would scanning be slower if the one time key was instead [1/H_n(rK^v,t)]*K^s? viewer calculated H_n(rK^v,t) like normal, and instead of K^o - H_n(rK^v,t)*G, do H_n(rK^v,t)*K^o

one way to find out :D

Tx fees are a part in the current article I am writing for fullmetal.science. I know that the fee is not fixed in any way but by code in the client, but could we assume tx fees could be reduced to a tenth (in XMR terms) in case Monero's fiat value augments ten fold?

Fees are set to match what's needed to increase the block size if needed.

So not directly.

So if we have 0.00002 XMR fee now at around 70 USD value. Could we have 0.000002 XMR as the default if XMR was valued 700 USD ?

If you assume value increase correlates with increased usage, maybe, since larger blocks will lead to lower per tx fees.

I assume block size stays at current.

And since attacking costs are typically in fiat, the cost of securing the network shouldn't need to vary in fiat terms (?)

minimum fee goes lower in terms of XMR when block size increases (adoption/tx volume) and when block rewards fall (emission schedule)

it's important not to scale with purchasing power since as the coin gets more valuable, the minimum fee costs increase so spam attacks become more expensive. Spam attacks are more valuable against more prominent coins (higher market cap)

the general assumption is that increased fiat value will correspond with increased adoption/tx volume

That's what I was getting at. Because in my current draft of the article I have to admit that Monero transactions are 17 times (!) more expensive that Bitcoin tx's.

so general users arent affected

it costs like 0.001 USD to make a tx

and are 10x larger than bitcoin

er tx are 10x bigger in bytes

I disagree on the idea that such a (direct) correlation existed.

if you assume that the block size stays at the minimum the fees are pretty arbitrary

it only really makes sense to think about it a lot in the case of blocks being full or growing

But anyway, this is my consideration: The cheapest Bitcoin tx I recently made was .00000141 BTC. Cheapest Monero tx is usually somewhere around .00002450. So not taking into account valuation that would be 17.38 times the cost

Wait, you calculate a price ratio using two different units that don't have the same base ?

Exactly

On purpose ?

Yes

Because *if* we had XMR valued at 9400 USD (like BTC is now), it would mean we had 17 times the tx cost (in USD terms).

20 2mg etizolam pez sample $10

That seems pretty dishonest, but sure.

So it's actually the only correct way to look at it - unless my assumption that we could lower the fees drastically as valuation increases applied ...

moneromooo: How would it be dishonest?

You calculate a price ratio using two different units that don't have the same base :)

And then use some kinda circular logic.

Bitcoiners thought their tx's were "virtually free" back in the beginning. Maybe it was dishonest allow them to stick to the idea (?)

That's why I normalize them first - so they become the same unit.

Oh, maybe I misunderstood then.

When 1 BTC = 1 XMR, then we are in that situation.

Well, it is clearly not :)

and going XMR up towards the value of BTC, I think no holder would be angered

That's why I am bringing up the question: Could we pay lees tx fees if XMR did 10x or 100x

17x the cost is about right given that the txs are about 10x larger

cost per byte makes more sense than cost per tx

Got to go, but will return to get more opinions. Thanks for now!

<moneromooo> And given we might switch to omniring/triptych/rct3/lelantus, it seems not worth it at this point. <<<<< im of this opinion as well.

but if CLSAG needs to be tested, verified, etc.... maybe we can see if wownero wants to implement some cutting edge tech?

To make that argument you have to also assume Monero has the same tx volume as bitcoin.

Since our fees also depend on volume, it's not possible to directly compare like that

which argument?

IMO it always makes more sense to compare bytes than txs, also other resources (cpu, etc.) but in any case some measure of actual resources and not txs

if the value offered by the process of monero using 10x more resources isn't worth it then why do it?

Comparing the fee systems in terms of cost to the user

lmao with bitcoin's transaction volume our per-tx fees would be on the order of 2000x lower (also would be 650MB per day)

2.7*

yeah 2.7x lower I can definitely do math

but the models are completely different, since bitcoin fees are fighting for a limited supply and have no minimum, and monero fees have a floor to prevent bloat-spam-attacks and only fight to raise the max block size

I'm surprised no one has banned the shady dude trying to sell research chemicals in the channel

(research chemicals meaning experimental drugs)

I guess this is a research lab 🤔

lol.

F

UkoeHB_: the floor doesn't really matter omce the block size grows. the practical floor becomes whatever is necessary to get the last tx in the block considering the penalty

is there any idea how many nodes actually exist? most mining is encompassed by <20 pools