[XMR] Monero Speculation

[ArticMine]

btw are there any insights regarding the conferences in europe someone wants to share?

It looks like fluffy is getting himself busy: http://search.bitcoin-assets.com/?q=monero

good to have MP onboard.

Is it a good thing to have MP on board? It seems pretty clear that Satoshi intended for larger blocks to come back (apparently original block size was 32 MB in bitcoin), and MP and his acolytes have been trolling hard to prevent any change and keep 1 MB blocks. XMR devs have committed to changing the code to add infinite inflation, 1% a year I think; is it unreasonable to think he would be virulently opposed to a significant change like this in Monero, even though it's essentially already agreed upon? Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing he if he is a Monero holder/supporter, just that maybe could be more trouble than it's worth...

Monero has adaptive blocksize limits which means there is no fixed 1MB (or some other size) blocksize cast in stone as in the case not only with Bitcoin but also with the vast majority of alt-coins. This is the reason why I found out about Monero in the first place and one of the reasons why I am a strong supporter of Monero.

Edit: Forking Monero to add fixed blocksize limits would be a huge violation of the social covenant.

[Hueristic]

0.0018 in 3,2,1...

Ready?

More Like 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1....

Yes, 0.00189 and another tipical Polo trap.

Sorry, i was wrong.

Wat? If I had a sock account it would be you. Why do you keep quoting me and proving me correct? Do you even understand what 3,2,1 countdown means?

Here let me re-quote more of this post for you from a month ago.

0.0018 in 3,2,1...

Ready?

More Like 10,9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1....


OK, So I still think we can expect .002 - .0018 to be the low before a big upswing back above .003+.  What I'm not sure on is the time frame.

...

[jwinterm]

Is it a good thing to have MP on board? It seems pretty clear that Satoshi intended for larger blocks to come back (apparently original block size was 32 MB in bitcoin), and MP and his acolytes have been trolling hard to prevent any change and keep 1 MB blocks. XMR devs have committed to changing the code to add infinite inflation, 1% a year I think; is it unreasonable to think he would be virulently opposed to a significant change like this in Monero, even though it's essentially already agreed upon? Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing he if he is a Monero holder/supporter, just that maybe could be more trouble than it's worth...

Satoshi is gone, heres what the current devs say about it: https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/379ce5/the_lightning_network_requires_blocks_larger_than/crkspgl

Peter Todd is a developer. __The__ developer says that 20 MB blocks should be implemented in ~1 year, and I believe has already made public the code in a github repo. Also, I think it was pretty clear from some of satoshi's writing that 1 MB blocks were a temporary measure to combat spam, and he was considering (re-)raising the limit back in 2010: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 (he's even going to send out an alert telling people to update, just wait and see). Anyway, my point was that I'm not a fan of the tactics employed by Mircea Poopoo and his entourage in attempting to derail the increase in Bitcoin block size, what peripheral devs think not withstanding.

Also, I know Monero has adaptive block size. I was commenting that Monero still needs to hard fork to implement permanent inflation rewards, and that maybe MP will be bellyache/troll similar to how he has over increasing bitcoin block size. It's kind of a scarcity issue along the same lines I think.

[kazuki49]

Also, I know Monero has adaptive block size. I was commenting that Monero still needs to hard fork to implement permanent inflation rewards, and that maybe MP will be bellyache/troll similar to how he has over increasing bitcoin block size. It's kind of a scarcity issue along the same lines I think.

The inflation rewards are already in the code, no hardfork needed. This was always said to take place in the future. I dont think MP supports Monero (only him could say that), I merely pointed the link to an irc chatroom log.

[ArticMine]

Is it a good thing to have MP on board? It seems pretty clear that Satoshi intended for larger blocks to come back (apparently original block size was 32 MB in bitcoin), and MP and his acolytes have been trolling hard to prevent any change and keep 1 MB blocks. XMR devs have committed to changing the code to add infinite inflation, 1% a year I think; is it unreasonable to think he would be virulently opposed to a significant change like this in Monero, even though it's essentially already agreed upon? Not saying it's necessarily a bad thing he if he is a Monero holder/supporter, just that maybe could be more trouble than it's worth...

