Author

Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1589. (Read 3313670 times)

legendary
Activity: 1470
Merit: 1000
Want privacy? Use Monero!
January 15, 2016, 11:05:01 AM
***INSULT TOWARDS THE DEV TEAM***

Did you contribute any line of code so the core devs had more eyes to check for errors?
Did you donate any eto to the dev fund so the devs had more incentive to check the code?

I guess the answer is NO and NO.
So STFU and GFY
legendary
Activity: 3836
Merit: 4969
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
January 15, 2016, 11:00:18 AM
Mike Hearn has an interesting new article on some of the failures of Bitcoin...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7

He makes some very valid points and he is of course right about the negative impacts of the 1 MB blocksize. He is also correct in saying the "bloat" is not the issue, in fact the small blocksize in Bitcoin may have led to the massive concentration of the Bitcoin hash rate in China effectively allowing the Government of China to control Bitcoin. On the other hand I do not agree at all with the criticism of people such as Gregory Maxwell, who I must say has also made many very valid points on the matter of scaling Bitcoin. The simple reality is that the Bytecoin solution of adaptive blocksize limits without a tail emission is also a prescription for disaster.

The problem with Bitcoin is that nobody has found and it may well be impossible to find a way to develop a fee market, in the, absence of a block subsidy, that does not over time converge to one of two undesirable results: Fixed blocksize and infinite fees or infinite blocksize and zero fees. Mike Hearn has made a very persuasive argument as to why a fixed blocksize and infinite fees is such an undesirable outcome; however I am sure that Gregory Maxwell can make an equally persuasive argument as to why an infinite blocksize and zero fees is an equally undesirable outcome.

Maybe the real reason why there has not been a solution to Bitcoin blocksize debate is that a solution may in fact not be possible, if one keeps the 21,000,000 maximum number of XBT limit in place, rather than because of the personalities involved.

So in all of this where does Monero stand? Well Monero is the highest capitalization coin that has solved this problem in a pure proof of work coin. My philosophy on this is that when one takes care of the long term the short term will take care of itself. On the other hand focus on the short term and expect grief over the long term. Monero has taken care of the long term, unfortunately Bitcoin and for that matter most other crypto currencies have not.

Nice post, you should cross post it to anonymints thread. Tongue

http://blog.cryptsy.com/

Since Cryptsy was late to the game with Cryptonote coins, hopefully not many lost their XMR there. Still, not great for the alt community. I can't believe that Cryptsy didn't run a real cold wallet for their BTC/LTC at least! Amateur hour, it seems.

Since day one I and many others were warning not to get on that scam exchange but people saw dollor signs and sealed their own fate. C'est la vie

Crosspost:

NB: https://forum.getmonero.org/1/news-announcements-and-editorials/2452/monero-network-malicious-fork-from-block-913193-updates-and-resolution

From that post (which will be kept updated) -

Hi all,

The Monero network was (once again) the subject of an attack. Due to an error during the development of 0.9, Hydrogen Helix, we omitted a check that allowed for v2 blocks to be added to the network prior to the hard fork block height. Thus instead of forking on March 20, at block height 1009827, a v2 block was added to the network at block height 913193.

This is obviously problematic as not all services have updated to 0.9, and the bulk of the network hash rate is still on 0.8.x. We are preparing a point release to 0.9 that resolves this, but in the meantime only if you are running 0.9 you can do the following as a quick patch:

Shut down your Monero daemon
Grab a checkpoints.json file from getmonero: https://downloads.getmonero.org/checkpoints.json
Put the file in your bitmonero working directory (eg. ~/.bitmonero or C:\ProgramData\bitmonero)
Restart the daemon
As soon as the patched point release is out you can remove the checkpoints.json file, if you wish, and run the updated version. The checkpoints.json patch is a quick fix and does not prevent the attacker from replaying their attack at a later block.

Did this coincide with the hash rate increase?



