rpietila Altcoin Observer

[Peter R]

I sort of see what some of you are saying but at the same time I think you're missing the potential importance of a crypto currency that isn't based around maintaining a clean open ledger like bitcoin.

A currency like Monero, without a huge focus on a ledger and with its feature being anonyminity will be useful for millions.

This. Drug trade on deep web alone, will make the favoured anon coin > $1.000.000.000 market cap big. Question is which coin is becoming this. Lots of development, lots of projects, lots of different approaches. Exciting times.

I agree that there will be some demand for "strong privacy" for black-market dealings, etc., but are we convinced that this demand won't be met by layers built on top of bitcoin?  Let's hypothetically assume that one could achieve the same level of privacy as some foo coin, but using bitcoin instead.  Why would the blackmarket not prefer this over trading in and out of some foo coin?  

Two privacy-enhancing techniques for bitcoin are coinjoin and zerocash:

   COINJOIN (Greg Maxwell):  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0

      - working implementations:
            - blockchain.info's "sharedcoin"
            - darkwallet project

   ZEROCASH (Eli Ben-Sasson, et al): http://zerocash-project.org/media/pdf/zerocash-extended-20140518.pdf

      - I don't think there are any working implementations yet, and I haven't really followed this project, but brilliant people such as Peter Todd are working on it.  

With these types of options becoming refined, I see no appeal for a technology like Darkcoin.  I do recognize that a valid argument can be made for a truly-strong privacy protocol such as Cryptonote (ring signatures), however. Perhaps people would trade out of bitcoin and into a cryptonote-based coin if the truly felt the additional privacy was worth it.  But then again, if sidechains happen, could ring-signatures be implemented as a sidechain?

[nakaone]

not trolling here but

not the worst argument for ring signature coins, that peter who almost have an agenda for the universal and monopolistic position of bitcoin gives these altcoins its place

that said the argumentation about the universal function of the bitcoin ledger was for me very helpful, thanks for that.

before that I kept the position, like vitalik, that the step from fiat to crypto is a huge one, but the step from bitcoin to for example litecoin is a small one.

[drawingthesun]

I sort of see what some of you are saying but at the same time I think you're missing the potential importance of a crypto currency that isn't based around maintaining a clean open ledger like bitcoin.

A currency like Monero, without a huge focus on a ledger and with its feature being anonyminity will be useful for millions.

This. Drug trade on deep web alone, will make the favoured anon coin > $1.000.000.000 market cap big. Question is which coin is becoming this. Lots of development, lots of projects, lots of different approaches. Exciting times.

I agree that there will be some demand for "strong privacy" for black-market dealings, etc., but are we convinced that this demand won't be met by layers built on top of bitcoin?  Let's hypothetically assume that one could achieve the same level of privacy as some foo coin, but using bitcoin instead.  Why would the blackmarket not prefer this over trading in and out of some foo coin?  

Two privacy-enhancing techniques for bitcoin are coinjoin and zerocash:

   COINJOIN (Greg Maxwell):  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=279249.0

      - working implementations:
            - blockchain.info's "sharedcoin"
            - darkwallet project

   ZEROCASH (Eli Ben-Sasson, et al): http://zerocash-project.org/media/pdf/zerocash-extended-20140518.pdf

      - I don't think there are any working implementations yet, and I haven't really followed this project, but brilliant people such as Peter Todd are working on it.  

With these types of options becoming refined, I see no appeal for a technology like Darkcoin.  I do recognize that a valid argument can be made for a truly-strong privacy protocol such as Cryptonote (ring signatures), however. Perhaps people would trade out of bitcoin and into a cryptonote-based coin if the truly felt the additional privacy was worth it.  But then again, if sidechains happen, could ring-signatures be implemented as a sidechain?

Just a little back story about why I'm interested in Monero. Apart from a little trading last year I have never held any alternative coin and have always been of the opinion that Bitcoin has no challenge. When I say challenge I don't mean something beating bitcoin, what I mean is something coming along and offering a technical capability that bitcoin does not offer. It doesn't mean a coin rivaling Bitcoin in an economic sense.

Up until Monero I have never held another coin out of principal and now I do.

The two technologies you mention, zerocoin/cash and coinjoin, once held promise in my mind but after closer examination fell short of my expectations.

The zerocoin and zerocash technologies are plagued by uncertain novel mathematics and the initial accumulator. The first one may be solvable through decades of use without weaknesses being discovered, however the accumulator is an issue I couldn't mentally work around. I cannot trust a system where it potentially could be circumvented and there is no way to prove this isn't the case.

Coinjoin looks good but the joining mode always presented a huge problem. Gmaxwell mentioned on hackernews about a new technology called cryptonote that was both working now and far superior to coinjoin.

After looking into it I saw issues with the bytecoin implementation due to the coin release being ridiculous and looked for the best alternative. I found Monero.

The ring signature technology is better than those systems that you propose can be built on top of bitcoin.

Sometimes it feels like Bitcoin is becoming its own entrenched system of power where the Bitcoin holders desperately seek to eradicate and argue away any other technology that might take even a couple percent of its market away. Even other systems that are not clones, that bring something worthwhile to the table.

You mentioned how the ledger is Bitcoins grand feature, however Monero does not want that. I hold both Bitcoin and Monero because I see the technologies not making a convergence but rather existing together.

The only possible way I can see Bitcoin absorbing the features of Monero is through side chains.

[Peter R]

With these types of options becoming refined, I see no appeal for a technology like Darkcoin.  I do recognize that a valid argument can be made for a truly-strong privacy protocol such as Cryptonote (ring signatures), however.

The ring signature technology is better than those systems that you propose can be built on top of bitcoin.

Sometimes it feels like Bitcoin is becoming its own entrenched system of power where the Bitcoin holders desperately seek to eradicate and argue away any other technology that might take even a couple percent of its market away. Even other systems that are not clones, that bring something worthwhile to the table.

You mentioned how the ledger is Bitcoins grand feature, however Monero does not want that. I hold both Bitcoin and Monero because I see the technologies not making a convergence but rather existing together.

The only possible way I can see Bitcoin absorbing the features of Monero is through side chains.

I learned about Cryptonote ring-signatures from Greg Maxwell as well, and I believe it is a fact that they offer stronger privacy than is currently possible with bitcoin.  I've even said that out of the entire alt-coin space, I'd be most inclined to invest in Monero for exactly the reasons you just laid out.  So please don't see me as an "eradicator" of innovation.  I am trying to push innovation forward.

On that note, imagine launching Monero as a spin-off.  This would bootstrap the coin with an already efficient distribution, and would greatly reduce the inflation rate which is hurting the coin currently.  I believe a spin-off would out-compete Monero itself and I may be interested in helping with its launch.  Developers could still profit by mining the first new coins while difficulty is low.

I would be even more inclined to participate if we could come up with a mining algorithm that helped drive forward advances in crypto-hardware.  Greg Maxwell once proposed launching an alt-coin where the proof-of-work involved secp256k1 signature verification.  His rationale was that if people eventually created ASICs to mine this alt-coin, then these same ASICs could be used in future bitcoin nodes to help blockchain technology to scale to much higher transactions / second.

IMO, a Cryptonote spin-off could potentially out-compete all existing altcoins.  Like you said, it offers something genuinely innovative that is not possible with bitcoin (at least not without sidechains).  

[tacotime]

On that note, imagine launching Monero as a spin-off.  This would bootstrap the coin with an already efficient distribution, and would greatly reduce the inflation rate which is hurting the coin currently.  I believe a spin-off would out-compete Monero itself and I may be interested in helping with its launch.  Developers could still profit by mining the first new coins while difficulty is low.

It's a mistake to believe that the inflation rate is hurting Monero. Rather, it's distributing it cheaply as far as I am concerned. The problem with piggybacking on an existing, distributed blockchain is that there is no longer any reasonable chance of a distribution that is widespread. For instance with Bitcoin, if you launched it as a merged mining chain, you add all the insecurity of merged mining (usually a single large pool can destroy the currency) while distributing the coins mostly to large ASIC farms. This is less than ideal.

Right now large, large quantities of MRO are being mined and dumped by licit (or possibly illicit) compute clusters, which are readily dumping into the market. Speculators are buying with their own cash, and won't let go of their coins until they realize a profit. In the meantime, the supply is falling regularly and will press the market upwards. I'm not terribly worried about the recent dumps, they're redistributing wealth.

[devphp]

I'm not terribly worried about the recent dumps, they're redistributing wealth.

Are you worried about competitors being just days behind Monero with their code? Including GUI wallet if it's open source?

[tacotime]

Are you worried about competitors being just days behind Monero with their code? Including GUI wallet if it's open source?

So far none of them are -- there's a serious vulnerability that was patched in MRO about a week ago but still exists in most of the forks, I'm waiting to see when they decide to handle it.

[saddambitcoin]

Bought a few MRO back at 4.6 mBTC - now the price has dropped so much I want to load up...maybe 0.5% of my BTC holdings.

My question is what will stop the miners from dumping?

[r0ach]

I'm not terribly worried about the recent dumps, they're redistributing wealth.

Are you worried about competitors being just days behind Monero with their code? Including GUI wallet if it's open source?

The worrying part is algorithms depending on L3 cache latency to deter gpu/asic use aren't effective, so that part should have been scrapped on day one for a real algo.  All this current algo does is make it a botnet coin during it's prime distribution period.  The smartest move would be to launch with a GPU algorithm so that you get good market penetration, which anyone knows is essential to a currency.

It gets old listening to people claiming a CPU coin has some ridiculous "one man one vote" garbage when it's the exact opposite.  CPU coins have the worst distribution and market penetration of any coin.  Dogecoin probably has the best market penetration and used GPU, so there's actual real world data on this if it wasn't already blatantly obvious.

[devphp]

My question is what will stop the miners from dumping?

Maybe you? With another 0.5% and then another 0.5%

[fluffypony]

I'm not terribly worried about the recent dumps, they're redistributing wealth.

Are you worried about competitors being just days behind Monero with their code? Including GUI wallet if it's open source?

The worrying part is algorithms depending on L3 cache latency to deter gpu/asic use aren't effective, so that part should have been scrapped on day one for a real algo.  All this current algo does is make it a botnet coin during it's prime distribution period.  The smartest move would be to launch with a GPU algorithm so that you get good market penetration, which anyone knows is essential to a currency.

It gets old listening to people claiming a CPU coin has some ridiculous "one man one vote" garbage when it's the exact opposite.  CPU coins have the worst distribution and market penetration of any coin.  Dogecoin probably has the best market penetration and used GPU, so there's actual real world data on this if it wasn't already blatantly obvious.

Dogecoin has this whole "join the Dogecoin Navy" thing where people literally donate spare GPU cycles at a loss to support the network. It's incredibly altruistic and possibly the worst example you could've picked.

The algorithm is not designed to prevent GPU mining; it's designed to close the gap between GPU and CPU mining so that 30-year-old SWMs with a 4 GPU rig don't cannibalise the coin and dump to cover their electricity. Someone mining with a botnet has less inclination to dump than GPU miners.

At any rate, the PoW is literally the least interesting thing about Monero, and time will tell if the current PoW has any long-term value or not.

[Its About Sharing]

As bitcoin begins to really ascend, what do you all see happening to the price of alts in bitcoin terms?
I see the prices in btc dropping a lot, but in $ rising. In a way this might be starting.

Imagine bitcoin a $6,000, i sust can't see alts keeping up there, and nor would all
Be worth it. I think we will see a falling out imo of many lesser alts. I think
This will be market driven through dumping the alts back into btc.

[slapper]

The only short term problem for MRO is that supply is a tad bit more than demand. Acknowledgement, recognition, and adoption are slower compared to what it should have been and the various clones derailed the initial momentum it was gathering and proved to be detrimental to each and every one of them. Fragmentation is the only reason why alt coins cannot succeed and never be allowed to succeed by factors external to an altcoin's ecosystem.

There is always going to be a first move advantage when it comes to altcoins but forking/cloning/fragmentation will make sure that growth is limited and definitely never in the scale of BTC.

I definitely feel great about mining MRO from the second it released and happy to see Taco and team at the helm. If people don't see what MRO is doing it is their loss. I am happy to add to my stash from exchanges and mining alike.

Also kudos to aminorex for introducing the forum vets to MRO. I think it was he who first dropped hints in the Wall Observer thread.

[drawingthesun]

As bitcoin begins to really ascend, what do you all see happening to the price of alts in bitcoin terms?
I see the prices in btc dropping a lot, but in $ rising. In a way this might be starting.

Imagine bitcoin a $6,000, i sust can't see alts keeping up there, and nor would all
Be worth it. I think we will see a falling out imo of many lesser alts. I think
This will be market driven through dumping the alts back into btc.

I thought that would be the case last year, but then somehow PPC, LTC and some others somehow rose in line with Bitcoin and increased their own USD valuations by massive amounts.

I see last year as a test that set precedent for the movements of the alts. Of course we cannot be certain this will always be the case.

[Adrian-x]

not trolling here but

not the worst argument for ring signature coins, that peter who almost have an agenda for the universal and monopolistic position of bitcoin gives these altcoins its place

that said the argumentation about the universal function of the bitcoin ledger was for me very helpful, thanks for that.

before that I kept the position, like vitalik, that the step from fiat to crypto is a huge one, but the step from bitcoin to for example litecoin is a small one.

