Bitcoin Forum
January 20, 2018, 01:55:20 PM *
News: Electrum users must upgrade to 3.0.5 if they haven't already. More info.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 [611] 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 ... 1823 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation  (Read 3079327 times)
This is a self-moderated topic. If you do not want to be moderated by the person who started this topic, create a new topic.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
January 17, 2016, 04:41:54 AM
 #12201

You are starting to sound desperate by coming here.

My only point was to inform the community that Monero is claiming to have fixed things that it has not. Also to see if anyone could point out an error in my analysis.

I don't see how having community discussion is desperate.

I continue to make the point that what ever you might think of me and my plans, that is irrelevant to the point that I made some factual statements.

The continued attacks of me (my person) and on my vaporshit, shitplans, seems more desperate. Better to ignore me entirely right. Or respond to the facts.

Any way, it seems our community is always about fighting. Smoothie you in the past were very focused on truth, but when you don't like the facts, then you don't want to talk about truth and instead want to attack my reputation.

My reputation has nothing to do with any of it. It has nothing to do with whether the facts I explained are correct. It has nothing to do with the outcome of my vaporized shit shit shit. The result of my life will not come from my reputation but from my actions and the serendipity of life.

Okay I think we are done here. I don't expect we can elevate our discussions to a mature level.

1516456520
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516456520

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516456520
Reply with quote  #2

1516456520
Report to moderator
1516456520
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516456520

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516456520
Reply with quote  #2

1516456520
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1516456520
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516456520

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516456520
Reply with quote  #2

1516456520
Report to moderator
1516456520
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1516456520

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1516456520
Reply with quote  #2

1516456520
Report to moderator
NASdaq
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 241


View Profile
January 17, 2016, 06:21:40 AM
 #12202

You are starting to sound desperate by coming here.

My only point was to inform the community that Monero is claiming to have fixed things that it has not. Also to see if anyone could point out an error in my analysis.

I don't see how having community discussion is desperate.

I continue to make the point that what ever you might think of me and my plans, that is irrelevant to the point that I made some factual statements.

The continued attacks of me (my person) and on my vaporshit, shitplans, seems more desperate. Better to ignore me entirely right. Or respond to the facts.

Any way, it seems our community is always about fighting. Smoothie you in the past were very focused on truth, but when you don't like the facts, then you don't want to talk about truth and instead want to attack my reputation.

My reputation has nothing to do with any of it. It has nothing to do with whether the facts I explained are correct. It has nothing to do with the outcome of my vaporized shit shit shit. The result of my life will not come from my reputation but from my actions and the serendipity of life.

Okay I think we are done here. I don't expect we can elevate our discussions to a mature level.

XMR needs to be picked apart by competent people to find faults (if any) so it becomes stronger and less vulnerable to attack.

If TPTB is not competent then people must show that by challenging his points (I'm non-tech, so can't myself)

He does sound desperate too, but that is irrelevant. Desperation is a good thing sometimes, it makes people fight harder.

Quote
“If your enemy is secure at all points, be prepared for him. If he is in superior strength, evade him. If your opponent is temperamental, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. If he is taking his ease, give him no rest. If his forces are united, separate them. If sovereign and subject are in accord, put division between them. Attack him where he is unprepared, appear where you are not expected .”
― Sun Tzu, The Art of War

TPTB is on "desperate ground":

 Ground on which we can only be saved from destruction by fighting without delay, is desperate ground.

Quote
When you have the enemy's strongholds on your rear,  and narrow passes in front, it is hemmed-in ground. When there is no place of refuge at all, it is desperate ground.

Quote
On hemmed-in ground, resort to stratagem.  On desperate ground, fight.

Quote
On desperate ground, I would proclaim to my soldiers the hopelessness of saving their lives.


Quote
The situation, as pictured by Ts‘ao Kung, is very similar to the #, except that here escape is no longer possible: # "A lofty mountain in front, a large river behind, advance impossible, retreat blocked." Ch‘ên Hao says: # "to be on 'desperate ground' is like sitting in a leaking boat or crouching in a burning house." Tu Mu quotes from Li Ching a vivid description of the plight of an army thus entrapped: "Suppose an army invading hostile territory without the aid of local guides:—it falls into a fatal snare and is at the enemy's mercy. A ravine on the left, a mountain on the right, a pathway so perilous that the horses have to be roped together and the chariots carried in slings, no passage open in front, retreat cut off behind, no choice but to proceed in single file (#). Then, before there is time to range our soldiers in order of battle, the enemy in overwhelming strength suddenly appears on the scene. Advancing, we can nowhere take a breathing-space; retreating, we have no haven of refuge. We seek a pitched battle, but in vain; yet standing on the defensive, none of us has a moment's respite. If we simply maintain our ground, whole days and months will crawl by; the moment we make a move, we have to sustain the enemy's attacks on front and rear. The country is wild, destitute of water and plants; the army is lacking in the necessaries of life, the horses are jaded and the men worn-out, all the resources of strength and skill unavailing, the pass so narrow that a single man defending it can check the onset of ten thousand; all means of offence in the hands of the enemy, all points of vantage already forfeited by ourselves:—in this terrible plight, even though we had the most valiant soldiers and the keenest of weapons, how could they be employed with the slightest effect?"
thelibertycap
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 211


View Profile
January 17, 2016, 08:30:12 AM
 #12203

You are starting to sound desperate by coming here.

My only point was to inform the community that Monero is claiming to have fixed things that it has not. Also to see if anyone could point out an error in my analysis.

I don't see how having community discussion is desperate.

I continue to make the point that what ever you might think of me and my plans, that is irrelevant to the point that I made some factual statements.

The continued attacks of me (my person) and on my vaporshit, shitplans, seems more desperate. Better to ignore me entirely right. Or respond to the facts.

Any way, it seems our community is always about fighting. Smoothie you in the past were very focused on truth, but when you don't like the facts, then you don't want to talk about truth and instead want to attack my reputation.

My reputation has nothing to do with any of it. It has nothing to do with whether the facts I explained are correct. It has nothing to do with the outcome of my vaporized shit shit shit. The result of my life will not come from my reputation but from my actions and the serendipity of life.

Okay I think we are done here. I don't expect we can elevate our discussions to a mature level.

With all due respect, your input on these forums has been less and less interesting over time. I am not put off by your nazi speech I am already accustomed to. It is more about the content which is lacking the informational part that worries me.
You have not solved anything until you put your ideas on the table so we can examine. Correct me if I am wrong but you have not published any description of your great solution in depth. However you have written many texts by your all powerful ego claiming basically every coin (especially bitcoin) is flawed and it is only you that got the solution right. I think everybody already got that - there is not much more to add, why waste more time?
Obviously Monero is your favorite coin because it is the best existing tech there is - you should at least admit that.
DonYo
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 409


View Profile
January 17, 2016, 08:39:23 AM
 #12204

You are starting to sound desperate by coming here.

My only point was to inform the community that Monero is claiming to have fixed things that it has not. Also to see if anyone could point out an error in my analysis.

And what's the point of posting it on speculation forum instead of getmonero forum, irc, mail, pm...

Okay I think we are done here. I don't expect we can elevate our discussions to a mature level.

What did you expect? If you want a serious disccusion about dev things you should go to the correct place talk to the dev team and discuss it at dev level.


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
thelibertycap
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 211


View Profile
January 17, 2016, 08:49:55 AM
 #12205

XMR needs to be picked apart by competent people to find faults (if any) so it becomes stronger and less vulnerable to attack.

If TPTB is not competent then people must show that by challenging his points (I'm non-tech, so can't myself)

He is basically claiming you can throw every coin into the trash bin because it is so deeply flawed.
And he can prove it because it is 'true':

Look at bitcoin and it's mining controlled by handful of entities. Micro transactions? Not possible and there have been no elegant solution so far that would solve this or there are other implications of this design that cannot be overcome. Anonymity? You can't have that because TOR is basically a honeypot.
...

This is common knowledge he likes to brag about.

He also brags about how he solved everything in his as he calls it himself vaporcoin.

There is nothing to challenge so far.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
January 17, 2016, 09:08:56 AM
 #12206

Let's try to stay on topic without the need for further message deletions...
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
January 17, 2016, 12:47:41 PM
 #12207

My reply to the above rebuttals to my prior message basically can be summed up in this reply I made in another thread:

[...]

I view Monero and Ethereum in the same light.  I'm sure you would have pointed out bitcoins flaws when it was $10 per coin and said "This will never work." out of some of the same principles you are using now.

I did point out in 2013 exactly how Bitcoin would end up failing, which I said would be game theory of centralization around mining. And I was correct.

I never wrote that Bitcoin would have no utility and in fact I wrote that the utility of Bitcoin was very inspiring. Why do you reckon I am still here in crypto if I didn't think so!

Problem Monero has is that there is very little demand for an anonymity for which the reliability is unprovable. It is a marketing utility problem, which Bitcoin doesn't suffer. Even if we did implement provable anonymity (e.g. Zerocash not Zerocoin), it still not clear if markets for anonymity would be great, especially if the decentralized, permissionless attribute isn't assured, because the government can simply take control over centralized mining and force the anonymity to be stripped off. OTOH, companies are saying that privacy is very important to them and perhaps they do not mean hiding from the NSA. And public block chains using encryption are superior conceptually to private block chains using perimeters defenses because even sneakernets fail (e.g. Stuxnet). But the things corporations want privacy on are the block chain 2.0 features that Ethereum is working on. The corporations aren't interested just in crypto currency alone as that doesn't have much utility to them. Cryptonote (especially combined with Confidential Transactions that hide values) is a very technologically interesting concept, but without any significant utility in the markets.

[...]

That is relevant to "Monero Speculation".

As for rolling up the sleeves and hiding away in development forums and chats, I find I am more productive in coding when I talk to no one. Collaborating on Cryptonote block chain designs isn't very inspiring for me. So what would I talk to your developers about, given they are not going to be interested in talking about rewriting a block chain design from scratch. So the only input I can have is to make speculators aware of the fact that Monero doesn't fix the Tragedy of the Commons around block chain economics & scaling, and also to point out the lack of utility for unprovable anonymity combined with block chain tech which does not have the decentralized, permissionless guarantee.

It is simply that I don't see the point. I have stated numerous times that I think smooth and the other Monero devs are very smart and I love to work with smart devs when attitudes and plans are aligned. I was put off by the condescending attitude of Shen-noether though. It seems that what programmers like to see are programmers talking tech shop and making open source contributions. Well me too!

You don't know me well. There is a huge distinction between trying to form a holistic view of crypto here in the forums and hiding away doing coding. Smooth seems comfortable doing both interleaved (multi-tasking). I don't. When I code, I don't talk. So if you see me talking, I am surely not coding.

As for open source and collaboration, it is highly necessary at some point forward in a project's life. But there is also another point-of-view that says that in some nascent stage it might be more efficient to avoid the communication load especially when in holistic design mode, because it is very slow to communicate all the thoughts in one's brain to another person or especially amongst group. Design by consensus is a very arduous process and not always the best for creativity. OTOH, interacting during design process is very important in order to flesh out ideas. Since I currently don't have any group to work with, I flesh out communication and explanation here in the forums.

This should not be construed as an attempt to belittle your developers and the work that has been put into the open source. Coding requires effort and is expensive in terms of opportunity costs. That is why I argue we need to have a clear design and marketing plan BEFORE we dive into massive coding effort.

ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114


Monero Core Team


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 05:32:49 AM
 #12208

ArticMine PMed me after I wrote that flaming post, and said he would reply after studying my posts. He has not yet replied. Does that mean I am correct and there is no solution for Monero. I think so.

It is fundamental. Afaics, you'd have to completely rewrite Moaneuro. Tongue

Rewrite Monero, is not necessary at all but some documentation on how the Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limits actually work is needed, especially given the formula in section 6.2.3 of the Cryptonote Whitepaper is wrong. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf. My response will come in time.

I will start by examining the Cryptonote Penalty Function for oversize blocks. This is critical to understand any form of spam attack against a Cryptonote coin. From the Cryptonote whitepaper I cited above the penalty function is:

Penalty = BaseReward (BlkSize / MN - 1)2

The new reward is:

NewReward = BaseReward - Penalty

Where MN is the median of the blocksize over the last N blocks
BlkSize is the size of the current block
BaseReward is the reward as per the emission curve or where applicable the tail emission
NewReward is the actual reward paid to the miner
The Maximum allowed blocksize, BlkSize, is 2MN
The penalty is only applied when BlkSize > (1 + Bmin) MN Where 0 < Bmin < 1 In the Cryptonote whitepaper Bmin = 0.1.
 
The error in the Cryptonote Whitepaper was to set NewReward = Penalty

For simplicity I will define:
BlkSize = (1+B) MN
BaseReward = Rbase
Penalty (for a given B) = PB
NewReward (for a given B) = RB

The penalty for a given B becomes:
PB = RbaseB2
While the new reward for a given B becomes:
RB = Rbase(1 - B2)
The first derivative of PB with respect to B is
dPB / dB = 2RbaseB

In order to attack the coin by bloating the blocksize the attacker needs to cause at least over 50% of the miners to mine oversize blocks and for an expedient attack close to 100% or the miners to mine oversize blocks. This attack must be a maintained over a sustained period of time and more importantly must be maintained in order to keep the oversized blocks, since once the attack stops the blocks will fall back to their normal size.  There are essentially two options here:

1) A 51% attack. I am not going to pursue this for obvious reasons.

2) Induce the existing miners to mine oversize blocks. This is actually the more interesting case; however after cost analysis it becomes effectively a rental version of 1 above. Since the rate of change (first derivative) of PB is proportional to B the most effective option for the attacker is to run the attack with B = 1. The cost of the attack has as a lower bound Rbase but would be higher, and proportional to, Rbase  because miners will demand a substantial premium over the base reward to mine the spam blocks due to the increased risk of orphan blocks as the blocksize increases and competition from legitimate users whose cost per KB for transaction fees needed to compete with the attacker will fall as the blocksize increases. The impact on the coin is to stop new coins from being created while the attack is going on. These coins are replaced by the attacker having to buy coins on the open market in order to continue the attack. The impact of this is to further increase the costs to the attacker.

It at this point where we see the critical importance of a tail emission since if Rbase = 0 this attack has zero cost and the tragedy of the commons actually occurs. This is the critical difference between those Cryptonote coins that have a tail emission, and have solved the problem, such as Monero and those that do not, and will in a matter of time become vulnerable, such as Bytecoin.


Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
tifozi
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 06:21:36 AM
 #12209

Code:
0.00118000 66666.00000000 78.66588000 93.90213373
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1904


BCash. LOL


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2016, 06:39:38 AM
 #12210

I will start by examining the Cryptonote Penalty Function for oversize blocks. This is critical to understand any form of spam attack against a Cryptonote coin. From the Cryptonote whitepaper I cited above the penalty function is:

Penalty = BaseReward (BlkSize / MN - 1)2

The new reward is:

NewReward = BaseReward - Penalty

Where MN is the median of the blocksize over the last N blocks
BlkSize is the size of the current block
BaseReward is the reward as per the emission curve or where applicable the tail emission
NewReward is the actual reward paid to the miner
The Maximum allowed blocksize, BlkSize, is 2MN
The penalty is only applied when BlkSize > (1 + Bmin) MN Where 0 < Bmin < 1 In the Cryptonote whitepaper Bmin = 0.1.
 
The error in the Cryptonote Whitepaper was to set NewReward = Penalty

For simplicity I will define:
BlkSize = (1+B) MN
BaseReward = Rbase
Penalty (for a given B) = PB
NewReward (for a given B) = RB

The penalty for a given B becomes:
PB = RbaseB2
While the new reward for a given B becomes:
RB = Rbase(1 - B2)
The first derivative of PB with respect to B is
dPB / dB = 2RbaseB

In order to attack the coin by bloating the blocksize the attacker needs to cause at least over 50% of the miners to mine oversize blocks and for an expedient attack close to 100% or the miners to mine oversize blocks. This attack must be a maintained over a sustained period of time and more importantly must be maintained in order to keep the oversized blocks, since once the attack stops the blocks will fall back to their normal size.  There are essentially two options here:

1) A 51% attack. I am not going to pursue this for obvious reasons.

2) Induce the existing miners to mine oversize blocks. This is actually the more interesting case; however after cost analysis it becomes effectively a rental version of 1 above. Since the rate of change (first derivative) of PB is proportional to B the most effective option for the attacker is to run the attack with B = 1. The cost of the attack has as a lower bound Rbase but would be higher, and proportional to, Rbase  because miners will demand a substantial premium over the base reward to mine the spam blocks due to the increased risk of orphan blocks as the blocksize increases and competition from legitimate users whose cost per KB for transaction fees needed to compete with the attacker will fall as the blocksize increases. The impact on the coin is to stop new coins from being created while the attack is going on. These coins are replaced by the attacker having to buy coins on the open market in order to continue the attack. The impact of this is to further increase the costs to the attacker.

It at this point where we see the critical importance of a tail emission since if Rbase = 0 this attack has zero cost and the tragedy of the commons actually occurs. This is the critical difference between those Cryptonote coins that have a tail emission, and have solved the problem, such as Monero and those that do not, and will in a matter of time become vulnerable, such as Bytecoin.

TYVM for that.

I've been (not really) looking for something to link the "Adaptive Blocksize" part of my sig to, and voila, here it is.

All hail the LazyNet!   Cool


██████████
█████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████████████████████████████
████
████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
████████████████████████████
██████
███████████████████████████
██████
██████████████████████████
█████
███████████████████████████
█████████████
██████████████
████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████
█████████████████
██████████

Monero
"The difference between bad and well-developed digital cash will determine
whether we have a dictatorship or a real democracy." 
David Chaum 1996
"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect."  Adam Back 2014
Buy and sell XMR near you
P2P Exchange Network
Buy XMR with fiat
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2086


LEALANA Monero Physical Silver Coins


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 07:34:50 AM
 #12211

ArticMine PMed me after I wrote that flaming post, and said he would reply after studying my posts. He has not yet replied. Does that mean I am correct and there is no solution for Monero. I think so.

It is fundamental. Afaics, you'd have to completely rewrite Moaneuro. Tongue

Rewrite Monero, is not necessary at all but some documentation on how the Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limits actually work is needed, especially given the formula in section 6.2.3 of the Cryptonote Whitepaper is wrong. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf. My response will come in time.

I will start by examining the Cryptonote Penalty Function for oversize blocks. This is critical to understand any form of spam attack against a Cryptonote coin. From the Cryptonote whitepaper I cited above the penalty function is:

Penalty = BaseReward (BlkSize / MN - 1)2

The new reward is:

NewReward = BaseReward - Penalty

Where MN is the median of the blocksize over the last N blocks
BlkSize is the size of the current block
BaseReward is the reward as per the emission curve or where applicable the tail emission
NewReward is the actual reward paid to the miner
The Maximum allowed blocksize, BlkSize, is 2MN
The penalty is only applied when BlkSize > (1 + Bmin) MN Where 0 < Bmin < 1 In the Cryptonote whitepaper Bmin = 0.1.
 
