Author

Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1747. (Read 3313576 times)

legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
September 22, 2015, 10:43:10 PM
I think the most convincing example of fungability necessity for me was when some bitcoin exchange did not accept bitcoins from someone, because allegedly those bitcoins was connected to some dark market activity.

It's not like money should be fungible for criminal operations, but its a good example when some bitcoins != usual bitcoins. This is impossible with monero.

But those coins can go to mixer and come out a different ones.

In the end someone gets screwed even if those coins go to a mixer. The person that gets the tainted coins will have crap luck trying to spend them should sites reject them based on them being tainted.
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
September 22, 2015, 10:38:53 PM
... I feel like a majority of the public (sadly) don't and wouldn't really care if their transactions are public...

They will certainly care when merchants stop accepting their non-fungible bitcoins because some algorithm determines they're tainted. Privacy is hardly the issue.

Money that isn't fungible will eventually cannibalize itself.

It hasnt stopped bitcoin to be #1 cryptocurrency. And most people even dont know what fungability means. I myself, for example, have never heard about such a term before getting interested in crypto. Good luck expalining this to people who just want to use crypto, rather than go and read bitcointalk forums, or r/monero or any other such website.

Just because they don't know the word or never hear it is irrelevant as it is all around us everyday. If people accept your fiat paper in a fungible manner (they don't care where it came from) it does matter if one day you went to the grocery store and because your fiat paper has certain serial number on them (making them tainted) they say "sorry sir, we can't accept your money as it was tied to a murder". Many people, including myself, would be pissed and lose faith in the currency if that happened over and over and you cant spend your tainted currency anywhere.


People understand fungibility when it disallows them to spend their currency. The word does not matter and neither does the fact that people don't know the word...they know "I want to spend my fiat/currency and if not I will blow a gasket and lose faith in using that currency".
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
September 22, 2015, 10:15:41 PM
I think the most convincing example of fungability necessity for me was when some bitcoin exchange did not accept bitcoins from someone, because allegedly those bitcoins was connected to some dark market activity.

It's not like money should be fungible for criminal operations, but its a good example when some bitcoins != usual bitcoins. This is impossible with monero.

But those coins can go to mixer and come out a different ones.

Kind of off topic but this thread has been slow so I'll jump in as well.

When the government decides to make it mandatory for business to not accept tainted coins, which it will inevitably will, those that have gotten them even by legal means will lose them. This is the most important aspect of fungability. Using a mixer with good coins right now is as retarded as it gets. If the canary in the coal mine (exchange not accepting tainted coins) was not enough to convince then those that lose deserve to.

The only reason this has not made a bigger splash is because those invested in BTC refuse to propagate the fact their coin is compromised. The writing is on the wall.

You bring up some very important points to consider.

There is a very good possibility that exchanges and merchants that are regulated that accept bitcoin will seize your bitcoin if it is tainted from a previous "hack/scam/theft/etc".

If that were to happen, which I think it will, there would be a scramble to get "clean" coins. Lots of users would be turned off as they would probably be buying coins that are tainted and when they go to cash them out they may have some issues.

But in terms of in person transacting I can't see how this would be an issue at least at first. There could come other scenarios that make in person transactions stray away from accepting tainted coins for transacting.

legendary
Activity: 1624
Merit: 1008
September 22, 2015, 08:27:00 PM
Being that MoneroDice just completed it's 5th consecutive losing day I just bought more Monero to recoup my investment loss plus a bit more.  Any excuse will do Grin Grin

I used ShapeShift which is super easy.  Just give them my Monero address and send them btc.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
September 22, 2015, 04:50:13 PM
It's amazing that Moneroj are selling for 0.47 cents. Anyone reading this post 5 years from now will be wishing so hard they were in our spot.

Or, they will be glad they did not buy it. In 5 years, monero devs can be long gone and the coin be long dead.

jep - in that case they lost 47 cents per coin on a risky invenstment backed by a top-notch technology with the potential to a) fill a niche and b) become a new kind of asset class.....

we all have confirmation biases as well as well as endowment effects over here and I personally think that there are many cryptos, including bitcoin, that are vastly undervalued... but nothing is so oddly priced as monero.


Like with all investments, it may or may not succeed. Time will only tell. But I do agree that monero aims at filling very specific and important void in crypto, anonymity and privacy. Fungability and adaptive block size are additional pluses. But still it does not guarantee a success.

Devs can leave the projects, as life and priorities change over time and can do something else. Investors can leave if the monero price is stagnant for too long, and community can move to the next super hiper new coin.
hero member
Activity: 742
Merit: 500
September 22, 2015, 04:42:06 PM
It's amazing that Moneroj are selling for 0.47 cents. Anyone reading this post 5 years from now will be wishing so hard they were in our spot.

Or, they will be glad they did not buy it. In 5 years, monero devs can be long gone and the coin be long dead.

jep - in that case they lost 47 cents per coin on a risky invenstment backed by a top-notch technology with the potential to a) fill a niche and b) become a new kind of asset class.....

we all have confirmation biases as well as well as endowment effects over here and I personally think that there are many cryptos, including bitcoin, that are vastly undervalued... but nothing is so oddly priced as monero.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
September 22, 2015, 04:02:40 PM
It's amazing that Moneroj are selling for 0.47 cents. Anyone reading this post 5 years from now will be wishing so hard they were in our spot.

Or, they will be glad they did not buy it. In 5 years, monero devs can be long gone and the coin be long dead.
legendary
Activity: 3836
Merit: 4969
Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it
September 22, 2015, 02:47:57 PM
I think the most convincing example of fungability necessity for me was when some bitcoin exchange did not accept bitcoins from someone, because allegedly those bitcoins was connected to some dark market activity.

It's not like money should be fungible for criminal operations, but its a good example when some bitcoins != usual bitcoins. This is impossible with monero.

But those coins can go to mixer and come out a different ones.

Kind of off topic but this thread has been slow so I'll jump in as well.

When the government decides to make it mandatory for business to not accept tainted coins, which it will inevitably will, those that have gotten them even by legal means will lose them. This is the most important aspect of fungability. Using a mixer with good coins right now is as retarded as it gets. If the canary in the coal mine (exchange not accepting tainted coins) was not enough to convince then those that lose deserve to.

The only reason this has not made a bigger splash is because those invested in BTC refuse to propagate the fact their coin is compromised. The writing is on the wall.
sr. member
Activity: 379
Merit: 250
September 22, 2015, 01:27:05 PM
It's amazing that Moneroj are selling for 0.47 cents. Anyone reading this post 5 years from now will be wishing so hard they were in our spot.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
September 22, 2015, 07:02:56 AM
Crosspost from ANN:

Some interesting reddit comments that are crosspost worthy:

Fluffypony explaining libraryzing in response to my comment:

Quote from: dEBRUYNE
GUI will probably be released after libraryzing is done (devs are currently working on it, see design goals -> https://getmonero.org/design-goals/), without libraryzing it makes no sense to "wire up" the GUI.

The design is already done, see following link for some sneak peaks -> http://imgur.com/a/ERheR

Quote from: Fluffypony
It's just fun terminology we adopted after the "daemonize" effort:)

No, it's not merely "modularising" it, it is a separation of concerns into actual libraries that can be implemented into any Monero-related project (including the binaries). This was the initial spec I wrote up a little while ago:

The code should provide 4 libraries, binaries should be built using these statically by default. libs only needs to be a build target / cmake switch.

No app logic / core / verification / p2p / consensus functions should exist outside of these libraries. Binaries implementing this can layer whatever they want on top, but all essential functionality should be provided in these libraries

libMoneroStorage
BlockchainDB for blockchain storage/validation, as well as a class to handle wallet data. TODO: need to figure out blocking during reorgs, and prioritising data requests from the daemon over anything else.

libMoneroAccount
All other wallet (account) functions. Create accounts, recover, mnemonic seeds, etc. etc. Uses libMoneroStorage for wallet cache / key data.

libMonero
Connection to the network (effectively the daemon), uses libMoneroStorage for blockchain storage. Unless explicitly specified via a flag of some sort, there should only be one instance of libMonero running. In other words, if I'm running the daemon, and then a fire up another daemon, all it should do is hook into the already running libMonero one via IPC. The instantiated libMonero should only shut down when there are no longer active handles to it (or when a controlled shut down is requested). Binaries tapping into that functionality should also know and expect that they may receive a controlled shutdown signal, and should be able to either terminate or hang around waiting for the library instance to be available again.

libMoneroRPC
Provides JSON HTTP(S) RPC interface to libMonero and libMoneroAccount. This is effectively a standalone server that feeds commands back to libMonero or libMoneroAccount via 0MQ IPC. Can provide a single port with /daemon and /account endpoints, or multiple ports.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3ltrxt/its_happening_stepbystep_every_month_since_i/cv9hix0?context=3

smooth's comment about disclosing individual payments on a case by case basis:

Quote from: smooth
The white paper says:
Quote
In case Alice wants to prove she sent a transaction to Bob’s address she can either disclose r or use any kind of zero-knowledge protocol to prove she knows r (for example by signing the transaction with r).
If you disclose r (a random number chosen per-transaction) then anyone can perform P = Hs(rA)G+ B to determine the one time address (which in turn is stored on the blockchain) being used to send to Bob. (A,B) is Bob's public (stealth address) key. G is a constant, and Hs() is a hash function. This has no connection to other transactions you may have performed. The ability to retrieve r was not implemented in the original cryptonote code, but we added it recently in github.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/3lvjw1/eli5_how_can_a_monero_transaction_be_publicly/cv9x3dv
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
September 22, 2015, 05:59:02 AM
I think the most convincing example of fungability necessity for me was when some bitcoin exchange did not accept bitcoins from someone, because allegedly those bitcoins was connected to some dark market activity.

It's not like money should be fungible for criminal operations, but its a good example when some bitcoins != usual bitcoins. This is impossible with monero.

But those coins can go to mixer and come out a different ones.

Mixers are not good, as you mixing with potentially "more dirty" bitcoins than your own. So I would avoid any bitcoin mixers.
donator
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1036
September 22, 2015, 05:43:56 AM
When I had a coin shop back in the days, a man approached me with an offer to sell 1 kilo gold bars with swastikas on them and (he) offered spot-20% due to the stigma. I laughed at him and said that buy a sledgehammer instead and you get about spot-5% from anyone.

He apparently did since I never heard of the guy anymore. Shame, lost even the 5% by being too much of a smartass  Tongue

(5% of a kilobar in the days was $2,000, each.)

Morale of the story: gold is fungible.
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
September 22, 2015, 05:18:19 AM
I think the most convincing example of fungability necessity for me was when some bitcoin exchange did not accept bitcoins from someone, because allegedly those bitcoins was connected to some dark market activity.

It's not like money should be fungible for criminal operations, but its a good example when some bitcoins != usual bitcoins. This is impossible with monero.

But those coins can go to mixer and come out a different ones.

That's the real life equivalent of going to the neighborhood dodgy guy to exchange your banknotes against other ones whenever you get paid, in order to be able to spend them. Hardly something convenient or safe.

Besides, mixing will spread any taint. At some point, mixing will mean tainted in, tainted out. Unless you pay a heftier and heftier premium to get some of the dwindling untainted supply...

What incentive does someone with "good" coins have to use a mixer under this scenario? I think none unless there is some kind of financial inducement. That translates into the tainted coins being worth less and the untainted ones being worth more. Which means whenever you go to spend coins you are going to have to negotiate with the recipient over how much your particular coins are worth. This sounds almost like a barter system, and largely unworkable.

legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
September 22, 2015, 04:48:09 AM
I think the most convincing example of fungability necessity for me was when some bitcoin exchange did not accept bitcoins from someone, because allegedly those bitcoins was connected to some dark market activity.

It's not like money should be fungible for criminal operations, but its a good example when some bitcoins != usual bitcoins. This is impossible with monero.

But those coins can go to mixer and come out a different ones.

MoneroMooo already made a great comment on this. In addition, read this extensive and great post about fungibility by dnaleor -> https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/374ss5/the_problem_with_bitcoin_that_everyone_seems_to/
legendary
Activity: 1276
Merit: 1001
September 22, 2015, 04:46:09 AM
I think the most convincing example of fungability necessity for me was when some bitcoin exchange did not accept bitcoins from someone, because allegedly those bitcoins was connected to some dark market activity.

It's not like money should be fungible for criminal operations, but its a good example when some bitcoins != usual bitcoins. This is impossible with monero.

But those coins can go to mixer and come out a different ones.

That's the real life equivalent of going to the neighborhood dodgy guy to exchange your banknotes against other ones whenever you get paid, in order to be able to spend them. Hardly something convenient or safe.

Besides, mixing will spread any taint. At some point, mixing will mean tainted in, tainted out. Unless you pay a heftier and heftier premium to get some of the dwindling untainted supply...



legendary
Activity: 1100
Merit: 1032
September 22, 2015, 04:28:51 AM
Beyond privacy, what's missing in BTC and XMR is a "right to mistake" of sorts, the ability to undo a transaction if you fat-fingered or messed up in any way.

Of course this would have to be a sort of "immediate undo", not over the course of hours or days, but having a blockchain-level protocol that allows for this would be welcome. Sometimes you want an immediate payment, sometimes you just want to be sure.
Could also work in a two way fashion with an "honest" party, like a well-established merchant: you would send you payment, merchant would display if the payment is okay or not, and you would then be able to confirm. If merchant never got anything (because you sent to wrong address f.i.), or merchant says it's not ok (because of incorrect amount f.i.), you could recover your funds (shameless plug https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/proposal-for-blockchain-based-transaction-2fa-reversible-transaction-1157818)


hero member
Activity: 896
Merit: 1000
September 22, 2015, 04:09:38 AM
I think the most convincing example of fungability necessity for me was when some bitcoin exchange did not accept bitcoins from someone, because allegedly those bitcoins was connected to some dark market activity.

It's not like money should be fungible for criminal operations, but its a good example when some bitcoins != usual bitcoins. This is impossible with monero.

But those coins can go to mixer and come out a different ones.
full member
Activity: 297
Merit: 112
PRIVATE AND NOT PREMINED: MONERO, AEON, KARBO
September 22, 2015, 04:04:29 AM
I think the most convincing example of fungability necessity for me was when some bitcoin exchange did not accept bitcoins from someone, because allegedly those bitcoins was connected to some dark market activity.

It's not like money should be fungible for criminal operations, but its a good example when some bitcoins != usual bitcoins. This is impossible with monero.
sr. member
Activity: 392
Merit: 250
September 22, 2015, 02:45:12 AM
... I feel like a majority of the public (sadly) don't and wouldn't really care if their transactions are public...

They will certainly care when merchants stop accepting their non-fungible bitcoins because some algorithm determines they're tainted. Privacy is hardly the issue.

Money that isn't fungible will eventually cannibalize itself.

It hasnt stopped bitcoin to be #1 cryptocurrency. And most people even dont know what fungability means. I myself, for example, have never heard about such a term before getting interested in crypto. Good luck expalining this to people who just want to use crypto, rather than go and read bitcointalk forums, or r/monero or any other such website.

Not knowing what a right ventricle is doesn't stop your heart from needing one. And cash needs fungibility.


I think I agree that fungibility is important. But I dont see how would it lead to demise of bitcoin, and how it would benefit monero. I can understand privacy and anonymity issues with bitcoin, but consequences of the lack of fungability in bitcoin are still not clear for me.
legendary
Activity: 1260
Merit: 1008
September 22, 2015, 02:44:13 AM
... I feel like a majority of the public (sadly) don't and wouldn't really care if their transactions are public...

They will certainly care when merchants stop accepting their non-fungible bitcoins because some algorithm determines they're tainted. Privacy is hardly the issue.

Money that isn't fungible will eventually cannibalize itself.

It hasnt stopped bitcoin to be #1 cryptocurrency. And most people even dont know what fungability means. I myself, for example, have never heard about such a term before getting interested in crypto. Good luck expalining this to people who just want to use crypto, rather than go and read bitcointalk forums, or r/monero or any other such website.

Not knowing what a right ventricle is doesn't stop your heart from needing one. And cash needs fungibility.

METAPHOR SLAM!

ooooh, 45 cents. Getting into my buying range again.
Jump to: