Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1763. (Read 3313576 times)

I speculate that sooner we get tewinget funded, and the sooner he gets all that code documented, the sooner newcomers will be able to develop on and in Monero, and the sooner the price will skyrocket!!!

https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required/2373/documentation-and-cleanup-of-source-code

C'mon whales and other types with huge bags o' money! THIS is how Monero moons - we develop it!!

I tweeted about it. Hopefully the funding goal is reached soon

Dethrone Monero from what? No one cares or even heard about Monero apart from people on this forum, polo exchange and monero subreddit. And most people, like you wrote, seem to agree that nothing except bitcion is needed. This is really a shame. Especially if you consider that Monero aims at providing real privacy and anonymity, and none of the privacy oriented services (like vpn or secure email providers) supports it. You would think that such providers would be first in promoting private and anonymous ways of paying for their services and products, but not.

There must be a reason for it. Maybe monero is still too young and has small market cap, which hinders it adaptation. Maybe people are scared of non-gui wallets. Or maybe they just dont care as bitcoin is "good enough". Or maybe they just think monero is yet another scam-coin. I dont know. 

Looks like it doesn't. Easiest thing to do would be to create a new MyMonero account and use it as an intermediary.

Great initiative to clean up the code and improve the documentation, I like the long term / person independent vision.

Is it possible using Shapeshift.io to donate, using BTC to XMR? Shapeshift does not seem to support the below feature:

Great news guys! Another developer/contributer pitched a proposal for a part-time contract, see details below:

https://forum.getmonero.org/8/funding-required/2373/documentation-and-cleanup-of-source-code

PS: It's open for funding already!

Trading happens on a decentralized network, but takes place on centralized exchanges. So, as an ultra-fast trader as such you're just interested in the activity on the exchanges (which may not even be registered on any blockchain), not the network as a whole.

As for 'traditional' fund/stock trading, this also takes place on multiple exchanges, rather like cryptocurrencies.

I don't see trading with either as being more/less centralized than the other.

When all trading happens on a central computer on Wall Street, the way to get an advantage is to build extremely fast connections to this computer and pay for the highest tier of access. 
 
When all trading happens on a decentralized network where any given node might become the most important for a brief time, the only way to get an advantage is to build up faster and faster throughput across the entire network, which just happens to be global. 
 
Its possible that crypto-profits might also drive us to new heights of global bandwidth as well.

This is not the concern. The concern is the advantage that actors who live in areas with high bandwidth would have over those who live in areas with low bandwidth. Thus casing mining resources to be more heavily concentrated in high bandwidth areas than low. Even potentially to the point of all of the major miners moving to the same city and building their own dedicated infrastructure. The point is less block restrictions equals more centralization.

Don't confuse this with me saying that arbitrarily picking a number is a good solution either. Its just that this is a very thorny public goods problem. There is an advantage to decentralization but that benefit is a public good with no mechanism of internalizing that benefit yet discovered. Limiting the block size is a bad but to some degree effective way of atleast some what addressing this.

 
 
I really enjoy anonyMint's (tptb_need_war) commentary on economics but I have learned not to believe anything until I see it.  That includes zerocash, ultimate anonymous vaporware, quantum prime cracking, etc. 
 
Monero is the real deal and building up greater network effect every day.  If a better currency comes along, it still might not be enough to dethrone Monero.  For example, consider that we are obviously superior to bitcoin, and yet you don't see a mass exodus; instead you see bitcoin belieber's maintain that Monero isn't even necessary. 
 
I have never been very good at subterfuge, and though I'm not a Satoshi-level genius on my own, I believe I'm pretty good at recognizing the signs.  If something truly better comes along that is heads and shoulders better than Monero, **and** has the development behind it necessary to overcome what we are seeing... you'll know.  Keep watching my account and a few others.  It won't be a secret to those with perception. 
 
As well, it's entirely possible something superior *does* come along that will coexist/compliment the existing blockchains of Monero/Bitcoin very well.  Ideally, I'd like to see some revolutionary new proof be integrated into Dogecoin to allow it to suddenly instantly verify transactions and scale to infinity-transactions per second.  With a public blockchain and instant verification it would become the "coffee" currency; it still holds the record as the only crypto to ever (though briefly) become more popular than bitcoin itself. 

Fair enough, but let me ask this: If mining costs are equal to energy costs then that implies no money at all for R&D, manufacturing, operating and maintenance of mining facilities, etc.

Doesn't that in turn mean that the only kind of mining that can actually occur is CPU (possibly GPU) mining by people on computers they already own (using otherwise-idle CPU time)?

You can't consistently argue from the perspective of a market where marginal revenue equals marginal costs and at the same time argue that such a market requires large scale up front investment and fixed operating costs for centralized facilities. That is inconsistent.

Will review. Thanks.

Heh, the above seems in your typical vein of (paraphrasing): "well, we don't have enough data yet, so stop speculating" . I respect that to some extent, but I personally find it illuminating to think about the potential range of outcomes and pinpoint the ones I think are most likely based on what seems to be reasonable theory. Of course the real world is more complex. That doesn't make the exercise useless or any less illuminating so long as one allows for the *possibility* of other outcomes. I therefore stand by my arguments.

It's in Peter R's paper, last paragraph or two. I think the link is easy to find.

The intuitive explanation for it is pretty simple. If you are a miner and there is no subsidy, what are you really risking of your block gets orphaned? Just the transaction fees, but you are using orphan risk as the basis for supporting a fee market, and in a competitive market that will be break even. So you have nothing at stake in whether block gets orphaned or not. This also breaks the security model, since at that point you don't really care whether you extend the longest chain or pick another one.

You can't use orphan risk to support a fee market and use orphan risk to incentivize correct miner behavior. Bitcoin's eventual fee-only model (without some other sort of implied subsidy such as a block size limit) is defective.

There really is such a thing as diseconomies of scale too. These are real factors that exist and the outcome can't be correctly determined on the basis of considering one factor in this kind of simplistic analysis.

Again, you are using very simplistic models (e.g. mining cost comes down to energy cost) that is no less inaccurate in principle than simplistic models on the other end up of the spectrum like "I'll mine it on my CPU". Various outcomes are possible and it is more difficult to accurately predict the behavior of real systems in the real world than to employ simplistic one-factor models (especially when considering finite time instead of some arbitrary "long run")

Even Bitcoin's centralized current state is somewhat outside of expectations since it isn't entirely based on economy of scale or energy costs but in fact mining is largely controlled by the few successful developers of efficient ASICs. Of course it isn't the case that will necessary stay the same over time either, but predicting it's future outcome is no less difficult, or subject to getting it wrong.

How? Link?

The math that supports a fee market on that basis fails if there is no subsidy. That won't be the case for Bitcoin for a long time, but it will be the case eventually. And markets are forward looking...

I think the idea that development of a fee market *requires* a limit to blocksize is bogus. That suggests that miners are irrational and would price their service under their operational cost... Or, it assumes that there's zero cost penalty to a miner for creating a larger block. But there is indeed a real cost for creating larger and larger blocks (orphan risk), so a net-rational mining-fee market would price blockspace against that risk, thereby creating a fee-market in a much more free-market manner than people picking a magic number (or magic adaptive algorithm) and hard coding it in.

It only doesn't come down to energy cost if there's some *unique* entity (or small set thereof) that can harness heat cost-effectively while everyone else cannot, or if hashpower can be stolen at large scale (botnets). I'm skeptical of both, but agree that they're possible.

With any POW coin you can while it's small. But with enough demand for the coin (price increases) will come greatly increasing mining competition, and no POW alg is ultimately immune from economies of scale. They are all subject to the same centralizing forces in the end. Which, again, is ok as long as things stay *meaningfully* decentralized.