Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1779. (Read 3313576 times)

Lol...do we need to make a moneroisdead.com site to remind you of how retarded it is to make these baseless pronouncements? It's about as intelligent as http://bitcoinobituaries.com/

You probably sold your BTC at $30 back 2011, right before it 'died'.

For Monero I am not concerned at all, since the mid to long term fundamentals are very solid. For Bitcoin I am not that sure anymore. This whole blocksize debate can cause a lot of damage. In any case If I am wrong and Bitcoin goes to the moon, then all I need is for Monero to appreciate 5x in terms of Bitcoin to say 0.01 to 0.012 for my hedge to work. Given the past performance of most alt-coins during a Bitcoin boom this is actually conservative. In effect I have allocated a small portion of my Monero holdings as a hedge against a fall of the value of the Canadian Dollar in terms of Bitcoin.

My bots warmly welcome fud storms and volatile markets. I am in no way afraid of btc dropping to $87 as im fully confident that would be a temporary price point and parhaps a good place to once and for all shake some of these gorrilla-bears out of the market. Some see DOOM, i see opportunity. I feel for anyone staring at their balances dropping, but I personally am quite interested in playing in a volatile scare-fest.

Except that SMTP does evolve:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_SMTP#Extensions

The latest extension I see listed is from 2012:

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6531

Maybe "good enough" means making the protocol extensible, but that is more problematic for a consensus protocol where everyone has to agree, as opposed to SMTP where individual client-server pairs can agree on an extension.

That is why the window of opportunity to get it right has to be used, particularly for hard forks that could have any possibe economic ramifications. When Satoshi put in the 1 MB blocksize limit in 2010 in Bitcoin, Satoshi did not forsee that this would become such a fiasco 5 years later.

Edit 1: One thing to keep in mind here is that the protocol does not need to be perfect. It only needs to be "good enough". SMTP is a perfect example.

Edit 2: The 1 MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin was easily forseen that it would become an issue later.

Well, as time goes on, changing the protocol becomes politically harder and harder. So yes, you want to do things as early as possible. XMR could've benefited from a different emission schedule, but we couldn't do it after 7 months because it would've been wrong to change something so fundamental.

It's important to get the big things put in place properly at the beginning:

1) fungibility/privacy
2) scalability
3) good distribution schedule and parameters (emission, hard cap, blocksize, tail emission, etc.)

Bitcoin became the leader of crypto but it probably failed in all three areas. Now we're paying the price.
But no one can foresee all the problems that will come. For that, you need governance.

That's a nice abstract theory but it hasn't ever been demonstrated to be viable. Maybe someday it will be.

This debate about governance is missing the whole point of a decentralized virtual currecny; namely that we should not need to keep hard forking the coin in order to keep the coin viable. Ideally the protocol should be set at launch and cast in stone. In practice there is a window of opportunity when the coin is still young and the community small to get the consensus necessary for hard forks; however just because a hard fork is possible now it does not mean that the same hard fork will be possible say a year down the road.

The key lesson here for Monero is to ensure that all hard forks that are necessary for the long term viability of Monero are in the protocol as soon as possibe, because it will not be possibe to make those same hard forks later on.

 
  
Then for this upcoming "knowledge age" we are going to need some system to officially distinguish the influence and weight each of us "nodes" carries.  
  
What would make a better system of governance for a group of 30 kindergartners.... consensus or one solid adult?  
  
Education and influence will have to become the prizes to be won in the future games we will play as a species, and those content to spend their lives pushing skinner-box type buttons to activate the pleasure centers of their brains will be free to do that... but they shouldn't expect much of a say in the direction of human civilization.  
  
Humans willing to forego pleasure to toil at improving themselves should (must) gain commensurate influence in the collective consciousness.  In a species of selfish humans you would never successfully argue for equal outcome of money... that has proven both academically and practically to be ruinous. Why would you believe equal outcome of vote would be any less ruinous?

Again, you're referencing direct democracy as a concept established in context of the past.

All we're really talking about here is the science of ideas. If an idea is proven to be objectively stupid within the spotlight of the public arena, then its life as a workable idea will be short. If however it is a demonstrably good idea, then it will gain gravity.

Of course, it's true that you might have a population that is mostly comprised of imbeciles, which could be problematic, but that doesn't make the system imperfect.

The emphasis would be to suitably educate the population - an emphasis which has hitherto never been a priority, and has even been dangerous, as much of the power of the old world relies on the maintenance of an ignorant population. Hence the somewhat retarded opinions of your average Walmart shopper.

It really comes down to two choices: The creation of a global hive-mind cellular super-brain based on freedom and technology... or intellectual apartheid.

I'd sooner take my chances with the thickies.

Rangedriver I disagree.  I think direct democracy is a poor choice of government.  As I have said before, step outside of your academic circles and go ask the average Wal-Mart shopper what their opinion on politics is.  This is your majority, not the Nick Szabos of the world.
  
The reason the founding fathers of America decided on a representative democracy isn't just due to technical limitations.  The average cog-in-the-machine has no idea what is best for the majority, and doesn't have the inclination necessary to educate him or herself enough to form a valid opinion.  They are easily swayed by social manipulation and hype.  (take a look at the front page of Reddit and how corporations routinely astroturf content there)  
  
The representatives were supposed to act as educated voters who helped alleviate the need for the common man to be abreast of every issue.  They also were supposed to help ensure that if a painful decision needed to be made, it would be made even if it wasn't popular.  
  
What was not foreseen was the powerful effect of lobbying and the network of favors and insiders who would eventually rule our representative democracy and enslave it to a small group of corporations and banks.  
  
I think part of the problem is due to the size of the United States.  What was thousands at one point has become hundreds of millions.  We still have just a single level of abstraction though between voters and important issues.  
  
I would like everyone to consider adding in another layer of abstraction instead of going to a pure democracy.  
  
What if not every American had the right to directly vote?  What if to be a voter you had to be elected into such a position by your peers?  Every American would no longer vote on the president or members of the Senate.  Instead they would vote on qualified super-voters who would cast the votes for the presidency, Senate, and the House.  
  
I think it's a little naive to assume that a form of government that works for 500,000 people will also work for half a billion people.  As a system of the same 'nodes' grows larger, the rules it uses to govern itself must necessarily also grow more complex or the whole thing will clunk to a halt.  
  
The takeaway for Monero is that we should not assume that what works for a currency used by 5,000 will work once the user base reaches 500,000 and eventually 5 billion.  Things must change and the system that 'governs' Monero consensus must also grow more complex.

 
 
Yeah, we have.  I just lost that link and knew reposting the argument would be the fastest way to find it again.   

You're thinking of direct democracy in context of the limitations of the past, which may or may not have worked (although Switzerland seems to have done okay.) There is no yardstick for the kind of true democracy that is possible within the technological framework of internet and blockchain. In essence, governance is the science and implementation of ideas. The more cells that are in play (within the overall hive-mind) to conceive and process the ideas, then the greater the industry and the more prosperous the outcome.

Direct democracy works even worse than representative democracy, believe me.

democracy. A system of government in which power is vested in the people, who rule either directly or through freely elected representatives.

The problem with democracy hitherto is the elected representatives, not the underlying concept of people power. Until very recently we've been prisoners of a system dependent on representatives, simply because it has been practically impossible to build a physical governmental space large enough to house the entire population (!).

The internet changes all that. For the first time in history there exists a method by which every member of society can function/govern directly as their own unique representative within the infinite halls of a digital government. You could call it Democracy 2.0.

It's not a bad thing - it's about as perfect as it gets. All we have to do is figure out a way of implementing it.

And then the gut sends signals to the brain to completely override the desires of those cells (whatever those are, actually, its to consume energy, CNS cells (lumping them all in here, neurons, glia, etc) are the most energy consuming cells of the body) and give the human depression.

http://neurosciencestuff.tumblr.com/post/38271759345/gut-instincts-the-secrets-of-your-second-brain

I thought we've been through the flaws in this metaphor before.

its pretty at first glance, but once it is picked apart actually starts representing more of the reality. Nothing is decentralized, and nothing is centralized.

( itseverywhereandallatthesametime.gif )

If you tried to get consensus from the majority of the cells in your body about what they wanted, they would probably ask for you to consume as many calories as possible while expending as little energy as possible. 
 
Then all the cells would subsequently die from diabetes and stroke.  By the time most of them realized there was a problem, it would be too late to fix.   
 
Instead,  the central processing part (the brain) overrides the desires of those cells and in fact inflicts damage to them through exercise, and intentionally underfeeds them slightly so they remain efficient at processing energy.  It also risks stability and immediate rewards in exchange for a chance at greater possible success down the road. 
 
Decentralized consensus doesn't always work because the masses don't always know what's best for them.

Democracy is overrated. Miners will vote for more block rewards whether it benefits the network as a whole or not. Users will vote for smaller transaction fees regardless of whether or not it's good for the network. Democracy leads to people voting for self-interested outcomes. IMO, the best approach to governance of a coin is for most or all of the power to reside in the hands of competent developers. It is up to those developers to preserve their own legitimacy by making good decisions. If they lose legitimacy, then the project will be taken over by those with legitimacy and the incompetent devs will be ousted. This is in fact the history of BitMonero.

Crypto as a whole is crippled not just by lack of fungibility and scalability, but also by 3600 coins new coins being created per day. If bitcoin's supply schedule were better, I think we could be at $10,000 per bitcoin by now. But there's no way the market can sustain a bitcoin mining industry worth $36 million every single day, so we cannot go to $10,000 now. The emission acts to crush every rally within weeks. This is good for wide distribution, but bad for bull markets. I guess Satoshi believed that bitcoin would still be relatively unknown at this time. It may be 2021 or 2024 before a truly high bitcoin price can be sustained. That gives us all time to accumulate and gives the bitcoin devs time to figure out the scalability issue.

The real crux of the Bitcoin/BitcoinXT debacle is not technical in nature but socio-political. If something like Bitcoin is to succeed as a replacement for fiat currencies, then it will need a robust socio-political component for all areas of its administration which aren't governed by the technology itself.

In a nutshell, you'll need a formula for its governance that can swiftly deal with any number of the human flaws that typically might position themselves into the mix, such as those that we are (arguably) seeing right now.

Hopefully, this spat will function as a useful precursor to some kind of democratic constitution, that will be polished by the time Bitcoin hits the mainstream.

Until then, Monero might do well introspecting its own administrative framework, and perhaps even lead the way in presenting a new socio-political paradigm that mirrors some of the virtues that we've come to associate with enlightened thinking. Namely, democracy, freedom, fairness, justice etc.

Elections for the President of Monero anyone?