It's a non-problem. The market will fix it. Miners will mine the txns with the best fees.
Uh... that's exactly why it is a problem. If payers have to enter a bidding war to get their transactions included, they might as well go back to fiat.
Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 2051. (Read 4670972 times)
Uh... that's exactly why it is a problem. If payers have to enter a bidding war to get their transactions included, they might as well go back to fiat.
I've made Russian translation of monero.cc.
Materials are sent to webmaster.
Hope we will see changes soon.
Materials are sent to webmaster.
Hope we will see changes soon.
It's a non-problem. The market will fix it. Miners will mine the txns with the best fees. Don't worry about prices. The market sets them. They are never what payers want them to be anyhow.
Has anyone considered the practicalities of doing side-chains in MRO? Moving mining to side-chains can help deter centralization of control in the hands of a single pool operator. I'd been given short shrift for this notion as applied to BTC, but I think my critics are simply not thinking it through: The idea is to mine on a dedicated side-chain, and merge-mine the main chain. If you want to insure that there are a minimum of 100 pools, you can mine on 100 side-chains simultaneously, round-robin to insure fractioning the hashpower. I haven't considered how this would be implemented in MRO, however.
Regarding chain bloat, garbage-collecting the chain would be a big splash, and get some attention. Define a minimum balance, and let miners reap dust. That number can change over time. The block chain only needs to contain an effective record of the current assignment of non-zero (greater than dust threshold) balances. Historical data is not required to maintain accounts. It is currently used to compute hashes, but does not need to be: The most up-to-date assignment ledger state can be used and old stuff discarded. This will improve privacy to a small degree as well, although obviously its not in any sense a protection against evesdropping history maintainers. If the chain is garbage collected, then there is precious little reason not to require a minimum mix. The requirement to garbage collect the chain insures that mining is done by CPUs -- and it's not make-work, but actual useful work.
Has anyone considered the practicalities of doing side-chains in MRO? Moving mining to side-chains can help deter centralization of control in the hands of a single pool operator. I'd been given short shrift for this notion as applied to BTC, but I think my critics are simply not thinking it through: The idea is to mine on a dedicated side-chain, and merge-mine the main chain. If you want to insure that there are a minimum of 100 pools, you can mine on 100 side-chains simultaneously, round-robin to insure fractioning the hashpower. I haven't considered how this would be implemented in MRO, however.
Regarding chain bloat, garbage-collecting the chain would be a big splash, and get some attention. Define a minimum balance, and let miners reap dust. That number can change over time. The block chain only needs to contain an effective record of the current assignment of non-zero (greater than dust threshold) balances. Historical data is not required to maintain accounts. It is currently used to compute hashes, but does not need to be: The most up-to-date assignment ledger state can be used and old stuff discarded. This will improve privacy to a small degree as well, although obviously its not in any sense a protection against evesdropping history maintainers. If the chain is garbage collected, then there is precious little reason not to require a minimum mix. The requirement to garbage collect the chain insures that mining is done by CPUs -- and it's not make-work, but actual useful work.
I have asked about the bloat on the chain before, and the consensus was that with the visible competition enforcing a 10% tax on mining to afford some privacy, then the storage space used to hold the blockchain would be a much less cost. I would like to know much more about this though, because the blockchain is noticeably larger in this protocol by a lot.
The issue is not only the cost of the storage. There is the download speed also. And other complex factors. A tax is probably also going to have Tragedy of the Commons effects, as I explained in my numerous discussions of why transaction fees will never work for Bitcoin in the long-run. There are other articles out now about these by others. Such discussion will take us off on tangents I don't feel like having right now.
Someone from your group private messaged me and ask I provide references.
Here is the recent article I was referring to:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2014/04/bitcoin-what-happens-when-the-miners-pack-up-their-gear.html
I raised similar issues last year as follows.
Transactions Withholding Attack
"Spiraling Transaction Fees Destruction" of bitcoin (Transactions fees are a Tragedy of the Commons)
I've been trying to raise awareness of this issue. The typical response seems to be, "when Bitcoin addresses the problem, so will we." To me this means it will never be addressed. The obvious solution is to perpetually increase the money supply, always rewarding miners with new coins.
Tacotime mentioned a hard fork proposal to never let the block reward drop below 1 coin:
Code:
if (blockReward < 1){
blockReward = 1;
}
blockReward = 1;
}
I assume this is merely delaying the problem, however. I proposed a fixed annual debasement (say 2%) with a tx fee cap of like 0.001% of the current block reward (or whatever sounds reasonable). That way we still get the spam protection without worrying about fee escalation down the road.
Any solution involving debasement, however, will be met with harsh criticism, because "inflation is bad" and stuff.
I have asked about the bloat on the chain before, and the consensus was that with the visible competition enforcing a 10% tax on mining to afford some privacy, then the storage space used to hold the blockchain would be a much less cost. I would like to know much more about this though, because the blockchain is noticeably larger in this protocol by a lot.
The issue is not only the cost of the storage. There is the download speed also. And other complex factors. A tax is probably also going to have Tragedy of the Commons effects, as I explained in my numerous discussions of why transaction fees will never work for Bitcoin in the long-run. There are other articles out now about these by others. Such discussion will take us off on tangents I don't feel like having right now.
Someone from your group private messaged me and ask I provide references.
Here is the recent article I was referring to:
http://radar.oreilly.com/2014/04/bitcoin-what-happens-when-the-miners-pack-up-their-gear.html
I raised similar issues last year as follows.
Transactions Withholding Attack
"Spiraling Transaction Fees Destruction" of bitcoin (Transactions fees are a Tragedy of the Commons)
More links on the discussion of why transaction fees suck:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6108034
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6151061
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/gavin-andresen-rising-transaction-fees-could-price-poor-out-of-bitcoin-612652
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.6152042
there is now yet no pools?
Pool software is in testing now. You can follow the progress on the pool bounty thread (see original post on this thread for link).
there is now yet no pools?
Pools are in development with great progress. Soon.
there is now yet no pools?
Bitmonero and Monero are the same thing then? TFT is clearly not on board. He ignores any questions about Monero.
There is one and only one coin, formerly called Bitmonero, now called Monero. There was a community vote in favor (despite likely ballot stuffing against). All of the major stakeholders at the time agreed with the rename, including TFT.
The code base is still called bitmonero. There is no reason to rename it, though we certainly could have if we really wanted to.
TFT said he he is sentimental about the Bitmonero name, which I can understand, so I don't think there is any malice or harm in him continuing to use it. He just posted the nice hash rate chart on here using the old name. Obviously he understands that they are one and the same coin.
Would it not suppress confusion if the Monero code base was renamed Monero? I'n not involved in politics behind things but have some understanding. People without any knowledge will just be confused. Now there are too many threads. Is it Bitmonero or Monero? People say Monero but all code uses Bitmonero. Many people confused. It's bad for Monero. I think it's problem.
i agree with this
Bitmonero and Monero are the same thing then? TFT is clearly not on board. He ignores any questions about Monero.
There is one and only one coin, formerly called Bitmonero, now called Monero. There was a community vote in favor (despite likely ballot stuffing against). All of the major stakeholders at the time agreed with the rename, including TFT.
The code base is still called bitmonero. There is no reason to rename it, though we certainly could have if we really wanted to.
TFT said he he is sentimental about the Bitmonero name, which I can understand, so I don't think there is any malice or harm in him continuing to use it. He just posted the nice hash rate chart on here using the old name. Obviously he understands that they are one and the same coin.
Would it not suppress confusion if the Monero code base was renamed Monero? I'n not involved in politics behind things but have some understanding. People without any knowledge will just be confused. Now there are too many threads. Is it Bitmonero or Monero? People say Monero but all code uses Bitmonero. Many people confused. It's bad for Monero. I think it's problem.
TFT is still maintaining the Bitmonero thread and the Github. TFT commited several changes on May 8. The clients are moving are further away.
Those were catch-up changes that were already on the Monero github (and all the other CryptoNote coins). In fact, TFT's repository is outdated even with those changes.
Bitmonero and Monero are the same thing then? TFT is clearly not on board. He ignores any questions about Monero.
There is one and only one coin, formerly called Bitmonero, now called Monero. There was a community vote in favor (despite likely ballot stuffing against). All of the major stakeholders at the time agreed with the rename, including TFT.
The code base is still called bitmonero. There is no reason to rename it, though we certainly could have if we really wanted to.
TFT said he he is sentimental about the Bitmonero name, which I can understand, so I don't think there is any malice or harm in him continuing to use it. He just posted the nice hash rate chart on here using the old name. Obviously he understands that they are one and the same coin.
TFT is still maintaining the Bitmonero thread and the Github. TFT commited several changes on May 8. The clients are moving are further away.
Seems some people think so. They have 10 TH/S on BTC mining. 
yikes
Anyone knows how many coins there are? Couldn't find the explorer.
cheers
cheers
number of blocks*17.2 . Something around that.
Anyone knows how many coins there are? Couldn't find the explorer.
cheers
cheers
Seems some people think so. They have 10 TH/S on BTC mining.
They just lowered it to 2.5%.
What a great deal!
I'm pretty sure we are going to see better and cheaper pools very soon thanks to the Monero project.
Out of the Cryptonote coins, I'm inclined to go with BCN, because no one cares about premine outside of miners. .
No one cares? What if a few people own most of the worlds total wealth? We will be their puppets, so what? No one cares
I know nothing of BCN developers either. I do know of advancements made by Monero devs.
There is now first Cryptonote Coin exchange.
Open source pool is working and final touches completed soon.
BCN around for long time and nothing moves forward. Just closed source pool with 10% fee.
10%!!!!
Lol
Out of the Cryptonote coins, I'm inclined to go with BCN, because no one cares about premine outside of miners. .
No one cares? What if a few people own most of the worlds total wealth? We will be their puppets, so what? No one cares
I know nothing of BCN developers either. I do know of advancements made by Monero devs.
There is now first Cryptonote Coin exchange.
Open source pool is working and final touches completed soon.
BCN around for long time and nothing moves forward. Just closed source pool with 10% fee.
10%!!!!
Lol
Out of the Cryptonote coins, I'm inclined to go with BCN, because no one cares about premine outside of miners. .
No one cares? What if a few people own most of the worlds total wealth? We will be their puppets, so what? No one cares
I know nothing of BCN developers either. I do know of advancements made by Monero devs.
There is now first Cryptonote Coin exchange.
Open source pool is working and final touches completed soon.
BCN around for long time and nothing moves forward. Just closed source pool with 10% fee.
Jump to: