Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 161. (Read 387493 times)

Nonsense. You are not investing for 100 years. The nominal rise is meaningless. If the population + productivity is growing at the same rate, then there is 0 (ZERO!) relative nominal growth.

You are exaggerating because you don't show the relative figures.

The issue arises if all the other outputs with which you mixed are spent with mix=0 transactions, but your output is not spent, and this fact is known to the observer (for example the recipient). In fact if you use a high mixing factor this probably won't happen even if most transactions are mix=0, because there will usually be a few that are not mix=0 so not observable as spent.

In general though, the volume of transactions on the XMR network (or any of the cryptonote networks) is too low to provide a high level of privacy without extreme levels of mixing (and maybe not even then). Mixing relies on a needle-in-a-haystack principle and if the haystack is small, then trying to hide the needle is futile.

These issues will be addressed in various ways once the volume of transactions on the network is higher, and that alone will help a lot too.

If you are looking for the best privacy you can get currently, you should move your coins around between a few of your own wallets (with medium to high mixing each time, and taking care to avoid an identifiable pattern of timing) before sending them to their eventual destination. By doing that you are creating your own (small) haystack. But again, the potential for mixing to provide robust privacy on a lightly-used network is still limited.

Does this mean that without a hard-fork for XMR the used addresses can be exposed because most transactions where send without mixing level?

They are at the state of hoping to have some serious regulation in place in about two years time.
There will be minor regulatory controls implimented along the way.

HUGE money is entering the space. In two years time, the question is, will we be past the point
Of no return regarding cryptos? It most certainly looks so. The Trojan Horse has already entered
Zhe banking system.

It looks like the US will be for it. Weak currencies like the Argentinian one, will see a flood into
Cryptos. I really wonder, in this age of smartphones, if Greshams law even applies at all...

Gold's block reward is adjustable. In times of low population growth and low economic activity, it is very near to zero. It can also reach upwards of 2% per year in boom times. Since antiquity, it has averaged only 0.3%, much less than is probably needed for network security alone.

On the other hand, the fiat regime since 1971 shows the terrible mislocations of capital caused by the "contained" inflation averaging 6% per year.

0.7% per year => monetary base doubles in 100 years, goes up a 1000-fold in 1000 years.
1.4% per year => monetary base quadruples in 100 years, goes up a 1,000,000fold in 1000 years.
2.1% per year => monetary base goes up 700% in 100 years, a billionfold in 1000 years.
2.8% per year => monetary base goes up 16-fold in 100 years, a trillionfold in 1000 years.
3.5% per year => monetary base goes up 32-fold in 100 years, a quadrillionfold in 1000 years.

Anyone who takes the time to read the above list, realizes that no astute whale is going to buy things whose inflation is more than ~1.5% per year unless they are for short term speculation only, or there is another compelling consideration except inflation.

When XMR forks, change the block time back to it's original 2 minutes.  I would personally make the block reward a continuous 1% as well.  The risk for the coin failing is far higher set to 0 or a small number than it is for 1%.  It's a no brainer chess move.  We already know less than 1% is useless, as seen in coins like Quark.  1% is the lowest the non-zero, continuous block reward should be, maybe even going as high as 2%, but I would use 1% as a conservative number.

These numbers have not imploded gold, and there will be far far higher XMR lost per year than gold misplaced or lost per year.

Future plans will be discussed....in the future

I would add though, that we are not convinced that the BBR approach is obviously the best one. It has disadvantages, I'm pretty sure you are already aware of them, and have decided on what you believe to be the appropriate trade offs. We will do the same. With respect to the trade-offs, I will leave it to you to discuss your own coin rather than make comments that could be interpreted as "trashing" another coin (not intended that way in any case).

Ok.
So, you going to make hard-fork in XMR to fix this ?

See last few replies -- celestio misspoke.

Just curious, can you(or someone) point me where exactly in sources did they fix it ?
May be i miss something, but as i konw they have the same core as bytecoin and didn't made a hardfork yet.

Zoidberg

Yea, sorry, I worded it wrong. I meant it's already thought out, and will come in place later.

No, not these improvements specifically, but we have a plan in place to address the same issues, after some other changes are made first (database, etc.)

Monero devs already made those improvements. See the below quote.

Zoidberg put together a starting presentation about the improvements Boolberry has made to transaction anonymity:

http://www.slideshare.net/boolberry/boolberry-solves-cryptonoteflaws-37055246

It's nice - I hadn't quite grasped it well before, and this made the issue much more clear.

If you've been paying attention, the government in the US is making or enforcing laws regarding cryptocurrency to empower the effects of Gresham's law, where holding deflationary currency just gets you more paperwork and taxes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham's_law

The only question is, was this coincidence or conspiracy to continue the status quo.

The problem of deflationary impact is non-existant in cryptocurrencies as they are supplementary currencies that do not affect the economy at large.

The problem of a deflationary currency is when that specific currency is also a national currency, dictating the macro-environment and economic operations within a specific national economy. In other words, when people transact with a decreasing number of money, the GDP goes down.

If a country continues to issue toilet-paper money (inflated money), it can keep its economy moving. However citizens do have the option of using cryptos, gold, silver etc as a store of value. The government can still pay its budget and deficits though since its issuing new money.

The whole demonization of deflationary currencies, in terms of cryptos, makes the erroneous assumption that they are the only type of money available - when they are not. They exist within a broader ecosystem of various types of money and therefore do not really set the tempo of the ecosystem. Governments do (dictate the tempo) with their fiat scam money issuance.

Do you believe in perfect market that will never produce things more than what people is able to consume? No? Because of the greediness of people

Savings is only terrible if our "handlers" want to raise lots of money from the taxes of our labor.
If we bought less, we would need less money. Don't let the word "productivity" fool you, we are not machines and we
don't need stuff to make us happy. Luckily these Cryptos are global, so we are all in it together, and being all in it together
means we all can stop working 40 hour weeks (I already stopped that years ago) and all stop buying and consuming more
than we need.

Once we stop spending so much, governments will have much less money in which to tax, which means on top of the already
shrinking money supply via cryptos (much much more difficult to fund wars), governments will DRASTICALLY lose their power. (Hopefully corporations acting as Nation States as well).
But no fear, these algorithms are more than just for money. Just throw in some heart and we are really our own governments,
for the people and by the people, no more of "buy" the people.    I'm really looking forward to what these App coins do regarding governing.

Its about sharing

My point is that people are not inherently greedy or bad, quite the opposite.
True, in that it takes a single bad apple (aaaahhh, now I know where that expression comes from!), to make it bad for everyone else.
Hence, these decentralized, consensus based Crypto technologies are really a step in the right direction. They sort of change
our thinking AND start us questioning what money really is. Every governments (and more so banks) worst nightmare - Trust-less money based on algorithms (and yes bankers - it is open source!)
Curiosity is back again...

IAS