Banned for having a sig that goes into my post. Dam you long post...
Banned for confusing "dam" with "damn". Banned for orangemonkey |
|
|
|
If a producer of food were to not adhere to food safety rules then consumers could potentially die. This would likely result in the producer going out of business. With regulations this could be prevented.
The regulations and regulators must be paid for with taxes
It is a shame that people pay the taxes because that DOES support regulation and that DOES prevent it from happening. As a result more people are alive (which is good), but there are loads of food producers that don't create healthy food and are slowly killing everyone (which is bad, and outweighs the good of those few still being alive by several magnitudes). If we stopped supporting the regulation, we could get rid of the bad actors because they would no longer be protected from their small, agile, and often healthier competitors. Free the market, and you end up improving the world. Regulate it, and you make it more fragile. Speaking of which, I just read and enjoyed Nassim Tableb's "Antifragile: Things That Gain From Disorder." I recommend it! You have the be the most ignorant person I've ever seen. Please get some STATISTICS. Without those regulations that your anarchy mind finds annoying, half of us would be dead from disease, crime, etc etc. GROW UP. |
|
|
|
No amount of whining will stop the scam. Beat them in the market, expose flaws in their technology(working on it as a personal project ), or post non stop in their thread. You'll find most of them are morons and will give up after you thoroughly ha d them their asses.
After several forked, they still believe in DarkForkCoin.  I don't think it will work. Theres a coin called darkforkcoin? |
|
|
|
|
XC also has a premine.
It's "anonymity" is also coinjoin based and the mixers are the user's wallets, so if a malicious entity of agency decided to see through XC's anonymity, they would simply have to create a large amount of wallets for themselves, so that most coins would be redirected to their wallets, and theyll see transactions as clear as day.... along with the fact that in the beginning its "anonymity" was unraveled by Chaeplin (Read XC Unmoderated Thread, where XC's coin mixing wasnt working at all)
|
|
|
|
|
Bytecoin has a 82% premine by a couple individuals.
Nuff said, hell even Dogecoin, is better than Bytecoin by far.
|
|
|
|
90X?? May I have the name of the person whom you spoke with? That is totally incorrect, let's rectify this situation and let me offer you another $15.00 to compensate for the losses incurred.
Regards.
I loled, ItchyNuts never fails to amuse me. He's obviously just playing with you guys...no one is going to get any money.. |
|
|
|
Obviously :
SELL DRK
BUY XMR
Why buy something that won't even be usable for 1-2 years or more? Darkcoin will be ready for real world use in less than a month. All CN coins will remain purely speculative for that time frame, whereas people have already started using Darkcoin for commerce. Except that it's already being used for commerce by regular folks right now. If you look through the Darkcoin reddit, you'll see examples of businesses that accept it. I believe there's a jerky store and a wine shop, as well as others. There goes your narrative. |
|
|
|
Obviously :
SELL DRK
BUY XMR
Why buy something that won't even be usable for 1-2 years or more? Darkcoin will be ready for real world use in less than a month. All CN coins will remain purely speculative for that time frame, whereas people have already started using Darkcoin for commerce. |
|
|
|
The new laws states that you will need to keep track of everyone's identities tied to an address if they are using Bitcoin, therefore abolishing Bitcoin's "anonymity"....It is a huge threat to BTC.
Bitcoin was NEVER anonymous. Transactions happen ONLINE. Enough said. I know, thats why I used quotations marked around anonymity. With those new laws coming in place at the end of 2014 however, Bitcoin wont be any less private than using Paypal or something, in fact itll actually be less private than that, since everyone would be able to see your transactions. |
|
|
|
There are different implementations of PoS, some are vulnerable, some are more secure than PoW.
Yeah. Just because some coins have flaws that have been exploited does not mean that PoS as a whole can be dismissed. People should be working together to push PoS technology forward as it's clearly superior to PoW. I find it hard to believe that someone could justify the excess of PoW if and when a PoS alternative exists. Other than making an argument for PoW purely out of self interest of course. Right now PoW is dominant. And there are some PoS currencies like NXT that are progressing well and appear to have a good chance of solidifying their place as the first secure decentralised PoS currency. Time will tell how it plays out, but it's looking good for PoS thus far I think. It's possible that PoS isn't feasible but so far even for 'Nothing at Stake' attacks, V. Buterin and Come-From-Beyond seemed to agree that there was a theoretical solution. And that seems to be the main issue right now against PoS. A Nothing at Stake attack was done twice on Navajo, which is a PoS coin. That attacker, since he owned 50% of all navajocoins, can now doublespend, anytime he wants at any time in the future, just because he owned 50% of all coins temporarily....PoS=Piece of Shit. That's like saying Bitcoin and all other PoW coins are a piece of shit because lukejr 50% attacked coiledcoin a while back. In a way, but the difference is you can only doublespend on Bitcoin if you have 50% or above hashrate(even then its not 100% that youll succeed), with PoS, you can doublespend when you have 50% coins, and even when you dont have 50% of the coins anymore. So once you get 50%, you will always be able to doublespend, at any point in the future.. |
|
|
|
....
A Nothing at Stake attack was done twice on Navajo, which is a PoS coin. That attacker, since he owned 50% of all navajocoins, can now doublespend, anytime he wants at any time in the future, just because he owned 50% of all coins temporarily....PoS=Piece of Shit.
ONCE AGAIN. Cheap coins who are in 90% kept on bittrex to sell on pump are valuable because none protect network! attacker can have 2% of all coins and make 51% attack... when coin don't use solution from POS2.0 is even more valuable to such attacks. In POS2.0 you cannot generate "more mining power being offline" only online coins can get coin age. so problem with "owning 50% of all coins temporarily" is minimal and much harder to exploit... Navajo is not protected because of no one is staking... Not using POS2.0 make it even more valuable to attack. Now look at similar POW coins if you rent mining ring 100Mhs you can attack 18coins with 51%...http://www.coinwarz.com/cryptocurrency?sort=hashrate&dir=ascSame situation like with POS shitcoins who no one protect... Sir, you obviously don't get the point. The point is, with PoS, if you acquire 50% of all coins, you will ALWAYS be able to do a doublespend attack, whether you still have the 50% of coins or not. With PoW, you can only doublespend for the amount of time you are above 50% hashrate. Again, PoS=Piece of Shit. |
|
|
|
Indeed. When i first heard about btc years ago, the supposed 'anonymity' is what drew me in. Now that it's pretty much known that there's no privacy at all (in fact the opposite) without jumping through massive hoops, i really have no use for it (besides speculation/trading). It's just a matter of time that btc gets co-opted by the State, you already see on this forum the sheep jumping for joy over the Lawsky proposal. What do you want to say? Conclusion? " The new rules would be required for Bitcoin exchanges and for companies that secure, store or maintain custody or control of the virtual currency on behalf of customers. Merchants that accept Bitcoin for payment, like Overstock.com, would not need to apply for a license. " http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/07/17/lawsky-proposes-first-state-regulations-for-bitcoin/So as I've understood, this is not a threat to BTC, because main opportunity for BTC's economics is not speculation/trading, but free right to sell goods, accepting BTC, without lisence.  The new laws states that you will need to keep track of everyone's identities tied to an address if they are using Bitcoin, therefore abolishing Bitcoin's "anonymity"....It is a huge threat to BTC. |
|
|
|
There are different implementations of PoS, some are vulnerable, some are more secure than PoW.
Yeah. Just because some coins have flaws that have been exploited does not mean that PoS as a whole can be dismissed. People should be working together to push PoS technology forward as it's clearly superior to PoW. I find it hard to believe that someone could justify the excess of PoW if and when a PoS alternative exists. Other than making an argument for PoW purely out of self interest of course. Right now PoW is dominant. And there are some PoS currencies like NXT that are progressing well and appear to have a good chance of solidifying their place as the first secure decentralised PoS currency. Time will tell how it plays out, but it's looking good for PoS thus far I think. It's possible that PoS isn't feasible but so far even for 'Nothing at Stake' attacks, V. Buterin and Come-From-Beyond seemed to agree that there was a theoretical solution. And that seems to be the main issue right now against PoS. A Nothing at Stake attack was done twice on Navajo, which is a PoS coin. That attacker, since he owned 50% of all navajocoins, can now doublespend, anytime he wants at any time in the future, just because he owned 50% of all coins temporarily....PoS=Piece of Shit. |
|
|
|
I would guess in the half a million range.
New TLDs are coming out all the time now - which makes having to have a .com less important as consumers become accustomed to irregular domain names.
It'll actually have the opposite effect. Hundreds of domain name extensions are coming out, hundreds. That would give ground to terrible confusion. That in itself, could raise the .com domain name value. Seriously, no one could remember 20 different domain name extensions like .desert, .coffee, its just too stupid.. |
|
|
|
|
To be honest. Bitcoins.com is a very valuable domain name, especially since Bitcoin's marketcap could reach 100billion+, and it's only 8billion now. So Bitcoins.com selling for even 700k would be seen as cheap a few years from now.
I would say, Bitcoin.org, would be the most expensive bitcoin domain. Probably could fetch 15million, today.
|
|
|
|
|
No, they are not reliable. As you can see, Vericoin had to be rolled back because the attacker got 30% of all Vericoins.
Navajocoin, another PoS coin, was recently doublespent or Nothing at Staked attacked, twice, when hethe attacker gained over 50% of all Navajocoins.
|
|
|
|
Poloniex is considering to add a XMR market.
Just some Trollbox news.
coinup: busoni@poloniex, XMR and poloniex... it's a love story now. Why don't you drop LTC parity for XMR one?
busoni@poloniex: coinup, it's definitely an idea I'm considering.
coinup was me. Busoni said the LTC market is currently pretty useless to them. From a very practical perspective, they would make more money by switching to XMR. This is kind of "boom" event if it happens I think, as many newcomers would realize XMR is indeed something big. Yea, an XMR market would benefit Poloniex much more than a LTC one, considering over 70% of trading on there comes from monero. |
|
|
|
|
It doesn't matter about Boolberry, that coin was instamined in the 100s of thousands...by One guy who still makes over 2k boolberry per day with his private gpu miner....
|
|
|
|
The OP seems like he's just gonna steal your bitcoins and walk away. I advise anyone taking up his offer, to do the trade in a very Police-Populated Area. Like a bank or Police Headquarters. Maybe renting your own team of bodyguards with automatic rifles for each of them would be good as well. Don't trust newbie members, thats all  |
|
|
|
So darkota, would you agree that Cryptonote based coins do have a legitimate space in the crypto economy because they (as in the Bitcoin devs) can't copy whatever exclusive features they come up with right? (like ring signatures for instance)
Correct. The only coins that can stand beside/compete with Bitcoin as I said above, are coins that don't use the Bitcoin codebase, so Bitcoin won't be able to simply apply whatever features that coin has, into Bitcoin itself. So yes, Cryptonote coins have a chance at potentially competing/standing alongside Bitcoin, since they do not use the Bitcoin codebase aka are not Bitcoin based coins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
