Since we're on the XMR/BBR topic again something that's always bugged me or made me curious at least is the fact that Bytecoin/Monero uses what sounds like a completely new algo(CryptoNight). Which sounds like a really odd choice to me considering what kind of testing and rigor all these other new algos(BLAKE, Grøstl, Keccak ect) have gone through via the NIST competition.
Obviously SHA-2 has been considered a huge success thus far and doesn't look to have any major attacks according to public information despite it being expected to be showing cracks by now(and thus the NIST competition to find 'SHA-3'). Of course no one is using SHA256 anymore in the altscene for obvious reasons, but BBR went with their implementation of ('Wild')Keccak which was the winner of the 'SHA-3' competition and thus went through extremely rigorous testing from some of the top cryptographers in the world.
Maybe I'm thinking this is a bigger issue than it is, but I would expect more people to be complaining about this novel algo that CN uses. Unless of course it's just one or more of those new NIST competition algos with their own name slapped on it. But it doesn't say that on the Bitcoin wiki or the CN website. For all I know it could be worthy of being submitted alongside all those other algos if the competition were still going on but I don't really know.
The algorithm has little value as a general purpose hashing tool. It is purpose built for proof-of-work. The design is heavily influenced by the desire to resist attempts to massively accelerate it on GPUs or ASICs, or to put it another way, to ensure that similar-cost devices will perform similarly, at least for some period of time. So far this objective has been largely achieved with GPUs. GPU miners don't outperform CPUs that much on a hash/$ metric and don't outperform them at all on a hash/W metric. It remains to be seen how well it does with ASICs. Your point about testing and rigor is valid. It is possible to surmise that with some level of obvious competence obviously having gone into the design, there may have been significant testing, analysis, and scrutiny. Or there may not. Since it is all shrouded in secrecy, we just don't know. In the future does Monero plan to try to stay ahead of ASIC producers by changing the algorithm and attempt to keep it limited to CPU/GPU mining? Or will you take the Litecoin route and embrace them? I don't necessarily think ASICs are bad by any means, but it is a hotly debated issue and a lot of people definitely expected Litecoin to stick to it's original stated goal of ASIC resistance. I'm curious what the XMR community is planning on doing when this becomes an issue in the future. |
|
|
|
|
Since we're on the XMR/BBR topic again something that's always bugged me or made me curious at least is the fact that Bytecoin/Monero uses what sounds like a completely new algo(CryptoNight). Which sounds like a really odd choice to me considering what kind of testing and rigor all these other new algos(BLAKE, Grøstl, Keccak ect) have gone through via the NIST competition.
Obviously SHA-2 has been considered a huge success thus far and doesn't look to have any major attacks according to public information despite it being expected to be showing cracks by now(and thus the NIST competition to find 'SHA-3'). Of course no one is using SHA256 anymore in the altscene for obvious reasons, but BBR went with their implementation of ('Wild')Keccak which was the winner of the 'SHA-3' competition and thus went through extremely rigorous testing from some of the top cryptographers in the world.
Maybe I'm thinking this is a bigger issue than it is, but I would expect more people to be complaining about this novel algo that CN uses. Unless of course it's just one or more of those new NIST competition algos with their own name slapped on it. But it doesn't say that on the Bitcoin wiki or the CN website. For all I know it could be worthy of being submitted alongside all those other algos if the competition were still going on but I don't really know.
|
|
|
|
|
If all money was fiat money then it would be redundant to call any money fiat money. In modern english fiat refers to government issued legal tender.
Quoted from your own article: "the word “fiat” refers to a government decree that makes money money,"
|
|
|
|
I have heard of BTC getting returned...but the person being actually physically caught...I haven't heard of any big time stories of that...
Pirateat40 is currently on trial in the US after running a 700,000 BTC Ponzi scheme on this message board. what, really? there's a guy who was able to get away with 700k btc? that sounds pretty funny though, especially when you take into consideration his.. username. It was a 700k BTC Ponzi of which he had around 200k BTC that wasn't paid out. But he managed to only withdraw ~150k USD in cash so he lost almost all of that extra BTC somehow. Most of it likely on Gox attempting to daytrade as the SEC said. He ended up buying a new truck or something and that's about it... lol. |
|
|
|
This open source company type thing is going to be new, so there's lots of discussion to be had on what directions can be taken and such. Payment processing is definitely going to be a factor at some point with GetMarked so there will be opportunity for money to be made. Even if someone else creates a 3rd party company that decides to process USD to GetMarked Marks they can corner that market early. A Bitmark BitPay is something too that will have demand, and if GetMarked is the first thing that people associate with Bitmark then having these types of infrastructure systems(where a lot of the profit comes from in Bitcoin for example) connected with GetMarked in one way or the other is going to be the easiest way for people to use Bitmark as a currency. So basically what I'm saying is there should be a lot of money to be made on of something like this, either directly or indirectly. Once people start understanding that the Marks are actually real money things will get interesting. There is lots of questions and lots of discussion still to be had but there is a lot more opportunity here than just holding Bitmarks and having the value increase. Think of how much money has gone into Bitcoin companies this year alone from VCs, last number I heard was $250 million. The investors think that there's more money to be made selling gold picks in a gold rush. Infrastructure is key. Instead of focusing on getting people who use Bitcoin to use Bitmark something like this goes directly to a wider audience and gets people using crypto without even necessarily realising it at first. But eventually when they can pay for their Nexflix subscription or something with Marks they got from their blog it might click that Marks are money. I understand that. And I agree. I've just prefered the crowdfunding was made on a proper platform, outside this thread, with visibility outside the community, with all the details, goals, timmings about the development process, aswell the funders rewards or prizes stated so everybody could understand what we're aiming and when should we expect to have the basic system ready to enter production stage. Like any other crowdfunding project, I mean  Yeah, we should definitely hammer out some details. Mark already seems to have what he needs to do for the first stage of the technical part down in his head. We'll discuss this more in the thread here and also in IRC where we can post transcripts here as well. For anyone interested who hasn't seen it yet: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=bitmark It's late now where I am though so I'll be back tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Bitmark investment
Also, don't forget that the future of GetMarked is totally open ended at this point and once the core is built the potential can really start being unlocked. As people get involved in GetMarked as a separate-but-linked system to Bitmark it might be able to be used to generate profits in other ways. See www.flattr.com for a similar example of some potential that can even be exceeded conisdering micropayments are the future of the web. And Bitcoin itself is a complete failure thus far in the microtransaction arena, and it's not going to get better anytime soon since transaction fees are just going to get worse. Flattr has been funded 2.1m already by investors( http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/flattr ) so some smart people obviously see the potential that's there. Flattr removed the option to tip in bitcoin a while ago so the door is wide open right now. |
|
|
|
This said, the blockchain will grow larger than bitcoin one, by a linear factor. Price to "pay" for unlinkability and untraceability.
For now. I'm pretty sure there will be a much smaller chain with adapted cryptonote before too long. Chain is going to be larger for this one, probably some 5-20x larger than that of Bitcoin's. That being said, that means maybe hundreds of GB at worst in a few years, which isn't an impossible tradeoff (for now) with privacy. There are a lot of propositions for means to reduce the size of the blockchain, and we're reviewing them all carefully. Having most people use thin clients isn't really a big deal, is it? Cryptos in general are moving towards that point anyway. The only issue in general is making sure enough people have incentive to run full nodes. |
|
|
|
I have heard of BTC getting returned...but the person being actually physically caught...I haven't heard of any big time stories of that...
Pirateat40 is currently on trial in the US after running a 700,000 BTC Ponzi scheme on this message board. |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is presented as a currency to be used on a daily basis. A stock is an entirely different instrument which is not meant to be exchanged for value often, but generally meant to be an investment that is held over time.
You can't compare the two. And there are lots of stocks that are much less volatile than bitcoin. Someone in finance can give you the hard numbers to back this up as well. Volatility is measured, and even without the hard numbers a simple look at many popular stock charts over the last 5 years will show less volatility than BTC.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh, the 90s. Such a good decade. Look at that pretty graph.
Are we ever going to see such a time period again? Probably not in the US or the western world at least.
|
|
|
|
Major difference is that bitcoin has no fundamentals like gold. It trades purely on speculation. You can argue that it is worth $1 or $10,000 and still get away with it. Stocks on the other hand are limited to a range supported by their earnings and other financial metrics.
What do you mean by fundamentals in this case? Bitcoin supply is known and the emission rate is also known so there are fundamentals in Bitcoin that are a constant. |
|
|
|
|
Oh, so Vod is mlawrence. I figured that might be the case since the avatar is the same and the Dank connection.
How does one change their forum name?
|
|
|
|
apart from blackmailing your money back. karpeles and pirate@40 both got caught. but in both cases the victims WILL NOT get 100% return.,
once people start to realise that the best they can aim for is 50%, they can then realise that they can reclaim their funds legally.
the simplest and cheapest method is to get a debt collection agency in the town of the perpetrator involved, yes they take a fee, but atleast you know you will be getting atleast your 50% back, and doing it legally. even the threat of a debt collection agency annoying their real lives is enough to get some recompense from the scammer.
people will then stop waiting for months whining and moaning that the SEC wont help them or get involved, or that courts take too long or that its not worth the plane ticket to slap the scammer with a wet fish. and also people will start doing their due diligence of asking for ID so that the other party is not a stranger to them.
this is the kind of consumer protection knowledge that needs to be taught to people..
Pirate totally ended up blowing the money, failing at day trading and whatever else. He ended up personally only getting $0.75 per BTC, which is completely laughable. He was such a massive failure at even scamming. |
|
|
|
This is always a possibility. You could say the same thing if 5 pools with 11% each were to work together to attack the network. This is a non-issue.
Is it a non-issue or is it an issue that people ignore, thus it won't be addressed until it happens, causing a loss of confidence and thus crash of value first? It would likely be a government that does it, and as bitcoin increases in value and governments lose their control over the flow of money, I think it becomes more likely that it will happen. Especially with the trend towards centralized mining. It's a huge issue but the community has accepted the fact that we rely on trusting the miners. I've posted about this issue before, about how Bitcoin is not a 'trustless' currency at all. And I'm not saying that it won't function perfectly fine for the foreseeable future, but it's more convenient for people to ignore the issue in general. There is no easy answer really unless the devs could implement a forced p2pool mining system into the the protocol. Which I assume is not possible since it's such an easy answer, is it not? |
|
|
|
So, this specific investment will just pay off when 1 BTM = 50k satoshi. Now how far are we from that?
Any BTM you already hold have to count as well though if you think about it. It's an investment in Bitmark over all not just contained in the ROI you'll see from the mined BTM from it. No. Any BTM I already hold count to my Bitmark investment - the currency. GetMarked is a service with a specific purpose. And that's why coinsolidation putted it as a separate branch of the project. GetMarked crowdfunding, from an investor perspective, should show quantificable returns, timmings, and detailed goals. Or I'd be thinking what's the gains of a GetMarked investor versus someone who don't care to put some in? Because, one thing is to contribute or donate, other is investment. Side investments can sum big cash to the project. Donations or contributiuons will just not get people in, imho. Again, I'm speaking as an investor, not a passionate community member, what "8 BTC to guarantee GetMarked success" mean? How can we measure this success? what is the success we're talking about? If this doesn't make sense, I'll drop it but, tbh, it makes a lot of sense to me. I understand what you're saying here in general about it as an investment. But any investment in any part of Bitmark is supposed to go towards something that provides value for Bitmark overall. Which over time should increase the value of BTM. So anyone's ROI has to include their previous BTM holdings as they are inextricable. The more BTM one has the most interest they have in seeing it expand as they stand to gain the most. |
|
|
|
So, this specific investment will just pay off when 1 BTM = 50k satoshi. Now how far are we from that?
Any BTM you already hold have to count as well though if you think about it. It's an investment in Bitmark over all not just contained in the ROI you'll see from the mined BTM from it. |
|
|
|
What about https://ghost.org/download/ or http://www.silverstripe.org/ ? Are these any good? It's been a while since I've done any sort of web project so I'm way out of the loop. I'd rather not do wordpress but I'm not 100% against it. But getmarked definitely has to have a wordpress plugin at some point! Think of the millions of people who use wordpress being exposed to Marks/Bitmark for the first time. It's like a faucet but for regular people who use the web. Such a massive untapped market of people not into crypto, but this gives them a way to actually use crypto without downloading anything and not risking anything yet. |
|
|
|
|
I'm thinking about starting a website that will use getmarked. Mainly a platform to publish articles that can be marked and also a forum that can implement getmarked as a karma system at some point.
Anyone have any recommendations as to what framework would be good for something like that?
|
|
|
|
Those "other choices of currency" don't have to worry About legall stuff. This will help getting crypto to a whole new audience much quicker. They will be trader for btc until "new paradigm" so it will benefit everyone in The longrun I think. Collaboration is much more effective then divide and conquer!
Edit: I have The tendancy of updating my Posts when I'm at home. Currently on my Phone but like The discussion
For now we don't. But the proposed BitLicence regulations out of New York State do target alts unfortunately. |
|
|
|
If you have an unreversible mixer, congratulations. Bitcoin will almost certainly want to adopt it. However, it won't fix fungibility.
When you say that, are you referring to Bitcoin 3rd party development like Dark Wallet? Or the core dev team? I don't think the core dev team would ever implement that tech in to Bitcoin even if it was perfect. Why would they not want to adopt it? We're talking about Bitcoin as in the open source beta phase project. I would put the line at 100-1 that the current Bitcoin development team with it's current political situation would ever add such a thing to Bitcoin. If it's possible for 3rd parties to add it then people will be all over that at light speed. But Gavin et al? I highly doubt that. But maybe I'm wrong. I wonder what everyone else thinks. And this just highlights one of the most serious issues with Bitcoin as a project. Someone needs control over it but also the vote of the majority should certainly count. This is where Mike Hearns light house project may come into its own, not just funding the devs but breaking them away from the Bitcoin Foundation and also allowing people to show their support for features they would like to see. If Lighthouse ends up working that way then it could be interesting to see what direction Bitcoin takes. But even then we already have the vested interests of the Bitcoin Foundation and it would take some sort of political upheaval within the Bitcoin dev community to really change the status quo. I think it was a Mike Hearn interview where he said that Wladimir doesn't even touch the core protocol due to political issues. And he's a PHD who's apparently supposed to be Gavin's successor as lead dev! (edit: I can't find the quote yet though all I've been able to find is that he said Gavin is pretty much the only one who does touch the core protocol. I might have misremembered, not sure. edit2: found the quote, pasted at the bottom) To be honest though I don't really mind that whole mess since it bodes quite well for our respective 'alternative' choices of curenncy.  “The only people doing any kind of heavy lifting on the protocol today are people paid by the Bitcoin Foundation. When I say ‘people,’ what I actually mean is Gavin [Andresen]. There are only three people paid by the Foundation to work on bitcoin, code-wise. And of those, Wladimir [van der Laan] and Cory [Fields] refuse to work on the protocol, partly because of the social issues that have come up.”
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
