6 ms·

Surprised they don’t switch to monero if they’re switching cryptocurrency. Fast and cheap (like litecoin) but also many added privacy benefits.

ringaroundthetx 9y ago
Yeah for real, I cant wait for the day a criminal gets busted because they used an AML/KYC enabled payment channel run by Goldman Sachs on bitcoin’s lightning network
ringaroundthetx 9y ago
Monero and associated technologies have no scaling solution on the table. It is a problem. Monero’s tx fees are low due to lack of use, they go up way faster than bitcoin’s even with RuffCT and adaptive blocksizes.
- andirk 9y ago
  Would you say that a lot of smaller coins tout their quickness and cheapness as a benefit but it is simply because of their low usage? I have heard similar about bitcoin cash.
  - SilasX 9y ago
    Not the parent but I would say yes, definitely. It’s easy to make a cryptocurrency where there is less demand for transactions than can fit in in a small block. The real challenge is when the demand seriously ramps up, which only bitcoin (core) and ethereum have seen.
  - gizmo686 9y ago
    Its difficult to say. Having low usage would make most reasonable coins cheap and quick; but does not give us any information of how they would behave at scale. In the case of bitcoin cash in particular; it would probably still be fine at bitcoin scale. This is because its main difference is removing an artificial limit within Bitcoin. As this limit was set without an empirical basis (and bitcoin showed no signs of degradation as it approached the limit), you would probably be able to scale the block size up some without causing problems. How much you can scale is still at question. Here [0] is a talk about this very question. Using a small testnet (~6 miner nodes and 12 clients) they were able to achieve 500tx/s with a 1GB block with relativly minor optimizations of the standard Bitcoin implementation (the final bottle neck here is propagation delay reaching 10 minutes). This is, in my opinion, an upper bound on what the Bitcoin protocol can handle. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDF8bOEqXt4&t=4079 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDF8bOEqXt4&t=4079
- dangero 9y ago
  Sidechains are on the research roadmap you can see it here: https://getmonero.org/design-goals/ https://getmonero.org/design-goals/
- Casseres 9y ago
  I believe a drop-in replacement called Bulletproofs is being developed to reduce the transaction size. It's been a while since I looked into what else is being worked on. Smaller transaction sizes with adaptive block sizes seems like a good scaling solution. Is there something I'm missing? The fee in terms of XMR actually reduces when there's more transactions. However if its value in terms of USD rises, then the fee in terms of USD still might go up with more adoption. Perhaps that's something the developers can adjust in their regularly-scheduled hardforks.
  - hanniabu 9y ago
    I could totally be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I read that Bulletproofs only reduce transaction size by about 40%. While that's still a nice decrease, it won't get the project to the scalability that it needs. It may buy them a years worth of time at the pace the transactions are growing before they'll need a better solution.
    - Casseres 9y ago
      I just skimmed through their subreddit, and it appears to be between an 80% to 90% reduction. That still makes it a little larger than the average Bitcoin transaction, but the mentality there seems to be that privacy has its price. While next-to-free is preferable, I don't disagree.
      - hanniabu 9y ago
        Thanks for the clarification! And yes, I agree as well that privacy does have a price. However, with transactions growing tremendously with the increased popularity and speculation of crypto-assets, there will be a point where enough is enough. I hope that a further iteration for greater efficiency will be found in the future.
  - ringaroundthetx 9y ago
    Yes so we could imagine a new upper bound of 100 tx/s This isnt future proof but should alleviate some pressures while internet and widespread computational infrastructure improves
waytogo 9y ago
Looked really deep into alt coins the last few days, I checked also XMR which isn't fast or scalable. It's now fast because of the little use compared to BTC and ETH. Highly scalable because of their centralized nature are Ripple (XRP) and Stellar (XLM), Stellar started as a Ripple fork. I finally went for Stellar because of the founder (he founded and sold MtGox and founded Ripple), more potential to grow because of lower cap, the complete feature set and some recent announcements (such as Kik/Kin moving from ETH to XLM, Singal-founder will use XLM for his MobileCoin). I might buy Ripple after some correction though. Ripple has a different positioning but a good setup too. The cap is already very high, close to ETH's. Edit: Why the downvote? Edit2: changed that Stellar started as a Ripple fork
- jeron 9y ago
  I believe the dark web market alphabay also allowed the use of monero, motivated by improved privacy over Bitcoin. Performance wasn't really impacted since not many vendors on alphabay accepted it
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- dangero 9y ago
  Stellar started as a fork of Ripple, but has no code in common with Ripple any more. See Jed's comment in this thread: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/29815/what-is-the-difference-between-ripple-and-stellar/49844 https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/29815/what-is-th...
- vesak 9y ago
  >he founded and sold MtGox Are you serious? Sold MtGox? That's how you remember him? He was steering that particular ship when it hit an iceberg.
  - waytogo 9y ago
    IDK if Jed hit the iceberg, from Wikipedia: McCaleb sold the site to French developer Mark Karpelès, who was living in Japan, in March 2011. On 19 June 2011, a security breach of the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange caused the nominal price of a bitcoin to fraudulently drop to one cent on the Mt. Gox exchange, after a hacker allegedly used credentials from a Mt. Gox auditor's compromised computer to transfer a large number of bitcoins illegally to himself.
bringtheaction 9y ago
If you want fast and cheap have a look at RaiBlocks (XRB). https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/raiblocks/ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/raiblocks/ https://raiblocks.net/ https://raiblocks.net/
- Jommi 9y ago
  A cryptocurrency whose whole supply was distributed through a faucet of solving captchas from a link at Bitcointalk...?
  - sanmon3186 9y ago
    I have zero idea of technology of RaiBlocks but how it gets distributed, has nothing to do with it. What am I missing?

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

Yeah for real, I cant wait for the day a criminal gets busted because they used an AML/KYC enabled payment channel run by Goldman Sachs on bitcoin’s lightning network

ringaroundthetx 9y ago

Monero and associated technologies have no scaling solution on the table. It is a problem. Monero’s tx fees are low due to lack of use, they go up way faster than bitcoin’s even with RuffCT and adaptive blocksizes.

andirk 9y ago
Would you say that a lot of smaller coins tout their quickness and cheapness as a benefit but it is simply because of their low usage? I have heard similar about bitcoin cash.
- SilasX 9y ago
  Not the parent but I would say yes, definitely. It’s easy to make a cryptocurrency where there is less demand for transactions than can fit in in a small block. The real challenge is when the demand seriously ramps up, which only bitcoin (core) and ethereum have seen.
- gizmo686 9y ago
  Its difficult to say. Having low usage would make most reasonable coins cheap and quick; but does not give us any information of how they would behave at scale. In the case of bitcoin cash in particular; it would probably still be fine at bitcoin scale. This is because its main difference is removing an artificial limit within Bitcoin. As this limit was set without an empirical basis (and bitcoin showed no signs of degradation as it approached the limit), you would probably be able to scale the block size up some without causing problems. How much you can scale is still at question. Here [0] is a talk about this very question. Using a small testnet (~6 miner nodes and 12 clients) they were able to achieve 500tx/s with a 1GB block with relativly minor optimizations of the standard Bitcoin implementation (the final bottle neck here is propagation delay reaching 10 minutes). This is, in my opinion, an upper bound on what the Bitcoin protocol can handle. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDF8bOEqXt4&t=4079 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDF8bOEqXt4&t=4079
dangero 9y ago
Sidechains are on the research roadmap you can see it here: https://getmonero.org/design-goals/ https://getmonero.org/design-goals/
Casseres 9y ago
I believe a drop-in replacement called Bulletproofs is being developed to reduce the transaction size. It's been a while since I looked into what else is being worked on. Smaller transaction sizes with adaptive block sizes seems like a good scaling solution. Is there something I'm missing? The fee in terms of XMR actually reduces when there's more transactions. However if its value in terms of USD rises, then the fee in terms of USD still might go up with more adoption. Perhaps that's something the developers can adjust in their regularly-scheduled hardforks.
- hanniabu 9y ago
  I could totally be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I read that Bulletproofs only reduce transaction size by about 40%. While that's still a nice decrease, it won't get the project to the scalability that it needs. It may buy them a years worth of time at the pace the transactions are growing before they'll need a better solution.
  - Casseres 9y ago
    I just skimmed through their subreddit, and it appears to be between an 80% to 90% reduction. That still makes it a little larger than the average Bitcoin transaction, but the mentality there seems to be that privacy has its price. While next-to-free is preferable, I don't disagree.
    - hanniabu 9y ago
      Thanks for the clarification! And yes, I agree as well that privacy does have a price. However, with transactions growing tremendously with the increased popularity and speculation of crypto-assets, there will be a point where enough is enough. I hope that a further iteration for greater efficiency will be found in the future.
- ringaroundthetx 9y ago
  Yes so we could imagine a new upper bound of 100 tx/s This isnt future proof but should alleviate some pressures while internet and widespread computational infrastructure improves

waytogo 9y ago

Looked really deep into alt coins the last few days, I checked also XMR which isn't fast or scalable. It's now fast because of the little use compared to BTC and ETH. Highly scalable because of their centralized nature are Ripple (XRP) and Stellar (XLM), Stellar started as a Ripple fork. I finally went for Stellar because of the founder (he founded and sold MtGox and founded Ripple), more potential to grow because of lower cap, the complete feature set and some recent announcements (such as Kik/Kin moving from ETH to XLM, Singal-founder will use XLM for his MobileCoin). I might buy Ripple after some correction though. Ripple has a different positioning but a good setup too. The cap is already very high, close to ETH's. Edit: Why the downvote? Edit2: changed that Stellar started as a Ripple fork

jeron 9y ago
I believe the dark web market alphabay also allowed the use of monero, motivated by improved privacy over Bitcoin. Performance wasn't really impacted since not many vendors on alphabay accepted it
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
dangero 9y ago
Stellar started as a fork of Ripple, but has no code in common with Ripple any more. See Jed's comment in this thread: https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/29815/what-is-the-difference-between-ripple-and-stellar/49844 https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/29815/what-is-th...
vesak 9y ago
>he founded and sold MtGox Are you serious? Sold MtGox? That's how you remember him? He was steering that particular ship when it hit an iceberg.
- waytogo 9y ago
  IDK if Jed hit the iceberg, from Wikipedia: McCaleb sold the site to French developer Mark Karpelès, who was living in Japan, in March 2011. On 19 June 2011, a security breach of the Mt. Gox bitcoin exchange caused the nominal price of a bitcoin to fraudulently drop to one cent on the Mt. Gox exchange, after a hacker allegedly used credentials from a Mt. Gox auditor's compromised computer to transfer a large number of bitcoins illegally to himself.

bringtheaction 9y ago

If you want fast and cheap have a look at RaiBlocks (XRB). https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/raiblocks/ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/raiblocks/ https://raiblocks.net/ https://raiblocks.net/

Jommi 9y ago
A cryptocurrency whose whole supply was distributed through a faucet of solving captchas from a link at Bitcointalk...?
- sanmon3186 9y ago
  I have zero idea of technology of RaiBlocks but how it gets distributed, has nothing to do with it. What am I missing?