RT @BitcoinMagazine: The latest in our #privacycoins series, @AaronvanW gives an in-depth overview of @monero. The coin's fungiblity and stealth addresses make it one of--if not the--best out there, but at what cost to scalability?
The latest in our #privacycoins series, @AaronvanW gives an in-depth overview of @monero. The coin's fungiblity and stealth addresses make it one of--if not the--best out there, but at what cost to scalability?
This guy has no idea what he is talking about on Monero scalability.
In a few short weeks, Verizon in the U.S. is going to start rolling out 5G in some selected cities. Other companies are following closely behind. 5G is going to radically change our world in how we live, work and play in unimaginable ways.
Theoretically, internet speeds of 20 gigs/sec are projected when the new internet network is established. Data will be transmitted over fiber optics to local cell towers, and thence to individual modems or cell phones via super small microwaves.
Thus far, scalability has never been a problem with Monero and it won't be one in the foreseeable future. There always has been, and will be, more than enough hardware capability to keep up with the number of Monero transactions.
Internet speed is a fairly minor factor when it comes to scalability. Latency does matter (for miners), but that's more affected by block processing speed.
>Thus far, scalability has never been a problem with Monero
So no one ever complaints about the size of the blockchain, sync time, etc? I don't believe you. And that's while Monero is doing ~100x fewer transactions than Bitcoin.
I don't see how you can say internet speed is a minor factor in scalability? 5G technology will allow you to download the blockchain in seconds instead of hours and even days. Scalability then becomes a non issue.
In telegram style, http://www.telegraph-office.com/pages/telegram.html :
MONERO YES SCALE
BITCOIN NO SCALE
Maybe that author of the article can explain to this baby boomer why we do not use telegram style for email and text messages.
The reality is that technological change will make the difference between the size of a Bitcoin transaction and a pre bulletproof Monero transaction irrelevant as the cost of bandwidth, processing power, digital storage continues to plummet. On the other hand Bitcoin's hard coded blocksize limit and its relationship to the 21 million maximum number of Bitcoins will remain, effectively preventing Bitcoin from scaling. Monero on the other hand does not have these issues since it has an adaptive block weight and tail emission. Another way to look at this is that Bitcoin has hard coded the technological limitations of the bandwidth of a telegraph line from say ~1868 into the protocol in perpetuity, Monero on the other hand can adapt to the technology of the 21st century.
Note: Telegrams particularly in the 19th century were sent in many case as only capitals so proper telegram style uses only capitals.
I think scalability in this instance means the economic potential of running a node and the fees that will be required to transact on the blockchain.
Maybe it will be worth paying crazy high fees to transact on chain?
Maybe L2 solutions will keep the fees manageable.
There is some sweet spot on the graph that defines the usefulness of scalability.
You don't want the fees to be zero.
If scalability were infinity, would that make the blockchain worthless?
Somewhere in the middle... that's what the supply and demand curve says. Right?
The blockchain idea itself is anti-privacy. To have a privacy coin in a blockchain is utopia. Yes, today's Monero transfer can be anonymous. But in 2 years the transfer will be still on the chain and with the technology, knowledge, tools from the future the transaction which happened 2 years ago still has your name on it. So the only way Monery to be private is to evolve faster than the computing power needed to crack it.
" Before a recent change from Monero's developers, that timing analysis correctly identified the real coin more than 90 percent of the time, virtually nullifying Monero's privacy safeguards. After that change to how Monero chooses its mixins, that trick now can spot the real coin just 45 percent of the time—but still narrows down the real coin to about two possibilities, far fewer than most Monero users would like. "
Example: I never gave my name to Viber. However, other users who called me in the past, put my name against my phone number in their address book. That automatically shares it with Viber. Now Viber knows my name. And if someone steals your phone will also know that this phone number belongs to that name.
It's quite similar with Monero's wallet.
> So the only way Monery to be private is to evolve faster than the computing power needed to crack it.
Depending on how much success Monero will have in the future, perhaps the intellectual body of people developing cryptography will decide that specific risk as a priority, thus creating new technologies and/or techniques to preserve and strengthen the protocol's privacy.
Some people argue that all work is done in vain, because at some point in the future the cryptographies will be broken in order to deanonymize both sender and recipient of a transaction. I particularly consider this argument poor. This is a problem for the future - it may happen so in the future that these transactions will no longer matter anyway. In fact, we don't even know if it's going to be possible to deanonymize these transactions.
Now imagine you're the head of CIA or FBI or other unnamed secret organisation and someone says in your face:
"I just transfered money and you will never find out how much and to whom".
As with everything in life, the higher the stake, the further someone is determined to go. If you steal a candy and sell it to someone over Monero blockchain is private. If you sell a stolen nuclear weapon, all the crypto currency will be unable to hide you for long.
It's basically what the conclusion of the article refers to as "future technologies".
Both Bitcoin and Monero seem committed to scale though second layer tech. I do think that's the way to go, but it doesn't necessarily solve all scaling issues. (Eg. even LN requires opening and closing transactions that are on-chain.) In the end Monero still has significantly worse on-chain scaling properties.
At the same time, these layers can add privacy for both Monero and Bitcoin. Even to the point where Bitcoin's lack of on-chain privacy/fungibility may become less meaningful. Eg. if all LN opens happen through CoinJoin + Schnorr transactions.
But in the end all this stuff isn't here yet, and it's difficult to predict the effects of these future technologies.
Monero has default privacy on mainchain and CAN overcome scalability problems through L2 solutions.
Bitcoin doesn't have privacy on mainchain and CAN'T overcome privacy problems through L2 solutions.
Bitcoin with privacy on L2: imagine you are a ISP on a city with 100.000 inhabitants. You can see that 99,99% of your users are visiting normal internet (clearnet, with no privacy, since ISP can see all your traffic) and 0,01% of them are using TOR. Those 10 users that opt for privacy are suspicious (9 are buying drugs and 1 is selling drugs). If you want to catch someone selling drugs, it's much easier to focus on these 10 users that decided to use TOR.
Monero (privacy on mainchain): you are a ISP on a city with 100.000 inhabitants, and you can see that all of them (100%) are using TOR. Game over.
L2 as currently implemented is just a delayed multisig. When the channel closes, significant information can be gleaned by observing the main chain. Opening and closing channels via a mixer such as tumblebit would greatly improve this situation - but if privacy isn't mandatory, chainanalysis will respond by flagging any users who opt-in as tainted. All mixers and second layers suffer this problem. Users who opt for privacy are immediately flagged as suspicious.
In a recent podcast, Fluffypony outlined his dream privacy solution as monero + tumblebit + lightning, for nearly impenetrable privacy (and ofcourse massive scaling).
Thanks for the great response. Which podcast is it? I'd like to check it out.
Why would you need a mixer like tumblebit on top of ring CTs?
Also side note: are you checking out Mimblewimble at all? Thoughts?
It was posted earlier today, [What Bitcoin Did - Episode 34](https://www.whatbitcoindid.com/podcast/2018/09/14/wbd-034-interview-with-riccardo-fluffypony-spagni).
I'm assuming because ringCT hides amounts and gives plausible deniability that a transaction even took place, while tumblebit provides truely unlinkable mixing. If you just tumblebit alone, you'd definitely know a real transaction occurred.
I am devouring everything I possible can about mimblewimble - which is to say, sadly not very much... The technology is exciting but neither leading implementation (grin or beam) is very exciting. Grin aims to be a paypal competitor rather than money. Beam looks like a scammy corporate coin Zcash style.
Hey, XMR2020, just a quick heads-up:
**truely** is actually spelled **truly**. You can remember it by **no e**.
Have a nice day!
^^^^The ^^^^parent ^^^^commenter ^^^^can ^^^^reply ^^^^with ^^^^'delete' ^^^^to ^^^^delete ^^^^this ^^^^comment.
No explanation of why monero has a tail emission, therefore "infinite" supply. Because, let's be honest, who wouldn't want a hard cap to increase the perceived "scarcity" value of their coin.
Monero has a tail emission because it counts on an incentive system that we know for sure will work. Miners will mine into pertuity securing the Monero network without having to depend solely on transaction fees. Currently, bitcoin transaction fees = 0.01% of its block reward. Who knows what problems it will run into fairly soon as the block rewards reduce at an exponential rate.
As for scaling, author failed to point out the adaptive block size that is an important scaling advantage of Monero that isn't available on bitcoin, and it's also something that bitcoin can't have without tail emission.
The main selling point of Monero is a "combination" of RingCT, Ring Signatures and Stealth addresses along with privacy by default. None of them are amazing by themselves.
RingCT, Ring Signatures, Stealth addresses are the result of math and cryptographic technology. Labeling them as "tricks" cheapens our entire space, I think.