[XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1685.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1491

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: owm123 on October 22, 2015, 10:27:45 PM

Quote from: smoothie on October 22, 2015, 10:08:54 PM

You can't have privacy in a currency without fungibility.

This was an interesting find:

LINK: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/privacy-and-fungibility/

Quote

"Privacy is the weakest link in censorship resistance. Fungibility is an absolute necessity for any medium of exchange. The properties of money include fungibility. Without privacy you may not be able to have fungibility."

Monero gives us privacy on the blockchain (still working on i2p integration from what I've heard).

The problem is that regular people don't even know what Fungiblilty means. And most not even care, unless the effects of its lack in bitcoin will start causing problems.

It's a word. But they will know what it means when their currency is not being accepted as any other of the same "type".

Then they know what that word means (not specifically that word but the impression it will give a person when it happens).

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: smoothie on October 22, 2015, 08:44:32 PM

Quote from: ArticMine on October 22, 2015, 08:10:56 PM

Bitcoin still has to deal with the related issues of the 1 MB blocksize limit and the development of a fee market for when the emission runs out. Both of these issues will over time prove to be fatal. Monero has both of them fixed. Bitcoin can buy some time by increasing the blocksize limit in a hard fork, but I do not see a solution to the question of securing the network once the emission runs out.

The privacy / fungibility of Monero will in the end turn out to be by comparison just a bonus.

As Trace Mayer eluded to, transaction privacy is much more of an important topic with bitcoin than the block size as of right now.

Emission of bitcoin won't run out for what like 4 decades? I dont know the exact number of years.

Bitcoin transactions aren't taking up the full 1MB yet but at the same time there has been countless hours of discussions, trolling, conferences, travel, phone calls etc that are all billable hours yet it isn't that big of an issue to the people hiring bitcoin to do what it is they want bitcoin to do.

Yes, but this ignores the impact of cross chain mixing. If Monero were to grow to a size that could threaten Bitcoin, normal trading between Bitcoin and Monero would make most Bitcoin blockchain analysis very difficult if not impossible. Even today a simple way to mix Bitcoin is to sell Bitcoin for Monero, run the XMR through the Monero network with say a mixin of 5 and then trade the Monero back for Bitcoin. If the amounts are below typical AML/KNC levels this can be done both legally and anonymously. 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. As for the 1 MB blocksize limit if there is any significant growth in Bitcoin the impact will be felt when transactions simply do not confirm.

My take is that are "good enough" privacy / fungibility fixes for Bitcoin, including ironically Monero itself. The issues I have raised are fundamentally fatal and cannot be easily fixed.

Edit: Take care of the longterm and the short term will take care of itself. The reverse is not the case.

owm123

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: smoothie on October 22, 2015, 10:08:54 PM

You can't have privacy in a currency without fungibility.

This was an interesting find:

LINK: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/privacy-and-fungibility/

Quote

"Privacy is the weakest link in censorship resistance. Fungibility is an absolute necessity for any medium of exchange. The properties of money include fungibility. Without privacy you may not be able to have fungibility."

Monero gives us privacy on the blockchain (still working on i2p integration from what I've heard).

The problem is that regular people don't even know what Fungiblilty means. And most not even care, unless the effects of its lack in bitcoin will start causing problems.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1491

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

You can't have privacy in a currency without fungibility.

This was an interesting find:

LINK: http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/privacy-and-fungibility/

Quote

"Privacy is the weakest link in censorship resistance. Fungibility is an absolute necessity for any medium of exchange. The properties of money include fungibility. Without privacy you may not be able to have fungibility."

Monero gives us privacy on the blockchain (still working on i2p integration from what I've heard).

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1491

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: owm123 on October 22, 2015, 09:30:12 PM

Quote from: smoothie on October 22, 2015, 07:52:26 PM

I thought this would be relevant as Monero is much more private/fungible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM&feature=youtu.be&t=33m6s

Andreas A. seems to believe that bitcoin can work on its "fungibility". Roll Eyes

Andreas: "We need to address the issue of fungibility..."

... "the metric of economic inclusion is very much affected by the fungibility and black lists ..."

Also...

Dr. Adam Back says in regards to Bitcoin (in Feb 2014) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dAdI3Gzodo&feature=youtu.be&t=28m31s

"Weak fungibility: Feature & bug"

"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect"

"Bitcoin privacy is fragile (Shamir & Dorit network analysis)"

By Dr. Adam Back's definition of fungibility PLUS(+) his statement of "Bitcoin privacy is fragile" you therefore can deduce Dr. Adam Back also believes that Bitcoin's fungibility is also fragile.

If monero and bitcoin started out with the same user base initially (of course this is not true) do we think bit coin or Monero would be more well adopted?

I don't know the answer to this. But I tend to think that if a crypto-coin offers the option of privacy and the other does not in the same magnitude of privacy then it therefore means Bitcoin (the coin that does not have privacy enabled by default) is inferior to Monero.

Just my two cents for today. Grin

As it happens, now there is a thread on reddit, claiming the opposite: "Bitcoin has no fungibility problem"
https://en.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ptbx1/bitcoin_has_no_fungibility_problem/

made my own Wink

: https://en.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3puvia/lets_talk_about_bitcoins_fungibility_privacy/

GingerAle

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

i think its reassuring to know that monero is now the de-facto opaque blockchain. On that reddit, it is referenced as such, and in the recent iota ANN someone said something like "is it transparent like bitcoin or opaque like monero".

and this all without MRL4.

hardfork gonna make it crazy up in here.

owm123

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: owm123 on October 22, 2015, 09:30:12 PM

Quote from: smoothie on October 22, 2015, 07:52:26 PM

I thought this would be relevant as Monero is much more private/fungible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM&feature=youtu.be&t=33m6s

Andreas A. seems to believe that bitcoin can work on its "fungibility". Roll Eyes

Andreas: "We need to address the issue of fungibility..."

... "the metric of economic inclusion is very much affected by the fungibility and black lists ..."

Also...

Dr. Adam Back says in regards to Bitcoin (in Feb 2014) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dAdI3Gzodo&feature=youtu.be&t=28m31s

"Weak fungibility: Feature & bug"

"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect"

"Bitcoin privacy is fragile (Shamir & Dorit network analysis)"

By Dr. Adam Back's definition of fungibility PLUS(+) his statement of "Bitcoin privacy is fragile" you therefore can deduce Dr. Adam Back also believes that Bitcoin's fungibility is also fragile.

If monero and bitcoin started out with the same user base initially (of course this is not true) do we think bit coin or Monero would be more well adopted?

I don't know the answer to this. But I tend to think that if a crypto-coin offers the option of privacy and the other does not in the same magnitude of privacy then it therefore means Bitcoin (the coin that does not have privacy enabled by default) is inferior to Monero.

Just my two cents for today. Grin

As it happens, now there is a thread on reddit, claiming the opposite: "Bitcoin has no fungibility problem"
https://en.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ptbx1/bitcoin_has_no_fungibility_problem/

wpalczynski

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: owm123 on October 22, 2015, 09:30:12 PM

Quote from: smoothie on October 22, 2015, 07:52:26 PM

I thought this would be relevant as Monero is much more private/fungible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM&feature=youtu.be&t=33m6s

Andreas A. seems to believe that bitcoin can work on its "fungibility". Roll Eyes

Andreas: "We need to address the issue of fungibility..."

... "the metric of economic inclusion is very much affected by the fungibility and black lists ..."

Also...

Dr. Adam Back says in regards to Bitcoin (in Feb 2014) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dAdI3Gzodo&feature=youtu.be&t=28m31s

"Weak fungibility: Feature & bug"

"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect"

"Bitcoin privacy is fragile (Shamir & Dorit network analysis)"

By Dr. Adam Back's definition of fungibility PLUS(+) his statement of "Bitcoin privacy is fragile" you therefore can deduce Dr. Adam Back also believes that Bitcoin's fungibility is also fragile.

If monero and bitcoin started out with the same user base initially (of course this is not true) do we think bit coin or Monero would be more well adopted?

I don't know the answer to this. But I tend to think that if a crypto-coin offers the option of privacy and the other does not in the same magnitude of privacy then it therefore means Bitcoin (the coin that does not have privacy enabled by default) is inferior to Monero.

Just my two cents for today. Grin

As it happens, now there is a thread on reddit, claiming the opposite: "Bitcoin has no fungibility problem"
https://en.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ptbx1/bitcoin_has_no_fungibility_problem/

A bunch of jokers in that reddit thread.

owm123

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: smoothie on October 22, 2015, 07:52:26 PM

I thought this would be relevant as Monero is much more private/fungible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM&feature=youtu.be&t=33m6s

Andreas A. seems to believe that bitcoin can work on its "fungibility". Roll Eyes

Andreas: "We need to address the issue of fungibility..."

... "the metric of economic inclusion is very much affected by the fungibility and black lists ..."

Also...

Dr. Adam Back says in regards to Bitcoin (in Feb 2014) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dAdI3Gzodo&feature=youtu.be&t=28m31s

"Weak fungibility: Feature & bug"

"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect"

"Bitcoin privacy is fragile (Shamir & Dorit network analysis)"

By Dr. Adam Back's definition of fungibility PLUS(+) his statement of "Bitcoin privacy is fragile" you therefore can deduce Dr. Adam Back also believes that Bitcoin's fungibility is also fragile.

If monero and bitcoin started out with the same user base initially (of course this is not true) do we think bit coin or Monero would be more well adopted?

I don't know the answer to this. But I tend to think that if a crypto-coin offers the option of privacy and the other does not in the same magnitude of privacy then it therefore means Bitcoin (the coin that does not have privacy enabled by default) is inferior to Monero.

Just my two cents for today. Grin

As it happens, now there is a thread on reddit, claiming the opposite: "Bitcoin has no fungibility problem"
https://en.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3ptbx1/bitcoin_has_no_fungibility_problem/

kazuki49

sr. member

Activity: 350

Merit: 250

Quote from: chennan on October 22, 2015, 08:50:31 PM

I don't necessarily think that when 2016 comes, miners will point there hashing power to another coin, because bitcoin still remains the more profitable source of income (by a long shot) compared to other coins. If you compare bitcoin to the next leading alternative in terms of fiat prices (litecoin), you have $275/coin vs. $3/coin. To me, I would speculate that miners will always point their computers toward bitcoin because of this.

The problem is Bitcoin miners are no small guys anymore, these are long gone from the scene, the corporations run the show now. And you can't use Bitcoin ASICs to mine anything BUT Bitcoin, the rise of Monero and cryptonight may also be the rise of the small miners again.

chennan

legendary

Activity: 1316

Merit: 1004

Quote from: americanpegasus on October 22, 2015, 08:42:50 PM

I am having a conundrum regarding Bitcoin.

On one hand I can see how once rewards decrease for Bitcoin that miners start looking elsewhere to point their computers. I can also see how Bitcoin not be capable of sustaining large transaction volumes leads to less transactions. With few transactions and no one paying sufficient transaction fees to the miners, the entire network collapses.

I can also see how with a fee based economy, the right to include transactions on the ledger must be kept at a premium to encourage miners....

I am thoroughly confused and not sure what I believe will eventually happen to Bitcoin now.

I can completely see where you're coming from on this, but one thing I would like to point out is that the halving that's coming about in 2016 is only the second one... So in that sense, bitcoins still remain somewhat very profitable to miners if they are looking at the "long term" speculation of bitcoins prices, and seeing it as a mainstay in public online transactions.

I don't necessarily think that when 2016 comes, miners will point there hashing power to another coin, because bitcoin still remains the more profitable source of income (by a long shot) compared to other coins. If you compare bitcoin to the next leading alternative in terms of fiat prices (litecoin), you have $275/coin vs. $3/coin. To me, I would speculate that miners will always point their computers toward bitcoin because of this.

wpalczynski

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: americanpegasus on October 22, 2015, 08:42:50 PM

I am having a conundrum regarding Bitcoin.

On one hand I can see how once rewards decrease for Bitcoin that miners start looking elsewhere to point their computers. I can also see how Bitcoin not be capable of sustaining large transaction volumes leads to less transactions. With few transactions and no one paying sufficient transaction fees to the miners, the entire network collapses.

I can also see how with a fee based economy, the right to include transactions on the ledger must be kept at a premium to encourage miners....

I am thoroughly confused and not sure what I believe will eventually happen to Bitcoin now.

Either it attains a sufficient valuation where even a small percentage fee will be rewarding for miners, be subsidized by govt entities (centralized mining), or perish.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1491

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

Quote from: ArticMine on October 22, 2015, 08:10:56 PM

Bitcoin still has to deal with the related issues of the 1 MB blocksize limit and the development of a fee market for when the emission runs out. Both of these issues will over time prove to be fatal. Monero has both of them fixed. Bitcoin can buy some time by increasing the blocksize limit in a hard fork, but I do not see a solution to the question of securing the network once the emission runs out.

The privacy / fungibility of Monero will in the end turn out to be by comparison just a bonus.

As Trace Mayer eluded to, transaction privacy is much more of an important topic with bitcoin than the block size as of right now.

Emission of bitcoin won't run out for what like 4 decades? I dont know the exact number of years.

Bitcoin transactions aren't taking up the full 1MB yet but at the same time there has been countless hours of discussions, trolling, conferences, travel, phone calls etc that are all billable hours yet it isn't that big of an issue to the people hiring bitcoin to do what it is they want bitcoin to do.

americanpegasus

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 504

I am having a conundrum regarding Bitcoin.

On one hand I can see how once rewards decrease for Bitcoin that miners start looking elsewhere to point their computers. I can also see how Bitcoin not be capable of sustaining large transaction volumes leads to less transactions. With few transactions and no one paying sufficient transaction fees to the miners, the entire network collapses.

I can also see how with a fee based economy, the right to include transactions on the ledger must be kept at a premium to encourage miners....

I am thoroughly confused and not sure what I believe will eventually happen to Bitcoin now.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Bitcoin still has to deal with the related issues of the 1 MB blocksize limit and the development of a fee market for when the emission runs out. Both of these issues will over time prove to be fatal. Monero has both of them fixed. Bitcoin can buy some time by increasing the blocksize limit in a hard fork, but I do not see a solution to the question of securing the network once the emission runs out.

The privacy / fungibility of Monero will in the end turn out to be by comparison just a bonus.

smoothie

legendary

Activity: 2492

Merit: 1491

LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper

I thought this would be relevant as Monero is much more private/fungible:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ak1iojpiHpM&feature=youtu.be&t=33m6s

Andreas A. seems to believe that bitcoin can work on its "fungibility". Roll Eyes

Andreas: "We need to address the issue of fungibility..."

... "the metric of economic inclusion is very much affected by the fungibility and black lists ..."

Also...

Dr. Adam Back says in regards to Bitcoin (in Feb 2014) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3dAdI3Gzodo&feature=youtu.be&t=28m31s

"Weak fungibility: Feature & bug"

"Fungibility provides privacy as a side effect"

"Bitcoin privacy is fragile (Shamir & Dorit network analysis)"

By Dr. Adam Back's definition of fungibility PLUS(+) his statement of "Bitcoin privacy is fragile" you therefore can deduce Dr. Adam Back also believes that Bitcoin's fungibility is also fragile.

If monero and bitcoin started out with the same user base initially (of course this is not true) do we think bit coin or Monero would be more well adopted?

I don't know the answer to this. But I tend to think that if a crypto-coin offers the option of privacy and the other does not in the same magnitude of privacy then it therefore means Bitcoin (the coin that does not have privacy enabled by default) is inferior to Monero.

Just my two cents for today. Grin

owm123

sr. member

Activity: 392

Merit: 250

Quote from: ArticMine on October 22, 2015, 03:19:25 PM

Quote from: rpietila on October 22, 2015, 02:48:19 PM

Quote from: americanpegasus on October 22, 2015, 02:38:34 PM

...maybe we won't all pay insane taxes on our Monero capital gains after all.

That ruling was VAT, no capital gains. Significant nevertheless.

(In Finland where I used to live, individuals are liable for capital gains tax even if their USD has appreciated against EUR before spending it. I would assume this is not widely reported though.)

It is a very significant and also common sense ruling. Otherwise the VAT would simply not work. This leaves Australia as the country trying to collect GST on crypto currency. The reason levying VAT or GST on crypro currency does not work is that people can legally avoid the tax by registering as a VAT or GST business. In order for VAT or GST to work one cannot tax the medium of exchange or "money".

My reading of Canada's GST legislation is that the definition of money is broad enough to include crypto currency in the definition of "money".

Australia is always like 5 years behind the rest of the world in everything, unfortunately.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: rpietila on October 22, 2015, 02:48:19 PM

Quote from: americanpegasus on October 22, 2015, 02:38:34 PM

...maybe we won't all pay insane taxes on our Monero capital gains after all.

That ruling was VAT, no capital gains. Significant nevertheless.

(In Finland where I used to live, individuals are liable for capital gains tax even if their USD has appreciated against EUR before spending it. I would assume this is not widely reported though.)

It is a very significant and also common sense ruling. Otherwise the VAT would simply not work. This leaves Australia as the country trying to collect GST on crypto currency. The reason levying VAT or GST on crypro currency does not work is that people can legally avoid the tax by registering as a VAT or GST business. In order for VAT or GST to work one cannot tax the medium of exchange or "money".

My reading of Canada's GST legislation is that the definition of money is broad enough to include crypto currency in the definition of "money".

americanpegasus

hero member

Activity: 770

Merit: 504

Quote from: rpietila on October 22, 2015, 02:48:19 PM

That ruling was VAT, no capital gains. Significant nevertheless.

(In Finland where I used to live, individuals are liable for capital gains tax even if their USD has appreciated against EUR before spending it. I would assume this is not widely reported though.)

Ah, thank you for the clarification.

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

Quote from: americanpegasus on October 22, 2015, 02:38:34 PM

...maybe we won't all pay insane taxes on our Monero capital gains after all.

That ruling was VAT, no capital gains. Significant nevertheless.

(In Finland where I used to live, individuals are liable for capital gains tax even if their USD has appreciated against EUR before spending it. I would assume this is not widely reported though.)

Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1685. (Read 3313576 times)