Thanks for the enlightening debate everyone and @xtester for well referenced and rational and healthy skepticism.
The bold above triggered my response action; Peter is not an evangelist, he just made what I think is an important discovery, and that is a correlation (causation?) that Metcalfe's law describes the value in the Bitcoin network.

In my view this is a breakthrough because it supersedes some of the voodoo in monetarist theory, and quantifies the value of a unit of account by the quality of the connections in an economic network.  

And if you take the Bitcoin Metcalfe's law correlation on face value, all the arguments follow to their logical conclusion. I don't believe we can predict anything, but we can act on what we know, and we know Bitcoin can't scale to accommodate the global transactions today, and we know the value in the network, spin-off's actually leverage both those opportunities.
 Side-chains by comparison, are complex risky and hinder innovation, and diversification of the Bitcoin value ledger.

[r0ach]

Someone mining with a botnet has less inclination to dump than GPU miners.

That's a real knee slapper.

The algorithm is not designed to prevent GPU mining; it's designed to close the gap between GPU and CPU mining so that 30-year-old SWMs with a 4 GPU rig don't cannibalise the coin and dump to cover their electricity.

In the real world, this is what happens to any CPU coin:

Normal miner gets 0 before they quit since it's completely pointless trying to compete with botnets.



And then:

[Its About Sharing]

As bitcoin begins to really ascend, what do you all see happening to the price of alts in bitcoin terms?
I see the prices in btc dropping a lot, but in $ rising. In a way this might be starting.

Imagine bitcoin a $6,000, i sust can't see alts keeping up there, and nor would all
Be worth it. I think we will see a falling out imo of many lesser alts. I think
This will be market driven through dumping the alts back into btc.

I thought that would be the case last year, but then somehow PPC, LTC and some others somehow rose in line with Bitcoin and increased their own USD valuations by massive amounts.

I see last year as a test that set precedent for the movements of the alts. Of course we cannot be certain this will always be the case.

Fair point and one I'm still pondering, hence my high priced example.
But on second thought, once btc is up that high, it will mean adoption is on another level.
What is probably fair to say though is what I already alluded to, we are going to have
more of a disparity in price between the different tierd layers of alts.
Will be interesting going back to these early "pizza posts"...

[othe]

Someone mining with a botnet has less inclination to dump than GPU miners.

That's a real knee slapper.

The algorithm is not designed to prevent GPU mining; it's designed to close the gap between GPU and CPU mining so that 30-year-old SWMs with a 4 GPU rig don't cannibalise the coin and dump to cover their electricity.

In the real world, this is what happens to any CPU coin:

Normal miner gets 0 before they quit since it's completely pointless trying to compete with botnets.



And then:

Thats just ... - there is absolutely no problem to use cgminer on a botnet. There are tons of LTC Botnets out, so it was for BTC.

That argument is just pointless unless you have ASICs.

[Cryddit]

There have been plenty of sound cases put forward as all taxes forced by coercion being inherently evil.  ...  specialization led to abundance, then the parasite class and taxes formed to exploit that, and here we are today.  Paying taxes isn't a patriotic duty, it's you voting towards supporting that particular ideology.

Only a valid point in the case of kleptocracies that don't provide basic services in exchange for the tax money.  There are countries where they pay taxes just like we do in the first world (or even more heavily in proportion) but don't even get clean water or basic road maintenance for their money, and yes, in that case I could talk about a "parasite class" and the "exploitation" of people via taxes. 

For the rest of us?  Naaah, I don't think so.  Government adminstrative overhead isn't substantially worse than the sum total of corporate administrative overhead and stockholder profit taking.  By and large, I think most of us get our money's worth. 

[GreekBitcoin]

There have been plenty of sound cases put forward as all taxes forced by coercion being inherently evil.  ...  specialization led to abundance, then the parasite class and taxes formed to exploit that, and here we are today.  Paying taxes isn't a patriotic duty, it's you voting towards supporting that particular ideology.

Only a valid point in the case of kleptocracies that don't provide basic services in exchange for the tax money.  There are countries where they pay taxes just like we do in the first world (or even more heavily in proportion) but don't even get clean water or basic road maintenance for their money, and yes, in that case I could talk about a "parasite class" and the "exploitation" of people via taxes. 

For the rest of us?  Naaah, I don't think so.  Government adminstrative overhead isn't substantially worse than the sum total of corporate administrative overhead and stockholder profit taking.  By and large, I think most of us get our money's worth. 

Describing Greece right now We are paying more taxes than average Europe i think but education, health system, infrastructure, pensions etc are getting shitier by the day