Who was using GRIN?
Are you new to Monero? To ditch something, you’d have to use it in the first place.
In some areas, xmr are used more than btc, and that was like last year’s news.
I’m not new but now it’s obviously visible: Theses networks usage peaked the last bullrun, maybe a “rebounce” in transaction count would have happened but not. While Monero bottomed it’s daily transaction count earlier so maybe people ditched their networks
Grin is currently in research project mode. You can expect Monero to outperform, Monero is tried, tested and used. I think the future is MW, literally the only blockchain architecture that doesn’t rely on storing historical state in perpetuity to guarantee security.
Dash and zcash… Who cares. Monero beat out both of them years ago. They’re irrelevant now.
@mister_monster @snitchy_asc I had the same skepticism about monotonically increasing blockchain sizes.
I wish I had looked at storage and bandwidth curves a lot earlier.
Long term storage size is no longer a concern I worry about.
You’re thinking too small. It’s not about the practicality of storage, it’s about a simple fact: transaction history need not be perpetually kept to guarantee security. Prior to MW, we thought that this was the case. There is no fundamental reason why we need anything more than the UTXOs to guarantee security of the network, MW proves that. That’s what makes it the future.
Another consideration: throughput is constrained by block size in both Bitcoin and Monero. In MW, throughput is constrained by network bandwidth. The entire blockchain is one big block with only UTXOs in it. You can have an unlimited block size and it still only scales with the UTXO set if the nodes can all talk to each other fast enough. You can have unlimited throughput at layer 0 finalized directly on chain.
MW gives us pure money without storing anything about historical state. But it doesn’t give us programmability. Right now we have to store some historical state in order to get programmability, but I see no reason why this is a fundamental requirement, maybe a cryptographer or information theorist around here can correct me there. All we need is that breakthrough and we have the foundation to build the perfect money.
@mister_monster No, MW does not make for infinite throughput.
It saves some disk space and some bandwidth. It’s a good tool for certain use cases.
It is not at all clear to me that those use cases are central to the problem of a Peer to Peer Internet Cash System
It saves no bandwidth. And yes, it does make for infinite transaction throughput, or more accurately, throughput is not constrained by block size. Understand, this isn’t some theory I came up with in my head, this is a core feature of the original MW paper that everyone involved already knows and is well understood, I will try to explain it to you so that you understand.
What is the limiting factor for bitcoin transaction throughput? It’s block size, right? And why is block size constrained? Because you have to keep all of them forever. Having to only keep unspent transactions would mean that you could scale throughput without having to worry about block size at all, the thing that grows the blockchain is only the number of outputs created in all the transactions being put into that block. Sweeping multiple outputs into a single output actually shrinks the size of the blockchain. This means you could have any size blocks you want, you can put any number of transactions in a block you like, they don’t take up space forever, only while the outputs are unspent. Eventually you reach an equilibrium where the size stays within some range as outputs are created and combined constantly every block. This might be large, but the point is it doesn’t grow perpetually and so the size of the blocks don’t matter at all, and therefore the number of transactions per block doesn’t matter.
This changes the limiting factor for transaction throughput. The limiting factor then becomes how fast you can propagate transactions across the network, how many transactions can reach all miners within the block time to ensure that they are mined in the next block. We can even go further and allow for them to reach some miners within the next block and all miners within a set number of blocks, say 2, and be OK with some transactions waiting for 2 blocks to be mined, we do this already when blocks fill up in bitcoin. So throughput will be limited, but it will be significantly larger, by orders of magnitude.
GRIN was actually a cool thing fairly rant so I dont trash them but the market made it’s choice. An other problem with GRIN is the lack of RingSignatures to hide the past because MWEB more acts as scalability
the market made it’s choice
Theses networks usage peaked the last bullrun
Perhaps by “the market” you mean like exchanges, where investors trades tokens. Most ppl here use xmr to buy things or services. That might be why you sound a bit off.
