Bitcoin Forum
February 16, 2019, 02:29:08 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.17.1 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 [1037] 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 ... 2032 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency  (Read 4539510 times)
dewdeded
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1011


Monero Evangelist


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2015, 05:06:23 PM
 #20721

Start a marketing conceptual design and discussion thread on https://forum.getmonero.org/ or let David Latapie as core member do it.
And then let's move (conceptual) marketing discussions there.


In general I encourage to start topics & discussions, participate and read more on the official forums. We need to get them really active. This will be a big asset.
At our own forums we can have private discussions, user titles and colors, no moderations restrictions, can ban trolls & co, special user groups, no restrictions on attachements, ...
We later could integrate a XMR tipping plugin in the forum software, have a board shoutbox that integrates with/is an IRC channel, have foreign language sub forums (esp. spanish, german, french, chinese, ...) ...

Once again, we need to get the official forum active. This is important. Help to move discussions & users there.

I register my account there now.
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1550284148
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1550284148

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1550284148
Reply with quote  #2

1550284148
Report to moderator
GTO911
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 672
Merit: 500



View Profile
March 07, 2015, 05:37:25 PM
 #20722

Would be awesome if devs can install smf on monerotalk.org just like here. I dont like the current backend.
If they are short on time, i offer to do it for them  Smiley
medusa13
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 710
Merit: 500

hello world


View Profile
March 07, 2015, 05:41:08 PM
 #20723

i support the devs fully. love the new dev diary. i support the implementation strategy.
make the hard fork stuff now. we all know it will get difficult in the future, look at bitcoin. focus on the core. good gui(s) on top needs good, stable and clean base. i dont know how many deep cuts it will take to get the system the devs have in mind, but it wil sure take some. they have to find the right balance between using this short time window wisely but also not to hurry and make mistakes
the window where heavy changes are possible will stay open for quite some time, but close more and more once time has come.

they are doing a good job, move wisely but never freeze

XMR Monero
fluffypony
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1024


GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2015, 05:49:46 PM
 #20724

Apparently the GUI is no longer a priority as third party GUI's are "Good enough".

Someone want to link me to a video of these third party gui's in action. I've never seen one and the one I tried was so buggy I gave up. Albeit that was 6 months ago.

I think this is a big misunderstanding. Since it is an official GUI, the devs just don't want to release some half-baked thing with a lot of bugs. On top of that, the official GUI wallet will not be some simplistic thing which can only send and receive, but more like an account that has a wide variety of other options as well.

Nope, It has been lowered in priority, I think it was smooth that said so.

You are 100% correct - after the block 202 612 attack we completely shifted our priorities. It's not good enough for us to "fail fast and fail often" like some hipster startup, because we're playing with other people's money. We have to get the fundamentals incredibly tight first, otherwise we'll end up burning so much effort constantly updating the GUI to work with the underlying moving target.

The third-party GUIs are great, because it means we can make those underlying changes as we need to, and let the third-party GUI developers deal with compatibility. A good starting point to seeing the options for using Monero is on the "Choose a Monero Client" page: https://getmonero.org/getting-started/choose

fluffypony
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1260
Merit: 1024


GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2015, 06:04:58 PM
 #20725

Would be awesome if devs can install smf on monerotalk.org just like here. I dont like the current backend.
If they are short on time, i offer to do it for them  Smiley

We don't own monerotalk.org, the forum is at forum.getmonero.org

Nonetheless, we've specifically rejected SMF (and similar) for the forum for a number of reasons. Beyond the scalability and ongoing security issues, there's also the difficulty in customising both the functionality to meet our requirements and the look-and-feel to match our site. But most importantly, it doesn't really play into our requirement to create tooling that works for us both now, and into the future when we start introducing the functionality detailed towards the end of the research portion of our Design and Development Goals.

iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2072
Merit: 1063


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2015, 06:24:36 PM
 #20726

Once again, we need to get the official forum active. This is important. Help to move discussions & users there.

I register my account there now.

The "Official" forum won't become active until there's a good reason.  You can't nag/force people to migrate and we CLI users like it here (and IRC).

