[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency

[uvt9]

Block time should be increased but block reward also need to be increased proportionally to keep the amount of to-be-mined coins unchanged. We need to stick with original emission graph, otherwise many late miners and fudsters would come up and scream "instamine" all over the board.

[1714010235]

1714010235

[1714010235]

1714010235

[1714010235]

1714010235

[1714010235]

1714010235

[smooth]

Block time should be increased but block reward also need to be increased proportionally to keep the amount of mined coins unchanged.

Yes that has always been the plan.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Block time should be increased but block reward also need to be increased proportionally to keep the amount of to-be-mined coins unchanged. We need to stick with original emission graph, otherwise many late miners and fudsters would come up and scream "instamine" all over the board.

I agree 100%. This is also important for preventing tx fee escalation and keeping coins spendable. If you click the link in my previous post aminorex and I discussed the issue in depth.

[Coindacioius]

I think Monero looks like a very promising crypto right now.

However, what will be Monero's competitive advantage after Darkcoin implements ring signatures?

[smooth]

- is MRO scalable? No. Ring signatures add enormous bloat to the block chain that will become a big problem very soon.

I'm not sure about this one. It has been five years since bitcoin launched. That's roughly 3 doubles in Moore's law terms. I don't think typical MRO transactions are a lot more than 8 times larger than typical BTC transactions. Pruning will eventually become an issue, but again looking to the BTC example, in five years exactly zero has been done about pruning in BTC (though SPV clients have become common). Something will need done, but it is not urgent. I don't hold up BTC as a role model in terms of development, but it does show that these sorts of problems can exist and not cause crippling failure for several years.

There is certainly a cost to the way the anonymity features, but it isn't as if the cost doesn't come with an huge offsetting value proposition. It does.

In any case I definitely agree with your other points, about user-friendliness and "getting it out there." There is much work to do.

[darkota]

I think Monero looks like a very promising crypto right now.

However, what will be Monero's competitive advantage after Darkcoin implements ring signatures?

Pretty much nothing...

I believe Darkcoin will be the #1, go-to, anonymous coin as it will have Masternodes, Ring Signatures, and I2P, while forks of Bytecoin such as Monero, HoneyPenny, Quazarcoin, etc  will be lesser anonymous coins.

[smooth]

Block time should be increased but block reward also need to be increased proportionally to keep the amount of to-be-mined coins unchanged. We need to stick with original emission graph, otherwise many late miners and fudsters would come up and scream "instamine" all over the board.

I agree 100%. This is also important for preventing tx fee escalation and keeping coins spendable.

In the current design there is no obvious relationship between block time and transaction fees, because there is no fixed maximum block size, so no scarcity of block space ever. Even relay time doesn't necessarily matter, because there are (complex, but tractable) technical solutions like starting to relay a block while you are still receiving it, or relaying blocks incrementally (bittorrent style), etc.

There are secondary effects, such as limiting orphans that do matter, which is why 1 minute is patently absurd, and even Satoshi's 10 minutes might well be right.

It is also possible the current dynamic block size design might not work, but I think we need to see it start to fail (or at least compelling simulations) before reaching that conclusion. It seems pretty well designed.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

You code it so that only after a sufficient number of miners are running the new code does it go into effect. As long as they upgrade, it flips over at some automatically-determined point, but if for some reason they don't, everything stays the way it is. There is no failed hard fork.

This is important because it reduces the fear of hard forks, and fearless hard forking means radical improvements can be made at any stage of a cryptocoin's adoption.

[aminorex]

The trolls are correct in that there is nothing special (yet) with MRO's features.

I'm always nervous when correctness is attributed to a troll, so please pardon my reaction formation:  Technical features are just one small slice of many important distinctives, some quite intangible and abstract.  For use as a currency liquidity is central, and MRO is a furlong and a fortnight ahead of the privacy-enhanced alternatives on this point (disqualifying DRK on grounds of technology -- I don't consider it realistically competitive in the long run, for the natural monopoly of global liquidity in the private currency market, certainly not as it exists today).

[aminorex]

what will be Monero's competitive advantage after Darkcoin implements ring signatures?

