... Does not exist.
Looking through the recent pump scam. Please all remember that the price does not matter, the systems fundamentals do. Anything else is just hype.
..
Says the guy who was trying to talk the price down on multiple occasions.  |
|
|
|
|
So basically what they are saying is they want a monopoly on money and currency.
Good luck with that.
|
|
|
|
|
less than 48 hours remaining
|
|
|
|
|
less than 24 hours remaining
|
|
|
|
Beautiful coins! Looking forward to getting one of these sets, but I couldn't find where the serial number of the coins will be  The holograms have a small clear window. They should be seen through that window. If they come out unclear I will laser mark the hologram with the serial number. |
|
|
|
I don't get why people put so much emphasis on what Ver has to say on the technical analysis of certain cryptos. Isn't he viewed more as a investor/entrepreneur? Because that's how I view him and don't really understand why he has such a big influence on the Bitcoin community and is at dev meetings. Idk I could have an entirely wrong view point about the whole thing.. Yes I agree with this. Some give him too much credit for his knowledge about bitcoin's technical inner workings. The market will decide if monero is true digital cash or not. From a technical standpoint that is what I see it as. Roger may have some personal interest in pushing zcash as opposed to allowing something that he doesn't have a good amount of control over to start rearing its UNICORNY-head.  |
|
|
|
Also, don't forget the bitcoin.com puff piece on Zcash that straight-up lied about not being affiliated with the project (Ver owns bitcoin.com!). Sorry, but he's run out of chances.
I vaguely remember this...do you have a link? Seems shady that he would put up a statement in a piece about cash on his own website. Then again this is the same guy who told people the mtgox was A-OK in 2013 just before it went bust. It lists Zcash's investors but conveniently leaves Ver's name out. Then at the bottom of the article is a disclaimer that reads: "Disclaimer: Bitcoin.com is not affiliated with any of the above-mentioned businesses." It's even a little bit worse than that. The original Wired article they quoted included Ver's name but they took it out of the quote. bitcoin.com: The publication Wired details that investors such as Naval Ravikant and the Digital Currency Group’s Barry Silbert have invested over $700,000 USD into the startup. Wired: Those investors include Naval Ravikant, an investor in Twitter and Uber, Barry Silbert, the founder of startup equity-trading platform SecondMarket, and Roger Ver, a staunch libertarian who’s invested in bitcoin startups Blockchain.info and Bitpay, and who also bankrolled much of the legal defense of now-convicted Silk Road creator Ross Ulbricht Wow so they consciously had removed his name before reposting that on his site. |
|
|
|
Roger Ver isn't interested in tech that much, just his wallet IMO. XMR is a threat, so he doesn't want it to succeed, period.
I don't think that's true. Roger will see what Monero is in time. Remember, most of us thought Bitcoin was dumb the first time we heard of it too. And if he gets half as excited about Monero as he was/is about Bitcoin, that is a big win for the community. Don't write anyone off - we are only what our genetics and experiences have allowed us to become. Extend invitations and give people chances; sometimes they will surprise you. It doesn't look good for Ver. Either he's a really dumb investor who didn't research the tiny niche he bought into, or he's very aware of Monero's threat to Zcash and actively refuses to acknowledge its existence. You pick. Also, don't forget the bitcoin.com puff piece on Zcash that straight-up lied about not being affiliated with the project (Ver owns bitcoin.com!). Sorry, but he's run out of chances. I vaguely remember this...do you have a link? Seems shady that he would put up a statement in a piece about cash on his own website. Then again this is the same guy who told people the mtgox was A-OK in 2013 just before it went bust. |
|
|
|
I may do another auction. But I will start normal sales soonTM.
MONERO GUI CONFIRMED?! I would hope so.  |
|
|
|
some have asked about unfunded versions of these coins and this is my response: On the topic of unfunded coins, after much thought I've decided to require all buyers of the 3-coin silver monero sets to fund them with their face value: 25, 50, and 100 monero.
There will be no unfunded Lealana physical silver monero coins.
