Topic: delete - page 36. (Read 165538 times)

ROFL

for what calling Litecoin a clone of Bitcoin ?

the previous page before that you had some real winner comments too you guys quickly bumped away LOL
don't worry i will go grab one of them and bump it to remind you

Well said and a display ignorance or naivety if you prefer lol

xulescu, I agree.


Note the above is FUD in sense that I have not really formalized and verified merging instead of forking the block chain. I might still discover that merging is infeasible. But this is something to keep on your distant radar.

That is the qualitative difference I was arguing with smooth upthread.

The point is that between 25% and 50% of the network hashrate, the attacker can in theory win with selfish mining (and probably ramp up to 50% with it) and this is due to the fact that the chain is forked and not merged (I have a formal math proof of this). Also above 50%, the attacker gets winner-takes-all with short-term rented hardware, because the chain is forked and not merged.

I don't think gmaxell really understood me, yet I am not sure if I really understood all the variables yet. So this is a work in progress subject to failure.

The following also applies:

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time/

I mostly agree with what you said. After all, the consumer market for anonymity is not yet rattled by the actions of the TLAs. This is one reason why BBR's emission curve is better than XMR's. No argument here. At this point at least, also taking into account the limitations of existing cryptos in general and CN in particular, our target is anonymous sparse transactions (such as sophisticated investors/speculators and other money managers with a pretty aggressive risk profile for holding, and private commercial entities for transfers).

I understand this is not your vision of The Anonymous Crypto and frankly is it not ours either. But there are steps to ubiquity and many barriers that have not been acceptably analyzed, much less solved. So until we have the slightest clue how to put things together to make a crypto system that checks all requirements for TAC we've decided to take the most advanced partial solution and try to refine it conservatively. BBR has a more aggressive approach.

We believe pruning the ring signatures is not conservative enough. We believe changing the PoW hash is not conservative enough. Any of these beliefs can change in the future.

I hope this makes it more clear.

Lol.  


Well implementation is better than ideas, so I can only speak to what I may think is implementable in terms of radical decentralization. Understandably from your perspective, my words are just the same as hollow non-specified ideas other than what you have already contemplated about designs that might be possible.

I understood your opinion that BBR doesn't significantly increase decentralization and thus in your opinion the tradeoff isn't a clear gain. That tradeoff is not a slamdunk either way, so it is subjective. Whereas, I think coinmarketcap.com will show clearly when someone has demontrated a convincing result and the analysis no longer subjective. In short, neither XMR nor BBR have yet solved the issues around threats from mining, thus many figure might as well stay with Bitcoin since it has a higher hashrate. What is the point of moving to anonymity if it can be destroyed reasonably easily (apologies that is FUDdy, I don't mean it is likely but rather the same risks for altcoins). And still there is the vetting of the de-anonymization, impacts scaling, etc.. There are so many variables...I'm glossing over specifics, e.g. XMR's pools are currently not overly concentrated, etc..

Any way, that is my 2 cents on why there hasn't been mad rush to buy anonymous coins. The market doesn't yet trust them, combined with there isn't an incredible incentive and not a slamdunk win on many facets. Also CN is still new, had a choppy beginning, and BTC has been down.

Edit: the environment will change on at least two fronts. 1) the governments will become more hostile to capital, 2) altcoin tech will continue to be improved, heck even XMR might have some tricks up their sleeve coming...

Probably also BTC will bottom (I think < $200) and begin a new bubble phase. LTC had its big move during the 2013 bubble. Risk-off phases means altcoins are ignored.

Also someone might introduce another unexpected paradigm shift DOGE-like curve ball.

I didn't say change a key image after the fact. I said that you can't independently verify that it is valid once the ring sigs are gone. You are trusting that at some time in the past a consistent ring sig and key image ever existed. After trimming you can only see the key image, not the rest. And without the rest you can't verify its validity, only its uniqueness (VER step vs. LNK step in the white paper).

Really ? And how could you change key image without changeing tx id ?
Because transactions are fixed in blockchain with every data in it, including keyimages, but except ring signatures. In BBR.

The market demonstrates its "interest" in a coin by purchasing it.  Thus, the higher the market cap the more the market has found a coin "interesting."

Even speaking strictly to the technology, observing Litecoin as a variable to Bitcoin's control is also an interesting experiment.

Stop molesting my sound logic with your subjective definitions!   

And I've already answered you with this: (don't get circular on me here)


I wholly agree with very clean code and the simplest crypto that is sufficient. I doubt anyone would challenge that.

You cannot just say "trusting nobody doesn't work with minichains, and that is the only idea for decentralization, thus I'll pretend the trust issues are PEDANTIC TRIVIALITIES".

I already answered you with this post.

Note you've made a strong argument for very clean source code and simplified crypto. Validates everything I've been working on. Thanks!

This is quite obviously true just from a casual glance at the tiny market cap of XMR (and the slightly less tiny, but still tiny, market cap of DRK).

The people who need to pay attention to this are the "life savings" folks. Even rpeitila, the oft proclaimed Monero hawker/hyper/promotor/shill, has said that low ratios of Monero are appropriate relative to BTC and fiat. (Maybe someone has the link?)

But I'm afraid that anyone foolish enough to be in the "life savings" camp (assuming this isn't actually a straw man) is likely beyond reaching.


Definitely agree.


I disagree with the need for this apology. Investors benefit from information. It is up to them to decide what information to use.

Somewhat. You are referring to key images. But key images are only validated with respect to a ring signature. Otherwise, I can come up with whatever (unique) key image I want and how would you know it isn't valid?

Are you suggesting that there is a "solution" to the scalability issue? To this problem there are only improvements, not an end-all be-all solution.

Smooth, RS have absolutely no relation with double spending protection, so i have no idea why you wrote all that.
Double spend protection in CN implemented in different way, and this keep works without RS.  Want to argue with that ?  

Hopefully now you better understand my reservations about declaring a winner too soon and my opinion that we could see more developments in this space than the ones already factored in. And why I think the market is not jumping bananas to buy up XMR.

I am also interested to see what comes out of the bounty algorithm if it is implemented and better understood.

I think we still need some other fundamental breakthroughs. Ring signatures are interesting, but not sure yet if they are the Holy Grail.

Note I apologize for any impact on investment decisions this post has. I understand it is difficult for me to make such a post without stepping on someone's toes. I will try to go quiet as that is the best way to not offend interests and the best way to actually get some work done (health willing).

Kill streak bro.

In BBR's solution, the linear advantage that full nodes get does not solve any scalability issue (especially so for thin nodes) and introduces the trust / security model problem that is in no way a trivial pedanticry. Commiting the ring signatures with an additional "full" hash for each block would alleviate that problem, but still trusts "anybody" stores the signatures.

And to add to all that, open source is not the holy grail in code vetting. I will name three issues from recent memory that had different direct causes, but the same primary cause:

1. Heartbleed
2. Shellshock
3. Block 202612

The primary cause is "just because anyone can do it doesn't mean anyone will do it", both in terms of open source vetting and in terms of storing the signatures. It is a tragedy of the commons.

Agree. We have always said that the cryptonote tech is interesting and the original reason for Monero was to take that interesting tech and exercise good custody and ongoing development of it in a non-scam way.

By a combination of your logic and mine, "interesting" is not required for a high market value, and "interesting" coins can still self destruct by being scams.

Wow, look who doesn't know the diff between a "clone" and a "fork" today.  Someone is being a bit of a Grumpy Gus...   

Litecoin was and is very interesting, because it has a known dev (with MIT/GOOG pedigrees) who tweaked BTC in ways he thought optimal, based on the experience of BTC.

The market says LTC is the most interesting crypto coin next to the original.  Sorry if that hurts your feels, but that's the reality.

Using your wet blanket logic, Monero is an uninteresting "clone" also, because Bytecoin...