The accusation was that xmr devs were running botnets, not that botnets exist. That is a false accusation of criminal activity directed at specific individuals

 They were fake names anyway. What's the difference.

I said earlier that no one of these is determinative. But as you say people take advantage of the hype and heavily promote coins without any serious assurance (at this point) that the technology is even sound. That is a strong indication of shitcoin status to me.

See post #1

6. PoS
7. IPO
8. Extremely fast emission schedule
9. Developer hailed as genius despite few if any previous accomplishments
10. False, fraudulent, or unverifiable back story
11. (Likely bought or purpose-created) sock puppet accounts hyping the coin or trolling competitors

None of these are definitive, but a pretty good point system could probably be created that would be quite accurate.

You have several options:

1. You can wait. There will eventually be a 32 bit build with a blockchain database. Currently under development.

2. You can restore to a 64 bit wallet if you have the mnemonic seed for your 32 bit wallet. This is only an option if you wallet was created after mnemonic seed support was added and you saved the seed when you created the wallet.

3. You can try to get the 32 bit wallet to work using Windows PAE and/or /3GB mode. PAE has been reported to work, although I think /3GB may (also?) be required.

There is discussion of the DB development in this week's Missives, including a link where you can follow the work in real time:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg7847156#msg7847156

It is a project that is alpha-level software, with no integrated GUI, no lightweight wallet or web wallet, high resource requirements to use the full wallet, zero applications or merchants, and it is still in the top 20 by market cap. That is very respectable.

I can't really comment in detail since I'm not an expert on XC. I won't comment on anything related to how well XC delivers on its promises or whether those promises (if delivered) offer real value to users. I just don't know

However, I do understand that fundamentally XC anonymity is based on a version of the masternode concept (in some ways similar to DRK,l but again I don't know the details), while Monero anonymity technologies are not. Monero uses cryptographic ring signatures to perform mixing without relying on any third party nodes at all.

Another difference is that XC uses a PoW/PoS hybrid, while Monero is pure PoW.

This may be helpful, at least in so far as it compares CoinJoin- and CoinSwap-style mixing with alternatives such as Monero (cryptonote) and Zerocash: http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/29471/is-there-any-true-anonymous-cryptocurrencies

Monero does not have "a few" interesting, novel features, it is a completely new design and code base that is entirely distinct from bitcoin and all of the hundreds of clone shitcoins each of which have "a few" interesting, novel features (at best) added for polish.

The difference is one of kind, not degree.


No, there are not 20 other non-scam non-clone-with-polish altcoins. Maybe one or two.

The price fell in large part because the adding it to MintPal was way overhyped, driving the price up for no good reason. This was not done by the developers at all though, but by investors large and small who either believed that adding to MintPal was a big deal, or wanted to convince others to believe it (probably a combination of both).

All that has happened is that hype has deflated out of the coin, leaving things largely where they were before. In fact the price is still a bit higher than it was before talk about adding it to MintPal started, and the market cap is much higher (since there are more coins mined).

I sold off some of mine recently, but they still have life because I sold them to someone with lower electricity costs. In fact quite a bit of life at the current <10% diff jump rate.

I largely agree that FUD can't be stopped.

However, sometimes it does go too far. For example, a few of these accounts have recently been making false accusations of operating a botnet (a criminal act).

I'd argue such false accusations of criminal activity justifies a ban, and other multiple accounts under common control that continue to post would be evading such a ban.

Please don't feed the trolls.

PS. You can usually conclusively identify these sock puppet troll type accounts by looking at their posting history. It almost always starts with whole sequence of one-line low-content posts to artificially bump up their post count. I don't know if this is automated or just a process these (likely paid) trolls go through to create new accounts for trolling. For example: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=304209;sa=showPosts;start=40

The web site is being completely redone. Stay tuned for the new and improved web site.

Do have a look at the community XMR FAQ. A lot of great content was added within the first day or so but interest seems to have subsided. Eventually the FAQ content will likely find a home on a web site.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=686086.0

It is in there.

Well its an empirical point as well, showing that in fact changes in price do not follow from changes in difficulty (but the reverse does occur). This was measured for bitcoin, but I can't believe that bitcoin has any shortage of not-entirely-rational enthusiasts. In fact almost the entire public bitcoin mining market is non-economic and has been for years.

Unfortunately, since I can't find the actual evidence for this, the point is greatly weakened.

Oh, on that I agree. As long as people are mining a less profitable coin instead of a more profitable one, they are enthusiasts almost by definition. Professional economically-motivated miners optimize, and that means choosing the best opportunities.

Do see my edit above though. This still has no direct influence on price because of the way the difficulty-adjustment algorithm serves as a one-way wall separating the two sides of the market.

There is an indirect influence, in the sense that "enthusiasts" are likely to be investors, since they are "enthusiastic" about the coin. They'd likely feel the same way even if they weren't mining though, they'd just buy instead (in fact at present it seems a fair number are doing both).

This is not really true. Work out actual costs. If you are using EC2 prices to measure cost you are doing it (very) wrong.

Furthermore, if it were true, it would not have a causal relationship to price. It would affect difficulty (difficulty would drop because current mining costs are too high). But there is no causal link between difficulty and price. The adjustment algorithm serves as an (almost) one-way impenetrable wall that isolates the trading (price) side of the market from any influence from the mining side (but not vice versa).