Wow, this would be a serious allegation, if you had verifiable evidence, but I'm guessing you don't, so just more FUD to remind us we are doing something right. Thanks!





 

I have not tried that one, but I'm sure others have. Now that you have identified it, perhaps someone can make an informed recommendation. Failing that I would try one of the releases I mentioned.

[/quote]

Past performance is no guarantee of anything, but in the past your observation has been correct. Well below 0.005 (especially below 0.003) has been a good time to buy and well above 0.005 (especially anything close to 0.01) has been a good time to sell.

If the coin continues to be successful it will certainly break 0.01 decisively at some point, but I have no idea when that will happen if ever.

Let's move this over to the Monero speculation thread though.

Some miners are dumping all the time. Remember, there are 1440 blocks per day, which is around 22000 coins per day.  There is always a mix of miners who sell right away and those who hang on to the coins for some period of time.

It seems there is a big increase in selling now when the coin goes much above 0.005. It may be that early miners and/or early investors begin taking profits in large numbers at those prices. Of course that moves the coins to buyers who are now not looking to take profits until the price goes significantly higher. But this is all speculation on my part.

This only means that the barrier to getting community support for a fork is higher, and when the community does support the fork, that is a stronger vote of "no confidence" in the original developer.

Anyone can fork anything, but no one can force the community to support the fork. That is up to the community.

What distro are you using. I've used Ubuntu 12.04 and 14.04 (LTS versions) and had no problems building (although in the latter case you have to install an alternate version of boost).  I think I also tried 13.10 without any problems.

[/quote]

Also funny how this thread that has now evolved into a new discussion of Monero grew out of a complaint about Monero having too many threads. Streisand effect at its best.

There is more to it than that. The only way to use the Bitcoin API is if the coin is almost identical to Bitcoin itself, which is why 99% of the hundreds of worthless pump-and-dump altcoin clones use the Bitcoin API.

A coin that actually does anything fundamentally new or differently compared to Bitcoin (which is certainly the case for Monero) will need to have a different API.

If anything "uses the Bitcoin API" is a strong clue that you are looking at a worthless clone coin.

There is this popular myth in the altcoin space that "forks" are inherently bad, which follows from the (correct) observation that most if not all bitcoin "forks" have been done as pump-and-dump scams.

But the underlying premise is false. If you understand the history of open source software, forks are both intended and desirable, and even necessary to maintain a balance of power between developers and the wider community. Specifically when the original developer goes in a direction the wider community does not support, then other developers are able to fork, and the community is able to move its support from the original to the fork.

This is exactly what happened with Bytecoin and the premine/ninjamine/whatever, trolling, sock puppet accounts, non-transparent history and developers, etc.

This kind of shady behavior was not supported or accepted by the community which is why nearly all support (as measured by hash rate, trading volume, thread views, or any other sensible metric) has shifted to Monero.

Bytecoin could have capitalized on its position as the first cryptonote coin and maintained a leadership position, but they blew it. They have no one to blame but themselves.

It is probably not possible. GPUs are just computers. Anything a CPU can do, a GPU can also do.

There are coins that narrow the gap though, usually by reducing the degree of parallelism (the greatest advantage of GPUs), relying on memory latency (where GPUs aren't any better than CPUs), or relying on special hardware (for example AES encryption) that exists in CPUs but not GPUs. Or some combination of all of these.

Take a look at the Cryptonote coins (the most popular by far is Monero). Although there are GPU miners, they aren't really much (if any) faster than CPUs after adjusting for cost and power usage. CPUs are at least competitive.

Memorycoin also has a relatively small gap between CPU mining and GPU mining (about 2x).

To elaborate on what OgNasty explained, the purpose of the coin is to serve as a long term investment and "cold storage" vehicle. Any donations from nasty fans will go to the coin automatically, increasing its value over time. You can send more bitcoins there, but they should be coins you are prepared to keep untouched ("in cold storage") for the long term.

Bug in whatever version of gcc you are using. Try a different version.

What is the purpose of this FUD? Israel has 3 million reservists, 65 thousand have been called. That is a bit over 2%. The chance this affects any Spondoolies engineers (much less the team as a whole) is pretty small, even assuming they are of military age.

Please explain what you call the Maidsafe scam. I'm not familiar with it.

Correct, furthermore there is currently no mechanism in the standard software to even change the fee at all. It is always 0.005 per transaction, regardless of size.

During periods of high transaction volume (and there have been some, especially during pumps), larger transactions may take somewhat longer to get into a block.

Maybe you don't. You head off to the new frontier with just the clothes on your back as many of our ancestors did.

I heard Monero devs are spammers who are creating many threads to cover up some funny businesss. Is it true?

No I agree with that. But my point is that without knowing the shape of the curve, you can't estimate a percentage of adoption. You have a chart up there of all successful technologies, and they have very different adoption curves even (or perhaps especially) at the early part of the curve. Electricity, automobiles, and dishwashers all have very different early adoption curves. We don't even have graphs for unsuccessful technologies (and it is likely infeasible to ever create one), so we don't even know what failures look like.

Bitcoin is in an extreme early adoption phase where it may look like one of several different successful early adoption curves, or it may look like one of the unseen failure curves, or it may be somewhat unique. I don't think we know.

This is largely contradictory. If it is still in the innovator phase, then it very likely is not at 20% adoption. I argue it is at approximately 0% adoption. But as you point out many technologies do fail at the innovator stage. We can't curve fit only to the survivors.

No, people will come in through commerce. If you sell an item on ebay or some ebay-competitor, you may prefer to accept payment in bitcoins rather than deal with paypal. Or you may perform services on fiverr or some similar site, and again accept payment in bitcoin. Craigslist posts often call for payment in bitcoin (of course, many craiglist posts seem to be scams, but you get the point).

Or socially, as you say. Most of my friends who have ever touched a bitcoin have received it from me, either as payment for some transaction ("If you download Multibit or Electrum, I can send you bitcoins for that $20 I owe you." "OK, cool, I'll try that."), or as a small gift.

Exchanges have a high barrier to entry (paperwork, etc.) It is actually hard to see what is useful enough about bitcoin for people to want to ever deal directly with an exchange.

As pertains to use of bitcoin (as opposed to speculation in bitcoin -- where certainly people will deal with exchanges), you have this exactly backwards.  

EDIT: As far as mining goes, I think you are overly obsessed with it. Even in the idea of a fully decentralized mining economy, mining will still be competitive which means $100 worth of electricity will be bring you approximately $100 worth of bitcoins. That's not enough to be of particular interest to anyone, at least not anyone in developed countries. Most people will never build mining farms of any kind, whether that involves CPUs, CPUs, ASICs, or anything else. Mining is a narrow subspecialty of interest to approximately no one. My preferred version of mining is simply for a client to turn mining on by default (or with a simple check box once at installation) the way BitTorrent clients upload by default. That alone should be enough to get many millions mining, and provide a very decentralized network, but they won't making a lot (if anything) from it. (Ideally they'd be making nothing, since there would then be no incentive for commercial miners.)