These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .
Unlike BTC, there is no reason to expect increasing LTC adoption.
Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 84. (Read 387491 times)
Unlike BTC, there is no reason to expect increasing LTC adoption.
Here is the 6-hour resolution chart of the LTC/USD currency pair from the BTC-e exchange. Note the two down legs of the great capitulation of 2014. Prices fell 28% in two days from $6.865 down to $5. Then fell another 30% from $5 down to $3.5. From the November peak price at $48.48, litecoin prices have fallen 13.85x. This is a more dramatic bubble run-up and collapse than the great bitcoin bubble of June 2013.
These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .
These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .
Then you reduce the anonymity set to the spent and unspent which means no one wants to be first to spend among an anonymity set. If you back it up all the way as Zerocash has done, then you can't know the money supply.
I think the problem is fundamental and insoluble. I would be very surprised if you've found a solution. You know what they say about vaporware.
I think the problem is fundamental and insoluble. I would be very surprised if you've found a solution. You know what they say about vaporware.
If I were promising to deliver something, it would be vaporware. I'm not.
Here's another hint, and it's the last one you get. You came up with a solution that imposes a deadline. You decided that was unacceptable, which is a reasonable point of view. There are other solutions which similarly make trade offs to other aspects of the system you assume and take for granted. Are they acceptable? I don't know if you would think so, but I think so. You need to think more outside the box.
(And no it doesn't involve an unknown money supply.)
One trivial solution is you don't need to mix always, thus most transactions can be pruned, i.e. using one-time ring signatures less is a trivial solution (but it is still only a constant factor improvement and not really solution).
But as I wrote upthread today about Bitcoin, the GUIDs can never be pruned (unless the transaction signatures sign a message that includes the block hash, but that seems impossible) otherwise reused address are subject to double-spend replay attack. Users can't be forced to not reuse addresses, unless addresses are never pruned. Bitcoin (and all other coins) could assume users never do that and proceed with pruning, but that would be a security hole.
I understand you don't think blockchain bloat is a problem, but I guess you are not trying to build a decentralized network with a 1000 nearly uniformly weighted ephemeral anonymous pools that pop in and out of the network.
I assume you understand the mathematical relationship that the number of uniformly distributed pools and the block period determines the variance the mining client experiences. So lower block periods are crucial to decentralization.
So many design issues of a coin are tied together holistically.
Edit: I had long ago thought of another aspect of Cryptonote that was compatible with pruning but I don't mention it here. That might be your "thinking more outside the box" solution.
What aspect of Cryptonote necessitates that mining be centralized?
Ho ho, the original Bytecoin project (1:1 copy of Bitcoin) is still going forward (what's the scam you are talking about?).
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bte-the-bytecoin-information-thread-169559
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bte-the-bytecoin-information-thread-169559
Then you reduce the anonymity set to the spent and unspent which means no one wants to be first to spend among an anonymity set. If you back it up all the way as Zerocash has done, then you can't know the money supply.
I think the problem is fundamental and insoluble. I would be very surprised if you've found a solution. You know what they say about vaporware.
I think the problem is fundamental and insoluble. I would be very surprised if you've found a solution. You know what they say about vaporware.
If I were promising to deliver something, it would be vaporware. I'm not.
Here's another hint, and it's the last one you get. You came up with a solution that imposes a deadline. You decided that was unacceptable, which is a reasonable point of view. There are other solutions which similarly make trade offs to other aspects of the system you assume and take for granted. Are they acceptable? I don't know if you would think so, but I think so. You need to think more outside the box.
(And no it doesn't involve an unknown money supply.)
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.
I'll tell you a secret. I know how to make it scale to do what you want it to do. Whoever designed it is smarter than I am, so he/she/they probably knew as well.
I know how to make one-time ring signatures scale too. Simply limit the time window over which users can mix and force them to mix out of that window within a deadline. Anyone who doesn't, loses their balance. Then you can prune the window. But that puts an expiration date on balances, which will be a disaster.
Do you know of another solution which doesn't have that drawback?
At least two others.
