I am always a little terrified when I hear that in order to succeed, Monero needs also btc to be succeeded.
By investing into XMR the investor is taking a risk on both Monero's success and Bitcoin's success.
Is it really so that Monero cannot stand on her own feet and merit but need the bitcoin for its success?
Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1881. (Read 3314343 times)
Interesting. Bytecoin, Boolberry and Monero all saw a little flurry of buying at around the same time today... Any other cryptonotes see action?
...
Strident attempts to fix the non-existent blocksize problem is highly likely to result in the current Gavinista coup going hot in the form of a Grand Schism style, all-out dueling blockchain civil war between the 1mb network and 20mb pretender to the throne.
Strident attempts to fix the non-existent blocksize problem is highly likely to result in the current Gavinista coup going hot in the form of a Grand Schism style, all-out dueling blockchain civil war between the 1mb network and 20mb pretender to the throne.
The plan is to have miners use the block version num to signal willingness to accept >1mb blocks, thereby guaranteeing a super-majority of agreement before any substantial number of >1mb blocks are generated. This is highly unlikely to create any condition where there's a "Grand Schism". I understand you enjoy being hyperbolic and all, but still...
...
We may at some point impose a maximum age for outputs to be mixable (at which point they can be removed from the UXTO when spent, just like Bitcoin; to avoid losing untracability you would have to respend the outputs back to yourself prior to the deadline, or allow a wallet to do so automatically).
...
We may at some point impose a maximum age for outputs to be mixable (at which point they can be removed from the UXTO when spent, just like Bitcoin; to avoid losing untracability you would have to respend the outputs back to yourself prior to the deadline, or allow a wallet to do so automatically).
...
Whoa... Seems to me that would very much break some fundamental use-cases for Monero. People probably want to store some wealth privately, for a potentially long time, without any ongoing effort; eg, print a paper key, toss it in a few safe locations, and forget about it. That's been the case for a lot of people who embraced bitcoin as a store-of-value, and I'd guess it is/will-be similar with Monero. Requiring respends obviously breaks that capability.
...
There wont be a Bitcoin in 2016
...
There wont be a Bitcoin in 2016
...
It's getting weird over in the Bitcoin camp, but I'm not sure that I agree that there won't be a Bitcoin in 2016.
Then again, I'm not sure how this plays out. IMO, Bitcoin won't last. It's the "Ur" of crypto/digital currencies. It laid the groundwork, but we're beginning to see the cracks in the foundation.
Monero is a great example of a next generation cryptocurrency, and is a worthy successor. But Monero too will probably be succeeded by something else.
I agree with you, I meant there won't be 'a' Bitcoin but two networks cannibalizing each other, so it both can be interpreted as the end of Bitcoin as we know it and the emergence of classic Bitcoin and Gavincoin.
IMO, These are the two main, most important features for a decentralized cryptocurrency and they both go hand in hand(No centralized anonymity for ex):
Decentralization
Privacy
If Monero can continue to stay ahead of Bitcoin and others in those two fields, it'll be golden.
Decentralization
Privacy
If Monero can continue to stay ahead of Bitcoin and others in those two fields, it'll be golden.
...
There wont be a Bitcoin in 2016
...
There wont be a Bitcoin in 2016
...
It's getting weird over in the Bitcoin camp, but I'm not sure that I agree that there won't be a Bitcoin in 2016.
Then again, I'm not sure how this plays out. IMO, Bitcoin won't last. It's the "Ur" of crypto/digital currencies. It laid the groundwork, but we're beginning to see the cracks in the foundation.
Monero is a great example of a next generation cryptocurrency, and is a worthy successor. But Monero too will probably be succeeded by something else.
What is your opinion on 2016, will we breack a new ath?
If BTC rallies up as well that could certainly be possible. With rallying up I mean a scenario where it would go to for instance 500-600$, it doesn't necessarily have to be a bubble. Such a rally will already vastly boost the confidence of cryptocurrencies in general and that is exactly what we need in order to achieve a new $ or BTC all time high.
EDIT: I have to add that you should also keep an eye on the dollar, if the dollar is still high it would be a lot more difficult to achieve a new all time high. Currently most of the asset classes are down against the dollar.
There wont be a Bitcoin in 2016
Quote
The system can't actually work like that as is! The result of the system split is that everyones coins can be constantly double spent, that you'd think you had coins but would find they wouldn't actually work or couldn't pay people with them. A persistent bidirectional network split is a total system failure. If they're further edited to separate them completely then you just have created an altcoin, which undermines the systems network effect (as the value is more related to the square of the number of users, so splitting the users up takes away a lot of value) as well as making the system inflationary (by doubling the coin supply with a split).
I do agree that there should be competing/cooperating payment networks where there is a lot of benefit for diversity, but not splitting bitcoin into competing currencies where the network effect is harmed. But to achieve that takes more technology.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/37xxmj/gavin_is_being_too_divisive_core_devs_need_to/crqrtn6 I do agree that there should be competing/cooperating payment networks where there is a lot of benefit for diversity, but not splitting bitcoin into competing currencies where the network effect is harmed. But to achieve that takes more technology.
What is your opinion on 2016, will we breack a new ath?
If BTC rallies up as well that could certainly be possible. With rallying up I mean a scenario where it would go to for instance 500-600$, it doesn't necessarily have to be a bubble. Such a rally will already vastly boost the confidence of cryptocurrencies in general and that is exactly what we need in order to achieve a new $ or BTC all time high.
EDIT: I have to add that you should also keep an eye on the dollar, if the dollar is still high it would be a lot more difficult to achieve a new all time high. Currently most of the asset classes are down against the dollar.
What is your opinion on 2016, will we breack a new ath?
i know it is hard to guess but when do you guys expect a significant rise in prices?
do you think it will still be happen this year?
do you think it will still be happen this year?
1 month.
You guys need to define what you're talking about. Rise in BTC or USD. BTC is in a downtrend. XMR must keep rising just to stay flat in USD. But that's not rising in real world purchasing power.
Breaking the ATH of 6$ isn't feasible in this current BTC downtrend in my opinion and increasing in USD terms while BTC decreases further will also be pretty hard. However, appreciating against BTC is certainly feasible, although I don't think we will surpass the old ATH (0.01) this summer. That could still take a while.
i know it is hard to guess but when do you guys expect a significant rise in prices?
do you think it will still be happen this year?
do you think it will still be happen this year?
1 month.
You guys need to define what you're talking about. Rise in BTC or USD. BTC is in a downtrend. XMR must keep rising just to stay flat in USD. But that's not rising in real world purchasing power.
i know it is hard to guess but when do you guys expect a significant rise in prices?
do you think it will still be happen this year?
do you think it will still be happen this year?
1 month.
It was the 1MB blocksize issue that brought me to Monero in the first place.
What's the UXTO growth situation for Monero?
I assume since it's a different codebase, the stack won't overflow like Bitcoin's.
Monero uses adaptive blocksize limits so this is simply not an issue. The maximum blocksize is calculated dynamically and can scale with demand. This is all explained in section 6.2 of the Cryptonote paper. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf There is a penalty to the miner for mining an oversize block which is why if one why if one calculates what the total emission of XMR to today according to the formula and compares it with the actual number of XMR emitted today the actual number is slightly less. This difference is due to the cumulative effect of these block penalties.
Many people think of Monero as a privacy / fungibility currency; however in reality the fact that Monero does not have the fixed blocksize problem is a critical benefit of Monero that is poorly understood by many both inside and outside of the Monero community. This is now becoming more apparent given the debate over the 1MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin.
I know Monero's max_blocksize scales dynamically. That's all fine and dandy (GMAX was just saying nice things about our "quadratic" adjustment/constraint algorithm).
I'm asking how Monero/Cryptonote avoided or solved Bitcoin's immediate issue with larger blocks, which is >linear UXTO growth borking the mempool.
AFAIK ring signatures make UXTO growth an even worse problem for XMR, so I'm asking for someone to at least quantify and hopefully correct/update (preferably with Good News) my sketchy understanding of the situation.
mempool /= UXTO.
Bitcoin Core (meaning the implementation as opposed to the Bitcoin protocol, which has a UXTO set but doesn't require processing it in any particular way) does some special thing with the UXTO which I haven't studied specifically so I can't really comment. Cryptonote doesn't have a UXTO since any output can be spent any number of times. As such all outputs are equal, and there is no special UXTO collection to become overgrown.
In the original cryptonote implementation they were all stored in memory which is obviously absurd. Monero stores them in a database which means they will need to be accessed from a disk, but any efficient database should be able to do these simple lookups efficiently other than the physical access time. Once Monero becomes heavily used that will likely require an SSD, but it seems with 10 TB SSDs possibly arriving within the next year or so the days of anything non-SSD for general purpose computing are likely numbered. Magnetic disks are the new magtape.
We may at some point impose a maximum age for outputs to be mixable (at which point they can be removed from the UXTO when spent, just like Bitcoin; to avoid losing untracability you would have to respend the outputs back to yourself prior to the deadline, or allow a wallet to do so automatically). That was considered for MRL-0004 but didn't quite make the cut because of some unresolved complications. That would allow nodes to operate with more limited storage, the way Bitcoin currently does. That's somewhat dangerous though (with both protocols) since there is nothing to ensure that a sufficient number of full archive nodes exist or don't become overloaded. At some point it may then become impossible or nearly impossible for new participants to do a full sync. So more work is needed there too (again with both protocols).
You've spoken a lot about how critical this adaptive blocksize is to XMR's value proposition. If bitcoin adopts an adaptive blocksize, XMR effectively loses this major advantage. Will you rebalance some of your holdings back into bitcoin if bitcoin finally fixes its blocksize problem?
Bitcoin doesn't have a blocksize problem, despite the popular opinion that a less-than-partially-idle network is "choking" and a good reason to panic. Fee-based priority works very well even under load, as we just saw during the stress test.
Strident attempts to fix the non-existent blocksize problem is highly likely to result in the current Gavinista coup going hot in the form of a Grand Schism style, all-out dueling blockchain civil war between the 1mb network and 20mb pretender to the throne.
It was the 1MB blocksize issue that brought me to Monero in the first place.
What's the UXTO growth situation for Monero?
I assume since it's a different codebase, the stack won't overflow like Bitcoin's.
Monero uses adaptive blocksize limits so this is simply not an issue. The maximum blocksize is calculated dynamically and can scale with demand. This is all explained in section 6.2 of the Cryptonote paper. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf There is a penalty to the miner for mining an oversize block which is why if one why if one calculates what the total emission of XMR to today according to the formula and compares it with the actual number of XMR emitted today the actual number is slightly less. This difference is due to the cumulative effect of these block penalties.
Many people think of Monero as a privacy / fungibility currency; however in reality the fact that Monero does not have the fixed blocksize problem is a critical benefit of Monero that is poorly understood by many both inside and outside of the Monero community. This is now becoming more apparent given the debate over the 1MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin.
I know Monero's max_blocksize scales dynamically. That's all fine and dandy (GMAX was just saying nice things about our "quadratic" adjustment/constraint algorithm).
I'm asking how Monero/Cryptonote avoided or solved Bitcoin's immediate issue with larger blocks, which is >linear UXTO growth borking the mempool.
AFAIK ring signatures make UXTO growth an even worse problem for XMR, so I'm asking for someone to at least quantify and hopefully correct/update (preferably with Good News) my sketchy understanding of the situation.
It was the 1MB blocksize issue that brought me to Monero in the first place.
What's the UXTO growth situation for Monero?
I assume since it's a different codebase, the stack won't overflow like Bitcoin's.
Monero uses adaptive blocksize limits so this is simply not an issue. The maximum blocksize is calculated dynamically and can scale with demand. This is all explained in section 6.2 of the Cryptonote paper. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf There is a penalty to the miner for mining an oversize block which is why if one calculates what the total emission of XMR to today according to the formula and compares it with the actual number of XMR emitted today the actual number is slightly less. This difference is due to the cumulative effect of these block penalties.
Many people think of Monero as a privacy / fungibility currency; however in reality the fact that Monero does not have the fixed blocksize problem is a critical benefit of Monero that is poorly understood by many both inside and outside of the Monero community. This is now becoming more apparent given the debate over the 1MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin.
You've spoken a lot about how critical this adaptive blocksize is to XMR's value proposition. If bitcoin adopts an adaptive blocksize, XMR effectively loses this major advantage. Will you rebalance some of your holdings back into bitcoin if bitcoin finally fixes its blocksize problem?
It was the 1MB blocksize issue that brought me to Monero in the first place.
What's the UXTO growth situation for Monero?
I assume since it's a different codebase, the stack won't overflow like Bitcoin's.
Monero uses adaptive blocksize limits so this is simply not an issue. The maximum blocksize is calculated dynamically and can scale with demand. This is all explained in section 6.2 of the Cryptonote paper. https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf There is a penalty to the miner for mining an oversize block which is why if one calculates what the total emission of XMR to today according to the formula and compares it with the actual number of XMR emitted today the actual number is slightly less. This difference is due to the cumulative effect of these block penalties.
Many people think of Monero as a privacy / fungibility currency; however in reality the fact that Monero does not have the fixed blocksize problem is a critical benefit of Monero that is poorly understood by many both inside and outside of the Monero community. This is now becoming more apparent given the debate over the 1MB blocksize limit in Bitcoin.
Even Nazis.
By Nazis, do you mean NSDAP? Or the ashkenazi who have projected their own actions to what Nazi stands for to most of people these days? Also is everyone who calls themselves Jew actually a Jew? Khazars in Israel are sterilizing the Ethiopian Jews (who have a longer history of being a part of the Jewry than the Khazars themselves!). Forced sterilization was taught to me to be a Nazi practice, so perhaps Israel=Nazi actually..
No offence if any of the readers supports Israeli policies but you gotta be clueless to condemn the NSDAP for the same actions!
THIS IS A LIE!!!! You must be "clueless" to say these things, of which you obviously know nothing about!!!!
I entered your "link".
Firstly - this news paper spreads lies all the time. The reports in hebrew and english are not the same and you cannot know which ones are true.
SECOND - this is the quote from your post - "Health Ministry director general instructs all gynecologists in Israel's four health maintenance organizations not to inject women with long-acting contraceptive Depo-Provera if they do not understand ramifications of treatment."
From what I understand from the report - they have been giving them, and now have stopped to women who don't understand the risks, meaning they are free to REFUSE!
Furthermore, the quote is the ONLY thing available to read, since I am not a subscriber. Maybe you can enlighten us and share the rest.
This sure is of topic. But you can go brainwash someone else, somewhere else.
A person reading your comment might actually believe your half truths.
LAst point - you have revealed your ignorance by comparing NATZIS to Ashkenazi people. Natzis killed Ashkenazis. They only sound the same - but you have revealed your ignorance already. Look it up!: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashkenaz
Sorry for going of topic. but that is pure racism and I do not think should be accepted here. leave politics out of the crypto world mate.
Good day.
I said good day!
The graph doesn't mean anything, somebody just drew some lines for fun: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.11492494
Jump to: