin is the simplest, most tried and true, most tested, and most optimized.  It will take a lot for another coin to take its place.

Anonimity isn't a "feature" of a coin, it should be a core fundamental.
Having anonimity means having fungibility. Bitcoin isn't fungible. That's a BIG problem for a (good functioning) currency.

And we should also note that the anonimity of XMR isn't "added" to the coin, the protocol revolves around fungibility through ring signatures and stealth addresses.

I agree with your other points. A protocol should not do fancy things, but anonimity isn't fancy.

edit: Dash uses pseudo-anonimity as a fancy thing, added through masternodes that has indeed a lot of points of failure. I don't blame them for that, they don't have a choice. The bitcoin codebase isn't capable of becoming fungibel.

I was thinking more of dash which basically uses a built-in mixer for anonymity.  I could see fungibility possibly being an issue, but it hasn't been an issue yet, especially with all the coins that have been stolen and/or compromised somehow.  If it becomes an issue, I could definitely see something like XMR taking off.

[rpietila]

After having recently been on an island vacation where there was no hope of any Internet access, I can say it's not so bad.  You soon adapt back to how we were in the 80's.  People become much more important, and life slows down a lot.  Local happenings becomes much more significant.  But progress and personal growth slow way down too.   

Definitely, I also enjoyed greatly of my accidental week-long vacation without the 'net. Short term without Internet is good for everyone, even life without Internet is not probably unpleasant.

My assertion was just that the financial value of having the option to use Internet versus the (hypothetical) case of not having it. In my case at least, as a knowledge-age businessman, the value of Internet access is probably about worth my total marketable assets. Without the Internet, I would not have the assets in the first place. With the Internet, I can rebuild them. Without, I could hardly get any satisfying job. And I also value the social aspect a lot, since in this faraway country where I live, it is hard to find company to talk with  

Especially as they have day jobs..  

[rjclarke2000]

I might pick up a couple of thousand XMR. If it takes off I can quit my day job too. That's the goal.

Also keep stacking Bitcoin. I want a minimum of 30 before it goes above $300

[dEBRUYNE]

Adding additional features such as anonymity, 2fa, ect to the core protocol introduces more points of failure. For a global reserve currency, or at least for much higher levels of addoption, the best protocol will the the one with the fewest points of failure, mainly a coin that just manages UTXOs.  Any changes should be to improve security and optimise the existing system and existing features, not to add additional features, especially features that can be added outside of the core protocol.   So far, bitcoin is the simplest, most tried and true, most tested, and most optimized.  It will take a lot for another coin to take its place.

Anonimity isn't a "feature" of a coin, it should be a core fundamental.
Having anonimity means having fungibility. Bitcoin isn't fungible. That's a BIG problem for a (good functioning) currency.

And we should also note that the anonimity of XMR isn't "added" to the coin, the protocol revolves around fungibility through ring signatures and stealth addresses.

I agree with your other points. A protocol should not do fancy things, but anonimity isn't fancy.

edit: Dash uses pseudo-anonimity as a fancy thing, added through masternodes that has indeed a lot of points of failure. I don't blame them for that, they don't have a choice. The bitcoin codebase isn't capable of becoming fungibel.

I was thinking more of dash which basically uses a built-in mixer for anonymity. I could see fungibility possibly being an issue, but it hasn't been an issue yet, especially with all the coins that have been stolen and/or compromised somehow.  If it becomes an issue, I could definitely see something like XMR taking off.

[1] Dash isn't using a built-in mixer for anonymity (built-in refers to into the protocol in my opinion). It relies on the masternodes, whom are coordinating the mixing process, to achieve anonymity. Also, something using the bitcoin-codebase can and will never be fully anonymous. Furthermore, what Dash uses is kind of like a work-around (see 2 -> http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2zufu1/a_great_podcast_by_lets_talk_bitcoin_discussing/cpmvogy), while Monero relies on cryptography and math to achieve anonymity. Also, the anonymity of Monero is set in the core protocol, like dnaleor explained.  

[2] You must've missed the coinbase debacle, where they were tracking users and their spending. In addition, btc-e was blocking stoling evo coins, which shouldn't have happened with a perfect fungible currency. Imagine your cash getting seized, because it was used by a drug dealer before. I am pretty sure there were some more cases of fungibility, but can't recall them of the top of my hat currently. For some additional info on fungibility and why it is important, see the slides of this presentation -> http://www.slideshare.net/arnuschky/monero-geneva (5 untill 15, credits to the xmr.to team).

Disclaimer: I am a Monero proponent, so I might be a bit biased.

[americanpegasus]

Can someone briefly explain it like I'm 5 how Monero solves fungibility? 
 
