Topic: Could Monero replace Bitcoin soon? - page 6. (Read 33721 times)

until now nothing altcoin can replace and take over
positition bitcoin is number one cryptco coin number one volume transaction
because nothing altcoin support exchange to all exchanger and support all exchanger pair altcoin

You are a liar, I was going to type exactly what hyc said but got busy with other stuff, anyway the moral of history is you won't fool anyone here, shitcoiners gonna shitcoin and this thread is not about your scamcoin.

I agree with you and monero will be hard because, still there are another altcoins are like ETH and other coins. Monero still need much time, innovation, hard work from developer and loyality from comunity until monero replace bitcoin.

Wait. Are you under the impression that it is not possible to determine whether the monero you send has arrived on the address you intended for it to arrive on?

You're not only a liar, you're a moron. But here's one thing that no one can argue with - github itself doesn't lie. And it is a fact that the github commits you linked to, from Shen, were never in public use in any Monero release. The commits you linked to were specific to ringCT and ringCT+multisig. RingCT itself has only been merged into monero's master repository on August 24. Everything is spelled out in exactly the commits you referenced.

This is a direct quote from your blog:

Both of those commits are prototype ringCT code. Neither of those were ever in Monero's released code. RingCT code only went into Monero on August 24. The commit history is indisputable.

Your "not disputed facts" are completely false.

Many big, popular stores haven't heard of Bitcoin either. A good option to make one or both popular is to ask everytime we go somewhere to eat or buy anything if we can pay in the respective currency. People will ask each other what is it and this is how Bitcoin can get easily popular.

I don't think that Monero would replace bitcoin any time soon. Monero would need the same amount of press coverage that bitcoin has right now considering that most stores may have not heard of it.

I think this is not gonna happen based on how monero develops as of now. There are a lot of alt coins that have better features and development than it.

why you talk about things 2 years ago?

This seems pretty clear to me
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7987286

How can smooth and fluffy make a schoolboy error like that?

Because its my opinion, and I don't endorse instamined scams.

And he did a terrible job, https://shnoe.wordpress.com/2016/02/11/de-anonymizing-shadowcash-and-oz-coin/

What have I lied about?

Who is hyc?

And why is shadow a scam coin?

You really are a piece of work.

Its quite clear what happened, and you come here accusing me of lying though my teeth.  Read my article the facts are not disputed here.

https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.56mx91ypi

Your great cryptographer (shen) is a kid with no morals, lucky for him he is anonymous and he might still be able to salvage his career.

Let me just dig a bit further and find some Monero rookie amateur code fuckups: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7987286

Thats really disrespectful towards Howard Chu and other dozens of Monero contributors that among other things reduced the blockchain size close to 50% in the lastest Monero release, Ethereum is bloatware that increases the blockchain 10 fold what Bitcoin does, the "elite team of developers" indeed acts like a new kind of royalty bailing-out themselves in a criminal fraudulent hard-fork that will go down in history as how not to manage a cryptocurrency.

Moreover joke coins like SDC will never amount real live usage, no one in their sane state of mind would trust an instamined POS coin with its myriad of problems to lead the cryptocurrency movement.

and by "no one" I mean the people with $$$ that matter, pumps come and go but you can't fake good fundamentals, the money stick to these like magnets.

Thanks, I understand that very well  

That is exactly why symmetrical audits are required on a transaction - any transaction, be it an accounting package, a blockchain or a chemical plant mass balance because that tells you whether the problem lies in the IOU or in the blockchain. The thing about controlled actions is that the control needs to be identified/measured using the same criteria as the original intent. Thats the problem with this design.

So if I use a blockchain address to command my wallet to execute a transaction, I also need to use that address to test the result. With obscured blockchains, this is not possible (because they were originally conceived of to transport fiat with a trusted party in the loop, not unbacked crypto). Thats why this is an obsolete archetype.

Bitcoin and all modern transparent blockchains however, do support properly controlled actions on the blockchain through a symmetric transaction audit. If I send a bitcoin balance to Poloniex therefore, I’ll be using exactly the same criteria to test the result as they are (...and use as the basis for their "IOU"). This is possible of course due to the magic of public-private key cryptography which effectively allows for 2 blockchains - a private one and a public one. I can command the action using the “private” address domain and BOTH sender and receiver can test the result using the same public address without revealing any private key.

When asymmetric transaction audits are enforced on users on the other hand, you don’t have this option. The control is gone. You will be using one set of criteria to measure the success (“Transaction was successful message from wallet + transaction ID) and they will be using another (visually inspecting that the address is populated). By definition the action is therefore uncontrolled.

The fact that these may be the same tests “under the hood” is irrelevant because a control needs to be explicit, not implicit. (Poloniex at least, will only endorse the ‘explicit’ result anyway).

The flaw in this (encrypted blockchain) design isn’t in the technology which I accept works fine, it’s in the original design archetype. It is made to work like a bank account from the account holder’s perspective where you can only see” your stuff” and nobody else’s. But even that system has controls because there is a brokering party that DOES have access to a symmetric transaction audit and the account holder has recourse to that trusted party.

You are totally missing the point again.  Your "balance on an exchange" has nothing to do with a cryptocurrency, but is something that the guys on an exchange decide to put on their website.  They can change that balance at any moment, by just editing their web site database.  The balance on an exchange is not "holding crypto", it is holding IOU on a website.  So this has nothing to do with it.

Your local simplewallet application is a thing that takes the block chain, as I explained, and CALCULATES a balance from all the valid transactions on the chain.  If that calculation is wrong because your application doesn't work correctly, then it is just doing a wrong calculation, but that *balance* is nowhere explicitly on a block chain.  Only TRANSACTIONS are, from which software can calculate balances.

And it is in the nature of a transaction to contain BOTH an instruction of "augmenting a balance" and an instruction of "diminishing a balance".  So from the moment that there is a valid transaction, AUTOMATICALLY there will be an augmented balance somewhere, and a diminished balance somewhere.  Whether software, of websites reflecting IOU, or whatever DO THIS CALCULATION CORRECTLY, is an entirely different issue, that has nothing to do with the block chain itself.  This software can work correctly, or wrongly, as well on the bitcoin block chain, as on the monero block chain.

You can just as well send bitcoins to poloniex, and NOT see your IOU account of bitcoins there increased, as you can send monero to poloniex, and not see your IOU account of monero increase.  If poloniex's software is not running correctly (on purpose or with a bug) then that has nothing to do with the nature of the block chain.

If your bitcoin core wallet is not treating transactions on the bitcoin chain correctly, then your balances will  not be correct, just as if simplewallet is making mistakes reading the monero block chain, it will display wrong balances.  Because in both cases, these balances are calculated on the basis of the block chain transactions.

Your reference to your "scientific control" which I explained, was totally erroneous, because just testing twice the effect of a transaction, whether valid or not, is not bringing anything new.

Again: a transaction contains BOTH a "plus" for one balance, and a "minus" for another balance.  OF COURSE if you include that transaction in the calculation of the first balance, you will see an augmentation, and if you include THAT SAME TRANSACTION in the calculation of the second balance, you will see a corresponding decrease.  But that doesn't check, prove, or double check anything.
If the transaction is valid, which is the thing that must be checked, your balances will correspond AUTOMATICALLY (in monero just as well as in bitcoin) ; and if your transaction is invalid, the erroneously calculated balances on the basis of that invalid transaction will ALSO check.  So the fact of seeing an augmentation of A and a decrease of B doesn't prove ANYTHING.  It is a logical consequence of accepting as valid a transaction.

With a correct calculation of balances from a block chain, and valid transactions, your scenario "A is diminished, but B didn't increase" CAN NEVER HAPPEN.  Because it is one and the same element (the valid transaction) that causes BOTH.  If the transaction is valid, then the correct calculation of A will be diminished, and that same transaction will cause the correct calculation of B to be augmented.  It is simply not possible that one and the same block chain, with the same set of transactions, would ever result in A diminishing, and B not augmenting, because it is one and the same instruction (the transaction).  At least if the transaction is correctly structured, which is part of its cryptographic validation.

Your scenario is only possible if people are having DIFFERENT BLOCK CHAINS with different sets of transactions, but that is also true for bitcoin.

The trivial other cases can be when your wallet software makes a wrong calculation of balances (that doesn't affect anybody, because that doesn't modify the block chain), or when other software writes wrong calculations in a web site database.  But that can just as well happen with bitcoin, as with monero, and has nothing to do with the currency principles itself.

I'm trying to measure the Bitcoin network effect dept in an economic crisis event, I think it could 10x nearing a 100 bi marketcap, but then I look at the roots of the digital currency movement, the primordial idea from which they are based and from which Bitcoin inherently stray away:

http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt

Satoshis posts about group signatures in 2010 shows he was aware of the problem, Monero is in an increasingly important spot, an over 100 million USD opaque blockchain can only go up from here.

Bitcoin would play well as storage of value in an economic crisis but not as cash as the direct usage would increase so would surveillance and tracking and the danger in using it.

Monero is the solution, and the future.

Actually, no, you're the one without a clue. The Monero code base never had that bug. The problem was discovered in private proof-of-concept code in a personal repo. That code was never in any Monero repository, let alone any released code. It was never a "Monero bug." It never had *any* impact on the Monero blockchain or Monero's users. But it *was* a bug in SDC's publicly released code, and it *did* allow de-anonymizing the entire SDC blockchain. The SDC developers were sloppy, pushing code into production without sufficient review. That demonstrates both poor quality developers *and* development practices.

Proof: you link to a ringCT commit from February 7 2016. https://github.com/ShenNoether/RingCT/commit/6640e808018bb47ea34fd112dbf2d2bef9c1156b
But the ringCT code wasn't merged into the Monero codebase until August 24, 2016. The merge was done only after months of intensive testing and refactoring. https://github.com/monero-project/monero/pull/961

Do you think you gain respect from lying through your teeth?
It's not "shitting on everybody" - it's calling out liars and scammers, which is what all honest communities must do.

I can see you have no idea what your talking about
https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.3jqn7fyjr

Do you think you gain respect from shitting on everybody

Thats really disrespectful towards Ryno Mathee who was the first to put ring sigs on the btc codebase.  If Monero is so superior to sdc why the need to attack it.