Bitcoin Forum
August 18, 2017, 06:41:00 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.14.2  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 [1404] 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 1953560 times)
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1750


Support SEGWIT on 8/1/17 https://github.com/UASF


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2015, 06:22:38 AM
 #28061

Blocks are getting full now much more frequently.

Good.  Even Gavin confirms that won't cause the sky to fall; BTC was designed to thrive under load (and duress).

Let a thousand fee markets bloom!   Cool

The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy.  David Chaum 1996
"Monero" : { Private - Auditable - 100% Fungible - Flexible Blocksize - Wild & Free® - Intro - Core GUI - Podcats - Roadmap - Dice - Blackjack - Github - Android }
MoneroForCash.com  |  Buy and sell XMR near you  |  Easymonero.com  |  Bitsquare.io - Decentralized XMR Exchange  |  Buy XMR with fiat
Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect.  Adam Back 2014

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016
Blocks must necessarily be full for the Bitcoin network to be able to pay for its own security.  davout 2015
Blocksize is an intentionally limited resource, like the 21e6 BTC limit.  Changing it degrades the surrounding economics, creating negative incentives.  Jeff Garzik 2013


The raison d'être of bitcoin is trustlessness. - Eric Lombrozo 2015
It is an Engineering Requirement that Bitcoin be “Above the Law”  Paul Sztorc 2015
Resiliency, not efficiency, is the paramount goal of decentralized, non-state sanctioned currency -Jon Matonis 2015

Bitcoin is intentionally designed to be ungovernable and governance-free.  luke-jr 2016

Technology tends to move in the direction of making surveillance easier, and the ability of computers to track us doubles every eighteen months. - Phil Zimmerman 2013

The only way to make software secure, reliable, and fast is to make it small. Fight Features. - Andy Tanenbaum 2004
1503081660
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503081660

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503081660
Reply with quote  #2

1503081660
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1503081660
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503081660

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503081660
Reply with quote  #2

1503081660
Report to moderator
1503081660
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1503081660

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1503081660
Reply with quote  #2

1503081660
Report to moderator
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
July 03, 2015, 09:10:30 AM
 #28062

afaik they have no coins to offer bounties because there was no ICO reserved for such (instead I heard the devs were mining the shit out of the egregiously front loaded debasement curve and rumor was the guy who optimized the PoW hash netted himself $150,000 before releasing the optimizations), nor would they like a rancorous dev coming in and rearranging the house

The community is offering bounties, of course it is a different game as we don't have "free coins" but everyone must surrender actual value to get something done. On the other hand, this is called "voluntarism", which is the antithesis of "communism" practised by the premined coins.

I haven't heard that the devs could be "mining shit out of it". Mining Monero is somewhat tedious, because there is no ASIC, and GPU is not specifically good return. The only advantages you could get are using Amazon instances (mostly difficult, or else possible for all), botnets (not accessible by people except their owners, so a mandatory nuisance), or optimized miners (this era ended a year ago).

The emission schedule is a bit front-loaded, in part worse even than Bitcoin. At least Monero has perpetual emission (0.9%), which takes care of the network security and makes the game fairer. Less than half of the coins are mined, cf. 70% with BTC.

As for the ability to capture egrecious value by joining in now - yes, it is very much there. 1 XMR = 0.50 USD, and less exist than there exist BTC. So we are talking about BTC in 2010, and that's the year when many could have placed a sidebet worth a few $grand, yet did not do it, causing some gnashing of teeth for themselves.

Especially there is no need to care about mining, the coins can just be bought in surprisingly liquid markets.

Quote
I've heard (not verified) they inherited a sloppy C code base and I hate C and C++, even I am very proficient in those programming languages

According to Latapie (core team member), the codebase is 84% rewritten for security reasons (although no malicious things have been found in the code).

Quote
over a year ago, rpietila was telling everyone to buy more BTC at $600 and XMR was the greatest thing since sliced bread and I was turned off by the lack of cooler heads and objectivity. Since then, I come to respect smooth and realized that rpietila isn't the key voice of XMR (and I don't dislike rpietila, he is my friend and even a potential token amount seed investor of my controlling group... no I am would not pull rpietila away from XMR, he just likes small diversifications and he is my friend after all).

That guy is like a broken record (or at least turns v e r y slowly): he was instructing to buy silver 5 years in a row and now he's been bullish on BTC constantly since it was $3, and still is. Despite his incessant shilling of XMR, he does not even have such a high % of his wealth invested (way less than the castle he owns in Estonia anyway - at the current valuation, the castle is nearing XMR marketcap).

