Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1637. (Read 3313576 times)

That doesn't necessarily follow. I didn't look at it in depth at all, but it seemed that they are prioritizing all associated transactions: deposits going to their known addresses (user initiated, user controls keys) and withdrawals (BTCC initiated, owned); perhaps also user to user transactions, which would be controlled by them as well, but I think using the chain for that is a waste.

I agree with the last sentence. My last paragraph/sentence above says the same.

Quite a bold claim. But I like it

This is exactly the fundamental problem with Bitcoin and I would argue that Litecoin has exactly the same problem. Dodgcoin could save itself by adding an adaptive blocksize since they have already made the hard social covenant change of a tail emission. Dash is an unknown until we see exactly what Dash Evolution will be (supposedly in around 18 months), in its current state it also has the same problem. Bytecoin (premine / ninjamine) not withstanding also runs into this issue. Go down the market capitalization list and the first POW coin that has long term viability is Monero.

Edit: Anything built upon the Bitcoin main chain will fail if the Bitcoin main chain fails and this includes Lightning, side chains etc.

It's a given that with relatively small blocks the Bitcoin main chain would not be place where most transactions are done (obvious). It isn't a given that means transactions would then move to Monero or Dash (or LTC or DOGE). They could in theory move to Bitcoin side chains or Lightning or something else closer to the Bitcoin sphere.

That still leaves the issue of what happens if the Bitcoin main chain has hardly any transactions as the block rewards run out. A small but highly-secure chain that serves as a monetary anchor for other transactional systems rather than as a platform for transactions directly makes much more sense if the rewards don't diminish down to nothing, but there is really no way to get there with Bitcoin's fixed supply.

It is getting even worse than I thought. Bold my emphasis

to talk some sense into my nonsense.

Yes, I misread it. There is no premium, its for their customers. ... those who hold bitcoin at BTCC... so, unless they are using a deterministic style wallet, the premium is the control of your bitcoin.

So, give us your keys, we'll give you faster transaction times.

Sure. Here is how the out of band market works. The fees in Bitcoin keep rising as growing demand hits the 1 MB blocksize brick wall. When the fees get high enough people start switching to Monero that does not have this problem. Then Monero becomes the dominant coin and the fees in Bitcoin fall as nobody really cares about Bitcoin any more. This is basic economics. If Monero does not step into the opportunity somebody else will. DASH for example cannot be faulted for at least trying.

It seems like a natural development to me. I don't understand what you mean by "demand a premium"; they are essentially offering discounts to their customers.

It seems like it'd be harder for a Monero pool to offer this service due to stealth addresses. It'd also be harder to set up a spam attack, due to rules on transaction age.

Monero fees are (presently) much higher as well, so such an attack would be quite expensive.

Example: keeping a 1 MB per minute TX rate (10 MB Bitcoin blocksize, 2 MB Monero after fork) would cost 0.01 XMR / KB * 1024 kB / MB = 10.24 XMR / minute, or 14,745.6 XMR / day, which is about 29% more than the block reward at the moment.

For comparison, the last "full" BTC block had around ~0.30 BTC in fees (9xx KB / 10 min). If we x10 that, we get ~3 BTC in fees, or only 12% of the reward.

XMR vs BTC:

~10.75x higher fees as % of reward
~39x higher fees as % of total supply
BTC price is ~833x XMR's, so in USD-priced fees, BTC is still ~21x higher.

One would expect that buying that quantity daily to keep the attack going would significantly affect the (low liquidity) XMR market, making it more expensive each day (but maybe not).

Why do I do these posts?

that'd be a game of diminishing returns, though. You'd need to have 100% of net hash to secure that the fees are coming back to yourself. And even if some portion, mining has its associated costs (unless botnet). True, the ongoing bitcoin DDoS attacks also have a cost associated with them.

Ultimately, the DDoS against the monero blockchain wouldn't interrupt service or drive the fee up. All it would do is bloat the chain. Hrm.... though it might be possible that a DDoS would work though due to megablock network propagation. E.g., if said attacker had enough monero to ramp the blocksize up to 200 MB, each relay of the block would take 73 seconds (at 3 MB/s, http://techinternets.com/copy_calc?do). Sure, 200 MB is a ridiculous blocksize, and I have no idea how much it would cost to ramp it up to that size... from what I remember of the blocksize algorithm it can take a while.

though it is interesting.... in light of the fact that larger blocks take longer to propagate, miners theoretically have an incentive to publish blocks that are within the transmission capacity of the network. E.g., if the current blocksize is X and I can make a new block with 1.25X (or whatever the max allowed in the protocol is)..

actually, is there a minimum blocksize?   I.e., for the algorithm, is it a moving window or just a moving maximum?

