Quote from: GingerAle on December 02, 2018, 03:31:03 AM

Quote from: Hueristic on December 01, 2018, 11:36:52 PM

Quote from: lethos3 on December 01, 2018, 04:56:10 PM

It's literally oversold on the long time periods, the direction xmr is going is down and for quite a while already, just like most of the market. I risk calling the bottom at 50$, I had to buy.

I prefer bear markets, its when fortunes are made Wink

Yup, just put another buy in myself. Funny thing is I am probally one of the only regulars that also prefers a bear due to getting caught with my pants down before alphabay. W00ps!

That left a big mark.

Bad timing has been my thing in life. Cheesy

Quote from: ArticMine on December 01, 2018, 10:41:36 PM

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.

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

The dynamic blocksize in Monero has a cost - it uses more real world resources to process larger and larger blocksizes. Therefore, the monero protocol puts a throttle on this adaptation - if a miner wants to create a block that is greater than the median of the past 100 blocks, the miner has to sacrifice some of the block reward. So say the block reward is 3 XMR. If the miner goes over 20% in size, the block reward is reduced to something like, i dunno, 2.7 XMR. I forget the exact numbers. So the miner has to choose transactions that have enough fees that would push the total reward over 3 XMR even with the penalty.

Now, when monero finishes its primary emission, it has a tail emission. 0.6 XMR per block ( or 0.3 XMR per block minute, to keep in mind the case that we increase blocktime targets for whatever reason again). This tail emission keeps in place the ability to penalize blocksize expansion. Otherwise, if there's no way to penalize blocksize increases, miners would just grow the blocksize to get more fees.

So, IMO, its not really a BTC codebase issue, its a social covenant issue - that being that bitcion will only ever have 21 million coins. Its easy to put a tail emission in bitcoin code and make an adaptive blocksize possible.

Now, there are some that have conjectured that one could eat into the fees in the absence of a tail emission. I think the math on this doesn't work out, or it may screw with the game theory incentives. In any case, tail emission also provides continued and guaranteed rewards for mining, so it has the nice benefit of providing security to the blockchain regarding immutability in the long future. Not a single cryptocurrency exists today that is secured by a fee market. Granted, 15 years ago, not a single cryptocurrency existed. Bitcoin is a grand experiment to see if a cryptocurrency network ( a new form of money ) can be bootstrapped. Thats phase 1. Phase 2, the existence of that network / money with only network fees, in the absence of any bootstrapping, is still an experiment that has not been performed.

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.

Thanks for the lengthily reply Ginger. So basically the answer is nothing but the lack of a consensus to adapt an emission. I have heard people mention that there is a game theory behind this but have never had that explained, could you give that a shot?