Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 59. (Read 387491 times)

Anonymint is definitely a strange bird but be nice to him!  I enjoy reading his posts, some are very educational.

Note 'game' has a wider scope of context than what you might be thinking. For example, life is game.


Continue your fantasies please.

Sometimes I think out-of-the-box. I don't claim to be a genius. I have a reasonably high IQ (probably not as high as aminorex on standardized tests) and some different approaches. Linus Torvalds probably doesn't have as high an IQ as Eric Raymond (clearly evident by reading their respective blogs), but Linus has a skill set of being able to contain the complexity of large projects which Eric may not possess (Eric wrote this).

This is embarrassing for me and the best way for me to depersonalize this discussion is for me to stop speaking. Because I have very strong opinions.

Sorry for rocking the boat. I guess I don't know how to not speak my mind.

Edit: I had sent PMs twice to Hal telling about the treatments I am trying, because my autoimmunity and his ALS may share the autoimmunity issue. I don't know if he ever read them, and I may have been too late. Perhaps a quote from him is apropos.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/2f1ijk/hal_finney_was_bitcoins_first_follower_when_you/


Watch the video!

Heh, the Martyr Complex is quite strong in this one. 

I think the reasoning goes something like this:

Prophets are always persecuted, genius is always misunderstood.  AM is a genius and a prophet, so he is both persecuted and misunderstood.

Oh, poor little him!  How the cryptosphere weeps!  Even Master Satoshi, ascendent in exulted Bit-Valhalla, sheds a tear...   

Build it into a game that becomes a massive hit. Unfortunately I don't know any way to engineer a game that is a massive hit. They all seem to be black swans. Most often designers of very successful games who try to repeat their success fail and end up being one hit wonders. Maybe that is not universal though, I'm not sure.

Installments of an already-successful franchise can get wide distribution but you will need to pay for that, so it comes back to advertising (a form of product placement in this case).

Thanks again for sharing. I hope you all are rewarded for your efforts.

It is not a percentage fee. The model is cost recovery, not commission, and the costs are primarily per-kb, although some costs are per-tx (and per-other) for processing, etc. So yes it should have the greatest impact on smaller tx. I suspect people are aggregating more and being a bit more cautious about initiating transactions.

An ideal case would be one that can handle as many transactions as there are clicks on the internet.
The perfect is the enemy of the good.
That folks are striving for perfection is encouraging.

Its been well over a hundred years from the first electric vehicles to the Teslas of today, but folks still had to get from place to place.  We'll have to make do with our imperfections until we get there.

I mean it from many different scopes, even including how to get the coin into spenders' hands at wide scale.


I agree normally I don't think it would because DoS has a cost and stopping DoS has a cost too.


Interesting to see some quantification of the costs involved. Thanks for sharing.

Edit: 20X increase may only be impacting smallerlower value transactions if it is a nominal and not a percentage tx fee? I assume it must be nominal otherwise very small tx amounts become a form of bloat DoS.

I'm not sure in what sense you mean "maximizing transactions." Yes there is an observed correlation, but I don't believe that increasing junk transactions would in and of itself increase market cap.

As far as the recent fee increase, that is rather interesting (not sure whether relevant to your point or not, assuming you have one). By increasing the fee by a factor of 20 we decreased transactions by about 28% (ignoring the period of obvious abuse) as can be viewed here: http://monerochain.info/charts/transactions

I'm not sure whether this elasticity has been measured before, and I have no interpretation to offer. Just putting it out there.

There will be another interesting experiment when we change the fees to per-kb.

That is because as far I know you are not close to maximizing transactions (and Peter R showed that market cap is correlated to the square of an increase in a proxy for txs as a proxy for user adoption), and as far as I know in fact proactively discouraged them recently by raising tx fees to deal with a DoS attack. At micro transaction scale (which I assume Monero is not targeting), I think Monero would be at limits on PCs near-term. The paradigm appears to be broken to me at multiple levels including which is that if an authority compels me to reveal my passwords, they can unwind all my anonymity on the block chain (and if enough people comply, then even those who didn't reveal their passwords have their anonymity set reduced and potentially lose anonymity).

I realize I am talking about issues that are not Monero's target market, i.e. it was designed for privacy and not to defeat the NSA. And it was designed for the level of txs Bitcoin handles, not for some nirvana of a micro transaction funded WWW to replace Google's fascist ad-funded takeover of the internet.

I suppose I should soften my criticism from "joke" to "not up to the standard of my idealistic hopes".

But my love ones are asking me to stop revealing hints. So I guess you will assume you are correct for the time being.

If AnonyMint appreciated that fact instead of being such a defeatist Negative Nancy all the time, he might have been able to get some $10 BTC back when you told him to, instead of bumbling from crisis to crisis.   

In other altcoin news, XCN is enjoying a healthy rally.  The rebranding opportunity and this


may be helping.

I was thinking of users.  I put larger error bars around price, and consider that the pricing dynamics may differ substantially from bitcoin, so I tend not to re-purpose bitcoin pricing models to xmr, at least until there is enough xmr data to reparameterize them empirically.  Consequently I don't draw any strong conclusions about pricing from the adoption curve, just yet.  I am content that there is a strong bias towards appreciation, and refrain from making long-term central tendency estimates for the time-being.

Good thought experiment.
Storage size is one issue that link fencing would address with the additional linked chains.  This could ultimately work with Bitcoin but for the very long term storage issues.  There will be unspent transactions in perpetuity, but if each spend were made into the newer chains, only those old unspents would need to be tracked. 
They are the same, but not really the same.  We'd have to see it working in an alt for quite a while before monkeying with Bitcoin.  The transaction volume issue is another place that could benefit from the BCLF model.  Not entirely the same as one block chain, as it could also allow for feature additions in an incremental way.

Are you referring to users or price? Both?

Exactly. I stand corrected the correct term for bandwidth is Nielsen's Law. http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/ and for storage Kryder’s Law http://www.digitaltonto.com/2011/4-digital-laws/. Moore's law applies to processing power. All three are applicable for XMR just as they were applicable to credit cards.

I must say that I am old enough to remember when credit cards were authorized, by the clerk looking up a paper list of cancelled cards (snail mail), calling the credit card company for authorization, and then came the technological innovation: Using a dial up connection for credit card authorization while people waited in line at the checkout for the modem to sync.

Yea corrected it, forgot that cryptocurrencies are much more well known and altcoins grow a lot faster than BTC during its early years.

I think a rolling window of active users is a better reference on this.  XMR is growing much faster than BTC.  I expect it to overtake BTC in 3 years.

Even if his requirement is for maximized decentralization his argument is still false. PCs are not maxed out on XMR today. Even some smartphones could almost certainly run XMR today fairly well. (I'm running it on a nettop that is smartphone-class, and it is nowhere near maxed out.)

Terabit bandwidth will be available to fixed locations in that time-frame.  Mobile bandwidth isn't really an issue, because thin clients will be used for mobile, exclusively, for the foreseeable future.  I just don't see bandwidth as an issue for XMR, ever.  For some users, always, but for network strength and integrity, as well as capacity?  No.  Lower consumption would aid in decentralization, but unless your hard requirement is to maximize decentralization (as I suspect it is for AnonyMint) it's not a problem.

I mis-spoke when I suggested flash was necessary to the blockchain.  Magnetic storage is quite cheap and adequate for full nodes, and will already scale 10^3.

If darkotas Mon, or another block chain was public viewable, what then?


But doesn't Bitcoin only have around 1million users atm after 5 years? Though I should probably account for the fact that prestigious altcoins would gain a larger following than Bitcoin in it's early days since the cryptocurrency sector has a lot more people now.