Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1639. (Read 4670614 times)

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 03:32:47 PM

Perhaps but neither of those two things are "yammering in this thread all day long"

You probably have 10 times more posts in this thread than I do.

And i also dont claim to know how to solve the blockchain scalability problem. I shouldn't need to explain this.

I already told you the Mini-block chain thread is public on this forum.

I already told you it is incompatible with ring signatures.

So I've already told you.

You also already told me that you haven’t proven it. Sooooooo.... prove it smart guy.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/test-release-cryptonite-binary-for-linux-new-qt-and-windows-builds-643758

its pretty bad ass

Dogeshop_eu

member

Activity: 148

Merit: 10

Make Money no war Cheesy

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:13:31 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 01:32:30 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on July 15, 2014, 03:14:09 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 03:12:48 PM

Cryponite (not Cryptonote) already exists. It is proven in terms of there is an implementation in the real world.

I'll look into it.

darkota

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 500

So much arguing. Tongue

"Make Peace Not War"

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:13:31 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 01:32:30 PM

Btw, there is no way to prevent ASICs. But the problem with ASICs is not their existence, but rather that they are not readily available on time to everyone in the same efficiencies. So if you want to defeat this problem, you've got to think about it a totally different way.

You think I haven't been working eh. Wink

Hint: does every user in the world need the most power efficient implementation of SHA-2 such that Intel would make it happen in every PC? No. This is why there is an ASICs problem for Bitcoin, wherein there isn't anymore equal access to efficiencies in mining.

For miner that will be widely accessible to the general public, this problem could already be solved for Bitcoin, as the $17 AntMiner U2+ is already as electrically efficient as the larger economy-of-scale ASICS:

http://www.amazon.com/BITMAIN-ANTMINER-U2-Bitcoin-Overclockable/dp/B00ITD5NV6

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Mining_hardware_comparison#ASIC

So Bitcoin's problem is no longer ASICs but rather that most users of Bitcoin don't mine. And 50+% of those who do, mine in one or two pools.

Quote from: Anon136 on July 15, 2014, 03:14:09 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 03:12:48 PM

I already told you the Mini-block chain thread is public on this forum.

I already told you it is incompatible with ring signatures.

So I've already told you.

You also already told me that you haven’t proven it. Sooooooo.... prove it smart guy.

Cryponite (not Cryptonote) already exists. It is proven in terms of there is an implementation in the real world.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 03:12:48 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on July 15, 2014, 03:07:16 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:45:06 PM

Quote from: Anon136 on July 15, 2014, 03:07:16 PM

Perhaps but neither of those two things are "yammering in this thread all day long"

You probably have 10 times more posts in this thread than I do.

And i also dont claim to know how to solve the blockchain scalability problem. I shouldn't need to explain this.

I already told you the Mini-block chain thread is public on this forum.

I already told you it is incompatible with ring signatures.

So I've already told you.

You also already told me that you haven’t proven it. Sooooooo.... prove it smart guy.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:45:06 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:45:06 PM

Perhaps but neither of those two things are "yammering in this thread all day long"

You probably have 10 times more posts in this thread than I do.

And i also dont claim to know how to solve the blockchain scalability problem. I shouldn't need to explain this.

I already told you the Mini-block chain thread is public on this forum.

I already told you it is incompatible with ring signatures.

So I've already told you.

If you continue this nonsense, I will ignore you, because I want my list of posts of my profile to not contain noise.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Perhaps but neither of those two things are "yammering in this thread all day long"

You probably have 10 times more posts in this thread than I do.

And i also dont claim to know how to solve the blockchain scalability problem. I shouldn't need to explain this.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: Brilliantrocket on July 15, 2014, 02:29:35 PM

Perhaps but neither of those two things are "yammering in this thread all day long"

You probably have 10 times more posts in this thread than I do. I have weeks and days with no posts in this thread. I might have 20 posts in this thread of 510 pages (let's exclude the posts where you incite me to post on nonsense such as this).