I think it is correct to invest small amounts in many promising, +EV projects, Bitcoin and Monero (and Newcoin) included.

Quote
XMR was a coin for those devs who already had money to invest, not for a dev like me who exhausted his former 18,000 oz stash and needs to strike it big one more time in life coming to old age without a retirement, blind in one eye, teenage dependents, and diagnosed with a chronic, progressive illness Multiple Sclerosis.

XMR is the "rich get richer" coin in the sense that the rich who grok it, can buy 100k XMR without sacrifice. The poor can only buy a few k.

Nevertheless, if it makes big, both will never need to work again.

Complaining about "devs" buying the coin at an early mover price is ludicrous as the price here and now is about -75% compared to last summer average ($0.50 vs. $2). In reality those who buy now, are the ones to be envied if it takes off. Are you in? Wink

Quote
nor do I want to own 1% of the economy (what a major responsibility and nearly impossible to allocate resources optimally at that scale).

The guys who buy 1% of the coin supply and still have it, are rather few and far between. I don't know anyone in the world, except Satoshi, who still has his maximum amount of BTC.

If XMR would even to become as big as BTC, it would need to go up 2^10 times. Every time it doubles, statistics say, people tend to sell 17% of their holdings, distributing the coins to the newcomers whose interest is the cause for the price to double.

(1-17%)^10 = 0.15

After 1000-times upsurge, on average only 15% of coins still belong to the original guys. If we are talking about hindering the global economy with your wealth, we need a 1,000,000 times appreciation, at which point your holding is not 1% anymore but 0.01%, still a massive stash but not a disruptive one.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 09:33:13 AM
 #28063

rpietila, thanks for your clarifications and explanations. Apologies for the overly aggressive wording "mining the shit out of it". What I am trying to get at there is that if some people will shill very aggressively that the only equitable way to do initial distribution to investors is via PoW, then another group can retort that front loading the emission curve is essentially the same outcome as an ICO (he who has capital and insight gets some shares) except for the differences:

  • it gives the capital away to utility and hardware companies instead of the coin ecosystem (that is if network security is a non-issue), except the wealth effect which is not centralized with a leader
  • it rewards technically astute over those investors with more money than time to mess around collecting coins in small morsels from exchanges, especially when clients require command line level skills and mining on Amazon EC requires a much greater level of skill
  • it arguably can provide more anonymity, although an ICO via decentralized exchange between two anonymous coins could probably match that
  • it front loads the requirement that the PoW hash has to exquisitely optimized right at launch, which is almost never the case.

One of the key reasons a typical PoW coin needs to do initial distribution via PoW is the threat of 51% attack and the need to rapidly scale up network security.

On the issue of volunteerism vs. collectivization of ICO funds with a leader, there are tradeoffs. The former is very difficult to incentivize radical innovation and also nearly impossible to seed fund deeply into the ecosystem, but is actually superior at the refinement stage as it doesn't overcommit to egregious error, i.e. it is more anti-fragile. The latter loads trust into a system that is aiming to be trustless, thus although expedient it is anti-fragile and can't scale well, but it can be very effective at making key investments of scale that couldn't be accomplished with the same efficiency (communication overload trying to organize and convince the politics, etc). In other words, the former has a trajectory that can't be altered (e.g. Monero and Bitcoin) and the latter is agile (e.g. NXT) but can diverge (e.g. Ethereum).

My thought it is possible to combine the best of both. One is better at the refinement stage and the other is better at the seed stage if the leader can demonstrate the ability.

Edit: I am surprised rpietila replied so quickly. I didn't know he was lurking. There was no coordination nor premeditation.

Edit#2:

Subsidies are great if you want to get applicants who qualify, It should be called a subsidiary not a reward for good reason, the problem is there are developers who feel the economics are wrong and Bitcoin needs to be fixed, I may not be able to express why but to my understanding the mechanism seems well balanced and considered in my view, the onus is on the people who have a problem with how Bitcoin works to prove its broken, and build a better mousetrap not change this one.

My position is that it would be great if we could have started Bitcoin up without a block subsidy, but since the currency has to be issued via some method, and since the only way to produce a truly optimal initial distribution would require an entity that was both omnipotent and omniscient, issuing the currency via block subsidy spread out over time is the least terrible way to do it.

Other than the wealth effect, much of the real capital (at least initially until the NWO-directed ecosystem was bootstrapped) went to the utility, hardware, and usury industry to which miners are beholden. If that was the optimum way to bootstrap an ecosystem, then it was correct.

In my view, it was the only way to build a global ecosystem amongst conflicting interests because it is unassailable until it scales to the point where it becomes distributed but centralized, then at that point it can only be assailed by the TPTB.

Quote
One would prefer a completely decentralized process (thus in theory no politics) such that we didn't have to rely on some individuals holding the private keys for proceeds derived from the ICO. But as Monero and Bitcoin have demonstrated, a decentralized process lacks leadership and unless you are entirely done and all is on auto-pilot, then the lack of leadership leads to paralysis, fragmentation, dearth of innovation, etc.. Thus I see no other way to proceed to build an anonymous, bearer-style (a.k.a. permission-less autonomy) ecosystem other than to concentrate some investment from the ICO and then redistribute it with leadership.

The problem is who will do that leadership and the resultant vulnerabilities and pitfalls.

Ethereum made the huge mistake of having too many managers. And choosing a problem set that is arguably intractable (Turing complete on a replicated verification).

Blockstream is ostensibly much more well focused; they've delivered alpha code at breakneck speed.


Thus it is cleverly designed (seemingly with military precision of forethought) to disrupt the existing financial disorder (entropy) and converge it to one NWO controlled morass at the end game. I couldn't have designed it better for that purpose.

Whereas, if you want to create an alternative ecosystem, such as the Knowledge Age that I argue is replacing the dying Industrial Age NWO-directed, establishment system, then the coins must be distributed to the targeted ecosystem.

I hope this post is not lost in the shuffle because it may be one of the most poignant, salient, and critically important insights I have shared...

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 03, 2015, 05:54:22 PM
 #28064

I would afraid to have CT on main chain.
There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.
That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.
We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.
The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.
We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.
Pray tell how you will replace ECDSA when the coins are already assigned to keys for it?  (and when everyone and their sister constantly reuses addresses). A compromise of CT would mean that it was feasible to find discrete logs in this group, with that, anyone who learned your public key could recover your private key.  There are scenarios where the hashing, absent any address reuse, helps  (e.g. say the discrete log finding takes weeks)-- but it's important to not exaggerate the gains.

But indeed it isn't the ~quite~ same.

So gmaxwell means that if discrete logarithm assumption is broken such that it can solved within minutes for a newly seen public key, then your transaction broadcasted on the P2P network could in theory be replaced by the winning block miner spending it to himself. Funny since I had argued this point to him in the past when he was defending the power of the hashes to protect in a worst case outcome. Funny he now uses my argument against you.  Cool

Although you still do need to rely on the integrity of Monero's key images to ensure coins can't be double spent.

Cryptonote's Appendix A says double-spending ("Linkability") depends on the random oracle model (i.e. the cryptographic hash function) which the same assumption that CCT has. CN also a discrete logarithm assumption in the random oracle model on theft, same as for Bitcoin.

And don't expect the double-spending to be recognizable in Monero. For as long as the attacker only double-spends from rings that are not yet saturated, then he can double-spend indefinitely without detection.

So really there is no pragmatic difference in the threat of hidden inflation in CN or CCT, except perhaps you can argue that the break only needs to occur once in CCT and multitude of instances in CN or Bitcoin.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 03, 2015, 06:02:34 PM
 #28065

Inevitable and inspiring:

Almost exactly one year ago, we launched our Bitcoin remittance startup in the Philippines. Against the odds, our growth has been the exact opposite of the downtrend in bitcoin price. Just wanted to share a bit of our story so far.

Warning: Lengthy post. There's a TL;DR down there if you scroll down long enough Wink

**How we started:**

Twelve months ago, Bitcoin had just bounced back to $600~, everyone was pumped for another bull run, and we were a brand-spanking new bitcoin startup that had just launched a [Bitcoin payment processor in the Philippines.](http://bitmarket.ph)  We were fresh, hungry, and excited.  Remittance wasn't part of our original plan, but after a few brainstorming sessions, we decided that it was going to be a vital stepping stone to support a healthy bitcoin ecosystem in our country. We decided to launch what we called a “Rebittance” service, a word that is [now included in the Money Wiki](http://themoneywiki.com/wiki/alternative-currency-rebittance-bitcoin-remittance) and describes bitcoin remittance in general. We were going to call it *Rebit.ph*.

**Early days:**

So we announced our “launch”, if you can call it that, on social media and here on Reddit. Other than [making it to the top of r/bitcoin](https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/29g8zf/introducing_rebitph_sending_money_to_the/), it was somewhat uneventful. Our first month was OK, seeing 1 or 2 transactions per day, getting sign ups here and there. We absorbed the things that we saw work, and removed the things that didn't. We focused a lot on customer service and speed of transaction fulfillment with our first few regular users, and it paid off as a lot of them are still regular customers up to this day.

Several months after we figured out the ins and outs of the business, we were getting more comfortable with handling more transactions. Our growth was slow and steady at first, but then we made a decision to just [do away with the transfer fee.](https://www.techinasia.com/bitcoin-rebit-philippines-zero-fees-remittances-kyc/) This caused an uptick in our numbers, to the point where we sometimes had to scramble to make sure we could accommodate all rebittances. We were still bootstrapping at that point, and cash wasn't exactly overflowing; besides, we were also busy launching five other services at the same time.

This is the part that most people do not know about us: Our startup is actually called [Satoshi Citadel Industries](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satoshi_Citadel_Industries), and Rebit is just one major component in an ecosystem that we are working on establishing. Rebit is our  “Bitcoin-In” piece of the puzzle, and [our other major verticals complement this system](http://sci.ph). It has been the most active and rapidly developing service in our lineup, hence our heightened focus on making it as effective and efficient as possible.

**2015:**

2015 has been a breakout year for us. Despite all the challenges of a depressing market trend, we were able to secure [fresh capital from angel investors to push us forward.](https://www.techinasia.com/satoshi-citadel-industries-funding-joe-maristela/) We have since figured out our strategy and direction, had opened up Rebittance partnerships in different countries like [Hong Kong](http://www.thepaypers.com/cryptocurrencies-bitcoin-virtual-currencies/bitspark-partners-rebit-to-launch-bitcoin-as-a-middleman-remittance-service/757562-39) and [Canada](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/newnote-financial-partners-with-rebit-to-offer-international-remittance-service-2015-04-15), and are now working on opening up at least ten more corridors within the next year. We have been breaking our daily, weekly, and monthly records almost every month, and we expect that trend to sustain regardless of the price of bitcoin.

From the time we started a year ago doing 1 or 2 transactions a day, we're now doing at least fifty times more on a daily basis. The number of registered users, coming from about 19 different countries, has already zoomed past the 6,000 mark, and we're looking forward to reaching 10,000 in the very near future with new partnerships from other remittance corridors putting us on track to service about a dozen new markets by 2016. Rebittance, a funny word we like to think we invented, [is now a real thing](http://themoneywiki.com/wiki/alternative-currency-rebittance-bitcoin-remittance). Believe it or not, the business is now healthy enough to be able to sustain itself in the short term without burning through cash. It is not only surviving, it is thriving.

**Looking forward:**

Our vision looking forward has always been the same: *World Domination*. Well, not really. We just want to make an impact in an industry that is ripe for disruption, starting in our own backyard, the Philippines. We know that Remittance is a hotly contested market right now,[ with several billion dollars moving into the Fintech space](http://wealthmanagement.com/blog/fintech-investment-expected-double-2015), a growing new sector where technology meets finance, and the Philippines is one of the main battle grounds with $27 Billion in annual incoming remittances. We're gearing up to become a major player in this disruptive industry, starting here in our own home court.

Our long term strategy is to be able to replicate our service anywhere in the world, and create partnerships that connect us to other Bitcoin companies that will allow anyone, anywhere to easily access Rebittance services. Our first step is [Rebittance.org](http://rebittance.org), which recently [won 3rd place in Coinbase's BitHack v2.](https://blog.coinbase.com/2015/07/02/coinbase-announces-winners-of-bithack-v2/) It's a Rebittance portal that will act as an aggregator and connector for the rest of the world. We have more up our sleeve too. In the meantime, we keep working.

Like everything worth doing, it is going to take some more time to reach even just our short-term goals. Just getting the proper licenses from government agencies here takes weeks if not months, same with establishing one partnership with another company in a different country. All of the things we have accomplished up to this point took a lot of time and effort, and it will only become tougher as we grow bigger.

Looking back from this milestone definitely feels like an accomplishment, but by no means do we think we're anywhere near where we want to be.

Watching the growth of the Bitcoin technology as a whole in the past twelve months has been nothing short of amazing, bitcoin exchange rate aside. We are proud to be playing a role in it, no matter how small.  Big thanks to all the other bitcoin startups, entrepreneurs, developers, and engineers out there, working thanklessly and tirelessly day in and day out, teaching and inspiring us to keep going and looking forward to a bright future for the industry.

**TL DR; Despite the crappy declining bitcoin market, our Bitcoin startup not only survived, but has thrived, growing over fifty-fold in volume, getting funding, expanding to several countries, and has turned one year old.**

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3bzncr/almost_exactly_one_year_ago_we_launched_our/
hodlmybtc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616


BTC | XMR | XCN


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2015, 06:57:49 PM
 #28066

That guy is like a broken record (or at least turns v e r y slowly): he was instructing to buy silver 5 years in a row and now he's been bullish on BTC constantly since it was $3, and still is. Despite his incessant shilling of XMR, he does not even have such a high % of his wealth invested (way less than the castle he owns in Estonia anyway - at the current valuation, the castle is nearing XMR marketcap).

When you think about this it's pretty funny a lot of people (desperate bears) calling Monero overvalued at this moment in the speculation thread.

Absolutely no disrespect to your castle Risto but to me it definately looks like Monero is heavily undervalued as your castle is nearing the XMR marketcap Cool

kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
July 03, 2015, 07:14:29 PM
 #28067

That guy is like a broken record (or at least turns v e r y slowly): he was instructing to buy silver 5 years in a row and now he's been bullish on BTC constantly since it was $3, and still is. Despite his incessant shilling of XMR, he does not even have such a high % of his wealth invested (way less than the castle he owns in Estonia anyway - at the current valuation, the castle is nearing XMR marketcap).

When you think about this it's pretty funny a lot of people (desperate bears) calling Monero overvalued at this moment in the speculation thread.


They are all the same mostly, previous or current shitcoin owners that could get large % of a coin emission for almost nothing and then pump and dump forever extracting bitcoin from victims, they can't do that with Monero, never been easy really and it pisses them off even more when they see how much potential Monero has. Its like rpietila said, its a coin that only the very rich already can own near 100K and this is positive because few ppl can get burned and allow easy and fair accumulations. A slow and inevitable march to the moon is what I would call the XMR market.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050



View Profile
July 03, 2015, 10:37:08 PM
 #28068

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…There's actually a euro banknote printing facility run by the Bank of Greece in Athens.  Is there any chance, given the political mess, that the Bank of Greece directly prints banknotes to meet withdrawal demands, thereby ending the bank runs?  I realize this would be a no-no according to rules for eurozone membership but I wouldn't be surprised if such an idea gained popular support.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1638



View Profile
July 03, 2015, 11:17:59 PM
 #28069

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…

According to rules, terms & conditions, laws, and justice;

if a bank is in trouble,

- first you call in the loans
- then you pay out the depositors
- the rest (if any) goes to the bondholders

Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!

Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)


Mixles
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 12:07:09 AM
 #28070

Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!

<alcohol>

You didn't get the memo? For 7 years? Duude, are you for real?  Roll Eyes

</alcohol>


Donations to 1SumKArxoEJ1HoGibmj8ygw1DZWYBvjmM
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 12:32:35 AM
 #28071

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…

According to rules, terms & conditions, laws, and justice;

if a bank is in trouble,

- first you call in the loans
- then you pay out the depositors
- the rest (if any) goes to the bondholders

Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!


Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)

First, gravity confounding levitation schemes on youtube, now, Lamb of God fueled anti-semitism? You know... at a certain point, you start working as an advocate against the positions you take, and the opinions you espouse.

A dash of poo always spoils a thoughtfully prepared meal.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:38:29 AM
 #28072

...shitcoin owners that could get large % of a coin emission for almost nothing and then pump and dump forever extracting bitcoin from victims, they can't do that with Monero, never been easy really and it pisses them off even more when they see how much potential Monero has. Its like rpietila said, its a coin that only the very rich already can own near 100K...

By arguing that XMR's mcap is miniscule, you are argue against your point. Your logical point can only be that it is relatively near to free to acquire some significant % of XMR's mcap, and afaics whether the proceeds of the wealth effect are distributed to the person who obtained coins cheaply via selling a premine or by selling coins bought or mined near to free, then what is the operative difference?

The one argument you can make is that everbody has an equal opportunity to obtain coins at the same very low price; whereas, in a premine only the controlling group can obtain them for very low cost (not free because you must factor in their costs of development, promotion, etc) while everbody else has to pay a market rate which may be higher or lower than the controlling group's initial cost.

I think really your only logical complaint is embodied by the term "shitcoin", which I assume you mean to infer that controlling group had nearly 0 development costs and I could suggest then that the more accurate term is "copycoin". But wasn't Monero a "copycoin" at the launch when the core devs mined the heavily front loaded debasement curve (with thus less competition and relative hashrate difficulty per block reward).

I don't see much merit in that line of argument. Rather I think it is more useful to point out that Monero has a claimed 80+% code rewritten, and it apparently refined Cryptonote implementation. Refinement btw, is precisely what I asserted that leaderless organization excels at. Yet you won't find leaderless organization doing radical innovation (because by definition there is no leader who can take the bull by the horns), thus Monero will probably forever be not much more than a "copycoin". That is in a nutshell why I am not working on Monero, because copying bores me to tears. It is not an attempt to diminish Monero's importance (it is what it is), rather just the point that I like to create new technology. And I will challenge you to call anything I do a "shitcoin" or a "copycoin".

Peace.

wpalczynski
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120


Twitter: @wpalczynski


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:43:03 AM
 #28073

...shitcoin owners that could get large % of a coin emission for almost nothing and then pump and dump forever extracting bitcoin from victims, they can't do that with Monero, never been easy really and it pisses them off even more when they see how much potential Monero has. Its like rpietila said, its a coin that only the very rich already can own near 100K...

By arguing that XMR's mcap is miniscule, you are argue against your point. Your logical point can only be that it is relatively near to free to acquire some significant % of XMR's mcap, and afaics whether the proceeds of the wealth effect are distributed to the person who obtained coins cheaply via selling a premine or by selling coins bought or mined near to free, then what is the operative difference?

The one argument you can make is that everbody has an equal opportunity to obtain coins at the same very low price; whereas, in a premine only the controlling group can obtain them for very low cost (not free because you must factor in their costs of development, promotion, etc) while everbody else has to pay a market rate which may be higher or lower than the controlling group's initial cost.

I think really your only logical complaint is embodied by the term "shitcoin", which I assume you mean to infer that controlling group had nearly 0 development costs and I could suggest then that the more accurate term is "copycoin". But wasn't Monero a "copycoin" at the launch when the core devs mined the heavily front loaded debasement curve (with thus less competition and relative hashrate difficulty per block reward).

I don't see much merit in that line of argument. Rather I think it is more useful to point out that Monero has a claimed 80+% code rewritten, and it apparently refined Cryptonote implementation. Refinement btw, is precisely what I asserted that leaderless organization excels at. Yet you won't find leaderless organization doing radical innovation (because by definition there is no leader who can take the bull by the horns), thus Monero will probably forever be not much more than a "copycoin". That is in a nutshell why I am not working on Monero, because copying bores me to tears. It is not a knock against Monero's importance, rather just the point that I like to create new technology. And I will challenge you to call anything I do a "shitcoin" or a "copycoin".

Peace.

How can anything be challenged when you haven't done anything other than talk about creating a coin?

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:43:52 AM
 #28074

A dash of poo always spoils a thoughtfully prepared meal.

Poo appears to be an excelsior.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:44:15 AM
 #28075

I would afraid to have CT on main chain.
There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.
That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.
We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.
The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.
We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.
Pray tell how you will replace ECDSA when the coins are already assigned to keys for it?  (and when everyone and their sister constantly reuses addresses). A compromise of CT would mean that it was feasible to find discrete logs in this group, with that, anyone who learned your public key could recover your private key.  There are scenarios where the hashing, absent any address reuse, helps  (e.g. say the discrete log finding takes weeks)-- but it's important to not exaggerate the gains.

But indeed it isn't the ~quite~ same.

So gmaxwell means that if discrete logarithm assumption is broken such that it can solved within minutes for a newly seen public key, then your transaction broadcasted on the P2P network could in theory be replaced by the winning block miner spending it to himself. Funny since I had argued this point to him in the past when he was defending the power of the hashes to protect in a worst case outcome. Funny he now uses my argument against you.  Cool

Although you still do need to rely on the integrity of Monero's key images to ensure coins can't be double spent.

Cryptonote's Appendix A says double-spending ("Linkability") depends on the random oracle model (i.e. the cryptographic hash function) which the same assumption that CCT has. CN also a discrete logarithm assumption in the random oracle model on theft, same as for Bitcoin.