PEOPLE there are reasons threads have titles put your posts in the correct threads. Damn

@Smooth: This shit is really all over the place can you enforce thread discipline?


OH, ON Topic. I bought some, it's been over a year. My money is that we are at the bottom and will not see a dip past 10% in the foreseeable future and the upside is massive.  Looks like I always pick a nexus point to invest in this phenomenon(<< yeah thats what these techs are bringing to the world, nothing less)
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
January 15, 2016, 09:07:07 AM
Crosspost:

NB: https://forum.getmonero.org/1/news-announcements-and-editorials/2452/monero-network-malicious-fork-from-block-913193-updates-and-resolution

From that post (which will be kept updated) -

Hi all,

The Monero network was (once again) the subject of an attack. Due to an error during the development of 0.9, Hydrogen Helix, we omitted a check that allowed for v2 blocks to be added to the network prior to the hard fork block height. Thus instead of forking on March 20, at block height 1009827, a v2 block was added to the network at block height 913193.

This is obviously problematic as not all services have updated to 0.9, and the bulk of the network hash rate is still on 0.8.x. We are preparing a point release to 0.9 that resolves this, but in the meantime only if you are running 0.9 you can do the following as a quick patch:

Shut down your Monero daemon
Grab a checkpoints.json file from getmonero: https://downloads.getmonero.org/checkpoints.json
Put the file in your bitmonero working directory (eg. ~/.bitmonero or C:\ProgramData\bitmonero)
Restart the daemon
As soon as the patched point release is out you can remove the checkpoints.json file, if you wish, and run the updated version. The checkpoints.json patch is a quick fix and does not prevent the attacker from replaying their attack at a later block.



ANOTHER FUCK-UP BY THE MAN-CHILD DEVELOPERS!!!
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 501
January 15, 2016, 08:29:48 AM
http://blog.cryptsy.com/

Since Cryptsy was late to the game with Cryptonote coins, hopefully not many lost their XMR there. Still, not great for the alt community. I can't believe that Cryptsy didn't run a real cold wallet for their BTC/LTC at least! Amateur hour, it seems.


Seems like a completely fabricated story that they are trying to mislead people with. An IRC daemon cannot do anything with a "cold" wallet, even a hot wallet is a stretch. The biggest indicator is the way the coins didn't move or get sold after this hypothetical theft contrary to every other theft we have seen till date. Cryptsy was deliberately not adding XMR under threats from BitcoinExpress et al and few other parties who didn't want to see it there. They also leaked confidential information about some of the users there illegally.
legendary
Activity: 1442
Merit: 1001
January 15, 2016, 08:13:37 AM
http://blog.cryptsy.com/

Since Cryptsy was late to the game with Cryptonote coins, hopefully not many lost their XMR there. Still, not great for the alt community. I can't believe that Cryptsy didn't run a real cold wallet for their BTC/LTC at least! Amateur hour, it seems.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
January 15, 2016, 08:11:47 AM
Crosspost:

NB: https://forum.getmonero.org/1/news-announcements-and-editorials/2452/monero-network-malicious-fork-from-block-913193-updates-and-resolution

From that post (which will be kept updated) -

Hi all,

The Monero network was (once again) the subject of an attack. Due to an error during the development of 0.9, Hydrogen Helix, we omitted a check that allowed for v2 blocks to be added to the network prior to the hard fork block height. Thus instead of forking on March 20, at block height 1009827, a v2 block was added to the network at block height 913193.

