gingeropolous

its less efficient because decentralized things are less efficient by design. they sacrifice efficiency for the authoritiless nature. That is the goal - to remove authority from money. Money should just exist and have rules and thats it. That's what cryptocurrencies are.

to me, its that even if what is happening is that some new ruling class is being established, the difference is that the new ruling class won't be able to fundamentally change the rules anymore. Currently our monetary system is managed by rooms of Very Smart People that can change things at a whim and the cracks are starting to show.

but yeah, things are interesting though.... there is a recent upswell of proof of stake, which is just central banking all over again. So the new system might end up looking the same as the old system if these PoS coins become more common. The difference is though is that bitcoin is unstoppable. Like, its price could be 40k, its price could be 400k. The protocol will still work. The old system has no choice but to adapt or whatever.

but it does have to do with the dollar bills. The discussion centers on the technology as a currency and money. I think these things have bee separated in our general understanding of things, but in bitcoin they are melded into one. You control the outputs on the blockchain. The dollar bills on the blockchain. Sure, if you deposit your bitcoin at an exchange then yeah, you will get different bitcoin back, but the discussion isn't about that. It's about how the blockchain system works. And the way it works is that when you use bitcoin, and you own bitcoin, you do sorta ask for the same dollar bills back that you deposited. You don't really "deposit" them on the blockchain, but you kinda do. You deposit proof of ownership of a unit of account. Bitcoin calls it an output, a monero dev has coined the term e-note (or adopted the term i dunno) to try and better describe what it is.

maybe you know all this i dunno. if you do, slap me around a bit. if you don't, i hope this makes sense.

yes because thats clearly how money should work.

> No, I want the world's energy and carbon footprint to reduce, rather than have people with a decentralisation fetish invent new ways to incentivise thrashing.

Then any way to dismantle the existing consume-everything-to-make-a-profit economy, which is caused by archaic and inefficient monetary systems, should be good, right?

How much energy is wasted / burned because of our existing monetary policies?

cryptocurrency PoW is bajillions times more efficient than, i dunno, exerting currency dominance by shows of military power or shipping goods all over the world because its "cheaper" to make things here and sell things there.

Thats also bitcoin/cryptocurrencies. Decentralized money is insanely complicated compared to centralized money. There is no efficiency here.

In Monero, this is known as a "subaddress", and has recently undergone review by the Monero cryptographers.

https://github.com/b-g-goodell/research-lab/blob/master/publ...

All I can really say is that the cryptonote protocol was probably designed to focus on privacy within the blockchain. Intrablockchain privacy. Anything out-of band was not considered within scope, maybe. I'm just speculating because who knows what the cryptonote developers were thinking. The Monero core team is working to advance what cryptonote started, and subaddresses are a step in the right direction.

> but transaction fees do not decrease as more transactions occur.

Yes, it does. The transaction fee is a dynamic fee based on the block size. As the block size increases, the transaction fee decreases. The theory being that an increased blocksize means there's increased demand for Monero, which implies that the value of Monero has increased, so the transaction fee should decrease.

https://github.com/monero-project/monero/blob/4a20a5b5ea4adc...

https://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/2531/how-does-the...

> There are limits to how big the blocks can grow

Perhaps. But they are not hardcoded. The limits are based on the network infrastructure (lag, node calculation speeds). Basically, the blocks will grow until orphaning becomes a serious problem.

> and also how quickly they respond to demand,

This is in, in fact, the only hard coded limit of the things you mentioned.

> In a P2P economy (which is this technology is meant to lead us) fungibility problems are not a thing beacuse there is no relative central party to make a standard.

wat?

fungibility is not about a standard. fungibility applies at every level.

"Hrmmm yes while you are looking at this car here I'm just going to scan your blockchain activity and hrmmmmm it seems that you are in about the top 30% of income in this country so yessss the price of this car is X"

boom. That car salesman just defacto made your tracecoin less valuable than some poor shmuck in the lower 50%.

not true. Monero has had forced ringsize > 1 (the new term for mixin, because mixin implies active mixing) since around 2016 or so.

http://moneroblocks.info/stats/ring-size

ooh i can edit. And the recent fork increased the minimum to 5. Hopefully some magic math will soon make it possible for a minimum of 10.