[XMR] Monero Speculation

[Hammernecht]

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 output 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.

Monero is worth, to me, whatever it is I can afford to pay. My hard drive space is nothing compared to the bandwidth it takes to both utilize my own hard-drive space as well as share the blockchain with as many people as possible, which may will be worth much more than $.18. Again, this is under the idea that the price of hard drive space will trend toward zero because legitimate pruning is a possibility and not just size reduction.

But, how much bandwidth does the daemon use a month?

Admittedly, it's not being shared across a 3g or 4g network, but if it's even more than 1gb a month, then it's likely more costly than $.18.

Actually, if my bandwidth was capped at 150 GB /month and I was paying the same $60 a month I do now, and you're saying  it will cost me between $.18 cents to $1.8 then I would expect to use anywhere from 450 mb to 4.5 gb a month from just running my daemon on a standard broadband connnection.

If this was a 3g or 4g network, I would expect 10x that, at $1.8 to $18 a month. This is still affordable, if necessary, if Monero were to require it for usage.

Is .45 to 4.5 gb a month an expected amount of usage of the monero daemon?

[smooth]

But, how much bandwidth does the daemon use a month?

Very little at the current level of activity. The growth rate of the blockchain is currently something like 2 MB per day, so still well under a GB per month of bandwidth on average, assuming each transaction is sent four times (once in a block and once on its own, sending and receiving).

Even low-end mobile plans can cover that within base usage. (I don't recommend that though, since there may be substantial variations from the average.)

[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.

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.

I think monero is a niche coin (anonymity).
For average user I guess it doesn't play so significiant role which protocol the coin is.
From average Joe's perspective all the cryptos are on the same line - they call all the crypto protocols by the same name - digital currency.

My perspective is here to have a coin that gives me some value, and a coin that has designed to increase in price is something that brings to me value personally.


I am not saying you are wrong and XMR is bad, by no means no. Monero has a chance to increase in value by many multiples, if not against bitcoin, so against fiat money at least (assuming btc is more expensive 3-4 yrs from now than it is today).

I am not suggesting to dump XMR (I have pretty huge stack of it), but also why to increase the amount neither.

For me it is cool if you guys are not interested in this type of coins that have low inflation and 7 months long bullish price trend. I guess you have your prefeences and I have my preferences.  

[Hammernecht]

But, how much bandwidth does the daemon use a month?

Very little at the current level of activity. The growth rate of the blockchain is currently something like 2 MB per day, so still well under a GB per month of bandwidth on average, assuming each transaction is sent four times (once in a block and once on its own, sending and receiving).

Even low-end mobile plans can cover that within base usage. (I don't recommend that though, since there may be substantial variations from the average.)

So a growth of 2 mb/day is equivalent to 1579520 b/day in natural growth, or 1.580 mb/day in legit transactions, where we have about 1.580/.010 kb /tc so we have like 158 transactions per day, or the equivalent of .001828 transactions per second, or about .1828% of bitcoin daily transaction action daily?

[neurotypical]

[.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.

I think monero is a niche coin (anonymity).
For average user I guess it doesn't play so significiant role which protocol the coin is.
From average Joe's perspective all the cryptos are on the same line - they call all the crypto protocols by the same name - digital currency.

My perspective is here to have a coin that gives me some value, and a coin that has designed to increase in price is something that brings to me value personally.


I am not saying you are wrong and XMR is bad, by no means no. Monero has a chance to increase in value by many multiples, if not against bitcoin, so against fiat money at least (assuming btc is more expensive 3-4 yrs from now than it is today).

I am not suggesting to dump XMR (I have pretty huge stack of it), but also why to increase the amount neither.

For me it is cool if you guys are not interested in this type of coins that have low inflation and 7 months long bullish price trend. I guess you have your prefeences and I have my preferences.  

I also agree. Monero is a niche coin for anonimity, for everything else it can be done with Bitcoin. So what we need is whenever someone thinks crypto + anonymity at the same time they automatically think as Monero as the best option.

[smooth]

But, how much bandwidth does the daemon use a month?

Very little at the current level of activity. The growth rate of the blockchain is currently something like 2 MB per day, so still well under a GB per month of bandwidth on average, assuming each transaction is sent four times (once in a block and once on its own, sending and receiving).