This is obviously problematic as not all services have updated to 0.9, and the bulk of the network hash rate is still on 0.8.x. We are preparing a point release to 0.9 that resolves this, but in the meantime only if you are running 0.9 you can do the following as a quick patch:

Shut down your Monero daemon
Grab a checkpoints.json file from getmonero: https://downloads.getmonero.org/checkpoints.json
Put the file in your bitmonero working directory (eg. ~/.bitmonero or C:\ProgramData\bitmonero)
Restart the daemon
As soon as the patched point release is out you can remove the checkpoints.json file, if you wish, and run the updated version. The checkpoints.json patch is a quick fix and does not prevent the attacker from replaying their attack at a later block.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
January 15, 2016, 07:42:28 AM

One post containing only an insult and no content was removed







DASH doing great too, 0.0090.
Retarded developers ruined Monero.. Such a shame..
haha you're pretty funny for an asshole  Grin
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
January 15, 2016, 07:17:40 AM
DASH doing great too, 0.0090.
Retarded developers ruined Monero.. Such a shame..

Ruined how exactly?
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
January 15, 2016, 05:07:05 AM
DASH doing great too, 0.0090.
Retarded developers ruined Monero.. Such a shame..
legendary
Activity: 1428
Merit: 1001
getmonero.org
January 15, 2016, 04:44:19 AM

Wasnt Darkflarb implementing ring signatures too?
sr. member
Activity: 445
Merit: 255
January 15, 2016, 04:40:30 AM
The inverse may be true : increasing awareness of privacy problems with bitcoin, and mention of ring signatures as a good solution --> free advertising for monero
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
January 15, 2016, 04:25:12 AM

An article about privacy that mentions ring signatures being "promising tech." How exactly does that mean "the beginning of the end" for Monero? Because Vitalik wrote the article?

Don't worry. He still has to implement his 12 second block times and secure proof-of-stake model, first  Cheesy

Don't worry.  ETH still has plenty of funding left, since they were so parsimonious in their expenditures.  xD
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
January 15, 2016, 04:15:17 AM
The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet.

Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked.

Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.

Miner concentration in China is the result of market forces, and not any more of a "problem" than developer concentration in California.

Those market forces include the block size limit.

legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
January 15, 2016, 04:13:09 AM
The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet.

Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked.

Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.

Miner concentration in China is the result of market forces, and not any more of a "problem" than developer concentration in California.

China may become XMR's biggest market, so it would be great if you stopped emulating Hearn's Sinophobia.

The Yellow Peril stuff was funny when Hearn did it in his recent Opus, immediately before walking out on Bitcoin like a spurned lover being told "Sorry, not tonight dear."

But if you're going to hang around for a while, I'd appreciate you not insulting/offending/alienating citizens of the world's largest economy.
hero member
Activity: 795
Merit: 514
January 15, 2016, 04:03:56 AM

An article about privacy that mentions ring signatures being "promising tech." How exactly does that mean "the beginning of the end" for Monero? Because Vitalik wrote the article?

Don't worry. He still has to implement his 12 second block times and secure proof-of-stake model, first  Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1000
January 15, 2016, 03:40:55 AM
legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050
Monero Core Team
January 14, 2016, 11:02:14 PM
...
Excellent insight. The problem of hash concentration could still be something that needs to be smartly tackled. Otherwise XMR has got some pretty solid design for a crypto currency. I am a big believer in PoW but hash concentration is a potential problem (down the road)

On the markets, seeing some minor positive action even at this hour for a change.

The problem of Bitcoin hash concentration in China was paradoxically a direct result of keeping the blocksize small. This happened because ASIC production is most economical in China. With an adaptive blocksize limit in Bitcoin this likely would not have happened since The Great Firewall of China would have placed miners in China at a very significant disadvantage due to latency. This would have forced Chinese ASIC manufacturers to sell their devices for export. The lesson I see here is that a well designed crypto currency will route around censorship and drive mining to those jurisdictions that do not engage in Internet censorship. Monero is way less vulnerable here since it is likely that both China will be the most cost effective place to manufacture electronics and will also continue to censor the Internet.

Well the myth that "bloat" leads to centralization has been debunked.

Edit: Monero has also other ways to mitigate this risk such as an ASIC resistant algorithm, and initiatives such as smart mining; nevertheless I do agree that this risk will need to be addressed and minimized.
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 501
January 14, 2016, 10:41:01 PM
Mike Hearn has an interesting new article on some of the failures of Bitcoin...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7

He makes some very valid points and he is of course right about the negative impacts of the 1 MB blocksize. He is also correct in saying the "bloat" is not the issue, in fact the small blocksize in Bitcoin may have led to the massive concentration of the Bitcoin hash rate in China effectively allowing the Government of China to control Bitcoin. On the other hand I do not agree at all with the criticism of people such as Gregory Maxwell, who I must say has also made many very valid points on the matter of scaling Bitcoin. The simple reality is that the Bytecoin solution of adaptive blocksize limits without a tail emission is also a prescription for disaster.

The problem with Bitcoin is that nobody has found and it may well be impossible to find a way to develop a fee market, in the, absence of a block subsidy, that does not over time converge to one of two undesirable results: Fixed blocksize and infinite fees or infinite blocksize and zero fees. Mike Hearn has made a very persuasive argument as to why a fixed blocksize and infinite fees is such an undesirable outcome; however I am sure that Gregory Maxwell can make an equally persuasive argument as to why an infinite blocksize and zero fees is an equally undesirable outcome.

Maybe the real reason why there has not been a solution to Bitcoin blocksize debate is that a solution may in fact not be possible, if one keeps the 21,000,000 maximum number of XBT limit in place, rather than because of the personalities involved.

So in all of this where does Monero stand? Well Monero is the highest capitalization coin that has solved this problem in a pure proof of work coin. My philosophy on this is that when one takes care of the long term the short term will take care of itself. On the other hand focus on the short term and expect grief over the long term. Monero has taken care of the long term, unfortunately Bitcoin and for that matter most other crypto currencies have not.

Excellent insight. The problem of hash concentration could still be something that needs to be smartly tackled. Otherwise XMR has got some pretty solid design for a crypto currency. I am a big believer in PoW but hash concentration is a potential problem (down the road)

On the markets, seeing some minor positive action even at this hour for a change.
legendary
Activity: 2282
Merit: 1050
Monero Core Team
January 14, 2016, 10:07:05 PM
Mike Hearn has an interesting new article on some of the failures of Bitcoin...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7

He makes some very valid points and he is of course right about the negative impacts of the 1 MB blocksize. He is also correct in saying the "bloat" is not the issue, in fact the small blocksize in Bitcoin may have led to the massive concentration of the Bitcoin hash rate in China effectively allowing the Government of China to control Bitcoin. On the other hand I do not agree at all with the criticism of people such as Gregory Maxwell, who I must say has also made many very valid points on the matter of scaling Bitcoin. The simple reality is that the Bytecoin solution of adaptive blocksize limits without a tail emission is also a prescription for disaster.

The problem with Bitcoin is that nobody has found and it may well be impossible to find a way to develop a fee market, in the, absence of a block subsidy, that does not over time converge to one of two undesirable results: Fixed blocksize and infinite fees or infinite blocksize and zero fees. Mike Hearn has made a very persuasive argument as to why a fixed blocksize and infinite fees is such an undesirable outcome; however I am sure that Gregory Maxwell can make an equally persuasive argument as to why an infinite blocksize and zero fees is an equally undesirable outcome.

Maybe the real reason why there has not been a solution to Bitcoin blocksize debate is that a solution may in fact not be possible, if one keeps the 21,000,000 maximum number of XBT limit in place, rather than because of the personalities involved.

So in all of this where does Monero stand? Well Monero is the highest capitalization coin that has solved this problem in a pure proof of work coin. My philosophy on this is that when one takes care of the long term the short term will take care of itself. On the other hand focus on the short term and expect grief over the long term. Monero has taken care of the long term, unfortunately Bitcoin and for that matter most other crypto currencies have not.
full member
Activity: 201
Merit: 100
January 14, 2016, 08:29:52 PM
Mike Hearn has an interesting new article on some of the failures of Bitcoin...

https://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7
Jump to: