[XMR] Monero Speculation - page 196.

cAPSLOCK

legendary

Activity: 3766

Merit: 5146

Note the unconventional cAPITALIZATION!

Quote from: Last of the V8s on December 02, 2018, 09:46:15 PM

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/

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

kurious

legendary

Activity: 2604

Merit: 1748

Quote from: Last of the V8s on December 02, 2018, 09:46:15 PM

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/

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.

TheFuzzStone

legendary

Activity: 1512

Merit: 1442

thefuzzstone.github.io

XMR.RU-report (NOVEMBER)

BldSwtTrs

legendary

Activity: 861

Merit: 1010

Quote from: ArticMine on December 02, 2018, 07:32:29 PM

Quote from: BldSwtTrs on December 02, 2018, 03:53:06 PM

...
Mmh... let's think in a world where there is no longer any block reward.

Why would the total fees go to zero?

Miners would add as much transactions as they can, adding highest fee transactions first. So I don't see how you end up with "there is no more incentive for the POW".

Why would anyone pay a fee with an unlimited blocksize? Where is the economic scarcity?

Edit: What one gets is either a race to the bottom if there is real competition among miners or a cartel that may support fees for a while.

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.

Globb0

legendary

Activity: 2702

Merit: 2053

Free spirit

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

birr

hero member

Activity: 870

Merit: 585

Quote from: Last of the V8s on December 02, 2018, 09:46:15 PM

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/

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?

Last of the V8s

legendary

Activity: 1652

Merit: 4393

Be a bank

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/

Hueristic

legendary

Activity: 3836

Merit: 4969

Doomed to see the future and unable to prevent it

Quote from: ArticMine on December 02, 2018, 02:12:05 PM

... Furthermore the total fees per block are independent of the block weight. The net result of this is that if the block reward goes to zero the total fees paid per block also goes to zero. One conclusion is that in a Bitcoin like coin with a falling block reward in order for the Satoshi fee market to even have a chance of working the penalty in terms of the block reward for increasing the block size (weight) must be stiffer than that in Monero. One can then see the rationale for Bitcoin core's strict block weight limit. ...

Can you elaborate on this or link me to a discussion that does? I know your quite familiar with the bitcoin codebase and appreciate the time you spend explaining this.
I have no time nor skillset left to do so anymore.

Quote from: ArticMine on December 02, 2018, 02:47:31 PM

By the way I prefer to see Bytecoin as the canary in the coal mine for falling block rewards as opposed to the scam in the pre or ninja mine.

Nice observation but the two are not mutually exclusive. Tongue

Quote from: ArticMine on December 02, 2018, 02:47:31 PM

As I mentioned above. If there is competition between miners then as the block reward goes to zero so do the total fees per block since the "penalty" in terms of block reward is less than that in Monero. At this point there is no incentive for the POW and the coin becomes insecure. The alternative is a mining cartel or monopoly that sets minimum fees. Quite apart from the centralization involved I have serious doubts such a cartel will be sustainable in the long term since individual members will cheat.

I would think the onus would become the responsibility of the holders to secure their own reserves. I am not sure of what arguments there are i this regard.

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: BldSwtTrs on December 02, 2018, 03:53:06 PM

...
Mmh... let's think in a world where there is no longer any block reward.

Why would the total fees go to zero?

Miners would add as much transactions as they can, adding highest fee transactions first. So I don't see how you end up with "there is no more incentive for the POW".

Why would anyone pay a fee with an unlimited blocksize? Where is the economic scarcity?

Edit: What one gets is either a race to the bottom if there is real competition among miners or a cartel that may support fees for a while.

Febo

legendary

Activity: 2744

Merit: 1288

Quote from: Johnny Mnemonic on December 02, 2018, 04:59:19 PM

Quote from: GingerAle on December 01, 2018, 10:31:03 PM

Long ago it was decided that Monero would take an alternative route, wherein having those wheels available to prevent the bicycle from falling over is good, and the tradeoff of having an infinite supply of monero is acceptable.

If by "acceptable" you mean "bloody awesome" then I agree with you! If only we had an exponentially increasing supply, say one percent or so, then we'd really be cookin'!

Do even mature economies not grow by at least one percent per year?

USA had 8 such years in past 56.

Johnny Mnemonic

hero member

Activity: 795

Merit: 514

Quote from: GingerAle on December 01, 2018, 10:31:03 PM

Long ago it was decided that Monero would take an alternative route, wherein having those wheels available to prevent the bicycle from falling over is good, and the tradeoff of having an infinite supply of monero is acceptable.

If by "acceptable" you mean "bloody awesome" then I agree with you! If only we had an exponentially increasing supply, say one percent or so, then we'd really be cookin'!

Do even mature economies not grow by at least one percent per year?

BldSwtTrs

legendary

Activity: 861

Merit: 1010

Quote from: ArticMine on December 02, 2018, 02:47:31 PM

Quote from: BldSwtTrs on December 02, 2018, 02:28:23 PM

...
Hi ArticMine, Bitcoin SV just want to increase the number of transactions and transaction fees without a blocksize limit. What do you think is wrong with this approach?

As I mentioned above. If there is competition between miners then as the block reward goes to zero so do the total fees per block since the "penalty" in terms of block reward is less than that in Monero. At this point there is no incentive for the POW and the coin becomes insecure. The alternative is a mining cartel or monopoly that sets minimum fees. Quite apart from the centralization involved I have serious doubts such a cartel will be sustainable in the long term since individual members will cheat.

A good current example is Bytecoin which is for the time being is secured by the Bitmain ASICs. The question in my mind is how long will this last as the block reward continues to fall. The current block reward in Bytecoin per block is ~1200 BCN if one applies the 10^4 factor that would be equivalent to ~0.12 XMR or about 20% of the tail emission in Monero. By the way I prefer to see Bytecoin as the canary in the coal mine for falling block rewards as opposed to the scam in the pre or ninja mine.

Mmh... let's think in a world where there is no longer any block reward.

Why would the total fees go to zero?

Miners would add as much transactions as they can, adding highest fee transactions first. So I don't see how you end up with "there is no more incentive for the POW".

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: BldSwtTrs on December 02, 2018, 02:28:23 PM

...
Hi ArticMine, Bitcoin SV just want to increase the number of transactions and transaction fees without a blocksize limit. What do you think is wrong with this approach?

As I mentioned above. If there is competition between miners then as the block reward goes to zero so do the total fees per block since the "penalty" in terms of block reward is less than that in Monero. At this point there is no incentive for the POW and the coin becomes insecure. The alternative is a mining cartel or monopoly that sets minimum fees. Quite apart from the centralization involved I have serious doubts such a cartel will be sustainable in the long term since individual members will cheat.

A good current example is Bytecoin which is for the time being is secured by the Bitmain ASICs. The question in my mind is how long will this last as the block reward continues to fall. The current block reward in Bytecoin per block is ~1200 BCN if one applies the 10^4 factor that would be equivalent to ~0.12 XMR or about 20% of the tail emission in Monero. By the way I prefer to see Bytecoin as the canary in the coal mine for falling block rewards as opposed to the scam in the pre or ninja mine.

BldSwtTrs

legendary

Activity: 861

Merit: 1010

Quote from: ArticMine on December 01, 2018, 05:41:36 PM

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on November 28, 2018, 04:45:50 PM

Quote from: KeyJockey on November 28, 2018, 02:16:58 PM

Quote from: cAPSLOCK on November 28, 2018, 11:16:05 AM

I believe the power of Bitcoin and Monero (I see virtually NO other useful blockchain projects) will be stronger than the power of traditional finance. And as the "big boys" pick it up to "fix" it, control, it etc they will be changed more than it is.

God I hope that is true, I believe it too BUT remains to be seen.

Been in a discussion lately with a good friend (only real world person I know who's also into crypto) and his confidence has been badly shaken by the speed and depth of this CryptoWinter period we're in now.

I still believe, however.

Question remains, you said "bitcoin and monero" and XMR of course but... WHICH "bitcoin"??

I think there are a few other possible worthy contenders too... DigiByte appears possibly the last genuine opportunity to buy ANY "real crypto" under a penny.

Oh, maybe even Doge too, LOL.

But not much else, really.

Either it'll all fail or one of these, XMR BTC BCH DGB DOGE (any others?) -OR- something that does NOT EXIST yet... will prevail.

P.S. {Edit} Forgot left out Litecoin in there... only on the *theory* that MAYBE if BTC really becomes "gold for bankers" and $50 transaction fees to move $1 Million per coin, then little-brother LTC tags along becoming as the transaction-purpose coin. This is the THEORY I believe Litecoiners cling to, but... anyone really believe it will actually play out this way??? I have no clue so don't attack me on it, just sayin'... LOL

When it comes to cryptowinter. Yeah it's hard. And this one has been soul crushing to me at times. And I do not think it is quite over. I am a terrible trader, so I do not trade. That is not why I am interested in BTC and XMR. But look at my join date (not a brag... if only I was smart enough then to buy the 5000 BTC I considered buying on my porch when it was ~$2.). I have seen several of these winters.

As to the "Which is the real BTC?". I have an EXTREMELY strong option on this. There is ONE Bitcoin. And it is BTC. We could go into the depth of reasons why, but it's not for this thread. Craig Wright is a conman. Ver is a troubled narcissistic idealist. And for different reasons they have tried to wrestle the title of Bitcoin away from BTC and have created two centralized shitcoins and done great damage to the reputation of crypto. Could I be wrong? Sure... and I will pay dearly for it if I am. My bet is where my belief is.

Here's the thing. Decentralized, permissionless, censorship resistant money is either going to be successful or not. If it is not then we have seen the peak. It will never have another all time high. BCHABC, BCHSV, XRP, ETH, ALL the ICOs, and virtually ALL the ALTS are *NOT* decentralized, permissionless, censorship resistant money.

But if it is successful then then I think next upswing (whether its in a month or 5 years) will be so shocking that the average public will not believe it. The mechanics of the system and the unprecedented nature of this invention will cause a most breathtaking effect when they kick in.

And Monero is the only complimentary blockchain that *is* Decentralized, permissionless, censorship resistant money but offers something Bitcoin CANNOT. That is an opaque blockchain. Bitcoin will never do that. Layer two can be as MimbleWimbled as they like... but layer one will ALWAYS be transparent.

Monero also stands a chance of failure. Moreso than bitcoin by an order of magnitude in my opinion. But it also stands a chance to be a continued success in a way no other altcoin can even touch.

https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/sm556

Monero offers something else that Bitcoin does not; namely an adaptive block weight and tail minimum emission that allows for scaling on the main chain. This lack of on chain scaling lies at the heart of the BCH split from XBT and the further split of BSV from BCH. When something as simple as increasing the transactions per second that a blockchain requires a a highly controversial and political hard fork it is hardly surprising to see the splits, wars and personality clashes we have in Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin Satoshi Vision.

On another note Bitcoin has already failed since it cannot meet the design purpose in the Satoshi paper namely a peer to peer cash like digital currency. This is primarily due to the fixed block size.

Edit: Litecoin has the same problem as Bitcoin with scaling; namely the fixed block size and falling lock reward.

Hi ArticMine, Bitcoin SV just want to increase the number of transactions and transaction fees without a blocksize limit. What do you think is wrong with this approach?

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: GingerAle on December 02, 2018, 12:54:52 PM

Quote from: phishead on December 02, 2018, 09:34:30 AM

Quote from: GingerAle on December 01, 2018, 10:31:03 PM

Basically, the blockreward can be seen like a set of training wheels that keeps bitcoin up and running.

Long ago it was decided that Monero would take an alternative route, wherein having those wheels available to prevent the bicycle from falling over is good, and the tradeoff of having an infinite supply of monero is acceptable.

Tiny wheels, tiny infinity.

That’s interesting... Never thought of it like that before. So the 1mB block size is a hard set rule and the miners will always hit that (considering how many txs there always are ) and aren’t dissuaded somehow against ever going above 1 mB due to some game theory?

yeah, thats the fundamental concept of transaction fees set out in the bitcoin whitepaper

Quote

Once a predetermined number of coins have entered
circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation
free.

in bitcoin, yeah, there is now a 1 mb block size limit, and in general the incentive to keep it that way is to create a fee market. If you want to get into the next 1 MB block, then your gonna pay for it.

The fundamental problem with Bitcoin's so called fee market to replace the block reward is that there is zero justification for the above statement in Bitcoin whitepaper. The fact that this statement was embedded into what is otherwise a work of genius does not make the statement true. It also does not provide any justification for the game theory that statement implies. In fact there are many arguments that this fee market will not work in the absence of a block reward or where fees become the dominant source of revenue for miners.

One very interesting argument for the failure of the Satoshi fee market is actually in Monero itself. If one looks at a miner acting in her best interests adding transactions to a Monero block, the miner will add the highest paying transactions first. This can be approximated by the highest fee per byte transaction first if the individual transaction weight is very much less than the effective median block weight. When the penalty free portion is used up our miner will continue to add transactions until the incremental penalty paid for adding a transaction exceeds the fees paid by the transaction. Since the incremental penalty is proportional to the block reward it follows that the total fees per block paid are also proportional to the block reward. Competition between miners will ensure that. Furthermore the total fees per block are independent of the block weight. The net result of this is that if the block reward goes to zero the total fees paid per block also goes to zero. One conclusion is that in a Bitcoin like coin with a falling block reward in order for the Satoshi fee market to even have a chance of working the penalty in terms of the block reward for increasing the block size (weight) must be stiffer than that in Monero. One can then see the rationale for Bitcoin core's strict block weight limit.

Edit: One interesting anecdote: Fees in Monero are actually based upon the above.

GingerAle

legendary

Activity: 1260

Merit: 1008

Quote from: phishead on December 02, 2018, 09:34:30 AM

Quote from: GingerAle on December 01, 2018, 10:31:03 PM

Basically, the blockreward can be seen like a set of training wheels that keeps bitcoin up and running.

Long ago it was decided that Monero would take an alternative route, wherein having those wheels available to prevent the bicycle from falling over is good, and the tradeoff of having an infinite supply of monero is acceptable.

Tiny wheels, tiny infinity.

That’s interesting... Never thought of it like that before. So the 1mB block size is a hard set rule and the miners will always hit that (considering how many txs there always are ) and aren’t dissuaded somehow against ever going above 1 mB due to some game theory?

yeah, thats the fundamental concept of transaction fees set out in the bitcoin whitepaper

Quote

Once a predetermined number of coins have entered
circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation
free.

in bitcoin, yeah, there is now a 1 mb block size limit, and in general the incentive to keep it that way is to create a fee market. If you want to get into the next 1 MB block, then your gonna pay for it.

phishead

hero member

Activity: 1874

Merit: 840

Keep what's important, and know who's your friend

Quote from: GingerAle on December 01, 2018, 10:31:03 PM

Basically, the blockreward can be seen like a set of training wheels that keeps bitcoin up and running.

Long ago it was decided that Monero would take an alternative route, wherein having those wheels available to prevent the bicycle from falling over is good, and the tradeoff of having an infinite supply of monero is acceptable.

Tiny wheels, tiny infinity.

That’s interesting... Never thought of it like that before. So the 1mB block size is a hard set rule and the miners will always hit that (considering how many txs there always are ) and aren’t dissuaded somehow against ever going above 1 mB due to some game theory?

gulypz

member

Activity: 476

Merit: 10

XMR is a project I trust a lot. Now I'm going to review my capital if I can make a proper budgeting. In the future I think there will be much higher prices.

solias

newbie

Activity: 23

Merit: 0

Quote from: aminorex on November 29, 2018, 05:05:07 PM

Quote from: KeyJockey on November 28, 2018, 05:16:15 PM

Back-Up-The-Truck, boyz?? LOL... Grin

Maybe. But... nahhh. Not for me. Not yet.

For most folks doing things gradually keeps risk closer to their tolerance. You don't want to be chasing it up in the FOMO frenzy, so starting to nibble a bit early, and patiently enduring a tolerable drawdown should one occur, means you at least have some skin in if the correction takes you by surprise. I think we are about half the fundamental PQ=MV price right now, so a correction seems inevitable, eventually, unless the dnm economy suddenly contracts to match. I allocate a % of powder to limit bids increasing in size all down the book, and a % of disposable income to periodic buys, under such circumstances. But yeah, the staircase has not confirmedly reversed yet.

Amino, if current ~$60 price is half the fundamental PQ=MV price, for full XMR DNMs transactions denomination Q has to double, so that M follows, doubling to ~$120, or ~2B market cap. That implies that there's a billion dollar of transactions leftover to be denominated in XMR. What data get you to that figure?

Rational agency implies that at some point DNM shops will be forced to transact exclusively in XMR, but for that to happen major blockchain-analysis driven busts must happen. What is the current maturity of such tech?

At the moment, it also seems that XMR has been removed from Dream Market. Why? Does anyone have an estimate how much has that hurt current price?

Whtwabbit

sr. member

Activity: 490

Merit: 266

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: Hueristic on December 02, 2018, 12:17:22 AM

Can you ELI5 for us why the BTC codebase cannot adopt a dynamic blocksize?

Bitcoin ABC literally stands for “Adjustable Blocksize Cap”, but the miners set the cap not an algorithm like in Monero, I have not read any convincing argument against dynamic blocksizes as given enough demand over time the blocksize cap will increase, I think they don't adopt it for the same reason stealth addresses are still not adopted even while completely possible with the Bitcoin codebase, they would be admitting defeat against the Cryptonote codebase, then why not just use Monero?

Why would they implement stealth addresses in bitcoin, then they would not be able to track you

Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 196. (Read 3314309 times)