[XMR] Monero Speculation

[smoothie]

this part of the quote from ICE stood out:

[3:43:01 AM] Vitalik Buterin: ok can you guys stop trading

say what??   

[fluffypony]

Question for XMR core devs:

Under what (if any) circumstances would you request (or like VB forcefully demand under threat of rollback) a halt to XMR activity on exchanges?

We already did this during the block 202612 attack. We asked them to halt deposits and withdrawals (but not trading!) until we figured out what was happening. The minute the fork resolved and we had a handle on what to do about it we told them they could resume.

If, during that fork, an exchange had continued accepting deposits and processing withdrawals we wouldn't have stopped them, that's entirely at their own risk.

Monero still has a lot of work to do, and we don't have $20 million to rest on, so I can imagine that a sophisticated attack like this might be repeated in future. As it stands right now, a resourceful attacked could probably just fork the network based on hashing power alone. Obviously we will do our utmost to ensure that this isn't possible, but if it does happen we will - again - handle things as best we see fit. We won't ever ask exchanges to pause deposits / withdrawals unless we don't know what's going on and fear that we may be under attack.

[r0ach]

[3:43:01 AM] Vitalik Buterin: ok can you guys stop trading

[s1gs3gv]

XMR has been looking strong at Polo for a while now. Why ?

[smoothie]

XMR has been looking strong at Polo for a while now. Why ?

my guess is that those who wanted out that held large bags of XMR...have sold.

[Monerobuyer0]

XMR has been looking strong at Polo for a while now. Why ?

Its about to start looking even stronger.

[iCEBREAKER]

Question for XMR core devs:

Under what (if any) circumstances would you request (or like VB forcefully demand under threat of rollback) a halt to XMR activity on exchanges?

We already did this during the block 202612 attack. We asked them to halt deposits and withdrawals (but not trading!) until we figured out what was happening. The minute the fork resolved and we had a handle on what to do about it we told them they could resume.

If, during that fork, an exchange had continued accepting deposits and processing withdrawals we wouldn't have stopped them, that's entirely at their own risk.

Monero still has a lot of work to do, and we don't have $20 million to rest on, so I can imagine that a sophisticated attack like this might be repeated in future. As it stands right now, a resourceful attacked could probably just fork the network based on hashing power alone. Obviously we will do our utmost to ensure that this isn't possible, but if it does happen we will - again - handle things as best we see fit. We won't ever ask exchanges to pause deposits / withdrawals unless we don't know what's going on and fear that we may be under attack.

Supremely informative answer, thanks!

I'd forgotten the in/out halt during the troll block attack.

But your retelling of the tale hits upon a critical distinction between XMR and ETH core dev's conduct/approach/attitude.

XMR devs Highly Recommended exchanges halt deposits and explained the basis for that urgent suggestion, but did not Command & Demand like the ETH guys.

And you didn't try to halt trading, preventing this kind of 100% bullshit scenario:

[3:43:10 AM] Bill Shihara: Stopping the trading will stop the hacker from liquidating.  but that may be penalizing legit traders

Any exchange that penalizes legit traders to stop a hacker (especially one that only used the existing rules of a broken system to his benefit) is an amoral/unethical piece of shit.

If I knew better than to trust ETH/DAO's concept/code/crypto and went short in order to make the market aware of my pertinent information, HOW DARE SOME FUCKING TWAT AT POLO HQ ARBITRARILY DECIDE TO HALT/ROLLBACK?

All those presuming to force the invisible hand of the market should be pimp slapped by it until rendered unable to do further harm.   

For all the cyber/cypherpunk name dropping Vitalik does, he still utterly fails to grok the ethos.  And he's met Nick Szabo FFS.

[smooth]

Question for XMR core devs:

Under what (if any) circumstances would you request (or like VB forcefully demand under threat of rollback) a halt to XMR activity on exchanges?[/b]

  fluffypony must be enjoying this schadenfreude at VB's expense!   

I see no circumstance under which I would ever support asking for a halt in trading on a centralized exchange. Trading on the exchange is trading book entry claims on the exchange's wallet. Even in the extreme case of a rollback or other problem affecting wallets, traders can assess the impact that might have on the solvency of an exchange and trade accordingly. However, an exchange might on its own (or in discussion with other exchanges) decide to halt trading. That's their call, it is their platform after all.

If there were a problem with the blockchain affecting (or even possibly affecting) wallets, I would support asking for (and recommending) a halt to deposits/withdrawals until it was resolved.

During the initial stages of the 202612 attack exchanges may have stopped trading as we put out an general "red alert" until we actually figured out what was going on. Most decided to restart it but they kept wallet transactions on hold until bug was identified and the vulnerability deemed over.

With respect to the DAO, it wasn't even a bug in the coin at all. Ethereum devs acting in that capacity shouldn't have been involved nor should they have asked exchanges to do anything in my opinion, nor should any fork, hard or soft, be on the table at all. My other (perhaps more controversial) opinion on the matter is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.0

Needless to say I will never support a fork or rollback or any other sort of meddling with coin ownership in Monero on the basis of an external incident that was not a flaw in the implementation of the coin itself (an example of the latter being the overflow bug in Bitcoin).

[iCEBREAKER]

XMR has been looking strong at Polo for a while now. Why ?

Internal factors: emission dropping off, official GUI being written, I2P and 0MQ are bad ass, and RingCT is (close enough to) the Holy Grail of truly fungible ecash.

The killer app for 100% fungible ecash is financial sovereignty.

External factors: the market just got burned (we're talking 3rd degree oxygen chamber horror show stuff) by rushed inadequately spec'd/tested crypto.

Monero is (in)famous for its mature, responsible, meticulous, cautious "no merge before its time" approach to development.

We don't rush.  We get it right.

And Bitcoiners of all stripes are coming around to that paradigm:

https://twitter.com/danWilcz/status/743736668901908480

#DAO vulnr validates that there is merit in having a security-first approach of #Bitcoin development

When (AND NOT BEFORE) we get ecash done right, then we can built smart contracts on top.  Premature action is contraindicated.   

We are seeing the first few wispy clouds of a trillion dollar perfect Monero storm appear on the horizon.

[Hueristic]

Where's primer-?   

Bad day for Ethereum. Vitalik did the right thing, miners make the final decision and so far there seems to be a consensus.
I haven't sold a single ether and i hold almost $500k usd worth (@ 0.028). I am more confident than ever that in 2-3 months, with Coinbase's support, we are to see a new ATH..

On another note, Monero pump looking better than ever! I'd love to see .003 soon!

This post must be a joke.

I laughed!

A shitload of seriously off topic shilling .

please delete

[iCEBREAKER]

Do you know if Bitsquare has the ability to halt trading for a coin once it's listed?

It would be futile and self-defeating for Bitsquare devs to even try.

Such an action would voluntarily relinquish their network effect, as pissed off users would quickly fork the project and simply run Bitsquare Classic or whatever.

[smooth]

Deleted off topic shilling

http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2104/how-does-lisk-differ-from-ethereum/3176#3176



@tayvano: Unfortunately, I can't comment directly. I need "50 reputation" for this. Therefore I will write it as a new answer.

    I don't know as much about Serpent, but it appears to have the same goals and purpose as Solidity, but is meant to be similar to Python (and therefore be great for Python devs.) This, along with the range of clients, also showcases the dedication that Ethereum has to being appealing to a wide range of developers, not just Javascript developers.

The range of clients at Ethereum in Go, C++, Python, JavaScript, Java and other languages is a support disaster. Right now it may work OK, but once Ethereum attracts a critical mass there will be 1 (or maybe 2) clients which will be used by 99% of the users. Otherwise, it's just not feasible.

You also say that Ethereum is trying to appeal a wide range of developers. Lisk tends to focus on the JavaScript group, it's just a fact that this is a huge crowd already. Lisk removes friction, it's very hard to get developers for a platform. If they now need to learn a new language (besides the whole blockchain concepts) attracting them will be even more difficult. Lisk is all about staying lean, efficient and focused.

Btw. JS is extremely powerful: asmjs.org, pyjs.org etc.

    Above only covers Smart Contracts for Etheruem; what about the more fully-encompassing "Dapp"?

Here is the difference between Lisk and Ethereum. Ethereum is doing smart contracts which are all saved on one blockchain. If you want to develop a dapp in Ethereum you need to connect the functionalities of several smart contracts.

In Lisk you get a complete package. You don't develop single smart contracts. You build an entire application which is running on its own blockchain. It's like you develop a new crypto-currency platform with an extended feature-set, the platform itself is already finished and provided by our Lisk SDK. As a developer you just need to implement the necessary new features on top of the already existing platform.

    So, for Lisk to be implying that Javascript developers cannot create Dapp for Ethereum is a bit misleading. They can absolutely use primarily Javascript for the Dapp and then Solidity (which is so close to Javascript) for smart contracts.

We never said that JavaScript developers cannot create dapps for Ethereum. Of course they can, but they need to learn a new language first. This is like you would say a plumber cannot paint walls.

At Ethereum they can use JavaScript for the dapp front end, and Solidity for the dapp back end. It's not like they are using JavaScript "for the [complete] dapp" as you said. No, only for the front end.

    The difference is that Lisk is entirely Javascript (and node.js) through and through, Ethereum has a large number clients in different languages[2], has two custom-written languages for smart contracts, and still allows for Javascript where you need it most (the UI).

Yes, we tend to focus on one technology. Focus is key.

Your statement that Ethereum "allows for JavaScript where you need it most (the UI)", is really only the case for Ethereum. JavaScript is globally accepted for many different tasks on the front and back end (e.g. NodeJS). Not just for "the UI". You are making JavaScript smaller as it is, only to get more arguments for Solidity.

    Javascript numbers are....not the greatest or most reliable. Especially when we are dealing with a crypto-currency, you really want your numbers to be on point. Basically JS uses floating point which means some things get approximated and digits get lost in certain cases.

We are only using integers at Lisk. For big numbers we are using bignumber.js. It's not about the language you choose, it's about your coding skills. If you know what you are doing JavaScript is entirely fine. However, yes this is a weakness. But a weakness which is manageable.

    Javascript uses weak dynamic typing. If you are not careful, you can pass strings instead of numbers.

Honestly, if you are building a serious project you should at least get this thing right. Otherwise, every JavaScript project would fail according to your argument.

    Lisk has "rules" that they ask contract developers have to follow to avoid breaking consensus.

Yep. It seems Ethereum has these "rules" directly embedded into their compiler, at Lisk developers just have to follow them. The biggest difference here is, if they do a mistake and the consensus is broken, then the dapp needs a hard fork. But Lisk itself is entirely fine, because the dapp is only running in a sidechain.

This is a huge security advantage. If a dapp fails, the Lisk network doesn't even hiccup. However, if one smart contract fails at Ethereum, it can mean game over for Ethereum.

    Disadvantages of Solidity

Other disadvantages may be that it's a very young language and therefore unproven. Also there is very little documentation available, and even less developers know this language.

    On the blockchain

You are mixing up different things now. You download the Bitcoin client also from an HTTP link. However it "cannot be corrupted, can be audited, cannot be changed, can reach consensus". That means all these important properties you mention are also valid for Lisk. If you change a dapp code, your node will end up on a fork. Same as if you change the Bitcoin code.

The HTTP link is only the way to distribute a dapp source code. Later on we will integrate decentralized storage methods (e.g. IPFS), so the distribution itself can be decentralized as well.

However, the distribution model doesn't define if an application is centralized or decentralized. Or do you say that every crypto-currency on the market is centralized? Because you download the clients from a centralized location? If yes, then how can Ethereum dapps even be decentralized, if the network itself is centralized? Wink

Your line of arguments is wrong here. Another important fact is, that this method allows Lisk to scale massively easier than Ethereum. Besides the huge advantages our sidechains already bring to the table.

    I don't know much about Crypti, but they did have a presale and they did get a decent amount of money (at least $200k USD) but I can't find the exact figures because everything has been wiped. Nothing came of Crypti. Literally. So...that's scary. The lack of transparency, also scary.

We are not associated with Crypti anymore. However, saying that everything is wiped and that there is no transparency is a huge lie. There are over 600 pages on Bitcointalk (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=654463) and dozens of blog posts (https://blog.crypti.me) which contain ALL information.

Additionally, if you say that "nothing came of Crypti" then you are completely wrong. Crypti developed a working dapp platform, the huge success of Lisk is proving this. The only thing which just didn't work at Crypti was marketing. That means nobody knows about Crypti. There was also a big lack of leadership at Crypti.

    So I guess the main difference I want to point out between Ethereum and Lisk here is that Lisk is two guys who rebranded a previous coin that had a presale and delivered nothing while Ethereum has Vitalik Buterin, a large team of well-known, community-engaged, crazy talented developers, and a large community of developers creating Dapp and third-party wallets and hardware wallets and all sorts of amazing stuff. I mean, look at Augur, Slock.it, and ConsenSys alone. It's crazy!

Yes, I'm glad that those two guys at Google never started their company because there were so many great search engines back then with hundreds of employees. Smiley

Don't understand me wrong, I like Ethereum and the whole team/movement behind it. I'm a big supporter. But you are just refusing innovation at this point of time. You are comparing a 2 years old platform (Ethereum) with 18M in fundings, with a not even launched platform (Lisk) with no access to the funding as of yet. That's kind of silly.

    Another key difference is Ethereum has the Ethereum Foundation, a non-profit Swiss organization and Lisk has....an unknown foundation / company associated with it.

Everyone at Lisk knows that we are in the process of creating a legal entity in Germany, most probably as a gGmbH. This is also a non-profit organisation structure.

    One final note: Lisk really likes to claim they have partnerships with big names. First it was ShapeShift. Now it is Microsoft. They loooove to use that partnership word. In reality, they were just using the Shifty button, not really a partnership.

We had a technologic partnership with ShapeShift. It was a big mis-understanding at that time. They already fixed that mistake.

All in all, I would like to say that your points are quite weak. You didn't point out the biggest weaknesses of Lisk. In my opinion this is sidechain security. That means small dapps probably won't have a chance long-term to attract enough nodes to secure them.

For this I suspect that there will be special dapps, who will run smaller dapps in a SaaS way. Until we implemented a sidechain forging marketplace, finding sidechain forgers is also quite a difficult task. However, these are all just starting problems. Everything is solvable. At the end of the day Lisk is just software which is actively developed.

It's important to mention that Lisk just gets started and we are already making big changes. At this point of time it's just to early to evaluate Lisk and the team (us) behind it. You should just wait for a year before making a final conclusion. All arguments right now just look like you are afraid. Personally, I think there is far more than enough room for Ethereum and Lisk. In the end we are solving the "problems" very differently and are attracting different niches.

I hope that Ethereum and Lisk can work together in the future in order to solve important problems within the dapp and blockchain industry. I say it again, we are in this "game" together.

http://ethereum.stackexchange.com/questions/2104/how-does-lisk-differ-from-ethereum/3176#3176

[iCEBREAKER]

I see no circumstance under which I would ever support asking for a halt in trading on a centralized exchange. Trading on the exchange is trading book entry claims on the exchange's wallet. Even in the extreme case of a rollback or other problem affecting wallets, traders can assess the impact that might have on the solvency of an exchange and trade accordingly. However, an exchange might on its own (or in discussion with other exchanges) decide to halt trading. That's their call, it is their platform after all.

If there were a problem with the blockchain affecting (or even possibly affecting) wallets, I would support asking for (and recommending) a halt to deposits/withdrawals until it was resolved.

During the initial stages of the 202612 attack exchanges may have stopped trading as we put out an general "red alert" until we actually figured out what was going on. Most decided to restart it but they kept wallet transactions on hold until bug was identified and the vulnerability deemed over.

With respect to the DAO, it wasn't even a bug in the coin at all. Ethereum devs acting in that capacity shouldn't have been involved nor should they have asked exchanges to do anything in my opinion, nor should any fork, hard or soft, be on the table at all. My other (perhaps more controversial) opinion on the matter is here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.0

Needless to say I will never support a fork or rollback or any other sort of meddling with coin ownership in Monero on the basis of an external incident that was not a flaw in the implementation of the coin itself (an example of the latter being the overflow bug in Bitcoin).

I fully support the standards for halting trading, etc. you have described.

If Polo won't commit to them, I will be finding another exchange and encouraging others to do the same.

It's great XMR is going up so much, but right now we are printing money in a burning house.

Tristan needs to assure us there will be no repeat of yesterday's intolerable, arbitrary market intervention.

If Polo's solvency is not in danger, admins have no business changing the rules in the middle of the game to pick winners and losers.

That's how you get your ass sued so hard you end up in a wheelchair.  

[smooth]

If Polo won't commit to them, I will be finding another exchange and encouraging others to do the same.

Centralized exchanges have their role and finding another one may the right call for you, but either way I would still encourage trying to build liquidity on bitsqaure. I've had offers on there at times but I was often alone on the order book and didn't get any fills. I'll continue to list when I have the opportunity to do so.

[dEBRUYNE]

This resistance zone (230-235k) has broken for now, price has to get a bit higher to confirm though. Next resistance zone is around 270k. In addition, the 3d MACD flipped to green. Last time it flipped to green it preceded the rally from ~100k to ~430k.

[phishead]

I'm still unsure whether it is the right time to buy Bitcoin to be able to buy more xmr. One thing is I have this strange feeling that Bitcoin is going to take a hit soon and also I'm still unsure about where I should buy from. I prefer the privacy aspect of localbitcoins, but it's so inconvinient. Does anyone here prefer to buy through bitsquare?

[iCEBREAKER]

If Polo won't commit to them, I will be finding another exchange and encouraging others to do the same.

Centralized exchanges have their role and finding another one may the right call for you, but either way I would still encourage trying to build liquidity on bitsqaure. I've had offers on there at times but I was often alone on the order book and didn't get any fills. I'll continue to list when I have the opportunity to do so.

How solid is the Bitsquare platform?  Does it rely on "smart" contracts?   

How long until it supports advanced features like margin trading?

Is there a testnet version to try out?

Once Bitsquare is somewhat comparable/competitive feature-wise, I'd be happy to offer some XMR there at a discount, to coax volume away from the morally hazardous exchange under the command of ETH Fed Chairman Vitalik "Helicopter" Buterin.

[aminorex]

Next resistance zone is around 270k.

That gap between 27 and 38 needs to be filled.

[pa]

If Polo won't commit to them, I will be finding another exchange and encouraging others to do the same.

Centralized exchanges have their role and finding another one may the right call for you, but either way I would still encourage trying to build liquidity on bitsqaure. I've had offers on there at times but I was often alone on the order book and didn't get any fills. I'll continue to list when I have the opportunity to do so.

How solid is the Bitsquare platform?  Does it rely on "smart" contracts?   

How long until it supports advanced features like margin trading?

Is there a testnet version to try out?

Once Bitsquare is somewhat comparable/competitive feature-wise, I'd be happy to offer some XMR there at a discount, to coax volume away from the morally hazardous exchange under the command of ETH Fed Chairman Vitalik "Helicopter" Buterin.

I was playing around with Bitsquare. Seems pretty solid. My problem is that I can't bear to part with any BTC or XMR.  So it's hard for me to thoroughly test! 😉

[QuantumQrack]

If Polo won't commit to them, I will be finding another exchange and encouraging others to do the same.

Centralized exchanges have their role and finding another one may the right call for you, but either way I would still encourage trying to build liquidity on bitsqaure. I've had offers on there at times but I was often alone on the order book and didn't get any fills. I'll continue to list when I have the opportunity to do so.

How solid is the Bitsquare platform?  Does it rely on "smart" contracts?  
Very solid, I have made a few trades on it.  You need to get used to the interface and the trade mechanic.  No smart contracts...but it does use multisig.

How long until it supports advanced features like margin trading?  That is probably a way out.  It needs more developers.

Is there a testnet version to try out?  There may be a test net version, but the main net works fine.

Once Bitsquare is somewhat comparable/competitive feature-wise, I'd be happy to offer some XMR there at a discount, to coax volume away from the morally hazardous exchange under the command of ETH Fed Chairman Vitalik "Helicopter" Buterin.

One other thing:  You have to keep the app running to see offers and keep the app running to keep your own offer alive.