Monero Economy

[-Greed-]

If you could back at the beginning of Bitcoin knowing what it will become, would you complain about GUI ?

Monero will never become popular without plain wallet/GUI that can be used by any typical user. It will stay forever a toy for geeks.

MRO will necessarily have a GUI later but it will be too late for you to buy.

According to MRO subreddit 32bit miner is out. This means the coin will be botnet raped.

You have really no idea, the daemon, the wallet and everything has a wonderful RPC JSON API and a high level api....

Why hasn't it reached exhnages yet?

[1714623646]

1714623646

[1714623646]

1714623646

[1714623646]

1714623646

[1714623646]

1714623646

[othe]

1. Theres a GUI Bounty and people are working on it, and instead of screaming here you could just make one.
2. Exchanges are working on it, its no Bitcoin clone they have to rewrite everything...

[David Latapie]

In this case I agree that MRO is underpriced.

You must be kidding

No.

I agree with superresistant (but again, remember I am part of the team and so I am biased)

DRK showed us what people are ready to pay for more anonymous coin.
Now, MRO vs DRK.
DRK has three things: X11, DGW, Darksend.
- MRO's CryptoNight is IMHO better (X11 is not CPU-only anymore but more than that, the requirements of CryptoNight are such than the very physical architecture of GPU should be changed - read the Cryptonote's white paper or at least their website.
- DGW. Again, CryptoNight scores better. On this one, I can only trust better tech than I am, so takes this one with an extra pinch of salt.
- Darksend. Ring signature is much stronger, even Evan recognised it
So, everything DRK does, MRO (and other CN) does it better. What is needed now is building up a community. For a coin without GUI, pool or exchange and only three weeks old, MRO is performing very well.

Plus, DRK suffers from the "instamine incident" in January, as well as a curve favouring early adopters more.

For more on this, eizh made a fantastic job on the OP. Look for "How does this compare to other anonymous solutions?"

Finally, what is the most marketable coin? monero (people's money) or Darkcoin (l33t haX0r's coin). On this one, I would tend to say the former, monero (of course) but OTOH, lack of tracability may not be a good thing for public spending - althoug we have a very, very, very long way to this kind of mainstream adoption (public bodies using cryptos) - even major NGO seldom if ever accept BTC - let alone others.

On top of this, add the "boundless setting" ("no fixed-value" as they say) nature of CryptoNote.

Of course, history is full of technological breakthroughs which lost for less technically powerful alternatives. VHS, HTML, Flash, SDRAM... all were technically inferior to the competition. What they  had, though, is widespread adoption. This is fairness of distribution (which brings widespread adoption) that will matter. Here, Darkcoin may succeed or not. Here will be the difference between various CN coins.

Monero will never become popular without plain wallet/GUI that can be used by any typical user. It will stay forever a toy for geeks.

Yep, like Bitcoin.
Lesson is: GUI is necessary to pass a certain treshold of adoption. But not at the beginning (of course, to have it from day 1 is better).

BTW: I updated the monero trading sheet with the avg24 and med24: med24 is 125 000 sat

[-Greed-]

1. Theres a GUI Bounty and people are working on it, and instead of screaming here you could just make one.

I would to but I'm just a casual coder.

2. Exchanges are working on it, its no Bitcoin clone they have to rewrite everything...

AFAIK monero is a fork of bytecoin that appeared months ago and no exchanges so far. They had enough time to bring it up.

Now, MRO vs DRK.

You forgot approaching zerocash/zerocoin.

- MRO's CryptoNight is IMHO better (X11 is not CPU-only anymore but more than that, the requirements of CryptoNight are such than the very physical architecture of GPU should be changed - read the Cryptonote's white paper or at least their website.

This is the problem. CPU coins are always botnet raped and get lost rate quickly.

P.S. I'm not against MRO I like both Monero and Darkcoin. I just wanted to say that monero is overvalued at this stage.

[nakaone]

This is the problem. CPU coins are always botnet raped and get lost rate quickly.

this is the main issue that needs to be solved 


regarding overpriced/underpriced - the whole crypto sphere is willing to pay expectations, this holds true for bitcoin in its most mature state, as well as for drk or for monero

[smooth]

AFAIK monero is a fork of bytecoin that appeared months ago and no exchanges so far. They had enough time to bring it up.

No it is only about 19 days old according to the block chain.

[superresistant]

This is the problem. CPU coins are always botnet raped and get lost rate quickly.

this is the main issue that needs to be solved 

But how ??

[Amph]

This is the problem. CPU coins are always botnet raped and get lost rate quickly.

this is the main issue that needs to be solved 

But how ??

i don't think that's possibile at all

[smooth]

This is the problem. CPU coins are always botnet raped and get lost rate quickly.

this is the main issue that needs to be solved 

But how ??

Quite simply by not worrying about it. If a coin is profitable to mine then many regular miners will come and mine it, and so will botnets.

If a coin isn't profitable to mine, then it isn't worth it for botnets either, because they can either mine something else, or use their botnet for a less risky activity.

Who else is mining the coin really makes very little difference.

There is this myth that botnets are infinitely large and free to operate and therefore you can't compete with them, but that is really quite false. Botnets are a highly scarce and valuable commodity and they will only mine what is profitable to mine.

In the short term the most important thing to do is grow the coin so even a small botnet doesn't overwhelm the currently-tiny network. At sufficient size botnets don't matter.

[dnaleor]

First MRO Technical Analysis post, for the lulz  :p



We are following the red exponential trendline

[pandher]

Good job with the charts dna, ill add it in OP

[dnaleor]

Good job with the charts dna, ill add it in OP

please add this one instead
It auto updates when I update the chart


https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/2050232/MRO_trading.png

[pandher]

please add this one instead
It auto updates when I update the chart

Added

[superresistant]

In the short term the most important thing to do is grow the coin so even a small botnet doesn't overwhelm the currently-tiny network.

What do you mean by growing the coin ?
More miners ?

[smooth]

In the short term the most important thing to do is grow the coin so even a small botnet doesn't overwhelm the currently-tiny network.

What do you mean by growing the coin ?
More miners ?

In every way. More miners, more users, more developers of services, more value, etc. There are only a limited number of botnets and they have limited size, and they have many different uses. A large enough coin can't be affected by botnets. If bitcoin were still CPU mined, it would be too large for botnets to matter. That's the goal. At least the short term goal.

[dnaleor]

TA update

Long term exponential trend intact!!! Volume is coming back !!!
BUY BUY BUY 

[Brilliantrocket]

Sadly for the Monero fanboys, your currency is a bit late to the game. DRK is going to gain momentum and real world use before you guys even have a wallet/GUI that is accessible to anyone other than a geek. DRK's developer, Evan, has committed 2 years of full time work to DRK. Good luck with your Bytecoin clone

[pandher]

Sadly for the Monero fanboys, your currency is a bit late to the game. DRK is going to gain momentum and real world use before you guys even have a wallet/GUI that is accessible to anyone other than a geek. DRK's developer, Evan, has committed 2 years of full time work to DRK. Good luck with your Bytecoin clone

And why are you darkcoin fanboys looking scared?

[Keyboard-Mash]

I think this might be a good thread for this, so here's the cross post:

I have asked about the bloat on the chain before, and the consensus was that with the visible competition enforcing a 10% tax on mining to afford some privacy, then the storage space used to hold the blockchain would be a much less cost. I would like to know much more about this though, because the blockchain is noticeably larger in this protocol by a lot.

The issue is not only the cost of the storage. There is the download speed also. And other complex factors. A tax is probably also going to have Tragedy of the Commons effects, as I explained in my numerous discussions of why transaction fees will never work for Bitcoin in the long-run. There are other articles out now about these by others. Such discussion will take us off on tangents I don't feel like having right now.

Someone from your group private messaged me and ask I provide references.

Here is the recent article I was referring to:

http://radar.oreilly.com/2014/04/bitcoin-what-happens-when-the-miners-pack-up-their-gear.html

I raised similar issues last year as follows.

Transactions Withholding Attack

"Spiraling Transaction Fees Destruction" of bitcoin (Transactions fees are a Tragedy of the Commons)

I've been trying to raise awareness of this issue. The typical response seems to be, "when Bitcoin addresses the problem, so will we." To me this means it will never be addressed.  The obvious solution is to perpetually increase the money supply, always rewarding miners with new coins.

Tacotime mentioned a hard fork proposal to never let the block reward drop below 1 coin:

Code:

if (blockReward < 1){
blockReward = 1;
}

I assume this is merely delaying the problem, however. I proposed a fixed annual debasement (say 2%) with a tx fee cap of like 0.001% of the current block reward (or whatever sounds reasonable). That way we still get the spam protection without worrying about fee escalation down the road.

Any solution involving debasement, however, will be met with harsh criticism, because "inflation is bad" and stuff.

I think the proposal is a good sign that he's recognized the need as valid.

What I also think is that both of your solutions don't really target the "non-arbitrary" direction that is persistent in CryptoNote.

Especially for something like an annual debasement -- is there any way to work the 2.8% proposed by a minimum of 1, or yours at 2% into something that is more adaptive?

What drives the need for inflation? Are these variables trackable in the protocol? Can they be applied in a fashion that would allow a variable rate of inflation based on some specific need for it -- more like a window from 1% to 3%. Would that be more ideal?

Clearly we can't have the value of these coins approaching infinity, so I can agree that there needs to be a debasement. But, to what extent does it need to be debased?

[Keyboard-Mash]

Another cross post . .

It's a non-problem.  The market will fix it.  Miners will mine the txns with the best fees.  Don't worry about prices.  The market sets them. They are never what payers want them to be anyhow.

Has anyone considered the practicalities of doing side-chains in MRO?  Moving mining to side-chains can help deter centralization of control in the hands of a single pool operator.  I'd been given short shrift for this notion as applied to BTC, but I think my critics are simply not thinking it through:  The idea is to mine on a dedicated side-chain, and merge-mine the main chain.  If you want to insure that there are a minimum of 100 pools, you can mine on 100 side-chains simultaneously, round-robin to insure fractioning the hashpower.  I haven't considered how this would be implemented in MRO, however.

Regarding chain bloat, garbage-collecting the chain would be a big splash, and get some attention.  Define a minimum balance, and let miners reap dust.  That number can change over time.  The block chain only needs to contain an effective record of the current assignment of non-zero (greater than dust threshold) balances.  Historical data is not required to maintain accounts.  It is currently used to compute hashes, but does not need to be:  The most up-to-date assignment ledger state can be used and old stuff discarded.  This will improve privacy to a small degree as well, although obviously its not in any sense a protection against evesdropping history maintainers.  If the chain is garbage collected, then there is precious little reason not to require a minimum mix.  The requirement to garbage collect the chain insures that mining is done by CPUs -- and it's not make-work, but actual useful work.

I was wondering about side chains just a few hours ago in relation to Anonymint's Transactions Witholding Attack thread.

Do you have good sources of information about side chains that you're willing to share?

Can you further explain how the side chains would hold a value in relation to what you'd use them for in preventing a Transaction Witholding Attack? I feel like they would be an interesting way to prevent a tragedy of commons for processing transactions, but could you bring this idea more into the light?

What do you mean "garbage-collecting the chain"? I've never heard anything referred to as that. Does it just mean: Define a minimum balance, and let miners reap dust? Can your garbage-collection proposal where most of the block chain is eliminated be compatible with side chains?