Bitcoin Forum

So i have a few questions..

If ANON was needed so badly why did the dev's not submit the idea to the Bitcoin core dev's foundation etc ?
Was it because they knew it would be rejected ?

Seems to me i am not the only one who has rejected this anon coin idea huh ?
Otherwise BTC would have anon code in it already mirroring what Monero is doing.

I love how they patronize everyone and say it's needed.. but the entire Bitcoin world rejects them.
Not just .. Spoetnik  :D

Instead they felt the need to create a NEW coin and tack on ANON features..
Rather than trying to get the ANON code integrated into BTC.

Hmm i wonder why ? Any idea why people ?
Why is it they would want to start a new coin ? hmmmm ? Maybe Risto can answer he bought LOTS of them and controls the coin.

Yeah.. the guy with the Pink Bentley who lives in a castle.

So what do we see bottom line ?
Want Morono's ? well guess what ? you need to buy them.. with Bitcoin  :D
Yup.. Bitcoin hahahhahahah

AND ...

You can line up at Poloniex the official shitcoin exchange for them to buy them clutching your picture ID.

So Profiteers.. do you see through this retarded little facade ?

Exactly. Bitcoin will never have anonymity feature. that is why coins as Monero brought something to the Crypto table.

because btc is transparant by default, which is a big no no... cash should be anonymous by default (like monero)...

oh and also because monero is based on a different protocol (cryptonote)...

oh, and also because BTC is totally politicised, good luck on trying to implement anything new (cough blocksize cough)

best regards

Pseudo-anonimity is good enough for me.


What I find hilarious is that 96.52% of Monero's volume belongs to a single, centralized exchange (polo) which also require people's identity. Until that's fixed I'm not sure how people can push Monero.

Volume is made by traders trading Monero and not users using it.  This traders dont need anonymity they just want to get a short term or long term profit. They would not see it worth trading unless Monero would have unique features.

Right, and where do these users get those coins?

this is false, if you stay under the 2k$-withdrawal limit you don't need to give up your identity...

pseudo-anonimity is not good enough for everyone... I for one wouldn't like to be associated with shady business because a bitcoin was used for some shady business 7 transactions ago (when I had nothing to do with that bitcoin)...

cash needs to be fungible, bitcoin is not fungible because its traceable...

best regards,

I think you don't get it. Even if users give their identity to poloniex (which is not needed if you stay under the daily 2k$ limit), all their further transactions are private and anonymous. monero is untraceable and unlinkable... So even if you give your identity when buying xmr, noone knows what you do with these xmr... that's the beauty of cash

maybe this will help:
http://moneroblocks.info/richlist
and this
http://monero.stackexchange.com/questions/1967/what-is-fungibility-and-why-does-it-matter

best regards

CloakCoin is the real new Anoncoin

http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/12/06/cloakcoin-private-secure-untraceable-decentralized-better-way-stay-anonymous-todays-markets-ready-go/
 (http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/12/06/cloakcoin-private-secure-untraceable-decentralized-better-way-stay-anonymous-todays-markets-ready-go/)

We will need full anonymity once governments start banning bitcoin and trying to get people's money, and they will eventually, once they get rid of cash and people resort to bitcoin. So by then we better have a stronger and more anonymous bitcoin. The good news is with segwit and mimblewimble and coinjoin and all that we can achieve good anonymity within bitcoin,.

Guldens new HD account system provides more then enough privacy needed in their latest 1.6 two weeks ago.

1 / 10th of the update quoted below from https://developer.gulden.com/blog/ . Oh and XMR still on a archaic codebase, Gulden also updated to 0.13 codebase in this release.

Accounts and Privacy

Gulden for Desktop now uses accounts which you can add to serve different purposes. We have 2 different account creation types.

* Normal Accounts
* Mobile Accounts – which enables the link feature between your desktop and mobile device.

The additional privacy comes in for both deposits and withdrawals.

* Gulden deposits:

Gulden for desktop wallets will use a different Gulden address each time you receive Gulden, this way the depositors will have no way of knowing who else is sending you Gulden to your wallet.
Note: A depositor can continue to use the address you gave them for multiple deposits.

* Gulden withdrawals:

With accounts you can separate your payments depending on it’s intended use without the recipients of your Gulden knowing what other transactions your doing from within your wallet.
eg. You can have 1 account for family transactions and another for business transactions.


Oh yes, Gulden exposes Poloniex exchange BIGTIME because they claim to add the best coins in development. Gulden proves this is not true, Poloniex only listens to it's special interests.

This guy gets it.

Well, you'd have to redo many things in bitcoin.  So many, actually, that almost nothing would be left of bitcoin.  Your question is akin to "if flying in the air is so important, why did people build airplanes, and didn't add wings to cars which were already riding ?".  There's so much to change in a car to turn it into an airplane, that it is easier to start off from scratch.

That said, I repeated already a few times, that a good way to introduce a new coin is not to start a new chain with a new genesis block, but to fork off bitcoin, to give every bitcoin owner some of the new coins (something like the eth/etc fork) ; except that the fork is so drastic that only the "original ownership of bitcoin" is kept, and nothing else of it.

As to why one shouldn't bend to the core dev's foundation, I would think that in crypto, that's evident, no ?  There is no authority.

Indeed, this is similar to bitcoin's situation, where also a very large part of it is trading on exchanges, which don't even need a block chain to exist, but just exchange IOU.  Most of bitcoin's transactions are exchange transactions ; and even most on-chain transactions are trading and not using bitcoin.  Probably the small percentage of real use of bitcoin is higher than Monero's percentage, but real crypto usage is in any case an almost negligible aspect of crypto.

Tis the season to trollalollaloll !

Now that's a nice comparison, I'm jealous of the way you can explain things in layman's terms like this... Even someone who never heard of crypto can get what you want to say with the above explanation...

well done!

best regards

It certainly is, cuz even if you're a retard it's hard to destroy your privacy while using xmr, that's how great it is  ;)

best regards

The reason why Anon is not in bitcoin is there are TRADEOFFS for everything.
No one blockchain tech can meet all demands;
Security, Speed, Fungibility, Privacy, Merchant-ability etc.
Hence the need for at least a few alt cryptos that can fill the niche.

That being said I think Cloak is a lot better than Monero tech wise.

You are not associated, basing associations like that in and of itself is plain stupid. It's like being a suspect of a crime because you walked down the same street where someone committed a crime a month later you were there.

There's no 2k$ anon limit. Level 1 verification (2k$ limit) requires your name already. And even then you're pretty much at the mercy of Poloniex regarding when they will require full identification.


Anonimity is not that important to me but even then an anon coin with its entire trading volume happening on one single US exchange is just trash to me.

If anonimity were more important to me, I'd much rather want to avoid using exchanges with FinCEN/AML/KYC first than just using full anon coins.

Moral of the story, having a legendary account does not make you any smarter.

You can enter bugs bunny or whatever you want in the name field, just FYI, although your second point above is entirely correct.

I think another thing that boosts Poloniex position in volume is that many people use shapeshift now, and shapeshift buys their coins at the exchange with the best liquidity, so it's kind of a liquidity begets liquidity catch-22 at this point. Just the other day I read on reddit about some retard that was storing coins on poloniex using them as a wallet, and trying to convert them to different coins using shapeshift; like, wtf dude?

Anyway, I think bitfinex will probably start to pick up some more volume, and maybe then we'll see it added to btc-e or something which would further help.

Anonymity is not directly "paying secretly the vile guys that are going to shoot the POTUS" or something.  We then get into debates about how it is impossible to achieve "perfect" anonymity.

No, the point is much more down-to-earth.  The problem with an open ledger like bitcoin is that there is essentially no privacy.  The pseudonymity thought off by Satoshi is simply not resistent to chain analysis.  The "web" of transactions propagates too much partial real-world knowledge, and allows it to be turned into an almost complete breakdown of the pseudonymity.   This was probably not anticipated by Satoshi.  We're not talking about law enforcement, but about almost everybody who can acquire some real-world knowledge and spend some money/effort on chain analysis.

Very simply put, it goes like this: If you, Joe, pay me, I consider it a break in privacy if you find out that I used that money to pay Mary.  You're not supposed to know about my relationship with Mary.

Now, how could you, Joe, know that I used your money to pay Mary ?  Suppose that you, Joe, are a guy who has a bar, and that I'm a plumber.  I'm repairing the toilets in your bar, and you pay me.  Nice.  Now, it is not a secret that you paid me for that work.  I pay my taxes, I don't have to hide that.  But Mary is my friend, and for her birthday, I give her some bitcoin.  And now, Mary comes and drinks a coffee in your bar, and pays you with her coins.

You can easily see that the coins Mary gives you for her coffee, are two transactions away from the transaction where you paid me.  So you know that Mary got those coins from me.   This is something I think is private and you shouldn't find out.  But I cannot avoid you finding out that Mary has the coins you paid me with.

Well, unless I use a mixer.  But then we're doing "anonymity" again.  And we're not talking about shady business.  We're talking about privacy.

With fiat, you wouldn't know.  Fiat is much more private than bitcoin.  With cash, that's pretty evident.  If you paid me in cash for the plumber job, and I gave some cash to Mary, you won't know that this is the same cash.  But even with bank accounts that doesn't work.  If I got money on my bank account from you for the plumber job, and then I sent some money to Mary's account, there's no way you can know that when she pays you from her account, that those funds came from me.  Yes, law enforcement could find out the transfers if they subpoena the bank, if they suspect me to be a criminal.  But you can't.  With bitcoin, all that private information is out for everyone to grab.

That's where something like monero comes in handy: to restore about the same level of privacy as with fiat money.  Even somewhat better.  But not to pay the guys that will shoot the POTUS.  That's not what we're talking about.  

That said, there are also situations where a bitcoin like open ledger is what people want.  For instance, for charity.  If you give a donation in bitcoin to a charity, you want maybe to see what happens with the money.  There's no secret or privacy to be had with the account of a charitable organisation.

Well, depends.  Suppose that I'm the recipient of some charity.  Should the whole world know that I got some charity ?  That I'm a needy guy ?  On one hand, yes: the donors would like to be able to verify that I'm not some rich guy running away with the funds of charity.  On the other hand, maybe I would like some discreteness about my poverty.

But one can see clear usage of open, transparent ledgers.   But also of private ledgers with anonymisation.

I dont understand the question. Maybe paraphrase in better english? Whos ur source suggesting "anon was needed"? Nobody has ever needed this shit, accept this and move on. Anonymity is a means of marketing and is widely used to justify the reasoning for pumps. See where it all comes from? Poloniex bear pit. Its where the calls for new fanky standards and metrics stem from. The idea is that the Core itself is not supposed to merge a true anonymous tech in its original binding into the underlying bitcoin protocol. What is believed by many to be a true anon designed to fully cloak ur transactions exists solely in the form of altcoin which is monero. Because of the implementation difficulties monero wasnt implemented on top of bitcoin protocol.

Dinofelis gives a perfect example of a real-world example of how easy blockchain analysis can be done with just a little information.
There are many reasons to have anonymity built into a coin, instead of being forced to rely on outside services like mixers.
If you aren't a fan or don't think you have a need for this feature, vote with your money and don't buy it.
The market will decide in the long run if a feature is necessary or not.

Nice job rejecting it. Those who didn't reject Monero made roughly 10x profit over the course of a year. At this point you have to be willfully ignorant to claim that there is no use for privacy. Peoples' Coinbase accounts have been closed for handling tainted Bitcoins! These users may not have done anything shady themselves, but merely handled coins which were linked to gambling websites though chain analysis.

As to Monero's credibility, at this point several Bitcoin Core developers have said positive things about Monero. Gregory Maxwell has a Monero address on his profile! There's a significant number of intelligent, capable and successful people associated with Monero. Monero has PhD cryptographers working on it, and publishing articles in academic journals. To claim that Monero is a "fail" can only be envy or stupidity.

sadly another FUD try post.... its easy to spread FUD with no knowage

Bitcoin struggles with even smaller updates like the blocksize.
Implementing anon would be probably equal to cold fusion for BTC devs.  :D

I think a good portion of users use BTC because of pseudoanonymity. Now they can have the real thing.

Monero is basically what BTC was meant to be.

So Febo declared Bitcoin will never have ANON features added ?

I myself see no reason why this could not happen down the road.
Then what are you going to do with all those Monoro's your hoarding for profits ?
Dump them of course  :D ..eh Risto ;)

Many of you claim ANON is NEEDED but the actual implementations are impossible.
Although Monero merch has proudly boasted secure and untraceble.
Which they better hope to hell they do not get hacked or worse..
Hackers find a crack in the armor and exploit it.

Anyone who says anything on the web is bullet proof is an idiot period .
If it runs it can be cracked.

All crackers and hackers do is look for the weak point in the system such as Poloniex and exploit it.
No matter how many times this is explained to Monero idiots they just deny it.
They are delusional.

You don't need to be hunted down like a dog with your picture ID.
All Poloniex has to do is hand over your trade info and IP address etc and then sit back & wait for the FBI at your door.

See ?

All they do is make stupid fucking excuses to perpetuate a false sense of security all over the value of their bags ..gauged against the value of Bitcoin.. which.. might indeed end up having ANON features implemented.

Sorry Morono shills but your little facade / farce / charade has not worked so far and i see no real reason why things will change down the road.

You guys should just go back to bragging about being the official "coin" for pedo's and terrorists and Fentanyl dealers on dark-markets worlds wide.. YOUR BIG SELLING POINT.

I would love to see Bitcoin have major ANON features added.. it would render Morono dead instantly once and for all.. then we wouldn't have to drink their profiteer Kool-Aid anymore.

And Febo.. was that a defense ?
The guy says hey 98% of all coin activity is on Poloniex..
So you say..
Oh well.. they are just idiot profiteers shorting it for profits.
Uhmmm and THAT is a good thing ?
What is unique about that again ?
Sounds like what is going on with the other 6,000+ other ANN topics here.

PS:
If Satoshi wanted BTC to have major ANON functions he would have implemented them.
And i take HIS word over it vs noob accounts regged to defend Morono here.

If i were you Morono's baggies i would be worried about now.
Your Dark Market bullshit scheme failed so what next ?
And.. what the hell will you all do if BTC gets equivalent ANON capability added to it ?
What then ?

And you never did answer my question shill bitches..
Why did you not push to get ANON implemented on BTC ?
Why did you INSTEAD go and make a new coin ?

Care to answer that ? ..no i didn't think so  :D

Where do people deny that a potential weak spot couldn't be exploited or that something on the web is bullet proof?


So then they know who have monero but not what they spent it on, or where they got it? As long as it isn't illegal to own monero, why would the FBI come to your door?


Where do you see this kind of bragging? Do you really believe that "privacy = illegal"?


A lot of people would like more ANON features added to bitcoin. Sadly the possibilities are limited due to the underlying protocol of bitcoin. We can at least hope for CT to be implemented in the not to distant future and maybe more after that.


Actually, satoshi was interested in making it more anon. If you follow the link you will see that he is talking about "group signatures" which is the predecessor of "ring signatures".

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770.msg9074#msg9074


That would be great.


Are you serious? People demand more anonymity features from BTC devs all the time. Beside that, making an altcoin can be a good way to test features that are too experimental for direct implementation into bitcoin.

OP is talking about Monero's fail here. If I really wanted to hide my stash of cash, I would prefer coins that give me much better anonymity than Bitcoin.
If indeed I wanted to store Bitcoins, I would have to run it through multiple mixers to anonymise my coins.

That's not true.Any coin after it reaches a certain level of achievement like bitcoin did with it's peeking prices,it will start to get less anonymous.Not because of the way coin was designed but the commercial factors will slowly degrade the tech aspects resulting in turning your coin into a commercial pile of shit,just like bitcoins.

yes that is the precise reason anon coins have value..BTC will never go anon lol it would never go mainstream if it did, and the core btc devs know this..if they even suggested it the blowback would be huge.

Problem with BTC is too much transperancy even for the mainstream. Big corporations do not wann their accounts and transactions revealed to everybody.

Regarding Satoshi even he was interested in more privacy protection. We dont know If Nicolas van Saberhagen was just another pseudonym of Satoshi.

Sputnik is a fucking retard

real real interesed read...i love it ;)

That is how it is, it is nor good or bad. I guess it is good for those traders there, since if it would not be they would stop doing it. Unless it is an addiction like the gamblers have.




I dont know how is in your country. But in my country no one will come to knock on my doors if i bought an untraceable asset on Poloniex. I dont need to pay any tax for it unless i cash it out physically ( no crypto here is cash) in my country. So tax guys have no interest about it.
I am sure none other government paid repressive organisation would do anything like that either since they have lots other things to do and would never get court permission to be even allowed to knock ( I guess laws change from country to country)  and in countries where they might. what they would do?  with deleted private keys no one can see any transactions. So even if you finance Trump campaign and after Hilary revolution no one can prove you did it and cant sentence you to death with hanging.

You're describing blockchain transparency. The very reason bitcoin has value as an unbacked monetary asset.

If an asset has value, people will soon find a way to keep their ownership of it private. But building obscurity into the asset itself amounts to signing it a slow death warrant since "privacy" was never a monetary property in its own right.

Encrypted messaging systems (which is what Monero is) are useful for hiding stuff (https://i.imgur.com/VR4qt49.png). But they are not 'the future of money'.

Can you distinguish one ounce of gold from another? One stack of $100 bills from another? (Not really.) The point is that you can distinguish one bitcoin from another, as lots of folks that have been banned from Coinbase have found out, and that is a problem. With Monero this is much less of or not a problem at all.

analysis *IS* done commonly by simply tracking end points.
The bullshit in the middle is called security.. AKA: all your anon tech schemes.

Not sure how many times i can possibly explain cross referencing to a bunch of "experts"

Let me try AGAIN for the 666th time in the last couple years.. with my cracker / hacker experience knowledge i earned with real life.

If you had a system that encrypted snail mail and made it 100% uncrackable..
And you wanted to exploit the system to get the contents..
You could hypothetically intercept or control or manipulate the end points.
I could for example simply wait for your mail to be delivered.

Social engineering for example has been responsible for a LOT of hacks.
As well as other methods such as US Marshall arrest warrants when the show up at your door.
Turning on VPN logging for 2 years running while allowing the service to continue to run.

Or the obvious phone up some provider and bullshit them and get the passwords etc.

Or be in control of all inputs and outputs of the internet in North America like the US govt is in fact..
I seen a report over a decade ago that mentioned the US govt controls the back bones relay servers.
It was alleged that the first hop on a trace route leaving your ISP would be landing on a US govt controlled machine.
So i did a check even though i am in Canada.
So what did i see when looking up the first hop on my trace ?
The first IP was registered online to the USA DOD ..dept of defense.
Same group of guys that used BRIBERY to get a phone number to nab Bin Laden
..that cost them buying a rat in the middle east a Lambo.

Since i don't know if it is still regged to the DOD ..if they were smart they obfuscated the matter.
I would not want it broadcast it's a US govt IP with plain text.
Nothing like a false sense of security .. as printed on Monero Hoodies to placate the masses  :D

So a Lambo huh ?
How many of these greedy services in Crypto exist that would happily rat you out for a chunk of cash .. or Lambo from the CIA ?
Especially when they are confronted with a warrant anyway..

Most ..that is what !

Any site i used my email address inexplicably sent me malware in Crypto.
The trusted are in reality not trust worthy in the slightest..
Why does that matter ?
Your information is guarded by pools or exchanges etc.

Funny story.. Mullick had no idea how a user was regged here to Troll me using my Cryptsy Registration first and last name.
Kind of funny how "Trust Worthy" they are yet somehow my fucking full name got leaked to a Troll mouthing me off on the forum here.  :D

Not only does Poloniex and Coinbase and others collect your info but they do rat you out too.
Coinbase and Cryptsy admitted it already.
And no you don't NEED to be verified.. having them hand over all your trade info and IP address can often be damning *enough*

So to the snotty little fuckhead having a jab at me earlier..
"Moral of the story" ?

Yeah, i will tell you what it is.. the ANON shit is an illusion (a false sense of security)

Controlling the start point and end point renders the bullshit in the middle irrelevant most often.
I know i am a long time cracker and i have the mentality and the experience to back it up.
Do you shitcoin'ers ?
What is your experience ?
You learned c/c++ after showing up here 2 years ago and now your a world "expert" ?
Or you read news stories on the web before ?
Hey fuckheads.. my old buddy who hacked a world famous company and made headlines news more than once was popped by the FBI.
I barley got by.. lucky for me my buddy said what he was doing was too risky and said don't bother helping.
Or i would be in jail too. (i offered to help him on our PC game cracking group IRC channel)
You ?
You mouthy idiots read about the story of me and my friends on the news.. I WAS THE NEWS DUMB CUNTS.

over what ?

Hacking and Cracking and coding.

I have my name mentioned in the original credits for example on about a half dozen different Valve Steam cracks.
I was one of the very first guys to code emulators.. a creative attack.
I pioneered a whole shitload of ways of exploiting the program known as Steam and half the fucking planet had my code and PC Games on their machines.
Further more the current one people use now is based off of my work and my names is credited for it too.

It was easy.. a kid in the candy store.
I looked at my target and had a blast thinking of all the endless ways to exploit Steam.
And hell yeah i found many  :D
Doug and Gabe etc know my name well LOL
You guys ? hahahha

---

This was not the point to the topic i made though.
My first post went on about other aspects.. such as the relation or comparison to Bitcoin.
And why they did not even TRY to push the ANON concept to the Bitcoin system.
They didn't ..they simply made ANOTHER coin.

Pretty obvious why huh ?

Don't forget people Gavin A. had a request by the FBI to have a little pow-wow meeting.. he did.
NO he never did say what happened.
Back then he was paid almost a million dollars a year salary by the BTC Foundation.

Trust ?
Did i... or did i not already mention how Risto spent MEW money from his employee / treasurer ?
Unaccounted for.
How do you trust people who operate in shady ways ? Such as the whole Monero crew.
You don't.. unless your a fucking idiot.

Did they ever explain the French Police fraud drama and arrests and Monero Marketing Company that does not exist by not employee's who really are employees ?

Trust ?
I would base that on the ACTIONS of users around here.. not an abused Trust Rating system.
Talk vs actions people.

anon realy important because the preservation of open network confidential information, when the security will respond only to the network itself and no one else, and that after the transaction it is not possible to control, I believe that this can further give confidence to the user if we're going to talk about the open information in the bitcoin, we will talk about additionally structure to give information about transactions only for ad-hoc queries, because the storage and delivery of confidential information protected by law about human rights and privacy, and understand creating additional structures, we take on the burden of additional expenses and the eternal appreciation, in the end, the most primitive mechanism becomes unprofitable and economically inefficient

The beauty of transparent blockchains is that EVERYONE has the same view.

Where obscured-tech (https://i.imgur.com/VR4qt49.png) goes wrong is that it creates a gaping great asymmetry between holders and non-holders which kind of makes a mockery of its claim to "fungibility".

To compound that problem, it's the non-holders who support the value (being on the bid side of every transaction) and they're the group locked out of that blockchain's transparency. Even the verification of individual transactions is asymmetric between sender and receiver leaving the a prospective economy based on such a system wide open to social engineering attacks.

It's a tech that's based on an ownership record keeping archetype for 3rd-party backed money, not unbacked monetary assets.

I dont think they failed, as long as they keep trying they can figure it out later and still succeed.

I think there is a variety of problems with the PUSH for an anon coin.
There seems to be no way to get through to many guys around here.
They are just plugging their ears and saying La La La La.. endlessly

To me i side stepped the actual determination of whether it is a suitable goal to aim for.
I have all along simply strived to show users how there is a glaring & obvious problem.
ADOPTION.

I just finished saying that when the LBC guys got arrested they broke anti-money laundering laws.
I believe it was because they sold person to person 30 grand worth of Bitcoin.
The Florida law (i think) is that any transaction that goes over 10 grand MUST be properly documented.
Which with an Anon coin it will not be..

Note: the Florida anti-money laundering laws are common all over the globe.

So you have a massive barrier to adoption right there.
And adoption *IS* what this fucking bullshit is about.
It is *NOT* about catering to a criminal niche on Dark Markets bound to get arrested for crack cocaine and Pedo porn after using Monero. (for profits on Poloniex after handing over your Picture ID)
This my fellow shitcoin'ers is NOT what we are striving for is it ?

What are we striving for ?
To get a main stream digital currency adopted world wide by the GENERAL PUBLIC.

So how the fuck do you do that when the coin violates FIAT law and you are pretty much stuck using FIAT to buy the damn coins ?
..showing your fucking ID at Poloniex (for example)

I agree with the guy who commented before me (i think) hard to get his advanced comment a little though.

But that was never my goal around here.
I stand neutral on the ANON matter..

What i have long tried to portray is that i see a problem we can not overcome ..like it or not.
And that would be 2 key areas.. Security and Regulations.

The niche users who are going to have minor levels of adoption are at risk.
And i do not want them to get burned believing in the Monero "merch" Hoodies that say "Secure & Untraceable"

And then for the main stream i don't see large adoption happening if you are forever opposing the govt regulations.

Think of it this way people..
Had we have been spending the last 8 years working on a compromise with regulations
we may have already achieved major world wide adoption on a larger scale than Bitcoin ever achieved.

Many people in Crypto have all along tried to say we don't need ties to FIAT.
That is not practical or realistic.
Crypto needs it ..like it or not guys.

The notion that in our life time FIAT can be dropped in favor of a digital currency is silly.
So since we will still need FIAT for a long time to come users WILL be using it.
So how do they get Crypto coins ? They buy them with FIAT for fuck sakes !

I don't know how you can possibly explain the obvious to people so many times and have them still not get it.

I usually get mouthed off because of my "opinions".. but i don't have any.
I have FACTS !
For example Anti-Money Laundering laws DO in fact exist and yes Coinbase did rat out KickAssTorrents.com
Yes those guys were arrested in Florida years ago by an FBI sting.

Chanting free market does not keep you out of a jail cell Crypto-Pundits.  :D

And i think most push the anon altcoin idea simply to pad their wallets.
Yet if they were smart they would be rallying for adding regulations and compliance.
Want money ?
Think about it.. cater to a niche Dark Market crew of users who constantly have their funds seized..

vs.

Catering to PLANET EARTH and all it's 7+ billion users.

Like fuck people, if you REALLY wanted money then you are doing the opposite to achieve this goal.

Imagine being the guy buying cheap coins now and seeing 4.6 billion users swarm in to buy your shitcoins.
Wrap your little kidiot retard profiteers heads around that shit !

I swear to bloody god it's like you guys all mostly spend all your time doing the opposite.
Rather than moving forward you just go faster and faster in reverse collectively.

Regulations are coming i said for years to guys who laughed at me calling me names.
I was right !
Canada was the first major country to add crypto to tax guidelines officially (before the USA)
So..
Resisting them means ignoring them ..at your peril.
It means then not taking part in drafting the regulations we want and would be ok compromising with.
As i said for years we should have been all along contributing to the process
or will get what we get..
Which will not be something we like or want.. what you were all worried about in the first place. LOL

In another world or time i would be ok with ANON shit or no regulations.
But i have to face reality and look out the windows and be an adult.
I have to be rational and realistic and i hope you all are willing to join me  ;D

..after all i genuinely believe that is where your "profits" reside anyway.

Hey sputnik you are a fucking retard. Toknormal too. Same person probably ;D

I've seen you make similar arguments in the past, and it really doesn't make any sense to me. The coin supply can be verified by anyone. That's the only form of transparency that is absolutely essential.

The "arguments" have nothing to do with verifying the coin supply.

I can't follow your logic with regard to the asymmetry between holders and non-holders. If I have $1000 cash at home, and I take out a $100 bill and then pay you for some goods, you don't know about the other $900 I have. Same with something like gold. You can't see the flow of all dollars or gold. What you do have is an understanding that the asset in question has value and scarcity. So it is with Monero. Even if you don't have any Monero, you can download the software and verify that there are X coins in circulation. So what do you mean by asymmetry?

I don't get toknormal either... He seems to have a whole monetary theory of his own, unsupported by any theory/history... I've given up on trying to understand what he means...

Bitcoin is in the "maximising consensus" business.

It's designed so that everyone in the entire world has a uniform view of the blockchain - including in their ability to group outputs by address and tally them. Your view of bitcoin's blockchain isn't skewed or restricted depending on whether you happen to posses a private key or not. On the other hand, your ability to modify it, of course, is, which is why possession of a private key has value.

The reason it's designed this way is due to its archetype - an open, tradable, anonymous asset that being unbacked, places transparency, uniformity and confidence as priorities above all else to maximise value.

You don't do that by burying the blockchain in a thick, syrupy layer of cryptography so opaque that only 1 person in the entire world can view an address balance and the rest have to make do with paultry transaction IDs. Thats an approach who's archetype originates from an online private records archive, or even a transactioning system for "backed" money. In both cases, the asymmetry of verification methods available to the participating parties in the transaction doesn't matter because in the former the sender and "retriever" are the same person and in the latter you have a 3rd party guarantee of endorsement of the address balance.

In an unbacked asset, however, it does matter because choosing and implementing a monetary archetype faithfully is as important as any technological feature - if not more so. You can't have it both ways - i.e. on the one hand claim it’s an anonymous monetary asset and then proceed to implement it as if it were in fact a personal records archive.

Bitcoin is anonymous. Full stop. No personal information is stored on the blockchain and an address balance exists independently of any particular keyholder. The fact that the blockchain contains a visible audit trail is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. To make the addresses more fungible, the right problem to solve is to improve its resistance to pattern detection, not bulldoze away its universality, or transparency.

I think what happened with Cryptonote is that somebody - Nick Sabernhagen possibly - adapted an old design (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm) by creating an implementation for mineable blockchains. But they still stuck with the old banking archetype by retaining the principle of "record keeping privacy". That implementation then got picked up by the Bytecoin people who thought they'd make a fast buck from it through a combination of premine & hype. Then when they were done and had filled their pockets, the Monero people came along on the back of the 2014 "Anon" coin fever and thought they'd have a go.

Except it's still the wrong archetype. An asymmetric, encrypted record keeping technology, closed where it needs to be open, exclusive where it needs to be inclusive and opaque where it needs to be transparent - trying to pass itself off as "fungible money".

that's fungibility.
Anonymity isn't the only way to achieve fungibility, but yeah, i agree with you.

fungibility is important to any type of currency and a big problem in bitcoin(probably one of the main reason against massive adoption).

Ok, I see what you're arguing. I disagree, and feel you've chosen that standard completely arbitrarily in an attempt to support your chosen cryptocurrency. You've randomly chosen an aspect of Bitcoin that Monero doesn't have and use that as your argument.  It makes as much sense as saying that Euros can't be money because they lack features specific to US Dollars. They aren't green, and they don't have pictures of US presidents on them, so they aren't money. The Dollar preceded the Euro, it's always been done this way, so Euros can't work.

You've made no argument as to why Monero's approach would preclude its use as a medium of exchange. There is literally nothing about the fact that Monero balances can't be viewed without private information that would lead to a lack of confidence in Monero. And then you arbitrarily exempt bank accounts from your standard? Please come back with an argument that makes sense.

Blockchain transparency isn't just "some random feature".

As I said earlier - it's the entire basis for bitcoin's value. On contrary, I'd say that the promoters of obscurity-based tech have "randomly" selected the property to obscure just to suit their particular archetype. When you don't see everything through the "privacy-equals-value" distortion lens then the ability to sum transaction outputs using an address dimension is no different from auditing the blockchain by any other dimension. It's just as essential to monetary confidence if people choose to see it that way.


Imagine a transporter full of brand new cars. Then imagine a ledger which holds ownership records of those cars. The cars are not private - they drive around in full view of everyone. The ledger of ownership records is subject to privacy concerns. The two are decoupled - they are not the same thing.

It's more like saying that the ledger can't be money if it's not backed by the cars (i.e. the ledger ceases to have value if the cars cease to exist).

If you build an electronic asset using the cars - base asset as your archetype then possession constitutes ownership, transparency is the priority and anonymity is supported by virtue of the asset being unbacked (i.e. it's not an ownership record referencing some other asset).

If, on the other hand you build an electronic asset using the ownership ledger as your archetype, then privacy IS the priority, transparency can be compromised and anonymity is supported by obscuring the ledger from public view.

Which one looks more like Bitcoin and which more like Cryptonote ? Not exactly difficult.

So how to decide which archetype to choose ? You use the first for an unbacked asset and the second for a backed one (such as banking records). Thats why bitcoin has a fully transparent blockchain that is symmetrical in terms of holders and non-holders alike and does not obscure any aspect of its properties. The fact that people can see me getting in and out of my car doesn't change the fact that it's the right archetype.

...it's also why this model (http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm), which shares its archetype with cryptonote, has a bank in the loop, so it works as well.

The problem comes when you try to use a record-keeping archetype with a base asset that is not backed. Then you're screwed because it's a mismatch and you will have conflicting priorities regarding the monetary properties of your new asset.

I disagree. It just happens to be way Bitcoin was designed. The basis for Bitcoin's value is the ability to transfer value without the need for a third party, or the counterparty risk that accompanies a third party. Once again, you're not stating why transparency is important. It's certainly not important for the integrity of the currency supply.


Poor analogy. The cars exist in a physical sense, and thus obviously don't have value if they don't physically exist. Blockchain outputs are an imaginary construct. Being able to publicly "see" them moving around is immaterial to their value, which is to facilitate transactions without the need for a third party. I put see in quotes because in both cases you're trusting software. The software interprets the data and then displays it in a way that is easy for humans to understand.



You're just seeing blobs of data in either case. That data has no meaning outside of the context of wallet software. It contributes nothing to the integrity of the blockchain to be able to see the coins moving back and forth.

Actually it was to BE value.

Slight difference between a technology that's just transferring it and one that's "being" it. Don't worry, Jamie Dimon makes the same mistake - he thinks Bitcoin's just a conveyor belt as well. If it was, it would be satisfactory to have designed it using a record keeping archetype which possibly explains why you don't see any problem with cryptonopte's approach.


Not if you can't tell the difference between record keeping for money and being a monetary commodity ;)

In a fair and just world, where people are friendly and don't want to harm others, a fully transparent transaction history might not pose problems. But since this isn't the reality we live in today, a privacy orientated blockchain is needed as a solution to some of the problems that are part of our current state of civilisation. Maybe sometime in the future, it won't be needed anymore.


Could you maybe explain it without analogies? They seem to not make much sense the way you put it.
Am I right in assuming that your logic goes something like this :" Bitcoin is "backed" by transactional transparency and therefore has value, because everyone can see all transactions details, while Cryptonote is "unbacked"  and has no value because everyone can only see that coins were correctly transacted but not to whom and from whom"?  


You don't really explain the reason why you think/believe that transaction transparency is essential for a blockchain to have value and why a blockchain where certain transaction details are obscured can't have value.


Could you please explain these conflicting priorities and which problems this would cause for a user of such an asset?

If I understand your view correctly, you think that bitcoins value lies mostly in its total transparent transaction history. Wouldn't you say, that the "immutability" of the transaction history is more important to the value of the blockchain than the transparency of transaction details(sender/reciever)?

Even with everything said today its still not a fail, just a failed attempt. As long as the attempts keep coming it can win eventually.

With a block chain type of currency (aka a crypto currency), anonymity IS the only way to obtain fungibility.

In fact, both notions are about equivalent, even though they inspire different ideas.  Anonymity comes down to "only A and B know about the transaction from A to B".  Fungibility comes down to "when A pays B, B doesn't know where A got the money from".  This is in fact almost the same notion.

The difference seems to reside in this:
With anonymity, nobody knows about A paying B, except A and B themselves.  With fungibility, everybody may potentially know that A paid B, but shouldn't know where A's money came from.  But one sees that this doesn't work.  Because if everybody knows that A paid B, and everybody knows who paid A, then one DOES have knowledge where the money came from that A used to pay B, and fungibility is gone again.

So the only way to reach fungibility is anonymity.  Hence both notions are equivalent.

Now, a block chain is all about being able to verify publicly that there is a conservation (or an accepted form of creation) of currency by having a list of publicly known transactions where that conservation is known to be valid (or that creation is known to be according to the accepted rules).  The most obvious way is to see all transactions.  Then you can verify obviously that conservation holds, and that every coin can be traced back to an agreed-upon way of creation.  

As such, if in the block chain, it is possible for B to know where A got his money from, the currency of that chain is not fungible.  But that seems to pose a problem.  How can one have a "chain of transactions back to the moment of creation" (which is the verification mechanism of a block chain) and at the same time "not know where the money came from" (which is the concept of fungibility) ?  People like toknormal seem to think that this is fundamentally a contradiction.  They think that a block chain implies automatically lack of fungibility and lack of anonymity.  However, they miss that "tracing back a coin" is only ONE way to verify conservation of money in a transaction, and legit creation, which is the essential part of a monetary asset.  Are there others ?

Well, monero and zcash are two examples of how this can be achieved cryptographically with two different techniques: ring signatures versus zero knowledge proofs.  The cryptography used allows both to verify the validity of transactions or of creation (which was the reason why the block chain was invented), and at the same time, to hide the origins of the funds to some extend.

DASH and mixers do it in a different way, by using the "partial fungibility" of a multiple-input multiple-output transaction.

In all these anonymisation techniques, the block chain still proves conservation of money in transactions, and legit creation, but doesn't do this by showing the explicit transactions, but simply by providing proofs of the check sums in different ways.

They reconcile, in different ways, the apparent contradiction between the concept of a block chain on one hand, and the monetary necessity of fungibility which comes down to anonymity.

In a mixer like with DASH, if A paid B, but mixes with C who paid D, E who paid F and so on, we end up only knowing that A, B and C paid someone, and that D E and F got paid and that the balances check.  This is what is needed for the monetary asset.  However, privacy information is leaked, in that we know that D got paid by A, B or C, that E got paid by A, B or C, and that F got paid by A, B or C, and that A, B and C did spend their money.

With monero, something similar happens.  If A paid B, we know that A, D, E or F paid B.  It could also be that A actually paid Q, or that D paid Z.  However, we know cryptographically that if ever it was A that paid B, that A won't be able to spend that money again ; that if ever it was D, he won't be able to spend it again, etc.... but if it wasn't A, A can still spend it, so maybe A didn't spend his coins after all.    In other words, we know that the balances check.  But we don't know which balances, and we don't know who did spend his coins and who didn't.

With ZCASH, we only know that, if B can pay you with a note, that he got that note from someone else, who can't spend it any more, but who got it himself from someone else etc.... until the conversion of a legit "open" coin into a note.  (unless someone kept the golden key and can produce notes at will...)

@ dinofelis Citing a lot of anecdotal arguments to try to establish a principle is basically a self-fullfilling exercise. You're implicitly using a record-keeping archetype in your appraisals of what is a priority and what isn't, which will clearly always lead to the same conclusion. You need to first make an appraisal of the monetary archetype itself.

Think of it as a chain of trust. All forms of money - whether commodity, paper or credit, lie somewhere along a chain of trust where one "tier" is backed by another until you get down to some tangible form of value that is not a reference to something else.

Even fiat money is ultimately backed by future economic activity = think diggers, schools, roads and farms. Then the chain starts - bonds are issues backed by that activity, currency is printed backed by the bonds, credit is issued backed by the currency etc. Chain of trust. If you're choosing a monetary archetype for a new electronic token, the very first characteristic which informs the priorities given to the properties of that new money is where you're placing it in the chain of trust.

With that in mind, we can note that all the tiers in the "backed" columns basically share the same basic priorities. However the base tier exhibits exactly the opposite priorities. So when choosing an archetype for the new money, we cannot blur or combine the two into 1 because their monetary properties are in conflict in terms of priority:

https://i.imgur.com/IDWjppi.png


In fact, thats a stretch of the concept of anonymity that has been pushed by promoters of opaque blockchains.

"Knowing" about a transaction doesn't change the intrinsic properties of a monetary medium. "Anonymous" = "A-nony-mous" means something is un-named. A lump of coal is anonymous by that definition. If it gets passed around 100 people and I'm the last one to hold it, then pass it to you. You know that I had it last because you have knowledge of the transaction. But it doesn't change the nature of the lump of coal as anonymous.

It's different from, say, money in a bank which cannot exist independently of the person who backs the credit it represents. That is not anonymous money. Again, it's a question of relevancy and priority. You can see me get out of my car, so that makes my ownership of the car "less private" than it would have been. So what ? You saw me pass you the lump of coal and may even have knowledge of a previous owner. So what ?

It isn't a reason to hide the car or disguise the coal. Recourse to mitigating transparency is not an option if we want to maximise value - the archetypal analysis tells us that.

The answer therefore is to decouple the problems of fungibility and transparency so they can be independently optimised - not at the expense of each other.

No, that is simply not true.  All forms of money are a recursive belief system.  They are the belief that a certain asset will be accepted by others against something valuable, because they believe the same thing.  That's all there is to a monetary asset.  There is no "backing" of it by anything, it is just pure belief.  I am willing to provide value in return for the monetary asset X, because I believe that I will OBTAIN value again when spending it,  simply because the next guy will hold the same belief as I do.

However, in order for that belief to be sustainable, the belief must be held too that one cannot create AT WILL the monetary asset out of thin air.  I'm not going to deliver value for X, if you can make X out of thin air AT WILL.  

On the other hand, X has to come from somewhere.  So it has/had to be created, found, dug up, .... whatever.  In a monetary system, one ACCEPTS a way of creation of "legit" currency.  Because it is the state, because it can be dug up from the ground, because one has to spend effort on it, because there's a fair competition in doing so.... WHATEVER reason that is considered fair/legit/acceptable, and this must be the ONLY way of making X.  We can accept that the state prints it (because we believe that the state is there for the common good) ; we can accept it that the king prints it (because we are humble servants of his Majesty) ; we can accept that one digs it up (because we could also dig it up) ; we can accept that it is mined (because we can also mine it) ...

But there must be a LEGIT way to CREATE the currency X, and no other means.  One way to create it, but surely not the only one, would be the John Law kind of issuing of currency, namely creation of certificates, the way you illustrate it.  But as I said, that's just ONE way of creating a currency: as "certificates of ownership of something valuable".  It doesn't have to be that way, and in fact, most of the time, it isn't.

The only other thing we must be sure of, is that transactions conserve the total amount of currency ; or, stated differently, that there is no double spending.

Once that's in place, the belief system is potentially sustainable, and that's all there is to it.    We then know that the only currency we can receive is from a legit origin, transmitted through transactions that conserved the total quantity of currency, and that we will be able to spend exactly that amount, once.

The idea that currency has to be "backed" by something of value is erroneous.  It is just a recursive belief system, nothing more.  A belief system that there is legit creation of tokens and that these tokens are transmitted in conservative transactions.

Gold is also a belief system. Gold has some intrinsic usage value, but that is only a tiny fraction of its market price.  It has some usage in jewels and technology, but that's peanuts.  Gold has value, because people think that other people value it.  That's not "backed" by anything either.  The day that people decide that gold has only technological value, its price will plummet to the price of, say, lithium or cobalt.

That said, the "backing" of a currency can be part of the belief system: if you BELIEVE that you are entitled to something of actual value against the currency no matter what, this is a way to give value to a currency through the value of what backs it.  But it is not a necessity.  As I pointed out, gold is not backed by anything and has monetary value too.

The idea that the modern fiat system is backed by anything is also ridiculous.  It isn't.  It used to be backed by a lie, namely "gold" or "silver", but when it became too obvious that that wasn't the case, people gave up, and now, central bank money is simply not backed by ANYTHING.  "future economy" or whatever is a joke invented to instil confidence and to sustain the belief system.  If there's hyperinflation, you SEE that it wasn't backed by anything.

Money is just belief.  The belief that someone else also believes that it has value.  And it works.

True - from a philosophical perspective.

But if you are engaged in monetary design it helps to have a systems analytical appraisal at your disposal in addition to mere philosophical observations.

No, really.  It isn't just philosophical.  It is purely economical.  Money is nothing else but a belief that others believe in value - and as such, one is part one-self of the group of believers that others believe in.  And that's all money needs: a self-sustaining community of people who mutually believe in each-others' belief in the value of the asset, the belief in the legit creation and the belief in the absence of double spending (conservation of money in transactions). 

@toknormal

I could even add that your "chain of trust" is somehow not even existing with any crypto currency, not even with bitcoin.

After all, what could potentially back bitcoin ?  Bitcoins are created by WASTING electricity (PoW).  You can hardly back something by waste heat.  Next, in each transaction, bitcoins are destroyed, and an equal amount of bitcoins are created: bitcoins are unspend transaction outputs ; when they are spend in a transaction, they are not "unspend" transactions any more, and NEW "unspend transactions" are now created.  So there's nothing special about "this" bitcoin being created because of the destruction of "that" bitcoin.  The only thing that counts is that the new coins (the new unspend transaction outputs) are EQUAL IN AMOUNT to the destroyed ones.  That's all we need to know.  If you happen to possess an unspend transaction output, which you can PROVE cryptographically, then all one needs to know is that this came from SOME destroyed previous unspend transaction output, OR was a legit new one created by wasting electricity.  A trivial way to show this, is by showing explicitly WHICH one it came from.  That's what bitcoin does.  But in doing so, one kills fungibility and anonymity.  There are smarter ways to prove cryptographically that the unspend transaction output I have, came from the destruction of SOME other coin somewhere.  That's what anonymous chains like monero or zcash do.  It's more sophisticated than the blunt proof of "it came from this one so the accounts are OK", but it is just as valid.  The QUANTITY of coins in circulation is finite and conserved in transactoins - that's what one needs to know. 

One doesn't need to know that THIS coin is "backed" by THAT amount of heat wasted in THAT mining farm at THAT moment.   One only needs to know that there's only this finite amount of coins in circulation, "backed" by that amount of waste heat.  But again, backing something by waste is a funny way to consider backing.  Because it isn't.  You cannot "redeem your waste heat" with your coins.  The heat is wasted.  So it is not a backing like with a credit system.  There's simply NOTHING that backs bitcoin, or any other crypto.  So your argument that one cannot follow what backs what doesn't even go for bitcoin, because NOTHING backs it.  It is the purest example of "belief system".

That's why column zero (Archetype A) is labelled "unbacked".

Basically all he does is cherry picks whatever theory he thinks makes XMR look somehow "bad". He can't really even explain it or back it up himself. That's why he has no real answers when challenged as you can see above. Toknormal talks so much delusional nonsense i feel he might be legitimately brain damaged

There are many alt's that claim to be the main anonymous coin; dash, blackcoin, monero, shadowcoin etc.
But we all know the only coin that will win, will be the coin with the best marketing.

The original idea of "backing" a currency is that whatever backs it, HAS INTRINSIC VALUE.  That is to say, it has a finite market price because people want to use it, and the market value doesn't derive from the fact that people think that they can sell it to someone else (in an infinite succession).

This was the basis of John Law's doctrine, where the backing happens with land.  Land has intrinsic value.  You want to possess land, not just because you think you can sell it later, but because you want to grow groceries on it, because you want to build a house on it, because you want to put a factory on it, because you want to have forest on it and keep other people out.... so many uses of land.    
Or you could take something else with intrinsic value: salt, or coal, or oil, or whatever that has intrinsic (usage) value, which is, after all, the whole source of value in the end.

The problem with "backing" money with something is that, in as much as the money is really redeemable for the backing asset, the monetary value of money gets transferred to the backed asset, which therefor increases in price.  That is a problem for the actual usage of that asset.

Let me explain.  Suppose that "salt", which has some market value, is taken to back a certain monetary token.  People use "salt bills".  They know that for a salt bill, they can obtain 1 kg of salt at the central bank, who has acquired a huge stock of salt.  Now, in as much as that salt bill will originally get the value of the market price of 1kg of salt, if that monetary asset is successful, it will obtain more and more value, simply because of the demand for it and its limited supply (Fischer's formula).  But a salt bill being equivalent to a kg of salt, people will now hoard real salt too.  And putting salt on your potatoes will become a very expensive affair: the physical salt has become, through the equivalence, itself a monetary asset, with a much higher price than the original intrinsic usage market value of salt.
Now, the "backing" of the salt bills with salt is essentially a backing of a monetary asset (salt bills) by ANOTHER monetary asset (salt), and that value is much larger than the original intrinsic value of salt.

The monetary value of salt is again, nothing else but a belief system: salt has value because people believe that other people value it as a monetary asset.  The day that this belief crumbles, salt will go back to its intrinsic usage value of it, to put on your potatoes.  In the mean time, people have to eat unsalted potatoes.  That's the problem with "backing money": first of all, it destroys the utility of the backing asset (here, salt) because it renders it too expensive ; next, the backing asset itself gets an inflated price that only comes from a monetary belief system.  So there's no point in backing money, because whatever backs it, also becomes "inflated with belief-thin-air".

I'm guessing people  thought anonimty was that big a deal. maybe it is, we'll see if and when at least 10% of the globe is actively into crypto useage

We hear.. "one day..."

Well people who showed here to PROFIT..
I posted what i did on the anon crap for that exact reason.

Your ANON coin will forever be pidgin-holed as some Bitcoin offshoot niche / gimmick scheme coin.

You can not achieve world wide global general usage adoption by the public when you oppose the powers in control of FIAT.
Go for it.. walk into a major bank and ask them how they feel about Monero or Anon coins.  :D

I've been pushing the animals head into the food and it won't eat.. AKA: you all refuse to listen.
You all just keep chanting "Trust me" and "One day" basically.. with diversionary reasoning.

Best case scenario you get some minor adoption with dark Market usage and some trading with your picture ID on Poloniex then later hacks or exploits show up rendering Monero insecure then.. Dark Market arrests happen and Marshall's auction off more crypto coins.

There will be no world wide global adoption.. ever.

I think you all know that too and yet argue on with it all simply to guard your bags and profit from the "Scheme"

You have to get past the old guard people.
Your attempts to say we don't need FIAT ties are silly bullshit..

Take for example when i sent $2,500 twice from BTCe to Paypal.
PP launched an investigation and seized my funds and made me get a signed affidavit saying i violated their TOS.
Which i did.. i never did read the fine print.
Which said usage of ANY virtual currency with their service is forbidden.

WHAT.. THE.. FUCK.. did i just fucking say ?
The old guard is standing there and they are blocking your adoption.. on Bitcoin (never mind anon coin variants)

And when you just need 1 or 2 key leaders to Silk Road you are probably willing to bribe an exchange employee to leak all your info.
BAM.. arrested.

Bin Laden / Lambo syndrome.

In other words your security is compromised.. by passing the 13,000 layers of encryption.
Such as the Firewall i have use i have keygen'd many times for 4 years..
I also patched it with 1 byte changed to render the activation system on it broken.
Get it ? I did not have to brute force crack and break the hashing algo it used ..i went AROUND it !

I am talking about the trend on the web last decade or two..
We have seen a whole slew of ways that security can be compromised.
And all we see from Monero idiots is them pointing to their vault door howling and cawing like crows how their damn DOOR is "secure"
So.. fucking.. what !
I don't give two flying shits about your fucking little door.. i laugh at your god damn door. LOL
If i need in that vault bad enough i will make friends with the Bank Manager ;)

Yeah, buddy. No one wants anonymity in bitcoin, that's why there are DNM's and bitcoin tumblers. Your statement makes all the sense in the world.

Now why are you FUDding XMR? Current price too high for you to be able to afford to buy in? OR do you fear XMR taking dominance over whatever bags you're holding?

 Might wanna spend your time otherwise if you can't get two 0.001's to scrape together, Spoetnik!

If you don't oppose the powers in control of fiat, use fiat.  If you want to go to a bank, use fiat.  Why would you want a bank to be interested in (anon or not) crypto ?  What's the point ?  If you go to a bank, use their money.  And if you use "bank-less" crypto, don't go to a bank.  Your statement is about as pertinent as "go to a gas station and ask them how they feel about sailing boats".

Anon is not important because crypto is simply almost not used.  Most crypto is simply speculative IOU on exchanges.  There you don't need anon of course ; hell, you even don't need a block chain.  Just faith in the owner of the exchange.  Like with a bank but with less legal protection.

Why oppose them if you can just avoid them...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYD17h6hlCs&t=3m17s

anonymous e-cash has the potential to cuff TPTB's hands on its back.
Some people were able to see this already in 1999, others don't see it when it's right in front of their nose...

BTW, not saying that this anonymous e-cash will and must be XMR, but there will always be a need for anonymous e-cash...

best regards

You seem to be making several reasonable observations here but then get them all tangled up and arrive at a slightly weird conclusion ;) Probably because - again - they're all notional, philosophical observations rather than analytical ones.

Intrinsic Value ?
Firstly, "Instrinsic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_and_extrinsic_properties_(philosophy)) value" is a slightly meaningless term since A: it means different things to different people and B: it implies that the "value" is a property of the monetary medium whereas if you spent 5 seconds studying a market depth chart you can see that it isn't - it's a projected property of its consumers and traders who all value the asset differently.

A more useful way to look at it is to split all things into one of 2 types of value:

1. utility value (things that are acquired to be retained)
2. monetary value (things that are acquired to be exchanged)

The reason that’s useful is because it’s reasonably easy to delineate utility (product) markets from monetary ones, notwithstanding that there is sometimes an overlap as with precious metals.

Monetary Premium
The monetary premium - as you rightly point out - is the value that’s added to an item in excess of its utility value when it gets used as money. ( See this example (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=970687.msg10610212#msg10610212) where I had a go at quantifying it using funfair tokens for how huge it is). But what do you notice about this principle ? It is that a monetary medium is most efficient (most “perfect| if you like) when it has zero utility value. Thats because if it has any utility value at all then a finite amount of it will continuously go out of circulation. This concept is slightly counter-intuitive because many people see the utility value of precious metals for example as adding to their monetary value.

So a cryptocurrency is near-perfect money in that respect. But lets look at this in the context of your conclusion:

"Backed" Money


Really ? What exactly do you think exchange balances are ? Or the charge balance at a supermarket till ? ETF certificates ? ANY kind of invoice or bill ? The pricing on high street goods ?

ALL of these are backed money (derivatives) that follow a chain of exchangeability or trust of the type I cited earlier and NONE of them involve trades which would have to interact with a blockchain even if that blockchain’s tokens formed the denomination for the trade. These chains of trust are everywhere and almost all follow the same cycle (chain) of exchangeability until you get down to a backing asset which is “transparent” and not the subject of a record-keeping paradigm.

Back to Archetypes
Finally, lets just look at one of those examples for a minute - the cryptocurrency exchange - to do the archetype appraisal. We examine 2 types of monetary media in the chain of trust, both sharing the same denomination but decoupled in every other way:

1. Blockchain tokens (The “backing” asset)
2. The account balances on the exchange (The “trading” currency)

Notice that your account balance is denominated in blockchain tokens (say, BTC) and you can trade all day long without even touching the blockchain. But they are meaningless without the backing asset which gives them value. (When MT Gox was discovered to be doing fractional reserve trading, the price of BTC on that exchange plummeted to about a quarter of the global market value to reflect that fact)

If we further examine the characteristics of those two distinct monetary “tiers”, what do we find ? The exact same two conflicting priorities I described earlier in the commentary on archetypes, where the tier zero asset is transparent and where privacy is the domain of the higher order tiers. In other words, decoupled so that they can be optimised without compromise.

This is what Spoetnik has been trying to explain throughout the thread (in his own inimitable way). For it to be of any use, a cryptocurrency asset needs entry and exit points to its derivative markets (the most basic of which is an exchange) and that levels the playing field.

Why we need transparent blockchains
A cryptocurrency - being unbacked money - will always form the base tier in a complex, layered, trust based financial network. That network requires maximum transparency from its “base assets”, otherwise it will simply taint the entire coin supply since the bulk of the trading goes on using derivative tokens anyway (see exchanges, eCommerce systems, POS, you name it).

Obscurity therefore has no useful purpose manifesting itself in a base blockchain asset as it will simply make it less useable, less, trustable and less valuable.

https://i.imgur.com/o3EZcGT.png

toknormal has a PhD in the field of hand wavey economic bullshit, apparently. Talking about this stuff like it's some well established scientific principle. I don't even think regular economists know wtf they're talking about, let alone cryptoeconomists.

The replies i am getting here are a failure and so is MONERO.

I can light up your ass's for eternity ..each and every single point squashed.
You guys have nothing on me or my points i made.. your done, game over.

My agenda ?

Adoption dumb fucks.

I need money ? I keep giving away any coins i get because i don't want them.

Retorts about being jealous and wanting to "buy in" ? = ROFL
I don't buy dead scam coins for profit  ::)

We are suppose to be opposing the Govt ?
Where the flying fuck did that idiotic bullshit come from ?
Who the fuck told you morons Satoshi made Bitcoin to "Stick it to the man" ..like a rebellious naive teen.
If that is the core of your little Morono defense you guys are in a lot of trouble.

Further more.. learn to read brain dead retards..
I said "Compromise" endlessly since 2013.
..in other words idiots i said you can still aim for your rebellious childish free market angst PROFITEERING.
And still try and work WITH the powers that be right now (not like you have a fucking choice)
Which by the way is your real agenda for the rebellious free market rabble..
You all simply want to protect your scam coin machine where you make 6,000 ANN topics to profit from.
THAT and that alone is why you fucking idiots want no regulations.

It's not like you resist them (verbally only on a forum) because you're all using Dark Markets or something.
Nope you are here spouting off simply because you think your ROI's are threatened by reg's.
How many of you contributed to drafting any regulations again ?
NONE.. you are content to sit here denying they exist.. as they are continually implemented anyway :D

And an exception to the rules as always does not mean fuck all.
Just because you CAN buy Monero tard coins via some non-exchange method..
..doesn't change the fact all the trading is done on Poloniex etc.

Your citing a random exception to the rule does not invalidate the damn rule idiots.
Nice try though.. again (you play that card here like a broken record)

You retards actually think you are going to get global real world user adoption on a large scale with out connecting to the FIAT system and opposing the current regulatory authorities ?

THEN YOU ARE FUCKING RETARDED !

I can prove it infinitely too.. go ahead cocky little crypto-rebels..
Go tell the tax man you made money on crypto and did not claim it.. see what happens cocky fuckheads.

By the way.. Ripple + Fincen

PS:
FBI + Localbitcoins arrests.

What part of reading English do you idiots fail at ?
I can see you want to argue but.. well, you just don't know how.  :D

You wish you had some little retort or defense for ANON coins but you don't.
ANd the general pubic sees it too !
They think what i think and the market prices of the coins proves it.
You are not fooling anyone other than the 0.0000000000001% of the worlds population here bag holding Monero for PROFITS.

You should be worried little expert crypto-pundits.. your anon bullshit has no where left to go but down.

And supporting NO LAWS for a philosophical ideal is retarded.
When you are only doing so to pad your wallets.
Meanwhile in real reality the lack of reg's is used by Dark Market drug dealers and pedo's and crypto criminals making scams.

Finding some stupid excused to abolish law so you can chant freedom is stupid.
And spare me the cliche'd retort of it "don't work"
Murder is illegal now isn't it ? Laws exist but it still happens so should we abandon the law then ?
THAT is your tired old ass logic on the matter..
You guys got some nerve.. i seen a recent news story where a wannabee Hitman was on the Dark Markets.
And here you are defending him chanting Free Market like retards.

Laws exist for a fucking reason.
And they ALREADY exist dumb fucking morons.. did you not see my Paypal comment earlier ?
When i Google searched the email i got from them i found the same one sent to a guy here in 2012
and what do we see here on the forum ?
An entire forum sub-section dedicated to encouraging users to violate the PP TOS and get nailed.

Crypto is ALREADY 90% reliant on transfers to and from FIAT.
Sitting here saying we don't need them is a retarded crock of moronic bullshit.

Like the story i told you all the other day how i was chatting with a big site owner who was using a hoster that accepted Bitcoin only.. yet he had no idea to the fuck to get the damn bitcoins and was possibly going to have his site shut down.
What do you think the Bitcoin noob is going to end up doing ?
HE IS GOING TO BUY BITCOINS WITH FIAT DUMB FUCKING MORONS.
I know.. because he told me he was going to.

You have NO retort.. 0
You idiots are fucked.
Your ANON bullshit is dead and going no where and beyond doomed.

The fact you spout off otherwise is deceitful bullshit.... for PROFITS (on Poloniex so you can buy BTC with FIAT then trade them with your Picture ID for ROI's)

AKA: The reason you don't want reg's in the first place.. ROI's  ::)

This my cocky stupid crypto-contrarians is 100% completely obvious to the world watching.
You are not fooling anyone and are wasting you're time and suckering in naive young millennials who suffer from stupidity and believe the kool-aid drinking rebellious free market rabble (for profits on poloniex with your picture ID)

We don't need laws or banks etc ?

Tell that to the hundred's of not thousands of Police agencies hunting Ransomware spreaders.
Your buddies.. you are here defending (for profits on Poloniex with your Picture ID)

I am jealous ? Of your ROI'z ?  :D
I think not scum bags.. i just have Integrity unlike the rest of you pricks.
I actually care about main stream adoption or RansomWare victims or guys dying from Fentanyl bought on Dark Markets or stupid teens thinking they can trust the security of a DM coin anon claim from Monero as Untraceable.
Or the close to billion dollars stolen from exchanges from Gox to Mintpal to RawX / McxNOW or Cryptsy etc etc
Or all the other services that rip you off with no repercussions.. such as Escrows or Pools.

Nope assholes i am not here defending all those pricks to brag about my ROI's using a sock puppet account you just created.
Nope i am here holding my head up high with some class & integrity.

Monero is dead.

It is not going anywhere or doing anything.. it peaked and can only go down from here.

You guys create these anon GIMMICK coins over & over.. to profit off them .

I seen hours ago an arrest in Canada where they had to call in hazmat suite guys.
They needed to use suits made for nuclear disasters and quarantine the place.. why ?
Well let me tell you, Carfentenyl can kill an adult by touching a couple grains with your hands.
Wrap your head around that !
..risky packages sent by snail mail all over the world daily.
There is an epidemic going on all over with mass deaths associated with Fentanyl.
A lot of it is sold on Dark Markets paid for with Bitcoin.
I know i seen another news report recently saying that exactly (Alphabay)

So no.. sleazy little fucking profiteers i do NOT support your scam coin gimmick anon bullshit for profits.
Sorry but i have more class and integrity than the entire shitcoin scene combined.
And be grateful i told you HOW TO GET RICH.
Sadly you are too stupid too listen and would rather be global predators or their enablers.. for profits.
Think of that greedy naive rebels next time you are helping a family member infected with Ransomware.

Here's another "hand wavey" factoid for you since you're so suitably entertained ;)

Of the 13 Million (http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/volume/monthly/#BTC) in XMR denominated trades that occured last month which supported the coin's value, precisely zero benefited from XMR's anonymity technology. Rather it all had to rely on Poloniex's password security and was additionally logged, with identities and email addresses.

Why is that ?

Answer: because cryptonote takes a record-keeping archetype that belongs to the higher order (https://s30.postimg.org/m5n1f08zl/exchange_Entity.png) monetary tiers and redundantly implements it in the base tier where the trading isn't and where transparency, not opacity belongs.

Economics isn't a (real) science, and the vast majority of economists are essentially bullshit peddlers. People should read Taleb. Toknormal is at the absolute lowest rung of economists (armchair economist), so what exactly does that make him? Lol.

Okay, and 0% of the $X in BTC trades benefited from BTC's decentralization and lack of counterparty risk. Centralized exchanges suck. Thanks for pointing that out, Einstein.

I don't know why we keep arguing with you. One look at your post history shows that you're primarily involved in scamcoins. You have zero credibility to be lecturing anyone.

BTC's "decentralisation" and lack of counterparty risk aren't the least bit inconsistent with it's "bearer token" archetype. See above.


Not so much when they form the basis of your entire valuation. I didn't detect too much misery when Bitfinex adopted. The words "cake" and "eating it" spring to mind  ;)

One day BTC WILL have full anon. but at that time so will many other coins.

You miss the point. Anonymity is not in the road map for bitcoin because it has its own problems with scaling and the growing size of the blockchain. I also do not agree that there is no need for another coin that has anonymity implemented. There is. Look at it this way, Monero is a real world live testnet for bitcoin. 

We should be doing some TestNet work with compliance.. not the other way.
Why ? Because we want a crypto currency *USED* ..not traded on Poloniex for profit.

The large infrastructure i mentioned is out there and it is resisting crypto coins.
I'd like to see us all move forward and make progress.

So far after 8 years we have 6,000 "Test Net" coin ANN topics  :D
Get it ?
How many times have you all seen me ask some new coin shill why he didn't use test net ?
Why did he have to put it on Poloniex for profits to test it ?

Test Net ? your telling me.. LOL
I have been harping on that for years !

Guys, there is a problem.
What i am seeing is the solution is to go full ANON then go full anti-compliance.
Somehow in your minds you think this is the answer to the problem.. of adoption.

By the way Bitcoin already has a had a long term reputation of being a drugs & guns criminal coin thingy for profits on the web.. i know i have had pretty much every person i ever talked to on the street tell me that to my face.
A recent story in my news paper mentioned how the current financial guys admitted how they hide any involvement with Crypto from the existing FIAT system people.
..because it's regarded as scammy ass bullshit !

AND THAT IS FUCKING BITCOIN ..never mind pushing a far more anon styled coin.

You are all mostly in massive denial about the situation we are in.
And your half ass solution to criticism is to make things worse.

I am telling you all this because i don't think your efforts are working.
I am telling you the problem with anti-money laundering laws exist and that circumventing them is not a bright idea.
The govt's don't take too kindly to that sort of thing.. nor do they appreciate you failing to pay your taxes on the ROI's you brag about making off of the 6,000 "TestNet" Like penny stocks" "coins" you flog and defend here.. used by criminals to spread child porn or drugs or machine guns.

I am all for freedom but when the scale is tilted so far in favor of the criminals then ya we need to put in laws.
Not abolish them all..

Who is it benefiting from the lack of reg's and anon services or coins ?
Criminals.. from new scam coin pushers to ransomware to Dark market dirt bags.
And you all chant Free Market.. to pad your Poloniex wallets so you can count your ROI's.

Have some fucking class and think of the victims for fucks sakes.
Have some sympathy for the people burned by Gox or Cryptsy.. don't defend that shit by saying we don't need laws or ties to fiat etc.
Wrong.. we need the opposite and you will be saying it too once your coins vanish on an exchange and you show up here ASKING FOR THE POLICE to arrest some exchange staff.

The reality is you loiter around spewing bullshit for profits.
You don't actually care about adoption or we would be further along by now.

SAY what ever the fuck you all want.. your actions betray you though.
And the world sees it too !

Deliberately violating established criminal law is not going to further the crypto coin agenda.
Anti-money laundering laws were created for a reason people.. and it was not to stop your ROI's kidiot profiteers  :D

So this "i hackkkkzord da steams" guy is also super pro-establishment and says the government is an all-knowing GOD that can not be fought, fooled or tricked.

Fine.

The 15 mentions/post of "spewing bullshit for profits" must be projecting his own actions of FUD'ing for profit. Why else FUD? The way he talks about others in this thread also implies that he's not here to convince anyone, either.

@PantminerS7
If you would like to address any specific part of what i said feel free to do so.

Your hinting i have some ulterior motive or secret agenda is bullshit.

Yeah i hacked cracked Steam so fucking what ? Jealous ?
It backed up a point i was making.. point being the crackers mentality.
I have spent half my life looking at walls looking for ways to exploit them.
I did not read about hackers on the news then strut around the web thinking i know things now.
I spent my time online DOING things that gave me real tangible experience.
..unlike the Monero idiots etc who showed up here with virtually no experience then made a shitcoin then spent the rest of the time shooting their mouth off like Earth greatest geniuses in human history leading the way into the future etc.

Take your leader of Monero.. "King" Risto.
He said his first coin was Monero.. so he spent i heard years ago around 882 BTC on them back when BTC was super high.
Since i think he spent far more.
Back when he was running around proclaiming BTC will be worth 1 million per coin.

Yup.. you are following the dick holster jiggling of a confessed mental patient with insane claims.

Whether "Secure & Untraceable" is true or not.. it will not stop them from printing it on the "Merch".

Anyway..  ;D
You are all free to bring up your own *relevant* past experience too.
..if you have any.

PS:

Monero is DEAD.

In fact, what I wanted to say is exactly what you say next:


You are right that instead of "intrinsic value" I should have used the words "utility value" ; that's what I meant with "intrinsic value".


Indeed, that's right too: because otherwise, you perturb the original "utility" market of the asset.  ("salting your potatoes becomes an expensive affair").


No, that's not the reason.  In fact, most assets with an utility value that also acquire monetary value, have MUCH LARGER monetary value than utility value, rendering their utility useless, because too expensive.

It also illustrates that the hopes of "backing" monetary value with "utility value" (which is what backing is all about) is a hopeless affair, because the extra monetary value (which is usually MUCH larger) is in any case not backed.

The exact example of this is gold.  Gold has a small utility value, and a huge monetary value.   The monetary value of gold is hence NOT backed by its "utility value".  Gold's monetary value is just as well "made out of thin air" as is the monetary value of a dollar bill, and that "thin air" is nothing else but the belief system I talked about earlier.


We agree, because a crypto currency (just as well as fiat in a bank account) is not backed by anything but the thin air of the belief system, and is NOT destroying the utility of some or other asset like salt, a metal or whatever that is going to become too expensive to be useful.



Debt-backed assets are ALSO monetary assets, and it is true that as long as there is a provable 1-1 link with full possibility to redeem them, they have the same value as the debt they represent.  But not all monetary assets are debt certificates with a 1-1 redeemable link.  I would even say, that this kind of stuff is often just a bootstrap for a monetary asset to get started with the belief system, only to go to fractional banking and later, to release the redeeming all together.

That's exactly what happened to fiat money: first of all, it was just a redeemable 1-1 debt certificate for gold or silver ; later there was the joke of fractional banking, and in the end it was entirely released.

But not all monetary assets need to be "bootstrapped" by such a debt certificate.  Gold for instance, isn't.  Gold is not redeemable against something else.  Bitcoins either.  They are not a debt certificate.  So the "tracing back to exactly what debt it was" doesn't matter for this kind of monetary asset.


What you are talking about here is the value of exchange IOU tokens, which you erroneously take for BTC, in the same way as you take bank account money erroneously for FED dollars, and in the same way as people took erroneously dollar bills for "amount of silver" and later "amount of gold".

That's what I talked about earlier: these are NEW monetary assets, which can be linked 1-1 to some other asset (monetary or not) ; then one can do fractional banking, and in the end, one can even release the link.

Maybe one day, "coinbase BTC" will have their existence entirely decoupled from the block chain bitcoins, and lead their life of their own.  They will be IOU tokens on coinbase which have nothing to do any more with bitcoin.  Like dollar bills are not redeemable any more against gold.

As long as you BELIEVE that coinbase tokens stand for 1-1 bitcoins, and as long as you believe that they are redeemable against real bitcoins on the block chain, coinbase tokens will be traded like bitcoins.

But this is because coinbase tokens don't have their own "belief system" and are not independent monetary assets, they are a debt-certificate based thing.  You think that if you have a coinbase token, that you hold a debt of coinbase to owe you a bitcoin (on the chain).



There are no "base assets" in a crypto currency.  The crypto coins themselves are the monetary asset, and they sustain their own recursive belief system.  The only reason you believe in the value of bitcoin is because you think that other people are willing to give value for bitcoin (and they do so because they also believe that).  They don't believe in anything they can redeem their bitcoins against (like you believe with your coinbase tokens).  So there is no "base asset" to refer to.  The coins are the base themselves.

The only thing people need to believe, is that the coins are created according to an accepted rule, and that transactions conserve the AMOUNT of coins (no double spending).  Which coin came from where doesn't matter here to sustain the belief system ; only the ability to verify the coin creation according to the accepted rule in the system, and the ability to verify the conservation of coins in transactions.

You don't need to know where what piece of gold was dug up to accept its monetary gold value.  You only need to know that it is genuine gold, and you know the laws of physics which tell you that one cannot "copy" gold and double-spend it ; and you accept that digging up gold is a fair way of putting it in circulation.

I'm starting to see where you're coming from.  You see crypto currencies as some value carriers between different exchanges, that is, it is a "transmission token" (in time and space) between "buying it on an exchange at date X" and "selling it on another exchange at date Y".  The "ripple of exchanges" in a way.  I fully agree that in such a case, anonymity on the block chain sounds weird, because both end points know about you.  It is just a "value vehicle in time and space" between exchanges. 

But I see exchanges rather as a kind of nuisance, which, for the moment, makes some kind of sense in crypto because of its infinitesimal adoption.  However, the idea is that one day, we will have a closed monetary circle in crypto: you work and get crypto ; you spend with your crypto, and your employer obtains crypto against the goods he produced and you bought. 

Exchanges then are only on the boundaries of monetary cycles, such as when you need to exchange dollars for euros when you travel from New York to Paris ; but most of the dollars run in closed circles, and exchanges are only "boundary effects".

Then, exchanges are not the "valuation" of crypto ; rather, merchants and employees are, when they set prices buying goods in stores, and when they negociate their pay in crypto.

The problem with all anon coins is that, in fact, this coins cant be used for anonymization because of very low circulation . Coin should be widespread to be usable in anonymization. It is a prerequisite. And anon coins will not be widespread coz this feature is not needed for most users. Anonymization is not the right feature to be used as growth driver.  So it is closed circle.
So , I'm afraid that it will be not monero for  "... you work and get crypto ; you spend with your crypto, and your employer obtains crypto..."

Yes, I realised that many people hold this vision.

But most have not spent 30 years architecting, coding and maintaining the actual systems that implement a commercial transacting environment such as accounting, ERPs, eCommerce and retail and so have the luxury of taking a making a purely symbolic appraisal of the future.

In particular, they don't make any distinction between a monetary denomination and a monetary medium. When you do take those into account, saying that "Monero has great anonymity" is like saying the "Pound Sterling is a great currency because it's printed on really strong paper". Thats because Monero's privacy technology is not a monetary property - it's technology property of that blockchain's transacting medium. Another reason why it is a huge error to couple priorities from the record-keeping archetype to the that which defines the monetary base since - as I've already pointed out - they are in direct conflict.

The assumption amongst BTC talking heads is usually that denomination and medium will be one and the same thing, but that assumption is wild. Lets, for example, examine your utopian dream where "everything" is denominated in crypto.

There is almost no aspect of the modern commercial infrastructure that the blockchain could remotely support. Nor is it designed to support trading anyway - it's job is to define and maintain a monetary reserve. If you go to a supermarket in the 22nd century, you won't be doing blockchain transactions. If you get paid by your employer, it may be in Monero's but they won't be sending your money to a blockchain address. If invest in pension bonds monthy, your bonds may be denominated in Moneros but it won't be held in a blockchain address. The financial infrastructure will continue to use what it always uses - a system of commercial account management and managed credit since that is far more efficient than any blockchain could ever support. Pure numbers are simply far faster, far more flexible and far more scaleable than any blockchain.

Sure, monetarily, things may be improved because you'd have a kind of gold standard where the entire economic liquidity was backed by blockchain tokens, but the activity would not actually be carried out ON the blockchain and anyone that thinks it will is delusional. You stand at a checkout queue. Your cornflakes get checked through on the other guy's bill. The cashier has to reverse it off his bill and put it onto your, meanwhile dock his store-points, qualify you for a discount threshold and let you pay with cash instead of credit. No blockchain gets a lookin at the pointy end of commerce.

The reason I brought up exchanges wasn't to make an appraisal of cryptocurrency exchanges, it was to demonstrate how quickly real commercial activity moves out of the realm of the blockchain - even though it may continue to be denominated in terms of blockchain tokens. In a mature crypto economy, only a tiny proportion - miniscule, 2-3% if you're lucky - of the actual liquidity would be co-incidental with blockchain tokens. The rest is second order monetary media (see tiers 1 upwards above) where record-keeping archetypal priorities are in force.

https://i.imgur.com/Y2hsqVt.png

I'm not sure about that.  I think most people want some privacy and discreteness about their financial whereabouts.  Transparent ledgers such as bitcoin are way, way too transparent.  Again, we're not talking about "hiding from the NSA".  We're talking about Joe not finding out I gave some money to Mary.  

In fact the problem of too small an anonymity set solves itself: from the moment the economy is closed, it is also large enough for the anonymity set to be big enough.  A prerequisite for this is that the anonymity feature is compulsory.  This is what I don't like about zcash (amongst others).

If Joe, the bar keeper, and Mary, my friend, are coin users, that means that the user base is big enough to be anonymous enough so that my privacy is protected, and that Joe doesn't immediately see that the money he paid me for me repairing the toilets in his bar, was also the birthday present for Mary.  Even with an anonymity set of a few thousand users, that's good enough.


I don't know.  IF EVER I were to accept any crypto so that I work for it and can spend it, for sure it would have to be anonymous, style monero, zcash, dash or whatever, or I wouldn't even consider using it that way.  No way that the people that pay me, and the people I spend money on, can find out what I did, where I got the money from, and where I spent it.  Like now, people don't know this, and that's what I want.

I would never use a crypto like bitcoin the way I like to use fiat.  It has way to little privacy.

(and again, I'm not talking about doing evil things)

Those coin's "anonymity" properties unfortunately are not independent of transacting medium and since 95% of commercial activity takes place off-chain (e.g. witness last month's 14 million Moneros) you'd be out of luck. So what you actually mean is you'd only only accept blockchain transactions which as we've seen, barely feature in the commercial trading realm and will only do so less as the crypto-economy grows.

The anonymity characteristics of the particular particular transacting medium you're using would have far more to say than the blockchain properties and I wouldn't hold my breath for a 1000-employee payroll to get done on an obscured chain ;)

They aren't, but this is because you still see crypto as a "base currency" on top of which a whole other accountancy will be built.  I agree with you that if that's the case, then anonymity features of a crypto are not much needed.  They are then like central bank money.

However, if the idea is to build a whole banking system on top of crypto, then I don't even see the point in crypto.  The point of crypto was exactly to do away with that.  And then, what you call the "monetary denomination" (which is nothing else but the "backing base") and the monetary medium is exactly the same, namely a token on the block chain, which is also the ledger, the means of payment, and the rest of the banking system.

And then, yes, it does matter, because the protocol and the block chain are ALSO the bank, the credit card, the means of payment and everything else.  You are absolutely right that privacy technology is not a monetary property.  But it is the property of a banking relationship.  And as in our case of crypto, the protocol is ALSO the banking relationship, it has to be included.


No, it is essential.  Unless you see crypto as a kind of secondary monetary asset for traders.  
If you take away the idea that crypto is there to do banking without banks, crypto loses its meaning and reason-d'être.  You may very well be right, that crypto will never be that.  But in that case, crypto will simply disappear in the long run, as it doesn't have any sensible economic function, and was just a hyped toy of a small crowd of traders.


I don't agree with that.  But if you are right, then forget about crypto immediately.  It is then just a funny hype that will fade away.
The reason I don't agree with that, is that whatever a block chain can support is essentially given by technical limitations like band width, storage space and processing power - these things grow over time (unless there are hard limits inside the protocol, like bitcoin, which make it indeed impossible to support unbound growth, but that's a design error, not an impossibility).
A 10 000 fold growth in these things means that bitcoin like chains are capable of supporting VISA transactions worldwide.  According to Moore's law, that's about 20 years from now.


I think that is a ridiculous idea, because you don't need any bloody crypto to have a "base monetary reserve".  If you want to build a whole banking system on top of bitcoin, you can just as well keep with fiat, it is the same.  No need for bitcoin as a "reserve" for fiat, no more than you need "gold" as a reserve for fiat.

Crypto as an electricity-wasting alternative for central bank gold is totally ridiculous.  It will never work.  If crypto is to live, it is to replace banks, not to build banks on top of it.  Because banks don't need any "foundation" to build upon.

If I get paid in Monero, it will of course be on a block chain, or I won't be paid in Monero, but in whatever fiat one will pay me in.

Again, crypto has no meaning if the idea is to build banking on top of it, as it was meant to replace banking.  If it can't or won't do what it was designed for, then it simply has no reason to exist.

That said, there may well be one day "central bank crypto" but that will be a private central bank block chain, not bitcoin or whatever other grassroots chain, and hard forks will be issued the same way that central bank governors decide on policy change.  It would just be a kind of bookkeeping device, that has in fact nothing to do with crypto as it was meant.

There is not much "commercial activity taking place off chain".  There are people trading exchange IOU against one another, which are, indeed, denominated in crypto, but that is not "commercial activity".  There is in fact very little ACTUAL commercial activity using crypto (that is, buying/selling stuff with crypto other than other monetary assets) and I'm pretty much sure that most of that genuine part of crypto use is on-chain.  This is the only interesting part of crypto, small as it is.

dinofelis,

In situation when monero already have the same market volume as bitcoin, same liquidity and etc it would be interesting to point out that monero is more anonimous then bitcoin. And it is really great. And it is really advantage. 
But in conditions where bitcoin is already widely distributed someone offers to use another coin and as the argument he says that it is technically more anonymous then bitcoin.. "Thats very cool" most ppl will answer, continue using bitcoin coz strongly anonymity is not the main thing for them.
Privacy you are talking can be achieved in a few easy steps using bitcoin.
(Joe will have to do quite complex work to find out you gave some money to Mary.)
And those for whom anonymity is important will not use it coz new coin does not provide anonymity while used only by few ppl.
Thats what i mean when said that "Anonymization is not the right feature to be used as growth driver."
 

It didnt bring anything? Its just a cryptonote clone 1:1 with some edits from people who dont know what they're doing??
And yeah, without a GUI

So we bash Monero, drop the price and then buy in? You gonna tell us when you buy?

Hearing this i remember words of BipCoin developer. https://bipcoin.org
He said they started BipCoin, that same as Monero  base on CryptoNote, and because troubles gave up on it next day. After a month or so they planed to give it another try and they checked it again and saw people still mine it and it normally works.

Seems cryptos like Monero or BipCoin have just hard time dying.

 

You forgot about the creating a brand new account here part of it. (like the dummy account you made)
..i have seen many on this topic alone.  :D

People i tried to start yet another Monero topic because i was thinking of why they did not push to get ANON into Bitcoin.
I posted because of that angle of things.. but !
There is clearly a lot more to it and any discussion is fine with me. (it is related)

Dark Market usage for example creeps into the discussion obviously.
And i want to remind you guys that there is NO Free Market.
Saying you are having *Some* success hiding from the current FIAT laws does not mean you are operating in a true lawless environment.

Dark Market users for example can & do regularly get arrested.
Because there *IS* laws.
Like the anti-money laundering laws (why they collect your ID etc)
They are here and they are in effect.. you have ZERO wiggle room to chant free market like a rebel.
I warned you all loudly they were going to do this and service after service gradually implemented laws.
I told you so !

Plugging your ears like a child and chanting our anon coin is working is a load of bullshit.
If they want your ass bad enough they will have it !
"Secure & Untraceable" printed on the Monero hoodies they sell are bullshit.

And your illusion that you HAVE a Free Market is a crock of shit !

You all mostly caw like crows in compete denial as you hand over your picture fucking ID.
You loiter around defending criminals and their services while handing your info to Coinbase or Cryptsy or Poloniex etc.
So you can make money off of ICO's the very definition of centralization.

No matter which way you look at it you guys are a load of fucking bullshit.. saying one thing then doing the opposite

..for money (real money cash fiat dollars $$$)

(while *pretending* to be Crypto "Currency" supporters)

The reality is if you were a supporter you would be after main stream adoption not catering to criminals.
Your push is in the opposite direction of adoption.
Hence it is not your goal in the first place.

Common sense would tell any idiot that making a coin more compliant with authorities would yield adoption.
Yet you are doing the exact opposite.

While you count your ROI'z accusing me of profiteering over & over  :D

I would think that both monero and bitcoin are still in a kind of infinitesimal infancy before these kinds of considerations even take place.  I mean, both are essentially only used by a very small club.  Yes, bitcoin is at this moment about 100 times larger than monero if we look at volume and market cap, but this is "almost nothing" versus "100 times almost nothing".  It is not that bitcoin has already, say, 40% of the money market cap, and monero is a newcomer.  Then I would agree that there is a dominant market player.  For the moment, bitcoin is in the "parts-per-million" region of the money market, and monero is 100 times smaller yet.  There are few chances that I will be confronted with the Joe-plumber-Mary problem, so it seems that this anonymity doesn't matter.


