Author

Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1637. (Read 4670972 times)

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.
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1217
My computer broke and I'm on a tablet now so I won't be very active for a few days. See you guys in a few days
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.
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.
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
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.

legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
Why isnt this coin in consideration for being added to Cryptsy? I mean its not even on the list of potential coins to add  Huh

Because they are lazy and don't want to add anything but 100 more worthless copy-paste bitcoin clones.
hero member
Activity: 795
Merit: 514
(I still maintain the lowest block reward should be at least 1 monero.)

What are the inputs that must be considered when setting the eternal inflation parameters for a PoW coin? From technical perspective, I mean.


From economical perspective, 100 years of growth at 2% APR is 624% per century. Granted, century is a long time, but also the current system with its wasteful resource acquisition and general footprint on pristine nature, cannot continue 1-2 more centuries with this growth rate.

On the other hand, gold production of about 1.2% (historically higher ~2%) can be regarded as near optimal, because gold has held its value vs. oil in the last decades.

If the economic and population growth abate, 0% is of course optimal as you cannot go lower.

=> The quick thinking would point to 0.5%-2% bracket, and it must be percentage, not a fixed amount.

This is a really important matter. A 1%-point fail can easily destroy the coin. (see silver inflation in 1850-1870 for instance how a precious metal was destroyed)

I totally agree and I'm watching with caution any news of inflationary emission after the planned 18m, dogecoin tried to do the same fooling everyone that it had a 100bi cap, the day they announced doges would be minted forever is the day dogecoin started dropping like a rock, I hope XMR doesnt make this mistake

Hey guys, let's say 10% of coins are lost, then 1% of 10% is 0.1%. You are worried about nothing.

Man you really want to destroy this coin, Im watching your posts and if you mean what you just said you are really not that smart, you don't create new crypto-coins because some are lost, this is part of the environment and the market is well aware, the 1% will destroy Monero as rpietila said.

I think you need to read rpietila's quote one more time. You completely missed his point.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521
I absolutely abhor fixed % inflation.  It serves no useful purpose and creates great danger.  Fixed reward is ideal because the value of the reward increases with the value of the coin, which is insured to happen because of economic growth.  Thus securing  the network does not depend on xn fee inflation.  It is the most stable and sustainable scenario possible.  Since it is a fixed quantity, it does not lead to supply inflation.

The idea of perpetual % inflation being necessary to protect network originates from me. Long ago I blew up your argument.

The value of reward from double-spends presumably rises too, thus a % of the total value of the network rises consumerately whereas a perpetual fixed block reward doesn't.

By increasing the cost to rent a double-spend attack, you decrease the number of confirmations that transactions must wait before being final. This is hugely significant consideration.

Exponential growth is never sustainable, ever.

You have a habit of misapplying generalizations. The % is not growing exponentially.
legendary
Activity: 1218
Merit: 1000
Why isnt this coin in consideration for being added to Cryptsy? I mean its not even on the list of potential coins to add  Huh
legendary
Activity: 1596
Merit: 1030
Sine secretum non libertas
I've been perpetually confused as to how the finite miniblockchain scheme can possibly be used to enforce data consensus in a byzantine generals problem-like network. I'd appreciate it if someone could ELI5 it to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's the same as the bitcoin algorithm, except that at a certain age you roll up old blocks into a ledger state.  The same consensus algorithm applies to the blockchain.  There is no enforcement per se any more than there is in any blockchain:  The majority will reject your blocks if you don't commit the same ledger state, just like having the best chain.  I confess I haven't read any whitepaper, so I may be in left field, but it seems pretty obvious.
hero member
Activity: 518
Merit: 521

I also studied the zero-knowledge algorithm (protocol) of the unlinkable ring signatures and I concur with the conclusions of that review. Adam Back, G. Maxwell and others have apparently reviewed it as well.

Can anyone give me a pointer to where the following is being discussed?

Quote from: Surae Noether @ whitepaper review
Anyway, some other guy may come along
and figure out that it needs a hatch so you can lighten it up occasionally.
Apparently Andrew Poelstra and G. Maxwell
are both working on that now, using Merkle trees and required prefixes for one
half of the Cryptonote private keys (the half you would give away to a payment
processor)

One quote from the whitepaper review could be misconstrued:

Quote from: Surae Noether @ whitepaper review
The CN protocol implements a piece of cryptography un-
seen in cryptocurrencies before, in particular, the idea of using
key images to protect against double spending

Key images don't protect against double-spending attacks.

Rather they identify an attempt to double-spend a one-time ring signature (they are what make it "one-time"). But the acceptance is still game-able the same as an attempt to double-spend in Bitcoin is.

The key image is recorded in the block chain and attempts to double-spend are checked against it. Ditto in Bitcoin, the address of the spender is recorded in the block chain and attempts to double-spend are checked against it. The difference is the key image provides unlinkability via the ring signature and the zero-knowledge protocol, but this doesn't make it more hardened against double-spends than Bitcoin.

And with my proposal, linkable block chains such as Bitcoin could gain much more resistance to double-spends than unlinkable block chains such as Cryptonote and Zerocash.
dga
hero member
Activity: 737
Merit: 511
Dev team, could you guys give some more info on who wrote the whitepaper review? http://monero.cc/downloads/whitepaper_review.pdf

It just says that he is a mathematician, but that's pretty vague and it would be great if we could look at some of his research/other papers.

I can't find anything about him on google either.

It's a pseudonym (hence the shout out to Emmy Noether), same as Satoshi Nakamoto, same as Nicolas van Saberhagen. If he chooses to identify himself in future that is his prerogative, but he has asked to remain under the guise of a pseudonym at this stage.

Rehearse Unto Surae Noether
Ethane Sourer, counting Earthen Euros
Sauterne Hero, one of Nature Heroes,
my Ears Hereunto will listen well.
Mathematics?  Ashore Tenure!
Another Reuse will only her Treasure Hone.
And thus we find the Author Serene.
Jump to: