rpietila Altcoin Observer

[digitalindustry]

Right, and once we get past these basic needs and wants, we move onto other things.

One of these other things is financial freedom, freedom requires a degree of privacy. (The freedom to be private)

I can see you are a genuine guy and not a troll you have some beliefs , unfortunately you just have a "means ends" confusion here:

lets look at the "means ends" issue:

Freedom of privacy comes about by "small government" that could be a good argument right?  

but i can define it better, i would say you have to look at motives why do "Governments" (really Corporations) want to know everything you do?

want the answer?

they are shitting themselves and are trying to hold onto the control they have over humanity.

what is that control?

its the implicit "right" to say what you use as a "means of exchange" and the explicit "right" to control the issuance of your " energy tokens" otherwise known as "money"

they do this as Debt and this makes you a battery (like the Matrix explained)

the Battery never become free, so we need to "coerce" the Battery (The Lego person)  to feel they are being "monitored" we "threaten" them and we use violence on them for examples like to scare the rest of the animals.

this is how your world works, but unfortunately its a circle jerk, without a "Buy in" by the "Battery" (The Lego person) we can't maintain that "police state" there are many examples:

The Russian Federation is a great one, from the late 80's to early 2000 - Others are the "Power of the church" in the middle ages.

do some study..


TD:LR

with out the power to issue money as Debt = no police state, privacy becomes a very marginal retard issue.  

[1714750982]

1714750982

[1714750982]

1714750982

[1714750982]

1714750982

[1714750982]

1714750982

[1714750982]

1714750982

[smooth]

But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.

I'll tell you a secret. I know how to make it scale to do what you want it to do. Whoever designed it is smarter than I am, so he/she/they probably knew as well.

I know how to make one-time ring signatures scale too. Simply limit the time window over which users can mix and force them to mix out of that window within a deadline. Anyone who doesn't, loses their balance. Then you can prune the window. But that puts an expiration date on balances, which will be a disaster.

Do you know of another solution which doesn't have that drawback?

At least two others.

Do you know of any solution that doesn't require a deadline and where just one user can't jam the pruning?

Because I can think of variants on my idea above, such as issuing one-time ids in lots, so that people can only mix within their lot id. But that has the same drawback.

Yes, no deadline and no ability of one user (or a coalition of users) to jam the pruning.

But as I said, this isn't really our priority, and we have a lot of fish to fry. We're pretty comfortable with the real world scaling factors and Moore's law at this point.

On that note, I've been looking more closely at the multiplicative "bloat" over bitcoin and I suspect it will actually turn out to be much less than previously estimated. The current Monero blockchain data is disproportionately pool payouts which are "large" transactions. This sharply biases upward the average transaction size relative to bitcoin for a mixed-use chain.

[AnonyMint]

But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.

I'll tell you a secret. I know how to make it scale to do what you want it to do. Whoever designed it is smarter than I am, so he/she/they probably knew as well.

I know how to make one-time ring signatures scale too. Simply limit the time window over which users can mix and force them to mix out of that window within a deadline. Anyone who doesn't, loses their balance. Then you can prune the window. But that puts an expiration date on balances, which will be a disaster.

Do you know of another solution which doesn't have that drawback?

At least two others.

Do you know of any solution that doesn't require a deadline and where just one user can't jam the pruning?

Because I can think of variants on my idea above, such as issuing one-time ids in lots, so that people can only mix within their lot id. But that has the same drawback.

Yes, no deadline and no ability of one user (or a coalition of users) to jam the pruning.

Then you reduce the anonymity set to the spent and unspent which means no one wants to be first to spend among an anonymity set. If you back it up the Zero Knowledge Proof all the way as Zerocash has done so the anonymity set is always everyone, then you can't know the money supply.

I think the problem is fundamental and insoluble. I would be very surprised if you've found a solution. You know what they say about vaporware.

[smooth]

Then you reduce the anonymity set to the spent and unspent which means no one wants to be first to spend among an anonymity set. If you back it up all the way as Zerocash has done, then you can't know the money supply.