Satoshi is gone, heres what the current devs say about it: https://np.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/379ce5/the_lightning_network_requires_blocks_larger_than/crkspgl

Peter Todd is a developer. __The__ developer says that 20 MB blocks should be implemented in ~1 year, and I believe has already made public the code in a github repo. Also, I think it was pretty clear from some of satoshi's writing that 1 MB blocks were a temporary measure to combat spam, and he was considering (re-)raising the limit back in 2010: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 (he's even going to send out an alert telling people to update, just wait and see). Anyway, my point was that I'm not a fan of the tactics employed by Mircea Poopoo and his entourage in attempting to derail the increase in Bitcoin block size, what peripheral devs think not withstanding.

Also, I know Monero has adaptive block size. I was commenting that Monero still needs to hard fork to implement permanent inflation rewards, and that maybe MP will be bellyache/troll similar to how he has over increasing bitcoin block size. It's kind of a scarcity issue along the same lines I think.

I love these old threads. Two years since I brought the thread back from the dead by quoting satoshi and still nothing!

[kazuki49]

I love these old threads. Two years since I brought the thread back from the dead by quoting satoshi and still nothing!

I like the prophetic:

If we upgrade now, we don't have to convince as much people later if the bitcoin economy continues to grow.

A warning to Monero today! It better do all hardforks necessary ASASAP (as soon and as safe as possible)

[jwinterm]

Also, I know Monero has adaptive block size. I was commenting that Monero still needs to hard fork to implement permanent inflation rewards, and that maybe MP will be bellyache/troll similar to how he has over increasing bitcoin block size. It's kind of a scarcity issue along the same lines I think.

The inflation rewards are already in the code, no hardfork needed. This was always said to take place in the future. I dont think MP supports Monero (only him could say that), I merely pointed the link to an irc chatroom log.

Ohyea, I see where it is used:
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/master/src/cryptonote_core/cryptonote_basic_impl.cpp#L63

And defined as 0.3 XMR:
https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/master/src/cryptonote_config.h#L54

[GingerAle]

I love these old threads. Two years since I brought the thread back from the dead by quoting satoshi and still nothing!

I like the prophetic:

If we upgrade now, we don't have to convince as much people later if the bitcoin economy continues to grow.

A warning to Monero today! It better do all hardforks necessary ASASAP (as soon and as safe as possible)

yeah, which is why I started this thread:

https://forum.getmonero.org/6/ideas/301/other-numbers-that-could-be-adaptive-in-order-to-prevent-network-failure-in-the-future-when-politics-of-a-dominant-blockchain-prohibit-modification

another prophetic gem from that historic post:

"I agree, especially since generators are both the source of blocks and "votes" in the network.  Since a block restriction would allow generators to charge higher transaction fees, they might "vote" against an increase in the max size in the future.

It seems unlikely to be a real problem though."

[cAPSLOCK]

It was interesting to me how the volume and volatility just evaporated during the BCT "social engineering attack".  Whatever the *%*& that was.

[shmadz]

i tried it, worked well.
unfortunately they send with mixing 0, rest worked fine for me. sometimes the price they offer is not so good, sometimes its better than on the exchange.

Hmm, I haven't tried it myself, but I could've sworn that I read Shapeshift uses mixin 3 now. I thought it was on reddit, but not seeing it now. Did you try within the last week or two, or longer ago than that?

They set it back to zero because of some problems with dust outputs or something. I don't know who received that message, but if you read this, please come and elaborate more on this matter (or perhaps shapeshift itself could elaborate?).

Just fyi,
I just tried shapeshift, (I just can't say no to +500 xmr/btc) - the transaction was done with mixin = 1

Looks completely obfuscated to me, but I'm really only starting to experiment with Monero transactions.