It's more difficult than you think.  I agree with you that if Joe gave me an amount of money, and then I want to transfer that amount of money to Mary, I can do 20 transactions in between, which means I have to pay 20 fees and wait many times 10 minutes.  But if I want to give another amount to Mary, there are change addresses that will get mixed in, which may combine with other pieces of information. 
Or I can use a mixer.  And we're back to "anonymity".


My point is that "people" didn't chose yet.  By far most people didn't adopt, nor bitcoin, nor monero.  The market shares aren't established yet.  At all.  Both are still at a ridiculously small market share.  Bitcoin cannot grow much any more by block chain limitations.  Bitcoin, at this point, cannot handle yet another factor of 100 in transaction numbers.  Monero can, obviously.  Now, it can very well be that people in the bitcoin world will finally solve their issues, but in the mean time, they will be reaching "maturity", while the other one has all the possibilities to grow and catch up.

I'm not saying that that will happen.  My fear is rather that in a few years, the crypto hype will more or less be over, because apart from gamblers and geeks, it doesn't really catch on in the NORMAL economy.  At which point, again, anonymity or not doesn't matter.  But if crypto is to go somewhere, it is still in its smallest possible infancy, and one cannot yet say that there is a market domination by one or another, as all of them, including bitcoin, have infinitesimally small market shares.

I see again so much FUD on Monero "just on time" before GUIs and Ring CT official releases. Lots of altcoin and grandpa btc holders shit their pants.

Ok "member"  :D

Yup you caught me.. i am sooooo jealous of your ROI'z  :'(

Oh and if you would like to address any point i made i will be around.

..crying FUD for bucks $$$ much noob ?

http://img.memecdn.com/Shitting-pants-on-a-marathon_o_90800.jpg

To quote myself, here's a great illustration of that fact:

http://money.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-and-markets-in-one-visualization/

Spoetnik brought up the points concerning end-to-end encryption in general, not only for Monero.
It's pointless. If they want you, they'll get you, at the endpoints, one way or another.
It's a honeypot feature.

After all, we could focus on more important features than anonymity, it just doesn't exist.

100% car safety doesn't exist either, that doesn't mean you strap jet engines on go-karts and claim "that's the best we can do."

Even if Monero only offers me anonymity from ransomware artists, then it's an upgrade from most every coin.

Degree of difficulty (in the case of discovering my financial information) and ease of use (in achieving good ospec) count for something in this debate--sad that it gets overlooked, but not at all surprising given the "fud-blastiness" of the critics.

The dangers of a false sense of security (used to profit at Bitcointalk.org) is what concerned me way back.
And i agree it is not an issue exclusive to Monero.. but any coin flaunting this ANON scheme concept.

They are SELLING you a gimmick and it will only work to a point and only for so long.

Lets put this into perspective..
You are all putting your security hiding a hypothetical dark market transaction that if caught will land you jail time.

OR..

Your investment value.

Because what happens when Monero has a gaping hole ripped into it like the titanic Price Wise ?
It will tank like a rock in the ocean..

Who is guarding it ?
A handfiul of cocky argumentative little know it all's who showed up here a couple years ago with no experience who now think they are Earth's authority on all things programming and currency and SECURITY.

It essentially boils down to my safety, privacy and security being guarded by delusional loud mouths like Febo or smooth or FluffyPony or Risto the mental patient.

VS. the combined resources of a major first world country.

You are opposing the USA govt or Russia or China.
And i already pointed out Bin Laden's Lambo for a reason.
To highlight a point.

Ever heard of the NSA ? LOL

Why do you all believe in this false sense of security ?
If it sits on US soil and they want it then they will show up with a warrant and a gag order and take it.
I know because i have seen this in the news lots.. as i predicted a decade earlier.

My experience for almost 20 years in the File Sharing world being a user and a cracker in a major group taught me things.

Security is an illusion.

I watched as some groups were simply nailed via the honey pot scheme and they were left to pour into the pot for many years on end.. Wikipedia lists one FBI operation that they let users pile into for FIVE FUCKING YEARS !
And at that point all the users involved were bloated with a false sense of security and cockiness not realizing they were compromised and being tracked all along.

I am a "Pirate" ..my Disqus account xpmule / Spoetnik for many years now has had the Pirate Party of Canada flag for my Avatar.
I would LOVE to think we can have security and Anonymity but we don't.. and i have to be honest !
I have been battling to defend File Sharing for close to 20 years now pretty much daily.
I would love to be able to have in my tool box a full anon currency that sticks a middle finger to the authorities.
Trust me i fucking get it people.. and i am not against the idea per say.

I am against the illusion and bullshitting from people who are not experts spewing lies and bullshit while they profit from gullible greedy kids who are all too willing to drink the Kool-Aid.

It's not so much i am against the Dark Markets.
I wish the Internet was 100% open and free and lawless essentially.
But it's not !

We have to stand rooted in reality and work from the position we are CURRENTLY in..
into a new position that is grounded and realistic.

A key complaint i have is the jump RIGHT NOW from FIAT paper money to a full ANON coin.
Like i said earlier there is in fact barriers attached to the FIAT monetary system.
We ARE in fact heavily linked and reliant on them.. FULL ANON is not a reasonable concept right now.
..or at least how these guys so far have been going on about it.

I just choose to try and see things as they are.. not as i wish they were.

I hope this is provocative commentary because we are playing a DANGEROUS LITTLE GAME.
And many people are doing it.. simply to profit off you at Poloniex etc.

Car manufacturers do not Print on their cars "This car can never crash or injure people"

YOU BULLSHITTING ASSHOLES DO SAY THAT !

http://i64.tinypic.com/kbyhlf.jpg

You guys have been caught lying your ass off around here for years.. never mind the lies printed on the hoody.

If Bitcoin chopped and changed its specifications all the time like how all other altcoins do then there wouldn't be a need for altcoins, the reason why Bitcoin doesn't need all these hidden features is because it was and is the true pioneer in this cryptocurrency race.

It is not because the salesman of safety belts exaggerates the safety of his belts, that his belts shouldn't be worn.  To use your logic, people should drive cars without safety belts, and actually with air bags full of nails, so that they don't get any false sense of security: if ever they have an accident, they know at least that they will get blown to pieces before crashing through the wind shield.

I simply pointed out the exaggerated UNREALISTIC claims of Monero shills.

They claimed that and yeah there was problems later exposed by BitcoinEXpress.
Proving that they can not deliver what they promise.

I already thoroughly explained this all in detail.. read it maybe ? (rather than trying to cherry pick on me)

Would Microsoft claim that their users emails can never be hacked ? Of course not  :D

But Monero idiots will make similar claims then print them on Hoody's !
And if and when they are proven wrong the price will be decimated and your investments damn near worthless (before you profiteers defending it can dump and run in silence)

Worse it may very well be a Dark Market idiot trying to buy illegal things on the web who ends up getting arrested.

We're talking about computer services technology for fuck sake's people.
So you all can cut the god damn crap and quit masquerading Monero as the first tech in history unexploitable.

Which problems were exposed by shitcoinexpress? Afaik he was just a bullshitter trying to buy in cheaper. There was an overflow bug that was inherited from Bytecoin and most likely exploited by Bytecoin people, and that was quickly identified and corrected.

Who is claiming infallibility? It's a tagline, not a guarantee. There was just a hiccup with the implementation of ring-CT that requires everyone to upgrade before the next hardfork in early January. It's about constantly improving, not perfection. If everyone who used Monero thought it was perfect, why would there be rolling hardforks every six months?

Anyway, carry on with your "public service announcements".

My guess is it will be more of the same https://youtu.be/XeQ919Jd8Cw

Again, the exaggerated claims of some don't invalidate the fact that one thing has better protection than another.  Monero has much better privacy/fungibility/anonymity properties than bitcoin, which is badly lacking those features.  The pseudonymity thought of by Satoshi didn't work out as well as he thought it would, because of the easiness of chain analysis, which is exactly what techniques such as those used by monero seriously help obfuscating.


That's true, for sure there are ways to identify a monero user, for instance by hitting him with a winch until he confesses.   But the protocol makes cheap and obvious chain analysis, such as can be done on the bitcoin block chain, much harder and much less useful.   In the same way that using a long password, and two factor identification, makes your account much safer.  Which doesn't mean that it cannot be broken.  However, that is not an argument to say that, because some hackers can succeed in breaking even two-factor authentication, that one shouldn't have any accounts with a password, and that Joe and Jack can log into my email account or can log into my BCT account without any identification, because in any case, this is not 100% safe, and having a password would give a false sense of security of that account.

And it is not because some people make exaggerated claims about the safety of passwords, that they shouldn't be used at all.

"Better" is not printed on the hoody now is it ?

Further more your usual suspects have been trapped in lies for years on end.

i could dig up a pile of shit based on the last three shill retorts alone.
Wanna go there ?

BitcoinEXpress was called out.. so he shut your mouths closed .
He said he could dig up exploits and he put his money where his mouth is.
Nor do i think he is the top hacker on Earth.. how skilled i have no idea (far smarter than me though)
What you need to be scared shitless of is a guy like me who is utterly diabolical / Persistent.
When i want my victim i will have it /end
Then combine that with a guy who is talented like say BCX and then worse backed by the unlimited resources of a 1st world country.

Once again i have to lecture idiots on computer security.

Dredging up Bytecoin ?
All that does is illustrate the shady history of Morono.. a community take over "Crypto note cloning platform" coin scheme
Where did the original dev go again ?

You pricks surrounding Monero all these years have been trapped in a tornado of lies.
You have simply flip flopped from saying one thing then the opposite when ever it suits your needs.
You are all deceitful and i would trust the FBI before i trusted any of you cunts.

And what qualifications do YOU have ?
Apparently showing up here and BUYING Monero then shilling for it for 2 years makes you an expert on Security.

Bottom line is we see back peddling and games.. as per usual around here.
You get caught red-handed then play games galore to smooth it over (damage control)

I made a point and backed it up with a photo of your employee / not an employee (French Police fraud / Monero Marketing Company leader / Risto employee / MEW Treasurer)
Boasting incredible claims...

THEN you say ohhh weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeellllllllllllllllllllllllll
We didn't say "secure"

We said "more secure"

Hey idiots.. guess what ?
When you are buying crack and machine guns and you were told to use the Monero currency because it is safe and secure and untraceable.. it will in fact matter when you are arrested.
And the Monero pricks simply say oh weeeeeeeeeeelllllllllllll we didn't give any guarantee's.  ::)

No you just made bold claims on the web over & over for two years while you count your ROI's on Poloniex.

I can't stand the Monero crew of assholes because you're deceitful shills.
You have poured a million pounds of lies & bullshit here 24/7 for years on end.
So much that you simply try and ignore anything you were caught doing previously
and play dumb like you have some kind of good track record..

You don't.

You have been caught lying and bullshitting endlessly.. proving that you are dishonest little shills.

I would feel sorry for people believing in your bullshit claims.
Funny enough the biggest problem with Monero is in fact the scammy little assholes behind it.
You took a concept with potential and rail roaded it from day one with your bullshit commentary here.

I thought you fucking pricks were leaving ?
You said you were going to start a new site then leave.. you never did !
All you do is loiter around spewing bloody stupid ass fucking bullshit then hoping enough time goes by that the newer crowd here doesn't know about it..

And i am here to remind all these people of your stupid ass fucking shenanigans you pulled all these years.

Feel free to neg me if you don't like my comment assholes.  ;D

..again  :D

Did you just call me a prick? Merry xmas to you too, Spoetprick :P

Seriously though you're just raging against strawmen. You're like the retarded Don Quixote of shitcointalk. Who cares what is on a sweatshirt? If someone wears a magic internet money sweatshirt about Bitcoin does that mean literally only wizards can use it? Also, thanks for (not) clarifying about what bcx did or didn't do, you 1337 hax0r you.

You're pedalling around the point that what SOME PEOPLE erroneously claim about a technology doesn't influence what a technology can actually provide.  It is not because someone writes on his T-shirt that safety belts will in all cases avoid you from getting hurt in a car accident, that safety belts don't increase safety.  

Hell, many people have claimed false things about bitcoin too.


I think, concerning anonymity, that far more people have been trapped by "lies" concerning the anonymity of bitcoin, than with monero, honestly.  Monero's anonymity technology does actually avoid the block chain to be a significant propagator of real world identity knowledge.  Bitcoin's "pseudonymity" does propagate very well real world knowledge.

Of course, the block chain technology itself is not responsible for the gaining of "endpoint real world knowledge" and for leaking transaction real world knowledge, both through inevitable use and also through OPSEC failure.   But the whole point is that that real world knowledge is propagated like fire on the bitcoin block chain, and is essentially stopped on the monero block chain.

You could compare it like this: the bitcoin block chain is made of wood, and the monero chain is made of stone.   These chains by themselves don't avoid fire to develop in its neighbourhood.  But if the chain is put on fire at a place (real world knowledge is discovered), then on the wooden chain, the fire propagates, and on the stone chain, it doesn't.  The privacy on both chains is burned where the fire got it, but on one chain, the fire propagates, on the other, it doesn't.

Of course, real world knowledge will always be won: simply by your counterparty when you transact (when you buy something, the guy you buy from will probably know something about you), so the "end points" know you.  Exchanges know you.  And yes, with OPSEC problems, when people look at your internet traffic, break into your computer, etc... they will gain real world knowledge.    No block chain will protect you from that.
The question simply is: does the block chain PROPAGATE that knowledge or not ?  Monero's protocol propagates it MUCH LESS than bitcoin's, who is essentially transparent.  Much more so than "pseudonymity" would suggest.

And this is where your and mine opposing claims come from.  You are considering that monero cannot protect you much better from "breaking anonymity" than bitcoin if your adversary is a powerful agency like the FBI or worse, the NSA.  That's most probably true.  As I said, it is not a good idea to pay some guys to shoot the POTUS with monero, nor with bitcoin, nor with gold: they'll get you.  Monero will not protect you.  Because they will gain DIRECT real world knowledge, independent of the block chain, through OPSEC and other investigative procedures (hitting a guy with a winch until he confesses can be part of it).

But on the other hand, my simple privacy, when "Joe, the bar keeper" is my adversary, is not even protected on the bitcoin block chain, while on the monero block chain, it is much better hidden.

So: is my privacy/anonymity protected ?

adversary: FBI/NSA :
gold (no), cash (no), bank account (no), monero (no), bitcoin (no)

adversary: Joe the bar keeper:
gold (yes), cash (yes), bank account (yes), monero (mostly yes), bitcoin (no)

The bitcoin failure in the second case comes from the transparency of the block chain, not from OPSEC failure.

Retort fail.

It does in fact matter.. Because it wasn't said just once
It is in fact the facade masqueraded 24/7.

And i called all of you maniacal idiots that shill hard for Monero.
Because you act like one.
I have to repeat everything to you all like stupid children.
I just finished saying it is you "Idiots" who fucked up Monero (or should i say Bytecoin ?)

No matter what coin was being flogged you usual suspects would fuck it up anyway.

You inept Morono's shill's think you can argue a currency into existence.. ignoring fundamental problems.
It doesn't work that way.

It's cute how a bunch of brats show up here with 0 experience in anything even remotely related to this stuff then spout off as the premier Universal authority on all things code.. hacking.. security.. currencies.. finance.

All simply because as Risto put it.. he just showed up and bought a fuckton of Monero (so it' the bestest!!! of course)
Admitting it was his *first* coin.

Your retorts are pure fail..
Once again rattling off an exception here on another topic ?
That wont work ..it's just fucking stupid.
And one of you has a habit of doing that a lot.
I will give you a B for effort though.

And it doesn't matter ?
Yeah it does matter when rabid pricks here all holding massive bags lie, fight, argue and sling bullshit for YEARS on end.. all for the sole purpose of propping up the price of their super duper secure and untraceable "Currency" that has essentially no usage YEARS LATER and is 90% traded on Poloniex for profits.

Your gay ass fucking shitcoin is not adopted for a reason idiots.
..if it's not used then it's not a currency.

One day ? mmmmmhhhhmmmmm let me know how that works out for you (if you're not in jail)
I sure as hell want nothing to do with a "criminal coin" used by Pedos's, human traffic'ers and Terrorists selling crack cocaine.. catering to them willfully and deliberately.
While simultaneously defying US law ..to pad your pockets of course.
Why else would you idiots / pricks buy Monero coins then hang around here defending them all the time ?
What ?
Gonna try and claim you are the ONLY people in all of Crypto who did not come here to profit ?

ANON = stupid gimmick / another me-too coin. (coin #1,198)

At one stage Bitcoin was considered Anonymous until somebody started to backtrack where payments where coming from, you can always find an original senders address if you study hard enough, True ANON hides this and makes it impossible.

BTC was tracked via cross referencing.

Monero can still be tracked via cross referencing.

Your retort fails.

You are right. I never thought about that.

spoetnik is right.

it's hilarious watching others try to defend xmr when they're not even on the inside lulz.

The whole point is that bitcoin's block chain propagates this kind of partial information, while anonymous chains don't (or do it in a much more limited way).  In other words, you are of course right that no crypto currency protocol can protect you from directly gaining information about a transaction (at the end points, by failing OPSEC, by IP tracing ...) ; but a public block chain like bitcoin PROPAGATES this information from transaction to transaction, while an anonymous chain doesn't.

That's like saying that cash transactions don't help against being filmed by a surveillance camera showing you giving the cash to someone else.  However, that information is not propagated to the next transaction of that cash.  With an anonymous chain, that's similar.  However, with bitcoin's chain, this information, gained at some point, is PROPAGATED to the next transaction.

If Jack is filmed paying Joe, Jack and Joe are identified for that transaction.  However, the next transaction with those funds don't associate it to this transaction on an anonymous block chain, and do so on a public chain.  This has nothing to do with the fact of whether the transaction between Jack and Joe was "legal" or not.   It has to do with the fact that whatever Joe is doing with his money, shouldn't be traceable to the fact that he got it from Jack.  First of all, because that's a matter of privacy.  Second, because if we want all monetary units to be equivalent, this is a necessary property.  And third, because what is considered "illegal" shouldn't always be considered illegal.  Certain acts can be illegal but not criminal (that is to say, there are no victims).   Selling drugs should be legal, but isn't.

You seem to fail to understand the notion of anonymity of a crypto currency.  It is not about "giving you the opportunity to be anonymous".  You are right that this is almost impossible to achieve perfectly.  It is about not making the situation WORSE.  A block chain that propagates information about identity makes privacy essentially inexistant, and makes the quest for partial anonymity worse.  A block chain that doesn't propagate that information at least doesn't bring more harm to your privacy and anonymity than what you had before.

It is not a matter of "improving your anonymity/privacy", it is a matter of not screwing it up still more than it is today.

That's scary.

That's indeed the main problem, as well for bitcoin as for monero.  These things are almost not used.  We're indeed talking totally hypothetical, because nor bitcoin, nor monero are much used as a currency, and anonymity only matters in that respect. 

It seems that these coins are mainly used as a kind of backing for speculative IOU on exchanges.  As I said already many times, you don't need anonymity for that ; hell you don't even need a block chain for that.  IOU on a web site can be done without block chain, code or whatever.

Nevertheless, the few places where crypto IS used as a currency, are especially dark markets, where LACK OF anonymity like in bitcoin can be problematic.  It seems that crypto cannot compete with fiat in all other areas, especially because fiat is much more private and anonymous than open chain crypto in that respect.  Without a court order, nobody can find out what happens with my bank account.  On the bitcoin block chain, most people can find that out.  Fiat is much more private at this point than bitcoin.

At 88% atm: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/volume/24-hour/

And I think when Bitfinex implements margin trading for XMR that will probably continue to decrease.

Honestly, it would be optimal for more people to use bitsquare... but... you know how that goes....

You guys are right though, there needs to be less of a centralization to polo. 88% is still way too centralized for comfort, but yeah, hopefully people who like to day trade will like taking advantage of lower volumes and margin trading all at once, once that becomes a "thing" over on finex.

NAV Coin is the only right now one truly anonymous and decentralized.

No Monero, ZCash or Cloackcoin, all of them are not anonymous.

http://navcoin.org/news

Welp, I guess it's official... Pack it up boys, you heard the man.  :P

Since we hear for years how Monero is bullet proof.. and they print on the hoody secure / untraceable.

Then.. it is in fact not about "MORE" secure.

It would then be about a dark market user having 100% faith he won't get arrested.
I provided a variety of ways this could happen.. and it only needs to happen ONCE !

Further more since Monero offers "more" security over other coins like LTC or BTC
It is essentially useless because no one outside the Dark Market world gives a fuck.
If they did they would not all be forced to hand over their finger prints to banks and be fine with it.

Deliberately catering and pandering to dark market criminal activity is stupid.
Worse is defying the US govt's anti-money laundering or various other laws like Terrorism funding.

You Monero guys picked a fight.. a stupid fight !

FluffyPony vs. EARTH

The combined resources of the USA alone is immense and i sure as hell would not want to put up a crack-me sign for them egging them on.

They have admitted to doing seriously crazy shit to get their man.
I would not have faith in Monero if i figured i was a very high value target.

And that is one of the key problems i have is the false sense of security perpetuated by the Monero Cult.
Then the fact that it's failed as it started.. an Anon coin is fucked from day 1.
You can't ever achieve any real good level of adoption defying world govt's.

It's failed if at best it is occasionally used for Dark Market activity (but mostly trading on Poloniex)
Or was that the goal all along ? A niche coin barely used and another "coin" on Polo to trade for profits ?

There is a hell of a lot of problems with Monero and it goes way beyond the horrendous name  :D

It failed on launch because it was a dumb idea !

That isn't the question. The question is HOW to optimise anonymity and at what price ?

If you do it at the expense of blockchain transparency (of the address balances that is) you'll end up with the weakest of all worlds where the most fundamental of monetary properties are trashed in favour of imposing what is nothing more than an encrypted messaging technology of little value due to its reproducibility.

It is and will always be a flawed monetary design - not least due to the asymmetry it imposes on the coin supply in terms of key holders / non keyholders and between transacting parties. A fertile breeding ground for scams of every type ranging from blockchain to ecosystem based.

There is nothing monetary failing about fungible money (meaning: not knowing where it comes from, only knowing that the total amount is conserved in transactions).   We've gone through that discussion already.  The traceability of transactions is not what is essential ; the scarcity is.  When the scarcity is provable, when the conservation of amount of monetary unit in a transaction is provable, then those entities are collectible assets, which is all that is needed.

You may think that monetary units need other properties, like non-fungibility, full traceability and so on, but you are simply factually proven wrong, with traditional monetary systems, and with cryptocurrencies.  Gold itself is perfectly fungible and its transactions are not traceable, nevertheless, nobody has any doubt about its value.  Cash money has the same properties.  On fiat coins, there's not written who had them before.  With crypto currencies, the same.  There ARE fungible, private cryptocurrencies (like monero) that ARE traded against value.  That's proof enough that your theory is false: it is contradicted by observation.

In a way it is though.. not that it really matters.

Did Monero come out first ?
Were the dev or dev(s) (who ever went into hiding) know about Bitcoin back then ?
Probably not because the idiots didn't know Bytecoin already existed.

Born from a coin cloning platform as the Monero shills said long ago ? yes !
..called CryptoNote

I have rewrote plenty of code for miners before but did not claim i wrote it from scratch.
A lot of the code + basic concepts are recycled on every coin out.

They are all in fact "Mod's" of Bitcoin.

And why hide since 2011 "member" ?
Apparently you are quite the little expert on things here with your 4 post account.
I love how the deceitful shitheads never show their face.. they simply spin BS from puppet accounts.

Niggah please, you don't know who you are fuckin' with !
..i use 4 ply toilet paper bro.  8)

You got my opinion (the correct one) what more do you want ?

Yo Chuckie-Cheese.. don't sprinkle cheese on me and call me a Pizza !

Sputnik and toknormal.. 2 of bitcointalk's biggest morons in 1 thread

We need a "Carbon Coin" again for us to band together.
That was one scam coin we both agreed on ;)

Moron ?
Why have i been the only one who started mentioning a bunch of glaring problems ?
I don't care so much about being on either side of the problem..
I am simply arguing on endlessly i SEE the problem.. and YES it does exist.
Shoving your head in the sand will not keep people out of jail cells.

I am also still bothered that these guys CHOSE to show up here like all the others
..and make a new coin.

That is what happened.
And like all the others they did not try and push their features / ideas onto Bitcoin.
Fuck no.. they ran out as fast as possible to make THEIR OWN NEW COIN !
Then what did we see ?
For some inexplicable reason when no one had shown the slightest interest in Monero
Poloniex decided to add Monero "markets" ..why ?

Monero is a me-too coin like the others.
Worse it's backed by inept decetful fools.

Bottom Line:
I hope to raise my concerns about Monero and users can come to their own conclusions.
If you think i am a "moron" and Monero has a bright future then by all means.. support the project.
What i have tried to highlight is the aspects to the coin that SHOULD be taken into consideration.
I think it has had a bad team and bad community behind it since day one.
This is a turn off and a negative point to the coin.

No GUI for 2+ years ?
Well why not launch it when the GUI was ready ?
Duh !
They wanted that Market on Poloniex ASAP !

You know don't look past the obvious people  ;)

---

EDIT:

Think of this guys..

I just pointed out the rather odd behavior of Poloniex adding Monero markets way back right ?
Back then there was few exchanges and they added markets for big coins only.. usually 1 or 2 other ALT's.
Such as XPM / Cryptsy ..and yeah we all complained about that too when they did it.
(because it was mega popular) or Litecoin of course.
Following me ?
Ok so think of this..
What if the guys behind Poloniex where almost 90% of the "ANON" trading occurs ARE the SAME guys behind the coin ?

Do you realize what this would mean ?

Poloniex collects your Picture ID etc.
AKA: They are US govt compliant and will hand over your info to the FED's in a heart beat !
So.. still want to use Monero to sell all that Fentanyl and Hand guns on Alpha Bay ?

Lets rationalize this..

What can we determine a FAIL to be ?

So far it took them years to get a GUI wallet out.
To me this would have been a prerequisite to launching the coin.

I am not the one here spinning bullshit 24/7 like a politician while i count my XMR / Polo ROI'z.
You may not like my perspective on things but it's probably because you feel i am encroaching on your "profits"
And that is not what this is about.

What is it about ? ADOPTION .

And a Failure assessment ?

Well then.. can Monero be regarded as a success story when it comes to adoption ?

[ADVICE]

'BE' Honest.
Enough with the bullshitting.. it doesn't work.

What are you guys going to say ? "one day" ?
Well it's been years and we seen a minor influx of dark market activity.
And that was actually a step in reverse.

The goal of being defiant to US and even world money law is not a goal i personally strive for.
Nor do i think it will aid the concept of currency adoption.
Nor do i think us loitering around here name calling will effect things either way.
Life carries on.. IGNORING MONERO !

What's Nicholas von Saberhagen's motive for killing Satoshi? ??? ???

okay I've heard some crazy theories before, but this one is near the top.
I don't think I've ever heard the name Michael Yost before and literally nothing comes up if you search that name associated with Bitcoin.
Unless you have some kind of evidence that any of this true I'm going to call bullshit, sorry.

Initials. Both Satoshi Nakamoto and Nicholas von Saberhagen used their initials as theirs signature.  SN or NS.  Nicholas von Saberhagen was furious angry when many, since they know Satoshi Nakamoto more, gave credits to Satoshi Nakamoto  for work that Nicholas von Saberhagen did and signed as SN or NS.  So he decided to end this charade and killed  Satoshi Nakamoto  for good.  

I thought everyone here already know this. You guys are surprising me every day more.

Cloak coin is best tech for ANON Transactions

:)

This some exchanges reject coins that come from bitcoin casinos which means that not every coin is treated the same, that hurts fungibility, so the coins need to be untraceable if there is any hope for one of the most basic characteristics of money to remain.

Can you, please give some examples ?

This can only happen when exchange know casino wallet. if casino uses freshly made wallet then is impossible for an exchange to know where that coins come from.


People are just not used to use Monero properly.  It is same when cars come out. All roads were made for horse chariots, there was no gas stations or mechanical workshops to repair your car.   As a driver you were forced  to use mentality and infrastructure of horse chariots.  It took some time that we now have highways where you can drive safely at 130 km/h.




Monero is actually solving this problem since it is fungible. Exchanges will reject Bitcoins or Litecoins or Doge that will come from Casinos, so I guess people will start gamble in Monero.

https://monerodice.net/  is a good choice!