rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 68.

aminorex

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1030

Sine secretum non libertas

Quote from: jwinterm on August 28, 2014, 09:41:08 AM

Who is using gold and silver as a pseudo-currency? Afaik precious metals (Au, Ag, Pt, Pd, etc.) are a commodity, not accepted as cash payment anywhere that I know of.

I think you have your pseudo-'s backwards.

I often use hard money to pay for goods and services. Of course I prefer to use counterfeit money, where possible -- Gresham's law and all that.

dga

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 511

At the risk of leaving some sore toes in my wake, my academic self decided that I should continue documenting my experience in alt-coins.

Here's the Monero one:

http://da-data.blogspot.com/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.html

jwinterm

legendary

Activity: 3164

Merit: 1118

Quote from: Lohoris on August 28, 2014, 08:48:18 AM

Sure, but those metals aren't used as a pseudo-currency anywhere, unless I'm mistaken.
There are plenty of random things worth arbitrary amounts of money (diamonds, printer ink, human blood, etc.), but be them as valuable as you like, they still aren't a currency nor resemble one.

Who is using gold and silver as a pseudo-currency? Afaik precious metals (Au, Ag, Pt, Pd, etc.) are a commodity, not accepted as cash payment anywhere that I know of.

coinits

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1019

011110000110110101110010

Quote from: Lohoris on August 28, 2014, 08:48:18 AM

Quote from: jwinterm on August 28, 2014, 08:40:58 AM

Quote from: rpietila on August 28, 2014, 05:14:00 AM

Perhaps it is good to interpret my own post because it wasn't obvious:

As with metals, the #1 is really valuable, but the #2 is only about 1/50 as valuable. Others are not even counted.

So will it be with coins, therefore do not buy coins that aim to be #3.

I'll assume you're referring to gold and silver. Assuming that's the case, you're wrong. Platinum is more valuable than gold and palladium is about 75% as pricey as gold, and there are plenty of other metals that are more valuable per unit mass than silver (I'm not finding a list real quick, but I'd guess indium and most of the rare earth metals like gadolinium, europium, etc.).

Sure, but those metals aren't used as a pseudo-currency anywhere, unless I'm mistaken.
There are plenty of random things worth arbitrary amounts of money (diamonds, printer ink, human blood, etc.), but be them as valuable as you like, they still aren't a currency nor resemble one.

Well silver and gold coins certainly are currency.

Lohoris

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Bitgoblin

Quote from: jwinterm on August 28, 2014, 08:40:58 AM

Quote from: rpietila on August 28, 2014, 05:14:00 AM

Perhaps it is good to interpret my own post because it wasn't obvious:

As with metals, the #1 is really valuable, but the #2 is only about 1/50 as valuable. Others are not even counted.

So will it be with coins, therefore do not buy coins that aim to be #3.

I'll assume you're referring to gold and silver. Assuming that's the case, you're wrong. Platinum is more valuable than gold and palladium is about 75% as pricey as gold, and there are plenty of other metals that are more valuable per unit mass than silver (I'm not finding a list real quick, but I'd guess indium and most of the rare earth metals like gadolinium, europium, etc.).

Sure, but those metals aren't used as a pseudo-currency anywhere, unless I'm mistaken.
There are plenty of random things worth arbitrary amounts of money (diamonds, printer ink, human blood, etc.), but be them as valuable as you like, they still aren't a currency nor resemble one.

kelsey

legendary

Activity: 1876

Merit: 1000

Quote from: rpietila on August 28, 2014, 05:14:00 AM

Perhaps it is good to interpret my own post because it wasn't obvious:

As with metals, the #1 is really valuable, but the #2 is only about 1/50 as valuable. Others are not even counted.

So will it be with coins, therefore do not buy coins that aim to be #3.

for me it was obvious, I got what you meant initially, however you're confusing price with value. for example for use in industry silver is of value more then gold.

similarly I wouldn't call 1st or 2nd or 10th ranking on market capitalisation v USD as any real indicator of any cryptocurrencies usefullness as a cryptocurrency.

jwinterm

legendary

Activity: 3164

Merit: 1118

Quote from: rpietila on August 28, 2014, 05:14:00 AM

Perhaps it is good to interpret my own post because it wasn't obvious:

As with metals, the #1 is really valuable, but the #2 is only about 1/50 as valuable. Others are not even counted.

So will it be with coins, therefore do not buy coins that aim to be #3.

I'll assume you're referring to gold and silver. Assuming that's the case, you're wrong. Platinum is more valuable than gold and palladium is about 75% as pricey as gold, and there are plenty of other metals that are more valuable per unit mass than silver (I'm not finding a list real quick, but I'd guess indium and most of the rare earth metals like gadolinium, europium, etc.).

dewdeded

legendary

Activity: 1232

Merit: 1011

Monero Evangelist

Quote from: Este Nuno on August 28, 2014, 07:39:17 AM

Is it theoretically possible to fork Bitcoin and implement ring signatures? Or is the current protocol something that fundamentally can't be adapted in that way?

As far as all I heard from core-devs, as I hang out on #bitcoin-dev on IRC the whole day and read Bitcoin dev mailing list: This change (bringing in ring signatures) is so big, it will never happen, like 0,00000% chance.

Its obvious possible as othe said (with an or more hard forks), but it not gonna happen.

aminorex

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1030

Sine secretum non libertas

Quote from: Este Nuno on August 28, 2014, 07:39:17 AM

Is it theoretically possible to fork Bitcoin and implement ring signatures? Or is the current protocol something that fundamentally can't be adapted in that way?

Is it the type of thing that's 'possible', but so difficult that you would just be better off writing something from scratch al la CN?

It would not be terribly hard to convert the ledger from btc to a ledger for a new CN coin. To retain the same keys/addresses would be a lot more work. For each legacy interface for which you need to retain bug-compatible support you can add a multiplicative confound to the cost of conversion.

othe

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Everything in software is possible but that would simply stop all Bitcoin applications to work with it...
Even the QT gui would have to be changed a lot and if you end then with better code is really questionable, i like the approach of having different codebases, even if its more work int he beginning.

Este Nuno

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1002

amarha

Is it theoretically possible to fork Bitcoin and implement ring signatures? Or is the current protocol something that fundamentally can't be adapted in that way?

Is it the type of thing that's 'possible', but so difficult that you would just be better off writing something from scratch al la CN?

Majormax

legendary

Activity: 2534

Merit: 1129

Quote from: Lohoris on August 28, 2014, 06:13:05 AM

Quote from: rpietila on August 28, 2014, 06:02:57 AM

Exactly. What coins do you regard as having it?

I don't have specific coins right now; I think there are three very important factors that will lead coins to success: decentralization, anonymity, and sustainability.

Currently AFAIK no coin is successfully doing all three, and I'm not sure neither if they will be enough, nor if they are actually achievable or maybe mutually-exclusive, nor if they are all necessary.

But that's what I watch for.

There is a chance that the winner comes from left field, with a combination of elements which cannot yet be predicted. ... or it could be an existing coin,currently ignored because it's genetics are 'too silly' or considered impossible for success (until changing conditions make it the top survivor) .. Just like real life evolution.

I hold about 70 different, including many which would be instantly dismissed out-of-hand by serious analysts. Being involved in the discussion and watching development really helps in understanding how success happens: it doesn't always submit to rational analysis.

othe

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: illodin on August 28, 2014, 06:54:00 AM

Quote from: othe on August 28, 2014, 06:46:10 AM

And no you aren´t ready to go after your funds are denominated, to archive at least a good privacy you have to denominate them on every big transfer and have to use coincontrol to send them, so they never get mixed/linked with each other.

Actually the wallet even at this stage will take care of this, you don't have to fiddle with coin control and you can't accidentally send non-anonymized coins. If you try to send more coins than the wallet has managed to anonymize (for example you send most of your coins, and then receive a transfer, and then try immediately sending most of your coins again), it will let you know.

It´s not that easy.

Let´s say i have 1000 anonymized, i want to make 2 payments of 500 DRK.
After the first payment of 1 x 500 DRK i get a change back, this change can link the second transaction to the first. If the change is not sent back anonymized coins i have too less coins for the second transfer
In both cases the behaviour is annoying for users in the first it´s even dangerous.

illodin

hero member

Activity: 966

Merit: 1003

Quote from: othe on August 28, 2014, 06:46:10 AM

And no you aren´t ready to go after your funds are denominated, to archive at least a good privacy you have to denominate them on every big transfer and have to use coincontrol to send them, so they never get mixed/linked with each other.

Actually the wallet even at this stage will take care of this, you don't have to fiddle with coin control and you can't accidentally send non-anonymized coins. If you try to send more coins than the wallet has managed to anonymize (for example you send most of your coins, and then receive a transfer, and then try immediately sending most of your coins again), it will let you know.

othe

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

Quote from: AlexGR on August 28, 2014, 05:45:20 AM

Quote from: othe on August 27, 2014, 04:40:33 PM

Do you really think that having to premix coins is an advantage to a passive technology where u can just send them without ever caring about how it works?

No, that's a clear disadvantage. But the target is to be seamless, like you download the client, it does all the denominations automatically and then you are ready to go. It'll take much less than downloading / syncing the XMR blockchain, I assure you. So time is not an issue.

SPV Clients for XMR are instant, no need to wait, sorry but point isn´t valid.
Same as for Bitcoin, who runs a fullnode? I not, i run Electrum.
The ones running Bitcoin QT/Monero full have it running 24/7 anyway, its always synced.

And no you aren´t ready to go after your funds are denominated, to archive at least a good privacy you have to denominate them on every big transfer and have to use coincontrol to send them, so they never get mixed/linked with each other.

klee

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Lohoris on August 28, 2014, 06:14:19 AM

Quote from: klee on August 28, 2014, 06:12:16 AM

Only decentralised ones or centralised too included (like XRP, STR)?

Well, technically XRP is premined but not centralised, AFAIK.
Maybe de-facto it is, but if it was successful new nodes could have come up quite easily. Afain, AFAIK.

Well ok, I think you know what I mean

Lohoris

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Bitgoblin

Quote from: klee on August 28, 2014, 06:12:16 AM

Only decentralised ones or centralised too included (like XRP, STR)?

Well, technically XRP is premined but not centralised, AFAIK.
Maybe de-facto it is, but if it was successful new nodes could have come up quite easily. Afain, AFAIK.

Lohoris

hero member

Activity: 630

Merit: 500

Bitgoblin

Quote from: rpietila on August 28, 2014, 06:02:57 AM

Exactly. What coins do you regard as having it?

I don't have specific coins right now; I think there are three very important factors that will lead coins to success: decentralization, anonymity, and sustainability.

Currently AFAIK no coin is successfully doing all three, and I'm not sure neither if they will be enough, nor if they are actually achievable or maybe mutually-exclusive, nor if they are all necessary.

But that's what I watch for.

klee

legendary

Activity: 1498

Merit: 1000

Quote from: rpietila on August 28, 2014, 06:02:57 AM

Quote from: Lohoris on August 28, 2014, 06:00:16 AM

Quote from: rpietila on August 28, 2014, 05:14:00 AM

Perhaps it is good to interpret my own post because it wasn't obvious:

As with metals, the #1 is really valuable, but the #2 is only about 1/50 as valuable. Others are not even counted.

So will it be with coins, therefore do not buy coins that aim to be #3.

Makes sense.

Though, if I think COIN1 and COIN2 have both 50% chances of becoming #2, it makes sense to invest half in one and half in another (while keeping most funds in #1 anyway).

Exactly. What coins do you regard as having it?

Only decentralised ones or centralised too included (like XRP, STR)?

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

Quote from: Lohoris on August 28, 2014, 06:00:16 AM

Quote from: rpietila on August 28, 2014, 05:14:00 AM

Perhaps it is good to interpret my own post because it wasn't obvious:

As with metals, the #1 is really valuable, but the #2 is only about 1/50 as valuable. Others are not even counted.

So will it be with coins, therefore do not buy coins that aim to be #3.

Makes sense.

Though, if I think COIN1 and COIN2 have both 50% chances of becoming #2, it makes sense to invest half in one and half in another (while keeping most funds in #1 anyway).

Exactly. What coins do you regard as having it?

Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 68. (Read 387552 times)