I keep reading wheat and chessboard squares explanations that confuse me. 
 
Are you saying there's not a satoshi unit currently for Monero?  How does that work again?

[explorer]

Can someone briefly explain it like I'm 5 how Monero solves fungibility? 
 
I keep reading wheat and chessboard squares explanations that confuse me. 
 
Are you saying there's not a satoshi unit currently for Monero?  How does that work again?

Monero cannot be tracked to any particular transaction; each is equal and indistinguishable from the others.  Whereas  bitcoin is minutely identifiable  and traceable,  leading to 'blacklisting' which is the reverse of fungible.

[rpietila]

Can someone briefly explain it like I'm 5 how Monero solves fungibility? 
 
I keep reading wheat and chessboard squares explanations that confuse me. 
 
Are you saying there's not a satoshi unit currently for Monero?  How does that work again?

You opened a thread screaming XMR is the future. And you don't have any idea how it works.

As a rare expression of moderator activity in the thread, please keep Monero-specific discussion contained, because there are a host of threads in the altcoin section dedicated for that matter.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

(It costs basically nothing but your bitcoin maximalism pride).

I'm a Bitcoin-ledger "maximalist," but not a Bitcoin-protocol maximalist

Aren't you worried about your favored altcoins being spun off? You don't need to be able to hard fork ring sigs into Bitcoin-the-protocol, only spin off the feature into Bitcoin-the-ledger.

After all, if one accepts the premise that every time a better protocol comes along we should start a bran new ledger, there can be no long-term investment value in any coin, since it is bound to be replaced by something better in a few years.

This leads to the idea that we should hop around collecting little chunks of all the "promising" altcoins, but under this Pascal's Wager argument it is very hard to determine what is really promising, and there are eventually an intractable number of such wagers to have to both evaluate and invest small amounts into (making the total a big amount).

In contrast with this what seems to me rather tortured logic, we have the simplicity and elegance of spin offs. Change the protocol without changing the ledger. Even keep many protocols at the same time, each with their own Bitcoin-ledger where if you own 1% of all BTC you always by default own 1% of each of the other coins. Instead of the onus being on the Bitcoin investor to ferret out all the possible good altcoins, the investor is an investor in everything by default, and only would investigate the newcomer-protocols for the purpose of selling off the obviously un-promising ones for extra money.

In addition to all this, to discard the ledger upon protocol upgrade also seems to ignore the economic importance of the ledger.

[rjclarke2000]

Rpietila, do you think it's possible for people getting in to Bitcoin now to make big profits in the future ... Or should I say have great purchasing power using btc in let's say 5-10 years time?

I know that thousands of btc is not an option anymore and even owning 100 bitcoins for most is near on impossible so for the average family man (ie, me) what do you feel would be a good amount to hold?

My personal goal is to reach 30 btc before it reaches over the $300 mark which I am aware could happen in a blink of an eye as could $150.

I only invest what I can afford to lose and I am lucky as I am in a fairly decent position to be able to do this.


I must also add that I am sure there is a number of btc most people don't want to hold over just yet. Let's say I have 5 btc, that's roughly $1200. I wouldn't be too bothered losing that as it wouldn't affect me too much.
If I had 100btc would I be brave enough to keep holding it? I mean that's about $24k and I'd be pretty upset if Bitcoin failed and I lost the lot!


There are some brave people here but I do believe very much in high risk could bring high reward! Not many get rich playing Mr safe.

[dnaleor]

It's been said that bitcoin is "good enough".
Don't you think a significantly better coin is needed to overtake bitcoin, not a coin that only is a bit more reliable and anonymous?

I really don't see the hype around monero but I might get me some just in case

By whom?  When?

Bitcoin is not good enough.  That is the problem.  As a public ledger, it is good enough.  For cash or SOV purposes, it is falling shorter by the day.  Privacy is an essential requirement.

Bitcoin is plenty good enough. There are practical ways to achieve anonymity with bitcoin if you want to. Tumbling, mixing and swapping mechanisms can be made as secure, easy and decentralised as bitcoin its self. These methods are particularly easy and effective for moderately small sums of money like only a few thousand dollars. But transparency is the beauty of bitcoin in that it becomes harder to move very large sums of money on the blockchain anonymously. This is a good thing! you can watch HSBC laundering money on your own desktop. With bitcoin you can have a balance between anonymity and transparency that is ideal.

The problem with BTC transparency:
Basically it comes down to 2 possible scenario's: blacklisting and whitelisting

Government could on one hand through “whitelisting” obligate bitcoin users  to identify themselves when they purchase bitcoins (this is already happening) and ask them to whom they are transferring these bitcoins (the American website Coinbase is already asking this for some transactions). In the future this could lead to a situation in which only “identified” bitcoins would be spendable at regulated payment processors (bitpay?). As a result, your anonymous bitcoins would only be spendable if you match them to your identity through a regulated authority.

A more aggressive approach is “blacklisting”. This is a system whereby the government obligates the big mining pools (which are verifying and recording transactions in the blockchain) to not sustain certain transactions. As a result, coinjoin-transactions and transactions coming from mixers could be blacklisted whereby it would be very difficult to still perform these kind of transactions. If only a few miners process these kind of transactions, they would at least be very slow. But if the regulated pools decide to not accept blocks with mixed transactions in them, you can’t even use anonymized bitcoins! Also, other (private) miners could be incentivized to enforce the regulation, even if they are not known to the government:
if it is illigal to build on a block with a "blacklisted transaction" and if some big pools would comply, it doesn't really make sense to built on this illigal chain... If you don't comply, this big pool will not build on your chain and you will loose your reward!
edit: I expect a lot of pools to comply, because the individual miners in a pool which does not comply with blacklisting, could be considered doing "money laundering" because part of the reward they receive comes from the transaction fees!

In essence this could lead to three kinds of bitcoins:
-White bitcoins: bitcoins that satisfy the obligation of identification.
-Grey bitcoins: bitcoins that are not yet identified, but which are not actively anonymized.
-Black bitcoins: bitcoins that are banned by miners.

The consequence? Bitcoin will not be fungible anymore: you can’t just use a grey or black bitcoin to buy something from a webshop. If the government is able to discover that you possess black bitcoins or process blacklisted type transactions, you could even be seen as a someone committing a criminal offence.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Bitcoin isn't fungible.

Actually it's important to note that BTC are fundamentally fungible, in that UTXO are indistinguishable, even in principle, once they are part of a many-to-many transaction. It's just that it's not super-convenient to do that with Bitcoin in a systematic way (for now; it could be argued that it will never be feasible enough to avoid chainalysis, but I haven't seen such an argument*).

*And if we go down the conjectural road this slingshots back to the "anonymity coins" because how sure can you really be of their complete anonymity? It remains up in the air whether there is any advantage until we experience an attack by an entity wanting to de-anonymize people who are actually using each coin's anonymity options to their fullest.

[dnaleor]

Bitcoin isn't fungible.

Actually it's important to note that BTC are fundamentally fungible, in that UTXO are indistinguishable, even in principle, once they are part of a many-to-many transaction. It's just that it's not super-convenient to do that with Bitcoin in a systematic way (for now; it could be argued that it will never be feasible enough to avoid chainalysis, but I haven't seen such an argument).

read my post above, what if "many to many" transactions are banned by the miners because of "potential money laundering"

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

read my post above, what if "many to many" transactions are banned by the miners because of "potential money laundering"

In a scenario where miners are banned from processing "many to many" transactions, what happens to anonycoin miners? Are you saying there is something about Bitcoin miners that makes them unable to anonymize themselves? (If so, who is Satoshi? )

[explorer]

read my post above, what if "many to many" transactions are banned by the miners because of "potential money laundering"

In a scenario where miners are banned from processing "many to many" transactions, what happens to anonycoin miners? Are you saying there is something about Bitcoin miners that makes them unable to anonymize themselves? (If so, who is Satoshi? )

They don't have to uncover the identity of all miners, merely a few of the biggest - and they can't hide.  It might be what breaks up the big mines/pools in future, who knows. Of course that opens the door to TPTB creating and controlling their own large farms to force their agenda.  Better to be private from the start.

[dnaleor]

read my post above, what if "many to many" transactions are banned by the miners because of "potential money laundering"

In a scenario where miners are banned from processing "many to many" transactions, what happens to anonycoin miners?

I'm not saying that Monero will be left unregulated when Bitcoin is being regulated with black- and or whitelisting. It's even possible that Monero will be illegal in some countries. Although, this would make it even more stealth (people would ony use it with I2P f.e.)

The public ledger makes it possible that miners comply with the rules. In Monero, you can't see what you are processing. At least you have "plausible deniability". Government would only have the choice between banning monero completely, or allowing it (with a possible requirement to share your viewkey if they ask; but there is still plausible deniability about how much monero accounts you own )

Are you saying there is something about Bitcoin miners that makes them unable to anonymize themselves? (If so, who is Satoshi? )

No, that is possible. But (some) pools will probably comply because a lot of miners will just want to mine at a pool that complies.
(these miners are not willing to take the risk of comitting a criminal offence while they are just in it for the mining profit, not caring about fungibility)