Topic: Could Monero replace Bitcoin soon? - page 5. (Read 33728 times)

i am sure all of the currency came after the existence of bitcoin dream about becoming the next big thing and the developers and the initial fund raisers wanted to be rich very fast and so is the reason many scam coins came into existence,Monero is a good coin which is focused on privacy but no coin could take over Bitcoin as the king atleast for a couple of years

I wonder whether I have bad writing skills, or whether you have bad reading skills.   But at no point I have asserted that controls in financial systems are not needed.  In the fiat banking system, the balance check is severely needed (and not even trustworthy).  In other systems, other checks are needed.

The specific test you are complaining about is not possible by a third party in monero is a test that makes sense for bank accounts, not for crypto, in the same way that that check is not needed for cash or gold.  That should be sufficient indication that your specific demanded checking is not universally necessary, but only adapted to a system of bank accounts which crypto is not nor gold or cash.

With gold, the checking is only on the chemical veracity of the gold.  Not about account editing.  With cash, similar: the checking is the veracity of the genuine bank note.

With crypto, the checking is on the validity of the transaction.  There too, different ways are possible.

But your "account balance checking" is not appropriate to crypto, nor on bitcoin, nor on monero.  Because it doesn't check anything.  If you erroneously accept a false transaction, your balance check will not notice (it will work always).  And if your balance check doesn't work on a crypto, it only means that the calculation of the balances on the basis of the block chain was done erroneously, but doesn't affect other people's (correct) ways of establishing balances if they need to do so.  

In other words, "account balance checking" on crypto doesn't verify what needs to be verified, namely the validity of a transaction on the block chain.  It does indicate, however, that you have a local bug in the way you calculate balances from the block chain.  But that's it.

just a question :


what's depend if an altcoin take value ?


thank you

Save it   I think I might just understand controls in financial systems better than you do and you've written a small novel's worth of posts by now, all of them attempting to justify why they're not needed.

Pour yourself a beer instead.

Of course you know.  This is exactly the same as when you have paid cash or gold to someone.  You KNOW that he got it.  He knows it too.  He can deny it, but he knows he's lying (or has memory problems).  You can deny it too, that you paid him, but then you know that you're lying.  

What you are doing here, is requiring proof to a third party.  But the two involved parties know exactly how things went.  If I give you a $100 bill, I know you got it, and you know I gave it to you. That's the "balance check".  One of us, or both of us, can lie about it to a third party.  But that's something else.

That said, as you point out yourself, in Monero you CAN prove to the world that you did pay that person, while with cash, there's no such proof available.

But this has nothing to do with the discussion about checking whether the balances are right, that is to say, whether the balances are the result of a list of transactions.  Your initial statement is that *one cannot have the same credibility in the VALUE PROPOSITION of an obfuscated block chain rather than in an "open book" block chain* because one cannot "double check" the VALIDITY of the accounts by an audit.  You compared this to "banking accounts" that are audited by an army of accountants.

I indicated to you that the validity is essentially the verification that the accounts are the results of VALID TRANSACTIONS, and valid transactions are such that they ensure that they are right/power to spend by the payer, such that there will not be/hasn't been double spending, and that there is a succession of valid transactions that leads all the way back to a valid creation.  So essentially, a valid transaction comes down to a proof of no double spend, and legitimate origin.

The way VALID TRANSACTIONS are implemented in different monetary systems are varied but as much as these different systems are correct and trustworthy, one can rest assured of their validity.

With gold, it is the laws of nature that make for valid transactions.  The origin of gold is "open" in the monetary system of gold (it doesn't matter where it comes from: dug up, from space, produced with nuclear transformation, the Stone of Wisdom...).  Everybody has confidence that the laws of nature implement a correct transaction, that you cannot "double spend" gold and that holding gold gives you the right to spend it.

With cash, this is almost the same, except that the origin has to be a printer at the central bank.  If the bill is sufficiently sophisticated, and if one has faith in law enforcement killing off enough counterfeiters so that there isn't a big source of false bills, then the laws of nature, and a check on the bill are also a system that allows for the implementation of a correct transaction, the same way as gold.

Bank accounts are another beast all together.  The central notion is "a balance" and of course, balances do not necessarily implement correct transactions.  So an army of accountants is needed to check for that.  But that is because of the nature of bank accounts which are just balances, and do not follow automatically from transactions, although they should.  The balance holder can cheat (your bank can display what it wants, your exchange can display what it wants), and so this must be checked by accountants in such a way that you can trust them somehow.  This is in fact the weakest monetary system, but it is the one of banks.  People accept it most of the time, except in the Weimar Republic, in Zimbabwe, and a few other places where the monetary system lost trust (hyperinflation).

Bitcoin goes back to transactions.  The validity comes down by checking explicitly the succession of valid transactions and the validity of creation.  Double spending is checked by explicitly verifying that the spending didn't happen twice in the list of transactions.

Monero does about the same, except that the check is cryptographic instead of explicit.

As to the anonymity, the whole IDEA is that transactions are confidential between the payer and the payee.  Just as with gold and with cash, you cannot have both that this is public, and that this is confidential.  If it is confidential, of course you cannot check it when you are a third party, without agreement of the two parties.

But, as you yourself outlined, monero has some possibilities to prove to third parties the bad faith of one of the two confidential parties, contrary to gold or cash.

However, this doesn't put into doubt the validity of the monetary implementation, which is necessary to give credibility to the value of a right to spend in the system.  Otherwise, gold wouldn't have this either.

You just have to realize, it should be treated as a long term investment. These fools dumping in panic mode today based off whatever fud they heard lost a lot of money, and whales have profited as usual. same thing, diff day/coin.

Hodl gentlemenz.

Yeah Monero definitely has some really interesting things going on in terms of privacy.
Its no surprise that some of the darknet markets have started accepting it for payment.
I bought a bit of Monero and I really hope that it becomes more widely adopted.

More info here - https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3oi16k/ring_ct_for_monero_a_work_in_progress_comments/

edit -

[–]metamirror 5 points 11 months ago
Since the paper is too complex for me to understand, could someone explain how this would enhance Monero's functionality?
permalinkembedsavegive gold
[–]NobleSir[OP] 12 points 11 months ago
Amounts would now be hidden so your set of potential ring partners is much larger.

RingCT means that amounts of each transaction are also hidden?
Doing a search now but some of these papers discussing cryptography are way over my head.

Regardless of anyone's opinion, Monero has displaced bitcoin from a significant proportion of the DNM txns already, simply and obviously because it provides privacy which BTC can not.  I suspect RingCT will accelerate this trend of increasing displacement.

This thread will probably make me laugh someday, only because people thought the same EXACT thing about Netscape Navigator in the early days of the Internet.

Don't just discount the possibilities, btc is having severe growing pains. Monero is growing rapidly, and is faster and just as good as bitcoin. The fact that it doesn't have a fancy software GUI yet only brings more potential for growth and adoption.

This thread is basically a signature spamming stomping ground with a few good arguments here and there.

thats nonsense, you are right, monero will never have a possibility to replace bitcoins in the future

Monero replace Bitcoin? I almost see every altcoin has that dream, but bitcoin is still and always the king. Monero will get zero chance to replace it, not to say "soon", lmao.

It can be happen that monero can be replace bitcoin but not now if bitcoin will be crash or down due to hack their blockchain data base. people will lead to convert into other altcoin and i think one of them is monero that can be replace bitcoins.. for now we enjoy that bitcoins still alive and active..

No. You do not know.

Please read the section in this page called "Proving to a Third Party You Paid Someone".

Even if you remember to switch on "set store-tx-keys" and even if you go through the convoluted process of capturing the TX-ID and sending it to the receiving party, they can still claim whatever they like because you're using different tests to measure the success of the same transaction. In fact their test is the "control" on yours so it carries even more authority but you don't have access to it. I realise that should never happen, but thats the whole point of controls in systems engineering, finance or science - to change the "should" to "does".

Bitcoin and other transparent blockchains do not have this problem because they allow both parties access to the control.

Also, you do tend to make a great deal of assumptions in your reasoning if I may say so   Anyone (of the millions of potential users of blockchains) could download a hacked wallet that gives them all the right smoke signals that their "transaction is accepted on the block chain" and yet still send the coins to the hackers address instead of the one they typed in, not send them at all or do any number of blockchain gymnastics that were not the ones commanded. It's true that even with weak, asymmetric transaction audits such as the ones supported by Monero this would eventually come up. But open blockchains ASSUME this is the case the whole time and give the party who is invoking the transaction access to a control balance to allow them to fully verify the action immediately.

The type of asymmetric verification used in obscured blockchains simply opens them up to a host of significant attack vectors and confidence-cratering scenarios, not least in the social engineering category even without having to resort to malfunctions, hacked wallets and programming.

But again, the ticket that says "your money arrived OK" is the TRANSACTION you have on the block chain.  If you were the person paying, and hence broadcasting the transaction, for sure you know what the transaction is about, right ?  You made it yourself.  You can also verify whether your transaction  is accepted on the block chain.  Well, that SAME transaction is the thing that will be used by the person receiving the money to "augment its calculated balance".

If you put on the block chain {"I use my right to spend 5 coins to give them to A"} and you see that that transaction is accepted on the block chain, then you KNOW that A has gotten 5 coins more in his balance, because his balance calculation is going to include exactly that instruction to arrive at its final value.  So "your money arrived" whenever the transaction that tells so is accepted on the chain.

This is exactly the same with bitcoin.  The transaction {"I have an unspend output of 5 coins, and I give them to A"} is what will be used by the bitcoin core wallet to augment A's content with 5.  You don't have to do the explicit calculation.  If you give the instruction "add 5", you know that the balance increased with 5, because to find the balance, you're going to execute exactly that instruction.

The fundamental error you're making, is that you dissociate the transaction from the balance, as if "some banking authority" keeps the balance and that this authority might cheat.  But as there's no such authority, and balances are just the result of running over all valid transactions, the validity of the transaction implies the increase of the balance.  There is no meaning in "checking" this.

If I tell you: "whatever number you have in mind, add 5 to it", I do not have to check what number you had before, and what number you have now, to verify that it is 5 more.  I know that it is 5 more, because that's the instruction you have to execute.  If you "add 5 to a number", then it is unavoidable that that number is now 5 bigger than before.

 

I am implying that two parties should be able to use the same criteria to test the presence or absence of a balance at a given address, regardless of whether they hold a private key to that address or not.

That is a fundamental control which Bitcoin supports and is what supports a growth in shared consensus of the blockchain state.

It's not enough to have a ticket to say "your money arrived ok", since that is an uncontrolled test and isn't the one that the other party will be using. That asymmetry is the flaw in audibility.

Where the hell have I lied?

I clearly stated the bug was first found in their "Alpha version of RingCT"

It doesn't matter that it didn't make it into production code, this is where the bug first came to light, it was in your own fucking code.

He fixed it and then wrote that atrocious public blog a few days later titled: Broken Crypto in Shadowcash.  Its very unprofessional behavior by "Shen Noether" and its clearly documented.

There is no defending that, and you are calling me a moron. 

And if you want an example of a bug that made it into production then here you go: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7987286

The irony in this is that you are the one erroneously taking crypto to be equivalent to bank accounts (which it ISN'T), and then accusing it of not being able to implement the accountancy of bank accounts (which is not needed).

YOU are the one talking about "balances" as if they were the atomic concepts in crypto, while they aren't, but they ARE in the world of bank accounts.  

You fail to see that what a bank account audit tries to establish, namely that the account changes are in agreement with a hypothetical list of transactions, while in crypto, one does the opposite, and STARTS from the list of transactions, to DERIVE, if you want to, some "balances".

There's of course no point to try to apply a test to those derived balances, to make sure that they can be derived from a list of transactions, because they HAVE BEEN DERIVED from a list of transactions in the first place !  So the test doesn't test anything that we didn't know already.

You seem not to be able to integrate these two notions that are fundamental to crypto:

1) the fundamental monetary aspect of crypto is "power/right to spend" (and not the "holdings in an account")

2) the fundamental accountancy unit is the transaction (and not the account)

Both these notions have to do with a single fundamental concept: the VALID TRANSACTION.

However, FROM this concept, one can (and wallet software does this) DERIVE the equivalent of the "holdings in an address".

As I said, it is *you* who fail to understand that this is the essence of a cryptocurrency, and the ironic thing is that you accuse others to make this failure to understand.

Crypto is NOT about accounts and balances.  It is about transactions and the power to make a valid transaction.

The need to have a valid transaction implies the fact that it has to spend a previous valid transaction output, or a valid creation.  There are different ways to check this ; one is the bitcoin way, with explicit traceability, another is using cryptographic proofs (ring signatures, or zero knowledge proofs) of validity.  These are just different ways to establish the validity of a transaction, and that's ALL THAT MATTERS.

Eh, the only thing that has "authority" is the block chain.  There are no IOU on a block chain.  And, as I explained several times, the "symmetrical audit" is a technique that allows verification if the "atomic elements of accountancy" are ACCOUNTS.  But the "atomic elements of accountancy" on a block chain are NOT accounts, but TRANSACTIONS.

The symmetrical auditing on "independent accounts" checks whether the account values have only changed by the existence of transactions.

If my atomic elements of accountancy are "accounts", then I have an account A, an account B and an account C, and the "correctness" (the check of balances) of this accountancy system comes down to verifying whether the changes in these values of A, B and C correspond to a set of TRANSACTIONS.

If at moment t1, A = 100, B = 10, and C = 40

and at moment t2, A = 50, B = 30 and C = 70

then the question is: does there exist a set of transactions, such that we can go from t1 to t2 ?

Here, such a set of transactions would be: {A -> 50 -> B} and {B -> 30 -> C}.  Note that this system is not unique.  We could also have set of transactions {A -> 50 -> C } and {C -> 20 -> B}

But at least there exist possible transactions that transform t1 into t2.  So the checking of the balances proves us that it is possible that correct transactions have made the situation of t1 evolve into t2.

However, with a block chain, we ALREADY HAVE the list of transactions, and the "accounts" are only derived quantities. So the "accountancy" on this DERIVED set of balances doesn't bring in anything.


But that is not what happens on the block chain.  That is what your wallet software DISPLAYS you.  On the block chain, you don't have "an address with value on it".  On the block chain, you have unspend outputs, and your wallet is making the sum of those unspend outputs to display you what could be associated with that address.


Of course it is possible.  If the transaction is accepted, you have "killed" one or more of your "unspend outputs" and your wallet software is not going to add them anymore.