Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1273. (Read 3314316 times)

Internal factors: emission dropping off, official GUI being written, I2P and 0MQ are bad ass, and RingCT is (close enough to) the Holy Grail of truly fungible ecash.

The killer app for 100% fungible ecash is financial sovereignty.

External factors: the market just got burned (we're talking 3rd degree oxygen chamber horror show stuff) by rushed inadequately spec'd/tested crypto.

Monero is (in)famous for its mature, responsible, meticulous, cautious "no merge before its time" approach to development.

We don't rush.  We get it right.

And Bitcoiners of all stripes are coming around to that paradigm:


When (AND NOT BEFORE) we get ecash done right, then we can built smart contracts on top.  Premature action is contraindicated.   

We are seeing the first few wispy clouds of a trillion dollar perfect Monero storm appear on the horizon.

I see no circumstance under which I would ever support asking for a halt in trading on a centralized exchange. Trading on the exchange is trading book entry claims on the exchange's wallet. Even in the extreme case of a rollback or other problem affecting wallets, traders can assess the impact that might have on the solvency of an exchange and trade accordingly. However, an exchange might on its own (or in discussion with other exchanges) decide to halt trading. That's their call, it is their platform after all.

If there were a problem with the blockchain affecting (or even possibly affecting) wallets, I would support asking for (and recommending) a halt to deposits/withdrawals until it was resolved.

During the initial stages of the 202612 attack exchanges may have stopped trading as we put out an general "red alert" until we actually figured out what was going on. Most decided to restart it but they kept wallet transactions on hold until bug was identified and the vulnerability deemed over.

With respect to the DAO, it wasn't even a bug in the coin at all. Ethereum devs acting in that capacity shouldn't have been involved nor should they have asked exchanges to do anything in my opinion, nor should any fork, hard or soft, be on the table at all. My other (perhaps more controversial) opinion on the matter is here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/there-was-no-dao-hack-1516067

Needless to say I will never support a fork or rollback or any other sort of meddling with coin ownership in Monero on the basis of an external incident that was not a flaw in the implementation of the coin itself (an example of the latter being the overflow bug in Bitcoin).

Supremely informative answer, thanks!

I'd forgotten the in/out halt during the troll block attack.

But your retelling of the tale hits upon a critical distinction between XMR and ETH core dev's conduct/approach/attitude.

XMR devs Highly Recommended exchanges halt deposits and explained the basis for that urgent suggestion, but did not Command & Demand like the ETH guys.

And you didn't try to halt trading, preventing this kind of 100% bullshit scenario:


Any exchange that penalizes legit traders to stop a hacker (especially one that only used the existing rules of a broken system to his benefit) is an amoral/unethical piece of shit.

If I knew better than to trust ETH/DAO's concept/code/crypto and went short in order to make the market aware of my pertinent information, HOW DARE SOME FUCKING TWAT AT POLO HQ ARBITRARILY DECIDE TO HALT/ROLLBACK?

All those presuming to force the invisible hand of the market should be pimp slapped by it until rendered unable to do further harm.   

For all the cyber/cypherpunk name dropping Vitalik does, he still utterly fails to grok the ethos.  And he's met Nick Szabo FFS.

Its about to start looking even stronger.

my guess is that those who wanted out that held large bags of XMR...have sold.

XMR has been looking strong at Polo for a while now. Why ?

We already did this during the block 202612 attack. We asked them to halt deposits and withdrawals (but not trading!) until we figured out what was happening. The minute the fork resolved and we had a handle on what to do about it we told them they could resume.

If, during that fork, an exchange had continued accepting deposits and processing withdrawals we wouldn't have stopped them, that's entirely at their own risk.

Monero still has a lot of work to do, and we don't have $20 million to rest on, so I can imagine that a sophisticated attack like this might be repeated in future. As it stands right now, a resourceful attacked could probably just fork the network based on hashing power alone. Obviously we will do our utmost to ensure that this isn't possible, but if it does happen we will - again - handle things as best we see fit. We won't ever ask exchanges to pause deposits / withdrawals unless we don't know what's going on and fear that we may be under attack.

this part of the quote from ICE stood out:



say what??   

You've hit logical bedrock following up on my bit of initial conceptual drilling.

Since XMR intends to implement smart contracts, we may learn something from this DAO/ETH/POLO SNAFU

ETH/DAO were marketed to investors using the USP "The Code is the Law; The transaction is the settlement; Moral hazard has no power here."

The last 24 hours have destroyed that conceit.

Now we will roll our eyes when we hear happy talk about permissionless leaderless decentralization.

Here is the point at which that dream died:


http://pastebin.com/aMKwQcHR

Question for XMR core devs:

Under what (if any) circumstances would you request (or like VB forcefully demand under threat of rollback) a halt to XMR activity on exchanges?

 fluffypony must be enjoying this schadenfreude at VB's expense!  

Agreed.  And I still struggle with how the DAO can even claim it is a problem, as the DAO terms expressly say the code supercedes the description / intent.


https://daohub.org/explainer.html

So I guess future DAO will need to have a disclaimer that there are situations where the code doesn't control, and therefore you have to look to intent... Which basically means opening the same can of worms lawyers and courts have been dealing with for ages, but "smart contracts" were supposed to avoid.

It would be hilarious if the "hacker" sued the DAO for breach of contract if the "stolen" funds are returned!

And please do not forget the support of the coin exchange poloniex Monero.

Vitalik did everything wrong.  Last night the potential conflicts-of-interest created by his vast personal holdings of ETH and DAO were actualized.

He should have told DAO to FOAD.  Instead he made a bad situation much worse by throwing exchange operators and users under the bus in a vain attempt to save ETH's highest-profile project.

DAO's incompetent devs and greedy bagholders are solely responsible for the consequences of this fiasco.

But now we have moral hazard spreading to ETH and exchanges as the rot spreads upward.

Is this type of situation going to happen again?

It seems inevitable, given all the dubious low-security shitcoins Polo lists, one or more will be hacked in the future.

When MAID and DASH get hacked, will Polo freeze trading, etc for tangentially related coins like BTC, forcing traders to lock in their losses?

This godawful precedent implies the answer is yes, they will.

Oh I believe MOnero will rise.  I just mean its a joke because primer is positive about Monero.

It is not a joke, XMR try to +0.0035

This post must be a joke.

Bad day for Ethereum. Vitalik did the right thing, miners make the final decision and so far there seems to be a consensus.
I haven't sold a single ether and i hold almost $500k usd worth (@ 0.028). I am more confident than ever that in 2-3 months, with Coinbase's support, we are to see a new ATH..

On another note, Monero pump looking better than ever! I'd love to see .003 soon!

Maybe there are just so many bagholders wishing to get out with minimal damage so when the opportunity arises they take it.

How come? To me, that proves the point even more. The drop was more swift than the one from a year ago, even though the market showed much more strength. Also there were literally no bounces on this drop from the high...

That was my thought for a very long time until the last dump from .004