[XMR] Monero Speculation

[smooth]

...

Yes that is right. The block time and 60 KB full reward zone (minimum amount of transactions allowed in each block without any penalty) can't be changed without a hard fork, so that will wait until April or so. Most of the features of 0.9 will be active right away though.

So would I presume the now min 0.6 XMR (based on 2 min blocks) per block tail emission since that was not included in the official 0.8.6.6. binaries as far as I understand.

The 0.3 minimum has been in the source code for a long time and included in the beta binaries. You are correct it was not in the 0.8.6.6 binaries. The fork code changes that to 0.6 at the same time that the block time doubles (in fact, the code now scales it for whatever the block time happens to be).

[1713989452]

1713989452

[1713989452]

1713989452

[1713989452]

1713989452

[1713989452]

1713989452

[1713989452]

1713989452

[smooth]

I`m still waiting for a lightweight client, perhaps if you can get it touch with electrum's devs ,they could implement it.
Just my 2 moneros.

I just use https://mymonero.com/ and https://monerodice.net/ for storage at the moment and get a bit of ROI bankrolling the house.

A webwallet is not as secure as a lightweight. Plus I want to keep them offline and use the lightweight to broadcast the TX.

You can do that with simplewallet and a remote node. You give up some privacy but that will likely be the case with any lightweight wallet as well.

at some point, couldn't we do some kind of SSL/SSH thing wherein a simplewallet user could connect to a remote node via an encrypted connection? maybe it does already I dunno. Or maybe this is what you guys are referencing to the "node as service" concept....

The issue is that you give up some privacy to the operator of the remote node. Encrypting the connection doesn't solve that but does help a bit with eavesdroppers.

The best privacy is achieved by running your own node (especially once i2p is integrated). This may serve as an incentive to run nodes, for people who care about "the node incentive problem". In a privacy-oriented coin it is logical to believe that many people would actually care about their privacy, and therefore have an incentive to run a node. But there is no way to know how well that will work out in practice.

On the matter of i2p...take a look over at https://github.com/monero-project?tab=repositories -- you might find that interesting.

edited to add: hell, jwinterms lite wallet is technically a lightweight client.
https://forum.getmonero.org/20/general-discussion/166/lightwallet-a-lightweight-monero-gui-account-manager

it defaults to a remote node.

Yes, same idea of connecting to a remote node.

[owm123]

The issue is that you give up some privacy to the operator of the remote node. Encrypting the connection doesn't solve that but does help a bit with eavesdroppers.

The best privacy is achieved by running your own node (especially once i2p is integrated). This may serve as an incentive to run nodes, for people who care about "the node incentive problem". In a privacy-oriented coin it is logical to believe that many people would actually care about their privacy, and therefore have an incentive to run a node. But there is no way to know how well that will work out in practice.

On the matter of i2p...take a look over at https://github.com/monero-project?tab=repositories -- you might find that interesting.

edited to add: hell, jwinterms lite wallet is technically a lightweight client.
https://forum.getmonero.org/20/general-discussion/166/lightwallet-a-lightweight-monero-gui-account-manager

it defaults to a remote node.

Yes, same idea of connecting to a remote node.

Will i2p be in 0.9?

[smooth]

Will i2p be in 0.9?

No

[dEBRUYNE]

Will i2p be in 0.9?

No

If I recall correctly, fluffypony stated a while ago that they were waiting for i2p to have a stable release before it would be integrated into Monero.

[smooth]

Will i2p be in 0.9?

No

If I recall correctly, fluffypony stated a while ago that they were waiting for i2p to have a stable release before it would be integrated into Monero.

That, and 0.9 is well past a feature freeze state. It is being prepared for release.

[digicoin]

Yes that is right. The block time and 60 KB full reward zone (minimum amount of transactions allowed in each block without any penalty) can't be changed without a hard fork, so that will wait until April or so. Most of the features of 0.9 will be active right away though.

So,

+ An increase in block time: 1 to 2 minutes, available but effective until April 2016
+ 60 KB full reward zone? What does it really mean? What happens to miners those who try to create block without transactions (empty block) or create blocks with full of low-value transactions?

[smooth]

Yes that is right. The block time and 60 KB full reward zone (minimum amount of transactions allowed in each block without any penalty) can't be changed without a hard fork, so that will wait until April or so. Most of the features of 0.9 will be active right away though.

So,

+ An increase in block time: 1 to 2 minutes, available but effective until April 2016
+ 60 KB full reward zone? What does it really mean? What happens to miners those who try to create block without transactions (empty block) or create blocks with full of low-value transactions?

Nothing happens to empty blocks. Blocks can include up to 60 KB of transactions without any penalty (60 KB/2 min so 50% increase from the current 20 KB/1 min). Above 60 KB, more transactions can still be added up to double the current full reward zone size but they will incur a penalty. The 60 KB full reward zone can grow (and then subsequently can shrink) based on the median size of previous blocks.

[ArticMine]

...

Nothing happens to empty blocks. Blocks can include up to 60 KB of transactions without any penalty (60 KB/2 min so 50% increase from the current 20 KB/1 min). Above 60 KB, more transactions can still be added up to double the current full reward zone size but they will incur a penalty. The 60 KB full reward zone can grow (and then subsequently can shrink) based on the median size of previous blocks.

This is why Monero, unlike most POW coins, does not have a max blocksize issue such as the 1 MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin.

[smoothie]

...

Nothing happens to empty blocks. Blocks can include up to 60 KB of transactions without any penalty (60 KB/2 min so 50% increase from the current 20 KB/1 min). Above 60 KB, more transactions can still be added up to double the current full reward zone size but they will incur a penalty. The 60 KB full reward zone can grow (and then subsequently can shrink) based on the median size of previous blocks.

This is why Monero, unlike most POW coins, does not have a max blocksize issue such as the 1 MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin.

This +1

So much less wasted energy/time/resources debating such a small technical issue.

[digicoin]

But bigger block size limit leads to centralization 

[othe]

Says who? Bitcoin Maximalists?

If we take Bitcoin with a hypothetical blocksize of 20MB every 10 minutes, this would cause a roughly 170gb per month traffic on a full node for incoming blocks, so no there is plenty of room to grow. Especially if we look 10 years in the future where bandwith, storage and cpu processing power will be even cheaper, heck even with 20mb btc blocks i can run a full node on the cheapest of cheap VPS providers.

Stillstand ist Rückschritt. - Rudolf von Bennigsen-Foerder

Stagnation is regress.

[illodin]

But bigger block size limit leads to centralization 

I'd like to hear one of the most prominent Monero promoter Icebreaker's opinion on the bloating-as-scaling desperation.

[iCEBREAKER]

But bigger block size limit leads to centralization 

I'd like to hear one of the most prominent Monero promoter Icebreaker's opinion on the bloating-as-scaling desperation.

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

[digicoin]

http://www.truthcoin.info/blog/measuring-decentralization/

Quote: Bitcoin’s Decentralization increases as a full node becomes cheaper.

No. Haha. I have no idea why such a flawed way of thinking exists.

My question is if the cost of maintaining a full node is zero, which are the incentives that drive user to do it? Cost is just part of function.  

(If cost of a meal is zero, I don't think that I will eat for all day  )

I still think that unlimited block size limit in Monero is a feature. Let user adoption drive decentralization.

[Jason.W]

But bigger block size limit leads to centralization  

PoW leads to centralization. It's absolutely inevitable that mining will converge to a few mega farms as the profit margin narrows to microcents, where anyone with a processor has the sense to spend their money best at the market.

It should be apparent by now that the role of blockchain finance is clearly not to be secured by solely decentralized means, in the sense that you individually play any major part in securing the network. This excludes mega farms. More that mega farms either become subsidized, or publicly traded conglomerates. Likely nodes would need to be subsidized, due to lack of incentive other than providing commons. Or, the costs of operating nodes gets built into the infrastructure. Like the store you shop at pays a fee, which is used to set up and establish nodes that are managed by a publicly funded organization.

As long as your transactions are susceptible to withholding, block size and blockchain size really don't make much of an impression. What good is having a cap on block size, if after all is said and done, your finances are on a 'time-out' by a centralized mining operation, because there's no room in the block?

[dEBRUYNE]

We have bounced off 122k sat thrice now, hopefully it will hold.

[andysbizz]

when monero will rise in price

[GingerAle]

when monero will rise in price

soon.

[Hueristic]

when monero will rise in price

Tomorrow 12pm EST