Maybe when the GUI brings more users the community will become large enough to cleave into a new space.  But not util then.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
Is Dash a scam?
dewdeded
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1218
Merit: 1011


Monero Evangelist


View Profile WWW
March 07, 2015, 06:30:32 PM
 #20727

The big added value of an own forum is a good reason. (From my point of view.)
I never want to nag or force people to anything. I just write, what I think (is best). What I write, should always be unstood as friendly suggestion or requests for discussions/considerations.
newb4now
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 08, 2015, 12:31:43 AM
 #20728

I think that Monero has very good chance to become the clear winner for the anonymous transaction market for several reasons:

1. All of our coin join based competitors have some degree of centralization and a susceptible to attack and/or data analysis to link the transactions

2. Of all the cryptonote based coins, Monero has by far the best distribution. Monero also has the largest, most transparent and active development team

3. Zero Coin/Zero Cash does not yet exist. By the time it does (assuming no major flaws) our first mover advantage may be too great, assuming our recent progress continues (LMDB, GUI, web wallets, economy, etc)

Having said all of the above, there is one thing that bothers me a lot (the number of required mixins). Unfortunately many Monero transactions (including transactions sent by Poloniex) use 0 mixins, which has serious consequences for the anonymity of those AND related transactions.

http://boolberry.com/files/Boolberry_Solves_CryptoNote_Issues.pdf

I am glad that the Monero dev team is working on this (per recent missives) and will implement a minimum number of mixins in the future
G2M
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 280
Merit: 250


Activity: 616


View Profile
March 08, 2015, 12:50:22 AM
 #20729

Pretty sure poloniex is working on getting their mixin to 3.

They almost had it working, but reverted for now, im not sure why, but there were a few angryish posts about having to pay higher fees .. maybe that's why they went back?

I'm sure they'll get it working, they're pretty on top of things.

Wind picked up: F4BC1F4BC0A2A1C4

banditryandloot goin2mars kbm keyboard-mash theusualstuff

probably a few more that don't matter for much.
newb4now
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 08, 2015, 12:58:12 AM
 #20730

Pretty sure poloniex is working on getting their mixin to 3.

They almost had it working, but reverted for now, im not sure why, but there were a few angryish posts about having to pay higher fees .. maybe that's why they went back?

I'm sure they'll get it working, they're pretty on top of things.

I saw the post about fees. They were not too much imho and worth it if that is the cost for them to change.

I agree that Poloniex is great for Monero. My comment was not directed at them. I am just happy the dev team is working on making a higher mixin mandatory for the entire network.


smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1077



View Profile
March 08, 2015, 01:08:18 AM
 #20731

Pretty sure poloniex is working on getting their mixin to 3.

They almost had it working, but reverted for now, im not sure why, but there were a few angryish posts about having to pay higher fees .. maybe that's why they went back?

I'm sure they'll get it working, they're pretty on top of things.

The issue with poloniex is somewhat structural. They get a huge number of small deposits from miners who mine directly to the exchange with frequent small payouts. When they try to use these outputs to pay withdrawals the transactions become huge and thus the fees large.

To fix this they may need to institute a minimum deposit or per-deposit fee (can be waived for deposits above some threshold) or some other way to crack down on miners (especially pools) doing this. Otherwise the cost of people making a lot of very small deposits gets shifted to the exchange itself and/or those making withdrawals.


newb4now
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile
March 08, 2015, 01:18:45 AM
 #20732

Pretty sure poloniex is working on getting their mixin to 3.

They almost had it working, but reverted for now, im not sure why, but there were a few angryish posts about having to pay higher fees .. maybe that's why they went back?

I'm sure they'll get it working, they're pretty on top of things.

The issue with poloniex is somewhat structural. They get a huge number of small deposits from miners who mine directly to the exchange with frequent small payouts. When they try to use these outputs to pay withdrawals the transactions become huge and thus the fees large.

To fix this they may need to institute a minimum deposit or per-deposit fee (can be waived for deposits above some threshold) or some other way to crack down on miners (especially pools) doing this. Otherwise the cost of people making a lot of very small deposits gets shifted to the exchange itself and/or those making withdrawals.




I like the minimum deposit idea.

Miners should send XMR to their own wallets first and not mine directly to Poloniex.

nachoig
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252
Merit: 250


View Profile
March 08, 2015, 01:32:37 AM
 #20733

Pretty sure poloniex is working on getting their mixin to 3.

They almost had it working, but reverted for now, im not sure why, but there were a few angryish posts about having to pay higher fees .. maybe that's why they went back?

I'm sure they'll get it working, they're pretty on top of things.

The issue with poloniex is somewhat structural. They get a huge number of small deposits from miners who mine directly to the exchange with frequent small payouts. When they try to use these outputs to pay withdrawals the transactions become huge and thus the fees large.

To fix this they may need to institute a minimum deposit or per-deposit fee (can be waived for deposits above some threshold) or some other way to crack down on miners (especially pools) doing this. Otherwise the cost of people making a lot of very small deposits gets shifted to the exchange itself and/or those making withdrawals.




WTF?Huh I can't believe in this, are the miners putting as the mining address an address which belongs to an exchange insteaad of using their own addresses?Huh
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1129


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
March 08, 2015, 01:35:52 AM
 #20734

...
To fix this they may need to institute a minimum deposit or per-deposit fee (can be waived for deposits above some threshold) or some other way to crack down on miners (especially pools Botnets) doing this. Otherwise the cost of people making a lot of very small deposits gets shifted to the exchange itself and/or those making withdrawals.

FTFY Cheesy

BITSLER                 ▄███
               ▄████▀
             ▄████▀
           ▄████▀  ▄██▄
         ▄████▀    ▀████▄
       ▄████▀        ▀████▄
     ▄████▀            ▀████▄
   ▄████▀                ▀████▄
 ▄████▀ ▄████▄      ▄████▄ ▀████▄
█████   ██████      ██████   █████
 ▀████▄ ▀████▀      ▀████▀ ▄████▀
   ▀████▄                ▄████▀
     ▀████▄            ▄████▀
       ▀████▄        ▄████▀
         ▀████▄    ▄████▀
           ▀████▄▄████▀
             ▀██████▀
               ▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄            
▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀    ▄▄█▄▄ ▀▀▄         
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄      
█  ▀▄▄  ▀█▀▀ ▄      ▀████   ▀▀▄   
█ █▄  ▀▄   ▀████       ▀▀ ▄██▄ ▀▀▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█  ▀▀       ▀▄▄ ▀████      ▄▄▄▀▀▀  █
█            ▄ ▀▄    ▄▄▄▀▀▀   ▄▄  █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█ ▄▄   ███   ▀██  █           ▀▀  █ 
█ ███  ▀██       █        ▄▄      █ 
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  
▀▄            █        ▀▀      █  
▀▀▄   ███▄  █   ▄▄          █   
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    
▀▀▄   █   ▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀▀▀▀              
              ▄▄▄██████▄▄▄
          ▄▄████████████████▄▄
        ▄██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▄
▄     ▄█████▀             ▀█████▄
██▄▄ █████▀                ▀█████
 ████████            ▄██      █████
  ████████▄         ███▀       ████▄
  █████████▀▀     ▄███▀        █████
   █▀▀▀          █████         █████
     ▄▄▄         ████          █████
   █████          ▀▀           ████▀
    █████                     █████
     █████▄                 ▄█████
      ▀█████▄             ▄█████▀
        ▀██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
          ▀▀████████████████▀▀
              ▀▀▀██████▀▀▀
            ▄▄▄███████▄▄▄
         ▄█▀▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀▀█▄
       █▀▀ ▄█████████████▄ ▀▀█
     █▀▀ ███████████████████ ▀▀█
    █▀ ███████████████████████ ▀█
   █▀ ███████████████▀▀ ███████ ▀█
 ▄█▀ ██████████████▀      ▀█████ ▀█▄
███ ███████████▀▀            ▀▀██ ███
███ ███████▀▀                     ███
███ ▀▀▀▀                          ███
▀██▄                             ▄██▀
  ▀█▄                            ▀▀
    █▄       █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
     █▄      ▀█████████▀
      ▀█▄      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
        ▀▀█▄▄  ▄▄▄
            ▀▀█████
[]
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1077



View Profile
March 08, 2015, 01:42:57 AM
 #20735

...
To fix this they may need to institute a minimum deposit or per-deposit fee (can be waived for deposits above some threshold) or some other way to crack down on miners (especially pools Botnets) doing this. Otherwise the cost of people making a lot of very small deposits gets shifted to the exchange itself and/or those making withdrawals.

FTFY Cheesy

No its mostly pools (not solo mining) and its more likely small miners on pools than large ones, though that could certainly include small botnets. A big botnet would get fairly large payouts on most pools, and solo mining deposits or a big botnet on a private pool would be large too
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1077



View Profile
March 08, 2015, 01:43:36 AM
 #20736

Pretty sure poloniex is working on getting their mixin to 3.