All of my posts have raised very serious issues. I look to learn from any peer review of my thoughts. I share, but it doesn't mean I have to get naked when you tell me too.

Radar

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 100

Pm me if you're a casino developer!

I bet botnets are having a field day with this coin

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Anon136 on July 15, 2014, 02:23:07 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:09:12 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:04:01 PM

Quote from: drawingthesun on July 15, 2014, 12:44:00 PM

Quote from: Sebastien256 on July 15, 2014, 02:12:42 PM

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

What is terrifying about it?

What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year?

The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power.

If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches.

Maybe if you actually know how to make blockchains scalable. But if you dont than this argument doesnt hold. And if you do, than again, for the 10,000 time what are you doing here, please for christ sake go prove it.

If your block chain can't scale then the entire discussion is pointless.

Of course I know how to make block chain scale, but I am not going to tell you.

And there goes your last shred of credibility.

How so? If I knew how to solve such a problem, I'd make my own currency, not reveal it to a competitor.

Perhaps but neither of those two things are "yammering in this thread all day long"

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Anon136 on July 15, 2014, 12:04:21 PM

Quote from: rpietila on July 15, 2014, 11:54:06 AM

Quote from: drawingthesun on July 15, 2014, 11:42:28 AM

(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 don't think he was talking about an X% increase in coin supply. He was talking about a perpetual 1 coin per block. You will notice that with each new block 1 coin is a smaller percentage of the total money supply. Eventually it will become so small that the value of securing a marginal unit from loss due to carelessness will be less than 1 coin per block. And thus we would reach an equilibrium where about 1 coin per block was lost due to carelessness and 1 coin per block is created in mining. The beauty of a proposal like this is that it leads to a stable money supply. No deflation or inflation.

I would rater say that to achieve what you say anon, you need a fix x% per year of coin creation to counter the Lost "due to carelessness". I think that loss should be account for a percentage of the total market number of atomic coins. The problem is to define the "x" value, I agree that this is not easy. Instead, with a fix amount, it like saying in the limit of end of time that there is less and less people that are losing the coins due to carelessness. Maybe that thinking is also incorrect...

In the end, maybe the creation of coin that should counter loss should not be count on x% or "y" fix number of coins per block, but be count in term of coin inactivity in the last "average life time" of a human life. After that time of inactivity, we can expect that the coins are lost, so they need to be replace...

Maybe i didn't explain myself clearly enough. So lets say that each new block is introducing 1 monero. And lets say that people are losing 0.5 monero per block on average due to carelessness. So each new block is having 0.5 new monero be introduced into circulation on net. This causes inflation, which all other things being equal reduces the value of a unit of monero. Suppose this trend continues. If a monero is worth less, than it is worth less effort to secure it. Thus the less it becomes worth the less effort people put into securing it. Eventually if this trend continues enough the values will flip. So now now each block is introducing 1 new monero and people are losing 1.5 monero per block due to carelessness. This is causing deflation. Deflation increases the value of a unit of monero. Thus increases the value of precautions to ensure against loss due to carelessness. And the process repeats.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Especially if I knew how to solve a multitude of problems I see in all the coins in existence. And especially if I didn't agree with their model of development by consensus MOB.

However, be aware that I am sometimes very ill and unable to work effectively. Sad

Brilliantrocket

hero member

Activity: 826

Merit: 500

Quote from: Anon136 on July 15, 2014, 02:23:07 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:09:12 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:04:01 PM

Quote from: drawingthesun on July 15, 2014, 12:44:00 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:09:12 PM

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

What is terrifying about it?

What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year?

The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power.

If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches.

Maybe if you actually know how to make blockchains scalable. But if you dont than this argument doesnt hold. And if you do, than again, for the 10,000 time what are you doing here, please for christ sake go prove it.

If your block chain can't scale then the entire discussion is pointless.

Of course I know how to make block chain scale, but I am not going to tell you.

And there goes your last shred of credibility.

How so? If I knew how to solve such a problem, I'd make my own currency, not reveal it to a competitor.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:04:01 PM

Quote from: drawingthesun on July 15, 2014, 12:44:00 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 01:32:30 PM

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

What is terrifying about it?

What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year?

The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power.

If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches.

Maybe if you actually know how to make blockchains scalable. But if you dont than this argument doesnt hold. And if you do, than again, for the 10,000 time what are you doing here, please for christ sake go prove it.

If your block chain can't scale then the entire discussion is pointless.

Of course I know how to make block chain scale, but I am not going to tell you.

And there goes your last shred of credibility.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Btw, there is no way to prevent ASICs. But the problem with ASICs is not their existence, but rather that they are not readily available on time to everyone in the same efficiencies. So if you want to defeat this problem, you've got to think about it a totally different way.

You think I haven't been working eh. Wink

Hint: does every user in the world need the most power efficient implementation of SHA-2 such that Intel would make it happen in every PC? No. This is why there is an ASICs problem for Bitcoin, wherein there isn't anymore equal access to efficiencies in mining.

Sebastien256

hero member

Activity: 715

Merit: 500

Quote from: Anon136 on July 15, 2014, 12:04:21 PM

Quote from: rpietila on July 15, 2014, 11:54:06 AM

Quote from: drawingthesun on July 15, 2014, 11:42:28 AM

(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 don't think he was talking about an X% increase in coin supply. He was talking about a perpetual 1 coin per block. You will notice that with each new block 1 coin is a smaller percentage of the total money supply. Eventually it will become so small that the value of securing a marginal unit from loss due to carelessness will be less than 1 coin per block. And thus we would reach an equilibrium where about 1 coin per block was lost due to carelessness and 1 coin per block is created in mining. The beauty of a proposal like this is that it leads to a stable money supply. No deflation or inflation.

I would rater say that to achieve what you say anon, you need a fix x% per year of coin creation to counter the Lost "due to carelessness". I think that loss should be account for a percentage of the total market number of atomic coins. The problem is to define the "x" value, I agree that this is not easy. Instead, with a fix amount, it like saying in the limit of end of time that there is less and less people that are losing the coins due to carelessness. Maybe that thinking is also incorrect...

In the end, maybe the creation of coin that should counter loss should not be count on x% or "y" fix number of coins per block, but be count in term of coin inactivity in the last "average life time" of a human life. After that time of inactivity, we can expect that the coins are lost, so they need to be replace...

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:04:01 PM

Quote from: drawingthesun on July 15, 2014, 12:44:00 PM

Quote from: AnonyMint on July 15, 2014, 02:04:01 PM

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

What is terrifying about it?

What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year?

The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power.

If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches.

Maybe if you actually know how to make blockchains scalable. But if you dont than this argument doesnt hold. And if you do, than again, for the 10,000 time what are you doing here, please for christ sake go prove it.

If your block chain can't scale then the entire discussion is pointless.

Of course I know how to make block chain scale, but I am not going to tell you.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: drawingthesun on July 15, 2014, 12:44:00 PM

Please don't do a fixed percent. That's a terrifying proposition. The benefits for getting it right are so overshadowed by the costs of getting it wrong that its not worth it.

What is terrifying about it?

What could be the worst case scenario for 1% per year?

The death of the currency as inflation out-paces adoption leading to decline in purchasing power leading to people switching to a crypto that doesn’t cause a decline in their purchasing power.

If by the time you get there your currency is widely adopted with innumerable network effects, then nobody switches.

Maybe if you actually know how to make blockchains scalable. But if you dont than this argument doesnt hold. And if you do, than again, for the 10,000 time what are you doing here, please for christ sake go prove it.

AnonyMint

hero member

Activity: 518

Merit: 521

Quote from: drawingthesun on July 15, 2014, 12:44:00 PM