Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1683. (Read 3313576 times)
The 2.5ms on an i7-2700K came from NoodleDoodle's commit notes I think. It was obviously intended as a CPU-only number that was not realistic for the full system at all. I'm pretty sure even today with a multi-processor server using newer CPUs you could do many times better (if you wanted all full nodes to be on big servers in data centers). But that's still not a realistic end-to-end number at all.
People don't like having more than one thing to deal with. Or maybe it would be more appropriate to say the market tends to pick one winner that's "good enough"
There's a reason why cash can buy a car, a house or a coffee.
My tendency is to think we will gravitate towards one currency. I am torn on the transparent vs non transparent blockchain. But outside of that I think it only makes sense to have one.
Maybe I'm not wrong. But people like put up "We can used centralized services for these things, blockchain for this etc etc". Value lies in blockchain solving all friction problems (or as many as is possible). This includes transaction speed, privacy, transaction sizes, programmable blockchain etc.
I strongly believe crypto will slowly die off or bitcoins days are numbered. It has completely lost it's ability to improve and knock out more of these points of friction (privacy, transaction speed, Scalability, smart contracts)
There's a reason why cash can buy a car, a house or a coffee.
My tendency is to think we will gravitate towards one currency. I am torn on the transparent vs non transparent blockchain. But outside of that I think it only makes sense to have one.
Maybe I'm not wrong. But people like put up "We can used centralized services for these things, blockchain for this etc etc". Value lies in blockchain solving all friction problems (or as many as is possible). This includes transaction speed, privacy, transaction sizes, programmable blockchain etc.
I strongly believe crypto will slowly die off or bitcoins days are numbered. It has completely lost it's ability to improve and knock out more of these points of friction (privacy, transaction speed, Scalability, smart contracts)
because the thinking goes you don't care if the world knows you bought coffee and the Times
Unless you don't want the world to know your exact location. However, in that case your "coffee currency" is probably the least of your concerns.
This is assuming you have the "Amount Key"?
No. The equality sum(in)-sum(out)-fee=0 is independently verified by every node or any observer without any key.
(...)
Else, you could have the problem of being too opaque, because the network peers would not be able to check if moneros were being created at will.
This is a really big deal. If/once confidential transactions are integrated into Monero, it will be the best cryptocurrency hands down mathematically possible.
The only way to improve upon it would be to enhance it's transaction per second scaling through some yet-unheard-of mathematics, but it's likely such a radical shift would break all the excellent privacy features we have built up so far. We can handle a theoretical 1600 tx/sec now; perhaps if a way to scale easily to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands were proposed it would be compatible with the Monero implementation.
As well, we aren't sure if 1600 tx/sec will even be our final maximum (may improve over time with upgrades to software/hardware) and even if it is, that's good enough to serve as a backbone for a giant international settlement mechanism. Visa does 40,000 tx/sec, but by the 2030's we may not be using Monero to buy coffee with - it's possible that it will serve as a financial backbone for other centralized sidechains and centralized/national/NWO currencies. I think that most people wouldn't have as much of a problem with US Dollars, even inflationary ones if the Federal Reserve issued a view key each year and said: "As you can see, the US Dollar is currently being backed by 34 ore each. If inflation proceeds as planned, considering our mining operations, next year the dollar will each be backed by 33.8 ore each." (or whatever an atomic unit of Monero is designated as in the 2030's
) That was based on smooth's calculations (with an i7-2600k using 4 cores IIRC). I don't know how he got to 2.5ms per tx, but I assume it's accurate. Unless CPUs hit some kind of brick wall, it's a certainty that that number will improve (obviously that's for a single CPU desktop as well); the 2600k is also 4 series behind the present (or something, Intel has dorked it up).
I believe bandwidth and hard drive space are much more pressing concerns for "big" usage.
A 5 input, 5 ouput, 5 mixin Tx is about 2kB. 1,600 TPS at that made up average size would equal:
25.54 mbps up/down bandwidth (assuming receive/send each Tx once)
~269 GB / day in storage
~96 TB / year
I said somewhere that I thought 100-200 (or more) TB SSDs would be available in ~8 years, so the storage might not actually be that bad. Bandwidth will surely come a long way in 8 years too, and 25.54mbps will likely be inconsequential (which was an idealized case of course).
What's my point? Basically it is that CPUs seem to be 5-10 years "ahead of the curve" as far as cryptocurrency requirements go.
By the way the ratio of the emission to the number of coins of Bitcoin will be below that of Monero in about 13 years. (1.5625 XBT per 10 min vs 3 XMR per 10 min). This is a lot sooner that many realize.
Actually it'll happen at the halving prior to that (about 9 years):
3.125 / 21m < (0.3 * 10) / ~18.4m -- about 8% lower
I saw a great movie today. I hear they're even making a sequel. 
Remember: Don't quote large pictures!
Remember: Don't quote large pictures!
This is assuming you have the "Amount Key"?
No. The equality sum(in)-sum(out)-fee=0 is independently verified by every node or any observer without any key.
(...)
Else, you could have the problem of being too opaque, because the network peers would not be able to check if moneros were being created at will.
This is a really big deal. If/once confidential transactions are integrated into Monero, it will be the best cryptocurrency hands down mathematically possible.
The only way to improve upon it would be to enhance it's transaction per second scaling through some yet-unheard-of mathematics, but it's likely such a radical shift would break all the excellent privacy features we have built up so far. We can handle a theoretical 1600 tx/sec now; perhaps if a way to scale easily to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands were proposed it would be compatible with the Monero implementation.
As well, we aren't sure if 1600 tx/sec will even be our final maximum (may improve over time with upgrades to software/hardware) and even if it is, that's good enough to serve as a backbone for a giant international settlement mechanism. Visa does 40,000 tx/sec, but by the 2030's we may not be using Monero to buy coffee with - it's possible that it will serve as a financial backbone for other centralized sidechains and centralized/national/NWO currencies. I think that most people wouldn't have as much of a problem with US Dollars, even inflationary ones if the Federal Reserve issued a view key each year and said: "As you can see, the US Dollar is currently being backed by 34 ore each. If inflation proceeds as planned, considering our mining operations, next year the dollar will each be backed by 33.8 ore each." (or whatever an atomic unit of Monero is designated as in the 2030's
) I have heard many proposals on this forum for a cryptocurrency that will be able to confirm extremely quickly and scale to global levels (albeit with the tradeoff of little/no privacy). I haven't been sold on any of them as "the coffee buying solution". I was once impressed with someone on Reddit who suggested the world may need three big digital networks - large public settlement mechanism, large private settlement mechanism, and small public settlement mechanism for buying coffee (because the thinking goes you don't care if the world knows you bought coffee and the Times)
Yeah, I personally believe that Monero will have to stick with being super secure and "opaque" by some peoples standards, because that's what we are getting to be noticed as and we need to capitalize on being the best in one area in the crypto world, it's just too technically demanding, I would imagine, if we were to try and tackle being both private and lightning speed fast.
As long as the devs can keep managing to keep improving the software to be more complex in the nature of the cryptography that comes along with monero, while making the platform to transact and use monero relatively simple for anyone to jump on board when they want to (mymonero being the first); then I think we'll be ok and can then start luring people and business to come join in.
In either case, when timing models indicate a BTC bottom is in, I will then rotate the position (a small trading fraction of my overall holding position) from BTC into XMR.
I'm curious to know your thoughts on this "neural price prediction" link: http://www.btcpredictions.com/
Hmm..I'm thinking why Monero is not widely used in the darknet, like Bitcoin? XMR is more privacy focused, so why not use it on darknet markets? 
The longer before I have to explain to my bosses my involvement with this "new internet drug money", the better. I have no desire for Monero to be associated with Dark Markets, but if it comes, it comes. It is a fact that we will need to establish a functioning economy at some point to give Monero inherent value.
Because of people predicting an incoming knowledge age, it would behove us to focus on a campaign of trying to get all knowledge eventually priced in Monero. That statement has several meanings, which I will leave up to your interpretation. Money grows value through utility. The US Dollar has dominated the world for a century due to it's forced oil peg. Through whatever means (perhaps even technical superiority), if information and knowledge end up priced in Monero, the world will have no choice in the long term but to transfer their assets into it in order to take part in the bleeding edge of civilization.
To exchange your Monero for more fundamental essentials like food, shelter, and physical luxury would become trivial at that point. (not that that's the goal - just saying)
This is assuming you have the "Amount Key"?
No. The equality sum(in)-sum(out)-fee=0 is independently verified by every node or any observer without any key.
(...)
Else, you could have the problem of being too opaque, because the network peers would not be able to check if moneros were being created at will.
This is a really big deal. If/once confidential transactions are integrated into Monero, it will be the best cryptocurrency hands down mathematically possible.
The only way to improve upon it would be to enhance it's transaction per second scaling through some yet-unheard-of mathematics, but it's likely such a radical shift would break all the excellent privacy features we have built up so far. We can handle a theoretical 1600 tx/sec now; perhaps if a way to scale easily to tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands were proposed it would be compatible with the Monero implementation.
As well, we aren't sure if 1600 tx/sec will even be our final maximum (may improve over time with upgrades to software/hardware) and even if it is, that's good enough to serve as a backbone for a giant international settlement mechanism. Visa does 40,000 tx/sec, but by the 2030's we may not be using Monero to buy coffee with - it's possible that it will serve as a financial backbone for other centralized sidechains and centralized/national/NWO currencies. I think that most people wouldn't have as much of a problem with US Dollars, even inflationary ones if the Federal Reserve issued a view key each year and said: "As you can see, the US Dollar is currently being backed by 34 ore each. If inflation proceeds as planned, considering our mining operations, next year the dollar will each be backed by 33.8 ore each." (or whatever an atomic unit of Monero is designated as in the 2030's
) I have heard many proposals on this forum for a cryptocurrency that will be able to confirm extremely quickly and scale to global levels (albeit with the tradeoff of little/no privacy). I haven't been sold on any of them as "the coffee buying solution". I was once impressed with someone on Reddit who suggested the world may need three big digital networks - large public settlement mechanism, large private settlement mechanism, and small public settlement mechanism for buying coffee (because the thinking goes you don't care if the world knows you bought coffee and the Times)
Since we hit 275 now, you say we go revisit ~250 and then go to 290 and then down (down to where) ?
It already exceeded my upside by a small amount, but my timing model says it is likely to turn down starting today. Thus today would be the correct time to rotate from BTC to XMR. If it continues to rise past the expected turning point, 292, 300 are resistance levels, and a conservative estimation of the next top, if it drops as timing models indicate. The support levels are 266, 250, 244, 220. My current expectation is that the top is in, for the next few weeks, and I do not expect a pullback below 240. Cycle times have been running about 3 to 4 months, top to top, and that is my best estimate of the next cycle time. My alternative scenario is for 3 weeks of continued climb, starting late next week from a slightly lower level, probably touching 300 before a downtrend begins. My own strategy is to rotate 60% of btc into XMR today, and hold out 40% to rotate near XBTUSD 300, in case the second scenario is more accurate. In either case, when timing models indicate a BTC bottom is in, I will then rotate the position (a small trading fraction of my overall holding position) from BTC into XMR.
Since we hit 275 now, you say we go revisit ~250 and then go to 290 and then down (down to where) ?
It already exceeded my upside by a small amount, but my timing model says it is likely to turn down starting today. Thus today would be the correct time to rotate from BTC to XMR. If it continues to rise past the expected turning point, 292, 300 are resistance levels, and a conservative estimation of the next top, if it drops as timing models indicate. The support levels are 266, 250, 244, 220. My current expectation is that the top is in, for the next few weeks, and I do not expect a pullback below 240. Cycle times have been running about 3 to 4 months, top to top, and that is my best estimate of the next cycle time. My alternative scenario is for 3 weeks of continued climb, starting late next week from a slightly lower level, probably touching 300 before a downtrend begins. My own strategy is to rotate 60% of btc into XMR today, and hold out 40% to rotate near XBTUSD 300, in case the second scenario is more accurate. In either case, when timing models indicate a BTC bottom is in, I will then rotate the position (a small trading fraction of my overall holding position) from BTC into XMR.
Even though this is probably the best plan to get as much XMR per Bitcoin; I really can see prices steadily rise until a pretty high price point before and maybe after the halving (post halvingv will be more volatile though I think)... So as of right now, I'm still accumulating only Bitcoin and holding on to the xmr I have until we see higher prices.
I also personally think that xmr prices will stagnate around the $.40-$.50 area for sometime until all the official releases and hard fork comes out. So even though it's a good plan for right now, I just personally see better opportunity to accumulate more xmr later.
Since we hit 275 now, you say we go revisit ~250 and then go to 290 and then down (down to where) ?
It already exceeded my upside by a small amount, but my timing model says it is likely to turn down starting today. Thus today would be the correct time to rotate from BTC to XMR. If it continues to rise past the expected turning point, 292, 300 are resistance levels, and a conservative estimation of the next top, if it drops as timing models indicate. The support levels are 266, 250, 244, 220. My current expectation is that the top is in, for the next few weeks, and I do not expect a pullback below 240. Cycle times have been running about 3 to 4 months, top to top, and that is my best estimate of the next cycle time. My alternative scenario is for 3 weeks of continued climb, starting late next week from a slightly lower level, probably touching 300 before a downtrend begins. My own strategy is to rotate 60% of btc into XMR today, and hold out 40% to rotate near XBTUSD 300, in case the second scenario is more accurate. In either case, when timing models indicate a BTC bottom is in, I will then rotate the position (a small trading fraction of my overall holding position) from BTC into XMR.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3pw30d/ringct_for_monero_updated_versions/
New update on RingCT
New update on RingCT
Good idea to post the more recent version.
Hmm..I'm thinking why Monero is not widely used in the darknet, like Bitcoin? XMR is more privacy focused, so why not use it on darknet markets?
Because it's very hard to use for the non technical user and because it has a market cap close to zero. You cant make a single large deal without moving the price a lot.
BTC is still quite safe to use. The sellers are usually quite good at the technical stuff, so they can make BTC private enugh, and the casual buyers are just not that much at risk. No point in going after them.
Hmm..I'm thinking why Monero is not widely used in the darknet, like Bitcoin? XMR is more privacy focused, so why not use it on darknet markets?
https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3pw30d/ringct_for_monero_updated_versions/
New update on RingCT
New update on RingCT
Such great news!
Meanwhile Bitcoin industry leaders groups up with law enforcement http://thebitcoin.news/bitcoin-groups-form-alliance-with-law-enforcement
Have you forgotten that BTC was made to be able to opt out of the system, and now you work with the protectors of the system? Gosh darnet
I just saw a quote by a user that Monero has an "opaque blockchain" which I don't think is correct.
Monero has a private blockchain, in the the sender and receiver are always protected from knowing each other, but (correct me if I'm wrong here) the amount of money moving across the blockchain is still visible in some respects.
If someone sent 300,000 Monero across the blockchain, then observers would be able to see that a large amount of money moved today but not be able to pin it down to a particular user or transaction time (with proper mixin settings)
Monero has a private blockchain, in the the sender and receiver are always protected from knowing each other, but (correct me if I'm wrong here) the amount of money moving across the blockchain is still visible in some respects.
If someone sent 300,000 Monero across the blockchain, then observers would be able to see that a large amount of money moved today but not be able to pin it down to a particular user or transaction time (with proper mixin settings)
I thought that with the new CT ring developments coming out, people wouldn't be able to tell what amount of monero is being transacted unless you have the right key which shows you the amount for that particular transaction? Wouldn't this be a non issue with the upcoming developments?
In theory yes. It has not been implemented yet into monero so testing needs to happen over months to come.
For now AP is right you can see how much is moved and when. But not who sent to who specifically.
Also you can't really tell it moved between two people. Much of it could be change going back to the sender and it could be someone moving from one wallet to another.
Above comments about CT are correct. However, even with CT, using math an observer can still verify that the coins spent are equal to the coins received. You just can't tell the number.
This is assuming you have the "Amount Key"?
No. The equality sum(in)-sum(out)-fee=0 is independently verified by every node or any observer without any key.
To explain in simplified terms how this works, there is a random blinding term x, which is secret.
Ignoring fee here for simplicity:
hidden_in = real_in + x
hidden_out = real_out + x
Of course real_in - real_out = 0
But hidden_in - hidden_out = 0 i.e. (real_in + x) - (real_out + x) = 0 also
hidden_in and hidden_out are visible on the blockchain.
(Magic crypto math means that you can't do something silly to break this like solve for x.)
Okay so because you know the outcome of the equation you can just verify the result and check to see if it lines up with what is expected without knowing the actual amounts transferred.
Exactly! hidden_in and hidden_out are visible on the blockchain. To verify the transaction you subtract them and see the result is 0, which proves that real_in - real_out is also zero without revealing their actual value. That is oversimplified, but you get the basic idea.
I just saw a quote by a user that Monero has an "opaque blockchain" which I don't think is correct.
Monero has a private blockchain, in the the sender and receiver are always protected from knowing each other, but (correct me if I'm wrong here) the amount of money moving across the blockchain is still visible in some respects.
If someone sent 300,000 Monero across the blockchain, then observers would be able to see that a large amount of money moved today but not be able to pin it down to a particular user or transaction time (with proper mixin settings)
Monero has a private blockchain, in the the sender and receiver are always protected from knowing each other, but (correct me if I'm wrong here) the amount of money moving across the blockchain is still visible in some respects.
If someone sent 300,000 Monero across the blockchain, then observers would be able to see that a large amount of money moved today but not be able to pin it down to a particular user or transaction time (with proper mixin settings)
I thought that with the new CT ring developments coming out, people wouldn't be able to tell what amount of monero is being transacted unless you have the right key which shows you the amount for that particular transaction? Wouldn't this be a non issue with the upcoming developments?
In theory yes. It has not been implemented yet into monero so testing needs to happen over months to come.
For now AP is right you can see how much is moved and when. But not who sent to who specifically.
Also you can't really tell it moved between two people. Much of it could be change going back to the sender and it could be someone moving from one wallet to another.
Above comments about CT are correct. However, even with CT, using math an observer can still verify that the coins spent are equal to the coins received. You just can't tell the number.
This is assuming you have the "Amount Key"?
No. The equality sum(in)-sum(out)-fee=0 is independently verified by every node or any observer without any key.
To explain in simplified terms how this works, there is a random blinding term x, which is secret.
Ignoring fee here for simplicity:
hidden_in = real_in + x
hidden_out = real_out + x
Of course real_in - real_out = 0
But hidden_in - hidden_out = 0 i.e. (real_in + x) - (real_out + x) = 0 also
hidden_in and hidden_out are visible on the blockchain.
(Magic crypto math means that you can't do something silly to break this like solve for x.)
Okay so because you know the outcome of the equation you can just verify the result and check to see if it lines up with what is expected without knowing the actual amounts transferred.
This is assuming you have the "Amount Key"?
No. The equality sum(in)-sum(out)-fee=0 is independently verified by every node or any observer without any key.
(...)
Else, you could have the problem of being too opaque, because the network peers would not be able to check if moneros were being created at will.
Jump to: