Synereo is up against someone who knows marketing and implementation of million user adopted software better than they do. And we didn't and won't ICO/premine/instamine, meaning that our network effects and adoption will blow theirs away. Synereo is a vaporware P&D so keep that in mind: |
|
|
|
Synereo is up against someone who knows marketing and implementation of million user adopted software better than they do. And we didn't and won't ICO/premine/instamine, meaning that our network effects and adoption will blow theirs away. Synereo is a vaporware P&D so keep that in mind: |
|
|
|
This would lead me to believe that SHA256 is in fact being commoditized.
Which I would expect to be the case. Improvements should stabilize at rate of Moore's law at best. |
|
|
|
Designer's version and I asked her to lower the right pupil slightly more: http://oi68.tinypic.com/34yrx90.jpg Note this is the music and games social network, not the crypto-currency, yet the two will be integrated. |
|
|
|
All these coins on any exchange whether centralized or decentralized like the Bitshares' Openledger share a symbiotic relationship, rather than competing with each other. It all comes down to reach, growth and adoption.
Incorrect. The difference is how much of the coin supply and thus float is controlled by the manipulators. ICO/premine/instamines are often significantly controlled by a few insiders. |
|
|
|
Yep getting out of debt is the higher priority but I do have a very modest position in Bitcoin the operative word being modest.
Having just $1000 in Bitcoin and making the right decision of which altcoin to trade for at the right time could potentially entirely erase your debt. This is what we call rational speculation. But you need to make sure you see the same sort of adoption and momentum that we saw developing for Bitcoin in 2012 and 2013. As you know, a level head and not a rash impulse is very important when speculating. And never speculating with more money than you can afford to lose. So far, I haven't seen such an altcoin. No CC other than Bitcoin has been widely used as a currency. Of course there have been unsustainable gains made in altcoins due to speculation but these are very hard to predict unless you buying low and just waiting for a manipulated pump by the insiders who control the float due to some ICO/premine/instamine scheme. The US stock market would be at most a double (100% gain) from roughly mid-2016 to Fall 2017. So it isn't likely to erase your debt. Employing leverage increases risk of return of capital. |
|
|
|
But the Ethereum users are also growing fast.
Where can I pay using ETH  How can there be users if there are no merchants accepting ETH? We already explained upthread that the smart contract concept can't work technologically. |
|
|
|
I guess it's only a problem if you for some reason believe sha256 will not be commoditized. The fact that energy costs keep becoming an ever higher percentage of the price per Bitcoin instead of hardware seems like it won't be a problem.
The greater proportion of mining costs that are due to electricity, then the more exclusive mining becomes. Because there are a finite number of slots next to hydropower plants. Not to mention, that the powers-that-be in government can probably provide the electricity for free and charge it to the collective. Utilities are one of the highest regulated, collectivist corruptions on earth. Edit: even heating your home with the miners is not profitable because heat generated from electricity is much more expensive than from carbon fuels. And even micro-hydropower won't reach the 2 - 4 cents cost of large scale hydropower unless you can amortize the construction and capital cost over several years: http://www.rockyhydro.com/Generators.phpAnd that doesn't even include the cost of the land and the rarer locations where there is enough flow and head drop to make it worth while. |
|
|
|
You should research Bitmessage to see their protocol.
I was in their forum discussing how to fix it when it was overloaded with spam. It wasn't only you who was helping them fix it. Yes my mistake there were several others. I sent Aetheros some pms, posted on their forums and reddit. They knew about the issue. Basically there was a node mutating messages because of how they left parts of it volatile. There was several other bugs. Those got fixed. There is a few more still but Bitmessage is going in the right direction Thank you for helping to fix Bitmessage. I was able to communicate again apparently due to your efforts. Sorry I don't have free time right now to dig into all the design specifics of Bitbay auctions. I still have some questions and doubts, but I simply lack the free time. I believe you are sincere and hopefully you are also talented. |
|
|
|
Gleb you are citing an alleged April Fools joke blog entry about Craig Wright. The video you cited adds no evidence that he is a scammer. |
|
|
|
ETH is dead forever permanently.
We wish. Sadly that is unlikely to be the case because the mentality amongst speculators is to follow the pump to try to earn some profit. Damn the technological and adoption fundamentals. P&Ds are irresistible to the gambler "crack addicts". On the positive side, Ethereum's ICO was publicized, its development is open source as it is happening. OTOH, the potential price manipulation by insiders and the distribution of the ICO is not open source. People said/say the same things about Bitcoin. Who says that Bitcoin has no network effects and no viable use case |
|
|
|
Perhaps IOTA is not trying to be Bitcoin. And why should it as Bitcoin already exists.
They have a right to do that within the confines of the law. We have a right to analyze their technology and their distribution methodology. Some investors/speculators may prefer an ICO. Apparently society has some laws about not fooling lunch money investors, but other than adhering to law then I would have no qualms with anyone experimenting with other methods of distribution. I am of the opinion for example that Ethereum specifically located in Switzerland in order to escape SEC regulation, but my IANAL understanding is that is not sufficient and thus they have broken the law by issuing and selling unregistered investment securities to non-accredited USA investors. But again, IANAL, so readers consult your own attorney. So what I am saying is that I was fairly open minded about Iota. I don't think the technology will solve the centralization issue though. And I don't think a limited distribution ICO can scale persmissionless, decentralized, network effects and thus adoption. But it is not my role to decide for them. I shared my opinion. |
|
|
|
As r0ach correctly pointed out, it is dynamic and there is always give and take. A particular marginal miner my drop out but another will take his place. Costs are always changing. Even political connections with a corrupt local official in China can disappear at a moments notice with one bullet. Nor does China have a monopoly on corruption, so cheap electricity appears elsewhere. The cycle continues.
This belies understanding that costs can't exceed income. As the lowest cost producers scale up, they drive income to the level of their costs (thus no profit for any marginal miners). Otherwise they form an oligarchy to raise income (e.g. transaction fees), but then they can exclude the other miners. The coinbase along with the price being driven by speculation is a short-term mitigating factor but that diminishes as the coin matures and becomes widely used. Then transaction fees dominate and coin exchange price becomes stable. Sorry my QED was a strong one. Also I think we were originally talking about the breadth of distribution of the coinbase, and 0.001% is even worse than a typical power law distribution of wealth. (Note Monero apparently has a CPU friendly hash and thus probably had better distribution percentage participation, but limited to those who know about mining it, which is unfortunately a very small number of people) As you know, I am adamant about this, because I am intending to create a token that I believe can have very broad distribution and also defend against long-term centralization. |
|
|
|
Most people don't even realize Bitcoin has it's own decentralized exchange, but it does.
Which only 0.001% of the population can participate in profitably. And it ceases roughly 2033 or unless transaction fees scale up but there is a Tragedy of the Commons dilemma there as well. It doesn't really even matter if it's profitable or not. You can define Bitcoin in one sentence: The purpose of mining is to create a permanent two way peg, decentralized exchange, which thus results in a permissionless system.The economic incentives are a side issue, but seem to work thus far. It's designed to bounce back and forth between profitable and unprofitable. The fact that it's deflationary creates a time opportunity cost reward to generally remain profitable over the long haul. You missed the point entirely. Only 0.001% have the economies-of-scale to mine Bitcoin profitably. Sorry your argument fails on the economics of proof-of-work hash functions, unless you can argue there is one that can't be significantly optimized for an ASIC and economies-of-scale for cheaper electricity located next to utility scale hydropower (even free electricity perhaps if you do a handshake and wink in China with a Communist Party official). R0ach's argument is valid, to a point. Even if only 0.001% can mine (hypothetical number of course) then 70000 can mine (importantly, as independent entities), enough to create a competitive market. If you believe the number is even much smaller than that, as I suggest has been the case with ASIC mining, then there may not be a competitive market and his argument fails (with respect to Bitcoin at least). Satoshi's design makes the marginal miner lose relative share of the hashrate over time due to reinvestment of profits, because they are less profitable, so the ultimate end game is only the miners with the lowest costs. In a normal market, the marginal producers are more nimble and can respond to changes in the market more quickly and thus they are always regenerated. But Satoshi's design is static and the marginal miners have no competitive advantage in order to sustain their existence. QED.
As r0ach correctly pointed out, it is dynamic and there is always give and take. A particular marginal miner my drop out but another will take his place. Costs are always changing. Even political connections with a corrupt local official in China can disappear at a moments notice with one bullet. Nor does China have a monopoly on corruption, so cheap electricity appears elsewhere. The cycle continues.
This belies understanding that costs can't exceed income. As the lowest cost producers scale up, they drive income to the level of their costs (thus no profit for any marginal miners). Otherwise they form an oligarchy to raise income (e.g. transaction fees), but then they can exclude the other miners. The coinbase along with the price being driven by speculation is a short-term mitigating factor but that diminishes as the coin matures and becomes widely used. Then transaction fees dominate and coin exchange price becomes stable. Sorry my QED was a strong one. Also I think we were originally talking about the breadth of distribution of the coinbase, and 0.001% is even worse than a typical power law distribution of wealth. (Note Monero apparently has a CPU friendly hash and thus probably had better distribution percentage participation, but limited to those who know about mining it, which is unfortunately a very small number of people) As you know, I am adamant about this, because I am intending to create a token that I believe can have very broad distribution and also defend against long-term centralization. |
|
|
|
Most people don't even realize Bitcoin has it's own decentralized exchange, but it does.
Which only 0.001% of the population can participate in profitably. And it ceases roughly 2033 or unless transaction fees scale up but there is a Tragedy of the Commons dilemma there as well. It doesn't really even matter if it's profitable or not. You can define Bitcoin in one sentence: The purpose of mining is to create a permanent two way peg, decentralized exchange, which thus results in a permissionless system.The economic incentives are a side issue, but seem to work thus far. It's designed to bounce back and forth between profitable and unprofitable. The fact that it's deflationary creates a time opportunity cost reward to generally remain profitable over the long haul. You missed the point entirely. Only 0.001% have the economies-of-scale to mine Bitcoin profitably. Sorry your argument fails on the economics of proof-of-work hash functions, unless you can argue there is one that can't be significantly optimized for an ASIC and economies-of-scale for cheaper electricity located next to utility scale hydropower (even free electricity perhaps if you do a handshake and wink in China with a Communist Party official). R0ach's argument is valid, to a point. Even if only 0.001% can mine (hypothetical number of course) then 70000 can mine (importantly, as independent entities), enough to create a competitive market. If you believe the number is even much smaller than that, as I suggest has been the case with ASIC mining, then there may not be a competitive market and his argument fails (with respect to Bitcoin at least). Satoshi's design makes the marginal miner lose relative share of the hashrate over time due to reinvestment of profits, because they are less profitable, so the ultimate end game is only the miners with the lowest costs. In a normal market, the marginal producers are more nimble and can respond to changes in the market more quickly and thus they are always regenerated. But Satoshi's design is static and the marginal miners have no competitive advantage in order to sustain their existence. QED. |
|
|
|
There is no concrete evidence that Eduardo DeCastro = iCEBREAKER. I've asked before to people to provide evidence, but like I said, I haven't seen anything concrete yet. Until then, it is a mere allegation.
You are the only fair and balanced Monero Dev I am aware of, so what`s your take on the "concrete evidence" regarding the accusations that Evan has scammed anyone? Do you think he should be on that list? Those who lost funds to Mt Gox did so on their own volition, including the Mt Gox Terms of Service which I assume had the necessary legal disclaimers about culpability for theft. Does that mean the investors weren't scammed? Those who invest in a token on their own volition, inherently expect that the market for those tokens is not manipulated by the insiders controlling the float by having a scam scheme to control > 50% of the tokens in existence. Satoshi controls maybe at most 1% of the Bitcoins that will be in existence. Criminals find clever ways to obscure their crimes such as your Dash accomplice semantic slime quoted above, but that still doesn't make them legal. IANAL but I am reasonably certain that Evan and the unnamed insiders have broken the laws that the SEC and FinCEN are tasked to enforce. [...]
You can't just say you want more rights, when that means injuring others, because injuring others is not a right.
It has been elaborated in other threads that premines/ICOs/instamines are the antithesis of non-maniluated, permissionless, decentralized systems.
I'm still under the weather unable to digest posts fully, but feel that the OP may need be amended to reflect both sentiments.
I just don't see how pretending to not have committed scams can be tolerated. It would be different if Evan stopped lying about intentionally doing the instamine instead of claiming it was an accident which I have explained is implausible because every lead developer will be monitoring his coin carefully on launch to see the coins are being issued at the correct rate. It doesn't take hours to make that determination. Also dEBRUYNE has provided quotes of Evan as additional evidence that he is lying. If Evan stopped trying to obscure the fact that he intentionally set up a way to control the float and > 50% of the tokens, then we could say that investors have full disclosure and thus if they are scammed it is on their own FULLY INFORMED volition. Until Evan makes FULL DISCLOSURE of the truth, then he is scammer. There is no other valid sentiment.
Until Evan makes FULL DISCLOSURE of the truth, then he is scammer. There is no other valid sentiment.
Even if disclosure were made now, there have been two years of deception, obfuscation, and spin (not only by Evan but by the other useful idiots like AlexGR who, assuming no more explicit involvement, got in early and allowed themselves to be recruited by their own greed as accomplices). That can't be erased from history any more than MtGox would cease to be a scam if Karpeles showed up and told us the missing coins, that he misled people about for possibly years, was all just a big accident. Anyone who bought Dash on the basis, in whole or part, of misleading statements from Evan or the others and then lost money has been scammed.Thus a correction is needed: Evan Duffield, along with AlexGR and the rest of the Dash shills who continue to scam investors (DASH) |
|
|
|
This kind of people are doing nothing in real world. They maybe wanted to but can't, hence posting 24/7 in here to beg for approval from anybody.
Jealousy won't help you. You continue to live in your closet while I go out and change the world. Then we will see your shame. |
|
|
|
There is no concrete evidence that Eduardo DeCastro = iCEBREAKER. I've asked before to people to provide evidence, but like I said, I haven't seen anything concrete yet. Until then, it is a mere allegation.
You are the only fair and balanced Monero Dev I am aware of, so what`s your take on the "concrete evidence" regarding the accusations that Evan has scammed anyone? Do you think he should be on that list? Those who lost funds to Mt Gox did so on their own volition, including the Mt Gox Terms of Service which I assume had the necessary legal disclaimers about culpability for theft. Does that mean the investors weren't scammed? Those who invest in a token on their own volition, inherently expect that the market for those tokens is not manipulated by the insiders controlling the float by having a scam scheme to control > 50% of the tokens in existence. Satoshi controls maybe at most 1% of the Bitcoins that will be in existence. Criminals find clever ways to obscure their crimes such as your Dash accomplice semantic slime quoted above, but that still doesn't make them legal. IANAL but I am reasonably certain that Evan and the unnamed insiders have broken the laws that the SEC and FinCEN are tasked to enforce. [...]
You can't just say you want more rights, when that means injuring others, because injuring others is not a right.
It has been elaborated in other threads that premines/ICOs/instamines are the antithesis of non-maniluated, permissionless, decentralized systems.
I'm still under the weather unable to digest posts fully, but feel that the OP may need be amended to reflect both sentiments.
I just don't see how pretending to not have committed scams can be tolerated. It would be different if Evan stopped lying about intentionally doing the instamine instead of claiming it was an accident which I have explained is implausible because every lead developer will be monitoring his coin carefully on launch to see the coins are being issued at the correct rate. It doesn't take hours to make that determination. Also dEBRUYNE has provided quotes of Evan as additional evidence that he is lying. If Evan stopped trying to obscure the fact that he intentionally set up a way to control the float and > 50% of the tokens, then we could say that investors have full disclosure and thus if they are scammed it is on their own FULLY INFORMED volition. Until Evan makes FULL DISCLOSURE of the truth, then he is scammer. There is no other valid sentiment. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