Even low-end mobile plans can cover that within base usage. (I don't recommend that though, since there may be substantial variations from the average.)

So a growth of 2 mb/day is equivalent to 1579520 b/day in natural growth, or 1.580 mb/day in legit transactions, where we have about 1.580/.010 kb /tc so we have like 158 transactions per day, or the equivalent of .001828 transactions per second, or about .1828% of bitcoin daily transaction action daily?

We're obviously dealing in gross generalities here, but it seems close. Someone claimed btc at 1 tx/sec. That would be 60 tx per 60 minutes Monero block. Look at a Monero chain explorer and you see well under 1 tx/block, maybe 1/10 tx/block. So that's close.

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm interested to hear what the current known devs think about this whitepaper.

Trustless contracts with cryptonote seems like an insanely good idea.  Curious as to how difficult it's going to be to implement.

Seems redundant since AT already exists.

[Tauja]

I want to buy monero
how about that?
up or down for today?

[UnicornFarts]

I'm interested to hear what the current known devs think about this whitepaper.

Trustless contracts with cryptonote seems like an insanely good idea.  Curious as to how difficult it's going to be to implement.

Seems redundant since AT already exists.

ehhh yeah i think the guy's full of hot air.

My understanding is AT is plug inable for btc based cryptos not cryptonote.

[GingerAle]

It appears that is Darkcoin becoming a liquidity leader in the "anonymity" space. Its long term fundamentals don't bode well, but once a strong foothold is taken.....

eh. I feel that as long as monero sticks around, people will eventually make their way to it. Once the stress tests make their way to darkcoin (some authority actually need to gain information from it), and it fails due to the increasingly centralized nature of it, monero will still be there, with a huge market cap, relatively stable price, inexplicable network hashrate, and plenty of smelly unicorns, fluffy ponies, neurotic fish, and cows spewing monero.

For me, the only thing preventing monero from becoming the de-facto private cryptocurrency in the relatively near future is if something else comes out thats actually better than ring signatures.

[othe]

I'm interested to hear what the current known devs think about this whitepaper.

Trustless contracts with cryptonote seems like an insanely good idea.  Curious as to how difficult it's going to be to implement.

Seems redundant since AT already exists.

ehhh yeah i think the guy's full of hot air.

My understanding is AT is plug inable for btc based cryptos not cryptonote.

Bitcoin doesn't support it without a hardfork, so prolly never.
Also thats completly different and has not much todo with a colored coin implementation for CN.

I personally see a lot of things on that whitepaper that won't work out and could be heavily improved, there's not even an analysis of the disadvantages those asset transactions would cause, i.e. more transactions, bigger blockchain etc.

[ArticMine]

It appears that is Darkcoin becoming a liquidity leader in the "anonymity" space. Its long term fundamentals don't bode well, but once a strong foothold is taken.....

Darkcoin's Achilles heel remains the centralization inherent in the masternodes. It may come down to whether FINCen in the United States rules that the masternodes are an MSB or not. In reality all it takes is a bona fide intent to set up a Darkcoin masternode and the a request for a ruling to FINCen as indicated here http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/1010.711. My take is that the result of such a ruling would be either very bearish (masternodes are MSBs) or very bullish (masternodes are not MSBs) for Darkcoin.

[dewdeded]

It appears that is Darkcoin becoming a liquidity leader in the "anonymity" space.

I never heard the term "liquidity leader". What are you trying to say?
A long-term(?) leadership in liquidity?!?

Darkcoin's Achilles heel remains the centralization inherent in the masternodes.

There are over 1500 masternodes online. IMHO this rebuts your centralization argument.

My take is that the result of such a ruling would be either very bearish (masternodes are MSBs) or very bullish (masternodes are not MSBs) for Darkcoin.

I wont't value this decision so much. If they rule: MNs = MSBs, very likely fix would be:
no more MN in US datacenters, no more MN in US-owned datacenters, no more MN-admins with US citizenship.
That's all.
(And it could be accomplished very fast: public announcement by project leadership, enforcement of these rules by IP based bans from network for MN).

