[XMR] Monero Speculation

[ArticMine]

The likely result is transaction fees would go down to zero. So now how do you secure the net work in the absence of an emission?

The block reward subsidizes all transactions until it doesn't.

Then you pay to play. Maybe the miners include your transaction and maybe they don't. If they don't, then you offer a higher transaction fee. What's the issue?

The issue is that competition among the miners will drive the price down to zero since there is no longer scarcity in the blocksize, This effectively eliminates the difficulty in POW since there is no economic incentive to mine. The small block crowd do make a valid point here.

Edit: With no blocksize limit and no emission it is to the advantage of a miner to include all transactions regardless of fee price.

[1714677058]

1714677058

[1714677058]

1714677058

[1714677058]

1714677058

[1714677058]

1714677058

[iCEBREAKER]

I'm glad to see you no longer pushing your fake 'all-or-nothing' version of the substitution effect.  That's progress I can work with.

I never have.

My bad, sorry, you did say "When the fees get high enough people start switching" which indicates the marginal cases being phased out.

I was distracted by your violent rhetoric about "hitting a brick wall" and Bitcoin Obituary-type "nobody really cares about Bitcoin any more" speculation.  Again you were right, as in the example of nobody caring about whale oil anymore because of superior substitutes.

Regardless, LN is not an off-chain solution.  Using LN is not like using a bank.  There are no TTPs.  I think of such trustless payment channels as Layer 0.9 (when they are settled they become part of Layer 1).  It's just a write cache; surely you know how those work.

To be honest, I find your reasoning by analogy (involving a lecture about the history of cybernetics, which I don't really need, having also been alive in the era of punch cards and educated in the intellectual progression from Babbage and Lovelace on through Shannon/Wiener/Turing/VonNeumann/Vannevar Bush and finally to Don Knuth, Bill Joy, and Francis Heylighen) to be the opposite of persuasive.

Even worse is your conflation of the hard work of doing the engineering with lazy analogies and argumentum ad Newegg ('zomg cheap storage').  I've terminated more than a few SCSI chains and read StorageReview, so don't try the 'get off my lawn' stuff with me!   

I've copied floppies; my first HD was 120MB (yes MB not GB).  My last one was 2TB.  But I still realize Moore's Law and its analogues are not really laws, just observations that will ultimately succumb to the law of diminishing returns because of physics (if not sooner because of politics).

I have done the engineering. Please see this link. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg. This is a picture taken during my lifetime. Now try to run the current VISA network using punched cards and tabulating machines. Credit cards existed before this picture was taken.

If they are using LN or some other off chain solution there are using some kind of bank by another name.
If they are using a side chain they are using an alt-coin by another name

In both the above cases there remain the serious security issues that smooth has mentioned in a prior post, in particular how do you secure the Bitcoin main chain. So my solution was to move from Bitcoin to a combination of XMR and CAD. I have both the solutions above. The "sidechain" XMR and the "bank" CAD.

Of course if you want a higher TX priority you have to pay for it. In a normal market It also means that if people offer to pay more for TXs they get an increase in supply of TXs. It is here where Monero TXs behave as a normal market. If there is an increase in demand, leading to an increase price it results this in an increase is supply. With Bitcoin TXs no matter how much the demand and price increase there is no increase in supply, and therein lies the fatal flaw in the Bitcoin TX market and by extension in Bitcoin itself.

The whole point of Bitcoin was to replace the bank for certain transactions, not to create a "better" bank so davout is dead wrong here.

Bitcoin is by design a settlement system, so Davout is exactly right.  There was never any real chance of everybody on Earth wantonly writing to the Holy Ledger all the time, for all eternity, every time a coffee or bus ticket is purchased.

They guy who played Riker to Satoshi's Picard told us that years ago:

"I believe this will be the ultimate fate of Bitcoin, to be the "high-powered money" that serves as a reserve currency for banks that issue their own digital cash." Hal Finney, Dec. 2010

The problem is you don't misunderstand how Lightning and sidechains work, thus making flawed conclusions based on false premises.  There are type mismatch errors in your mental code.  Hint: sidechains != alt chains.

I sincerely urge you to forget everything you think you know about LN/SC (especially the bits related to punch cards) and relearn the topics with fresh, unjaundiced eyes.  It took me a while to stop 'fighting features' and come around to the ideas, but I have and as a result of that deep due diligence am more optimistic about BTC's future than ever before.

It's great you're so enthused about Monero, but even our core devs don't share your 'Monero will replace Bitcoin, Because Blocksize' POV.

Please consider diversifying some of those CAD into a few BTC.  I hate seeing a fellow Mustang go long fiat!   

[jehst]

The likely result is transaction fees would go down to zero. So now how do you secure the net work in the absence of an emission?

The block reward subsidizes all transactions until it doesn't.

