[XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1458.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: rpietila on September 09, 2014, 03:38:19 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 08, 2014, 06:42:41 PM

Just to give a rough guide to our thinking on fees, we are currently considering 0.01/2 kb. 0.005 didn't work too well given the way dust is handled (it creates a lot of 0.005 change, although in the future we will probably improve dust handling). So most small transactions (<= 2 kb) would have a fee of 0.01, larger ones of around 20 kb would be close to the current 0.1 and continue to provide the same protection against spamming of large transactions.

For reference, at current prices

0.01 XMR is approx. 0.02 USD
0.0001 BTC is approx. 0.05 USD (common fee per kb used with bitcoin, though there is a range in use)

With this setting, we are about 5x cheaper than Bitcoin per kb. However, Bitcoin has the ability to send some zero-fee tx (though not all wallets support this or do it by default) and we don't. Also the 2 kb increment is larger than Bitcoin's 1 (typical) kb increment, which also increases effective fees somewhat, so 5x is an overestimate.

So - once I estimated that the whole blockchain (100GB) was for sale for $41k and deemed that too cheap. Now the price is per kB, and it works out to $1 million, a 25-time increase. This sounds indeed much better and while $1M is still very little, the coin's market cap is also small.

Thank you for explaining this model again. It didn't make a lot of sense to me the first time (though we had other things on our mind) but now it does.

Quote

It is telling how concentrated the blockchain usage is towards manual transaction that a 20x increase in fees resulted in only 30% reduction in tx. This means that if the blockchain growth will need to be limited in the future, the fees have to be raised really high to compel off-chain activity.

Keep in mind we were starting from a very low base (as your $41K number indicates). A 2x increase might have resulted in almost no decrease at all. A 20x increase from the current level would probably reduce usage by more than 30% (possibly 100%), and 2x would probably have very significant effect now.

Wexlike

legendary

Activity: 1473

Merit: 1086

Quote from: rpietila on September 08, 2014, 05:50:34 PM

Quote from: smooth on September 08, 2014, 05:28:23 PM

Quote from: rpietila on September 08, 2014, 05:17:30 PM

Quote from: fluffypony on September 08, 2014, 04:58:53 PM

Quote from: qqqq on September 08, 2014, 04:45:07 PM

When the 0.1 fee will be fixed ?

When we replace it with per-kb fees.

Just please make the fees high enough that the blockchain is not sold out too cheaply. It is possible to lower them when the price rises. The recent decision to up them by 20x did not lead to price crashing.

I would like to hear your specific suggestions with supporting analysis.

If "you" was singular, I'd like to know many variables first, to start to analyze it:

- number of tx per day
- distribution of the sizes of tx, how much user can affect it
- does mixing factor affect it
- is there any reason to compete for space in 1 block as with Bitcoin
- is there any way the user could/should be able to affect the fee
- how did the recent 20x increase of fee affect tx
- what is the realistic upper limit of blockchain size now, in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc years so that it is still usable
- blockchain prunable to what extent, when?

After these, I proceed to calculate if there is any need to limit the blockchain usage or if the antispam is the only reason for fees. If the limiting is required, then it takes some time to try to develop a "lifespan" for the coin by probably subsidising the fee now so that later Monero is so big that we can face the problem with larger resources. But I won't go into specifics without getting the information first.

ADD: Before even seeing the facts, I would say that there exists the following usage:

- Transfers. These are quite large and not much affected by the fees.
- Payments. These may be small but can be reconfigured such that they happen less often, which would reduce the usage given higher fee.
- Micropayments. These proliferate is the fees are small, and become uneconomic if they are raised. I don't believe there are many micropayment innovations functioning in Monero, and by keeping the fees high there will not be, either. It is a new thing that has not existed before, but seems that Monero blockchain is not the right place for it.
- Spam/Attacks.

If fee is set so high that people are grudging when making a transfer, it is a problem because they sell out of a coin that is too expensive to transact with. If fee is too high for payments, the coin loses economy/services. There were never any micropayments to begin with.

I am not a fan of high transaction fees. After all, the low transaction fee lead to the latest successful attack - and that is a good thing! With higher fees that attack might not be feasible - true, but this just means the attacker would be a future force with more money in the pockets.

That is why i propose: keep the fees low, give attackers a chance to attack. After all it makes the coin so much more secure and our devs handled the last attack so well!

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

Quote from: smooth on September 08, 2014, 06:42:41 PM

Just to give a rough guide to our thinking on fees, we are currently considering 0.01/2 kb. 0.005 didn't work too well given the way dust is handled (it creates a lot of 0.005 change, although in the future we will probably improve dust handling). So most small transactions (<= 2 kb) would have a fee of 0.01, larger ones of around 20 kb would be close to the current 0.1 and continue to provide the same protection against spamming of large transactions.

For reference, at current prices

0.01 XMR is approx. 0.02 USD
0.0001 BTC is approx. 0.05 USD (common fee per kb used with bitcoin, though there is a range in use)

With this setting, we are about 5x cheaper than Bitcoin per kb. However, Bitcoin has the ability to send some zero-fee tx (though not all wallets support this or do it by default) and we don't. Also the 2 kb increment is larger than Bitcoin's 1 (typical) kb increment, which also increases effective fees somewhat, so 5x is an overestimate.

So - once I estimated that the whole blockchain (100GB) was for sale for $41k and deemed that too cheap. Now the price is per kB, and it works out to $1 million, a 25-time increase. This sounds indeed much better and while $1M is still very little, the coin's market cap is also small.

It is telling how concentrated the blockchain usage is towards manual transaction that a 20x increase in fees resulted in only 30% reduction in tx. This means that if the blockchain growth will need to be limited in the future, the fees have to be raised really high to compel off-chain activity.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: qqqq on September 09, 2014, 03:25:34 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 08, 2014, 06:42:41 PM

Just to give a rough guide to our thinking on fees, we are currently considering 0.01/2 kb. 0.005 didn't work too well given the way dust is handled (it creates a lot of 0.005 change, although in the future we will probably improve dust handling). So most small transactions (<= 2 kb) would have a fee of 0.01, larger ones of around 20 kb would be close to the current 0.1 and continue to provide the same protection against spamming of large transactions.

For reference, at current prices

0.01 XMR is approx. 0.02 USD
0.0001 BTC is approx. 0.05 USD (common fee per kb used with bitcoin, though there is a range in use)

With this setting, we are about 5x cheaper than Bitcoin per kb. However, Bitcoin has the ability to send some zero-fee tx (though not all wallets support this or do it by default) and we don't. Also the 2 kb increment is larger than Bitcoin's 1 (typical) kb increment, which also increases effective fees somewhat, so 5x is an overestimate.

Don't understand how i can get 0.01 fee cause right now i have to pay 0.1 on any transactions.

Quote

Error: not enough money to transfer, available only 1.700000000000, transaction
amount 1.800000000000 = 1.700000000000 + 0.100000000000 (fee)

The above was not describing the current client. I was throwing out some of our preliminary thoughts on the per-KB fee model that isn't released yet.

The current version uses 0.1 fee regardless of transaction size (in bytes).

qqqq

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1011

Quote from: smooth on September 08, 2014, 06:42:41 PM

Just to give a rough guide to our thinking on fees, we are currently considering 0.01/2 kb. 0.005 didn't work too well given the way dust is handled (it creates a lot of 0.005 change, although in the future we will probably improve dust handling). So most small transactions (<= 2 kb) would have a fee of 0.01, larger ones of around 20 kb would be close to the current 0.1 and continue to provide the same protection against spamming of large transactions.

For reference, at current prices

0.01 XMR is approx. 0.02 USD
0.0001 BTC is approx. 0.05 USD (common fee per kb used with bitcoin, though there is a range in use)

With this setting, we are about 5x cheaper than Bitcoin per kb. However, Bitcoin has the ability to send some zero-fee tx (though not all wallets support this or do it by default) and we don't. Also the 2 kb increment is larger than Bitcoin's 1 (typical) kb increment, which also increases effective fees somewhat, so 5x is an overestimate.

Don't understand how i can get 0.01 fee cause right now i have to pay 0.1 on any transactions.

Quote

Error: not enough money to transfer, available only 1.700000000000, transaction
amount 1.800000000000 = 1.700000000000 + 0.100000000000 (fee)

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Quote from: digicoin on September 09, 2014, 02:07:31 AM

Need a XMR shill in Darknet Wink

At the same time, wouldn't the best shill help it become the Lightnet? Grin

digicoin

legendary

Activity: 1106

Merit: 1000

Need a XMR shill in Darknet Wink

vokain

legendary

Activity: 1834

Merit: 1019

Monero got big and useful much quicker than I expected! As soon as I gave it some time, I now see. Thank you to everyone involved

5w00p

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 502

Quote from: ?? on ??

Why would you mine on a cellphone? thin clients will only get onboard after some blockchain-level online wallet or lightclient is developed... Undecided

Where did I say anything about mining in my post, Nekomata?
You misunderstood my post and asked the question and then paraphrased what I wrote about a thin client by using the "word" lightclient.
It's all good, though.

kingscrown

hero member

Activity: 672

Merit: 500

http://fuk.io - check it out!

decent launch

im holding for now

xulescu

sr. member

Activity: 263

Merit: 250

Just mentioning that building Monero on Ubuntu 12.04 x64 is noob-safe.

install ubuntu, wifi driver, update, upgrade, dist-upgrade, run install_monero.sh, (choose make essentials, compile boost)

Also, it would be a good idea to correct the idea that Monero has a complicated recursive block reward (and further proof of intentional obfuscation). Shameless plug:

Quote from: xulescu on September 07, 2014, 05:30:29 AM

Monero has an exponentially decreasing emission rate:

Let a = 2^-20 * 10^-12, then block reward is R_n = M a (1 - a)ⁿ

It's like Bitcoin, but ~2x faster and without the sudden halvings.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

The first number in those messages is your height. It is increasing because your node is working properly.

If those connections are outgoing, then once your node establishes a set of stable outgoing connections those messages will stop. If they are incoming you can ignore them or if they really bother you, block the bad nodes in your firewall, but they are harmless.

Quote from: bclcjunkie on September 08, 2014, 10:15:20 PM

thanks smooth! looks like i'm good to go then.. but yeah the block height keeps increasing in those -4 messages...

Quote from: smooth on September 08, 2014, 09:49:57 PM

Quote from: bclcjunkie on September 08, 2014, 09:34:54 PM

anyone else sees the same? can the devs confirm if i should resync or ignore those -4 days messages? sometimes it would continue syncing backwards until i have to close and restart the session again and then it gets synced properly... i've never seen this sort of behavior before.. wallet shows current block height and correct balance..

Ignore the -4 days messages. That means the peer is '-4 days ahead" meaning 4 days behind. i.e. they are stuck. Your node will drop them and continue working. As long as your height is correct (diff command in daemon or bc_height command in wallet) you are fine.

I'm not sure what you mean by syncing backwards unless your height is decreasing instead of increasing. I don't think that is possible. (If you see it, report it.)

bclcjunkie

hero member

Activity: 833

Merit: 1001

thanks smooth! looks like i'm good to go then.. but yeah the block height keeps increasing in those -4 messages...

Quote from: smooth on September 08, 2014, 09:49:57 PM

Quote from: bclcjunkie on September 08, 2014, 09:34:54 PM

anyone else sees the same? can the devs confirm if i should resync or ignore those -4 days messages? sometimes it would continue syncing backwards until i have to close and restart the session again and then it gets synced properly... i've never seen this sort of behavior before.. wallet shows current block height and correct balance..

Ignore the -4 days messages. That means the peer is '-4 days ahead" meaning 4 days behind. i.e. they are stuck. Your node will drop them and continue working. As long as your height is correct (diff command in daemon or bc_height command in wallet) you are fine.

I'm not sure what you mean by syncing backwards unless your height is decreasing instead of increasing. I don't think that is possible. (If you see it, report it.)

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: jwinterm on September 08, 2014, 09:37:43 PM

Quote from: TheKoziTwo on September 08, 2014, 09:33:24 PM

I coded a simple script which parsed this topic, boolberry, bytecoin, ducknote and darkcoin. Figured it would be interesting to see these results.

...

Notice the number of hero and legendary members? Darkcoin has 57 (2.23%) hero and 9 (0.35%) legendary versus Monero with 56 (3.94%) hero and 12 (0.85%) legendary. Percent wise monero has attracted more than twice legendary members and almost twice hero members.

In other words, it seems oldtimers gravitate towards monero/cryptonote and ignore darkcoin.

Wow, very neat! Thanks for scraping and parsing like a boss

lol.

We are all just the guys on the ground that keep the threads bumping along.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: 5w00p on September 08, 2014, 08:01:06 PM

For 'thin' clients that will definitely be required for broad and widespread adoptance (mobile phones, etc), I think that the processing required for hashing some POW would be prohibitive.

Why would you mine on a cellphone? thin clients will only get onboard after some blockchain-level online wallet or lightclient is developed... Undecided

This wasn't about actual mining just a tiny amount of PoW to earn the right to submit a transaction and discourage spam without paying a fee. Bitmessage does something similar, and some may be unaware that PoW was invented as an anti-spam measure for email.

However, in rpietila's altcoin thread we talked about a billion cell phones mining at night while they are plugged into a charger. That was pretty interesting.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: bclcjunkie on September 08, 2014, 09:34:54 PM

anyone else sees the same? can the devs confirm if i should resync or ignore those -4 days messages? sometimes it would continue syncing backwards until i have to close and restart the session again and then it gets synced properly... i've never seen this sort of behavior before.. wallet shows current block height and correct balance..

Ignore the -4 days messages. That means the peer is '-4 days ahead" meaning 4 days behind. i.e. they are stuck. Your node will drop them and continue working. As long as your height is correct (diff command in daemon or bc_height command in wallet) you are fine.

I'm not sure what you mean by syncing backwards unless your height is decreasing instead of increasing. I don't think that is possible. (If you see it, report it.)

jwinterm

legendary

Activity: 3136

Merit: 1116

Quote from: TheKoziTwo on September 08, 2014, 09:33:24 PM

I coded a simple script which parsed this topic, boolberry, bytecoin, ducknote and darkcoin. Figured it would be interesting to see these results.

...

Notice the number of hero and legendary members? Darkcoin has 57 (2.23%) hero and 9 (0.35%) legendary versus Monero with 56 (3.94%) hero and 12 (0.85%) legendary. Percent wise monero has attracted more than twice legendary members and almost twice hero members.

In other words, it seems oldtimers gravitate towards monero/cryptonote and ignore darkcoin.

Wow, very neat! Thanks for scraping and parsing like a boss

bclcjunkie

hero member

Activity: 833

Merit: 1001

anyone else sees the same? can the devs confirm if i should resync or ignore those -4 days messages? sometimes it would continue syncing backwards until i have to close and restart the session again and then it gets synced properly... i've never seen this sort of behavior before.. wallet shows current block height and correct balance..

2014-Sep-09 09:28:29.695139 [P2P3][178.215.105.206:5222 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 209603 [519 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started2014-Sep-09 09:28:29.804339 [P2P4][221.226.86.116:56335 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 209603 [519 block
s (0 days) behind]SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-09 09:28:29.632739 [P2P8][122.224.204.18:33488 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 209603 [519 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-09 09:28:29.866739 [P2P3][80.227.80.75:38606 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 209603 [519 blocks(0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-09 09:28:29.913539 [P2P4][221.0.76.119:53130 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 209603 [519 blocks(0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-09 09:28:29.975939 [P2P8][128.12.226.78:51255 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 209603 [519 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-09 09:28:30.022739 [P2P3][27.54.242.77:50537 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 202659 [6425 blocks (-4 days) ahead]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-09 09:28:30.100740 [P2P4][82.26.208.174:25591 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 209603 [519 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-09 09:28:30.272340 [P2P4][109.165.173.237:28997 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 209603 [519 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-09 09:28:30.209940 [P2P3][50.46.245.237:60666 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 209603 [519 blocks (0 days) behind]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-09 09:28:30.194340 [P2P8][88.87.92.102:38932 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 202659 [6425 blocks (-4 days) ahead]
SYNCHRONIZATION started
2014-Sep-09 09:28:30.334740 [P2P4][123.233.204.190:47049 INC]Sync data returned unknown top block: 209084 -> 209603 [519 blocks (0 days) behind]

TheKoziTwo

legendary

Activity: 1552

Merit: 1047

I coded a simple script which parsed this topic, boolberry, bytecoin, ducknote and darkcoin. Figured it would be interesting to see these results.

In this topic alone, a total of 1420 unique users has participated.

Below are users spread across the different user ranks:

Boolberry (198 pages)

Rank	Users
Staff	0	0.00%
Donator	0	0.00%
Legendary	5	1.09%
Hero_Member	19	4.14%
Sr.Member	83	18.08%
Full_Member	150	32.68%
Member	82	17.86%
Jr.Member	52	11.33%
Newbie	68	14.81%
Total users:	459

Bytecoin (195 pages)

Rank	Users
Staff	1	0.22%
Donator	0	0.00%
Legendary	4	0.87%
Hero_Member	19	4.17%
Sr.Member	54	11.84%
Full_Member	113	24.78%
Member	101	22.15%
Jr.Member	74	16.23%
Newbie	90	19.74%
Total users:	456

duckNote (78 pages)

Rank	Users
Staff	0	0.00%
Donator	0	0.00%
Legendary	2	0.72%
Hero_Member	5	1.81%
Sr.Member	40	14.49%
Full_Member	78	28.26%
Member	62	22.46%
Jr.Member	42	15.22%
Newbie	47	17.03%
Total users:	276

Monero (700 pages)

Rank	Users
Staff	1	0.07%
Donator	1	0.07%
Legendary	12	0.85%
Hero_Member	56	3.94%
Sr.Member	210	14.79%
Full_Member	362	25.49%
Member	288	20.28%
Jr.Member	203	14.3%
Newbie	287	20.21%
Total users:	1420

now the really interesting comparison....

Darkcoin (3029 pages)

Rank	Users
VIP	0	0.08%
Staff	0	0.00%
Donator	2	0.08%
Legendary	9	0.35%
Hero_Member	57	2.23%
Sr.Member	291	11.40%
Full_Member	772	30.24%
Member	545	21.35%
Jr.Member	342	13.40%
Newbie	533	20.88%
Total users:	2553

Notice the number of hero and legendary members? Darkcoin has 57 (2.23%) hero and 9 (0.35%) legendary versus Monero with 56 (3.94%) hero and 12 (0.85%) legendary. Percent wise monero has attracted more than twice legendary members and almost twice hero members.

In other words, it seems oldtimers gravitate towards monero/cryptonote and ignore darkcoin.

5w00p

hero member

Activity: 644

Merit: 502

For 'thin' clients that will definitely be required for broad and widespread adoptance (mobile phones, etc), I think that the processing required for hashing some POW would be prohibitive.

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1458. (Read 4670622 times)