[XMR] Monero Speculation

[dnaleor]

Are you aware the fluffypony has worked on Electrum?

https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/commits?author=fluffypony

The idea of just copying the source code for Electrum is not viable since the architecture of the underlying coin is quite different, unlike Bitcoin fork coins. Some ideas from Electrum can be applied to Monero lightweight wallets though.

I bet you didn't know that 'spesmilo' is a (now defunct) proposed esperanto currency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spesmilo

The spesmilo (plural spesmiloj) is an obsolete decimal international currency, proposed in 1907 by René de Saussure and used before the First World War by a few British and Swiss banks, primarily the Ĉekbanko esperantista.
The spesmilo was equivalent to one thousand spesoj, and worth 0.733 grams (0.0259 oz) of pure gold (0.8 grams of 22 karat gold), which at the time was about one-half United States dollar, two shillings in Britain, one Russian ruble, or 2½ Swiss francs. On 19 January 2014, that quantity of gold would be worth about $33 U.S. dollars, £22 British pounds, ₽2137 Russian rubles, and SFr 29 Swiss francs./quote]

[jwinterm]

Will Monero get in touch with Ethereum developers, or get the ethereum source code and create a similar lightweight wallet?
....

Looks like a indirect troll post to me.

Oops, what I meant to say was ELECTRUM, not Ethereum.

Fuck, they sound so similar.


So is there any plan to get ELECTRUM lightweight client developers to work on Monero, or copy the source code of it and implement it to Monero so that we can have lightweight clients in Monero?

Ahh, that makes sense.

Many wallet discussions but this thread is soo long they will be tough to find.

There was a thread on reddit about this a day or two ago: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3tb8am/can_a_practical_lightweightmobile_client_be_made/

[obit33]

for anyone still not concerned about privacy/fungibility in bitcoin: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-20/europe-cracks-down-bitcoin-virtual-currencies-curb-terrorism-funding


becuz off course, dollars are never used for such things...

sorry if it's off topic

best regards

[Quicken]

for anyone still not concerned about privacy/fungibility in bitcoin: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-20/europe-cracks-down-bitcoin-virtual-currencies-curb-terrorism-funding


becuz off course, dollars are never used for such things...

sorry if it's off topic

best regards

Maybe some Swiss banks will start offering XMR services. They have a track record on privacy.

[RealBitcoin]

There was a thread on reddit about this a day or two ago: 
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3tb8am/can_a_practical_lightweightmobile_client_be_made/

Yep keep them coming.

Monero is essentially useless for mass adoption without a lightweight client (web wallet is not an option).

If we want financial privacy for the masses then we must make it useable for the masses.

[farfiman]

Maybe some Swiss banks will start offering XMR services. They have a track record on privacy.

They once had. No more.

[iCEBREAKER]

Maybe some Swiss banks will start offering XMR services. They have a track record on privacy.

Maybe they already are, but nobody knows and/or can't prove it.   


Looks like we're at a 6+ month low for volume.  Not much competition for us buyers.

Great time to stack MOAR for CH33P and donate to our all-star team of crypto-bosses.

NobleSir

Code:

4AjCAP7WoojjdydwkgvEyxRfxHNLhxbBz4FeLug5gW4WLJ13VnhXtrW7uk5fcLKUarTVpJtcWxRheUd7etWG9c8VHwA8gFC

TacoTime

Code:

44GBHzv6ZyQdJkjqZje6KLZ3xSyN1hBSFAnLP6EAqJtCRVzMzZmeXTC2AHKDS9aEDTRKmo6a6o9r9j86pYfhCWDkKjbtcns

GingerAle

Code:

46aRPgXEgqf23G2VU5fy4oeKBGpU6uXSv57CkXKrz4EbDwDeh573QQhZYeyjriWAMUhNoBHMUwkGV2A2ppWwAx4JT9HNJ9h

Wolf0

Code:

438gFWUiHY68N4MUMWbgUGXyqGC47eqq65TbiTy4MyL4Fm7aRYHKPBM9aGyNbmeqWvLMC4aUsifgS719Shg38KKa8TZaXG7

General development fund

Code:

46BeWrHpwXmHDpDEUmZBWZfoQpdc6HaERCNmx1pEYL2rAcuwufPN9rXHHtyUA4QVy66qeFQkn6sfK8aHYjA3jk3o1Bv16em

[owm123]

for anyone still not concerned about privacy/fungibility in bitcoin: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-20/europe-cracks-down-bitcoin-virtual-currencies-curb-terrorism-funding


becuz off course, dollars are never used for such things...

sorry if it's off topic

best regards

That's especially interesting, when you consider the fact that bitcoin is not anonymous (http://www.bitcoinisnotanonymous.com/).

[GingerAle]

Maybe some Swiss banks will start offering XMR services. They have a track record on privacy.

Maybe they already are, but nobody knows and/or can't prove it.   

welp, I appreciate the gesture, but again I will put out there that in no official capacity am I associated with monero - I just think the technology is cool and generally want to see civilization advance into the future by using new technological developments.

I also found this interesting - Bitcoin giant BTCC launches priority blockchain transactions

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

there's a bitcointalk thread about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256357.0

I can't decide if this is the natural development of bitcoin's current protocol, or if this is setting a bad precedent. Well, to be honest I think its a bad development. IMO, this is proof that bitcoin is losing its egalitarian nature. If you own 11% of the hash, you can demand a premium. Add on top of this that its impossible to determine whether or not these are mafia tactics...

Furthermore, I speculate whether this type of system will ever have a chance of sprouting in the monero protocol. Our blocks would steadily increase in size during a blockchain DDoS (which I guess is the best name for the recent "stress tests"), so there would be a small window for a premium, but with our 2 minute blocks it would be short.

Finally, I ponder what monero can do in the face of a blockchain DDoS. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that wouldn't be filtering of transactions by pool ops. But I guess after the fact, there could be some outfit that determines which transactions were crap, and could distribute a patch so that blockchain maintainers could "pull out the weeds" from their blockchain by pruning....

[dEBRUYNE]

AMA on Roger Ver's http://forum.bitcoin.com with our core team member Riccardo "fluffypony" Spagni: https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-riccardo-fluffypony-spagni-of-the-monero-core-team-ask-me-anything-t2872.html

[XMRpromotions]

AMA on Roger Ver's http://forum.bitcoin.com with our core team member Riccardo "fluffypony" Spagni: https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-riccardo-fluffypony-spagni-of-the-monero-core-team-ask-me-anything-t2872.html

Nice interview. More of us (including myself) should get more active on that forum

[ArticMine]

Maybe some Swiss banks will start offering XMR services. They have a track record on privacy.

Maybe they already are, but nobody knows and/or can't prove it.    

welp, I appreciate the gesture, but again I will put out there that in no official capacity am I associated with monero - I just think the technology is cool and generally want to see civilization advance into the future by using new technological developments.

I also found this interesting - Bitcoin giant BTCC launches priority blockchain transactions

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

there's a bitcointalk thread about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256357.0

I can't decide if this is the natural development of bitcoin's current protocol, or if this is setting a bad precedent. Well, to be honest I think its a bad development. IMO, this is proof that bitcoin is losing its egalitarian nature. If you own 11% of the hash, you can demand a premium. Add on top of this that its impossible to determine whether or not these are mafia tactics...

Furthermore, I speculate whether this type of system will ever have a chance of sprouting in the monero protocol. Our blocks would steadily increase in size during a blockchain DDoS (which I guess is the best name for the recent "stress tests"), so there would be a small window for a premium, but with our 2 minute blocks it would be short.

Finally, I ponder what monero can do in the face of a blockchain DDoS. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that wouldn't be filtering of transactions by pool ops. But I guess after the fact, there could be some outfit that determines which transactions were crap, and could distribute a patch so that blockchain maintainers could "pull out the weeds" from their blockchain by pruning....

My take is that this kind thing is to be expected in Bitcoin given the fact Bitcoin does not have a solution to the blocksize / fee market issue. It is also indicative of a very serious problem in Bitcoin at a very fundamental level. I hate to say I told you so but this is the reason why I sold the vast majority of my XBT holdings for a combination of XMR and CAD. The fundamental problem Bitcoin faces is how to create a viable adaptive blocksize - fee market in the absence of an emission? It is for this reason, rather than personalities, that a solution to the blocksize problem in Bitcoin has not been found. The only viable solution that is currently working in a POW coin is both adaptive blocksize limits (Cryptonote coins) and tail emission Dodgecoin, Monero, Aeon). In the intersection above I am only aware of Monero and Aeon.

Until a solution to the adaptive blocksize - fee market in the absence of an emission is found I must say that Bitcoin and Bitcoin clones together with Cryptonote coins that do not have have a tail emission will eventually be doomed. What we are witnessing above in Bitcoin may infact be the start of the death spiral.

Edit: A DDoS against the Monero blockchain would the require the attacker to keep paying fees in order to maintain the blocksize at a given level.

[canth]

Edit: A DDoS against the Monero blockchain would the require the attacker to keep paying fees in order to maintain the blocksize at a given level.

I largely agree with your comments - the blocksize debate is not just limited to a simple technicality, it's a question for how Bitcoin can grow without pushing out many users/use cases that can't fit in under a high fee market.

To the point quoted above, how does this work when the attacker is also a large Monero miner. The fees they'd be paying would largely go to themselves, no?

[iCEBREAKER]

I also found this interesting - Bitcoin giant BTCC launches priority blockchain transactions

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

there's a bitcointalk thread about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256357.0

I can't decide if this is the natural development of bitcoin's current protocol, or if this is setting a bad precedent. Well, to be honest I think its a bad development. IMO, this is proof that bitcoin is losing its egalitarian nature. If you own 11% of the hash, you can demand a premium. Add on top of this that its impossible to determine whether or not these are mafia tactics...

Furthermore, I speculate whether this type of system will ever have a chance of sprouting in the monero protocol. Our blocks would steadily increase in size during a blockchain DDoS (which I guess is the best name for the recent "stress tests"), so there would be a small window for a premium, but with our 2 minute blocks it would be short.

Finally, I ponder what monero can do in the face of a blockchain DDoS. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that wouldn't be filtering of transactions by pool ops. But I guess after the fact, there could be some outfit that determines which transactions were crap, and could distribute a patch so that blockchain maintainers could "pull out the weeds" from their blockchain by pruning....

My take is that this kind thing is to be expected in Bitcoin given the fact Bitcoin does not have a solution to the blocksize / fee market issue. It is also indicative of a very serious problem in Bitcoin at a very fundamental level. I hate to say I told you so but this is the reason why I sold the vast majority of my XBT holdings for a combination of XMR and CAD. The fundamental problem Bitcoin faces is how to create a viable adaptive blocksize - fee market in the absence of an emission? It is for this reason, rather than personalities, that a solution to the blocksize problem in Bitcoin has not been found. The only viable solution that is currently working in a POW coin is both adaptive blocksize limits (Cryptonote coins) and tail emission Dodgecoin, Monero, Aeon). In the intersection above I am only aware of Monero and Aeon.

Until a solution to the adaptive blocksize - fee market in the absence of an emission is found I must say that Bitcoin and Bitcoin clones together with Cryptonote coins that do not have have a tail emission will eventually be doomed. What we are witnessing above in Bitcoin may infact be the start of the death spiral.

Edit: A DDoS against the Monero blockchain would the require the attacker to keep paying fees in order to maintain the blocksize at a given level.

AM, pleases note that "fee market" should be plural, as both in- and out-of-band fee markets are needed to efficiently allocate the scarce resources of the network.

All the FUD about BTCC is overblown.  Peter Todd already said RBF makes this mostly a non-issue, and Lightning will make us forget it ever happened.

The Gavinista big block fetishists (having lost their XT node/block/governance war) are just using anything available as a cudgel to beat up on Team Core, no matter how far fetched (because their intended audience is low-information redditards and MBAs, not True Bitcoiners).

[ArticMine]

Edit: A DDoS against the Monero blockchain would the require the attacker to keep paying fees in order to maintain the blocksize at a given level.

I largely agree with your comments - the blocksize debate is not just limited to a simple technicality, it's a question for how Bitcoin can grow without pushing out many users/use cases that can't fit in under a high fee market.

To the point quoted above, how does this work when the attacker is also a large Monero miner. The fees they'd be paying would largely go to themselves, no?

There is still a loss with a miner spamming the network since they would only get their hash rate percent back. If they control say 5% of the hash rate they still have to pay the remaining 95%. In addition the would forgo the legitimate fee revenue and / or still have to pay the block penalty on over size blocks. So it would not be economically advantageous to spam the network. This however is not the case in Bitcoin where it can very advantageous for a miner to spam the network in the current situation of a fixed blocksize limit and close to full blocks. The miner spams the network in order to increase the overall fees against the fixed blocksize limit and can directly profit from this even with a small percentage of the hash rate.  

[GingerAle]

Edit: A DDoS against the Monero blockchain would the require the attacker to keep paying fees in order to maintain the blocksize at a given level.

I largely agree with your comments - the blocksize debate is not just limited to a simple technicality, it's a question for how Bitcoin can grow without pushing out many users/use cases that can't fit in under a high fee market.

To the point quoted above, how does this work when the attacker is also a large Monero miner. The fees they'd be paying would largely go to themselves, no?

that'd be a game of diminishing returns, though. You'd need to have 100% of net hash to secure that the fees are coming back to yourself. And even if some portion, mining has its associated costs (unless botnet). True, the ongoing bitcoin DDoS attacks also have a cost associated with them.

Ultimately, the DDoS against the monero blockchain wouldn't interrupt service or drive the fee up. All it would do is bloat the chain. Hrm.... though it might be possible that a DDoS would work though due to megablock network propagation. E.g., if said attacker had enough monero to ramp the blocksize up to 200 MB, each relay of the block would take 73 seconds (at 3 MB/s, http://techinternets.com/copy_calc?do). Sure, 200 MB is a ridiculous blocksize, and I have no idea how much it would cost to ramp it up to that size... from what I remember of the blocksize algorithm it can take a while.

though it is interesting.... in light of the fact that larger blocks take longer to propagate, miners theoretically have an incentive to publish blocks that are within the transmission capacity of the network. E.g., if the current blocksize is X and I can make a new block with 1.25X (or whatever the max allowed in the protocol is)..

actually, is there a minimum blocksize?   I.e., for the algorithm, is it a moving window or just a moving maximum?

So, say the blocksize has organically (or artificially due to attack) moved to something ridiculous... say, 50 MB. 50 MB takes some time to propagate. Now, a miner can create another 50 MB block *or* create a smaller 1 MB block. I guess the question is effectively whether the lag created by large block propagation would be enough time for a small block maker to get a leg up. Because if the small block maker can pump out more blocks during the large block propagation (and subsequent block finding building on that large block), then there is an incentive for small blocks.

I apologize if that got rambly. I might have thought things and not typed them.

[luigi1111]

Maybe some Swiss banks will start offering XMR services. They have a track record on privacy.

Maybe they already are, but nobody knows and/or can't prove it.   

welp, I appreciate the gesture, but again I will put out there that in no official capacity am I associated with monero - I just think the technology is cool and generally want to see civilization advance into the future by using new technological developments.

I also found this interesting - Bitcoin giant BTCC launches priority blockchain transactions

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

there's a bitcointalk thread about it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1256357.0

I can't decide if this is the natural development of bitcoin's current protocol, or if this is setting a bad precedent. Well, to be honest I think its a bad development. IMO, this is proof that bitcoin is losing its egalitarian nature. If you own 11% of the hash, you can demand a premium. Add on top of this that its impossible to determine whether or not these are mafia tactics...

Furthermore, I speculate whether this type of system will ever have a chance of sprouting in the monero protocol. Our blocks would steadily increase in size during a blockchain DDoS (which I guess is the best name for the recent "stress tests"), so there would be a small window for a premium, but with our 2 minute blocks it would be short.

Finally, I ponder what monero can do in the face of a blockchain DDoS. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that wouldn't be filtering of transactions by pool ops. But I guess after the fact, there could be some outfit that determines which transactions were crap, and could distribute a patch so that blockchain maintainers could "pull out the weeds" from their blockchain by pruning....

It seems like a natural development to me. I don't understand what you mean by "demand a premium"; they are essentially offering discounts to their customers.

It seems like it'd be harder for a Monero pool to offer this service due to stealth addresses. It'd also be harder to set up a spam attack, due to rules on transaction age.

Monero fees are (presently) much higher as well, so such an attack would be quite expensive.

Example: keeping a 1 MB per minute TX rate (10 MB Bitcoin blocksize, 2 MB Monero after fork) would cost 0.01 XMR / KB * 1024 kB / MB = 10.24 XMR / minute, or 14,745.6 XMR / day, which is about 29% more than the block reward at the moment.

For comparison, the last "full" BTC block had around ~0.30 BTC in fees (9xx KB / 10 min). If we x10 that, we get ~3 BTC in fees, or only 12% of the reward.

XMR vs BTC:

~10.75x higher fees as % of reward
~39x higher fees as % of total supply
BTC price is ~833x XMR's, so in USD-priced fees, BTC is still ~21x higher.

One would expect that buying that quantity daily to keep the attack going would significantly affect the (low liquidity) XMR market, making it more expensive each day (but maybe not).

Why do I do these posts?

[ArticMine]

...

AM, pleases not that "fee market" should be plural, as both in- and out-of-band fee markets are needed to efficiently allocate the scarce resources of the network.

All the FUD about BTCC is overblown.  Peter Todd already said RBF makes this mostly a non-issue, and Lightning will make us forget it ever happened.

The Gavinista big block fetishists (having lost their XT node/block/governance war) are just using anything available as a cudgel to beat up on Team Core, no matter how far fetched (because their intended audience is low-information redditards and MBAs, not True Bitcoiners).

Sure. Here is how the out of band market works. The fees in Bitcoin keep rising as growing demand hits the 1 MB blocksize brick wall. When the fees get high enough people start switching to Monero that does not have this problem. Then Monero becomes the dominant coin and the fees in Bitcoin fall as nobody really cares about Bitcoin any more. This is basic economics. If Monero does not step into the opportunity somebody else will. DASH for example cannot be faulted for at least trying.

[GingerAle]

Why do I do these posts?

to talk some sense into my nonsense.

Yes, I misread it. There is no premium, its for their customers. ... those who hold bitcoin at BTCC... so, unless they are using a deterministic style wallet, the premium is the control of your bitcoin.

So, give us your keys, we'll give you faster transaction times.

[ArticMine]

Why do I do these posts?

to talk some sense into my nonsense.

Yes, I misread it. There is no premium, its for their customers. ... those who hold bitcoin at BTCC... so, unless they are using a deterministic style wallet, the premium is the control of your bitcoin.

So, give us your keys, we'll give you faster transaction times.

It is getting even worse than I thought. Bold my emphasis