I think the problem is fundamental and insoluble. I would be very surprised if you've found a solution. You know what they say about vaporware.

If I were promising to deliver something, it would be vaporware. I'm not.

Here's another hint, and it's the last one you get. You came up with a solution that imposes a deadline. You decided that was unacceptable, which is a reasonable point of view. There are other solutions which similarly make trade offs to other aspects of the system you assume and take for granted. Are they acceptable? I don't know if you would think so, but I think so. You need to think more outside the box.

(And no it doesn't involve an unknown money supply.)

[Wekkel]

Ho ho, the original Bytecoin project (1:1 copy of Bitcoin) is still going forward (what's the scam you are talking about?).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=169559.0

[Brilliantrocket]

What aspect of Cryptonote necessitates that mining be centralized?

[AnonyMint]

Then you reduce the anonymity set to the spent and unspent which means no one wants to be first to spend among an anonymity set. If you back it up all the way as Zerocash has done, then you can't know the money supply.

I think the problem is fundamental and insoluble. I would be very surprised if you've found a solution. You know what they say about vaporware.

If I were promising to deliver something, it would be vaporware. I'm not.

Here's another hint, and it's the last one you get. You came up with a solution that imposes a deadline. You decided that was unacceptable, which is a reasonable point of view. There are other solutions which similarly make trade offs to other aspects of the system you assume and take for granted. Are they acceptable? I don't know if you would think so, but I think so. You need to think more outside the box.

(And no it doesn't involve an unknown money supply.)

One trivial solution is you don't need to mix always, thus most transactions can be pruned, i.e. using one-time ring signatures less is a trivial solution (but it is still only a constant factor improvement and not really solution).

But as I wrote upthread today about Bitcoin, the GUIDs can never be pruned (unless the transaction signatures sign a message that includes the block hash, but that seems impossible) otherwise reused address are subject to double-spend replay attack. Users can't be forced to not reuse addresses, unless addresses are never pruned. Bitcoin (and all other coins) could assume users never do that and proceed with pruning, but that would be a security hole.

I understand you don't think blockchain bloat is a problem, but I guess you are not trying to build a decentralized network with a 1000 nearly uniformly weighted ephemeral anonymous pools that pop in and out of the network.

I assume you understand the mathematical relationship that the number of uniformly distributed pools and the block period determines the variance the mining client experiences. So lower block periods are crucial to decentralization.

So many design issues of a coin are tied together holistically.

Edit: I had long ago thought of another aspect of Cryptonote that was compatible with pruning but I don't mention it here. That might be your "thinking more outside the box" solution.

[SlipperySlope]

Here is the 6-hour resolution chart of the LTC/USD currency pair from the BTC-e exchange. Note the two down legs of the great capitulation of 2014. Prices fell 28% in two days from $6.865 down to $5. Then fell another 30% from $5 down to $3.5. From the November peak price at $48.48, litecoin prices have fallen 13.85x. This is a more dramatic bubble run-up and collapse than the great bitcoin bubble of June 2013.

These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .

[smooth]

These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .

Unlike BTC, there is no reason to expect increasing LTC adoption.

[digitalindustry]

Here is the 6-hour resolution chart of the LTC/USD currency pair from the BTC-e exchange. Note the two down legs of the great capitulation of 2014. Prices fell 28% in two days from $6.865 down to $5. Then fell another 30% from $5 down to $3.5. From the November peak price at $48.48, litecoin prices have fallen 13.85x. This is a more dramatic bubble than the great bitcoin bubble of June 2013.

These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .

Bullish ! - use leverage !

SPX2000

early retirement

[jabo38]

I would also buy Doge before Litecoin.  Both have big communities but Litecoin has lots of room to fall, whereas Doge can basically only go up from here.  But still neither of them offer up a great feature that makes me excited.  So they have a big community?  So does Bitcoin x100

Famous last words.

Hahahaha.  So true.  Glad I am not investing in any of these anyway.  Waiting for the next big thing that is for real.

[AnonyMint]

These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .

Unlike BTC, there is no reason to expect increasing LTC adoption.

His post belonged in a speculation thread, but I still think that might be a valid point.

Who that isn't deluded is investing in BTC for adoption? I only see investor pumps in crypto-currency to-date.

Edit#2: All crypto-coins to date are centralized mining deceptions:

http://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/bino

Just my opinion. And the opinion of that blog post. We may be wrong.

[smooth]

These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .

Unlike BTC, there is no reason to expect increasing LTC adoption.

Who that isn't deluded is investing for BTC for adoption? I only see investor pumps in crypto-currency to-date.

There is definitely increased BTC adoption going on. There is real growth in retail acceptance and some other categories such as travel, and some real startups doing interesting things and building out meaningful capabilities that didn't exist before such as remittances, bitcoin debit card, new investment vehicles coming soon, etc. Whether that is a reason to buy BTC speculatively is a question only an investor can decide. Either way though, it is a clear difference from LTC, which has no movement on adoption at all, never really did, and it doesn't look like it ever will.

[AnonyMint]

These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .

Unlike BTC, there is no reason to expect increasing LTC adoption.

Who that isn't deluded is investing for BTC for adoption? I only see investor pumps in crypto-currency to-date.

There is definitely increased BTC adoption going on. There is real growth in retail acceptance and some other categories such as travel, and some real startups doing interesting things and building out meaningful capabilities that didn't exist before such as remittances, retail, new investment vehicles coming soon, etc. Whether that is a reason to buy BTC speculatively is a question only an investor can decide. Either way though, it is a clear difference from LTC, which has no movement on adoption at all, never really did, and it doesn't look like it ever will.

Okay but two counter thoughts:

1. Comparison of those adoptions by relative market cap.

2. Do those anecdotal "adoptions" have anything to do with the price?

Peter R showed market cap was correlated with some proxy for transactions squared.

[smooth]

These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .

Unlike BTC, there is no reason to expect increasing LTC adoption.

Who that isn't deluded is investing for BTC for adoption? I only see investor pumps in crypto-currency to-date.

There is definitely increased BTC adoption going on. There is real growth in retail acceptance and some other categories such as travel, and some real startups doing interesting things and building out meaningful capabilities that didn't exist before such as remittances, retail, new investment vehicles coming soon, etc. Whether that is a reason to buy BTC speculatively is a question only an investor can decide. Either way though, it is a clear difference from LTC, which has no movement on adoption at all, never really did, and it doesn't look like it ever will.

Okay but two counter thoughts:

1. Comparison of those adoptions by relative market cap.

2. Do those anecdotal "adoptions" have anything to do with the price?

Peter R showed market cap was correlated with some proxy for transactions squared.

1. I think all of those visible adoption areas are quite plausibly incremental to current market cap which at $6 billion is quite tiny relative to payment flows in just about any real business (not that this means it will necessarily happen, only plausible).

2. I think all of those visible adoption areas are quite plausibly incremental to transaction volume, so if you believe the transactions-squared price relationship is likely to persist (I'm not sure), you should expect these quite possibly increase price.

By comparison LTC has absolutely nothing going on that is going to increase adoption or transactions. In fact they are more likely to decrease.

Specifically compare:

BTC transactions since January (steady if not up): https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

LTC transactions since January (dramatically down): http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-ltc.html

[jwinterm]

Specifically compare:

BTC transactions since January (steady if not up): https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

LTC transactions since January (dramatically down): http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-ltc.html

I think this may be a little misleading. If you look at both coins over their entire history, you can see they have similar ups and downs in terms of number of transactions per unit time.

[smooth]

Specifically compare:

BTC transactions since January (steady if not up): https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

LTC transactions since January (dramatically down): http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-ltc.html

I think this may be a little misleading. If you look at both coins over their entire history, you can see they have similar ups and downs in terms of number of transactions per unit time.