So, say the blocksize has organically (or artificially due to attack) moved to something ridiculous... say, 50 MB. 50 MB takes some time to propagate. Now, a miner can create another 50 MB block *or* create a smaller 1 MB block. I guess the question is effectively whether the lag created by large block propagation would be enough time for a small block maker to get a leg up. Because if the small block maker can pump out more blocks during the large block propagation (and subsequent block finding building on that large block), then there is an incentive for small blocks.

I apologize if that got rambly. I might have thought things and not typed them.

There is still a loss with a miner spamming the network since they would only get their hash rate percent back. If they control say 5% of the hash rate they still have to pay the remaining 95%. In addition the would forgo the legitimate fee revenue and / or still have to pay the block penalty on over size blocks. So it would not be economically advantageous to spam the network. This however is not the case in Bitcoin where it can very advantageous for a miner to spam the network in the current situation of a fixed blocksize limit and close to full blocks. The miner spams the network in order to increase the overall fees against the fixed blocksize limit and can directly profit from this even with a small percentage of the hash rate.  

AM, pleases note that "fee market" should be plural, as both in- and out-of-band fee markets are needed to efficiently allocate the scarce resources of the network.

All the FUD about BTCC is overblown.  Peter Todd already said RBF makes this mostly a non-issue, and Lightning will make us forget it ever happened.

The Gavinista big block fetishists (having lost their XT node/block/governance war) are just using anything available as a cudgel to beat up on Team Core, no matter how far fetched (because their intended audience is low-information redditards and MBAs, not True Bitcoiners).

I largely agree with your comments - the blocksize debate is not just limited to a simple technicality, it's a question for how Bitcoin can grow without pushing out many users/use cases that can't fit in under a high fee market.

To the point quoted above, how does this work when the attacker is also a large Monero miner. The fees they'd be paying would largely go to themselves, no?

My take is that this kind thing is to be expected in Bitcoin given the fact Bitcoin does not have a solution to the blocksize / fee market issue. It is also indicative of a very serious problem in Bitcoin at a very fundamental level. I hate to say I told you so but this is the reason why I sold the vast majority of my XBT holdings for a combination of XMR and CAD. The fundamental problem Bitcoin faces is how to create a viable adaptive blocksize - fee market in the absence of an emission? It is for this reason, rather than personalities, that a solution to the blocksize problem in Bitcoin has not been found. The only viable solution that is currently working in a POW coin is both adaptive blocksize limits (Cryptonote coins) and tail emission Dodgecoin, Monero, Aeon). In the intersection above I am only aware of Monero and Aeon.

Until a solution to the adaptive blocksize - fee market in the absence of an emission is found I must say that Bitcoin and Bitcoin clones together with Cryptonote coins that do not have have a tail emission will eventually be doomed. What we are witnessing above in Bitcoin may infact be the start of the death spiral.

Edit: A DDoS against the Monero blockchain would the require the attacker to keep paying fees in order to maintain the blocksize at a given level.

Nice interview. More of us (including myself) should get more active on that forum

AMA on Roger Ver's http://forum.bitcoin.com with our core team member Riccardo "fluffypony" Spagni: https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-m-riccardo-fluffypony-spagni-of-the-monero-core-team-ask-me-anything-t2872.html

welp, I appreciate the gesture, but again I will put out there that in no official capacity am I associated with monero - I just think the technology is cool and generally want to see civilization advance into the future by using new technological developments.

I also found this interesting - Bitcoin giant BTCC launches priority blockchain transactions

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-its-customers-1529730

there's a bitcointalk thread about it: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/2015-11-20-bitcoin-giant-btcc-launches-priority-blockchain-transactions-1256357

I can't decide if this is the natural development of bitcoin's current protocol, or if this is setting a bad precedent. Well, to be honest I think its a bad development. IMO, this is proof that bitcoin is losing its egalitarian nature. If you own 11% of the hash, you can demand a premium. Add on top of this that its impossible to determine whether or not these are mafia tactics...

Furthermore, I speculate whether this type of system will ever have a chance of sprouting in the monero protocol. Our blocks would steadily increase in size during a blockchain DDoS (which I guess is the best name for the recent "stress tests"), so there would be a small window for a premium, but with our 2 minute blocks it would be short.

Finally, I ponder what monero can do in the face of a blockchain DDoS. Off the top of my head, I can't think of anything that wouldn't be filtering of transactions by pool ops. But I guess after the fact, there could be some outfit that determines which transactions were crap, and could distribute a patch so that blockchain maintainers could "pull out the weeds" from their blockchain by pruning....

That's especially interesting, when you consider the fact that bitcoin is not anonymous (http://www.bitcoinisnotanonymous.com/).

Maybe they already are, but nobody knows and/or can't prove it.   


Looks like we're at a 6+ month low for volume.  Not much competition for us buyers.

Great time to stack MOAR for CH33P and donate to our all-star team of crypto-bosses.

NobleSir

TacoTime

GingerAle

Wolf0

General development fund

They once had. No more.