The error in the Cryptonote Whitepaper was to set NewReward = Penalty

For simplicity I will define:
BlkSize = (1+B) MN
BaseReward = Rbase
Penalty (for a given B) = PB
NewReward (for a given B) = RB

The penalty for a given B becomes:
PB = RbaseB2
While the new reward for a given B becomes:
RB = Rbase(1 - B2)
The first derivative of PB with respect to B is
dPB / dB = 2RbaseB

In order to attack the coin by bloating the blocksize the attacker needs to cause at least over 50% of the miners to mine oversize blocks and for an expedient attack close to 100% or the miners to mine oversize blocks. This attack must be a maintained over a sustained period of time and more importantly must be maintained in order to keep the oversized blocks, since once the attack stops the blocks will fall back to their normal size.  There are essentially two options here:

1) A 51% attack. I am not going to pursue this for obvious reasons.

2) Induce the existing miners to mine oversize blocks. This is actually the more interesting case; however after cost analysis it becomes effectively a rental version of 1 above. Since the rate of change (first derivative) of PB is proportional to B the most effective option for the attacker is to run the attack with B = 1. The cost of the attack has as a lower bound Rbase but would be higher, and proportional to, Rbase  because miners will demand a substantial premium over the base reward to mine the spam blocks due to the increased risk of orphan blocks as the blocksize increases and competition from legitimate users whose cost per KB for transaction fees needed to compete with the attacker will fall as the blocksize increases. The impact on the coin is to stop new coins from being created while the attack is going on. These coins are replaced by the attacker having to buy coins on the open market in order to continue the attack. The impact of this is to further increase the costs to the attacker.

It at this point where we see the critical importance of a tail emission since if Rbase = 0 this attack has zero cost and the tragedy of the commons actually occurs. This is the critical difference between those Cryptonote coins that have a tail emission, and have solved the problem, such as Monero and those that do not, and will in a matter of time become vulnerable, such as Bytecoin.



Nice write up.

And how would you tie this MONERO writeup in contrast to Bitcoin not having a tail emission and what that may imply in the future?

███████████████████████████████████████

            ,╓p@@███████@╗╖,           
        ,p████████████████████N,       
      d█████████████████████████b     
    d██████████████████████████████æ   
  ,████²█████████████████████████████, 
 ,█████  ╙████████████████████╨  █████y
 ██████    `████████████████`    ██████
║██████       Ñ███████████`      ███████
███████         ╩██████Ñ         ███████
███████    ▐▄     ²██╩     a▌    ███████
╢██████    ▐▓█▄          ▄█▓▌    ███████
 ██████    ▐▓▓▓▓▌,     ▄█▓▓▓▌    ██████─
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓█,,▄▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
           ▐▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▌          
    ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓─  
     ²▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓╩    
        ▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀       
           ²▀▀▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▀▀`          
                   ²²²                 
███████████████████████████████████████

. ★☆ WWW.LEALANA.COM        My PGP fingerprint is A764D833.        SMOOTHIE'S HEALTH AND FITNESS JOURNAL          History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA  PHYSICAL MONERO COINS 999 FINE SILVER.
 
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114


Monero Core Team


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 07:51:48 AM
 #12212

...

Nice write up.

And how would you tie this MONERO writeup in contrast to Bitcoin not having a tail emission and what that may imply in the future?

Thanks.

If one tried to apply the Cryptonote adaptive blocksize formula to Bitcoin one would run into the exact same problem as for Bytecoin, and the attack would work. I believe this lies at the heart of the strong opposition to increasing the blocksize in Bitcoin on the part of many of the core Bitcoin developers. They correctly sense this danger. The same would apply to Litecoin, Dash (somewhat more complex in this case but the same principle applies) or similar coins without a tail emission; however it would not apply to Dogecoin since it has a tail emission.

My take on the Bitcoin situation is that the sharp divisions among the developers are due to the fact that a solution has not been found and may in fact not be possible without changing the maximum 21,000,000 XBT hard limit.

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
January 18, 2016, 08:21:13 AM
 #12213

...

Nice write up.

And how would you tie this MONERO writeup in contrast to Bitcoin not having a tail emission and what that may imply in the future?

Thanks.

If one tried to apply the Cryptonote adaptive blocksize formula to Bitcoin one would run into the exact same problem as for Bytecoin, and the attack would work. I believe this lies at the heart of the strong opposition to increasing the blocksize in Bitcoin on the part of many of the core Bitcoin developers. They correctly sense this danger. The same would apply to Litecoin, Dash (somewhat more complex in this case but the same principle applies) or similar coins without a tail emission; however it would not apply to Dogecoin since it has a tail emission.

My take on the Bitcoin situation is that the sharp divisions among the developers are due to the fact that a solution has not been found and may in fact not be possible without changing the maximum 21,000,000 XBT hard limit.

I think it is possible. For example, a minimum transaction fee could be set and burned by the protocol. Those burned satoshis could be recycled into new block rewards which could make block rewards permanent without busting 21m. It would have other negative consequences but it isn't impossible (though I'm sure would still be a bruising battle for Bitcoin, judging by recent events). PPC has a burned transaction fee, though with inflationary-PoS.
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2114


Monero Core Team


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 08:28:24 AM
 #12214

...
I think it is possible. For example, a minimum transaction fee could be set and burned by the protocol. Those burned satoshis could be recycled into new block rewards which could make block rewards permanent without busting 21m. It would have other negative consequences but it isn't impossible (though I'm sure would still be a bruising battle for Bitcoin, judging by recent events). PPC has a burned transaction fee, though with inflationary-PoS.

Yes, It something along those lines, with the minimum fee set to a fixed percentage of the transaction amount may work for Bitcoin, although I have not looked at all the possible issues.

Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card
primer-
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1022



View Profile
January 18, 2016, 09:24:53 AM
 #12215

I've bought 15btc worth of XMR and will be buying another 20btc, the difference in price, DASH/XMR is killing me..

Now is the perfect time to show some support!
wildduck
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 11:38:11 AM
 #12216

LOL you think xmr can hit the same price as Dash or what?

8XMR
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 88


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 12:46:42 PM
 #12217

...
I think it is possible. For example, a minimum transaction fee could be set and burned by the protocol. Those burned satoshis could be recycled into new block rewards which could make block rewards permanent without busting 21m. It would have other negative consequences but it isn't impossible (though I'm sure would still be a bruising battle for Bitcoin, judging by recent events). PPC has a burned transaction fee, though with inflationary-PoS.

Yes, It something along those lines, with the minimum fee set to a fixed percentage of the transaction amount may work for Bitcoin, although I have not looked at all the possible issues.

That is an interesting idea. Maybe too controversial to succeed based on the blocksize debates.

8xmr.com
Bassica
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 273


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 03:19:33 PM
 #12218

...
I think it is possible. For example, a minimum transaction fee could be set and burned by the protocol. Those burned satoshis could be recycled into new block rewards which could make block rewards permanent without busting 21m. It would have other negative consequences but it isn't impossible (though I'm sure would still be a bruising battle for Bitcoin, judging by recent events). PPC has a burned transaction fee, though with inflationary-PoS.

Yes, It something along those lines, with the minimum fee set to a fixed percentage of the transaction amount may work for Bitcoin, although I have not looked at all the possible issues.

That is an interesting idea. Maybe too controversial to succeed based on the blocksize debates.

Hey, have you seen this:
http://ec2-52-90-114-151.compute-1.amazonaws.com/cn/

Maybe it's time to ramp up that Chinese marketing plan you've been working on. I see your domain currently still links to the getmonero.org's domain, but recall that it was finished and ready to go live, right?
Days
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 74


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 04:24:06 PM
 #12219

LOL you think xmr can hit the same price as Dash or what?

Well, eventually it will- when dash starts it's long way down....


With what? One update "bug fixing" per year from Lousy Monero developers or is it with spamming Dash ANN thread with hate messages from Monero supporters including you're developer Smooth?


Edit : Monero needs a new development team and a new marketing vision.
digicoin
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1106



View Profile
January 18, 2016, 05:04:01 PM
 #12220

I've bought 15btc worth of XMR and will be buying another 20btc, the difference in price, DASH/XMR is killing me..

Now is the perfect time to show some support!

No, you are trolling lol. You hate XMR. Cheesy
Pages: « 1 ... 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 [611] 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622 623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 ... 1823 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!