Topic: Could Monero replace Bitcoin soon? - page 13. (Read 33721 times)

It has a long way to go but could happen one day if the bitcoin devs don't learn how to get along and stop fighting.
Monero doesn't even have a full time team behind it yet so if they can get this far doing it as a side project just imagine how good they could make it working full time on the coin.

Monero to the moon!

I do not understand. Is it not that ETC is the original chain and ETH is the fork? So there are people who thought of continuing the support for the original chain maybe out of principle or maybe profit, but how can it be called a scam chain when it was Vitalik himself who created it?

ETC will cant replace ETH and XMR will have a chance but only a little,to replace bitcoin it not only need the price to up but also so many factors like how is the coin being used by its users as ordinary cryptocurrency

Absolutely. ETC is shit, just another scam chain. I got my $ out of it , let it die!


XMR will be the future.  

Axxo - is that you, the torrent dude? You will need to prove it if so. Good luck and thanks for all if it's really you!

But if you check out the price ETC is sinking rapidly compared to ETH. While XMR will continue to go up, there's 0% chance that could replace BTC.

I think ETC will replace ETH before XMR replaces BTC.

I just want to ask you, do you believe in it by heart with all you $$$, or you are just hopping to dump monero higher?

Also your statement have a lot of truth and honesty same as your status:
Trust: -2: -1 / +0
Warning: Trade with extreme caution!

The calculation is not so difficult.  It is estimated that an average monero transaction is of the order of 2 KB.  Officially, simple bitcoin transactions are 0.3 KB, but when we look at the chain explorer, we see that we are closer to about 1KB.

So grossly, the monero chain, for the same number of transactions, would be between 2 and 8 times larger than the bitcoin chain.  That's not a difference in principle.  If you can manage to store, say, 5 TB, you can also manage to store between 10 and 40 TB.  The scaling laws are the same. 

That's somewhat like saying one shouldn't use color pictures, because BW pictures only take 1/3 of the place.  True, but color pictures are so much better, that the factor 3 is acceptable.  With monero, you get privacy and fungibility.

You shouldn't underestimate that.  These two aspects contribute A LOT to the security of the system.  No miner cartel can decide that your coins aren't going to get transferred.  No exchange can decide that they will freeze your coins.  No drama like ethereum has known is thinkable, because even with collusion of the developers and miners, one wouldn't be able to do a hard fork over "restoring funds" or whatever.

Fungible tokens re extremely important for a monetary asset.

Not enough to bother in any case. Bandwidth costs will bite before terabytes of spinning disk do.

 I think the closest Bitcoin competitor is ETHEUM  . Even Etheum is unlikely going to beat Bitcoin when you take a look at the current market capitalization of each not to talk more of monero.

The problem i was addressing was not how many transactions per second a coin can perform, but the total size of the blockchain after having to perform so many transactions along the years. If Monero ever achieved the number of transactions of the Bitcoin network, how many Gigabytes of space do you think it would be required in your hard disk to store the blockchain?

I will leave the calculations for yourself...as this is a comparison between Monero and Bitcoin.

Are there still idiots using bitcoin on the dark nets ?  That's pretty dangerous I would think.


But bitcoin didn't grow much (as currency use) since then, did it ?  There has been some adoption, like VPN and VPS, but I don't see how that couldn't also be used by monero ; after all, many of those are in the same privacy business.  There have been some spectacular cases of buying a car and so on with bitcoin, but my impression was that the use of bitcoin as a currency, to buy goods and services other than crypto, hasn't grown much since then.

Yes, bitcoin's *market cap* became much bigger, but that's essentially financial speculation, not use as a currency.  My very rough impression is that bitcoin's *currency* market cap isn't much more than, say, $10 or $20 per coin.  (I explained elsewhere what that number means).

Correct me if I'm wrong on this, it is really the impression I have.

do you know what 'fungibility' is?

The number of people who are interested in privacy is small. It is limited to some paranoid people (who may have a genuine reason for being paranoid) and those who are operating outside the law (buying stuff on the darknets).

Sure Monero might take away some of the dark business from bitcoin. But it can't scale beyond that. Remember, bitcoin was king of the darknets in 2012 - it had the whole market to itself. And BTC had a small marketcap at the time, because that is what the whole darknet market looks like - small in the grand scheme of things. Offline, cash is still king. Online a cryptocurrency needs to go mainstream to grow.

Corrective medicine for disinformation:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3yrazw/what_is_moneros_theoretical_maximum_transaction/

Monero does not have the practical scaling limits that Bitcoin has.  Bring on the volume.  I mean, really, bring on the organic transaction volume, please!

There are two different issues here.  There is the "technological nuisance" of a big block chain, which is the case of monero, and there is the protocol-limited hard limit on the size of blocks, such as in bitcoin.  Monero can handle just any block size, but of course, the bigger it gets, the more there is a technological nuisance (the finite size of disks, computers and networks).  Monero can in principle do 10000 transactions per second, but in practice, with current technology, that's difficult.  Bitcoin can't, because of the 1MB block size limit, period.
You could say that bitcoin could hard fork over it, but they didn't.  It is a different value proposition: bitcoin is making the choice of having a limited number of (big) transactions.

ALL block chain based cryptos have a fundamental problem with scaling as long as they keep all history.  So chain pruning is necessary, and it is true that monero has a problem with that, as by definition of anonymity, one isn't supposed to know whether a specific transaction is actually spend or not.  Apart from this pruning impossibility in monero, and possible but not implemented in bitcoin, there is no difference in principle in scaling: both chains scale proportionally to the historical number of transactions.

AEON, as far as I understand, wants to implement a pruning of the past.  One could limit the life time of a coin (you are obliged to transact it, say, at least once every 5 years) ; that would allow for a block chain that only contains the full 5 years, and only headers before from the genesis block.

Bitcoin scales much better than Monero anonimity tech. If you just look at the number of transactions that fit in 1 block in the monero chain and make the calculations of how many bytes are needed to perform 1 transaction you would know it. That's why they are pumping this coin as hell because it cannot achieve mass adoption in the long term and they know it  .

Bloated chain

Could you name 2 coins "far better" than Monero, Thanks

regarding "the government will always battle for full control" are you going to battle back or you prefer government having access to all your private information?

Thanks

As far as I agree on this but there are far more better coins than monero, in my opinion and it will never replace bitcoins because of several issue.  One of it is the anonymity where government will always battle since they want a full control over currencies.  I think this thread is created by monero fanatic anyway i respect  your stand.

You should take my answer with a grain of salt, because I haven't totally understood yet the trusted setup system.  What I understand of it, grossly, is this:

you need a "private key" (a random number) X that will be the generator of two different but related public keys, p and q, that both serve to produce zero-knowledge proofs.  One is the "proving key" and the other is the "verifying key".  There is a kind of one-way function from X to p and q, so from X you can find p and q, but from p and q (which are public) you cannot trace back to X.  So essentially, if you want to construct a proof that you own an unspent coin in a given list, you use p, and anyone can use q to verify that that is the case, without knowing WHICH coin you own in the list.  You cannot construct a second proof using the same p and the same coin.  However, the point is that with the knowledge of X, you can construct a fake proof that will be still verified by q.  So you can "prove" as many times as you want that you owned a coin, and hence, you can create as many proofs of transactions as you want (which will be valid further on and hence are "new coins").

This comes down to saying that he who knows X, can create as many coins as he wants, and nobody is ever going to find out.

Now, visibly, they have a method to have several independent generations of X1 making pp1, X2 making pp2 and so on, and one can then combine pp1, pp2, .... pp18 into a final couple (p,q) whose corresponding X can only be deduced if you know at the same time X1, X2, ...X18.  It is sufficient that one of these X is missing, and the final X is un-knowable, which is the goal.

I don't know how much this can be up-scaled from 18 to a much higher number, but I would propose the following:
On a bulletin board like bitcointalk, one could have a thread where up to a large N (say, 1000) people post their own calculation of ppi.
Once this number of contributions is reached, one calculates publicly the final p and q.

This is a bigger set of people than the 18 celebrities one would have to trust, and you can be part of it.  There will (hopefully) be many known accounts posting their version.

Now, in order for this to fail, ALL those people posting (you included, if you posted) have to collude.  As long as your contribution is in there (and this YOU know of course), you can trust the trusted set-up because you did this yourself, and you know that you aren't colluding (or if you are, you will profit from it too ).

In fact, if N is very large, there is no point in excluding one's contribution.  If your contribution is excluded, you know there's something fishy.  If one doesn't reach, on a given date, the number N, but only K, there's no problem in COMPLETING the list with N - K extra generations of pp.  These may be all from the same person, that's no problem.  As long as there is, within the list K (of which *you can be member*) ONE SINGLE person keeping/erasing his Xk, the system is OK.

The big difference with "18 celebrities" is that ANYONE can be part of the trusted set-up.  You included.  So, or you aren't interested in which case it doesn't matter, or you are interested, in which case you can be part of it (and if you find out that it fails, you know that ZCASH is unreliable).

Of course, that doesn't change anything for newcomers afterwards, but 1000 or more people on a forum are maybe more prone to contain one honest person rather than 18 celebrities.