What about FCN (FantomCoin?) they came up with the merge mining tech first afaik. I've got like 100 of these. Should I hodl, sell? I just have them resting in an exchange. Imo it's undervalued and may go up along with Monero once people realize Monero's potential and it goes trendy specially in i2p and tor.
In general I don't believe that merged mined coins can have any real value because they lack scarcity. I can, possibly, think of one exception to this. If a merged mine coin was some an extreme positive black swan that it managed to gain huge value based on network effect alone, it would become so dominant that it would overshadow the parent coin. At that point it would effectively switch to regular mining (merged mining would still exist but everybody would be mining for the daughter coin, and the parent would be the throw-away instead of vice-versa). So, perhaps, merged mining could be a bootstrap method to eventually being a (regular mined) major coin. If you think FCN will do that, then it would be a good long term investment. Otherwise it is a shitcoin that might have pumps every now and then but no real long term value. |
|
|
|
What do you guys think about BitcoinDark? Competition for Monero or just another shitcoin?
I consider all coins that switch to PoS after a brief PoW phase to be shitcoins. This is my personal opinion, not speaking on behalf of the Monero team (in fact I never am unless stated otherwise). |
|
|
|
Thank you for the correction. I have edited my posts above. |
|
|
|
Also noticed buy support has disappeared at Polo...... from 100 to 4 BTC on buy orders......any ideas
Jon
Fake buy walls (finally) removed. Which likely means less selling. Just saying. |
|
|
|
couldn't figure out how to do it...there doesn't seem to be any xmr games?
Where it says bet click on BTC you can change it to XMR |
|
|
|
I need clarification on this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600658.msg8423637#msg8423637QCN just released a GUI wallet, albeit an alpha version. Why is the dev stringing along a coin for so long if he's a bad guy? Why continue to put effort into a coin that has about 1BTC of total buy orders on bittrex and poloniex combined and has been struggling with "post exchange listing syndrome"? Surely there has to be easier and faster ways to scam people that don't involve so much damn work day after day. If I was the QCN dev and I wanted to scam people, I'd keep cloning cryptonote coins, instamining them, dumping them on exchanges for inflated value, then leave the coin again. I wouldn't waste all my time with this "development" shit months after my coin gets listed. I mean, I could clone coins AND still dev QCN, but why do the extra work? That's part of what scams are right? Getting cash monies for the least amount of work as possible? There was no "development" there. The GUI that was released is the same one (perhaps a newer version, since it appears he supports Windows now), from the same developer, that was released for Monero on June 10: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7235602#msg7235602Thanks to pfo, this is his development! This is exactly what I was talking about a few pages back. Appearance of development. Until they have dumped all their coins (which you won't know), and then they won't bother with even that and the coin will drop to zero. Caution advised, but if you want to play the game of betting on the possibility of pumps as long as they're still around making appearances, it likely is possible to make some money on it, but for the most part you are playing a rigged game. "From the same one from the same developer" So QCN dev = XMR dev? Or who is he then? The QCN developer told you in the quote above. The developer of the GUI is pfo who developed it (as an independent third party) for XMR QCN and XMR a few months ago. They apparently made some sort of deal to release it now for QCN. Perhaps you aren't aware that QCN And XMR are both forks of the same CN code, so a wallet for one will work for the other (with minor tweaks). There is no significant QCN development going on. It is caretaking. |
|
|
|
This is an easy question to answer. Growth in BTC retail acceptance is a great incentive for BTC price drop. People are not buying bitcoin to spend them immediately, all those spent BTC are from longer term holders. It's obvious what retailers do with BTC they acquire: they drop them on the exchanges that same moment through BitPay or other payment processors. I believe this is one of the main reasons for current drive towards lower BTC price.
I agree but I argue this is a short term effect and since retail has been going on for a while a some of that is already played out. I don't agree that the goal is people buying BTC in order to spend them. That would be just neutral (since the retailers would generally just sell). The goal is for more people to recognize the coins as valuable and accept them as such. This requires there be useful ways to spend them, which is why retail is contributing to the growth of bitcoin despite the inevitable short term price pressure. But this is somewhat off topic for the Altcoin observer thread so perhaps we should conclude this discussion soon. |
|
|
|
I need clarification on this: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=600658.msg8423637#msg8423637QCN just released a GUI wallet, albeit an alpha version. Why is the dev stringing along a coin for so long if he's a bad guy? Why continue to put effort into a coin that has about 1BTC of total buy orders on bittrex and poloniex combined and has been struggling with "post exchange listing syndrome"? Surely there has to be easier and faster ways to scam people that don't involve so much damn work day after day. If I was the QCN dev and I wanted to scam people, I'd keep cloning cryptonote coins, instamining them, dumping them on exchanges for inflated value, then leave the coin again. I wouldn't waste all my time with this "development" shit months after my coin gets listed. I mean, I could clone coins AND still dev QCN, but why do the extra work? That's part of what scams are right? Getting cash monies for the least amount of work as possible? There was no "development" there. The GUI that was released is the same one (perhaps a newer version, since it appears he supports Windows now), from the same developer, that was released for Monero on June 10 QCN and later XMR in June: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7235602#msg7235602Thanks to pfo, this is his development! This is exactly what I was talking about a few pages back. Appearance of development. Until they have dumped all their coins (which you won't know), and then they won't bother with even that and the coin will drop to zero. Caution advised, but if you want to play the game of betting on the possibility of pumps as long as they're still around making appearances, it likely is possible to make some money on it, but for the most part you are playing a rigged game. |
|
|
|
is it considered to forbid 0 mixins in future?
this could prevent likability in some cases, doesn't it?
i read some pages back that it will be forbidden at protocol level, its a must change imho. We are still studying various privacy issues including this one, so we don't have anything to announce just yet. Stay tuned. |
|
|
|
Interesting but I wonder if he could possibly be confusing cryptonote.com with cryptonote.org. That name is on the whois for cryptonote.com but the cryptonote.org site is using a private whois. |
|
|
|
There is just so much money invested in scrypt asics, and most of them haven't seen the light of day And some of them probably wont ever would be my guess. that I think it will have another boom cycle (and an accompanying boom in the number of tx/day). But who knows... Hey its always possible. But even scrypt doesn't just mean LTC any more. It is still a big part of the scrypt space, but much less than it used to be. |
|
|
|
Okay so Cryptonite retains GUIDs for at least the 'lockheight' (a blockchain length) allowance so the replay attack can't occur within that allowance. One side-effect of this slightly kludgy design decision if your transaction isn't included in a block before the allowance, then it is invalid and you will need to resend it. However, I assume they are keeping weeks or months of transaction history “in view” so shouldn't be an issue. Even at micro-transaction scales, this extra tx header data doesn't add more than 40 bytes per tx with sufficient collision resistance for the txid.
They are keeping two weeks currently. There was a bit of breath holding when the coin passed two weeks in age and switched to truncated blockchain mode, but everything seemed to work. |
|
|
|
stupid question, what is the purpose of the view key?
Roughly speaking it serves a similar sort of purpose to looking at payments to an address on a bitcoin block explorer. Since payments are unlinkable by default you can't tell which payments are going to a specific address in Monero, unless you have the view key. So it can be used to track payments to an address that is supposed to be public, such as a donation address. I don't think there is any software to actually do this yet though. There are also some technical applications for it, such as being used by lightweight clients (so a remote server can find your incoming transactions and forward them to you without being able to steal your coins). There are no lightweight clients yet either. So presently it serves no practical purpose but will be used in the future. |
|
|
|
My optimized miner didn't hurt XMR much (we could argue this, of course, but I didn't see too much yelling). I think the difference was that Christian was public about his in an inflammatory way that made people really *feel* the inequity. It's tough when you know you're not getting what someone else is. With most currencies, you might suspect, but you don't *know* that you're behind. Because once the coins are on the exchange, it's all about the buyers and sellers. Perception absolutely is important.
I don't think it was just perception or Christian's attitude. For some reason non-advantaged miners on XMR were still able to successfully mine while a lot of people reported not being able to get anything with BBR. Maybe that is pools or maybe it is the relative difference in advantage (especially once at least modest optimizations started getting committed to the base XMR code), or the faster emission, or some combination of these, but something definitely seemed different about the mining position of the "little guy" for a while. i´m sure it was about lack of patience to find a block in solo and the lack of pools in the beginning. Please ask this people if they mine XMR at solo or at pool. It's kind of hard to ask them now, we are talking about three months ago. I remember people doing both but you are probably right about that being an important factor. For one thing, people who got discouraged with solo mining might have switched to pools instead of just quitting. |
|
|
|
I think this may be a little misleading. If you look at both coins over their entire history, you can see they have similar ups and downs in terms of number of transactions per unit time. No, I really don't see that, especially after enabling 7-day avg on the bitcoin chart. There is no comparison actually. BTC has a steady uptrend and LTC is all boom and bust with major drops offs. BTC rarely if ever drops 50+% while LTC drops 75% repeatedly, including the current drain spiral. I disagree. In its first two years of existence, bitcoin had two major boom/bust cycles. From July 2011 to January 2012, btc went from over 14k tx/day to about 4.8k (a 65% drop), and from 57k tx/day in July 2012 back down to 17k tx/day at the end of 2012 (a 70% drop). I do see that the boom bust cycles in ltc tx/day are a bit more pronounced - from 13k down to 2.5k tx/day (an 80% drop) and from 19.5k down to 4k (also about 80% drop) - but I think the amount of competition has to be taken into account as well. By the time litecoin was going into the boom bust cycles it had a lot more competition than btc at its same moment in history, so I think it makes sense that the swings would be a bit more dramatic. I guess I just don't see a major difference between a 70% drop and an 80% drop, considering the circumstances of litecoin having more alternatives for people to move to (ftc, qrk, etc.) . That's exactly why an 80% drop now for LTC means a lot more than a 70% drop in BTC back in 2012. In 2012 when activity picked up again, it was almost entirely going back to BTC. Any increase in activity now won't be going back to LTC. There is simply no reason for that to happen. There are many more and better alternatives to LTC now. |
|
|
|
wow, that was a nice surprise, i thought the gui would be finished before the db
The DB is a much smaller undertaking. The main reason it is taking as long as it is we are not only adding a database but also doing a lot of documenting and refactoring as we go. This will not only improve the database solution (which will be modular allowing different databases to be used in different deployment environments) but also improve the overall development effort going forward. When we forked we got a bunch of undocumented code that frankly is not really that great in a lot of ways. We are making it better at the core. |
|
|
|
I think this may be a little misleading. If you look at both coins over their entire history, you can see they have similar ups and downs in terms of number of transactions per unit time. No, I really don't see that, especially after enabling 7-day avg on the bitcoin chart. There is no comparison actually. BTC has a steady uptrend and LTC is all boom and bust with major drops offs. BTC rarely if ever drops 50+% while LTC drops 75% repeatedly, including the current drain spiral. |
|
|
|
These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .
Unlike BTC, there is no reason to expect increasing LTC adoption. Who that isn't deluded is investing for BTC for adoption? I only see investor pumps in crypto-currency to-date. There is definitely increased BTC adoption going on. There is real growth in retail acceptance and some other categories such as travel, and some real startups doing interesting things and building out meaningful capabilities that didn't exist before such as remittances, retail, new investment vehicles coming soon, etc. Whether that is a reason to buy BTC speculatively is a question only an investor can decide. Either way though, it is a clear difference from LTC, which has no movement on adoption at all, never really did, and it doesn't look like it ever will. Okay but two counter thoughts: 1. Comparison of those adoptions by relative market cap. 2. Do those anecdotal "adoptions" have anything to do with the price? Peter R showed market cap was correlated with some proxy for transactions squared. 1. I think all of those visible adoption areas are quite plausibly incremental to current market cap which at $6 billion is quite tiny relative to payment flows in just about any real business (not that this means it will necessarily happen, only plausible). 2. I think all of those visible adoption areas are quite plausibly incremental to transaction volume, so if you believe the transactions-squared price relationship is likely to persist (I'm not sure), you should expect these quite possibly increase price. By comparison LTC has absolutely nothing going on that is going to increase adoption or transactions. In fact they are more likely to decrease. Specifically compare: BTC transactions since January (steady if not up): https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactionsLTC transactions since January (dramatically down): http://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/transactions-ltc.html |
|
|
|
These litecoin prices have fallen to approximately twice the pre-bubble valuation and thus are very tempting, insofar as the analogy to the great bitcoin bubble holds . . .
Unlike BTC, there is no reason to expect increasing LTC adoption. Who that isn't deluded is investing for BTC for adoption? I only see investor pumps in crypto-currency to-date. There is definitely increased BTC adoption going on. There is real growth in retail acceptance and some other categories such as travel, and some real startups doing interesting things and building out meaningful capabilities that didn't exist before such as remittances, bitcoin debit card, new investment vehicles coming soon, etc. Whether that is a reason to buy BTC speculatively is a question only an investor can decide. Either way though, it is a clear difference from LTC, which has no movement on adoption at all, never really did, and it doesn't look like it ever will. |
|
|
|
Congratulations to Monero for overtaking DRK and achieving #1 anonymous cryptocurrency status today. May there be many milestones to come!
I'm confused. DRK is reported at 391K on bitcoinwisdom. XMR is reported at 310K. DRK has 4.5m coins which is more than XMR, so it also much be higher on market cap.Mintcoin has more coins than monero and darkcoin put together, yet its market cap is small. Number of coins has nothing to do with market cap. My second sentence was contingent on my first. Higher price per coin along with (equal or) higher number of coins = higher market cap. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