[GingerAle]

i tried it, worked well.
unfortunately they send with mixing 0, rest worked fine for me. sometimes the price they offer is not so good, sometimes its better than on the exchange.

Hmm, I haven't tried it myself, but I could've sworn that I read Shapeshift uses mixin 3 now. I thought it was on reddit, but not seeing it now. Did you try within the last week or two, or longer ago than that?

They set it back to zero because of some problems with dust outputs or something. I don't know who received that message, but if you read this, please come and elaborate more on this matter (or perhaps shapeshift itself could elaborate?).

Just fyi,
I just tried shapeshift, (I just can't say no to +500 xmr/btc) - the transaction was done with mixin = 1

Looks completely obfuscated to me, but I'm really only starting to experiment with Monero transactions.

I just looked through my IRC log, and I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like the lowered mixins have to do with too many support tickets cropping up because the wallet software gets messed up with random huge transactions due to "not enough outputs to mix". So, my interpretation is that for personal use, you could fix this kind of error just by retrying with different send amounts etc, but with an automated system (like shapeshift) it doesn't work as well.

In general, I think this phenomenon is on the to do list, wherein the codebase will be modified such that any output can be utilized for a ring signature, as opposed to just unspent outputs. This has the effect of increasing the total number of available outputs for inclusion in the ring signature. This was in one of our podcasts somewhere.

[equipoise]

i tried it, worked well.
unfortunately they send with mixing 0, rest worked fine for me. sometimes the price they offer is not so good, sometimes its better than on the exchange.

Hmm, I haven't tried it myself, but I could've sworn that I read Shapeshift uses mixin 3 now. I thought it was on reddit, but not seeing it now. Did you try within the last week or two, or longer ago than that?

They set it back to zero because of some problems with dust outputs or something. I don't know who received that message, but if you read this, please come and elaborate more on this matter (or perhaps shapeshift itself could elaborate?).

Just fyi,
I just tried shapeshift, (I just can't say no to +500 xmr/btc) - the transaction was done with mixin = 1

Looks completely obfuscated to me, but I'm really only starting to experiment with Monero transactions.

I just looked through my IRC log, and I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like the lowered mixins have to do with too many support tickets cropping up because the wallet software gets messed up with random huge transactions due to "not enough outputs to mix". So, my interpretation is that for personal use, you could fix this kind of error just by retrying with different send amounts etc, but with an automated system (like shapeshift) it doesn't work as well.

In general, I think this phenomenon is on the to do list, wherein the codebase will be modified such that any output can be utilized for a ring signature, as opposed to just unspent outputs. This has the effect of increasing the total number of available outputs for inclusion in the ring signature. This was in one of our podcasts somewhere.

A workaround for shapeshift could be: 1) receive/send with two digits XMR precision + 2) regularly/automatically consolidating amounts between two hot wallets. 2) could help poloniex with the same issue, but I'm not sure they'll want to enforce 1) (one more mining directly to polo problem). 

[binaryFate]

i tried it, worked well.
unfortunately they send with mixing 0, rest worked fine for me. sometimes the price they offer is not so good, sometimes its better than on the exchange.

Hmm, I haven't tried it myself, but I could've sworn that I read Shapeshift uses mixin 3 now. I thought it was on reddit, but not seeing it now. Did you try within the last week or two, or longer ago than that?

They set it back to zero because of some problems with dust outputs or something. I don't know who received that message, but if you read this, please come and elaborate more on this matter (or perhaps shapeshift itself could elaborate?).

Just fyi,
I just tried shapeshift, (I just can't say no to +500 xmr/btc) - the transaction was done with mixin = 1

Looks completely obfuscated to me, but I'm really only starting to experiment with Monero transactions.

I just looked through my IRC log, and I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like the lowered mixins have to do with too many support tickets cropping up because the wallet software gets messed up with random huge transactions due to "not enough outputs to mix". So, my interpretation is that for personal use, you could fix this kind of error just by retrying with different send amounts etc, but with an automated system (like shapeshift) it doesn't work as well.

In general, I think this phenomenon is on the to do list, wherein the codebase will be modified such that any output can be utilized for a ring signature, as opposed to just unspent outputs. This has the effect of increasing the total number of available outputs for inclusion in the ring signature. This was in one of our podcasts somewhere.

A workaround for shapeshift could be: 1) receive/send with two digits XMR precision + 2) regularly/automatically consolidating amounts between two hot wallets. 2) could help poloniex with the same issue, but I'm not sure they'll want to enforce 1) (one more mining directly to polo problem). 

You can't stricly enforce 1), people can make mistakes, or they can decide to "bloat" your wallet maliciously.

[rpietila]

I found the meetup in Berlin quite productive. It was actually the only physical gathering ever with 3 largest CK(G) holders present and able to discuss both the immediate and the most long-term strategies for the game, in depth without interruption. The public meeting also proved to increase the understanding among the key principals, and yes - some smallholders and newcomers were present as well

(For me the goals for attending the meeting were mostly interaction with people I already know, and they were fulfilled nicely)

[equipoise]

i tried it, worked well.
unfortunately they send with mixing 0, rest worked fine for me. sometimes the price they offer is not so good, sometimes its better than on the exchange.

Hmm, I haven't tried it myself, but I could've sworn that I read Shapeshift uses mixin 3 now. I thought it was on reddit, but not seeing it now. Did you try within the last week or two, or longer ago than that?

They set it back to zero because of some problems with dust outputs or something. I don't know who received that message, but if you read this, please come and elaborate more on this matter (or perhaps shapeshift itself could elaborate?).

Just fyi,
I just tried shapeshift, (I just can't say no to +500 xmr/btc) - the transaction was done with mixin = 1

Looks completely obfuscated to me, but I'm really only starting to experiment with Monero transactions.

I just looked through my IRC log, and I'm not entirely sure, but it looks like the lowered mixins have to do with too many support tickets cropping up because the wallet software gets messed up with random huge transactions due to "not enough outputs to mix". So, my interpretation is that for personal use, you could fix this kind of error just by retrying with different send amounts etc, but with an automated system (like shapeshift) it doesn't work as well.

In general, I think this phenomenon is on the to do list, wherein the codebase will be modified such that any output can be utilized for a ring signature, as opposed to just unspent outputs. This has the effect of increasing the total number of available outputs for inclusion in the ring signature. This was in one of our podcasts somewhere.

A workaround for shapeshift could be: 1) receive/send with two digits XMR precision + 2) regularly/automatically consolidating amounts between two hot wallets. 2) could help poloniex with the same issue, but I'm not sure they'll want to enforce 1) (one more mining directly to polo problem). 

You can't stricly enforce 1), people can make mistakes, or they can decide to "bloat" your wallet maliciously.

They could round down to the second digit and then also subtract 0.01 or 0.02 XMR (wallet consolidation fee) from each deposit. This way they'll be able to keep the withdraw fee the same or even lower it while increasing the mixin to 3-10 for withdraws. Wallet consolidation fee may also discourage mining directly to the exchange. Whoever decide to ""bloat" your wallet maliciously" would pay the fee to consolidate it again. Could they possibly (legally?) enforce that?

[Hueristic]

XMR added.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/bitcoin-price-ticker/?src=api

[medusa13]

am i the only one that feels that the 25k daily limit on polo may slow down monero's growth?
why should somone bet on 10 dollar monero prices if they wont be able to cash out quick enough. I am sure not the only one that feels uncomfortable with the situation, no?
not that i think it will happen tomorrow, but still.

yes, 25k is a lot, i agree, it's a lot for me too. nevertheless the situation might happen where one wants to withdrawl more and quicker.
same goes for marketmakers and fake wall makers. the market just wont be the same like that...

did you hear anything about another exchange? please feed me with the newest rumours!
a big OTC market maybe would do it too for the moment. should check out the OTC chanell on freenode, never been there.

we have to talk about this. Its sure not the desired situation to have the only liquid xmr market on an exchange where you need to register.

maybe this is not the right place, but the whole topic surely affects price/volume/market sentiment

[vokain]

am i the only one that feels that the 25k daily limit on polo may slow down monero's growth?
why should somone bet on 10 dollar monero prices if they wont be able to cash out quick enough. I am sure not the only one that feels uncomfortable with the situation, no?
not that i think it will happen tomorrow, but still.

yes, 25k is a lot, i agree, it's a lot for me too. nevertheless the situation might happen where one wants to withdrawl more and quicker.
same goes for marketmakers and fake wall makers. the market just wont be the same like that...

did you hear anything about another exchange? please feed me with the newest rumours!
a big OTC market maybe would do it too for the moment. should check out the OTC chanell on freenode, never been there.

we have to talk about this. Its sure not the desired situation to have the only liquid xmr market on an exchange where you need to register.

maybe this is not the right place, but the whole topic surely affects price/volume/market sentiment

If the limits are too limiting, bring it up with support. They're flexible given due circumstances.

[medusa13]

am i the only one that feels that the 25k daily limit on polo may slow down monero's growth?
why should somone bet on 10 dollar monero prices if they wont be able to cash out quick enough. I am sure not the only one that feels uncomfortable with the situation, no?
not that i think it will happen tomorrow, but still.

yes, 25k is a lot, i agree, it's a lot for me too. nevertheless the situation might happen where one wants to withdrawl more and quicker.
same goes for marketmakers and fake wall makers. the market just wont be the same like that...

did you hear anything about another exchange? please feed me with the newest rumours!
a big OTC market maybe would do it too for the moment. should check out the OTC chanell on freenode, never been there.

we have to talk about this. Its sure not the desired situation to have the only liquid xmr market on an exchange where you need to register.

maybe this is not the right place, but the whole topic surely affects price/volume/market sentiment

If the limits are too limiting, bring it up with support. They're flexible given due circumstances.

i allready asked this question. they said to me the limit is the maximum, they said it's not possible to raise it because its part of the law they are following.
in the past, limits could've always been raised, but this was before this all happend..

[dEBRUYNE]

am i the only one that feels that the 25k daily limit on polo may slow down monero's growth?
why should somone bet on 10 dollar monero prices if they wont be able to cash out quick enough. I am sure not the only one that feels uncomfortable with the situation, no?
not that i think it will happen tomorrow, but still.

yes, 25k is a lot, i agree, it's a lot for me too. nevertheless the situation might happen where one wants to withdrawl more and quicker.
same goes for marketmakers and fake wall makers. the market just wont be the same like that...

did you hear anything about another exchange? please feed me with the newest rumours!
a big OTC market maybe would do it too for the moment. should check out the OTC chanell on freenode, never been there.

we have to talk about this. Its sure not the desired situation to have the only liquid xmr market on an exchange where you need to register.

maybe this is not the right place, but the whole topic surely affects price/volume/market sentiment

If the limits are too limiting, bring it up with support. They're flexible given due circumstances.

i allready asked this question. they said to me the limit is the maximum, they said it's not possible to raise it because its part of the law they are following.
in the past, limits could've always been raised, but this was before this all happend..

It's 25k per 24 hours, so within 25 hours you can get 50k USD out, which is approximately 110k of Monero given current prices. In my opinion this is sufficient, since it was estimated by rpietila that there are only around 8 holders with over 100k (reference -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=702140.msg11031502#msg11031502). Furthermore, by the time Monero is worth a lot more (e.g. 10$ like you stated) there will probably be better options to unlimitedly cash out. I don't think we should really worry about this, it could also be an advantage that we have a legitimate exchange (or atleast one that complies) with the biggest volume. Don't forget that Cryptsy and Bittrex are also in the USA, so they probably have to implement these kind of limitations and rules as well (I don't know this for sure though, I don't know the precise US law regarding this and also don't have a reliable source).