No, I really don't see that, especially after enabling 7-day avg on the bitcoin chart. There is no comparison actually. BTC has a steady uptrend and LTC is all boom and bust with major drops offs. BTC rarely if ever drops 50+% while LTC drops 75% repeatedly, including the current drain spiral.

[jwinterm]

Specifically compare:

BTC transactions since January (steady if not up): https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

LTC transactions since January (dramatically down): http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-ltc.html

I think this may be a little misleading. If you look at both coins over their entire history, you can see they have similar ups and downs in terms of number of transactions per unit time.

No, I really don't see that, especially after enabling 7-day avg on the bitcoin chart. There is no comparison actually. BTC has a steady uptrend and LTC is all boom and bust with major drops offs. BTC rarely if ever drops 50+% while LTC drops 75% repeatedly, including the current drain spiral.

I disagree. In its first two years of existence, bitcoin had two major boom/bust cycles. From July 2011 to January 2012, btc went from over 14k tx/day to about 4.8k (a 65% drop), and from 57k tx/day in July 2012 back down to 17k tx/day at the end of 2012 (a 70% drop).

I do see that the boom bust cycles in ltc tx/day are a bit more pronounced - from 13k down to 2.5k tx/day (an 80% drop) and from 19.5k down to 4k (also about 80% drop) - but I think the amount of competition has to be taken into account as well. By the time litecoin was going into the boom bust cycles it had a lot more competition than btc at its same moment in history, so I think it makes sense that the swings would be a bit more dramatic.

I guess I just don't see a major difference between a 70% drop and an 80% drop, considering the circumstances of litecoin having more alternatives for people to move to (ftc, qrk, etc.) .

[smooth]

Specifically compare:

BTC transactions since January (steady if not up): https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions

LTC transactions since January (dramatically down): http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-ltc.html

I think this may be a little misleading. If you look at both coins over their entire history, you can see they have similar ups and downs in terms of number of transactions per unit time.

No, I really don't see that, especially after enabling 7-day avg on the bitcoin chart. There is no comparison actually. BTC has a steady uptrend and LTC is all boom and bust with major drops offs. BTC rarely if ever drops 50+% while LTC drops 75% repeatedly, including the current drain spiral.

I disagree. In its first two years of existence, bitcoin had two major boom/bust cycles. From July 2011 to January 2012, btc went from over 14k tx/day to about 4.8k (a 65% drop), and from 57k tx/day in July 2012 back down to 17k tx/day at the end of 2012 (a 70% drop).

I do see that the boom bust cycles in ltc tx/day are a bit more pronounced - from 13k down to 2.5k tx/day (an 80% drop) and from 19.5k down to 4k (also about 80% drop) - but I think the amount of competition has to be taken into account as well. By the time litecoin was going into the boom bust cycles it had a lot more competition than btc at its same moment in history, so I think it makes sense that the swings would be a bit more dramatic.

I guess I just don't see a major difference between a 70% drop and an 80% drop, considering the circumstances of litecoin having more alternatives for people to move to (ftc, qrk, etc.) .

That's exactly why an 80% drop now for LTC means a lot more than a 70% drop in BTC back in 2012. In 2012 when activity picked up again, it was almost entirely going back to BTC. Any increase in activity now won't be going back to LTC. There is simply no reason for that to happen. There are many more and better alternatives to LTC now.

[jwinterm]

That's exactly why an 80% drop now for LTC means a lot more than a 70% drop in BTC back in 2012. In 2012 when activity picked up again, it was almost entirely going back to BTC. Any increase in activity now won't be going back to LTC. There is simply no reason for that to happen. There are many more and better alternatives to LTC now.

OK, I see your point. I agree there are better alternatives, but I still feel like LTC has at least one more giant pump before (if) it dies a long slow death. There is just so much money invested in scrypt asics, and most of them haven't seen the light of day, that I think it will have another boom cycle (and an accompanying boom in the number of tx/day). But who knows...