[XMR] Monero Speculation

[Come-In-Behind]

^There will be a tail emission (see OP):

A minimum subsidy may be implemented in the future with <1% annual inflation to preserve mining incentives.

I believe the vast majority of holders are supporting the tail emission and it'll be implemented soon enough.

Sounds like Monero will never go to really high prices like UNO might go...  

Unobtanium is nothing except a clone that had the majority of coins emitted in a month or three (i.e. it probably has an extremely poor distribution). Looking at the rich list here, https://chainz.cryptoid.info/uno/#!rich , that seems to be true with > 80% of coins held in 100 addresses.  It hasn't had any significant updates in more than six months, meaning it isn't even keeping up with progress implemented in bitcoin core. I know people have been shilling all over this forum for UNO, but I imagine those people are mostly early adopters looking to build buy support to dump into. I don't think UNO is surpassing XMR in marketcap, but if you think so, better go all into UNO before it gets "more rare". Also, Bryce Weiner, ick.

I agree that UNO is a clone etc.
The goal of UNO is not to be #1 in tech but # 1 in increasing the price and marketcap of the coin. While all the coins - including bitcoin - is tanking severely this coin has risen 7 months a row. The bull trend of the coin is something I am unable to ignore.
After all, I am an investor more than tech enthusiastist.
I thought in autumn 2014 that UNO is only a short term pump but behold - it is still growing.
And if there is a dump, it cannot be that severe since there are not that many coins available for dumpsters to dump.
There are more than 10 000 wallets in UNO so it is safe to assume the size of the community is probably 1000 members.

I say this once again: The bull trend has been in force months - not days or weeks. Something is fundamentally right there. I wish we as XMR community learn our lesson, too from the winners, not from the losers.

But yup - low inflation coin is something that is definetely the only way a coin can get a significiant value. Otherwise the inflation will kill the coin. Very basic economics and can be seen very clearly among the alt coins, too.

What's the marketcap of UNO, what's the $ that gets traded per day in UNO? Both of those things might be easily manipulated if hardly anyone trades/uses UNO, to make it look as if it's been rising these few months, when it's actually been a few traders trading amongst themselves and buying their own coins.

[1713934528]

1713934528

[1713934528]

1713934528

[1713934528]

1713934528

[fluffypony]

Also, then there's also the massive size of the transactions. Is there any possible way to get the same security with smaller sized transactions?

Unfortunately no, not possible.

It's painful to see a 20kb transaction, as one single transaction, go out to thousands of people. The size of these transactions far surpass moore's law by at least an order of magnitude. So, is it possible to get reasonably sized, high mixin, transactions for 2kb? I'm talking a mixin of no less than ten with an average of 2-3 inputs?

Moore's law is a worthy discussion - the average Bitcoin transaction is 250 bytes, and Moore's law says that "it" doubles every 2 years (Moore's law is too slow to apply to everything, mind you, Kryder's law is typically applied to disk storage density, and that predicts 40tb drives costing $40 by the time we hit 2020). If we go solely based on Moore's law, though, we get January 2009 (Bitcoin genesis block) to today as around 6 years, so a transaction size growth of 3x = average Monero transaction size of 750 bytes.

Here's a good one, it uses the old flat-fee structure, but afaik that doesn't affect the sizing at all: http://chainradar.com/xmr/transaction/7e10418c95f426428f5146adea272324bdee5bc7d5dd461b482ff16e158b1472

It's 12 inputs, with a mixin of 28, but a size of 22.783 kb.

Here's a similar, recent Bitcoin transactions: https://blockchain.info/tx/239a93ab087b57b6e4ab98a28030546e88c976bd5d66d2eae2bf311ada9d98b8

That transaction has 122 inputs and is 18.589kb. To give you some baseline, the 22.783kb Monero transaction has 12 inputs, but with a mixin of 28 that's a total of 336 signatures. It does seem that like-for-like Monero has smaller transactions - this Monero transaction with 5 inputs, no mixins, has a size of 763 bytes, this Bitcoin transaction with 5 inputs has a size of 816 bytes.