Then you pay to play. Maybe the miners include your transaction and maybe they don't. If they don't, then you offer a higher transaction fee. What's the issue?

The issue is that competition among the miners will drive the price down to zero since there is no longer scarcity in the blocksize, This effectively eliminates the difficulty in POW since there is no economic incentive to mine. The small block crowd do make a valid point here.

Edit: With no blocksize limit and no emission it is to the advantage of a miner to include all transactions regardless of fee price.

With no block reward and no blocksize limit, what's the advantage of including transactions that don't offer a transaction fee? What would happen if you just removed the blocksize limit. I want to see it tested. I don't think it'll be as bad as people think.

[iCEBREAKER]

The orthodox bitcoin stance is to eliminate the  block size limit altogether. But it seems that some people have decided to revise that. Making the block size bigger is now seen as the heretical position. Incredible.

The heretical position is trying to pull off a contentious hard fork, in sheer defiance of the fact Bitcoin was build to withstand such attacks by giving every social/technological/economic advantage to its defenders and every disadvantage to its attackers.

That's why our favorite antifragile Honey Badger shrugged off XT's chain fork and Hearn's code fork in the same manner as a bag of sand doesn't react when pounded.

[iCEBREAKER]

We see now see how intractable the blocksize in Bitcoin is. Both sides can make very valid points.

That's a feature, not a bug.  Bitcoin was designed to be not merely ultra-conservative but radically reactionary.

If a control variable in Satoshi's Bitcoin e-cash experiment could be changed with nothing more than social engineering (IE Reddit Army FUD) I would dump every one of mine for fiat.  And by fiat I mean silver, gold, and Monero.   

[iCEBREAKER]

If they are using a side chain they are using an alt-coin by another name

Agree and I haven't seen any proposals for how these are even going to be done well by altcoin standards. The proposals I've seen are merged mining and a closed group of block signers.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We're only at the beginning of the beginning.  Sidechains, CLTV, and two-way pegs are only the primitives and we have no more idea what may be possible with them than the inventors of the transistor could foresee the Sony AIBO and Girls Gone Bitcoin.

[smooth]

If they are using a side chain they are using an alt-coin by another name

Agree and I haven't seen any proposals for how these are even going to be done well by altcoin standards. The proposals I've seen are merged mining and a closed group of block signers.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We're only at the beginning of the beginning.  Sidechains, CLTV, and two-way pegs are only the primitives and we have no more idea what may be possible with them than the inventors of the transistor could foresee the Sony AIBO and Girls Gone Bitcoin.

Oh no doubt. I think 'smart contracts' are the primitive more so than sidechains and two-way pegs though. Smarts contracts will likely be used for many constructions that fit together better than the current half-baked 'let's go raise a $21 million Bitcoin development warchest on this' sidechains white paper. I don't think there is anything wrong with having done that either, I just expect pivoting (Lightning is itself already a bit of a pivot for Blockstream).

[RealBitcoin]

Will monero implement the new BIP that will allow decentralized exchanges?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1248631.0


One day we can see a decentralized, MONERO <> BTC exchange system.

[XMRpromotions]

Will monero implement the new BIP that will allow decentralized exchanges?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1248631.0


One day we can see a decentralized, MONERO <> BTC exchange system.

There are many uses for OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY but I am excited about our existing roadmap:
https://getmonero.org/design-goals/

[smooth]

Will monero implement the new BIP that will allow decentralized exchanges?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1248631.0

One day we can see a decentralized, MONERO <> BTC exchange system.

We have a very limited but similar feature already in that our nLockTime field works differently than the Bitcoin one (and more like CLTV). It isn't very useful without multisig and some other smart contract capabilities though. We're still studying how to integrate those.

Among other approaches we have looked at integrating Automated Transactions (which is available as open source and has been integrated with several other coins already), but none of it really makes sense without all the other pieces being there as well.

[nioc]

I have a BTC -> XMR service ready to go. Soon you will not need to use Shapeshift.io. I anticipate the launch to be within the next 2 weeks.

Prepare for Monerizer.

Is this waiting for the 0.9 release?

[phishead]

It would be great if you could stop pretending Bitcoin's Layer 1 was created (and/or is able) to replace commercial banking, cash, plastic, and Starbucks gift cards while remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.  Please do the engineering.

It's hard to argue that it wasn't created for that when satoshi wrote about things like how to do zeroconf for vending machines:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

Or micropayments becoming practical over time as storage and bandwidth costs fall:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg7687#msg7687

In the subsequent years, some may have realized that isn't the best way to approach things but learning is different from revisionism.

I read something a little while back about M-Pesa being mainly used in Kenya for the beneficial aspect of micro payments... Does any body have any more info on this besides the news articles that 60 minutes briefly did on it?



http://www.cbsnews.com/news/future-of-money-kenya-m-pesa-60-minutes/

[iCEBREAKER]

It would be great if you could stop pretending Bitcoin's Layer 1 was created (and/or is able) to replace commercial banking, cash, plastic, and Starbucks gift cards while remaining diverse/diffuse/defensible/resilient.  Please do the engineering.

It's hard to argue that it wasn't created for that when satoshi wrote about things like how to do zeroconf for vending machines:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=423.msg3819#msg3819

Or micropayments becoming practical over time as storage and bandwidth costs fall:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287.msg7687#msg7687

In the subsequent years, some may have realized that isn't the best way to approach things but learning is different from revisionism.

Yes, I was just making the point that many inventors/innovators have no idea what the world will do with their better mousetraps.

Satoshi said we may have larger blocks eventually.

The trade-offs in terms of decentralization/survivability for moving ~all full nodes to data centers may be acceptable eventually.

That eventuality is not in the near or medium term future; there is zero propensity for it at present.  It only comes after Bitcoin has ensured everyone has benefited "from sane and non-inflationary financial institutions whose sanity and honesty are ensured by the holy blockchain."

Once we slay/neuter the fiat dragon and usher in an era of Cryptopia, I have no problem with most BTC nodes being run in data centers and using 8GB blocks.

Until then, any proposal which endangers Bitcoin's engineering requirement to be above the (crony capitalist) law is a non-starter and absolutely out of the question (absent some genuine emergency).

Sacrificing humanity's last, best hope to (peacefully) overthrow the Fed, BIS, and LBMA for the sake of vending machings is entirely against the social contract.  I didn't sign up just to ensure nobody ever has to wait for their tiny bag of Cool Ranch^® Doritos^®.  

[Quicken]

Heads up guys. XMR just rose to 6th place overall on Coingecko.
https://www.coingecko.com/en
Wait till the 0.9 release...

[farfiman]

Heads up guys. XMR just rose to 6th place overall on Coingecko.
https://www.coingecko.com/en
Wait till the 0.9 release...

Dash is at 7 so.....not impressed....

[smooth]

The likely result is transaction fees would go down to zero. So now how do you secure the net work in the absence of an emission?

The block reward subsidizes all transactions until it doesn't.

Then you pay to play. Maybe the miners include your transaction and maybe they don't. If they don't, then you offer a higher transaction fee. What's the issue?

The issue is that competition among the miners will drive the price down to zero since there is no longer scarcity in the blocksize, This effectively eliminates the difficulty in POW since there is no economic incentive to mine. The small block crowd do make a valid point here.

Edit: With no blocksize limit and no emission it is to the advantage of a miner to include all transactions regardless of fee price.

With no block reward and no blocksize limit, what's the advantage of including transactions that don't offer a transaction fee? What would happen if you just removed the blocksize limit. I want to see it tested. I don't think it'll be as bad as people think.

You likely won't include too many no-fee TXs - bigger block means longer propagation time, in turn meaning more chance of an orphan.

That's exactly what is accounted for in Peter R's math, and it doesn't work. There are many ways to look at why it doesn't work but one way is to recognize that the cost of an orphan comes from the block reward (cost = reward * risk). So without a reward that collapses to zero and this incentive no longer applies. You can work out a more complex model where you already have N transactions in the block (with some fees) and transaction N+1 increases the orphan risk (which is what Peter R did), but you still get the same result. It doesn't work.

EDIT: missing word "and"

[jehst]

That's exactly what is accounted for in Peter R's math, and it doesn't work. There are many ways to look at why it doesn't work but one way is to recognize that the cost of an orphan comes from the block reward (cost = reward * risk). So without a reward that collapses to zero this incentive no longer applies. You can work out a more complex model where you already have N transactions in the block (with some fees) and transaction N+1 increases the orphan risk (which is what Peter R did), but you still get the same result. It doesn't work.

You mean "with a reward that collapses to zero this incentive no longer applies," right?

[smooth]

That's exactly what is accounted for in Peter R's math, and it doesn't work. There are many ways to look at why it doesn't work but one way is to recognize that the cost of an orphan comes from the block reward (cost = reward * risk). So without a reward that collapses to zero this incentive no longer applies. You can work out a more complex model where you already have N transactions in the block (with some fees) and transaction N+1 increases the orphan risk (which is what Peter R did), but you still get the same result. It doesn't work.

You mean "with a reward that collapses to zero this incentive no longer applies," right?

I meant without a reward the cost of orphans collapses to zero. What you wrote applies too of course.

[LucyLovesCrypto]

Will there be another testnet? Or is the next step a tagged release?

[saddambitcoin]

I have a BTC -> XMR service ready to go. Soon you will not need to use Shapeshift.io. I anticipate the launch to be within the next 2 weeks.

Prepare for Monerizer.

Is this waiting for the 0.9 release?

Sorry for the delay. I started refactoring some things, improving the security. Then I got distracted with another project. Now I expect it to take another week or two. Soon™.