[XMR] Monero Speculation

[owm123]

There is also this quote from Satoshi, which touches on the importance of ring signatures that are used in Monero (and other CryptoNote currencies). Monero is the next generation of evolution in digital currency: private decentralized electronic cash.

Crypto may offer a way to do "key blinding".  I did some research and it was obscure, but there may be something there.  "group signatures" may be related.
...
As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it.  If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it.

Regarding the quote. I'm not cryptographer, but Andersen said that this quote does not really make sense from the cryptographic point of view, and rather proves that Satoshi was not a cryptographer and had only high level knowledge of cryptography.  Real cryptographers would never say something like this

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3e1Pzu7iI&feature=youtu.be&t=748

So not sure if this is really a quote that Monero want to use this quote from Satoshi, as apparently it has no sense.

Gavin is wrong. The quote makes perfect sense and Monero proves it by having implemented it (Cryptonote actually implemented it of course).

Maybe what this shows is that Gavin is not a cryptographer (something I think he would agree with).

Maybe, I dont know. Buts its interesting that Satoshi said something, then Gavin says it really does not make sense, and then Monero says it makes perfect sense. Maybe Gavin or Monero interpret this quote from Satoshi differently, leading to difference in opinions?

[binaryFate]

Regarding the quote. I'm not cryptographer, but Andersen said that this quote does not really make sense from the cryptographic point of view, and rather proves that Satoshi was not a cryptographer and had only high level knowledge of cryptography.  Real cryptographers would never say something like this

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3e1Pzu7iI&feature=youtu.be&t=748

So not sure if this is really a quote that Monero want to use this quote from Satoshi, as apparently it has no sense.

Indeed, to Gavin credit he doesn't say this quote does not make sense, but that this is the 101 of crypto. My understanding is that Gavin refers to the vague "informal" formulation in the quote, not to the meaning of it. The conclusion of Gavin just based on this poor formulation is really stretched though. The quote was actually a forum post so of course it's not formulated as a science paper.
Worth mentioning that the post of Satoshi with that quote also mentions stealth addresses. In a way, all Monero is in there

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg9074#msg9074

[dEBRUYNE]

And unfortunately, monero is not a store of value, it is transactional. Unless you think a perpetual emission magically prevents dilution. In 114 years there will be 36 million monero. And in 228 years there will be 54 million.

There will be no long term dilution because of lost coins. Eventually some equilibrium will be reached, probably around 35 million coins.

Anyway, store of value doesn't mean a perfect store of value with no fluctuations or erosions in value whatsoever, and for Monero to function as any sort of store of value at all in a significant sense, or even to function transactionally, the value will need to increase a lot. 5 million USD market cap (or even 15 million if you project out to my estimate of long term supply) isn't going to cut it. The incentives for investing are there, as well as the risk that it doesn't function, interest is lost, and goes to zero.

There will also be no long term dilution because of the extremely slow and tapering supply expansion. If this network somehow did survive 200 more years, how many people do you think would be using it? Do you think 58 million XMR would be nearly enough to support an economy of such scale?

This is why I believe a fixed block reward was a poor decision vs exponential growth of the money supply. Our money supply isn't fixed like Bitcoin's, but we're still dying a slow death. The good news is it probably won't matter anyway, because better tech will most likely replace Monero long before then.

However, if the average cryptouser starts caring about this minutia, we may see Monero fall out of favor to it's little brother, where last I heard, the plan was to incorporate an exponential rate of inflation.

Regarding bolded, this may sound controversial, but we could always fork it to a higher amount if there is consensus on that it is too low.

[Johnny Mnemonic]

There will also be no long term dilution because of the extremely slow and tapering supply expansion.

I guess it depends what you mean by dilution. When one's share of a business is diluted by new investment, it means the percentage of ownership decreases, but it doesn't necessarily mean the value of your investment is smaller. The value may increase, decrease, or remain the same.