And don't expect the double-spending to be recognizable in Monero. For as long as the attacker only double-spends from rings that are not yet saturated, then he can double-spend indefinitely without detection.

So really there is no pragmatic difference in the threat of hidden inflation in CN or CCT, except perhaps you can argue that the break only needs to occur once in CCT and multitude of instances in CN or Bitcoin.

You are assuming a cryptographic break, I'm not, which is why I mentioned the cryptographic issue with key images. There is also the case of an implementation flaw that would (or at least could) be more readily apparent in a system that maintains visibility on sum(in) <= sum(out). In practice failures of mature cryptographic assumptions occur much less frequently implementation flaws. Bitcoin has had the latter (overflow bug) but not the former. Likewise Zerocash (if it existed) would have recently failed due to the latter (libsnark bug).

Anyway, a few different approaches comparable to CT in effect and performance are being looked at for Monero. One I believe does not require any protocol changes.

Also, TPTB, I disagree with your assertion that some benefit was obtained from a "front loaded" curve in Monero. In practice what happened is that the difficulty simply skyrocketed as the coin became popular. There was still no real opportunity for developers or other early adopters to vacuum up cheap coins, after the first few weeks (or more like one week, during which it wasn't even clear there was going to be an organized and effective project) at least. If the rewards had been lower the difficulty would have just been lower too.

Also, with the perpetual debasement it is debatable whether you can call the curve front-loaded, at least compared to say Bitcoin, which starts off with slower reductions but continues those reductions until the effect is to reduce later supply more quickly relative to early adopters. It is impossible to say you are even a 1% holder of "all" of Monero's supply since the supply is infinite.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:46:18 AM
 #28076

How can anything be challenged when you haven't done anything other than talk about creating a coin?

"Will" is a future tense verb.

And the bulk of my post was about a general logic which doesn't hinge on what if anything I might do. And my post was not derogatory to Monero nor Cryptonote, rather just pointing out that if the best selling point you can muster is illogic, then you are doing yourself a disservice. Instead I suggest focus on the facts that are positive, such as the autonomy of one-time ring sigs and the massive amount of refinement effort that has been done. Or continue beating the "not a copycoin premine" drum and I will continue to refute it.

P.S. I didn't realize Monero had changed from 0% perpetual debasement to 0.9% (according to rpietila). Smooth (and I but not coordinated at all, no back dealings and no alignment, just I was aware of his stance) were for perpetual a couple of months after launch and he was apparently rebuffed by afair rpietila, aminorex, and others. Seems his (our) stance won over? At the time I was pushing for closer to 5% (my thinking may have changed hence) and I believe smooth was for any level 1% and above which could accepted by the consensus. And afair rpietila was slowing moving away from 0% to thoughts of a few tenths of a percent.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:46:51 AM
 #28077

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…

According to rules, terms & conditions, laws, and justice;

if a bank is in trouble,

- first you call in the loans
- then you pay out the depositors
- the rest (if any) goes to the bondholders

Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!

Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)




the entirety of the 2008 bailout here in the US was to make sure bondholders got bailed out.  in a system based off fractional reserve, that is how it has to be to continue the ponzi.  that's how it's always been; savings and loan crisis, Mexico, subprime, even the Euro situation.  if confidence in debt is ever shaken, the entire system blows up. 

this is the basis of my thinking that during the next crisis here in the US, which may have already arrived btw, the USD takes a beating while they bid the prices of UST's back up.  we'll see how it plays out.
generalizethis
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092


cryptokingdom.me


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 02:10:22 AM
 #28078

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…

According to rules, terms & conditions, laws, and justice;

if a bank is in trouble,

- first you call in the loans
- then you pay out the depositors
- the rest (if any) goes to the bondholders

Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!


Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)

First, gravity confounding levitation schemes on youtube, now, Lamb of God fueled anti-semitism? You know... at a certain point, you start working as an advocate against the positions you take, and the opinions you espouse.

A dash of poo always spoils a thoughtfully prepared meal.

Funny how I never read that in the Bible. Maybe it is the the lost Hitler Bible meant to replace the King James version after the Reich (successfully) goosestepped past the Volga-- But what book? The Gospel according to Himmler? The Gospel according to Goering? Maybe Eva Braun could play the part of Mary Magdalene and one of Goebel's experiments could have raised Lazarus from the dead. Because with National Socialism, we're all Jesus re-purposed as an Aryan descendant of the lost civilization of Atlantis and the line of David is replaced with Caesars and Pontiffs and Fuhers, Oh mY!