That remains to be seen.  It depends on what DRK delivers and what MRO delivers in the meantime.  

DRK promises you a pony some day.  MRO has a fluffypony today.

[fluffypony]

Pretty much nothing...

I believe Darkcoin will be the #1, go-to, anonymous coin as it will have Masternodes, Ring Signatures, and I2P, while forks of Bytecoin such as Monero, HoneyPenny, Quazarcoin, etc  will be lesser anonymous coins.

Masternodes: allows a bad actor to DDoS the legitimate nodes whilst maintaining a private network of their own nodes, and being able to observe and control the mix of transactions. It would be extremely trivial for law enforcement to create the semblance of anonymity whilst being able to fully monitor and control it, all because of the convenience of masternodes.

Ring signatures: I hope Darkcoin implement ring signatures in less than 6 months and in a manner that is not overly kludgy. The more coins that use the technology, the more refinement it goes through, and the more we can address challenges together.

I2P: we have decided this is a non-starter - forcing clients to run Java just introduces an additional attack surface and a set of dependencies. Monero already works through TOR.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Block time should be increased but block reward also need to be increased proportionally to keep the amount of to-be-mined coins unchanged. We need to stick with original emission graph, otherwise many late miners and fudsters would come up and scream "instamine" all over the board.

I agree 100%. This is also important for preventing tx fee escalation and keeping coins spendable.

In the current design there is no obvious relationship between block time and transaction fees, because there is no fixed maximum block size, so no scarcity of block space ever. Even relay time doesn't necessarily matter, because there are (complex, but tractable) technical solutions like starting to relay a block while you are still receiving it, or relaying blocks incrementally (bittorrent style), etc.

There are secondary effects, such as limiting orphans that do matter, which is why 1 minute is patently absurd, and even Satoshi's 10 minutes might well be right.

It is also possible the current dynamic block size design might not work, but I think we need to see it start to fail (or at least compelling simulations) before reaching that conclusion. It seems pretty well designed.

Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't suggesting block time has any effect on transaction fees. I was saying block reward affects the fees. It's important that block reward eventually be a fixed percentage of existing coins, otherwise tx fees will become infinitely more expensive as tx volume increases and reward approaches zero. Explained here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597878.msg6701490#msg6701490

[fluffypony]

I think Monero looks like a very promising crypto right now.

However, what will be Monero's competitive advantage after Darkcoin implements ring signatures?

That remains to be seen.  It depends on what DRK delivers and what MRO delivers in the meantime.  

DRK promises you a pony some day.  MRO has a fluffypony today.

As long as MRO doesn't end up like this:

[smooth]

Block time should be increased but block reward also need to be increased proportionally to keep the amount of to-be-mined coins unchanged. We need to stick with original emission graph, otherwise many late miners and fudsters would come up and scream "instamine" all over the board.

I agree 100%. This is also important for preventing tx fee escalation and keeping coins spendable.

In the current design there is no obvious relationship between block time and transaction fees, because there is no fixed maximum block size, so no scarcity of block space ever. Even relay time doesn't necessarily matter, because there are (complex, but tractable) technical solutions like starting to relay a block while you are still receiving it, or relaying blocks incrementally (bittorrent style), etc.

There are secondary effects, such as limiting orphans that do matter, which is why 1 minute is patently absurd, and even Satoshi's 10 minutes might well be right.

It is also possible the current dynamic block size design might not work, but I think we need to see it start to fail (or at least compelling simulations) before reaching that conclusion. It seems pretty well designed.

Sorry if I was unclear. I wasn't suggesting block time has any effect on transaction fees. I was saying block reward affects the fees. It's important that block reward eventually be a fixed percentage of existing coins, otherwise tx fees will become infinitely more expensive as tx volume increases and reward approaches zero. Explained here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=597878.msg6701490#msg6701490

Oh okay, I misunderstood the connection you were making. I agree that not having a meaningful reward is probably a fail. I'm not persuaded by any of the arguments I've ever seen about what is the "right" reward structure (not limiting this by any means to your arguments), though that isn't a reason to do nothing either. On the somewhat positive side, BCN, if it survives (though its looking questionable at the moment) will get there much, much faster than we will, so we can see how they handle it. Perfect testnet.