They almost had it working, but reverted for now, im not sure why, but there were a few angryish posts about having to pay higher fees .. maybe that's why they went back?

I'm sure they'll get it working, they're pretty on top of things.

The issue with poloniex is somewhat structural. They get a huge number of small deposits from miners who mine directly to the exchange with frequent small payouts. When they try to use these outputs to pay withdrawals the transactions become huge and thus the fees large.

To fix this they may need to institute a minimum deposit or per-deposit fee (can be waived for deposits above some threshold) or some other way to crack down on miners (especially pools) doing this. Otherwise the cost of people making a lot of very small deposits gets shifted to the exchange itself and/or those making withdrawals.




WTF?Huh I can't believe in this, are the miners putting as the mining address an address which belongs to an exchange insteaad of using their own addresses?Huh

Some pools have a specific feature that lets you specify a payment ID. There is no other purpose for that.
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904
Merit: 1129


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
March 08, 2015, 01:50:37 AM
 #20737

...
To fix this they may need to institute a minimum deposit or per-deposit fee (can be waived for deposits above some threshold) or some other way to crack down on miners (especially pools Botnets) doing this. Otherwise the cost of people making a lot of very small deposits gets shifted to the exchange itself and/or those making withdrawals.

FTFY Cheesy

No its mostly pools (not solo mining) and its more likely small miners on pools than large ones, though that could certainly include small botnets. A big botnet would get fairly large payouts on most pools, and solo mining deposits or a big botnet on a private pool would be large too

I found your

Tongue


BITSLER                 ▄███
               ▄████▀
             ▄████▀
           ▄████▀  ▄██▄
         ▄████▀    ▀████▄
       ▄████▀        ▀████▄
     ▄████▀            ▀████▄
   ▄████▀                ▀████▄
 ▄████▀ ▄████▄      ▄████▄ ▀████▄
█████   ██████      ██████   █████
 ▀████▄ ▀████▀      ▀████▀ ▄████▀
   ▀████▄                ▄████▀
     ▀████▄            ▄████▀
       ▀████▄        ▄████▀
         ▀████▄    ▄████▀
           ▀████▄▄████▀
             ▀██████▀
               ▀▀▀▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄            
▄▄▄▄▀▀▀▀    ▄▄█▄▄ ▀▀▄         
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▄      
█  ▀▄▄  ▀█▀▀ ▄      ▀████   ▀▀▄   
█ █▄  ▀▄   ▀████       ▀▀ ▄██▄ ▀▀▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█  ▀▀       ▀▄▄ ▀████      ▄▄▄▀▀▀  █
█            ▄ ▀▄    ▄▄▄▀▀▀   ▄▄  █
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
█ ▄▄   ███   ▀██  █           ▀▀  █ 
█ ███  ▀██       █        ▄▄      █ 
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀  
▀▄            █        ▀▀      █  
▀▀▄   ███▄  █   ▄▄          █   
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀    
▀▀▄   █   ▀▀▄▄▄▀▀▀         
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█▄▄▀▀▀▀              
              ▄▄▄██████▄▄▄
          ▄▄████████████████▄▄
        ▄██████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████▄
▄     ▄█████▀             ▀█████▄
██▄▄ █████▀                ▀█████
 ████████            ▄██      █████
  ████████▄         ███▀       ████▄
  █████████▀▀     ▄███▀        █████
   █▀▀▀          █████         █████
     ▄▄▄         ████          █████
   █████          ▀▀           ████▀
    █████                     █████
     █████▄                 ▄█████
      ▀█████▄             ▄█████▀
        ▀██████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄██████▀
          ▀▀████████████████▀▀
              ▀▀▀██████▀▀▀
            ▄▄▄███████▄▄▄
         ▄█▀▀▀ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ▀▀▀█▄
       █▀▀ ▄█████████████▄ ▀▀█
     █▀▀ ███████████████████ ▀▀█
    █▀ ███████████████████████ ▀█
   █▀ ███████████████▀▀ ███████ ▀█
 ▄█▀ ██████████████▀      ▀█████ ▀█▄
███ ███████████▀▀            ▀▀██ ███
███ ███████▀▀                     ███
███ ▀▀▀▀                          ███
▀██▄                             ▄██▀
  ▀█▄                            ▀▀
    █▄       █▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄█
     █▄      ▀█████████▀
      ▀█▄      ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
        ▀▀█▄▄  ▄▄▄
            ▀▀█████
[]
mmortal03
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750
Merit: 1005


View Profile
March 08, 2015, 10:42:24 AM
 #20738

Two broader thoughts that have come up in discussions elsewhere.

1.) Luke-Jr stated the other day that he foresees ring signature functionality being implemented into Bitcoin in 2-3 years. My response was that even if that actually happens, it wouldn't have a mandatory mix-in level, limiting the anonymity capabilities that Bitcoin could offer with it. However, I've heard others state that you actually wouldn't need a mandatory mix-in level for it to impart "good enough" anonymity for it to kill interest in anything else. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it does sound like something that could steal some remaining thunder from the anonymity-niche coins, given that Bitcoin already has a huge market share.

2.) I've had discussions recently with Bitcoin maximalists who claim that anything built on an altchain cannot succeed, because Bitcoin's blockchain will remain by far the longest chain, and any other altcoin based on a PoW altchain that *ever* begins to compete with Bitcoin for market share will cause interested parties to attack it with the magnitudes of greater resources that are behind the Bitcoin network. My thought on this was that given that Monero uses a different hashing algorithm than Bitcoin, the resources behind Bitcoin couldn't be redirected at Monero in any direct sense (especially if the predominant resources behind Bitcoin are ASICs). Now, that isn't to say that there couldn't *still* be enough incentive involved, if Monero ever became more popular, for Bitcoin supporters to attack Monero by devoting fresh resources/energy to attack it. Thoughts?
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 1077



View Profile
March 08, 2015, 10:45:31 AM
 #20739

Two broader thoughts that have come up in discussions elsewhere.

1.) Luke-Jr stated the other day that he foresees ring signature functionality being implemented into Bitcoin in 2-3 years. My response was that even if that actually happens, it wouldn't have a mandatory mix-in level, limiting the anonymity capabilities that Bitcoin could offer with it. However, I've heard others state that you actually wouldn't need a mandatory mix-in level for it to impart "good enough" anonymity for it to kill interest in anything else. Regardless of whether this is true or not, it does sound like something that could steal some remaining thunder from the anonymity-niche coins, given that Bitcoin already has a huge market share.

2.) I've had discussions recently with Bitcoin maximalists who claim that anything built on an altchain cannot succeed, because Bitcoin's blockchain will remain by far the longest chain, and any other altcoin based on a PoW altchain that *ever* begins to compete with Bitcoin for market share will cause interested parties to attack it with the magnitudes of greater resources that are behind the Bitcoin network. My thought on this was that given that Monero uses a different hashing algorithm than Bitcoin, the resources behind Bitcoin couldn't be redirected at Monero in any direct sense (especially if the predominant resources behind Bitcoin are ASICs). Now, that isn't to say that there couldn't *still* be enough incentive involved if Monero ever became more popular for Bitcoin supporters to attack Monero by devoting fresh resources/energy to attack it. Thoughts?

Sounds like a lot of ill-thought-out nonsense to me.

I'm definitely going to bet against ring signatures in Bitcoin in 2-3 years if someone offers that bet. How long has it taken (so far) to discuss possibly increasing the block size?

People who mostly know about Bitcoin are generally ignorant about other coins (though this doesn't always stop them from commenting about them). I don't entirely fault them for being ignorant though; there are so many other coins and they are so much smaller than Bitcoin, as a Bitcoiner it probably doesn't rationally make sense to study them unless you have some particular personal interest. I do fault them for speaking out of ignorance though. Learn a little or stfu imo.
Jungian
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 918
Merit: 1000


View Profile
March 08, 2015, 10:46:08 AM
 #20740

Where can I find his statement on ring signatures?

I think Monero (XMR) is very interesting.
https://moneroeconomy.com/faq/why-monero-matters
Pages: « 1 ... 987 988 989 990 991 992 993 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1022 1023 1024 1025 1026 1027 1028 1029 1030 1031 1032 1033 1034 1035 1036 [1037] 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1045 1046 1047 1048 1049 1050 1051 1052 1053 1054 1055 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1066 1067 1068 1069 1070 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 ... 2032 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Bitcointalk.org is not available or authorized for sale. Do not believe any fake listings.
Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!