It is pretty useful to be very precise about whether one is talking about money supply in nominal units or value of individual units (or something else). The confusion also comes up when people discuss "inflationary" or "deflationary" currencies and end up talking past each other because they are using different meanings. My comment about long-term dilution was referring to money supply units.

Agreed. My (tangential) point was that there is no useful store of value in a defunct property. If the coin survives 200 years but only scales to 58 million units, dilution is the least of everyone's concern.

if the average cryptouser starts caring about this minutia

This seems like a questionable premise. Almost everyone agrees that for crypto to become more successful, the user base needs to grow dramatically, which probably means the average crypto user will have significantly less interest in monetary policy and such.

Mass adoption is the end goal. The "average crypto user" won't ever know about the currency until it survives the scrutiny of the interested community.

[XMRpromotions]

Regarding the quote. I'm not cryptographer, but Andersen said that this quote does not really make sense from the cryptographic point of view, and rather proves that Satoshi was not a cryptographer and had only high level knowledge of cryptography.  Real cryptographers would never say something like this

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3e1Pzu7iI&feature=youtu.be&t=748

So not sure if this is really a quote that Monero want to use this quote from Satoshi, as apparently it has no sense.

Indeed, to Gavin credit he doesn't say this quote does not make sense, but that this is the 101 of crypto. My understanding is that Gavin refers to the vague "informal" formulation in the quote, not to the meaning of it. The conclusion of Gavin just based on this poor formulation is really stretched though. The quote was actually a forum post so of course it's not formulated as a science paper.
Worth mentioning that the post of Satoshi with that quote also mentions stealth addresses. In a way, all Monero is in there

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg9074#msg9074

I am almost certain satoshi will not come back to comment. However I think the chances that satoshi is following Monero development are much higher.

[dEBRUYNE]

Regarding the quote. I'm not cryptographer, but Andersen said that this quote does not really make sense from the cryptographic point of view, and rather proves that Satoshi was not a cryptographer and had only high level knowledge of cryptography.  Real cryptographers would never say something like this

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3e1Pzu7iI&feature=youtu.be&t=748

So not sure if this is really a quote that Monero want to use this quote from Satoshi, as apparently it has no sense.

Indeed, to Gavin credit he doesn't say this quote does not make sense, but that this is the 101 of crypto. My understanding is that Gavin refers to the vague "informal" formulation in the quote, not to the meaning of it. The conclusion of Gavin just based on this poor formulation is really stretched though. The quote was actually a forum post so of course it's not formulated as a science paper.
Worth mentioning that the post of Satoshi with that quote also mentions stealth addresses. In a way, all Monero is in there

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg9074#msg9074

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this part of the post perfectly describes ring signatures:

As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it.  If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it.

I think fluffypony used a somewhat similiar example in the LTB podcast about a company that had to make a controversial decision (something with the CEO, can't remember exactly). 

[binaryFate]

Please correct me if I am wrong

You're correct.

[owm123]

Regarding the quote. I'm not cryptographer, but Andersen said that this quote does not really make sense from the cryptographic point of view, and rather proves that Satoshi was not a cryptographer and had only high level knowledge of cryptography.  Real cryptographers would never say something like this

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3e1Pzu7iI&feature=youtu.be&t=748

So not sure if this is really a quote that Monero want to use this quote from Satoshi, as apparently it has no sense.

Indeed, to Gavin credit he doesn't say this quote does not make sense, but that this is the 101 of crypto. My understanding is that Gavin refers to the vague "informal" formulation in the quote, not to the meaning of it. The conclusion of Gavin just based on this poor formulation is really stretched though. The quote was actually a forum post so of course it's not formulated as a science paper.
Worth mentioning that the post of Satoshi with that quote also mentions stealth addresses. In a way, all Monero is in there

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg9074#msg9074

Please correct me if I am wrong, but this part of the post perfectly describes ring signatures:

As an example, say some unpopular military attack has to be ordered, but nobody wants to go down in history as the one who ordered it.  If 10 leaders have private keys, one of them could sign the order and you wouldn't know who did it.

I think fluffypony used a somewhat similiar example in the LTB podcast about a company that had to make a controversial decision (something with the CEO, can't remember exactly). 

The second quote about "unpopular military attack" is also from Satoshi. Cool. I didnt now that.

[dnaleor]

Talking about that Satoshi quote, I gave it a prominent place on my weuse.cash website, that soon^TM will be finished:

http://weuse.cash/2015/12/22/the-satoshi-nakamoto-quote/

[owm123]

Talking about that Satoshi quote, I gave it a prominent place on my weuse.cash website, that soon^TM will be finished:

http://weuse.cash/2015/12/22/the-satoshi-nakamoto-quote/

Cool website!

[smooth]

Regarding the quote. I'm not cryptographer, but Andersen said that this quote does not really make sense from the cryptographic point of view, and rather proves that Satoshi was not a cryptographer and had only high level knowledge of cryptography.  Real cryptographers would never say something like this

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3e1Pzu7iI&feature=youtu.be&t=748

So not sure if this is really a quote that Monero want to use this quote from Satoshi, as apparently it has no sense.

Indeed, to Gavin credit he doesn't say this quote does not make sense, but that this is the 101 of crypto. My understanding is that Gavin refers to the vague "informal" formulation in the quote, not to the meaning of it. The conclusion of Gavin just based on this poor formulation is really stretched though. The quote was actually a forum post so of course it's not formulated as a science paper.

That makes sense. Also satoshi seemed somewhat unfamiliar with ring signatures but I've heard cryptographers say that they would be well known to most cryptographers. So that also suggests he was not a cryptographer, at least not a full time one.

It is also widely speculated that 'satoshi' may be more than one person, in which case the person writing that one forum post might not be a cryptographer but some other member of the 'satoshi group' might be.

[zhalox]

Regarding the quote. I'm not cryptographer, but Andersen said that this quote does not really make sense from the cryptographic point of view, and rather proves that Satoshi was not a cryptographer and had only high level knowledge of cryptography.  Real cryptographers would never say something like this

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQ3e1Pzu7iI&feature=youtu.be&t=748

So not sure if this is really a quote that Monero want to use this quote from Satoshi, as apparently it has no sense.

Indeed, to Gavin credit he doesn't say this quote does not make sense, but that this is the 101 of crypto. My understanding is that Gavin refers to the vague "informal" formulation in the quote, not to the meaning of it. The conclusion of Gavin just based on this poor formulation is really stretched though. The quote was actually a forum post so of course it's not formulated as a science paper.
Worth mentioning that the post of Satoshi with that quote also mentions stealth addresses. In a way, all Monero is in there

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg9074#msg9074

One night I had a dream that Satoshi Nakamoto himself came back from the dead with his verified PGP key to provide a sign from above that Monero was the one true coin to rule them all.  A voice thundered from the heavens, "Monero is my beloved coin, listen & take heed," with Satoshi's PGP key signature in the clouds, and a white dove came forth and perched upon the fluffy pony's shoulder.  With Satoshi's blessing the XMR price skyrocketed to $3,141.59 per coin, and the trollboxes of the earth went nuts.  Then I awoke and behold it was a dream...  

[pa]

That makes sense. Also satoshi seemed somewhat unfamiliar with ring signatures but I've heard cryptographers say that they would be well known to most cryptographers. So that also suggests he was not a cryptographer, at least not a full time one.

It is also widely speculated that 'satoshi' may be more than one person, in which case the person writing that one forum post might not be a cryptographer but some other member of the 'satoshi group' might be.

Or Satoshi was playing dumb to hide his tracks. . .

[TrueCryptonaire]

There will also be no long term dilution because of the extremely slow and tapering supply expansion.

I guess it depends what you mean by dilution. When one's share of a business is diluted by new investment, it means the percentage of ownership decreases, but it doesn't necessarily mean the value of your investment is smaller. The value may increase, decrease, or remain the same.