The tough part here, is that for cryptonote to work as intended, we're outpacing moore's law by at least two entire powers of ten. For cryptonote to even work at all, with minimal anonymity, we're outpacing it by a single power of ten.

This is a tough one - which is more applicable? Kryder's law or Moore's? What about bandwidth?

The bottom line is this: Bitcoin's transaction size is only going to increase if privacy becomes an issue and people start using mixers or similar as a daily occurrence. Transactional privacy requires a trade-off. It's clear that ZeroCoin's trade-off is too large *right now*, but in 10 years time maybe even that will be acceptable. For the moment Monero's transaction size/privacy trade-off is at an acceptable ratio, and whilst we aren't blind to alternatives that may allow us to reduce the per-tx size we're also not going to chase a linear reduction. Our efforts at reducing size implication would be far better spent on finding a solution, in the future, to completely pruning the blockchain.

[TrueCryptonaire]

^There will be a tail emission (see OP):

A minimum subsidy may be implemented in the future with <1% annual inflation to preserve mining incentives.

I believe the vast majority of holders are supporting the tail emission and it'll be implemented soon enough.

Sounds like Monero will never go to really high prices like UNO might go...  

Unobtanium is nothing except a clone that had the majority of coins emitted in a month or three (i.e. it probably has an extremely poor distribution). Looking at the rich list here, https://chainz.cryptoid.info/uno/#!rich , that seems to be true with > 80% of coins held in 100 addresses.  It hasn't had any significant updates in more than six months, meaning it isn't even keeping up with progress implemented in bitcoin core. I know people have been shilling all over this forum for UNO, but I imagine those people are mostly early adopters looking to build buy support to dump into. I don't think UNO is surpassing XMR in marketcap, but if you think so, better go all into UNO before it gets "more rare". Also, Bryce Weiner, ick.

I agree that UNO is a clone etc.
The goal of UNO is not to be #1 in tech but # 1 in increasing the price and marketcap of the coin. While all the coins - including bitcoin - is tanking severely this coin has risen 7 months a row. The bull trend of the coin is something I am unable to ignore.
After all, I am an investor more than tech enthusiastist.
I thought in autumn 2014 that UNO is only a short term pump but behold - it is still growing.
And if there is a dump, it cannot be that severe since there are not that many coins available for dumpsters to dump.
There are more than 10 000 wallets in UNO so it is safe to assume the size of the community is probably 1000 members.

I say this once again: The bull trend has been in force months - not days or weeks. Something is fundamentally right there. I wish we as XMR community learn our lesson, too from the winners, not from the losers.

But yup - low inflation coin is something that is definetely the only way a coin can get a significiant value. Otherwise the inflation will kill the coin. Very basic economics and can be seen very clearly among the alt coins, too.

What's the marketcap of UNO, what's the $ that gets traded per day in UNO? Both of those things might be easily manipulated if hardly anyone trades/uses UNO, to make it look as if it's been rising these few months, when it's actually been a few traders trading amongst themselves and buying their own coins.

Marketcap is around 50 % lower than Monero's marketcap.
Trading volume varies a lot. Today it has been over 10 000 usd but usually it is somewhere between 3000-8000 usd range. In every trade there is a seller and a buyer and usually those participants are from the community.
UNO is not used, it is stored. If you look at the wallet adresses, many of them have hardly movements - they are just idle for hundreds of days. UNO is not technically the sharpest top coins but it is a store of value (low inflation) and a community of silver/gold bullion holders.

[dEBRUYNE]

I like this coin
time to buy again
go to the moon monero.

...................


Didn't one of them already put up a big BTC wall at a low price? I can't remember what that was, .0014 or something?

.................

There was a wall there yes (0.0015/0.00155), but it has almost completely vanished. My guess is that the wallguy was just accumulating and not really selling, selling at such a big loss makes no real sense.