Risto, are you really citing a Jewish God/S.O.G./Prophet as the go-to critic of all things Hebrew, but failing to see most of the revisionism is Christians/TPTB/Romanized-slave-traditionalist trying to usurp (hardfork or c-section? Hmmmm) the Bible from its obvious pre-Nero birth--does every race need to have a persecution complex?

We can't become transhuman fast enough, because these old guard allegiances based on race make the best of us sound like a chimp in a tree throwing shit and trying to make us see the light of the you-wasp/me-wasp/we-good  brand of primal politics.

I'm gonna go meditate and forget how memes (especially horrible ones) sometimes make us more than we make them. Or i could go grab the biggest stick i can find and add to the shit-tossing madness....

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:15:14 AM
 #28079

You are assuming a cryptographic break, I'm not, which is why I mentioned the cryptographic issue with key images.

Yes but my point was and is to compare relative risk of such in CN and CCT.

There is also the case of an implementation flaw that would (or at least could) be more readily apparent in a system that maintains visibility on sum(in) <= sum(out).

My point was and is that the failure would be no more apparent in CN than CCT. There is no way to distinguish in CN if a ring has been double-spent until the same set of addresses in the ring have been spent as many times are in the ring ("saturated"), but before then the double-spend was done and not seen. Thus the clever attacker could use large rings and only double-spend that particular ring once. For as long as Monero doesn't implement my suggestion to force ring groups, then not only it is (unquantified level of, perhaps unlikely) vulnerable to combinatorial unmasking of anonymity, it is also more vulnerable to double-spending being undetected in the unlikely event of a cryptographic break.

In practice failures of mature cryptographic assumptions occur much less frequently implementation flaws. Bitcoin has had the latter (overflow bug) but not the former. Likewise Zerocash (if it existed) would have recently failed due to the latter (libsnark bug).

I am not arguing against that, just whether the underlying cryptographic assumptions that protect against double-spending are not different in CN vs. CCT for example.

Anyway, a few different approaches comparable to CT in effect and performance are being looked at for Monero. One I believe does not require any protocol changes.

I am aware of the proposed one that mixes all the transactions in the block. But afaics, that violates the end-to-end principle (autonomy) of one-time ring sigs.

Also, TPTB, I disagree with your assertion that some benefit was obtained from a "front loaded" curve in Monero. In practice what happened is that the difficulty simply skyrocketed as the coin became popular. There was still no real opportunity for developers or other early adopters to vacuum up cheap coins, after the first few weeks (or more like one week, during which it wasn't even clear there was going to be an organized and effective project) at least. If the rewards had been lower the difficulty would have just been lower too.

I am not arguing "a benefit per se" (people invest hopefully to benefit themselves), rather just comparing how it is not much different than an ICO (disparagingly referred to as a "premine"), except for the differences and ramifications thereof I enumerated.

Also, with the perpetual debasement it is debatable whether you can call the curve front-loaded, at least compared to say Bitcoin

So does that mean you all won't disparage a coin launched with an ICO that also has perpetual debasement.

My point is I'd prefer we stay focused on the features and development effort on a coin.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:24:15 AM
 #28080

So does that mean you all won't disparage a coin launched with an ICO that also has perpetual debasement.

I have no issue with ICOs in theory. In practice I don't believe anonymous coin ICOs can ever be done in a manner that avoids the appearance of potential manipulation (insiders buying the ICO, creating a false appearance of high investor demand, getting the purchase money back, and also getting some non-transparent share of the coins). In traditional finance, and possibly a tiny number of above-board coin ICOs, there is transparency as to the identity of the investors and disclosure of ownership on later rounds (of course there are exceptions and frauds), which prevents, or at least discourages, this type of self-dealing.

I'd rather see an actual premine at least honestly disclosed as such. I might not buy into such a coin, but I won't call it fraudulent at least, as I would and do various deceptive and/or fraudulent (or fraud-prone) schemes such as hidden premines and most or all altcoin ICOs in practice.

Quote
My point was and is that the failure would be no more apparent in CN than CCT.

You are still assuming that the failure is a cryptographic assumption and not an implementation flaw (cryptographic or otherwise). In the latter case the greater transparency of aggregate coin flows on the blockchain will prevent some failures from being undetectable.
Pages: « 1 ... 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 [1404] 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!