It is pretty useful to be very precise about whether one is talking about money supply in nominal units or value of individual units (or something else). The confusion also comes up when people discuss "inflationary" or "deflationary" currencies and end up talking past each other because they are using different meanings. My comment about long-term dilution was referring to money supply units.

if the average cryptouser starts caring about this minutia

This seems like a questionable premise. Almost everyone agrees that for crypto to become more successful, the user base needs to grow dramatically, which probably means the average crypto user will have significantly less interest in monetary policy and such.

Exactly.
The key in analysing the future value is to compare the increase in money supply to the increase in global GDP. As long as the former is growing in higher speed as long also the purchasing power of Monero will rise. Correct me if I am wrong,  historically global GDP growth rate taking account the recessions is roughly slightly over 2 % annually.
But this analysis applies only in situations when absolutely everybody in the world uses Monero. Until then even higher inflation will be absorbed by new adaption.

[smooth]

One way it has been misinterpreted is giving the orientation some sort of significance (e.g. that "Hoarders" on the top the most important or fundamental). In reality the image could be arbitrarily rotated or otherwise transformed and still be correct, so none of the individual nodes are the "source" of growth (or favored point of reference in any way); they all are.

Interestingly the same mistake is being made today with respect to "control" over Bitcoin.

https://medium.com/@barmstrong/bitcoin-s-elegant-upgrade-mechanism-miner-voting-66faa35d27af#.whisgqlmm

http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/

They're both wrong.

[digicoin]

Why do you think that they are wrong? What is your proposal?

[iCEBREAKER]

This fantastic image illustrates the feedback loops that lead to growth and success. It was originally created about Bitcoin but applies equally to Monero.

That's neat.  It should also indicate higher price --> user adoption because higher prices allow each tx/block to perform more economic 'work' (ie transfer more information/value).

One simple way to scale BTC/XMR is to hoard or otherwise drive the price up.  

[smooth]

Why do you think that they are wrong? What is your proposal?

They're wrong in so far as they both propose that one particular subset of the system has ultimate control over it (miners in the case of the first post and users in the case of the second). They all have varying degrees of influence; none has unilateral control. (Also "miners" and "users" are not really decision making entities which is another problem with both arguments -- fallacy of composition/division.)

As far as my proposal, it doesn't really matter because they won't listen to me but I favor a hard fork to 2 MB followed by a slow automatic increase of maybe 10% per year for say 10-20 years. Slow enough that if it looks to be running out beyond hardware improvements it can be rolled back with 1-2 year lead time for another fork. Ultimately, though, it is up to the various interest groups to work it out or fight it out, because it won't work unless all are somehow on board. Messy and ugly but it is delusional and wishful thinking to think you can remove politics from this process.

[smooth]

This fantastic image illustrates the feedback loops that lead to growth and success. It was originally created about Bitcoin but applies equally to Monero.

That's neat.  It should also indicate higher price --> user adoption because higher prices allow each tx/block to perform more economic 'work' (ie transfer more information/value).

Good point. It also, similarly, expands the potential user base to additional markets. Bitcoin at its present scale is completely uninteresting as a reserve currency, for example, even if the technology could handle that easily. It is entirely a function of price.

I'm thinking about spending some time to rework the diagram a bit. I'll include that.

[Monero_Magician]

I have been following Monero off and on for about a year now, and have been accumulating various amounts since around March of last year. I certainly do not know as much about Monero or other cryptocurrencies as most of y'all, however, similar to what somebody was saying earlier- bubbles can be immensely beneficial for the Monero community. Just as he was saying, out of bubbles such as the 1929 bubble, the dot com bubble, or even the Bitcoin bubble, many long lasting companies and investors were created. Monero is the internet's best kept secret and the community suffers from a serious lack of publicity and marketing. Now with the recent update more of the general public can become involved and begin to pump up prices and begin generating serious interest in this wonderful project.



P.S. I have my own hopes and predictions, but, I would like to ask all of you where you see the price of Monero in the next: month, 3 months, 6 months, and year- respectively.