[Hueristic]

...

I mean, look at this standard transaction using the new daemon with fee scaling: https://minergate.com/blockchain/mro/transaction/653f746ee2eda1d78557f261892b0d4871748a1143501f699c89f8bc45e5180d

Thats 5 inputs, one mixin making a whopping 2.561kb transaction....

Sorry, stopped reading when you Stated bytes were kilobytes.

Code:

Size, bytes	2561

[Hammernecht]

...

I mean, look at this standard transaction using the new daemon with fee scaling: https://minergate.com/blockchain/mro/transaction/653f746ee2eda1d78557f261892b0d4871748a1143501f699c89f8bc45e5180d

Thats 5 inputs, one mixin making a whopping 2.561kb transaction....

Sorry, stopped reading when you Stated bytes were kilobytes.

Code:

Size, bytes	2561

Pretty sure this is a difference in dialect.

America: 2561 bytes = 2.561 kb = 2561 bytes / 1000 bytes/kilobyte

Wherever you are: 2.561 kb = 2561000 bytes

Where are you?

[nioc]

He seems to be at the Bottom of a Bottle

[binaryFate]

[.UNO.]

Can you stop with your cheap analogies?
I won't get lengthy on the fact that apparently you want Monero to get more expensive for stupid reasons.
Your raisoning is also fundamentally just crap. Nobody cares about the absolute reward/block, even if you insist on that again and again. That is one of the usuless argument Litecoin used to differentiate from Bitcoin for instance.
Glad you're a long term investor in XMR, but please stop being talkative about the inspiration/examples we should take from crap coins.

[Hammernecht]

Unfortunately no, not possible.

What about optionally reduced security, while also offering the same security?

Moore's law is a worthy discussion - the average Bitcoin transaction is 250 bytes, and Moore's law says that "it" doubles every 2 years (Moore's law is too slow to apply to everything, mind you, Kryder's law is typically applied to disk storage density, and that predicts 40tb drives costing $40 by the time we hit 2020). If we go solely based on Moore's law, though, we get January 2009 (Bitcoin genesis block) to today as around 6 years, so a transaction size growth of 3x = average Monero transaction size of 750 bytes.

Yes, I had gotten the vibe that I had misrepresented Moore's law likely at the same time as you were writing your post, sorry for that. Perhaps we should use it more as an example of some law that represents "real physical barriers that will hinder significant usage, due to network capacity and HDD capacity". I'll look into Kryder's law, as it seems a little bit better at describing what I was trying to say, but I'm unsure if it encompasses network capacity as well as HDD space? Also, please remove the block reward, if you would, from your standard Monero transaction size, as I'm willing to believe that the coinbase reward is likely 50% or more of the actual representative transaction on the network, and would have a large effect on this value you've presented as it's a single input transaction with no mixin, and i don't believe it's representative of a standard transaction size unlike bitcoin. I would do so myself, but it seems like you've analyzed this in-depth and would only have to to absolutely minimal work. Also, the 10x faster block reward in Monero compared to Bitcoin would skew this number even further.

Unless, this number has already had this done to it?

Guess I'll look!

What is it?

Total transactions - total blocks = number of real transactions

and

size of blockchain - (number of real transactions * size of block with only coinbase reward) = size of monero blockchain due to real transactions

Then take the (number of real transactions) and divide it by the (size of monero blockchain) to find the average size of real monero transactions?

Sorry if you've already done this, just wondering?

This is a tough one - which is more applicable? Kryder's law or Moore's? What about bandwidth?

It's mostly bandwidth and HDD space that I was concerned with. HDD space could be mitigated because I'm operating under the assumption that the blockchain can be legitimately pruned, and not just a mere reduction in size, so that leaves bandwidth the major hinderance.

What kind of bandwidths does this use?

I'm curious, because with all this net neutrality stuff in the USA, you're likely going to see monthly GB caps become a harsh reality, coupled with already allowable network speeds.

Taking into account that most people would likely opt for streaming netflix or some other form of media rather than use the conventional tv cable lines, this starts to choke up the bandwidth accessible to p2p cryptocurrencies, torrents, etc. 300 million of the richest people on the planet, and arguably the same demographic that provides a major basis of cryptocurrencies, will have to budget their bandwith to accomodate these things, or be faced with overusage penalties. So now, we're not only talking about Kryder's law, were also looking at some adulterated version of it that will likely come into play if you're hitting around 30Gb a month in network usage.

The bottom line is this: Bitcoin's transaction size is only going to increase if privacy becomes an issue and people start using mixers or similar as a daily occurrence. Transactional privacy requires a trade-off. It's clear that ZeroCoin's trade-off is too large *right now*, but in 10 years time maybe even that will be acceptable. For the moment Monero's transaction size/privacy trade-off is at an acceptable ratio, and whilst we aren't blind to alternatives that may allow us to reduce the per-tx size we're also not going to chase a linear reduction. Our efforts at reducing size implication would be far better spent on finding a solution, in the future, to completely pruning the blockchain.

I like it!

[TrueCryptonaire]

[.UNO.]

Can you stop with your cheap analogies?
I won't get lengthy on the fact that apparently you want Monero to get more expensive for stupid reasons.
Your raisoning is also fundamentally just crap. Nobody cares about the absolute reward/block, even if you insist on that again and again. That is one of the usuless argument Litecoin used to differentiate from Bitcoin for instance.
Glad you're a long term investor in XMR, but please stop being talkative about the inspiration/examples we should take from crap coins.

What is the defination of a crap coin?
Based on the price movements, Monero looks like a crap coin currently... I am not saying I think it is but it just looks that there is less demand than there is supply.

[explorer]

...

I mean, look at this standard transaction using the new daemon with fee scaling: https://minergate.com/blockchain/mro/transaction/653f746ee2eda1d78557f261892b0d4871748a1143501f699c89f8bc45e5180d

Thats 5 inputs, one mixin making a whopping 2.561kb transaction....

Sorry, stopped reading when you Stated bytes were kilobytes.

Code:

Size, bytes	2561

Pretty sure this is a difference in dialect.

America: 2561 bytes = 2.561 kb = 2561 bytes / 1000 bytes/kilobyte

Wherever you are: 2.561 kb = 2561000 bytes

Where are you?

  In Binaryworld kilo is 2^10 = 1024.  This isn't the metric system  

[smooth]

The 5 - 19 inputs is a pretty good baseline for establishing an average range of inputs

A pretty good expectation for number of inputs is something like 6-10, with a likely average of 8.  The number of inputs will equal the number of outputs and the number of outputs can be estimated from the observation that a typical transaction will have one recipient and one change. Each of those recipients will receive an amount that will probably have between 3 and 5 significant digits. It could possibly be smaller; many retail items are priced with one or two significant digits (29.95 is actually 30.00, or one significant figure; 14.95 is 15.00, or two digits; etc.).

MOD NOTE: Lets cut short the back and forth on bytes, kilobytes, etc.

[smooth]

It does seem that like-for-like Monero has smaller transactions - this Monero transaction with 5 inputs, no mixins, has a size of 763 bytes, this Bitcoin transaction with 5 inputs has a size of 816 bytes.

Yes that's right, and intentional. Section 2.5 of the white paper talks about one of the ways bloat in Bitcoin was improved upon (by not using a bulky spend and redeem scripts for standard transactions). There are other ways though too. The encoding in general is very compact.

(Also note by the way, that the above Monero transaction has 4 outputs but the above Bitcoin transaction has only 2. So the Monero transaction is smaller in encoding despite being functionally larger.)

Of course, this high baseline space efficiency gets offset by the increased space usage of stealth addresses and mixing, but were the protocol not designed to be very space efficient to begin with, the transactions would be much larger than they would otherwise be.

[binaryFate]

[.UNO.]

Can you stop with your cheap analogies?
I won't get lengthy on the fact that apparently you want Monero to get more expensive for stupid reasons.
Your raisoning is also fundamentally just crap. Nobody cares about the absolute reward/block, even if you insist on that again and again. That is one of the usuless argument Litecoin used to differentiate from Bitcoin for instance.
Glad you're a long term investor in XMR, but please stop being talkative about the inspiration/examples we should take from crap coins.

What is the defination of a crap coin?
Based on the price movements, Monero looks like a crap coin currently... I am not saying I think it is but it just looks that there is less demand than there is supply.

There is no more supply than demand, otherwise the price would be 0.

We all have a different definition of a crap coin, and I don't pretend to have a superior one in general. Though, I recon Monero being a different beast here, and I would be glad if you could stop bringing examples from other coins if everything you are bringing to the discussion is about block reward and price.
Why not selling all your XMR to buy some UNO? If you start to answer "because XMR has some intrinsic interesting fundamentals...", that will be spot on.

[Hammernecht]

I know smooth just made a mod note of keeping back the discussion, but here's my numbers:

292 bytes is coinbase reward

427881 blocks total

124,941,252 bytes for total bytes for coinbase reward

3,573,000,000 is the size in bytes of the blockchain

5002 pages is the number of pages chainradar has of blocks with >1 transaction in them, 30 blocks a page

2536 @ 2 tx ea = 2526 * 30 = 75780 transactions

3617 @ 3 tx ea = 1081 * 2 * 30 = 64860

4148 @ 4 tx ea = 531 * 3 * 30 = 47790

4462 @ 5 tx ea = 314 * 4 * 30 = 37680

4666 @ 6 tx ea = 204 * 5 * 30 = 30600

4800 @ 7 tx ea = 134 * 6 * 30 = 24120

4867 @ 8 tx ea = 67 * 7 * 30 = 14070

4906 @ 9 tx ea = 39 * 8 * 30 = 9360

and add another 30000 estimated all the way until the last page

so a total of 304260 plus an estimated 30k tx's over a block with greater than 10 tx's a piece gives us a total of 334260 transactions.



So, my average monero transaction size is actually closer to 10315 bytes, more than 10x higher than your figure fluffypony.

How do we come so far apart?

Keep in mind that I'm going to put an accuracy on my figure of about 90%, but we're still so far apart.

...

I mean, look at this standard transaction using the new daemon with fee scaling: https://minergate.com/blockchain/mro/transaction/653f746ee2eda1d78557f261892b0d4871748a1143501f699c89f8bc45e5180d

Thats 5 inputs, one mixin making a whopping 2.561kb transaction....

Sorry, stopped reading when you Stated bytes were kilobytes.

Code:

Size, bytes	2561

Pretty sure this is a difference in dialect.

America: 2561 bytes = 2.561 kb = 2561 bytes / 1000 bytes/kilobyte

Wherever you are: 2.561 kb = 2561000 bytes

Where are you?

  In Binaryworld kilo is 2^10 = 1024.  This isn't the metric system 

Please forgive me for the additional 2.4 % + .0024^2, etc ... error in my numbers then

[smooth]

I know smooth just made a mod note of keeping back the discussion, but here's my numbers:

Discussion about Monero transaction sizes and how that might help or hinder its success is definitely on topic, just not back and forth about kilobytes vs. bytes and such

[smooth]

3,573,000,000 is the size in bytes of the blockchain

That's not actual size of the chain itself, that is the size of the serialized data structures that get stored by the daemon. This is done somewhat inefficiently. The actual size is roughly half that.

Also, current transactions on the chain are larger than a long-term average would be (with more usage), because of the relatively high portion that are pool payouts, or spending of dusty pool payouts. Once the typical coin is spent around many times rather than being mined and hoarded or spent a few times, the average will converge to something closer to what I estimated above, which is about 8 inputs, 8 outputs, possible somewhat smaller.

[Hammernecht]

3,573,000,000 is the size in bytes of the blockchain

That's not actual size of the chain itself, that is the size of the serialized data structures that get stored by the daemon. This is done somewhat inefficiently. The actual size is roughly half that.

Also, current transactions on the chain are larger than a long-term average would be (with more usage), because of the relatively high portion that are pool payouts, or spending of dusty pool payouts. Once the typical coin is spent around many times rather than being mined and hoarded or spent a few times, the average will converge to something closer to what I estimated above, which is about 8 inputs, 8 outputs, possible somewhat smaller.

I guess that brings us a bit closer.

I think the pools have been stabilized with their payouts for, let's say half their lifetime now, so we're dealing with about a 75% of 50% of 97.6% of 90% of 10315, or about 1132 bytes, which is only about 51% larger than fluffypony explained.

My error was caused the the lack of want to incorporate almost double the amount of time necessary to estimate the size in the first place, resulting in a 10% error.

My second error was caused by apparent lack of incorporating that 1 kb is exactly 1024 bytes and not 1000 bytes, resulting in a ~3% error.

My third error was based on the assumption that the blocks were not based on a database, resulting in a 50% error.

My fourth error was based on that pool payouts were every block, instead of at a certain threshold, which is arguably speculative, resulting in a 75% error.

But the reality is, the acutal blockchain size on my computer right this second is still well over 10kb/tx, regardless of speculative changes or archetypal changes to block structure ........ since april 14 2014 until feb 8 2015, the average transaction size is, in real average reality over 10 kb per transaction.

I understand that a db will mitigate this, and pool payouts will change this, and bytes/kbytes across continents will change this, but the actual size of the file on my computer compared with the real number of people that has made a transaction on the monero network to date, is really 10kb per transaction.

I see that it's not getting bigger, but please, understand that this is a massive number.

it will take time for it to go down, time that I expect will be paid for in whale blood.

I am a holder, a gambler, but not a buyer.

[Hueristic]

...

I mean, look at this standard transaction using the new daemon with fee scaling: https://minergate.com/blockchain/mro/transaction/653f746ee2eda1d78557f261892b0d4871748a1143501f699c89f8bc45e5180d

Thats 5 inputs, one mixin making a whopping 2.561kb transaction....

Sorry, stopped reading when you Stated bytes were kilobytes.

Code:

Size, bytes	2561

Pretty sure this is a difference in dialect.

America: 2561 bytes = 2.561 kb = 2561 bytes / 1000 bytes/kilobyte

Wherever you are: 2.561 kb = 2561000 bytes

Where are you?

LOL without glasses and coffee and thought the "." was a ",". My Apologies even though factually correct.

He seems to be at the Bottom of a Bottle

LOL, definitely a pastime of mine. ;P

[smooth]

I think the pools have been stabilized with their payouts for, let's say half their lifetime now, so we're dealing with about a 75% of 50% of 97.6% of 90% of 10315, or about 1132 bytes, which is only about 51% larger than fluffypony explained.

The original pool payouts were absolutely terrible, but even after the dust fix they can still be quite small, paying out as little 0.1-0.3, which is something like 4 USD cents. That creates an excess of small outputs on the chain and makes subsequent transctions larger too.

Unless we expect Monero to be used for microtransactions in a big way, the mix will change once mining and trading of recently-mined coins is a much smaller proportion of usage.

I see that it's not getting bigger, but please, understand that this is a massive number.

In terms of storage on your computer, it is not. A moderate 1 TB hard drive costs about 60 USD so a 3 GB file costs you about 18 USD cents. A 100 GB SSD is about the same, so 1.80 USD. If you don't think running Monero is worth 0.18-1.80 USD (a one time cost that you can recover by uninstalling it) to you then I guess its kind of a waste of time to even discuss.