Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 98. (Read 387491 times)

I am going to offer a different perspective here namely that of a member of the baby boomer generation. Most members of my generation are not very technical but some of us are. In 1979 after completing my undergraduate degree I was working as a research assistant and wrote a program in FORTRAN that required over 2MB of RAM. I got an error saying that my program exceeded the total memory capacity of the university's mainframe computer. We are talking about a major Canadian university! Now fast forward 11 years and I bought a computer with 4MB of RAM. This was a typical consumer computer somewhat on the low end. 10 years before in 1969 the Apollo moon landing occurred, at the time one of mankind’s greatest achievements. Here is a link on the computers in the lander. Memory measured in kilobytes. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_Guidance_Computer#Memory Having lived with Moore's law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore%27s_law and its bandwith and storage counter parts for most of my life, I confident that it will easily solve the "bloat" issue for crypto-currency just as it made credit and debit cards possible. By the way would the current VISA transaction rate have been possible in 1959 when American Express and Diner's Club credit cards were launched? Not even close by several orders of magnitude.  

Edit: The real risk here is artificial limits such as the 1 MB blocksize limit in XBT and the debate surrounding it. The fear of bloat can cripple a coin.

This is nonsense. Project out the XCN market cap at the current price just a few months (much less a few years) and it is not tiny. It is smaller certainly, but not tiny, and not even smaller by orders of magnitude. XCN has 100 times the base coin supply of XMR and while it is fair to consider emission curve, you can't ignore the effect this has on price.  XCN times 100 is over half the price of XMR already. Perhaps you could justify another factor of 5 based on emission curve (though I disagree the number is that high). Even then you don't get to orders of magnitude.

XCN is fairly priced right now in my opinion. I was a buyer at 1300-1500 and I said so.

I don't think it is entirely coincidence.

Many people have observed for a long time (i.e. before Monero) that having a second coin might be good for diversification and safety reasons (if the first coin fails the second coin can at least continue to function, and perhaps replace the first while avoiding the cause(s) of its failure). However, for those very reasons, it is far better than the second coin not be a bitcoin clone (see "technology monoculture"). Even for what it is supposedly trying to be ("silver to bitcoin's gold"), Litecoin is a terrible second coin.

It is hard to see any coin other than Monero in a credible position to replace LTC.

XCN up 100% on relatively large volume.  Unlike XMR, it competes directly with LTC for the retail transaction market share and title of 'Best BTC Fork.'  VIA is doing well too, up 33%.

However, LTC and XMR are range bound and already enjoy generous market caps.  XCN is tiny in comparison, with much more room to grow in orders of magnitude.

VIA has been moving.

I'm no fan of LTC, but I seriously doubt it's going down just yet.

I suppose it could be coincidence, but it also could be a litecoin whale selling into other alt coins including XMR.  Are any other alts going bananas?

LTC vs. XMR  

interesting how LTC dumps right as XMR stops the downtrend.

LTC is getting destroyed...

Time to make way for Monero  

There was little "buying interest" in the BTC market for several years.  Ditto for LTC and NMC.   

XCN has had the most successful launch of any fair/open-source coin since Monero.

The hashrate is high enough to keep it safe from attacks and price has recovered ~100% from the weekend bottom.

The market is confirming $50k is too small a market cap and it should be upwards of $100k.

The great leap forward to minichains' ultimate pruning is a success and the store is out of cheap coins!



I'm getting ready for the moonshot by accumulating and am not the only one stacking this Litecoin-killer...

At 45 k transactions per second, avg tx size of 2 kbytes (Gavin's numbers) this is only 90 megabytes/sec. Easy for storage. Of course database overhead, etc. Still pretty easy.

Thanks for demonstrating my point; even our Legendary TacoTime fails to grasp, much less mention, the importance of XCN's withdrawal limited account tree enabling non-malleable zero-confirmation transactions. 

Making Altcoin Observations is the topic of this thread.  Unless BitFreak pays me to post about XCN, that's not "shilling."

Remember when you accepted compensation to endorse HashFast and "entice" potential customers?  That has nothing to do with Altcoin Observation, does it?  So be nice and don't indulge in off-topic ad hominem tu quoque drama.  You are so much better than that.   

I understand you may be annoyed by the CryptoNight/CryptoNite naming collision, but don't take it out on me.  Plenty of people, including both of us, lost BTC by pre-ordering ASICs.  High-tech is risky and educated people understand the chance of failure is much greater than success.  For every profitable 1st Batch Avalon type launch, there must be 10 BFL style bagholders.  That's simple, dismal economics.

We'd love to have your expert criticism in the XCN thread.  BitFreak and catia are brilliant and very friendly, so come on over!

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/annxcn-cryptonite-1st-mini-blockchain-coin-m7-pow-no-premine-713538

When you are running a full node you'll upload/download mostly the block hashes to the peers and not all the transactions - this is enough for decentralization. If you are running a full node you just need each block downloaded once and if the full nodes are doubling each month then each full node upload is O(blockchain size) a month. There are networks currently, which are orders of magnitudes faster then the HDD I/O bandwidth and the limiting factor is the storage I/O bandwidth and not the network bandwidth.

Edit: My 17$ per month internet connection is limited to about 14 TB download and 10 TB upload per month.

It's inherent to the tech. You might be able to cut it about 50% with gmaxwell/andytoshi's proposal to remove denominations.

You are correct if "NSA has provably unmasked 80% of the Bitcoin addresses in use". Since there's almost no chance that this is a case, this is probably just the Bitcoin core developers response to constant claims about alleged questionable scalability of Bitcoin. The role of testnet is not to play with complete overhaul of block processing that Gavin is proposing, it's to allow the developers to test their own implementations of the current Bitcoin software. This can turn out to be a fantastic win towards Bitcoin unlimited transaction scalability, or big fuckup on the developers side. Why risk it? What's the obvious gain since the Bitcoin can scale for almost an order of magnitude increase of transaction processing with current software? I'm just saying that altcoin launched by BTC core team would be a reasonable line of action.

For the most part no. The transactions are just bigger, you have the send them around to all the full nodes, so you need more bandwidth.

This is not to imply that everyone who wants to use the coin will need a full node though.

What's wrong with testnet?

At any rate, like I said: "if there is a compelling feature and enough demand for it". I'm not talking about a "chat client" built into Bitcoin Qt. I'm talking about something fundamental like the stealth address rollover. If it is, for instance, revealed that the NSA has provably unmasked 80% of the Bitcoin addresses in use, don't you think that there will be just this sort of clamour? And in that event, if the Bitcoin developers drag their feet, Conformal and Bits of Proof will implement it and release a drop-in replacement for merchant/automation systems, et voila - the blockchain can roll over, existing miners can continue mining without upgrade/moving (unless they want to), and the world continues without needing Bitcoin Core to take point.

That's sort of inevitable, just because some connections will be faster than home connections.  (I wasn't implying a different "type" of node, just that faster connections will naturally be responsible for doing more of the distribution.)

This is not necessarly to the analysis though. If we assume every connection and node is exactly the same, then every node receives and transmits each transaction once. The total bandwidth usage doubles -- again nowhere near petabytes, even factoring in inefficiency. You need upstream matching your downstream (since you are responsible for sending to one peer on average), which limits peak transaction rates in Gavin's example to probably 4500 tps instead of 45000 tps (since home connections that run about 100mb downstream run about 10mb upstream). That's still a lot.

Also, 1 gb home connections are coming. A few people already have them, many more will in several years. Given Moore's Law this business of sending a few tiny 2kbyte transactions around is quickly becoming somewhat trivial. Gavin is on the right track.

Is there no way to theoretically mitigate this issue or is it inherent to the tech?