Do you know of any solution that doesn't require a deadline and where just one user can't jam the pruning?
Because I can think of variants on my idea above, such as issuing one-time ids in lots, so that people can only mix within their lot id. But that has the same drawback.
Yes, no deadline and no ability of one user (or a coalition of users) to jam the pruning.
Then you reduce the anonymity set to the spent and unspent which means no one wants to be first to spend among an anonymity set. If you back it up the Zero Knowledge Proof all the way as Zerocash has done so the anonymity set is always everyone, then you can't know the money supply.
I think the problem is fundamental and insoluble. I would be very surprised if you've found a solution. You know what they say about vaporware.
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.
I'll tell you a secret. I know how to make it scale to do what you want it to do. Whoever designed it is smarter than I am, so he/she/they probably knew as well.
I know how to make one-time ring signatures scale too. Simply limit the time window over which users can mix and force them to mix out of that window within a deadline. Anyone who doesn't, loses their balance. Then you can prune the window. But that puts an expiration date on balances, which will be a disaster.
Do you know of another solution which doesn't have that drawback?
At least two others.
Do you know of any solution that doesn't require a deadline and where just one user can't jam the pruning?
Because I can think of variants on my idea above, such as issuing one-time ids in lots, so that people can only mix within their lot id. But that has the same drawback.
Yes, no deadline and no ability of one user (or a coalition of users) to jam the pruning.
But as I said, this isn't really our priority, and we have a lot of fish to fry. We're pretty comfortable with the real world scaling factors and Moore's law at this point.
On that note, I've been looking more closely at the multiplicative "bloat" over bitcoin and I suspect it will actually turn out to be much less than previously estimated. The current Monero blockchain data is disproportionately pool payouts which are "large" transactions. This sharply biases upward the average transaction size relative to bitcoin for a mixed-use chain.
Right, and once we get past these basic needs and wants, we move onto other things.
One of these other things is financial freedom, freedom requires a degree of privacy. (The freedom to be private)
I can see you are a genuine guy and not a troll you have some beliefs , unfortunately you just have a "means ends" confusion here:
lets look at the "means ends" issue:
Freedom of privacy comes about by "small government" that could be a good argument right?
but i can define it better, i would say you have to look at motives why do "Governments" (really Corporations) want to know everything you do?
want the answer?
they are shitting themselves and are trying to hold onto the control they have over humanity.
what is that control?
its the implicit "right" to say what you use as a "means of exchange" and the explicit "right" to control the issuance of your " energy tokens" otherwise known as "money"
they do this as Debt and this makes you a battery (like the Matrix explained)
the Battery never become free, so we need to "coerce" the Battery (The Lego person) to feel they are being "monitored" we "threaten" them and we use violence on them for examples like to scare the rest of the animals.
this is how your world works, but unfortunately its a circle jerk, without a "Buy in" by the "Battery" (The Lego person) we can't maintain that "police state" there are many examples:
The Russian Federation is a great one, from the late 80's to early 2000 - Others are the "Power of the church" in the middle ages.
do some study..
TD:LR
with out the power to issue money as Debt = no police state, privacy becomes a very marginal retard issue.
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.
I'll tell you a secret. I know how to make it scale to do what you want it to do. Whoever designed it is smarter than I am, so he/she/they probably knew as well.
I know how to make one-time ring signatures scale too. Simply limit the time window over which users can mix and force them to mix out of that window within a deadline. Anyone who doesn't, loses their balance. Then you can prune the window. But that puts an expiration date on balances, which will be a disaster.
Do you know of another solution which doesn't have that drawback?
At least two others.
Do you know of any solution that doesn't require a deadline and where just one user can't jam the pruning? I don't expect you to reveal your secrets, I am just asking if you've solved it with no such drawback?
Because I can think of variants on my idea above, such as issuing one-time ids in lots, so that people can only mix within their lot id. But that has the same drawback.
I am thinking it is fundamentally impossible to prune without incurring that drawback in some form. Because if you find a way to identify which transactions in a mix have been spent, then at the minimum you reduce the anonymity set to the unspent and the spent even if you find some clever zero knowledge proof to accomplish it.
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.
I'll tell you a secret. I know how to make it scale to do what you want it to do. Whoever designed it is smarter than I am, so he/she/they probably knew as well.
I know how to make one-time ring signatures scale too. Simply limit the time window over which users can mix and force them to mix out of that window within a deadline. Anyone who doesn't, loses their balance. Then you can prune the window. But that puts an expiration date on balances, which will be a disaster.
Do you know of another solution which doesn't have that drawback?
At least two others.
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.
I'll tell you a secret. I know how to make it scale to do what you want it to do. Whoever designed it is smarter than I am, so he/she/they probably knew as well.
I know how to make one-time ring signatures scale too. Simply limit the time window over which users can mix and force them to mix out of that window within a deadline. Anyone who doesn't, loses their balance. Then you can prune the window. But that puts an expiration date on balances, which will be a disaster. It also limits the anonymity set.
Do you know of another solution which doesn't have that drawback?
Also there are other problems with needing tx fees to limit Sybil attacks which impact the scaling.
nope - you are wrong.
people care about :
- Food
- Air
- Being alive
- Not living in a police sate.
- not having your time and energy stolen (being a slave)
people care about :
- Food
- Air
- Being alive
- Not living in a police sate.
- not having your time and energy stolen (being a slave)
Right, and once we get past these basic needs and wants, we move onto other things.
One of these other things is financial freedom, freedom requires a degree of privacy. (The freedom to be private)
the biggest evolution in crypto has been :
I said CryptoCoins, I was careful not to say Crypto in general.
* best to open another thread to continue the argument as i don't like to discuss things on a moderated thread.
Sure, go for it.
Anonymint, whenever the issue of bloat is brought up, it seems that the standard response is that the average user will not be running a full node, thus it does not matter. Assuming that most people are running light wallets, and nodes are being run on dedicated servers, how does bloat ensure that a currency goes nowhere?
Light wallets do not require dedicated servers. Some models of light wallets do, but not all.
You've got to ask yourself why would a group that was sitting on a revolutionary breakthrough in crypto-currency shoot themselves in the foot with a scam.
One possible explanation is there was infighting.
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.
I'm not surprised how many people have rationalized away this fact for Monero. Investment pumps just need cheerleading.
One possible explanation is there was infighting.
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.
I'm not surprised how many people have rationalized away this fact for Monero. Investment pumps just need cheerleading.
Bytecoin was a test coin and got out only to milk some BTC. It was doomed to fail with such premine but earned them a good pay.
Then they created bitmonero and with on purpose slow miner so they can still have control over the currency. Only they didnt manage to control it because "open source" and because they seemed extremely retarded when it comes to their social skills. They may be good programmers or mathematicians but act like children when it comes to interacting to others.
Finally they dont seem to be that many as people might think. They tend not to have enough time to support their coins....
Thats what i believe.
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.
I'll tell you a secret. I know how to make it scale to do what you want it to do. Whoever designed it is smarter than I am, so he/she/they probably knew as well.
I have several theories on why such a smart person has handled this so stupidly but the best is probably what was pointed out by someone else on that thread: being in the right place on the autistic spectrum means someone may be very smart about cryptography and exceedingly stupid to the point of functional blindness about social interactions.
Whether we go that route with Monero is an open question. Not everyone agrees with your view on what is scalable (personally I'm more in the Gavin Andresen camp that Moore's law has largely solved it and is in the process of further solving it) or what sort of scaling is best, or even that very fast scaling is important when the demand side appears to be so limited currently.
There may well be better solutions for how to do a coin, and Monero might fail for a variety of other reasons. "Can't scale" won't be what causes Monero to fail though.
You're a right odd ball!
Someone came up with some of the best tech in CryptoCoins since Satoshi created bitcoin, but instead of releasing it in a fair and open way they tried to over profit and control it.
Monero took that awesome tech and made it fair to the world.
Almost everyone cares about anonymity, Bitcoin is a dataminers wet dream, if Bitcoin takes off you have no idea how abused it's going to get.
And mixers? Are you serious? What are you, 12?
Why use a mixer where you trust that someone isn't keeping tabs when you can use actual anonymity tech like Monero? What planet are you living on? Oh right, the one where you care so much about your own profit that you'd rather the world use shitcoin tech.
Dude, you are selfish and wrong.
nope - you are wrong.
people care about :
- Food
- Air
- Being alive
- Not living in a police sate.
- not having your time and energy stolen (being a slave)
take Debt money out of the equation and we pretty much fix that. ( don't even bother with the argument)
the biggest evolution in crypto has been :
(* after the NSA 1996 White paper) (and the Blockchain from the "Bitcoin" developers)
- The EQ reward
- cPoW - (multi algo complexity)
- BitFreak Mini blockchain
- the Myraid PoW (likely)
* best to open another thread to continue the argument as i don't like to discuss things on a moderated thread.
You've got to ask yourself why would a group that was sitting on a revolutionary breakthrough in crypto-currency shoot themselves in the foot with a scam.
One possible explanation is there was infighting.
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.
I'm not surprised how many people have rationalized away this fact for Monero. Investment pumps just need cheerleading.
One possible explanation is there was infighting.
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end.
I'm not surprised how many people have rationalized away this fact for Monero. Investment pumps just need cheerleading.
So what is the scam about? Does the code not work in all CN coins? Does the code not do what it's supposed to do? Creating a few coins can actually be a good idea, because yes, CN doesn't scale, so people will choose the CN flavor to their liking, which will keep each individual blockchain smaller. Win-win for all. All CN coins are about the same, except for inflationary rate and some have merge mining capabilities. Apart from those, what's the difference between them?
Anonymint, whenever the issue of bloat is brought up, it seems that the standard response is that the average user will not be running a full node, thus it does not matter. Assuming that most people are running light wallets, and nodes are being run on dedicated servers, how does bloat ensure that a currency goes nowhere?
I feel I need to defend that thread that takes the time to explain some of the drama that went on with Cryptonote. Or at least offer the potential for another perspective.
You've got to ask yourself why would a group that was sitting on a revolutionary breakthrough in crypto-currency shoot themselves in the foot with a scam.
One possible explanation is there was infighting.
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end. But I am not sure.
I'm not surprised how many people have rationalized away this fact for Monero. Investment pumps just need cheerleading. Again I am not sure, because I don't know any secrets Monero might have up its sleeve.
Edit: One implicit argument that has been made for Monero is that centralized mining doesn't matter, since the anonymity of one-time ring signatures is decentralized.
Edit#2: But I pointed out that if you don't obfuscated the IP address, then the ring sigs don't insure your anonymity. And the pool controls the receipt of your tx over Tor/I2P so if centralized it can coordinate with the timing attack on your upstream router or ISP. Seems to me that centralized mining defeats anonymity. And the centralized pools will be required to defeat the anonymity by government regulation. So the entire thing seems to me to be mostly a waste of time and effort.
You've got to ask yourself why would a group that was sitting on a revolutionary breakthrough in crypto-currency shoot themselves in the foot with a scam.
One possible explanation is there was infighting.
But I find the more plausible explanation to be they were smart enough to realize one-time ring signatures don't scale, and thus it was going no where in the end. But I am not sure.
I'm not surprised how many people have rationalized away this fact for Monero. Investment pumps just need cheerleading. Again I am not sure, because I don't know any secrets Monero might have up its sleeve.
Edit: One implicit argument that has been made for Monero is that centralized mining doesn't matter, since the anonymity of one-time ring signatures is decentralized.
Edit#2: But I pointed out that if you don't obfuscated the IP address, then the ring sigs don't insure your anonymity. And the pool controls the receipt of your tx over Tor/I2P so if centralized it can coordinate with the timing attack on your upstream router or ISP. Seems to me that centralized mining defeats anonymity. And the centralized pools will be required to defeat the anonymity by government regulation. So the entire thing seems to me to be mostly a waste of time and effort.
Jump to: