Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 2072. (Read 4669844 times)

Yes, #1 is mostly for commercial entities so that they can identify payments. #2 is more general and useful for building tools that interface with the Monero software.

I just found out about it a few days ago. I was aware of CryptoNote and Bytecoin for a few weeks.

Don't be so paranoid. Politics isn't what wins the race, rather it is development of features. I have already listed several features that no CN coin has, and I have several more in mind on top of that. And more on top of that, until all the major killer features have been satiated.

The race has only just begun and being ahead by a few weeks is meaningless.


I never advocated entirely closed source, nor a long term partial open source.

There are many things that give confidence and I think the ability to hold off clones and fund rapid development, and demonstrate superior features also generates confidence.

Thus I am stating that I think Monero has adopted the wrong model, but only time will tell.

Specifically I don't think radical innovation can come from design by open source committee. There needs to be a strong leader who drives the innovation. For example, you make a bounty for a pool design, but there are many innovations that could come in a the pool that won't be there due to lack of a strong innovative leader driving the project.

Open source is very good at copying and propagating existing innovation, but not very good at creating it. Open source is a refinement protocol, not an innovation and creation protocol.

eizh: Will these changes help exchange owners that want to add MRO?

Nothing within the code provides this yet. You would have to configure your connections on your own.



Previously 32-bit wasn't possible, which is the biggest change. These were the other improvements:

1. Simplwallet can set extra for transfers
2. Improvements in JSON RPC for wallet
3. Minor user experience improvements in simplewallet

The top two don't really matter for ordinary users.

Whats the benefit of these new ones?

?

A bitcoin style emission means the circulating money supply will continue to decrease. As block reward decreases miners will become more and more dependent on tx fees. Eventually the transaction fees will be so expensive the transaction won't be worth conducting. You must have a steady debasement or even the smallest currency unit will eventually be too valuable. Ideally, there shouldn't be any tx fees at all.

Bitcoin is only maintaining its circulating supply because new coins are still being created. However, with mining becoming more and more privileged and block reward decreasing, the circulating wealth will dry up and a tx fees will spiral out of control.

strange when none of these accounts were around for the discussions that took place 3 weeks ago. Such vested interests with no prior indications. Hmm..

Fantom will likely catch up in terms of difficulty due to merged mining but will still likely be a shitcoin that miners just dump for a little extra income (like the BTC merged coins).

I personally find it a bit irratating that they went ahead and did merged mining even though this coin's community specifically said we didn't want it. I would really like to see the ability to merge mine coins against MRO removed. Let them build their own network.

Yep, that was the entire point of the bounty.

Altcoin history shows that except in the case of premine (Tenebrix), the first implementation stays the largest by a wide margin. We're repeating that here by outpacing Bytecoin (thanks to its 80% mine prior to surfacing). No other CN coin has anywhere near the hashrate or trading volume. Go check diff in Fantom for example or the lack of activity in BCN trading.

The only CN coin out there doing something valuable is HoneyPenny, and they're open source too. If HP develops something useful, MRO can incorporate it as well. Open source gives confidence. No need for any further edge.

Not going to happen. A condition of the pool software bounty is that it is open source.

Russian thread also updated as well.

Source is already out there.  Could make the pool software closed source when it comes out though.  That would give monero an edge.

I would strongly suggest partial closed source until market dominance is achieved. Having the best developers will likely mean others can't readily fill in the gaps to release clones early in the ramp up.

What I envision isn't available yet.

Thanks for the overview. What do you recommend that's superior to Tor?

There is research demonstrating ring signatures with quantum computing resistant formulations.

Main post now updated to the latest builds. Changes put in today:

- Source code change in slow_hash.c that doubles hashrate in both Linux and Windows.
- Windows from the same source + compiler optimization that puts Windows on par with Linux.
- 32-bit Windows binaries released. Please test these and report back.

Zerocash will be announced soon (May 18 in Oakland? but open source may not be ready then?).

Here is a synopsis of the tradeoffs compared to CyptoNote:

1. Zerocash hides everything, even the money supply so if the master key was compromised or if the highly complex bleeding edge crypto is cracked, no one will know.

2. They will claim to generate the master key at a ceremony or devise a way to compute in parts, but nothing they can do will insure it isn't compromised. CPUs even have special firmware that allows the NSA to reprogram them remotely, and even computation can be intercepted wireless with RF signals. Whereas we have to place all trust in a single party with Zerocash, with CN the trusted parties are changing on each transaction. Compromising the master key doesn't compromise the anonymity, but does compromise the money supply which could be expanded invisibly. Cracking the highly complex bleeding edge crypto which has not been sufficiently vetted over years, could compromise the anonymity ex post facto (it is all on the block chain).

3. Both CN and Zerocash use a form of cryptography which is not immune to quantum computation attack, if that becomes a reality in the future.

4. Zerocash transactions add up to 3 minutes of additional transaction delay which is much worse than Zerocoin. Zerocash (full node computation and block chain) resource requirements are centralizing but much improved over Zerocoin.

5. Zerocash hides everything so it is not necessary to obscure your IP address.



Thus on balance I prefer CN, but I like to see it altered to use a quantum computer resistant algorithm. And then we need to add IP address obfuscation as well that is superior to Tor and I2P.

Darkcoin (CoinJoin innovation) is really not at the level of the two above. You can review my comments in the Darkcoin thread to see why.