Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 195. (Read 3313076 times)

Did I miss something?

There are already other decentralized exchanges. How is Bisq different?

Currently no other project fits our definition of a decentralized bitcoin-to-fiat exchange. Open Bazaar stands alone in mirroring Bisq’s principles, but they’re a full market place, not a specialized currency exchange. Most exchanges claiming to be decentralized are either not supporting fiat exchange or operate with a server architecture and do not fit our definition. And of course there are a lot of ICO projects with whitepapers but they have not proven yet that they can deliver any working software.

To be properly decentralized, one must avoid single points of failure:

*Bisq does not hold any bitcoins. All are held in multisignature addresses rather than a Bisq-controlled wallet.
*Bisq does not hold any national currency. National currency is transferred directly from one trader to the other.
*Bisq uses a Peer-to-Peer network over Tor. This means there are no servers to be hacked or DDoS’d.
*Bisq does not know the traders. No data is stored on who trades with whom.
*Bisq does not require registration. This means privacy is maintained, there are no “approval” wait times, and identity theft becomes impossible.
*Bisq is not a company. It is an open source project organized as a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO).

From: https://bisq.network/faq/#How_is_Bisq_different

Only thing I know about bisq is it's run by these 2 blokes.
Never heard a bad thing about them.
It's not a 'decentralised exchange', and thank goodness for it, because that wouldn't make any sense.

Thanks for that (and to Febo), I will check it out, it's something I have never tried - I have stuck to more regular exchanges for years, about time I tried a decentralised one.  I love the idea of selling Monero in as close to an OTC as poss.  If it's for cash (and relatively safe) that could be an interesting plus...

It’s a similar concept to localbitcoins, but with “honest” peers acting as mediators (who make a small percentage of the trade), and have the options to use zelle, cash deposits, face to face, etc.

You should really check them out if you don’t know someone else to OTC trade with. Even when I used it 2 years ago or so it was really nice and my transactions went through flawlessly

Apparently they just made the biggest in history update yesterday: https://github.com/bisq-network/bisq/releases/tag/v0.9.0

I haven't ever used a decentralised exchange, but I will check Bisq out, I would like to support the concept at least.  But does it sort the fiat/crypto issue?

That's why I'm so happy to see a lot of people doing OTC trading/bisq usage from Monero people.  Seems like it's always the highest volume trading pair on bisq at least.  As long as someone is willing to sell and you are willing to buy, there will always be a market and decentralized exchanges will be in need. 

Even though I haven't used it in a while, bisq and other decentralized exchanges will have to be the answer if there is a ban on all KYC exchanges

Hmm... to force exchanges to avoid privacy coins is feasible, but it would look as it is - overly authoritarian. 

If they try, it cannot be a global ban very easily, either.  I hope they won't try. I do think people would fight an overt 'ban' in most countries.  In an age where real money-laundering by massive banks is 'normal' - it would seem total hypocrisy to try to ban a coin with a transaction level such as that of Monero's. 

And if it becomes much bigger, I doubt it will be possible to try to ban it - as they may simply fail and create a coin that ONLY works underground and in illegal ways. 

Anyone feel that Monero is likely to be 'made illegal'?

Thoughts here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/a2p8cq/the_clock_is_ticking/

Is this based on a subjective view, objective data, or both?

It's interesting that my simple question of whether the bitcoin codebase precludes dynamic blocksize due to technical reasons would spark this debate here. I guess it's still a real hot button topic. One which I never wanted to get involved in as I personally see Bitcoin as a stepping stone that has moved into a different space of a store of value and cannot evolve to fulfill its initial role. But I also see that as a good thing, we need a safe dependable chain that is completely safe from the fuckery of TPTB.

I never understood the hate for alternate chains for alternate roles, it seems obvious to me to use different tools for different tasks.



There were quite a few questions I would have preferred to answer "I have no fucking clue" but here is what I came up with my best guesses.


I think that means I am in disagreement with myself.


Only right if you decouple it from tail emission which it should not be but apparently if you try to have that discussion people stick their fingers in their ears and yell to not hear you. But seriously there are tradeoffs and currently there is no way bitcoin will ever be used for everyone to buy their morning coffe so it's already moot.

It seems to me this is a good thing as it distances Bitcoin even farther from Monero as the spaces they are in are growing wider by each decision being made and therefore make them complimentory. now all we need is a immutable decentralized crosschain solution and I'd be happy as a pig in shit.

Monero have tail emission. This cant work without one. So yes theymos is totally right.

The mining rewards debate seems like a waste of keystrokes given none of us (barring some incredible advancements--fingers crossed) will live to see it happen and there's an argument to be made that a superior quantum money will exist long before mining rewards becomes an issue. I just don't see us or BTC lasting long enough to find out.

What brings you to these parts, stranger?

This is interesting.  I may be more conservative than many of my fellow Monero fans.

Blocksize score -31.2498

Flexibility score -27.69228

Good to see you stepping in, V8 - your comments will be welcomed I am sure - even if you choose to offer some healthy scepticism.   The quality of debate is pretty good here.

Ref: Theymos - actually he surprised me with how open and measured he is.  He is far more nuanced and less dogmatic than I would have expected, it was an interesting read. How it relates to the Monero tail emission is not clear, as we just don't know yet.  However, Monero will reach this point before BTC does, as the end of the 'normal' block reward will be reached before BTC's.

That said, even if Monero is successful once it transitions into its tail emission (or a failure of a.n.other POW coin following the end of block reward proves the concept iffy) I can't see Bitcoin changing.  Mainly as all the bitcoins out there will have owners with a huge vested interest in no further coins being issued.  Both coins' paths have been set - albeit Monero is probably more able to make a change than Bitcoin since it is not quite seen as 'holy writ' in the way Bitcoin is.

I think - as Theymos said, the end of the block reward is unlikely to sink Bitcoin and a 'fix' will be found to make fees pay for the continuance of network security performed by miners somehow.  But even Theymos admitted there are huge issues with fees, mining and transactions that are not optimal and do not really work as envisaged.

Crypto is still new and must face all kinds of issues - some already known and some yet to be seen.  Monero's tail emission is a possible fix for the post-block reward issue.  It has yet to be proven and until it is, it's just a different theoretical approach to Bitcoin's.

Ta for the merit; cordially reciprocated.

• XMR.RU-report (NOVEMBER)

Well, one would pay a fee to get his transaction included in a block. Miners won't include non fee paying transactions, they won't consume their resources for nothing.

It seems you are assuming that competition will drive the price (of a transaction) below miners' costs. Which makes no economics sense. Price will stay above costs, even in a very competitive environment.

Don't they also risk a normal size block coming through quicker?

This is interesting

Q.  There should be a dynamic limit, based on the median size of the previous blocks

A.  Strongly disagree, that's just another way of letting miners decide.

Assuming for the sake of argument that Theymos's point is valid, what does this say about Monero?

fyi re the eventual fee market in btc, thought you fellows might be interested to read some of theymos' commentary and ideas in amongst here
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/6cbogv/the_blocksize_political_compass_to_find_out_where/