Topic: Monero most likely coin to challenge Bitcoin - page 3. (Read 5017 times)

You're again imagining in a world based on bank accounts. This is nonsense.

Cryptocurrency addresses do not have "owners". An "owner" is a legal concept and in particular with a bank account describes their state of debt or credit. I realise there are definitions of "ownership" that overlap but the difference is that a blockchain address is not defined by a holder where the money in a bank account is.

Forget the idea that an employer is going to be paying you in "crypto". It's pie in the sky. Crypto is an asset class amongst thousands. Mainstream currencies are and always will be (in a technological world) numbers in computers that correspond to the prevailing financial system of the day. One is a million miles away from the other.

Sometimes when I'm having these discussions with Monero people it's like they've invented this little legoland where the entire world revolves around their currency. Another example of that is the "Viewkey" and the little anecdote about how an auditor can come into a company with his breifcase and suit, get a viewkey and go away again and thats compliance. It's laughable.

The life of an economic entity - be it a person, corporation, business or otherwise transits through thousands of asset classes. It doesn't spend its entire existence transferring crypto from one address to another. The boundaries between asset classes are where regulatory enforcement is asserted and that will apply to Monero as for any other asset class.

One monero (cryptonight) hash is way, way more computing intensive than one bitcoin hash.

I gave you already an example with an employer and a subcontractor.  I can give you more.  The point is that open transaction links between addresses allows one to use partial off-chain identity information to complete the puzzle.  If those transactions are not explicitly known, but one only has a cryptographic proof that they exist, then this kind of "completing the puzzle" cannot be done.

Here's another example.  Joe sells "illegal" stuff to Jack against bitcoin.  So there is a transaction from address A (Jack's) to address B (Joe's).  Joe withdraws coins from his account on, say, Kraken to his address C (Joe's).    Next, Joe pays Mark some bitcoin from address B and C to Mark's and gets a return in address D (Joe's).  Next, Joe buys a coffee at Julia's café, and his wallet pays from D to address K (Julia's) and his return address E (Joe's).

Now, law enforcement arrests Jack.  Jack doesn't say anything, but law enforcement can see in Jack's wallet that Jack owned address A and hence paid to address B.  Suppose now that law enforcement works with Julia's cafe.  They see that after a few transactions, A - B - D - K Jack's coins end up at Julia's.  She can clearly identify Joe as the owner of address D.  But law enforcement looks for the owner of B, who did business with Jack.  Given that they see that B was combined with C into a transaction leading to D, and that they can find out that C is Joe's because it came from Kraken, Joe cannot deny to be the owner of B too.

Indeed, a transaction combining B and C(of Joe) into D (of Joe) can be nothing else but B being Joe's too.

As such, with just knowing that Jack paid B and Kraken and Julia's cafe, one can find out that B must be owned by Joe and that Joe worked for Jack.  So the relationship between Jack and Joe can be derived from the block chain, and information that doesn't relate to their relationship.

Do the same with cash.  There's no way law enforcement can ever trace back the relationship between Jack and Joe.  With monero, neither.


The point is that chain analysis can complete PARTIAL information by using the transaction network.

well, you can't compare the hashing power of monero and bitcoin, it's two different algorithms...

hashing power has been steadily rising: http://www.coinwarz.com/network-hashrate-charts/monero-network-hashrate-chart

about the possibility of 51% attack, I'm sure someone smarter than me can enlighten you (and me)

I have a question about Monero. Ok we are seeing that some people here are saying that Monero will be bitcoin's real challenger. Let me ask, how is the hashing power of Monero? Is the network strong enough to repel a 51% attack. I believe it will be the latest target for hackers, now with its new found high value and notoriety in the darknet markets.

Couldn't quite put my finger on why he was acting so silly. Now I know.

'It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.'

Keiser had a guest "pumping" Bitcoin on there as well. Jon Matonis https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GiQEECNcZM in 2011.

I have to disagree... bitcoin becomes less fungible because it's less anonymous... Bitcoins can become 'tainted' because there's the possibility to look back in transactionhistory and identify coins that were used in shady transactions... so now you have 2 types of coins: pristine and 'tainted' --> so bye bye fungibility...

Transactionprivacy and unlinkability is a condition to remain fungible in my (humble) opinion... without it, fungibility evaporates... but again, we can disagree...

best regards

I'm not saying maximum anonymity shouldn't be persued - it should. The reason that cash or gold is anonymous is because each note or bar looks more or less like any other. There is minimum distinction between one unit of the money and another.

But "privacy" is a very different thing from fungibility. It implies hiding something from view completely. If you listen to David Latapie's presentation on Monero a couple of years ago for example, he doesn't stop going on about how it's "invisible". Privacy is not the same thing as fungibility or anonymity.

Fungibility can be legitimately pursued without loss of blockchain transparency. You can make the blockchain fungible and still have a blockchain.info type total openness and accountability. The important thing is that if you want the entire world to endorse it as "money" then that transparency must not be dependent on holding a private key. A public key must be enough (...and I mean ADDRESSES, not meaningless transaction numbers).

I still don't get how you get to this point... Cash isn't less valuable because it's more private than a bank account... au contraire, cash offers more freedom to do what one wants... but oh well, we'll have to agree to disagree then, future and 'the market' will tell who's right...

good luck anyway

There are no "entry" and "exit" points in a blockchain (other than in the mining process).

You're obsessed with this banking terminology as if it's some kind of door you walk through and open an account that has your name on it forever. Cryptocurrency blockchains are a million miles away from that but good luck in trying to convince everyone of it. You might as well try to convince them that because you own a set of keys to your office you therefore own your employer's company.

With respect, you're the one that doesn't seem to get it. It doesn't matter what the blockchain shows - addresses, transaction numbers, nothing at all - who t.f. cares. ALL the information about you has to be gleaned off chain. So what if somebody discovered that I happened to control a particular address at some point in time ? It doesn't mean anything and it certainly is a whole lot different from transferring money from my bank account to another's.

You think a blockchain where you can't see the addresses is any more protection than one where you can ? You guys are deluded. The interface with the commercial world is a common denominator that everyone has to deal with whether it's Bitcoin, Monero or a lump of gold under your bed.

You make the asset less transparent, all you're doing is corrupting it and diminishing its value - bottom line.

(On the other hand, hey - they're coming for you. Better go and hide in your little de-linked bunker   r.o.t.f.l)
 

I just watched Keiser last night. His guest was pumping Monero.

Usually this marks the top for any coin. Check out the terminal bear markets for Quark, MAX and START - it always happens after a Max Pump 

I have the impression that we are running in cycles.  "block chain" and "address" are only ONE means to implement a monetary token.

A monetary token needs to display a "right to spend" and a "power to transmit".

The "right to spend" has to derive from a proof, belief, reasonable expectation that that RIGHT IS LEGIT.  That's all there needs to be.  In order for a right to spend to be legit, it has:

1) to be created in a legit accepted way OR
2) to have been uniquely transmitted from a former legit "right to spend".

From the moment that one can have sufficient trust, belief, reasonable expectation that such is the case, then the right to spend is legit, and the token can act as a monetary asset.

The EXACT WAY in which the trust, belief, reasonable expectation of legit right to spend is achieved, is not important, from the moment that people can trust, believe, or reasonably expect it to be true.

One way is "through physics".  Physical objects, essentially through Pauli's principle and the fact that they are made up of fermions, automatically induce a "right to spend" if you physically hold them.  If I have a piece of genuine gold to show you, physics guarantees me that or I dug it up (legit "creation" of the monetary token), or someone gave it to me and doesn't have it any more right now.

Another way is "with an army of accountants".  That's how the fiat world works, with "legit rights to spend".

And another way is by having some computer derived proof of such.  That can be through a transparent block chain where the software can verify, hopping from transaction to transaction, back to the moment of creation (mining).  But that can also by another block chain mechanism, where a cryptographic proof is delivered that such transactions took place.

And maybe in the future we will invent still other schemes to prove the legit right to spend.  The exact way in which this is achieved, doesn't matter, from the moment that it is sound.

who cares? Do you know how many people are trying to hide their wealth in the world, don't you see the 'evolution' we are in, more oppressive government, negative interest rates, financial repression... they're coming for your money... they will keep coming and they will rob you blind... Blockchainanalysis makes it perfectly possible to identify your entry-point in the blockchain and discover all your addresses, so they can know exactly how much you own and calculate how much you must give them...

an obscure blockchain based on mathematical and cryptographic principles so it can't be tampered with is far more valuable then a public ledger where you, your neighbour and the governement know exactly what you have, what you're doing with it, and if they feel the need, can just proclaim your 'money' void...

But I have a feeling you just don't want to get this, I can't believe a person would resort to such illogical arguments if he wasn't defending a hidden agenda... Your hidden agenda is 'Dash' and losing the privacy fight against monero... So now you guys are coming out that a public blockchain is a feature and privacy actually doesn't matter this much... come on... we're all grown-ups here...

good luck dude

A blockchain address is not a bank account.

Thats the whole design folly of "obscured" blockchains - they impose a flawed, record keeping archetype on cryptocurrency just because thats what people are used to.

You do not "own" an address. A blockchain is a public ledger over which you may have some control by means of a private key. The fact that it's public is what gives your private key its value in the first place. If you make the public part of the blockchain "private" (as well as the private part) you just trash the value.

Ok, so the public address is hidden - who cares. A fully transparent blockchain will always be far more valuable than an obscured one.

Bitcoin is more transparent then bank transfers. Everybody can see how much you own and track all transactions. Why would any sane person prefer this over usual bank transfer or a privacy protected blockchain like XMR?

Selling BTC "transparency" as a feature instead of a weakness is just funny.

LoL. Voluntary if you're already a key holder.

Blockchain transparency means that ALL can see every address whether they're a key holder or not.

See here.

(You also need to be able to do this whether you're a key holder or not).

In addition,
Monero's voluntarily transparent (see: viewkeys)

I agree that cryptocurrencies as designed today have a fundamental problem with very high volumes.  Bitcoin has a hard limit, others, like monero, can adapt, but at a certain point, the block chain growth becomes so large, that with present technology, this is problematic.  Maybe a 500 TB block chain is not a problem in the future ; for the moment, it is.

That said, there could be solutions to that.  Off-chain is one answer.  But "grouping transactions together" could be another one.  Suppose that a supermarket receives 300 transactions per minute from its customers.  There could be a kind of cryptographic technique, style zcash, that allows this supermarket to combine these 300 transactions into one single big one.  I don't know of any block chain that implements this at the moment (because no need: the only block chain that has problematic high volume at the moment is bitcoin, and there, it is hitting a hard protocol limit) ; but if so, it would again be something like an "obfuscated cryptographic proof that these transactions were OK without showing them".

Honestly, if the idea is NOT that crypto goes more or less mainstream in the long run, I fail to see the point of it.


It is a chicken-and-egg problem.  When a currency is really used as a denominator, a property, called "stickiness of prices" occurs, which calms the price fluctuations and stabilizes the currency value.  But people will only accept denominations in a crypto when they think it is stable enough.


Crypto doesn't have to have limited supply.  Bitcoin has a limited supply in 130 years.  Monero has tail emission.  You could easily provide for a slightly inflationary currency.  BTW, our currency is NOT stable.  We've suffered an inflation of a factor of 23 since one century.

And there's another regulatory inflation: the NUMBER of cryptocurrencies.  If you have 300 different cryptocurrencies, each with a fixed supply, and you create 700 more cryptocurrencies, eating in the same store of value market, you have also a form of inflation.  If a cryptocurrency hard forks, you also have a form of inflation.  So there is an inherent variable money supply, by the number of cryptocurrencies/hard forks and their relative market caps.

The crypto market is much more elastic than one would naively think.