Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1566. (Read 3313576 times)

Thanks. That means it's not solved at all (which is ashame of course, but good for Monero).

I do like they dont have a tail emission (I hate that in Monero, smells like Keynsianism, just secure the chain with fees).

...
The main plank of his revolutionary theory is the assertion that the aggregate demand created by households, businesses and the government and not the dynamics of free markets is the most important driving force in an economy.
This theory further asserts that free markets have no self-balancing mechanisms that lead to full employment. Keynesian economists urge and justify a government's intervention in the economy through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability.
...

...

Thanks. That means it's not solved at all (which is ashame of course, but good for Monero).

I do like they dont have a tail emission (I hate that in Monero, smells like Keynsianism, just secure the chain with fees).

I gather from the AMA that the seeding problem is "solved" by a process which distributes the seed-generation to a set of individuals, where only one individual has to be honest (ie, delete their portion of the key) for the entire thing to be provably secure. Most people will find this sufficient. Some will not.

Regarding the insta-clone idea, I think we've seen how important community/development/publicity/etc is for a coin, so I don't think an insta-clone of ZC would do much actual damage to ZC. Remember when Counterparty implemented Ethereum? What are the relative mcaps of XCP and ETH again?

Also from the AMA it's clear that zcash is going to have some equivalent of Monero's "Viewkey" functionality.

I think what Monero has going for it versus zcash boils down to:
1) It's not built off of Bitcoin's codebase. In my mind, this makes it a much better candidate for a "backup" top-5 coin than junk like Litecoin, Doge, or Dash.
2) I *think* Zcash still has the problem of there being no way to prove that there's not some bug in the system which is creating new coins. There was no mention of this in the AMA (wish I'd seen it in time to ask).

the same as Freebazaar

https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required/2476/the-official-qt-gui-project

PS: Even if you don't have an account you are able to contribute, just press the contribute button and it will explain how to donate.

EDIT: General remark, make sure to include a payment ID!

..

Would you also be willing to bet on it?

It will end the same as Freebazaar and I am willing to bet money on it... I contributed, 1 XMR.

You conveniently left out a part of "Ilya will work 10 hours per week at the beginning, expanding into more hours per week later when some other project is finished". If that other project is finished the amount of hours will be 20 per week and perhaps even more (asked othe about this after you commented).

You also missed:

"The proposal is to raise 14,000 XMR for 280 hours of work, which is approximately 25.00$ per hour. Ilya will work 10 hours per week"

6+ months, wow! Reminds me of freebazar / dwarfpool / atrides scam.
Why 'outsource' such an important task ?
Why don't 'core' devs get their hands dirty ?!

'Core' devs are fucking noobs, their only achievement was forking the bytecoin code...

The hours that remain after having completed the GUI will be used to work on other features. There should be a better estimate of hours needed to complete the GUI once the work really has started.

"The proposal is to raise 14,000 XMR for 280 hours of work, which is approximately 25.00$ per hour. Ilya will work 10 hours per week"

6+ months, wow! Reminds me of freebazar / dwarfpool / atrides scam.
Why 'outsource' such an important task ?
Why don't 'core' devs get their hands dirty ?!

'Core' devs are fucking noobs, their only achievement was forking the bytecoin code...

Fluffypony and me will help him and work together on the implementation and will oversee everything - as always unpaid .

https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required/2476/the-official-qt-gui-project

PS: Even if you don't have an account you are able to contribute, just press the contribute button and it will explain how to donate.

...

Having two kind of coins detoriates the fungibility. If, for instance, basecoins will be the most used coins, those zerocoins will merely be coins to mix with on top of the transparent ledger. In other words, it will be Bitcoin with a Zcash mixer instead of the Bitcoin with Coinjoin there is currently. Furthermore, miners could blacklist zerocoins and merchants/exchanges could reject zerocoins.

Well, no mater what, Zerocash with its mainstream media support will only bring attention to privacy and fungibility issues with Bitcoin. People will start to realize why anon coins make sense and are not just a gimmick.

Zerocash extends the protocol and software underlying Bitcoin by adding new, privacy-preserving payments. In doing so it forms a new protocol that, while using some of the same technology and software as Bitcoin, is distinct from it. This new protocol has both anonymous coins, dubbed zerocoins, and non-anonymous ones, which, for purposes of disambiguation, we call basecoins. In contrast to Bitcoin's transactions, payment transactions using the Zerocash protocol do not contain any public information about the payment's origin, destination, or amount; instead, the correctness of the transaction is demonstrated via the use of a zero-knowledge proof. Users can convert from basecoins to zerocoins, send zerocoins to other users, and split or merge zerocoins they own in any way that preserves the total value. Users may also convert zerocoins back into basecoins, though in principle this is not necessary: all transactions can be made in terms of zerocoins.

I gather from the AMA that the seeding problem is "solved" by a process which distributes the seed-generation to a set of individuals, where only one individual has to be honest (ie, delete their portion of the key) for the entire thing to be provably secure. Most people will find this sufficient. Some will not.

Regarding the insta-clone idea, I think we've seen how important community/development/publicity/etc is for a coin, so I don't think an insta-clone of ZC would do much actual damage to ZC. Remember when Counterparty implemented Ethereum? What are the relative mcaps of XCP and ETH again?

Also from the AMA it's clear that zcash is going to have some equivalent of Monero's "Viewkey" functionality.

I think what Monero has going for it versus zcash boils down to:
1) It's not built off of Bitcoin's codebase. In my mind, this makes it a much better candidate for a "backup" top-5 coin than junk like Litecoin, Doge, or Dash.
2) I *think* Zcash still has the problem of there being no way to prove that there's not some bug in the system which is creating new coins. There was no mention of this in the AMA (wish I'd seen it in time to ask).

Thanks ArticMine.

Yes I am aware that the proposed legislation in the UK (also afaik similar legislation proposed in the USA, UK, Canada, and Australia) only applies to service providers who offer encrypted services, not to open source code which users independently obtain, compile, and run on their own initiative. I was vaguely aware of this pending legislation and then I became more focused on it during my private discussions last month with the GadgetCoin team who have a P2P streaming technology named Streemo. The governments are not stupid to try to ban activity they can't possibly enforce (thus making the government look impotent), i.e. the government can't monitor/enforce against what each private citizen does in their home.

But I argue effectively the direction is to ban end-to-end encryption in general that does not provide a back door to national security agencies. The government can regulate the ISPs (internet service providers) and ban end-to-end encryption protocols that do not include a decryption key for national security agencies. I have also explained that using home computers as servers over asymmetric upload bandwidth home ISPs is a Communist economic plan (as I warned Bittorrent back in 2008 and offered them an economic solution for their tit-for-tat algorithm but they ignored me). And that protocols which allow illegal activities from unregulated home servers will be banned by ISPs and hosting providers. If you know of any technology to hide a protocol's patterns such that ISPs can't identify it, please enlighten me. There is some discussion of "Censorship resistance" in section 2.4 of Synereo's white paper, but that still seems to be inadequate.

Simply put, it is impossible to fight the government when there are choke points in the system which the government can effectively regulate. This is just common sense.

I added the following to that question for Zooko:

How did zerocash solve the seeding problem anyway?

If it's open source insta-clone it immediately without a "founders fee" and we're all set.

How did zerocash solve the seeding problem anyway?

If it's open source insta-clone it immediately without a "founders fee" and we're all set.