[XMR] Monero Speculation

[GTO911]

WTF is with these trolls?

I posted to get on Polo for another coin Ive been part of since day 1 that  I'd to see a XMR/VPN pairing and I get this shit.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789961.msg13535318#msg13535318

This looks like a concerted effort to keep the price down. I'm wondering if these P&D groups are accumulating.

HCL is a known troll which hates Monero, maybe you missed it. Add it to you list

[1713299910]

1713299910

[1713299910]

1713299910

[birr]

I stand corrected.  I think the chance of getting one or more double block in a day, including any double that's part of a triple
1 - (1 - .025^2)^1339 =~57%
Using exponents 3 and 1338, you have about a 2% chance of hitting a triple on any given day.

[slapper]

WTF is with these trolls?

I posted to get on Polo for another coin Ive been part of since day 1 that  I'd to see a XMR/VPN pairing and I get this shit.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789961.msg13535318#msg13535318

This looks like a concerted effort to keep the price down. I'm wondering if these P&D groups are accumulating.

Blow me bitch, I haven't held XMR since dec of 2014. Idiot

And how exactly is it going to help your stance? What's next sucking TrueCryptonnaire's wang?

Why not try in r/crymeariver ? Dumbass c*nt

[luigi1111]

I stand corrected.  I think the chance of getting one or more double block in a day, including any double that's part of a triple
1 - (1 - .025^2)^1339 =~57%
Using exponents 3 and 1338, you have about a 2% chance of hitting a triple on any given day.

Now we're on the same page. Though, I don't think it's correct to subtract from the exponent like that, but I could be wrong.

[8XMR]

WTF is with these trolls?

I posted to get on Polo for another coin Ive been part of since day 1 that  I'd to see a XMR/VPN pairing and I get this shit.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=789961.msg13535318#msg13535318

This looks like a concerted effort to keep the price down. I'm wondering if these P&D groups are accumulating.
[/quote

It make no sense attack you since you are known supported of VPN coin. Not only he is a troll, apparently he is not smart one.

I like XMR trade pairings on Poloniex and hope they create more volume in the future.

[birr]

I stand corrected.  I think the chance of getting one or more double block in a day, including any double that's part of a triple
1 - (1 - .025^2)^1339 =~57%
Using exponents 3 and 1338, you have about a 2% chance of hitting a triple on any given day.

Now we're on the same page. Though, I don't think it's correct to subtract from the exponent like that, but I could be wrong.

Let's see if this makes sense.
Consider a group of three consecutive blocks.  
Your chance of winning at least one is
1 - (1 - .025^1)^3
Your chance of winning at least two in a row is
1 - (1 - .025^2)^2
Your chance of winning all three is .025^3, or 1 - (1 - .025^3)^1.
The sum of the exponents is constant.

[aerbax]

Mike Hearn has an interesting new article on some of the failures of Bitcoin...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7

[ArticMine]

Mike Hearn has an interesting new article on some of the failures of Bitcoin...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7

He makes some very valid points and he is of course right about the negative impacts of the 1 MB blocksize. He is also correct in saying the "bloat" is not the issue, in fact the small blocksize in Bitcoin may have led to the massive concentration of the Bitcoin hash rate in China effectively allowing the Government of China to control Bitcoin. On the other hand I do not agree at all with the criticism of people such as Gregory Maxwell, who I must say has also made many very valid points on the matter of scaling Bitcoin. The simple reality is that the Bytecoin solution of adaptive blocksize limits without a tail emission is also a prescription for disaster.

The problem with Bitcoin is that nobody has found and it may well be impossible to find a way to develop a fee market, in the, absence of a block subsidy, that does not over time converge to one of two undesirable results: Fixed blocksize and infinite fees or infinite blocksize and zero fees. Mike Hearn has made a very persuasive argument as to why a fixed blocksize and infinite fees is such an undesirable outcome; however I am sure that Gregory Maxwell can make an equally persuasive argument as to why an infinite blocksize and zero fees is an equally undesirable outcome.

Maybe the real reason why there has not been a solution to Bitcoin blocksize debate is that a solution may in fact not be possible, if one keeps the 21,000,000 maximum number of XBT limit in place, rather than because of the personalities involved.

So in all of this where does Monero stand? Well Monero is the highest capitalization coin that has solved this problem in a pure proof of work coin. My philosophy on this is that when one takes care of the long term the short term will take care of itself. On the other hand focus on the short term and expect grief over the long term. Monero has taken care of the long term, unfortunately Bitcoin and for that matter most other crypto currencies have not.

[tifozi]

Mike Hearn has an interesting new article on some of the failures of Bitcoin...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7

He makes some very valid points and he is of course right about the negative impacts of the 1 MB blocksize. He is also correct in saying the "bloat" is not the issue, in fact the small blocksize in Bitcoin may have led to the massive concentration of the Bitcoin hash rate in China effectively allowing the Government of China to control Bitcoin. On the other hand I do not agree at all with the criticism of people such as Gregory Maxwell, who I must say has also made many very valid points on the matter of scaling Bitcoin. The simple reality is that the Bytecoin solution of adaptive blocksize limits without a tail emission is also a prescription for disaster.

The problem with Bitcoin is that nobody has found and it may well be impossible to find a way to develop a fee market, in the, absence of a block subsidy, that does not over time converge to one of two undesirable results: Fixed blocksize and infinite fees or infinite blocksize and zero fees. Mike Hearn has made a very persuasive argument as to why a fixed blocksize and infinite fees is such an undesirable outcome; however I am sure that Gregory Maxwell can make an equally persuasive argument as to why an infinite blocksize and zero fees is an equally undesirable outcome.

Maybe the real reason why there has not been a solution to Bitcoin blocksize debate is that a solution may in fact not be possible, if one keeps the 21,000,000 maximum number of XBT limit in place, rather than because of the personalities involved.

So in all of this where does Monero stand? Well Monero is the highest capitalization coin that has solved this problem in a pure proof of work coin. My philosophy on this is that when one takes care of the long term the short term will take care of itself. On the other hand focus on the short term and expect grief over the long term. Monero has taken care of the long term, unfortunately Bitcoin and for that matter most other crypto currencies have not.

Excellent insight. The problem of hash concentration could still be something that needs to be smartly tackled. Otherwise XMR has got some pretty solid design for a crypto currency. I am a big believer in PoW but hash concentration is a potential problem (down the road)

On the markets, seeing some minor positive action even at this hour for a change.

[ArticMine]

...
Excellent insight. The problem of hash concentration could still be something that needs to be smartly tackled. Otherwise XMR has got some pretty solid design for a crypto currency. I am a big believer in PoW but hash concentration is a potential problem (down the road)

On the markets, seeing some minor positive action even at this hour for a change.

The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet.

Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked.

Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.

[primer-]

Beginning of the end of monero..
https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/01/15/privacy-on-the-blockchain/

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Beginning of the end of monero..
https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/01/15/privacy-on-the-blockchain/

An article about privacy that mentions ring signatures being "promising tech." How exactly does that mean "the beginning of the end" for Monero? Because Vitalik wrote the article?

Don't worry. He still has to implement his 12 second block times and secure proof-of-stake model, first 

[iCEBREAKER]

The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet.

Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked.

Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.

Miner concentration in China is the result of market forces, and not any more of a "problem" than developer concentration in California.

China may become XMR's biggest market, so it would be great if you stopped emulating Hearn's Sinophobia.

The Yellow Peril stuff was funny when Hearn did it in his recent Opus, immediately before walking out on Bitcoin like a spurned lover being told "Sorry, not tonight dear."

But if you're going to hang around for a while, I'd appreciate you not insulting/offending/alienating citizens of the world's largest economy.

[smooth]

The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet.

Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked.

Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.

Miner concentration in China is the result of market forces, and not any more of a "problem" than developer concentration in California.

Those market forces include the block size limit.

[iCEBREAKER]

Beginning of the end of monero..
https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/01/15/privacy-on-the-blockchain/

An article about privacy that mentions ring signatures being "promising tech." How exactly does that mean "the beginning of the end" for Monero? Because Vitalik wrote the article?

Don't worry. He still has to implement his 12 second block times and secure proof-of-stake model, first 

Don't worry.  ETH still has plenty of funding left, since they were so parsimonious in their expenditures.  xD

[ol92]

Beginning of the end of monero..
https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/01/15/privacy-on-the-blockchain/

The inverse may be true : increasing awareness of privacy problems with bitcoin, and mention of ring signatures as a good solution --> free advertising for monero

[GreekBitcoin]

Beginning of the end of monero..
https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/01/15/privacy-on-the-blockchain/

Wasnt Darkflarb implementing ring signatures too?

[primer-]

DASH doing great too, 0.0090.
Retarded developers ruined Monero.. Such a shame..

[dEBRUYNE]

DASH doing great too, 0.0090.
Retarded developers ruined Monero.. Such a shame..

Ruined how exactly?

[smooth]

One post containing only an insult and no content was removed

DASH doing great too, 0.0090.
Retarded developers ruined Monero.. Such a shame..

haha you're pretty funny for an asshole