[Nekomata]

XMR is the future.

[biggernugs]

Personally I like MRO, but it's amazing how fast some people give up on a coin. It has a ways to go but when it arrives it will be well worth it.

[smooth]

- is MRO scalable? No. Ring signatures add enormous bloat to the block chain that will become a big problem very soon.

I'm not sure about this one. It has been five years since bitcoin launched. That's roughly 3 doubles in Moore's law terms. I don't think typical MRO transactions are a lot more than 8 times larger than typical BTC transactions. Pruning will eventually become an issue, but again looking to the BTC example, in five years exactly zero has been done about pruning in BTC (though SPV clients have become common). Something will need done, but it is not urgent. I don't hold up BTC as a role model in terms of development, but it does show that these sorts of problems can exist and not cause crippling failure for several years.

There is certainly a cost to the way the anonymity features, but it isn't as if the cost doesn't come with an huge offsetting value proposition. It does.

In any case I definitely agree with your other points, about user-friendliness and "getting it out there." There is much work to do.

My question is the same, but with a different answer. Is MRO scalable? Maybe not - each transaction that is broadcast on the network has a small computational cost for EVERYONE with a node, IIRC. You have to check to see if it's for you.

Scalable I guess not in an abstract sense, I would have to agree. I was only really disagreeing that it is an urgent problem. At anything close to 8x the transaction size of BTC, I don't see a crisis.

[lohveh]

I think Monero looks like a very promising crypto right now.

However, what will be Monero's competitive advantage after Darkcoin implements ring signatures?

Pretty much nothing...

I believe Darkcoin will be the #1, go-to, anonymous coin as it will have Masternodes, Ring Signatures, and I2P, while forks of Bytecoin such as Monero, HoneyPenny, Quazarcoin, etc  will be lesser anonymous coins.

I believe Monero will be the #1, go-to, anonymous coin as it has Cryptonote algo and Ring Signatures, while forks of Bitcoin such as Darkcoin are lesser anonymous coins.

Monero will be the #1 on the pump&dump scheme

[darkota]

Pretty much nothing...

I believe Darkcoin will be the #1, go-to, anonymous coin as it will have Masternodes, Ring Signatures, and I2P, while forks of Bytecoin such as Monero, HoneyPenny, Quazarcoin, etc  will be lesser anonymous coins.

Masternodes: allows a bad actor to DDoS the legitimate nodes whilst maintaining a private network of their own nodes, and being able to observe and control the mix of transactions. It would be extremely trivial for law enforcement to create the semblance of anonymity whilst being able to fully monitor and control it, all because of the convenience of masternodes.

Ring signatures: I hope Darkcoin implement ring signatures in less than 6 months and in a manner that is not overly kludgy. The more coins that use the technology, the more refinement it goes through, and the more we can address challenges together.

I2P: we have decided this is a non-starter - forcing clients to run Java just introduces an additional attack surface and a set of dependencies. Monero already works through TOR.

I'm sure Darkcoin won't depend on the Masternodes for anonymity as much once Ring Signatures and I2P are implemented. The nodes might just serve as an incentive to help maintain the network...unlike Bitcoin where hosting nodes does nothing to help you personally.

I2P, while java may introduce additional inconveniences at first, I don't see much of a threat, especially when it can be improved upon over and over with Dev's like Evan...

So overall, masternodes might be an incentive, while the I2P and Ring Signatures are the real anonymity...still leaving Darkcoin ahead of the competition.

[AlexGR]

Scalable I guess not in an abstract sense, I would have to agree. I was only really disagreeing that it is an urgent problem. At anything close to 8x the transaction size of BTC, I don't see a crisis.

You should. Every weakness of MRO could be improved by BCN devs in a second iteration and say "hey, you know what? BCN was the original but had problems... In terms of scalability it was DOA (dead on arrival). Now we fixed those problems and we launch BCN 2.0 (another coin), with new blockchain tech etc etc, that can scale". RIP BCN1 + clones + our money.