ArticMine



Offline



Activity: 2268

Merit: 1041





Monero Core Team







LegendaryActivity: 2268Merit: 1041Monero Core Team Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation April 22, 2016, 12:33:03 AM #17362



Website Test Results

Tested From: Shanghai, China

Tested At: 2016-04-22

00:22:49 (GMT +00:00)

URL Tested:

Resolved As: 104.25.211.22

Status: OK

Response Time: 14.872 sec

DNS: 0.000 sec

Connect: 0.277 sec

Redirect: 12.382 sec

First Byte: 2.213 sec

Last Byte: 0.001 sec

Size: 2779 bytes



Tested From: New York, NY

Tested At: 2016-04-22

00:22:49 (GMT +00:00)

URL Tested:

Resolved As: 104.25.211.22

Status: OK

Response Time: 0.507 sec

DNS: 0.000 sec

Connect: 0.009 sec

Redirect: 0.083 sec

First Byte: 0.415 sec

Last Byte: 0.000 sec

Size: 2779 bytes



The overall response time was 14.872 sec vs 0.507 sec. On a 2 min blocktime (Monero) this is very significant. Also how would the Chinese miners communicate with each other if they are using external servers without going four times across the GFWC? If they use Chinese servers they could avoid this; however they would still have to deal with domestic spying that would introduce both latency and bandwidth limitations. Well here is a test for getmonero.org http://www.websitepulse.com/help/testtools.china-test.html Website Test ResultsTested From: Shanghai, ChinaTested At: 2016-04-2200:22:49 (GMT +00:00)URL Tested: http://getmonero.org Resolved As: 104.25.211.22Status: OKResponse Time: 14.872 secDNS: 0.000 secConnect: 0.277 secRedirect: 12.382 secFirst Byte: 2.213 secLast Byte: 0.001 secSize: 2779 bytesTested From: New York, NYTested At: 2016-04-2200:22:49 (GMT +00:00)URL Tested: http://getmonero.org Resolved As: 104.25.211.22Status: OKResponse Time: 0.507 secDNS: 0.000 secConnect: 0.009 secRedirect: 0.083 secFirst Byte: 0.415 secLast Byte: 0.000 secSize: 2779 bytesThe overall response time was 14.872 sec vs 0.507 sec. On a 2 min blocktime (Monero) this is very significant. Also how would the Chinese miners communicate with each other if they are using external servers without going four times across the GFWC? If they use Chinese servers they could avoid this; however they would still have to deal with domestic spying that would introduce both latency and bandwidth limitations. Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card

dEBRUYNE



Offline



Activity: 2086

Merit: 1131







LegendaryActivity: 2086Merit: 1131 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation April 22, 2016, 12:38:29 AM #17363 Quote from: ArticMine on April 22, 2016, 12:33:03 AM



Website Test Results

Tested From: Shanghai, China

Tested At: 2016-04-22

00:22:49 (GMT +00:00)

URL Tested:

Resolved As: 104.25.211.22

Status: OK

Response Time: 14.872 sec

DNS: 0.000 sec

Connect: 0.277 sec

Redirect: 12.382 sec

First Byte: 2.213 sec

Last Byte: 0.001 sec

Size: 2779 bytes



Tested From: New York, NY

Tested At: 2016-04-22

00:22:49 (GMT +00:00)

URL Tested:

Resolved As: 104.25.211.22

Status: OK

Response Time: 0.507 sec

DNS: 0.000 sec

Connect: 0.009 sec

Redirect: 0.083 sec

First Byte: 0.415 sec

Last Byte: 0.000 sec

Size: 2779 bytes



The overall response time was 14.872 sec vs 0.507 sec. On a 2 min blocktime (Monero) this is very significant. Also how would the Chinese miners communicate with each other if they are using external servers without going four times across the GFWC? If they use Chinese servers they could avoid this; however they would still have to deal with domestic spying that would introduce both latency and bandwidth limitations.

Well here is a test for getmonero.org http://www.websitepulse.com/help/testtools.china-test.html Website Test ResultsTested From: Shanghai, ChinaTested At: 2016-04-2200:22:49 (GMT +00:00)URL Tested: http://getmonero.org Resolved As: 104.25.211.22Status: OKResponse Time: 14.872 secDNS: 0.000 secConnect: 0.277 secRedirect: 12.382 secFirst Byte: 2.213 secLast Byte: 0.001 secSize: 2779 bytesTested From: New York, NYTested At: 2016-04-2200:22:49 (GMT +00:00)URL Tested: http://getmonero.org Resolved As: 104.25.211.22Status: OKResponse Time: 0.507 secDNS: 0.000 secConnect: 0.009 secRedirect: 0.083 secFirst Byte: 0.415 secLast Byte: 0.000 secSize: 2779 bytesThe overall response time was 14.872 sec vs 0.507 sec. On a 2 min blocktime (Monero) this is very significant. Also how would the Chinese miners communicate with each other if they are using external servers without going four times across the GFWC? If they use Chinese servers they could avoid this; however they would still have to deal with domestic spying that would introduce both latency and bandwidth limitations.