[nakaone]

It appears that is Darkcoin becoming a liquidity leader in the "anonymity" space.

I never heard the term "liquidity leader". What are you trying to say?
A long-term(?) leadership in liquidity?!?

Time to liquidate it.

 

no seriously - it is a feature rich bitcoin fork with an interesting economic incentive program.

That said I doubt that it plays any significant role in filling the private niche - but I can be wrong and therefore I hedged monero with some darks

[smooth]

I wont't value this decision so much. If they rule: MNs = MSBs, very likely fix would be:
no more MN in US datacenters, no more MN in US-owned datacenters, no more MN-admins with US citizenship.
That's all.
(And it could be accomplished very fast: public announcement by project leadership, enforcement of these rules by IP based bans from network for MN).

I doubt that would work if they continue serving US customers.

[Hueristic]

There are over 1500 masternodes online. IMHO this rebuts your centralization argument.

Sort of like there are just under 7,500 FDIC insured banks in America so they are not centralized?

[ArticMine]

There are over 1500 masternodes online. IMHO this rebuts your centralization argument.

Sort of like there are just under 7,500 FDIC insured banks in America so they are not centralized?

Exactly there are far more banks in the world than Darkcoin masternodes. Furthermore just as in banking case there are minimum capital requirements to set up a Darkcoin masternode.

[oblox]

It appears that is Darkcoin becoming a liquidity leader in the "anonymity" space. Its long term fundamentals don't bode well, but once a strong foothold is taken.....

Darkcoin's Achilles heel remains the centralization inherent in the masternodes. It may come down to whether FINCen in the United States rules that the masternodes are an MSB or not. In reality all it takes is a bona fide intent to set up a Darkcoin masternode and the a request for a ruling to FINCen as indicated here http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/1010.711. My take is that the result of such a ruling would be either very bearish (masternodes are MSBs) or very bullish (masternodes are not MSBs) for Darkcoin.

Just wondering how this would even be a remote possibility when masternodes never hold anyone else's coins (they are mixed intrawallet of the end user). No coins flow through the masternode network, rather, the masternodes function as a means of consensus and finding pairs.

Masternodes do not:

1. Transmit money
2. Provide forex
3. Cash/Convert Money

Thus, by existing definition of the MSB's in the US, they are neither.

[ArticMine]

It appears that is Darkcoin becoming a liquidity leader in the "anonymity" space. Its long term fundamentals don't bode well, but once a strong foothold is taken.....

Darkcoin's Achilles heel remains the centralization inherent in the masternodes. It may come down to whether FINCen in the United States rules that the masternodes are an MSB or not. In reality all it takes is a bona fide intent to set up a Darkcoin masternode and the a request for a ruling to FINCen as indicated here http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/31/1010.711. My take is that the result of such a ruling would be either very bearish (masternodes are MSBs) or very bullish (masternodes are not MSBs) for Darkcoin.

Just wondering how this would even be a remote possibility when masternodes never hold anyone else's coins (they are mixed intrawallet of the end user). No coins flow through the masternode network, rather, the masternodes function as a means of consensus and finding pairs.

Masternodes do not:

1. Transmit money
2. Provide forex
3. Cash/Convert Money

Thus, by existing definition of the MSB's in the US, they are neither.

This case has to be made to FINCen by someone who has a bona fide intent to set up a Darkcoin masternode.

Edit: The case for Darkcoin masternodes being MSB is actually very simple. The facilitate the exchange of one kind of DRK (un mixed) for another kind of DRK (mixed). This process adds value to the DRK of holder. The masternode is compensated for this service. So they are exchanging / converting money.

[luigi1111]

There are over 1500 masternodes online. IMHO this rebuts your centralization argument.

Sort of like there are just under 7,500 FDIC insured banks in America so they are not centralized?

Exactly there are far more banks in the world than Darkcoin masternodes. Furthermore just as in banking case there are minimum capital requirements to set up a Darkcoin masternode.

It's apples to oranges though.

The banks, despite having so many locations, mostly have this central point of failure. You need to be pointing out something similar in Darkcoin to make a fair comparison.
Edit: I'm not saying there aren't comparisons to be made, just that this particular one isn't very worthy.

There are more banks in the world than BTC nodes too.