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

[dga]

Btw, there is no way to prevent ASICs. But the problem with ASICs is not their existence, but rather that they are not readily available on time to everyone in the same efficiencies. So if you want to defeat this problem, you've got to think about it a totally different way.

You think I haven't been working eh.

Hint: does every user in the world need the most power efficient implementation of SHA-2 such that Intel would make it happen in every PC? No. This is why there is an ASICs problem for Bitcoin, wherein there isn't anymore equal access to efficiencies in mining.

Funny you'd say that, because the answer is:  Yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_SHA_extensions

They'll probably be available some time in 2015.



But if I were to make a *completely* wild guess based upon the relative speed of AES, it won't bring CPUs into anything near parity with ASICs -- but it might just narrow the gap with GPUs to a factor of two.

[Brilliantrocket]

If you don't have perpetual emission of coins, the cost of mounting an attack will drop to the point that it becomes trivial. Not sure why everyone fears a low perpetual inflation.

[aminorex]

I absolutely abhor fixed % inflation.  It serves no useful purpose and creates great danger.  Fixed reward is ideal because the value of the reward increases with the value of the coin, which is insured to happen because of economic growth.  Thus securing  the network does not depend on xn fee inflation.  It is the most stable and sustainable scenario possible.  Since it is a fixed quantity, it does not lead to supply inflation.

Exponential growth is never sustainable, ever.

[Brilliantrocket]

If you don't have perpetual emission of coins, the cost of mounting an attack will drop to the point that it becomes trivial. Not sure why everyone fears a low perpetual inflation.

hahaha and here we have the proof I wanted, a know troll and monero basher wanting perpetual emission of coins because, of course, it will kill the coin for investors instantly, well I'm not worried, I dumped doge at 250 when I saw this coming and many will do the same if Monero chose this route.

    That's rather shortsighted.

[dga]

Dev team, could you guys give some more info on who wrote the whitepaper review? http://monero.cc/downloads/whitepaper_review.pdf

It just says that he is a mathematician, but that's pretty vague and it would be great if we could look at some of his research/other papers.

I can't find anything about him on google either.

It's a pseudonym (hence the shout out to Emmy Noether), same as Satoshi Nakamoto, same as Nicolas van Saberhagen. If he chooses to identify himself in future that is his prerogative, but he has asked to remain under the guise of a pseudonym at this stage.

Rehearse Unto Surae Noether
Ethane Sourer, counting Earthen Euros
Sauterne Hero, one of Nature Heroes,
my Ears Hereunto will listen well.
Mathematics?  Ashore Tenure!
Another Reuse will only her Treasure Hone.
And thus we find the Author Serene.

[AnonyMint]

...the whitepaper review? http://monero.cc/downloads/whitepaper_review.pdf

I also studied the zero-knowledge algorithm (protocol) of the unlinkable ring signatures and I concur with the conclusions of that review. Adam Back, G. Maxwell and others have apparently reviewed it as well.

Can anyone give me a pointer to where the following is being discussed?

Anyway, some other guy may come along
and figure out that it needs a hatch so you can lighten it up occasionally.
Apparently Andrew Poelstra and G. Maxwell
are both working on that now, using Merkle trees and required prefixes for one
half of the Cryptonote private keys (the half you would give away to a payment
processor)

One quote from the whitepaper review could be misconstrued:

The CN protocol implements a piece of cryptography un-
seen in cryptocurrencies before, in particular, the idea of using
key images to protect against double spending

Key images don't protect against double-spending attacks.

Rather they identify an attempt to double-spend a one-time ring signature (they are what make it "one-time"). But the acceptance is still game-able the same as an attempt to double-spend in Bitcoin is.

The key image is recorded in the block chain and attempts to double-spend are checked against it. Ditto in Bitcoin, the address of the spender is recorded in the block chain and attempts to double-spend are checked against it. The difference is the key image provides unlinkability via the ring signature and the zero-knowledge protocol, but this doesn't make it more hardened against double-spends than Bitcoin.

And with my proposal, linkable block chains such as Bitcoin could gain much more resistance to double-spends than unlinkable block chains such as Cryptonote and Zerocash.

[aminorex]

I've been perpetually confused as to how the finite miniblockchain scheme can possibly be used to enforce data consensus in a byzantine generals problem-like network. I'd appreciate it if someone could ELI5 it to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the same as the bitcoin algorithm, except that at a certain age you roll up old blocks into a ledger state.  The same consensus algorithm applies to the blockchain.  There is no enforcement per se any more than there is in any blockchain:  The majority will reject your blocks if you don't commit the same ledger state, just like having the best chain.  I confess I haven't read any whitepaper, so I may be in left field, but it seems pretty obvious.

[thefunkybits]

Why isnt this coin in consideration for being added to Cryptsy? I mean its not even on the list of potential coins to add  

[AnonyMint]

I absolutely abhor fixed % inflation.  It serves no useful purpose and creates great danger.  Fixed reward is ideal because the value of the reward increases with the value of the coin, which is insured to happen because of economic growth.  Thus securing  the network does not depend on xn fee inflation.  It is the most stable and sustainable scenario possible.  Since it is a fixed quantity, it does not lead to supply inflation.

The idea of perpetual % inflation being necessary to protect network originates from me. Long ago I blew up your argument.

The value of reward from double-spends presumably rises too, thus a % of the total value of the network rises consumerately whereas a perpetual fixed block reward doesn't.

By increasing the cost to rent a double-spend attack, you decrease the number of confirmations that transactions must wait before being final. This is hugely significant consideration.

Exponential growth is never sustainable, ever.

You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

What are the inputs that must be considered when setting the eternal inflation parameters for a PoW coin? From technical perspective, I mean.


From economical perspective, 100 years of growth at 2% APR is 624% per century. Granted, century is a long time, but also the current system with its wasteful resource acquisition and general footprint on pristine nature, cannot continue 1-2 more centuries with this growth rate.

On the other hand, gold production of about 1.2% (historically higher ~2%) can be regarded as near optimal, because gold has held its value vs. oil in the last decades.

If the economic and population growth abate, 0% is of course optimal as you cannot go lower.

=> The quick thinking would point to 0.5%-2% bracket, and it must be percentage, not a fixed amount.

This is a really important matter. A 1%-point fail can easily destroy the coin. (see silver inflation in 1850-1870 for instance how a precious metal was destroyed)

I totally agree and I'm watching with caution any news of inflationary emission after the planned 18m, dogecoin tried to do the same fooling everyone that it had a 100bi cap, the day they announced doges would be minted forever is the day dogecoin started dropping like a rock, I hope XMR doesnt make this mistake

Hey guys, let's say 10% of coins are lost, then 1% of 10% is 0.1%. You are worried about nothing.

Man you really want to destroy this coin, Im watching your posts and if you mean what you just said you are really not that smart, you don't create new crypto-coins because some are lost, this is part of the environment and the market is well aware, the 1% will destroy Monero as rpietila said.

I think you need to read rpietila's quote one more time. You completely missed his point.

[smooth]

Why isnt this coin in consideration for being added to Cryptsy? I mean its not even on the list of potential coins to add  

Because they are lazy and don't want to add anything but 100 more worthless copy-paste bitcoin clones.

[aminorex]

You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.

A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential.  I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well.

[AnonyMint]

You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.

A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential.  I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well.

Don't conflate the growth of the value and adoption of the coin, with a fixed percentage. Come on now. Your IQ is higher than this.

[Anon136]

You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.

A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential.  I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well.

Don't conflate the growth of the value and adoption of the coin, with a fixed percentage. Come on now. Your IQ is higher than this.

You are strawmanning. He only said a constant % rate of growth causes exponential growth. Nothing about the value of anything.

[Anon136]

My computer broke and I'm on a tablet now so I won't be very active for a few days. See you guys in a few days

[AnonyMint]

You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.

A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential.  I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well.

Don't conflate the growth of the value and adoption of the coin, with a fixed percentage. Come on now. Your IQ is higher than this.

You are strawmanning. He only said a constant % rate of growth causes exponential growth. Nothing about the value of anything.

Incorrect. He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin.

I getting close to putting you on ignore because you are causing me to make noise posts in order to correct your careless noise. You don't read and comprehend before you post.

[Anon136]

You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.

A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential.  I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well.

Don't conflate the growth of the value and adoption of the coin, with a fixed percentage. Come on now. Your IQ is higher than this.

You are strawmanning. He only said a constant % rate of growth causes exponential growth. Nothing about the value of anything.

Incorrect. He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin.

I getting close to putting you on ignore because you are causing me to make noise posts in order to correct your careless noise. You don't read and comprehend before you post.

You are getting very close to my ignore list as well. Maybe we are a good match for each others ignore lists.

[Anon136]

You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.

A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential.  I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well.

Don't conflate the growth of the value and adoption of the coin, with a fixed percentage. Come on now. Your IQ is higher than this.

You are strawmanning. He only said a constant % rate of growth causes exponential growth. Nothing about the value of anything.

Incorrect. He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin.

I getting close to putting you on ignore because you are causing me to make noise posts in order to correct your careless noise. You don't read and comprehend before you post.

Hey before you do that though can you take a look at my response to your claim that miniblockchain addresses the scalability problem.

[Raja_ji]

Some Interesting Facts on Cryptocurrency Traders
1: average age is 20years
2: single male
3:speed trade (looking to make enough to pay rent)

I feel like a grandpa. here 

[AnonyMint]

Ok so im reading the mini blockchain whitepaper. It appears to be a marginal improvement in some ways but it doesnt address the fundemental difficulty in scaling blockchains. The scalability problem doesn’t have anything to do with the size of the blockchain. It comes from the fact that each actor's transactions must be verified by all other network participants. Its the same math as network effects, except its a negative network effect.

Suppose actors make 1 transaction per minute.

1 actors = 0 verifications because he doesnt need to verify his own transactions.
2 actors = 2 transactions per minute. 2 * 2 actors = 4 transactions verifications. They dont need to verify their own so 4 - 2 = 2.  
3 actors = 3 transactions per minute. 3 * 3 = 9 verifications. they dont need to verify their own so 9 - 3 = 6.
4 actors = (4*4)-4=12
5 actors = (5*5)-5=20
ect...

0,2,6,12,20,30,42,56,72

This very quickly gets out of hand when you consider that there is a cost associated with verifying a transaction. even if that cost is infinitesimal.

Actors (users) are not verifying nodes, so you math is slightly incorrect in that respect.

However, your point remains valid that transactions scale O(NxN) by Metcalf or Reed's law. And verifying nodes probably don't scale by N actors.

However, Metcalf's law doesn't tell you the frequencies at which actors do transactions. Visa is currently at about 6000 transactions per second, so this can be verified with a single Intel CPU, so no problem for verifying nodes.

Scaling up to 6 billion people and micro transactions (more frequent transactions) might present a scaling problem. I've looked at Lamport signatures schemes that can verify 100,000+ transactions per second on a single i7 cpu. Since verifying nodes tend to be pools with considerably more resources (amortized over a large amount of hashrate), then a 10 - 100 cpu farm (or a Tilera 64 core cpu) is not unfathomable without destroying decentralization of pools.

Long-term the solution is simple. An ASIC for verification will scale sufficiently to 6 billion and micro transactions.

In short, no problem! Mini-block chain addresses the problem of block chain size and its impact on decentralization of mining. Cryptonite does not include anonymity however.