Beautiful coins by the way smoothie. Does that apply for all of the sets or just these first 10? Also, will you continue to auction these off after the initial 10, or just sell them first come first serve? Yes it applies for all sets. I may do another auction. But I will start normal sales soon TM. |
|
|
|
These coins look very nice. But, why Monero???  Because Monero is *the* best-of-breed altcoin. For one thing, it's already 100% fungible at both protocol and socioeconomic levels, thanks to Science ®. For another, it has a vibrant dev/supporter ecosystem. I could go on, but will instead invite you to pursue the links in my sig. Welcome to Monero Mountain!  Meh... Not the "best of breed" when it's #13th. Bitcoin is fungible. Litecoin is fungible.  I wanted smoothie to answer, not a Monero mouthpiece/bull. Were you paid to create this physical coin for Monero? Or, was this a deep, personal interest into Monero? If this was a Bitcoin coin, I would not hesitate to buy this. But, because it's Monero...  I can't imagine someone paying me to create physical coins, otherwise they would just make them themselves. No one has paid me to create these coins. One reason I made these is because monero offers true fungibility. Bitcoin as well as litecoin offer pseudo-fungibility. You can still trace the history of where their respective "coins" came from. A biproduct of my coins is that they offer a physical form of allowing others to understand and learn about certain cryptocurrencies. In a sense it is a tool for marketing and teaching. My coin's in my opinion are not investments but collectible tokens (aka conversation pieces). Monero has privacy features on by default and it is actively developed. The math behind monero based on my own personal research is very sound. It incorporates sound elliptic curve math that Daniel J. Burnstein has been credited for. Another reason I created these is that I enjoy art. Monero is a form of art and I like shiney silver coins. So I figured it would be appropriate to intertwine the two (monero art, and my art) into one. Sound crypto + sound money + sound math + pretty art = these coins (all in my opinion). I hope that answers your question.  |
|
|
|
some have asked about unfunded versions of these coins and this is my response: On the topic of unfunded coins, after much thought I've decided to require all buyers of the 3-coin silver monero sets to fund them with their face value: 25, 50, and 100 monero.
There will be no unfunded Lealana physical silver monero coins.
|
|
|
|
some have asked about unfunded versions of these coins and this is my response: On the topic of unfunded coins, after much thought I've decided to require all buyers of the 3-coin silver monero sets to fund them with their face value: 25, 50, and 100 monero.
There will be no unfunded Lealana physical silver monero coins.
|
|
|
|
|
On the topic of unfunded coins, after much thought I've decided to require all buyers of the 3-coin silver monero sets to fund them with their face value: 25, 50, and 100 monero.
There will be no unfunded Lealana physical silver monero coins.
|
|
|
|
reposting this here... I noticed a typo in the payment terms of this auction. Not that I think anyone who bids will not pay their bid. But just in case in reference to the following text in the OP: Payment for winners of auctioned sets needs to be completed within 72 hours of the auction end. Should someone not pay for their bid, the set will go to the next highest bidder. Meaning all winners of sets with higher numbers than the person who failed to pay will get a set of set_number - 2 (i.e. if you won set 5 and the winner of set 3 fails to pay in time, next highest bidder who missed the cut off gets set 9, set 9 winner gets set 7, set 7 winner gets set 5, and set 5 winner gets set 3) Simply put: If the winner for a particular set # fails to pay for their bid within 72 hours after the auction end, then the set will go to the next highest bidder of that same numbered set. Everyone can just ignore the bolded text above as it makes little to no sense given the context of how the auction is running. My mistake. |
|
|
|
I noticed a typo in the payment terms of this auction. Not that I think anyone who bids will not pay their bid. But just in case in reference to the following text in the OP: Payment for winners of auctioned sets needs to be completed within 72 hours of the auction end. Should someone not pay for their bid, the set will go to the next highest bidder. Meaning all winners of sets with higher numbers than the person who failed to pay will get a set of set_number - 2 (i.e. if you won set 5 and the winner of set 3 fails to pay in time, next highest bidder who missed the cut off gets set 9, set 9 winner gets set 7, set 7 winner gets set 5, and set 5 winner gets set 3) Simply put: If the winner for a particular set # fails to pay for their bid within 72 hours after the auction end, then the set will go to the next highest bidder of that same numbered set. Everyone can just ignore the bolded text above as it makes little to no sense given the context of how the auction is running. My mistake. |
|
|
|
@Blazed & Hellot, Thank you for the kind words. your feedback is much appreciated. Aloha! |
|
|
|
will the coins be in a case or something?
edit: Is it possible to fund the coin after it safely arrived and then pay extra for receiving a paper certificate?
I have a very limited amount of 3-coin black leatherettes that I can include with these coins. Meaning "while supplies last". Haven't done a count on it. But I do have 4-coin black leatherettes that would still do the trick, you would just have an open slot for another coin to go in the leatherette. I suppose it is possible to have an option to fund the coins after they are received in person and still get a paper certificate but it would require additional shipping costs to ship the paper certificates in a safe enough method so as to not have them damaged or bent in the process of transit. I'll have to look into what this will cost. |
|
|
|
Smoothie, these coins look amazing. I think this is one of the best physical altcoins ever made.
Is there anyway to get a buyer funded/unloaded coin though? I prefer those as funded coins force me to spend extra money (in this case around 0.3BTC for the whole set) that could have been used to buy other coins.
I don't plan to sell any of my coins nor do I plan to fund them, so there shouldn't be any issues in NY case.
Mitchell, I'm trying to think of what would be the best way to handle such a case, should I choose to do this option for buyers/collectors. My dilemma is that any coin that is shipped unfunded is unable to have its balance proven unless it was opened. The issue being that any 3rd party could be fooled into buying a coin that looks funded but actually isn't. I will post about this in the next day or so as I gauge interest in unfunded versions of these coins. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
