Damn, they are forbidding me from posting again. Bye.
I take some comfort in knowing that your loved ones are looking out for you.
Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 60. (Read 387552 times)
Bandwidth scales slower than Moore's law but is not in danger of ending:
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/
Neither can scale fast enough so XMR to reach 10 million users in 3 years, because XMR would need to scale 10^3 in 3 years.
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/
Neither can scale fast enough so XMR to reach 10 million users in 3 years, because XMR would need to scale 10^3 in 3 years.
This doesn't follow because it would assume that XMR is currently maxed out on bandwidth or Moore's Law considerations, which is false.
Bandwidth scales slower than Moore's law but is not in danger of ending:
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/
Neither can scale fast enough so XMR to reach 10 million users in 3 years, because XMR would need to scale 10^3 in 3 years.
And there is a computation issue on verifying transactions if you want to scale up micro-transactions volume (e.g. 100,000 txs per sec):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/theoretical-max-speeds-for-ecdsa-verification-103172
You appear to lack domain-specific knowledge that I have because I am in the trenches of development and you are not. Practice and application trumps theory.
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/
Neither can scale fast enough so XMR to reach 10 million users in 3 years, because XMR would need to scale 10^3 in 3 years.
And there is a computation issue on verifying transactions if you want to scale up micro-transactions volume (e.g. 100,000 txs per sec):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/theoretical-max-speeds-for-ecdsa-verification-103172
You appear to lack domain-specific knowledge that I have because I am in the trenches of development and you are not. Practice and application trumps theory.
How do you get 100k tx per second with a userbase of 10M people? That would imply each user is making a transaction every 100 seconds, which seems pretty unrealistic.
I'm going to run with this idea for a moment.
Lets call it Block Chain Link Fencing.
The ways to implement might include things like
1) merge mining the new chain
2) Finding the the unspent transactions
3) providing a way to move unspent transactions from the old chain to the new chain
Lets call it Block Chain Link Fencing.
The ways to implement might include things like
1) merge mining the new chain
2) Finding the the unspent transactions
3) providing a way to move unspent transactions from the old chain to the new chain
(3) boils down to a checkpoint mechanism -- anything that can be done with two independent blockchains can be done inside a single one, if you can checkpoint the state in a way that's smaller than the full history of the blockchain. If you can't checkpoint them, you can't move them to another blockchain.
As a thought experiment, it's worth asking what the difference is between two blockchains and a single blockchain with a "version" counter that's incremented periodically (or a version bit, in the simplest case, so you can swap between the two). The answer is -- really, they're the same.
I'm going to run with this idea for a moment.
Lets call it Block Chain Link Fencing.
The ways to implement might include things like
1) merge mining the new chain
2) Finding the the unspent transactions
3) providing a way to move unspent transactions from the old chain to the new chain
There are other solutions already in play such as the use of bloom filters to prune the old chain in the software. But I thought the name that popped into my head for this feature was clever enough that I should write something for it.
(we are either fencing coins, or fencing off bloat by linking block chains, take your pick)
Lets call it Block Chain Link Fencing.
The ways to implement might include things like
1) merge mining the new chain
2) Finding the the unspent transactions
3) providing a way to move unspent transactions from the old chain to the new chain
There are other solutions already in play such as the use of bloom filters to prune the old chain in the software. But I thought the name that popped into my head for this feature was clever enough that I should write something for it.
(we are either fencing coins, or fencing off bloat by linking block chains, take your pick)
But you seem to be only concerned with storage size, which I pointed out appears to me to be the uninteresting part of the problem. As far as I can see so far in my investigations and calculations, the bandwidth cost appears to be the greatest hindrance if you are talking decentralization.
And when you dig down into how decentralization plays with everything else...
Damn, they are forbidding me from posting again. Bye.
I was wondering. I'm not a cryptographer, but can transactions be wired through another coin?
So if Monero wanted to stop bloating/scaling all together, is it possible to create a 2nd temporary chain(coin) linked to Monero, and have Monero's transactions go through there?
So for ex: Monero devs make another coin purely for transactions called Mon. Once Mon has bloated enough, then they replace Mon with another coin called Mon2, etc etc, or Mon automatically does this for itself.
Shouldnt that allow Monero to scale up to Visa levels if it can be implemented?
So if Monero wanted to stop bloating/scaling all together, is it possible to create a 2nd temporary chain(coin) linked to Monero, and have Monero's transactions go through there?
So for ex: Monero devs make another coin purely for transactions called Mon. Once Mon has bloated enough, then they replace Mon with another coin called Mon2, etc etc, or Mon automatically does this for itself.
Shouldnt that allow Monero to scale up to Visa levels if it can be implemented?
Or one can simply allow Moore's law to take care of the bloat problem. Comparisons with VISA are very relevant here. The question that needs to be asked here is could VISA have scaled to current levels using the computer technology available in 1959 when American Express and Diner's club were offering the first credit cards?
As for blockchain pruning in its various incarnations it is a very bad idea because the "bloated information" is freely available at one point. This would allow large centralized holders to save this information, hoard it and then sell it at a premium to the average person. A simple scenario here could involve a legal dispute between and individual and a tax authority over transactions that are years or even decades old. The tax authority would have access to the old blockchain data while the individual would have to purchase that same data from a commercial data hoarder at a premium, thereby putting the individual at a significant disadvantage.
I'm going to run with this idea for a moment.
Lets call it Block Chain Link Fencing.
The ways to implement might include things like
1) merge mining the new chain
2) Finding the the unspent transactions
3) providing a way to move unspent transactions from the old chain to the new chain
There are other solutions already in play such as the use of bloom filters to prune the old chain in the software. But I thought the name that popped into my head for this feature was clever enough that I should write something for it.
(we are either fencing coins, or fencing off bloat by linking block chains, take your pick)
Or one can simply allow Moore's law to take care of the bloat problem.
If computation was the barrier, that is not certain because Moore's law may be ending...The size issues are bandwidth and storage, not computation. The law is not broadly applicable to bandwidth, and scaling will not end with the end of process shrink. Moore's law will apply to storage in the near term, however, as it will be essentially determined by flash densities. It appears to have enough headroom left to fully accommodate XMR.
I use the neutral term "size" instead of "bloat" because bloat implies the content does not add value, which I consider misleading.
Bandwidth scales slower than Moore's law but is not in danger of ending:
http://www.nngroup.com/articles/law-of-bandwidth/
Neither can scale fast enough so XMR to reach 10 million users in 3 years, because XMR would need to scale 10^3 in 3 years.
And there is a computation issue on verifying transactions if you want to scale up micro-transactions volume (e.g. 100,000 txs per sec):
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/theoretical-max-speeds-for-ecdsa-verification-103172
You appear to lack domain-specific knowledge that I have because I am in the trenches of development and you are not. Practice and application trumps theory.
webarchive.org is free.
The cost of putting data on the internet and having it stored forever is nearly zero.
The Internet Archive at archive.org, while free to use for individuals, has a yearly budget of USD$10m. The cost of storage media is quite cheap, but the cost of managing it reliably in the face of errors, accidents, and the changes brought by time can be quite high.
archive.org benefits from foundation funding, and the fact that its founder, Brewster Kahle, sold Alexa Internet to Amazon for USD$250m in stock in 1996, and from all appearances is trying to do a seriously important thing for the world.
And yes, they accept bitcoin:
"Can I donate BitCoins?
Yes, please do. Our BitCoin address is: 17gN64BPHtxi4mEM3qWrxdwhieUvRq8R2r . Every bit helps."
But don't trust randomly-pasted bitcoin addresses, because I might have just pasted my own there. Instead, visit their donation page yourself: https://archive.org/donate/index.php
Or one can simply allow Moore's law to take care of the bloat problem.
If computation was the barrier, that is not certain because Moore's law may be ending...The size issues are bandwidth and storage, not computation. The law is not broadly applicable to bandwidth, and scaling will not end with the end of process shrink. Moore's law will apply to storage in the near term, however, as it will be essentially determined by flash densities. It appears to have enough headroom left to fully accommodate XMR.
I use the neutral term "size" instead of "bloat" because bloat implies the content does not add value, which I consider misleading.
I was wondering. I'm not a cryptographer, but can transactions be wired through another coin?
I assume you mean can txs be mixed offchain? This is essentially what CoinJoin a.k.a. DarkCoin attempts to do. The problem is that it requires masternodes to deal with the jammable two-step process, and the masternodes can (in theory) be Sybil attacked to reduce the anonymity.
So for ex: Monero devs make another coin purely for transactions called Mon. Once Mon has bloated enough, then they replace Mon with another coin called Mon2, etc etc, or Mon automatically does this for itself.
If you instead mean another block chain, realize it too has to be public viewable else it can't be secured with PoW.
...
Shouldnt that allow Monero to scale up to Visa levels if it can be implemented?
Shouldnt that allow Monero to scale up to Visa levels if it can be implemented?
Or one can simply allow Moore's law to take care of the bloat problem.
If computation was the barrier, that is not certain because Moore's law may be ending:
http://www.extremetech.com/computing/165331-intels-former-chief-architect-moores-law-will-be-dead-within-a-decade
http://electroiq.com/blog/2014/03/moores-law-has-stopped-at-28nm/
The bloat issue impacts a lot of issues that have to do with how you can scale a coin in terms of popular features that will drive viral adoption.
...
As for blockchain pruning in its various incarnations it is a very bad idea because the "bloated information" is freely available at one point. This would allow large centralized holders to save this information, hoard it and then sell it at a premium to the average person. A simple scenario here could involve a legal dispute between and individual and a tax authority over transactions that are years or even decades old. The tax authority would have access to the old blockchain data while the individual would have to purchase that same data from a commercial data hoarder at a premium, thereby putting the individual at a significant disadvantage.
As for blockchain pruning in its various incarnations it is a very bad idea because the "bloated information" is freely available at one point. This would allow large centralized holders to save this information, hoard it and then sell it at a premium to the average person. A simple scenario here could involve a legal dispute between and individual and a tax authority over transactions that are years or even decades old. The tax authority would have access to the old blockchain data while the individual would have to purchase that same data from a commercial data hoarder at a premium, thereby putting the individual at a significant disadvantage.
webarchive.org is free.
The cost of putting data on the internet and having it stored forever is nearly zero.
The issues with bloat are more dynamic in nature (e.g. propagation, tx speed, tx fees, etc). You wouldn't even begin to fathom these until you dug into programming an altcoin. So I won't even bother to detail them.
I was wondering. I'm not a cryptographer, but can transactions be wired through another coin?
So if Monero wanted to stop bloating/scaling all together, is it possible to create a 2nd temporary chain(coin) linked to Monero, and have Monero's transactions go through there?
So for ex: Monero devs make another coin purely for transactions called Mon. Once Mon has bloated enough, then they replace Mon with another coin called Mon2, etc etc, or Mon automatically does this for itself.
Shouldnt that allow Monero to scale up to Visa levels if it can be implemented?
So if Monero wanted to stop bloating/scaling all together, is it possible to create a 2nd temporary chain(coin) linked to Monero, and have Monero's transactions go through there?
So for ex: Monero devs make another coin purely for transactions called Mon. Once Mon has bloated enough, then they replace Mon with another coin called Mon2, etc etc, or Mon automatically does this for itself.
Shouldnt that allow Monero to scale up to Visa levels if it can be implemented?
Or one can simply allow Moore's law to take care of the bloat problem. Comparisons with VISA are very relevant here. The question that needs to be asked here is could VISA have scaled to current levels using the computer technology available in 1959 when American Express and Diner's club were offering the first credit cards?
As for blockchain pruning in its various incarnations it is a very bad idea because the "bloated information" is freely available at one point. This would allow large centralized holders to save this information, hoard it and then sell it at a premium to the average person. A simple scenario here could involve a legal dispute between and individual and a tax authority over transactions that are years or even decades old. The tax authority would have access to the old blockchain data while the individual would have to purchase that same data from a commercial data hoarder at a premium, thereby putting the individual at a significant disadvantage.
Okay let me turn the tables on you all then. I've hadn't had time to read this thread, so all I saw on the prior page was some mention of advertising.
Any other ideas of how to scale a crypto-currency to beyond 10 million users within 3 years or less from launch?
From the little I've been of his discombobulated writing style, I don't think he could market his way out of a wet brown paper bag.
That he is getting any air play seems to indicate how weak the current altcoin scene is.
Or perhaps I am just not digging in deep enough to his work, as I am too busy. I haven't looked at his code. The couple of times when I've studied his designs concept (the multiple serversdecentralized exchange and the Startrek teleport aignonymity), they seem lacking.
Ditto Monero, I am not privy to their upcoming plans and detailed progress.
P.S. I've had 4 consecutive days of good health, since I've started eating Grapenuts with mixed nuts and blueberries with fresh milk. The illness I have causes dizziness which makes it very difficult to concentrate.
Any other ideas of how to scale a crypto-currency to beyond 10 million users within 3 years or less from launch?
"Anonymint" develops his perfect coin and "jl777" markets the thing via SuperNet ..
From the little I've been of his discombobulated writing style, I don't think he could market his way out of a wet brown paper bag.
That he is getting any air play seems to indicate how weak the current altcoin scene is.
Or perhaps I am just not digging in deep enough to his work, as I am too busy. I haven't looked at his code. The couple of times when I've studied his designs concept (the multiple servers
Ditto Monero, I am not privy to their upcoming plans and detailed progress.
P.S. I've had 4 consecutive days of good health, since I've started eating Grapenuts with mixed nuts and blueberries with fresh milk. The illness I have causes dizziness which makes it very difficult to concentrate.
Anonymint has a tendency to go around and criticize everyone's work, while dropping thinly veiled hints that he has the solution. Without ever providing that solution.
Reality check is important part of life and Anonymint is doing outstanding job.
Solution .. assuming that their ego's would allow a collaboration ..
"Anonymint" develops his perfect coin and "jl777" markets the thing via SuperNet ..
Triff
I was wondering. I'm not a cryptographer, but can transactions be wired through another coin?
So if Monero wanted to stop bloating/scaling all together, is it possible to create a 2nd temporary chain(coin) linked to Monero, and have Monero's transactions go through there?
So for ex: Monero devs make another coin purely for transactions called Mon. Once Mon has bloated enough, then they replace Mon with another coin called Mon2, etc etc, or Mon automatically does this for itself.
Shouldnt that allow Monero to scale up to Visa levels if it can be implemented?
So if Monero wanted to stop bloating/scaling all together, is it possible to create a 2nd temporary chain(coin) linked to Monero, and have Monero's transactions go through there?
So for ex: Monero devs make another coin purely for transactions called Mon. Once Mon has bloated enough, then they replace Mon with another coin called Mon2, etc etc, or Mon automatically does this for itself.
Shouldnt that allow Monero to scale up to Visa levels if it can be implemented?
A 2 way peg with another new blockchain? technically possible yes.
But read smooths posts please about pruning here, there are better ways
XMR looks like it's due to retest 0.004....
Getting into XDN Ducknote in the meantime
Getting into XDN Ducknote in the meantime
Ding ding ding!
Now all we need is for XDN to rally this week
I was wondering. I'm not a cryptographer, but can transactions be wired through another coin?
So if Monero wanted to stop bloating/scaling all together, is it possible to create a 2nd temporary chain(coin) linked to Monero, and have Monero's transactions go through there?
So for ex: Monero devs make another coin purely for transactions called Mon. Once Mon has bloated enough, then they replace Mon with another coin called Mon2, etc etc, or Mon automatically does this for itself.
Shouldnt that allow Monero to scale up to Visa levels if it can be implemented?
So if Monero wanted to stop bloating/scaling all together, is it possible to create a 2nd temporary chain(coin) linked to Monero, and have Monero's transactions go through there?
So for ex: Monero devs make another coin purely for transactions called Mon. Once Mon has bloated enough, then they replace Mon with another coin called Mon2, etc etc, or Mon automatically does this for itself.
Shouldnt that allow Monero to scale up to Visa levels if it can be implemented?
Wow! I graduated in Electronics Engineering, does it mean that I am smarter than you guys?
Almost certainly!
Anonymint has a tendency to go around and criticize everyone's work, while dropping thinly veiled hints that he has the solution. Without ever providing that solution.
Reality check is important part of life and Anonymint is doing outstanding job.
I believe he is an honest guy and wants to create in his opinion and knowledge the perfect coin ("the new standard") without giving away bits of info and thus create numerous altcoins pumps and dumps in the process and/or some entity use this knowledge for some ulterior motives. Just my impression.
Anonymint has a tendency to go around and criticize everyone's work, while dropping thinly veiled hints that he has the solution. Without ever providing that solution.
Reality check is important part of life and Anonymint is doing outstanding job.
I believe he is an honest guy and wants to create in his opinion and knowledge the perfect coin ("the new standard") without giving away bits of info and thus create numerous altcoins pumps and dumps in the process and/or some entity use this knowledge for some ulterior motives. Just my impression.
Note that in my prior linked post about Gold, the rush to anonymity and avoid socialism-gone-mad taxation
...
Bitcoin is failing (to scale to ubiquity) because it is not decentralized.
...
Sorry but imo Monero is a joke pretending to be serious.
...
Bitcoin is failing (to scale to ubiquity) because it is not decentralized.
...
Sorry but imo Monero is a joke pretending to be serious.
Wealth preservation is the art of allocating between the least-shitty alternatives.
Please, If someone can just make a short update.. I'm following thread from the start but can't recall when/why AnonyMint thinks Monero is a joke.. Thanks.
I think this might help you: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.8068923
Jump to: