Topic: What cryptocurrency is closest to my ideal? Monero? - page 2. (Read 3397 times)

Yes it can and it was decreased at least one time in past. it will decrease with higher value of Monero. Same as it happens with Bitcoin.
So as it was raised once because of that "spam attack".

Thanks for the clear explanation that I could understand.

Also, thanks for your second reply indicating the 20 Monero 80 bitcoin split.

I only threw Bitcoin in there as a "mainstream" alternative, I personally dont like its near complete lack of privacy, so i'm still looking at 100% Monero.

My cryptocurrency investment is not exactly trying to be conservative, its:
1. An educational exercise learning about something I have nothing of, and know little about, but that interests me
2. A thought in my head that thinks "what if suddenly .5% of global investments decide to go into a crypto-currency, or what if a country with a failed currency suddenly adopts a crypto currency, the value could absolutely skyrocket many many %

I have some physical gold, silver, and quite a few ASX listed companies as my conservative investments, so this is more of a "play".

Pretty confident at this point now, if I can confirm somewhere that the Monero fee can be changed by a reasonable method, i'm going to have a go of that.

Ok, well if there is no way to have a percentage based fee in a privacy focused coin, then I would like the fees to be the same as bitcoins where the user chooses the fee, and if they choose a fee too low then their transaction will take forever.

This is my opinion, so please feel free to consult with others. For now, I would invest 80% in Bitcoin and 20% in Monero but that is not a prediction of whether the price will go up or down. If you want potentially more upside (also downside), you might weight more to Monero, but since I think you want to be reasonably conservative then I suggest those weightings.

And I am not factoring in hype mastery, which Dash seems to somehow be very good at. Or maybe they are buying their own token, manipulating the market. I don't know.

And if my project reaches its stated goals and is not just some vaporware and meets your requirements at that time in the future, then I would consider adding to the list you invest in.

I haven't been following Zcash past few months, but that anonymity seemed to be a high quality alternative, but there were other problems with the distribution and such.

I don't know who does and how the fee is set, but I presume it can be adjusted.

The high fixed fee is necessary to prevent transaction spam, which is especially important in Monero's (and any anonymity coin's) case because:

a) Blockchain bloat is higher due to the large ring signatures.

b) The anonymity set is all the other transaction outputs as fake inputs for your anonymity ring. If all those were transactions of the attacker, then the attacker knows which input is not fake and he knows it is you. Even if the attacker only has a percentage of those fake inputs in your ring signature, he can use this to make it easier to combinatorially factor out who you are and de-anonymize you:

Thanks for that, probably one of the best replies I have had so far.

In your opinion (iamnotback's) if you earned an average income and where going to "invest" $1000 on a semi-speculative play (ie, its a bit of money, not ideal to have it go to 0, but not a major crisis either) and you where going to put it into one of the following:

Bitcoin
Monero
Dash
PrivX
MaidSafeCoin

What coin would you chose?

Your post wasn't there as I was writing that reply that you commented on.

No I dont understand what an anonymity set is, I'm new to all this, I think I said that a few times somewhere.

Can the minimum Monero tx fee be changed in any way? ie, if hypothetically the value went to $10,000 per Monero coin, and the TX fee was still .02 xmr, then using the coin for day to day purposes would be impossible.

Fees are a mechanism for letting miners prioritize transactions and weed out spam; thus the amounts need to be visible to miners.

That is largely a function of your capabilities and knowledge, not the project you invest in.

You have to set up a hardware wallet, and follow other best practices.

I am not saying there aren't differences of security with different ecosystems, I am just pointing out that primarily (largely) it is a function of your effort and capability.


In terms of security of the blockchain against 50% or 33% selfish-mining attacks, that would probably be Bitcoin.


Proof-of-work has a tragedy of commons failure without a perpetual block reward. Recent published white papers have proven this.

I will be making an altcoin that has a perpetually shrinking money supply (infinitely divisible so it never reaches zero). I can do that because mine won't be proof-of-work.


Only proof-of-work can remain unstuck without whales. Only proof-of-work doesn't have nothing-at-stake and other problems of Byzantine agreement.

However, I am about to introduce a radical new consensus algorithm which doesn't waste electricity and doesn't have those problems.


Stay away from mine then, as it is currently vaporware.


Dash may have these, but the anonymity of Dash is a joke.


Incorrect. Transaction speed will only be improved with a radical new consensus algorithm. Dash's InstantX is seriously flawed. I found a high school level math probability error in its web page "white paper".


Then there is nothing you can invest in at this time. Well maybe Steem...but there are other issues with it...

If noone is doing any transactions then the coin is dead. The percentage of the transaction taken in fees needs to account for the storage of the data etc.

Another way to overcome this that would be acceptable to me is a small "tax" on holdings that goes to miners, ie, every 3 days the equivalent of 3% per year gets removed from wallets and given to miners or something like that, although that may not work because it would make millions of transactions that would need to be processed so maybe I didnt think that through....

I dont mind the bitcoin fee system (the user sets the fee they are willing to fee, the lower the fee the longer their transaction will take), in fact I would probably be just as happy with that fee structure as a percentage structure.

Did you not read my post? The fixed fee is absolutely necessary in order to keep the level of anonymity from collapsing.

Do you not understand what an anonymity set is?

I have already done a lot more research on crypto-currencies than I did for any of the stocks I have ever purchased lol... and I still haven't decided yet.

I'm still leaning Monero, but didnt buy any as yet, still researching, if Dash over-takes it in the next couple of weeks than that will definitly throw a spanner in the works, but probably wont change my decision in the end...

Can anyone just tell me what will happen to Monero transfer fee if Monero suddenly shoots up in value in a big way? can it be lowered? how is it lowered if it can be? That fixed transaction fee is still my main sticking point for Monero.

Transaction fees should be the cost to store the data and has nothing to do with the amount being transferred.

Anonymity coins need artificially and excessively high (fixed) fees in order to prevent spamming the anonymity sets as a way to unmask the anonymity.

Thus anonymity coins need to reveal the amount of the fees.

I have a feeling that who has the best governance could be debated and argued forever with no clear winner ever being determined, and its something I haven't really looked into as much as I probably should as yet.

I'm pretty sure if Monero has a way to obscure transactions without anyone know who is sending transactions or how much they are, they can obscure the fees too. You may know someone on the network has just transferred a transaction worth $x, but you wont know who at all.

You didn't elaborate on why you think 3 is really bad idea, and noone as yet has given me what I think is a reason that would make percentage based transaction fees an insurmountable problem.

Decred is far better at governance than DASH. In fact Monero is better than Dash at governance. Not just according to Monero community members that have witnessed multiple large scale failures for expensive masternode voted budget items but in the eyes of Charlie Lee, creator of LTC:

https://www.dash.org/forum/threads/lamassu-update.10266/
https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/825138178591821825

If the transaction fee is a fixed fee and the value of the currency skyrockets, suddenly to  buy a $2 cup of coffee you have to pay a $10 transaction fee.

Current systems (PayPal, MasterCard, Visa) use a fixed fee percentage hybrid system, but I think just a percentage is perfectly viable.

In my idea of the PoS perfect coin you would only recieve "free" coins if you where processing transactions (thus earning the fee), so, noone with a really low end machine sitting around holding the currency would be receiving any free coins. Maybe what I mean isnt a PoS but something that doesnt exist yet, where the people who process the transactions and keep the network secure are the ones paid, using the transaction fees. I dont think you should get free coins for simply holding them in a wallet.

Like I say i'm new to cryptocurrencies so maybe I have my terminologies confused, thats why i'm here

Thanks, I havn't heard of a couple of those but i'll look them up shortly. I thought Dash had one of the best, if not the best government structures so maybe i'll look up Decred see how that differs.

Take a look at Ardor (ardorplatform.org). It is still alpha (testnet only) but is perhaps the only one that can fulfill your requirements - with the exception of point 3 (it has variable transaction fees) and 8 (~1 minute confirmation time), and it has an a little bit weaker privacy mechanism than Monero, but with Coin Shuffling you should be OK. It is proof of stake and secure (it doesn't need checkpoints like Peercoin-based currencies).

Its predecessor, NXT, has almost the same features, but will soon be outdated when Ardor releases.

A comment to your requirements 3 and 8: Fix "percentage" transaction fees will lead to spam if the currency grows and to scalability problems. Very low confirmation times lead to worse security. For example, a coin with a 30 second block time won't have even the same security with 20 confirmations than one single 10 minute confirmation in coins like Bitcoin, because the risk of orphan blocks is much higher.