Author

Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 139. (Read 387493 times)

legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050
Monero Core Team
July 26, 2014, 01:47:31 PM

I already said one-time ring signatures are an improvement, except they come at the cost of defeating the mini-block chain, which is the only way I can see to scale to micro transactions and remain decentralized (assuming you want new mining nodes to be able to pop up, download the block chain, and leave the network at-will to guard against IP blocking by the authorities, etc...).


I would urge you to think of the idea of intentionally living with a rigid or punitively expensive cap of daily transactions.

The transaction cost for physical gold bullion transactions is always 1% or more of the value, typically 2% (not counting all the externalities such as your time).

I am in favor of drastically increasing the price of something that is rare and valuable, and would not even notice paying 1 XMR fees.




High transaction fees for trading and in particular for taking delivery of gold are in fact the major weakness of gold as a form of money and led to the development fractional reserve banking and fiat currencies. The net result of these costs is that gold is worth less not more since it becomes easier to short gold and more importantly maintain the shorts. This is critical to understanding the source of the Rothschilds' wealth. The premise is that owners of gold would deposit their gold with Rothschild and use their promissory notes for gold instead of gold as money in order to avoid the the above mentioned fees and costs. Rothschild would then issue promissory notes for gold in excess of the gold on deposit and profit from the interest rate spread on the notes that were created "out of thin air". This worked because only 10% of the depositors withdrew their gold because of the fees, troubles and costs of taking delivery. Now what happens if these fees and costs were suddenly removed, people would redeem their notes and withdraw their gold from the bank, since there is now no advantage to holding the promissory note for gold rather than the gold itself. This causes the bank to collapse in a massive short squeeze, since there are more notes than gold, and the price of gold to rise sharply.

How does this apply to BTC and XMR? Well with BTC we saw pirateat40 build a massive short position in BTC in late 2011 and early 2012. This had the effect of depressing the price of BTC in 2012 allowing those of us who were buying BTC at the time to benefit from depressed prices. When the short position blew up in August 2012 it set the stage for the sharp rise in 2013. The key advantage of BTC over gold is that with BTC it is trivial in cost and time to take delivery and thereby squeeze the shorts to the wall. Mark Karpelès of MTGox was also likely taught this same lesson. In fact I would not be surprised if there is another sharp rise in the BTC price in the aftermath of this latest short squeeze. So trying to "pull a Rothschild" with BTC is doomed to failure, at least for the time being. This brings me to my next point. The 1MB blocksize limit in BTC. If this is not addressed. this will cause transaction fees to rise sharply, fractional reserve banking to become viable as with gold, and prices to fall. It is for this reason and not privacy that I have purchased a substantial position in XMR as a hedge on my BTC position. XMR does not have this problem, in fact some would argue it has gone somewhat too far in the opposite direction.

The bottom line is that for XMR we need to keep fees at a minimum to cover actual costs, in order to maximize the value of the currency not the other way around.
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
July 26, 2014, 01:35:26 PM
Wouldn't be easier for people to just start over with a new currency than deal with a hard fork?

Exactly. The confidence in Monero after the hard fork will be shuttered. It's much better to admit it and try again with new coin than to let the whole concept limp in the future because of the initial design problems.

If this hypothetical "perfect" cryptocurrency is ever designed, we can cross that bridge then. Hypothetically telling everyone how the hypothetical users of a cryptocurrency would react to a hypothetical hard fork brought on by the introduction of a hypothetical perfect cryptocurrency is...well...nothing more than your hypothesis.

In this instance we were just talking about a superior anon technology. Not a perfect currency. Just that one aspect.

Anyone speculating in anything fundamentally has to consider hypothetical situations and their associated probabilities.

My original question of whether or not being ready to hard fork XMR was the general consensus among the community still stands. I've found it incredibly rare for any community or dev team to ever be willing to change. Litecoin, Dogecoin, Bitcoin being the three largest examples. If Monero development is taking a more agile approach I would find that interesting.

Right now XMR is a bleeding edge crypto. Is the plan for it to constantly retain that position? There are big rewards for staying on top off all the latest trends and technologies, but that also comes with larger risk of course.
donator
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1060
GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com
July 26, 2014, 01:19:31 PM
Wouldn't be easier for people to just start over with a new currency than deal with a hard fork?

Exactly. The confidence in Monero after the hard fork will be shuttered. It's much better to admit it and try again with new coin than to let the whole concept limp in the future because of the initial design problems.

If this hypothetical "perfect" cryptocurrency is ever designed, we can cross that bridge then. Hypothetically telling everyone how the hypothetical users of a cryptocurrency would react to a hypothetical hard fork brought on by the introduction of a hypothetical perfect cryptocurrency is...well...nothing more than your hypothesis.
legendary
Activity: 1974
Merit: 1077
^ Will code for Bitcoins
July 26, 2014, 12:11:37 PM
Wouldn't be easier for people to just start over with a new currency than deal with a hard fork?

Exactly. The confidence in Monero after the hard fork will be shuttered. It's much better to admit it and try again with new coin than to let the whole concept limp in the future because of the initial design problems.
legendary
Activity: 826
Merit: 1002
amarha
July 26, 2014, 11:58:17 AM

 if this community was presented with a superior technology to ring signatures, I am certain that a hard fork would be made and we would continue to be the dominant community built up around the idea of an anonymous CryptoCurrency.


Is this the general consensus?

Just how deeply ingrained to the CryptoNote technology are ring signatures? What would a hard fork be like? Wouldn't be easier for people to just start over with a new currency than deal with a hard fork?

legendary
Activity: 1176
Merit: 1015
July 26, 2014, 11:37:35 AM
Rehashing this over and over again isn't going to make a solution present itself any faster (not directed at you, just speaking in general).

A significant number of they people doing it (and I'm not sure they even know who they are) are not trying to solve anything. They are rehashing the topic in order to spread FUD because they have already decided they don't like Monero for various reasons.

I'll reiterate that this does not mean I think Monero is perfect or that these problems are not serious or should be addressed. I'm speaking to motivation here, and why we see (and will see) the same points repeated and repeated and repeated with no new substance.



This is one of the reasons I haven't been posting as much recently.

Monero is the best anonymous system that we have at the moment, the people following Monero are mostly interested in a digital cryptocurrency that is untraceable. Our community has anonymity as our fundamental ideal.

Even if Zerocash worked and solved their infinite currency problem, I would stick with Monero for one reason; because I believe in this community, and if this community was presented with a superior technology to ring signatures, I am certain that a hard fork would be made and we would continue to be the dominant community built up around the idea of an anonymous CryptoCurrency. I believe we will change with the times, and it's that reason I support Monero.

The trouble is now we either have the silly dumb trolls posting lies about Monero or we have some intelligent members of the community posting the same argument over and over again hoping for the perfect currency to emerge and not supporting anything until this "ultimate" currency gets created.

Even if this ultimate coin that solves all the problems gets created, the Monero community is so strong I believe we would emulate that coin's strengths and become stronger ourselves.

I agree smooth, sometimes it feels pointless arguing here because the same invalid points are made again and again without any consideration for Monero itself advancing and the community reacting to new concepts.

I believe in Monero and this fantastic community.
hero member
Activity: 826
Merit: 500
July 26, 2014, 10:33:14 AM


Do you think it is at all possible to design and implement a "perfect" privacy coin?

If so, can you design it? I've understood that even if you could, you wouldn't have the time / resources to implement it.

Ideally, what should happen in order for you to pull off such a project successfully? How much funding? How big of a team would you need? Who would you select in your team as developers?

I believe that he has stated the he wouldn't want to be seen as a lead developer for such a project.
hero member
Activity: 966
Merit: 1003
July 26, 2014, 09:46:09 AM


Do you think it is at all possible to design and implement a "perfect" privacy coin?

If so, can you design it? I've understood that even if you could, you wouldn't have the time / resources to implement it.

Ideally, what should happen in order for you to pull off such a project successfully? How much funding? How big of a team would you need? Who would you select in your team as developers?
hero member
Activity: 794
Merit: 1000
Monero (XMR) - secure, private, untraceable
July 26, 2014, 09:28:04 AM
When are you guys going to sell XMR (to rebuy later..)

Anyone shorting it right already bought back Cheesy

...is what I would say if I had bothered shorting in the first place
Shorting now could leave you without your precious XMR.
kbm
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
July 26, 2014, 09:01:50 AM
When are you guys going to sell XMR (to rebuy later..)

Anyone shorting it right already bought back Cheesy

...is what I would say if I had bothered shorting in the first place
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
July 26, 2014, 08:41:46 AM
When are you guys going to sell XMR (to rebuy later..)
sr. member
Activity: 784
Merit: 272
July 26, 2014, 08:06:09 AM

Did anyone tell about the MultiGateWay of Nxt ?



http://bitcoinist.net/multigateway-new-decentralized-exchange/
http://multigateway.com/
http://multigateway.com/user-guide/installing-the-software/
https://nxtforum.org/multigateway-jl777/
https://nxtforum.org/umgwc/
https://nxtforum.org/umgwc/umgw-ui-release-v1-3e/

It's working, I am using it.
Basically you can trade Nxt for Bitcoin or Litecoin, soon Darkcoin (I know fuck that coin) and more crypto soon.

It is a decentralized exchange that you use from the Nxt client.
All transactions are based on the Nxt blockchain. No cheat, no theft, no scam, ...

Isn't it what cryptocurrencies always needed ?


how can xmr be traded with this?
kbm
member
Activity: 84
Merit: 10
July 26, 2014, 06:35:12 AM
I'm willing to bet this information might shed some light here .. I could see many people being fine with a high-scale crypto with no anonymity so long as the purchase is low and not really requiring the need for privacy (think groceries - not prescriptions, where maybe you only put $50 in your wallet at a time). I'm thinking this CN might fill a niche for a little bit more costly purchases because of what it offers. Honestly, I'd find it crazy to want to ever hide the fact that I bought some milk, eggs and bread from the grocery store from anyone - I just don't care about it, and why would I go overkill and permanently obscure that data when it's not needed.

This is potentially addressed with an off-chain model, even something as simple as prepaid card/account which has been widely used already to address the fact that Visa transactions don't scale down to small purchases very well (so iTunes, Starbucks, etc.)

If you don't care that someone is tracking your milk, eggs, and bread purchases you don't need crypto to do it at all. Just use a crypto with good privacy to load up your grocery store card (so no one including the grocery store can find out about your other finances) and you are good to go.

Right! I totally neglected to encompass off-chain tx's into the scope of the statement. At the time I was thinking under the impression that multiple cryptocurrencies would be all that were in existence, and promise notes were out of the picture. This takes the scope of the thought a bit further .. adding this into the picture falls back onto having some form of trusted banking system manifesting though (possible full-reserve banking?). That's something else that is still an unknown too. I'd like to not think that I would personally have to worry about protecting and maintaining my financial data from here until the end of time, and might consider paying someone else to take charge of that responsibility at this moment in time, just as I currently do(add: unless I can be shown beyond doubt that my money is safest in my own hands). The amount of time and effort that will be required by a third party to serve as such an entity would not be something light .. though I already do see it coming to light with people leaving their money on exchanges. One more step from here and they can just do exactly what you mentioned (That seems to have been the basis of Anonymint's coinbase/bitstamp thread).

I haven't really put enough thought into that happening though, I see that a whole lot of people here exclude the thought banks from crypto so it's a weird topic to try and discuss here .. not much unbiased discussion has taken place (for both good and bad reasons I guess). Right now I'd say it's too early for any one of these exchanges to try this at all - they're far from secure with your money (Gox, just a few months ago).
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
July 26, 2014, 06:06:58 AM
Thanks for the discussion.

Please don't assume I am "not trying to solve anything".
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
July 26, 2014, 06:06:20 AM
I'm willing to bet this information might shed some light here .. I could see many people being fine with a high-scale crypto with no anonymity so long as the purchase is low and not really requiring the need for privacy (think groceries - not prescriptions, where maybe you only put $50 in your wallet at a time). I'm thinking this CN might fill a niche for a little bit more costly purchases because of what it offers. Honestly, I'd find it crazy to want to ever hide the fact that I bought some milk, eggs and bread from the grocery store from anyone - I just don't care about it, and why would I go overkill and permanently obscure that data when it's not needed.

This is potentially addressed with an off-chain model, even something as simple as prepaid card/account which has been widely used already to address the fact that Visa transactions don't scale down to small purchases very well (so iTunes, Starbucks, etc.)

If you don't care that someone is tracking your milk, eggs, and bread purchases you don't need crypto to do it at all. Just use a crypto with good privacy to load up your grocery store card (so no one including the grocery store can find out about your other finances) and you are good to go.

legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
July 26, 2014, 06:02:11 AM
Rehashing this over and over again isn't going to make a solution present itself any faster (not directed at you, just speaking in general).

A significant number of they people doing it (and I'm not sure they even know who they are) are not trying to solve anything. They are rehashing the topic in order to spread FUD because they have already decided they don't like Monero for various reasons.

I'll reiterate that this does not mean I think Monero is perfect or that these problems are not serious or should be addressed. I'm speaking to motivation here, and why we see (and will see) the same points repeated and repeated and repeated with no new substance.

legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
July 26, 2014, 05:59:31 AM
If that is true, then the units might not be rare but blockchain space might indeed be very scarce (and then must be somewhat expensive). It is a useful perspective.

At 8 billion people and 1024 account balances each, and say 128 bytes per account storage, that is 1 Petabyte. That is the best the mini blockchain could do. One-time ring signatures would make it entirely intractable (100s or more of Petabytes) unless you increase the cost until the 8 billion are restricted.

Let's assume a 10 year goal of 1 billion x 8 account balances each, so 1 Terabyte which is one hard drive. And hard drive space doubles every 18 months, so in 17 years we can store 1 Petabyte on one hard drive. So the mini blockchain can scale.

So there is no scarcity, except for badchosen design (priorities).

P.S. we do have to discourage dust balances though.

No one has demonstrated how to do privacy with a mini-blockchain (mini-blockchain is only minimally demonstrated, but at least that's something). You snipped the important part of my post, which is that scarcity may exist if other priorities conflict.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
July 26, 2014, 05:26:35 AM
If that is true, then the units might not be rare but blockchain space might indeed be very scarce (and then must be somewhat expensive). It is a useful perspective.

At 8 billion people and 1024 account balances each, and say 128 bytes per account storage, that is 1 Petabyte. That is the best the mini blockchain could do. One-time ring signatures would make it entirely intractable (100s or more of Petabytes) unless you increase the cost until the 8 billion are restricted.

Let's assume a 10 year goal of 1 billion x 8 account balances each, so 1 Terabyte which is one hard drive. And hard drive space doubles every 18 months, so in 17 years we can store 1 Petabyte on one hard drive. So the mini blockchain can scale.

So there is no scarcity, except for badchosen design (priorities).

P.S. we do have to discourage dust balances though.
donator
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1060
GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com
July 26, 2014, 05:11:31 AM
Now my point being, whether it is Monero (likely at this point in time due to its tech) or another crypto down the line, blockchain bloat will be the least of the intended target audiences worries. These are the same people you are targeting who pay much higher fees in the real world for these services and a bigger blockchain is in reality a joke in comparaison.

Sometimes we step too far away from the real world problems that can be solved and dwell too much on smaller technical issues that are definatly acceptable in some situations in regards to the solutions they offer.

I'm saving this to quote later;) It's an excellent point, and it mirrors some of my thinking. I'm unsure as to whether we will have a cryptocurrency in the next, say, 5-10 years that will tick *all* of the boxes. There are always going to be compromises. Is a disk space/bandwidth compromise (especially when coupled with with access to light wallets / multisig web wallets) a particularly bad one? I tend to think not. That's not to say we aren't going to try solve the bloat "problem", but it also means that we don't have to figure out an uncompromising solution right now. Rehashing this over and over again isn't going to make a solution present itself any faster (not directed at you, just speaking in general).
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
July 26, 2014, 05:10:36 AM
You mean 2 megaBITS/sec, thus 48 days.

No I really mean 2 megaBYTES. 4G LTE. Sometimes it is faster (and sometimes slower, or no 4G LTE coverage at all), but that it is pretty common.

Okay but it doesn't address the intractable fundamental issue which is Petabytes of storage.

And most of the world (weighted in terms of population) doesn't have that bandwidth. My DSL is only 3 - 5 Mbps. Mobile is rarely 1Mbps here.

Edit: I think as connection speeds increase and we add smart contracts a la Ethereum, the volume of micro transactions is going explode exponentially (network effects and N squared). I don't think connection speeds will catch up.
Jump to: