[XMR] Monero Speculation

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Long ago it was decided that Monero would take an alternative route, wherein having those wheels available to prevent the bicycle from falling over is good, and the tradeoff of having an infinite supply of monero is acceptable.

If by "acceptable" you mean "bloody awesome" then I agree with you! If only we had an exponentially increasing supply, say one percent or so, then we'd really be cookin'!

Do even mature economies not grow by at least one percent per year?

[1713578522]

1713578522

[1713578522]

1713578522

[1713578522]

1713578522

[1713578522]

1713578522

[1713578522]

1713578522

[Febo]

Long ago it was decided that Monero would take an alternative route, wherein having those wheels available to prevent the bicycle from falling over is good, and the tradeoff of having an infinite supply of monero is acceptable.

If by "acceptable" you mean "bloody awesome" then I agree with you! If only we had an exponentially increasing supply, say one percent or so, then we'd really be cookin'!

Do even mature economies not grow by at least one percent per year?

USA had 8 such years in past 56.

[ArticMine]

...
Mmh... let's think in a world where there is no longer any block reward.

Why would the total fees go to zero?

Miners would add as much transactions as they can, adding highest fee transactions first. So I don't see how you end up with "there is no more incentive for the POW".

Why would anyone pay a fee with an unlimited blocksize? Where is the economic scarcity?

Edit: What one gets is either a race to the bottom if there is real competition among miners or a cartel that may support fees for a while.

[Hueristic]

... Furthermore the total fees per block are independent of the block weight. The net result of this is that if the block reward goes to zero the total fees paid per block also goes to zero. One conclusion is that in a Bitcoin like coin with a falling block reward in order for the Satoshi fee market to even have a chance of working the penalty in terms of the block reward for increasing the block size (weight) must be stiffer than that in Monero. One can then see the rationale for Bitcoin core's strict block weight limit. ...

Can you elaborate on this or link me to a discussion that does? I know your quite familiar with the bitcoin codebase and appreciate the time you spend explaining this.
I have no time nor skillset left to do so anymore.

By the way I prefer to see Bytecoin as the canary in the coal mine for falling block rewards as opposed to the scam in the pre or ninja mine.

Nice observation but the two are not mutually exclusive.

As I mentioned above. If there is competition between miners then as the block reward goes to zero so do the total fees per block since the "penalty" in terms of block reward is less than that in Monero. At this point there is no incentive for the POW and the coin becomes insecure. The alternative is a mining cartel or monopoly that sets minimum fees. Quite apart from the centralization involved I have serious doubts  such a cartel will be sustainable in the long term since individual members will cheat.

I would think the onus would become the responsibility of the holders to secure their own reserves. I am not sure of what arguments there are i this regard.

[Last of the V8s]

fyi re the eventual fee market in btc, thought you fellows might be interested to read some of theymos' commentary and ideas in amongst here
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6cbogv/the_blocksize_political_compass_to_find_out_where/

[birr]

fyi re the eventual fee market in btc, thought you fellows might be interested to read some of theymos' commentary and ideas in amongst here
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6cbogv/the_blocksize_political_compass_to_find_out_where/

This is interesting

Q.  There should be a dynamic limit, based on the median size of the previous blocks

A.  Strongly disagree, that's just another way of letting miners decide.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Theymos's point is valid, what does this say about Monero?

[Globb0]

Don't they also risk a normal size block coming through quicker?

[BldSwtTrs]

...
Mmh... let's think in a world where there is no longer any block reward.

Why would the total fees go to zero?

Miners would add as much transactions as they can, adding highest fee transactions first. So I don't see how you end up with "there is no more incentive for the POW".

Why would anyone pay a fee with an unlimited blocksize? Where is the economic scarcity?

Edit: What one gets is either a race to the bottom if there is real competition among miners or a cartel that may support fees for a while.

Well, one would pay a fee to get his transaction included in a block. Miners won't include non fee paying transactions, they won't consume their resources for nothing.

It seems you are assuming that competition will drive the price (of a transaction) below miners' costs. Which makes no economics sense. Price will stay above costs, even in a very competitive environment.

[TheFuzzStone]

• XMR.RU-report (NOVEMBER)

[kurious]

fyi re the eventual fee market in btc, thought you fellows might be interested to read some of theymos' commentary and ideas in amongst here
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6cbogv/the_blocksize_political_compass_to_find_out_where/

Good to see you stepping in, V8 - your comments will be welcomed I am sure - even if you choose to offer some healthy scepticism.   The quality of debate is pretty good here.

Ref: Theymos - actually he surprised me with how open and measured he is.  He is far more nuanced and less dogmatic than I would have expected, it was an interesting read. How it relates to the Monero tail emission is not clear, as we just don't know yet.  However, Monero will reach this point before BTC does, as the end of the 'normal' block reward will be reached before BTC's.

That said, even if Monero is successful once it transitions into its tail emission (or a failure of a.n.other POW coin following the end of block reward proves the concept iffy) I can't see Bitcoin changing.  Mainly as all the bitcoins out there will have owners with a huge vested interest in no further coins being issued.  Both coins' paths have been set - albeit Monero is probably more able to make a change than Bitcoin since it is not quite seen as 'holy writ' in the way Bitcoin is.

I think - as Theymos said, the end of the block reward is unlikely to sink Bitcoin and a 'fix' will be found to make fees pay for the continuance of network security performed by miners somehow.  But even Theymos admitted there are huge issues with fees, mining and transactions that are not optimal and do not really work as envisaged.

Crypto is still new and must face all kinds of issues - some already known and some yet to be seen.  Monero's tail emission is a possible fix for the post-block reward issue.  It has yet to be proven and until it is, it's just a different theoretical approach to Bitcoin's.

Ta for the merit; cordially reciprocated.

[cAPSLOCK]

fyi re the eventual fee market in btc, thought you fellows might be interested to read some of theymos' commentary and ideas in amongst here
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6cbogv/the_blocksize_political_compass_to_find_out_where/

What brings you to these parts, stranger?

This is interesting.  I may be more conservative than many of my fellow Monero fans.

Blocksize score -31.2498

Flexibility score -27.69228

[generalizethis]

The mining rewards debate seems like a waste of keystrokes given none of us (barring some incredible advancements--fingers crossed) will live to see it happen and there's an argument to be made that a superior quantum money will exist long before mining rewards becomes an issue. I just don't see us or BTC lasting long enough to find out.

[Febo]

fyi re the eventual fee market in btc, thought you fellows might be interested to read some of theymos' commentary and ideas in amongst here
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6cbogv/the_blocksize_political_compass_to_find_out_where/

This is interesting

Q.  There should be a dynamic limit, based on the median size of the previous blocks

A.  Strongly disagree, that's just another way of letting miners decide.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Theymos's point is valid, what does this say about Monero?

Monero have tail emission. This cant work without one. So yes theymos is totally right.

[Hueristic]

It's interesting that my simple question of whether the bitcoin codebase precludes dynamic blocksize due to technical reasons would spark this debate here. I guess it's still a real hot button topic. One which I never wanted to get involved in as I personally see Bitcoin as a stepping stone that has moved into a different space of a store of value and cannot evolve to fulfill its initial role. But I also see that as a good thing, we need a safe dependable chain that is completely safe from the fuckery of TPTB.

I never understood the hate for alternate chains for alternate roles, it seems obvious to me to use different tools for different tasks.

fyi re the eventual fee market in btc, thought you fellows might be interested to read some of theymos' commentary and ideas in amongst here
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6cbogv/the_blocksize_political_compass_to_find_out_where/

What brings you to these parts, stranger?

This is interesting.  I may be more conservative than many of my fellow Monero fans.

Blocksize score -31.2498

Flexibility score -27.69228

There were quite a few questions I would have preferred to answer "I have no fucking clue" but here is what I came up with my best guesses.

Code:

Your position on the blocksize political compass

Blocksize score 9.37494

Flexibility score -10.76922 

I think that means I am in disagreement with myself.

Monero have tail emission. This cant work without one. So yes theymos is totally right.

Only right if you decouple it from tail emission which it should not be but apparently if you try to have that discussion people stick their fingers in their ears and yell to not hear you. But seriously there are tradeoffs and currently there is no way bitcoin will ever be used for everyone to buy their morning coffe so it's already moot.

It seems to me this is a good thing as it distances Bitcoin even farther from Monero as the spaces they are in are growing wider by each decision being made and therefore make them complimentory. now all we need is a immutable decentralized crosschain solution and I'd be happy as a pig in shit.

[EuSouBitcoin]

Is this based on a subjective view, objective data, or both?

I’ve been watching Monero for a long time, I think this is one of the most profitable assets, but why I didn’t take it three years ago, although I thought to take a lot, I took just a few coins just like that.

It's a good time to buy, methinks.  Recent events rang my cheap bell.

[johnalan]

Anyone feel that Monero is likely to be 'made illegal'?

Thoughts here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/a2p8cq/the_clock_is_ticking/

[kurious]

Anyone feel that Monero is likely to be 'made illegal'?

Thoughts here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/a2p8cq/the_clock_is_ticking/

Hmm... to force exchanges to avoid privacy coins is feasible, but it would look as it is - overly authoritarian. 

If they try, it cannot be a global ban very easily, either.  I hope they won't try. I do think people would fight an overt 'ban' in most countries.  In an age where real money-laundering by massive banks is 'normal' - it would seem total hypocrisy to try to ban a coin with a transaction level such as that of Monero's. 

And if it becomes much bigger, I doubt it will be possible to try to ban it - as they may simply fail and create a coin that ONLY works underground and in illegal ways. 

<insert random Nietzsche quote here>

[phishead]

Anyone feel that Monero is likely to be 'made illegal'?

Thoughts here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/a2p8cq/the_clock_is_ticking/

Hmm... to force exchanges to avoid privacy coins is feasible, but it would look as it is - overly authoritarian. 

If they try, it cannot be a global ban very easily, either.  I hope they won't try. I do think people would fight an overt 'ban' in most countries.  In an age where real money-laundering by massive banks is 'normal' - it would seem total hypocrisy to try to ban a coin with a transaction level such as that of Monero's. 

And if it becomes much bigger, I doubt it will be possible to try to ban it - as they may simply fail and create a coin that ONLY works underground and in illegal ways. 

<insert random Nietzsche quote here>

That's why I'm so happy to see a lot of people doing OTC trading/bisq usage from Monero people.  Seems like it's always the highest volume trading pair on bisq at least.  As long as someone is willing to sell and you are willing to buy, there will always be a market and decentralized exchanges will be in need. 

Even though I haven't used it in a while, bisq and other decentralized exchanges will have to be the answer if there is a ban on all KYC exchanges

[kurious]

Anyone feel that Monero is likely to be 'made illegal'?

Thoughts here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/a2p8cq/the_clock_is_ticking/

Hmm... to force exchanges to avoid privacy coins is feasible, but it would look as it is - overly authoritarian. 

If they try, it cannot be a global ban very easily, either.  I hope they won't try. I do think people would fight an overt 'ban' in most countries.  In an age where real money-laundering by massive banks is 'normal' - it would seem total hypocrisy to try to ban a coin with a transaction level such as that of Monero's. 

And if it becomes much bigger, I doubt it will be possible to try to ban it - as they may simply fail and create a coin that ONLY works underground and in illegal ways. 

<insert random Nietzsche quote here>

That's why I'm so happy to see a lot of people doing OTC trading/bisq usage from Monero people.  Seems like it's always the highest volume trading pair on bisq at least.  As long as someone is willing to sell and you are willing to buy, there will always be a market and decentralized exchanges will be in need. 

Even though I haven't used it in a while, bisq and other decentralized exchanges will have to be the answer if there is a ban on all KYC exchanges

I haven't ever used a decentralised exchange, but I will check Bisq out, I would like to support the concept at least.  But does it sort the fiat/crypto issue?

[Febo]

Anyone feel that Monero is likely to be 'made illegal'?

Thoughts here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/a2p8cq/the_clock_is_ticking/

Hmm... to force exchanges to avoid privacy coins is feasible, but it would look as it is - overly authoritarian. 

If they try, it cannot be a global ban very easily, either.  I hope they won't try. I do think people would fight an overt 'ban' in most countries.  In an age where real money-laundering by massive banks is 'normal' - it would seem total hypocrisy to try to ban a coin with a transaction level such as that of Monero's. 

And if it becomes much bigger, I doubt it will be possible to try to ban it - as they may simply fail and create a coin that ONLY works underground and in illegal ways. 

<insert random Nietzsche quote here>

That's why I'm so happy to see a lot of people doing OTC trading/bisq usage from Monero people.  Seems like it's always the highest volume trading pair on bisq at least.  As long as someone is willing to sell and you are willing to buy, there will always be a market and decentralized exchanges will be in need. 

Even though I haven't used it in a while, bisq and other decentralized exchanges will have to be the answer if there is a ban on all KYC exchanges

I haven't ever used a decentralised exchange, but I will check Bisq out, I would like to support the concept at least.  But does it sort the fiat/crypto issue?

Apparently they just made the biggest in history update yesterday: https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/releases/tag/v0.9.0