This is a comparison with OkCoin:





Website Test Results

Tested From: Shanghai, China

Tested At: 2016-04-22

00:37:30 (GMT +00:00)

URL Tested:

Resolved As: 121.199.251.136

Status: OK

Response Time: 0.252 sec

DNS: 0.086 sec

Connect: 0.007 sec

Redirect: 0.000 sec

First Byte: 0.096 sec

Last Byte: 0.063 sec

Size: 36254 bytes





Tested From: New York, NY

Tested At: 2016-04-22

00:37:30 (GMT +00:00)

URL Tested:

Resolved As: 121.199.251.136

Status: OK

Response Time: 10.866 sec

DNS: 3.798 sec

Connect: 0.351 sec

Redirect: 0.000 sec

First Byte: 5.823 sec

Last Byte: 0.894 sec

Size: 36254 bytes This is a comparison with OkCoin:Website Test ResultsTested From: Shanghai, ChinaTested At: 2016-04-2200:37:30 (GMT +00:00)URL Tested: https://www.okcoin.cn/ Resolved As: 121.199.251.136Status: OKResponse Time: 0.252 secDNS: 0.086 secConnect: 0.007 secRedirect: 0.000 secFirst Byte: 0.096 secLast Byte: 0.063 secSize: 36254 bytesTested From: New York, NYTested At: 2016-04-2200:37:30 (GMT +00:00)URL Tested: https://www.okcoin.cn/ Resolved As: 121.199.251.136Status: OKResponse Time: 10.866 secDNS: 3.798 secConnect: 0.351 secRedirect: 0.000 secFirst Byte: 5.823 secLast Byte: 0.894 secSize: 36254 bytes Privacy matters, use Monero - A true untraceable cryptocurrency

Why Monero matters? http://weuse.cash/2016/03/05/bitcoiners-hedge-your-position/

ArticMine



Offline



Activity: 2268

Merit: 1041





Monero Core Team







LegendaryActivity: 2268Merit: 1041Monero Core Team Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation April 22, 2016, 12:45:27 AM

Last edit: April 22, 2016, 01:27:01 AM by ArticMine #17364 Quote from: dEBRUYNE on April 22, 2016, 12:38:29 AM



This is a comparison with OkCoin:





Website Test Results

Tested From: Shanghai, China

Tested At: 2016-04-22

00:37:30 (GMT +00:00)

URL Tested:

Resolved As: 121.199.251.136

Status: OK

Response Time: 0.252 sec

DNS: 0.086 sec

Connect: 0.007 sec

Redirect: 0.000 sec

First Byte: 0.096 sec

Last Byte: 0.063 sec

Size: 36254 bytes





Tested From: New York, NY

Tested At: 2016-04-22

00:37:30 (GMT +00:00)

URL Tested:

Resolved As: 121.199.251.136

Status: OK

Response Time: 10.866 sec

DNS: 3.798 sec

Connect: 0.351 sec

Redirect: 0.000 sec

First Byte: 5.823 sec

Last Byte: 0.894 sec

Size: 36254 bytes

...This is a comparison with OkCoin:Website Test ResultsTested From: Shanghai, ChinaTested At: 2016-04-2200:37:30 (GMT +00:00)URL Tested: https://www.okcoin.cn/ Resolved As: 121.199.251.136Status: OKResponse Time: 0.252 secDNS: 0.086 secConnect: 0.007 secRedirect: 0.000 secFirst Byte: 0.096 secLast Byte: 0.063 secSize: 36254 bytesTested From: New York, NYTested At: 2016-04-2200:37:30 (GMT +00:00)URL Tested: https://www.okcoin.cn/ Resolved As: 121.199.251.136Status: OKResponse Time: 10.866 secDNS: 3.798 secConnect: 0.351 secRedirect: 0.000 secFirst Byte: 5.823 secLast Byte: 0.894 secSize: 36254 bytes

If most of the hashrate is within China it may actually make more sense to take the hit on the transactions themselves by using a sever within China, but then it becomes very blocksize sensitive.



Edit 1: Dash could prove an interesting test case here since it has a 2.5 min blocktime and now has ASICs. If my theory is correct Dash could have more resistance to the mining concentration in China issue than Bitcoin because of the latency / GFWC issue; however it also a fixed blocksize limit.



Edit 2: The above argument can also be made for Litecoin. If most of the hashrate is within China it may actually make more sense to take the hit on the transactions themselves by using a sever within China, but then it becomes very blocksize sensitive.Edit 1: Dash could prove an interesting test case here since it has a 2.5 min blocktime and now has ASICs. If my theory is correct Dash could have more resistance to the mining concentration in China issue than Bitcoin because of the latency / GFWC issue; however it also a fixed blocksize limit.Edit 2: The above argument can also be made for Litecoin. Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card

tifozi



Offline



Activity: 700

Merit: 500







Hero MemberActivity: 700Merit: 500 Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation April 22, 2016, 01:39:05 AM #17366 Quote from: Monerobuyer0 on April 21, 2016, 11:45:35 PM Quote from: tifozi on April 21, 2016, 11:27:30 PM A BTC rise is needed at least for the next month or two to flush out the ICO scams that have been prevalent on the boards since January. All these MAID/WAVES/LISK/UPPERCASESCAMCOIN seem to be coming from the same type of factory. Until this new generation of crypto believers get burnt, they will not learn their lessons, however harsh that sounds. It doesn't mean some of the profiteers will change their stance or all of the ones getting burnt will learn, but that's just the way it is with money.



An unfortunate side effect is that the only alt that has real practical value, long and short term (XMR) will also take some beating as the small fishes seem to be revolting against the manipulation that they have undergone from the whales for a long time.



So why is monero dropping much harder than all those ICOs?

So why is monero dropping much harder than all those ICOs?

Too many smart players and knowledge of the playing field for starters but you could right a whole whitepaper on XMR trading patterns and still nothing can be predict the future analytics of it.



We are not even looking at a comparable timeline for these ICOs to even compare but everyone know whats coming for them except the dreamy newbies. Too many smart players and knowledge of the playing field for starters but you could right a whole whitepaper on XMR trading patterns and still nothing can be predict the future analytics of it.We are not even looking at a comparable timeline for these ICOs to even compare but everyone know whats coming for them except the dreamy newbies.

ArticMine



Offline



Activity: 2268

Merit: 1041





Monero Core Team







LegendaryActivity: 2268Merit: 1041Monero Core Team Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation April 22, 2016, 02:09:12 AM

Last edit: April 22, 2016, 02:55:27 AM by ArticMine #17368 Quote from: r0ach on April 22, 2016, 01:43:16 AM ...



This is just not true for numerous reasons. You're basically saying we needed to spam blocks with bogus transactions for years on end to prevent an ASIC empire from growing in China. If a larger block size existed allowing people to do things like this, people would have implemented something like a hard coded min transaction fee or just lowered block size to fight against it. ASICs in China isn't a big problem because it's just a symptom of everything on earth being manufactured in China. This will inevitably cease to exist through either tariffs or war.



No I am simply saying that the Bitcoin blocksize should have been and be allowed to rise to meet legitimate demand. An adaptive blocksize limit as is the case in Monero actually deals with spam issue also very well. If blocksize and the GFWC was not an issue then why are the Chinese miners so opposed to raising the blocksize limit? A 10 - 14 sec latency is not trivial when mining even with a 10 min blocktime. The myth that keeping the blocksize small was necessary to prevent miner centralization has been debunked in BItcoin by the GFWC.



The reality here is that we are dealing with complex financial systems with many variables. If one only takes a subset of the variables and makes assumptions then those assumptions will eventually fail. Not taking into the account the impact of government censorship on Internet latency and proof of work mining is a good example as to why ignoring certain variables in the equation can lead to incorrect results.



Edit: The real issue here is that by setting such a critical parameter as the blocksize fixed in the protocol, instead of allowing the market to set the blocksize, Bitcoin has created a very powerful economic interest that now stands to loose a lot of money if Bitcoin is allowed to scale. This now has become a very serious problem for BItcoin. No I am simply saying that the Bitcoin blocksize should have been and be allowed to rise to meet legitimate demand. An adaptive blocksize limit as is the case in Monero actually deals with spam issue also very well. If blocksize and the GFWC was not an issue then why are the Chinese miners so opposed to raising the blocksize limit? A 10 - 14 sec latency is not trivial when mining even with a 10 min blocktime. The myth that keeping the blocksize small was necessary to prevent miner centralization has been debunked in BItcoin by the GFWC.The reality here is that we are dealing with complex financial systems with many variables. If one only takes a subset of the variables and makes assumptions then those assumptions will eventually fail. Not taking into the account the impact of government censorship on Internet latency and proof of work mining is a good example as to why ignoring certain variables in the equation can lead to incorrect results.Edit: The real issue here is that by setting such a critical parameter as the blocksize fixed in the protocol, instead of, Bitcoin has created a very powerful economic interest that now stands to loose a lot of money if Bitcoin is allowed to scale. This now has become a very serious problem for BItcoin. Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card

generalizethis



Offline



Activity: 1750

Merit: 1031





Facts are more efficient than fud







LegendaryActivity: 1750Merit: 1031Facts are more efficient than fud Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation April 22, 2016, 08:52:17 AM #17370 Quote from: ArticMine on April 22, 2016, 02:09:12 AM Quote from: r0ach on April 22, 2016, 01:43:16 AM ...



This is just not true for numerous reasons. You're basically saying we needed to spam blocks with bogus transactions for years on end to prevent an ASIC empire from growing in China. If a larger block size existed allowing people to do things like this, people would have implemented something like a hard coded min transaction fee or just lowered block size to fight against it. ASICs in China isn't a big problem because it's just a symptom of everything on earth being manufactured in China. This will inevitably cease to exist through either tariffs or war.



No I am simply saying that the Bitcoin blocksize should have been and be allowed to rise to meet legitimate demand. An adaptive blocksize limit as is the case in Monero actually deals with spam issue also very well. If blocksize and the GFWC was not an issue then why are the Chinese miners so opposed to raising the blocksize limit? A 10 - 14 sec latency is not trivial when mining even with a 10 min blocktime. The myth that keeping the blocksize small was necessary to prevent miner centralization has been debunked in BItcoin by the GFWC.



The reality here is that we are dealing with complex financial systems with many variables. If one only takes a subset of the variables and makes assumptions then those assumptions will eventually fail. Not taking into the account the impact of government censorship on Internet latency and proof of work mining is a good example as to why ignoring certain variables in the equation can lead to incorrect results.



Edit: The real issue here is that by setting such a critical parameter as the blocksize fixed in the protocol, instead of allowing the market to set the blocksize, Bitcoin has created a very powerful economic interest that now stands to loose a lot of money if Bitcoin is allowed to scale. This now has become a very serious problem for BItcoin.

No I am simply saying that the Bitcoin blocksize should have been and be allowed to rise to meet legitimate demand. An adaptive blocksize limit as is the case in Monero actually deals with spam issue also very well. If blocksize and the GFWC was not an issue then why are the Chinese miners so opposed to raising the blocksize limit? A 10 - 14 sec latency is not trivial when mining even with a 10 min blocktime. The myth that keeping the blocksize small was necessary to prevent miner centralization has been debunked in BItcoin by the GFWC.The reality here is that we are dealing with complex financial systems with many variables. If one only takes a subset of the variables and makes assumptions then those assumptions will eventually fail. Not taking into the account the impact of government censorship on Internet latency and proof of work mining is a good example as to why ignoring certain variables in the equation can lead to incorrect results.Edit: The real issue here is that by setting such a critical parameter as the blocksize fixed in the protocol, instead of, Bitcoin has created a very powerful economic interest that now stands to loose a lot of money if Bitcoin is allowed to scale. This now has become a very serious problem for BItcoin.

Are there any good threads, sites or books dedicated to this subject? I'm between chapbooks and my new obsession is learning how a trustelessly decentralized cryptosystem would look in theory and in practice. Are there any good threads, sites or books dedicated to this subject? I'm between chapbooks and my new obsession is learning how a trustelessly decentralized cryptosystem would look in theory and in practice. https://infowars.wikia.com/wiki/Society_of_Control (competing visions--hedge accordingly) http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/crypto/cypherpunks/may-crypto-manifesto.html

ArticMine



Offline



Activity: 2268

Merit: 1041





Monero Core Team







LegendaryActivity: 2268Merit: 1041Monero Core Team Re: [XMR] Monero Speculation April 22, 2016, 03:22:56 PM #17371 Quote from: generalizethis on April 22, 2016, 08:52:17 AM ...



Are there any good threads, sites or books dedicated to this subject? I'm between chapbooks and my new obsession is learning how a trustelessly decentralized cryptosystem would look in theory and in practice.



It is more like the story is being written as we speak and Monero is the only coin in the top 20 by by market capitalization that has a solution. The question of a market based solution to scalability and the related issue of spam was not part of Bitcoin's initial design. The 1 MB blocksize was added to Bitcoin in 2010 as an anti spam "temporary" fix. Virtually every other coin has copied Bitcoin on this and inherited the problem.



Edit: My take is that the Monero community will likely write the book on the subject. It is more like the story is being written as we speak and Monero is the only coin in the top 20 by by market capitalization that has a solution. The question of a market based solution to scalability and the related issue of spam was not part of Bitcoin's initial design. The 1 MB blocksize was added to Bitcoin in 2010 as an anti spam "temporary" fix. Virtually every other coin has copied Bitcoin on this and inherited the problem.Edit: My take is that the Monero community will likely write the book on the subject. Concerned that blockchain bloat will lead to centralization? Storing less than 4 GB of data once required the budget of a superpower and a warehouse full of punched cards. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/IBM_card_storage.NARA.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punched_card