Author

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1636. (Read 4670614 times)

legendary
Activity: 2142
Merit: 1131
-_-
blah blah blah, monero should not be overly inflationary, it must go like bitcoin, after mining 'stops', only transactions fees are rewarded to the miners, anything more will kill a currency, bitcoin model is well approved.

Nothing is approved. We have no idea what will happen to Bitcoin in a near future.

Any chance of getting this coin listed on cryptsy ? I can't find XMR under their voting list, QCN is listed there though !

lol cryptsy added QCN instead of XMR ? No wonder why this exchange is dead.
full member
Activity: 171
Merit: 100
Any chance of getting this coin listed on cryptsy ? I can't find XMR under their voting list, QCN is listed there though !
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
Thanks. You are annoying and pretentious but you aren't dumb. I'll have to take some time to digest this.

When I am trying to win over the affection a lot of people, it won't be with words. I have a couple of 1 million user software accomplishments in my resume already.

Comments like these are exactly the reason why you annoy me so much. Why can't you just rely on your arguments instead of appealing to authority. Who the he'll cares how many people used your software. Good arguments aren't made bad if no people used your software and bad arguments art made good if a billion people used your software. No one cares how wonderful you think you are.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
Thanks. You are annoying and pretentious but you aren't dumb. I'll have to take some time to digest this.

When I am trying to win over the affection a lot of people, it won't be with words. I have a couple of 1 million user software accomplishments in my resume already.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin.

This is not at all what I read.  I understood him to mean he favored a fixed constant block reward (ie 1 coin) as opposed to the exponential growth from a percent inflation (ie 1% total coins per x time).

The "1 coin per" scenario keeps rewards flowing while effectively reducing the value of the reward via the greater total coins while the percent ends up ramping up the coin supply on an exponential curve.

Was it not clear?

I see now that he was referring to an exponential growth of the money supply, and not an exponential growth of the rewards relative to the money supply.

I see no divergence problem with an exponential growth of the money supply if you are distributing it to yourselves (i.e. the broad usership). The money supply has been growing exponentially since the beginning of human history.

For one thing exponentially growing money supply is necessary to be consistent with the issuance of debt, because otherwise there is no means of paying the aggregately accumulated exponential growth in money needed due to interest compounding.

If we want to consider divergent outcomes and resilient strategies, note that any strategy might have a divergent outcome, e.g. even a feedback loop might carry with it some game theory for manipulation.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
Ok so im reading the mini blockchain whitepaper. It appears to be a marginal improvement in some ways but it doesnt address the fundemental difficulty in scaling blockchains. The scalability problem doesn’t have anything to do with the size of the blockchain. It comes from the fact that each actor's transactions must be verified by all other network participants. Its the same math as network effects, except its a negative network effect.

Suppose actors make 1 transaction per minute.

1 actors = 0 verifications because he doesnt need to verify his own transactions.
2 actors = 2 transactions per minute. 2 * 2 actors = 4 transactions verifications. They dont need to verify their own so 4 - 2 = 2.  
3 actors = 3 transactions per minute. 3 * 3 = 9 verifications. they dont need to verify their own so 9 - 3 = 6.
4 actors = (4*4)-4=12
5 actors = (5*5)-5=20
ect...

0,2,6,12,20,30,42,56,72

This very quickly gets out of hand when you consider that there is a cost associated with verifying a transaction. even if that cost is infinitesimal.

Actors (users) are not verifying nodes, so you math is slightly incorrect in that respect.

However, your point remains valid that transactions scale O(NxN) by Metcalf or Reed's law. And verifying nodes probably don't scale by N actors.

However, Metcalf's law doesn't tell you the frequencies at which actors do transactions. Visa is currently at about 6000 transactions per second, so this can be verified with a single Intel CPU, so no problem for verifying nodes.

Scaling up to 6 billion people and micro transactions (more frequent transactions) might present a scaling problem. I've looked at Lamport signatures schemes that can verify 100,000+ transactions per second on a single i7 cpu. Since verifying nodes tend to be pools with considerably more resources (amortized over a large amount of hashrate), then a 10 - 100 cpu farm (or a Tilera 64 core cpu) is not unfathomable without destroying decentralization of pools.

Long-term the solution is simple. An ASIC for verification will scale sufficiently to 6 billion and micro transactions.

In short, no problem! Mini-block chain addresses the problem of block chain size and its impact on decentralization of mining. Cryptonite does not include anonymity however.

Thanks. You are annoying and pretentious but you aren't dumb. I'll have to take some time to digest this.
legendary
Activity: 3136
Merit: 1116
where is dev right now?
say something!
Do some acture  work.

lol DumDumz, you so CrayCrayz
full member
Activity: 126
Merit: 100
★☆★Bitin.io★☆★
where is dev right now?
say something!
Do some acture  work.
hero member
Activity: 658
Merit: 503
Monero Core Team
I have also decided to donate a bottle of wine from my cellars to all core developers who show up in my castle.
Once I'll get rich with Monero, I'll definitely visit Malla (plus, it would a great place for a  Murder mystery game or a tabletop RPG.

..I'll remember Malla in 2019.
The Supernode, Baltic Sea
And an old Pietila wine...

Estonian Walkways

I've been using it to mean == "goes up to a value 10 times higher the original value" == +900%.

Maybe I accidentally invented it and it's not in general use  Tongue
Decuples is the term Smiley

And is it me or does the quality of discussion in this thread seem to improve between about 10:00 and 17:00 UTC each day? I've only bothered to check this "statistic" for the last few days' worth of posts but so far it holds up, at least on weekdays.
Interesting, especially if it holds true with time.

im interested in alts - can't put my finger on why exactly.
Because you find Darwinian evolution at work fascinating? Innovations in altcoins

Glad you liked it Smiley
legendary
Activity: 3766
Merit: 5146
Whimsical Pants
He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin.

This is not at all what I read.  I understood him to mean he favored a fixed constant block reward (ie 1 coin) as opposed to the exponential growth from a percent inflation (ie 1% total coins per x time).

The "1 coin per" scenario keeps rewards flowing while effectively reducing the value of the reward via the greater total coins while the percent ends up ramping up the coin supply on an exponential curve.

Was it not clear?
sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
A new thread has been created for any discussion relating to development and engineering for Monero. This is not a general support thread, there is already one for that.

Please check it out here!


-updated by kbm

I will not post there.

I will not participate in a self-moderated thread because I've already seen a desire for censorship which impact engineering considerations. My posts will continue in the unmoderated thread.

I edited the post to explain that technical considerations were impacted by the topic you wanted to censor.

+1
censorship is only for people who are afraid.

edit: if you just want good discussions you can use "local thread rules" which are enforced by mods
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
A new thread has been created for any discussion relating to development and engineering for Monero. This is not a general support thread, there is already one for that.

Please check it out here!


-updated by kbm

I will not post there.

I will not participate in a self-moderated thread because I've already seen a desire for censorship which impact engineering considerations. My posts will continue in the unmoderated thread.

I edited the post to explain that technical considerations were impacted by the topic you wanted to censor.
member
Activity: 76
Merit: 10
A new thread has been created for any discussion relating to development and engineering for Monero. This is not a general support thread, there is already one for that.

Please check it out here!


-updated by kbm
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
Moreover, arguing for an unstable regime without so much as a damping feedback loop ti mitigate divergence doesn't inspire me with visions of success...

(2) compute the time to value divergence as a function of econometric parameters.

That is a more high IQ explanation of what you were thinking in terms of "exponential blowup".

We need to enumerate divergence scenarios due to an exponentially scaling nominal size of expenditures on mining.

One is that mining becomes centralized, so we collectively are being siphoned by the few. That is probably the main concern for divergence?

But in that case, we've lost control of the coin any way and the government can take control of the coin and change the protocol as they wish to a fiat where they siphon us (where Bitcoin is headed with one or two pools controlling > 50% of the hashrate, once the G20 coordination on the Global Police State tracking of tax offenders reaches full implementation 2016 - 2020ish).

Currency will always be heavily debased because the people demand to use a currency that is debased (if your coin doesn't they will shift to a coin that does). Thus we had better focus on keeping the mining decentralized.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
Long ago I blew up your argument.

I don't feel particularly demolished in this regard.  I think your argument is riddled.  Moreover, arguing for an unstable regime without so much as a damping feedback loop ti mitigate divergence doesn't inspire me with visions of success.

A possibly insignificant probability of failure under attack is much less problematic than inevitable blow-up.

The issue could be decided with clarity by two rather tricky computations:  (1) compute the actual probability of a successful attack, as a function of resources.  (2) compute the time to value divergence as a function of econometric parameters.

I'm not going to be able to do either in the time available to me here.  You may consider it a default if you wish.  Personally, I don't keep scores.



  
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
Ok so im reading the mini blockchain whitepaper. It appears to be a marginal improvement in some ways but it doesnt address the fundemental difficulty in scaling blockchains. The scalability problem doesn’t have anything to do with the size of the blockchain. It comes from the fact that each actor's transactions must be verified by all other network participants. Its the same math as network effects, except its a negative network effect.

Suppose actors make 1 transaction per minute.

1 actors = 0 verifications because he doesnt need to verify his own transactions.
2 actors = 2 transactions per minute. 2 * 2 actors = 4 transactions verifications. They dont need to verify their own so 4 - 2 = 2.  
3 actors = 3 transactions per minute. 3 * 3 = 9 verifications. they dont need to verify their own so 9 - 3 = 6.
4 actors = (4*4)-4=12
5 actors = (5*5)-5=20
ect...

0,2,6,12,20,30,42,56,72

This very quickly gets out of hand when you consider that there is a cost associated with verifying a transaction. even if that cost is infinitesimal.

Actors (users) are not verifying nodes, so you math is slightly incorrect in that respect.

However, your point remains valid that transactions scale O(NxN) by Metcalf or Reed's law. And verifying nodes probably don't scale by N actors.

However, Metcalf's law doesn't tell you the frequencies at which actors do transactions. Visa is currently at about 6000 transactions per second, so this can be verified with a single Intel CPU, so no problem for verifying nodes.

Scaling up to 6 billion people and micro transactions (more frequent transactions) might present a scaling problem. I've looked at Lamport signatures schemes that can verify 100,000+ transactions per second on a single i7 cpu. Since verifying nodes tend to be pools with considerably more resources (amortized over a large amount of hashrate), then a 10 - 100 cpu farm (or a Tilera 64 core cpu) is not unfathomable without destroying decentralization of pools.

Long-term the solution is simple. An ASIC for verification will scale sufficiently to 6 billion and micro transactions.

In short, no problem! Mini-block chain addresses the problem of block chain size and its impact on decentralization of mining. Cryptonite does not include anonymity however.
member
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
Some Interesting Facts on Cryptocurrency Traders
1: average age is 20years
2: single male
3:speed trade (looking to make enough to pay rent)

I feel like a grandpa. here  Smiley


legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.

A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential.  I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well.

Don't conflate the growth of the value and adoption of the coin, with a fixed percentage. Come on now. Your IQ is higher than this.

You are strawmanning. He only said a constant % rate of growth causes exponential growth. Nothing about the value of anything.

Incorrect. He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin.

I getting close to putting you on ignore because you are causing me to make noise posts in order to correct your careless noise. You don't read and comprehend before you post.

Hey before you do that though can you take a look at my response to your claim that miniblockchain addresses the scalability problem.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.

A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential.  I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well.

Don't conflate the growth of the value and adoption of the coin, with a fixed percentage. Come on now. Your IQ is higher than this.

You are strawmanning. He only said a constant % rate of growth causes exponential growth. Nothing about the value of anything.

Incorrect. He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin.

I getting close to putting you on ignore because you are causing me to make noise posts in order to correct your careless noise. You don't read and comprehend before you post.

You are getting very close to my ignore list as well. Maybe we are a good match for each others ignore lists.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.

A constant % rate of growth is the exact definition of exponential.  I would take your critques more seriously if you did not exemplify them so well.

Don't conflate the growth of the value and adoption of the coin, with a fixed percentage. Come on now. Your IQ is higher than this.

You are strawmanning. He only said a constant % rate of growth causes exponential growth. Nothing about the value of anything.

Incorrect. He was arguing against a constant % rate of perpetual mining rewards (a.k.a. debasement). He conflated this with the exponential growth of the value and adoption of the coin.

I getting close to putting you on ignore because you are causing me to make noise posts in order to correct your careless noise. You don't read and comprehend before you post.
Jump to: