Bitcoin Forum
April 25, 2024, 02:40:42 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 ... 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 [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 ... 2191 »
  Print  
Author Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation  (Read 3312339 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. (2 posts by 1+ user deleted.)
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420
Merit: 257


View Profile
January 17, 2016, 12:47:41 PM
Last edit: January 17, 2016, 01:14:50 PM by TPTB_need_war
 #12121

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.

1714056042
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714056042

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714056042
Reply with quote  #2

1714056042
Report to moderator
1714056042
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714056042

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714056042
Reply with quote  #2

1714056042
Report to moderator
1714056042
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714056042

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714056042
Reply with quote  #2

1714056042
Report to moderator
"You Asked For Change, We Gave You Coins" -- casascius
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1714056042
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714056042

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714056042
Reply with quote  #2

1714056042
Report to moderator
1714056042
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714056042

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714056042
Reply with quote  #2

1714056042
Report to moderator
1714056042
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1714056042

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1714056042
Reply with quote  #2

1714056042
Report to moderator
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050


Monero Core Team


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 05:32:49 AM
Last edit: June 12, 2022, 02:37:37 PM by ArticMine
Merited by ABCbits (3), Hueristic (1)
 #12122

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.

Edit June 12, 2022 02:37:35: PM Previous edit January 18, 2016, 05:45:13 AM

This edit is after the start of the tail emission so Rbase = 0.6 XMR, and over six years since the original post. I wish to note the following:

We add a transaction of size TT to a block at a point B in the penalty, and define BT = TT / MN; the new penalty becomes Rbase(B+BT)2. The difference between the old and the new penalty is then Rbase(2BBT + BT2)

a) The cost of the attack in 2 above with B = 1, which was later called "The Big Bang" attack can be shown to have a lower bound of 4Rbase by analyzing the game theory of the Monero fee market. The only assumption that is needed is a free market of miners and users acting in their enlightened self interest. To understand this fee market one needs to consider a mining adding transactions to a block. The miner adds transactions in the order of the fee per byte (this is actually a very good approximation, where the BT << B, to the discrete optimization problem). The miner will then stop given one of the following:

1) The miner runs out of transactions  
2) The additional penalty to add a transaction is greater than the fee paid by the transaction
3) B = 1 (There is no more space in the block)

The key to the game theory is that: The last transaction added to the block has paid the lowest fee, and this fee corresponds to the highest additional penalty paid to add a transaction to the block One can then place a lower bound on the cost of a Big Bang attack per block at B =  1 as 4Rbase. Rbase goes to feed the penalty compensating the miners for an effective coin burn, while 3Rbase goes to the miners who profit at the expense of the attacker. The original wording gives the impression that the cost per block to the attacker is only Rbase. This latter cost per block is actually the additional cost per block for a Big Bank attack as an add on to a 51% attack as in 1 above.

b) The analysis in a) above does not take in to account the additional cost and delay to a Big Bang attacker as a result of Long Term Median that was added starting in 2019

c) The additional cost to a Big Bang attacker due to orphan block refers to, Peter R. Rizun, A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit, August 2015 https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/resources/feemarket.pdf. This leads to an additional effective penalty. that is exponential in the blocksize and proportional to the block reward. This is of course subject to the assumptions in the paper.
 

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: 742
Merit: 501


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 06:21:36 AM
 #12123

Code:
0.00118000	66666.00000000	78.66588000	93.90213373
iCEBREAKER
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072


Crypto is the separation of Power and State.


View Profile WWW
January 18, 2016, 06:39:38 AM
 #12124

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
Is Dash a scam?
smoothie
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2492
Merit: 1473


LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 07:34:50 AM
 #12125

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.                  History of Monero development Visualization ★☆ .
LEALANA BITCOIN GRIM REAPER SILVER COINS.
 
ArticMine
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050


Monero Core Team


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 07:51:48 AM
 #12126

...

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 (OP)
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198



View Profile
January 18, 2016, 08:21:13 AM
 #12127

...

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: 2282
Merit: 1050


Monero Core Team


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 08:28:24 AM
 #12128

...
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: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 18, 2016, 09:24:53 AM
 #12129

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
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 966
Merit: 1001


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 11:38:11 AM
 #12130

LOL you think xmr can hit the same price as Dash or what?
8XMR
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 88
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 12:46:42 PM
 #12131

...
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: 283
Merit: 250


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 03:19:33 PM
 #12132

...
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
Merit: 10


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 04:24:06 PM
 #12133

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
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 18, 2016, 05:04:01 PM
 #12134

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
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 05:11:57 PM
 #12135

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

It's a bit ambiguous, because he mines with 300 KH/s as well.

Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
Hueristic
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3794
Merit: 4863


Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 05:22:11 PM
Last edit: January 18, 2016, 05:33:10 PM by Hueristic
 #12136

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.

Apparently you don't keep up with the roadmap. There is none and will be no marketing until XMR is out of beta. Marketing an unfinished product for a unknown brand is suicide on a worldwide stage. Only Industry Monopolies can get away with that (*cough M$). AFA "Monero needs a new development team", not at all, the quality of the development team is unparalleled. the issue is with the organization of the team and the definitions of responsibilities. Ambiguity causes loopholes as well as allowing for the moving of goals mid stream.


BTW:
MyMonero still getting server errors. Was my bad, I had an needed ip blacklisted.

Bittrex's blockchain has synched.

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.”
newb4now
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 686
Merit: 500


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 05:28:29 PM
 #12137


Bittrex's blockchain has synched.

So are deposits and withdrawals working on all exchanges again? Is Bittrex and Poloniex running 0.9.1?

primer-
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000



View Profile
January 18, 2016, 05:38:35 PM
 #12138

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

It's a bit ambiguous, because he mines with 300 KH/s as well.

No short-term hidden agenda here, yeah once XMR takes off and is at least .004 i will start selling/dumping, call it whatever you like..
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 05:48:25 PM
 #12139


Bittrex's blockchain has synched.

So are deposits and withdrawals working on all exchanges again? Is Bittrex and Poloniex running 0.9.1?



Presumably. Poloniex is running on 0.9.1 and withdrawals are working. Bittrex withdrawals are working but I am not sure which version they are running.

Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
dEBRUYNE
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141


View Profile
January 18, 2016, 05:52:38 PM
 #12140

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

It's a bit ambiguous, because he mines with 300 KH/s as well.

No short-term hidden agenda here, yeah once XMR takes off and is at least .004 i will start selling/dumping, call it whatever you like..

I was actually commenting on the "You hate XMR" part, should have made that more clear. My comment wasn't referring to the trolling part, let that be clear.

Regarding bolded, I can only say that is unlike others with a similiar avatar here :-)

Anyway, everyone has their own reason(s) why they are here and given the current price, 0.004 seems like a good price to start some selling. Not saying I will though.

Alternatively, you could use this -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345065.0 (sell some everytime it doubles).

Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency
Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/
Pages: « 1 ... 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 [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 ... 2191 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!