Don't quit your dayjob just yet, OP.  |
|
|
|
Not trying to bash Blocknet, but greed really took over the altcoin world.
I own a crapload of SSD and XST (enough to crash both markets if i sell all at once) but i currently see no benefit of posting this ICO at 25k satoshis. I know that the price was based on the market cap of all the blocknet affiliated coins, but realize that the altcoin market is not that big (despite the inflated market caps of all the coins) and I am sure by holding 1000 bitcoins hostage for the benefit of the "development", it detracts from development of other good altcoins and the blocknet affiliated coins.
I am not rich in any way but I can buy enough ICO coins and sell a portion at lower price just to get more coins if i wanted to as people panic sell - everyone who's interested in this coin already bought, and there is massive sell pressure. If i sell just 10-20 BTC worth of ICO coins to start a panic sell when the trading assumes, it can easily destroy a coin. If I am capable of doing that, I am sure many of you guys are too.
It'd be nice if devs either started the ICO at a lower price or if they guaranteed that some of the ICO funds are used for a buy wall.
I agree with just the last sentence of your post, "or if they guaranteed that some of the ICO funds are used for a buy wall. ". Having a buy wall for the major coins in Blocknet would be a good idea. |
|
|
|
This entire thread is created on a false premise. The below quote(click on it), says it all. OP's "information" is entirely incorrect. This can truly be marked as "F.U.D"...Trolls are seriously getting dumber...We might have to get Spoetnik to give some people trolling lessons. Motto, "Make it bad, make it so they can't read it, that's the only way we'll get them to believe it"- attributed to Spoetnik. -snip
|
|
|
|
I think the idea of gay being a problem is a part of history now. The few senior citizens who still go on about homosexuality will soon be dead. Young people do not care. They grew up with openly gay friends and will not learn to hate based on their ignorance. That is because they are not ignorant at all on the subject.
It reminds me of the people who still read the newspaper. I hear that in the newsroom they call the obituary "the subscriber list countdown." lol.
What you've just said is a good explanation of why Humanity does not have an indefinite lifespan("Immortal" in ways), as progress would hardly occur due to people, especially older folk, not willing to change or accept new things. |
|
|
|
Spoetnik we know you have read this thread, you are really going to let that guy trash talk you?
"insulting or boastful speech intended to demoralize, intimidate, or humiliate someone, especially an opponent in an athletic contest." I would be happy to hear Spoetnik's thoughts. I'm not trashtalking(definition above), I'm stating what I've seen in the majority of his posts, mostly composed of relative nonsense and a deep hate for altcoins(That aren't the shitcoins he already holds; Maxcoin, Quark, JackpotCoin, ixcoin, etc). Hypocritical to say the least. |
|
|
|
|
Are you joking?
Spoetnik hasn't destroyed anything. He supports the shittiest/scammiest coins in existence, like Maxcoin and rails on literally every altcoin besides the the shit ones he invested in the previous years.
BitcoinExpress destroyed Auroracoin. But Spoetnik...don't even compare the two please..
|
|
|
|
Answer my concerns, or delete my comment like a child again.
Is XC going to be a registered security with the SEC, or is the ITO going to be another in a long line of illegal security offerings in the eyes of the US government, I need to know so I can offload my significant stake.
You do not want to delete or ignore my comment again.
you are acting like one now Really? Because they made a secondary unregistered security? When they did not even follow through on finishing the first, no they just took the pre-mine from that 1st entity, and bought into the second under your nose, and scammed hundreds of thousands of dollars in btc at this point. The fact of the matter is this, he wants this "air" of transparency and legitimacy, then "oh we didn't know you wanted detailed expenditure reports"......Bull fucking shit..... You want to be a PUBLIC entity with shares invested, and you think you dont need to do that UNLESS ASKED!!! What planet are you from? They essentially triple dipped and made a killing off of YOUR back too, and you are defending it. If we feel like it, I can go make a complaint right now with the SEC, answer my concerns, its simple. Do you know anything about Law? It's not an unregistered security. Read what makes up an unregistered security please. Ethereum, Blocknet, Supernet, Bitshares, etc, are not unregistered securuties(they are decentralized, don't expect to make a profit since they are decentralized, are not shares/stakes of a company, and etc). You sound like a uneducated idiot. LOL, the fact you think you are correct in that train of thought is astounding. The SEC will be all over Dan's ass shortly I have a feeling, anyone offering or issuing a SECURITY IE: Token, is required by law to register said TOKEN with the SEC, if you think XC and Ethereum and Counterparty are immune from that, well....you are completely retarded, decentralized means jackshit in the USA. Do know what a security is? Nevertheless what makes something an unregistered security? Point taken, I'm not gonna argue with someone who didn't even study (American) law. Stupid people sure are amusing. |
|
|
|
Answer my concerns, or delete my comment like a child again.
Is XC going to be a registered security with the SEC, or is the ITO going to be another in a long line of illegal security offerings in the eyes of the US government, I need to know so I can offload my significant stake.
You do not want to delete or ignore my comment again.
you are acting like one now Really? Because they made a secondary unregistered security? When they did not even follow through on finishing the first, no they just took the pre-mine from that 1st entity, and bought into the second under your nose, and scammed hundreds of thousands of dollars in btc at this point. The fact of the matter is this, he wants this "air" of transparency and legitimacy, then "oh we didn't know you wanted detailed expenditure reports"......Bull fucking shit..... You want to be a PUBLIC entity with shares invested, and you think you dont need to do that UNLESS ASKED!!! What planet are you from? They essentially triple dipped and made a killing off of YOUR back too, and you are defending it. If we feel like it, I can go make a complaint right now with the SEC, answer my concerns, its simple. Do you know anything about Law? It's not an unregistered security. Read what makes up an unregistered security please. Ethereum, Blocknet, Supernet, Bitshares, etc, are not unregistered securuties(they are decentralized, don't expect to make a profit since they are decentralized, are not shares/stakes of a company, and etc). You sound like a uneducated idiot. |
|
|
|
|
Some of the money(BTC) raised from the IPO, needs to go towards creating a base for XC. XC is in the main coin in blocknet even though it's decentralized, treat it as such.
|
|
|
|
Does anyone here think monero could explode 100 times, during the next bitcoin bubble?
Cryptocurrency is in the middle of a bloodbath. Crypto wealth is fleeing to the safety of fiat. Talking about a coin going up 100X seems out of place right now. I'm starting to think that bitcoin has found it's spot. I don't think it will go much lower but I also think there's a good possibility it won't see levels above 500 anytime soon if ever again. Monero is positioned as good or better than many coins. But that means nothing if money keeps flowing out of crypto. As for Monero or any other coin increasing in value 100X. It isn't going to happen anytime soon so don't get your hopes up. People need to be realistic and realize that things could get much worse than they are now. I'm not making any predictions just keeping my eyes open and avoiding getting distracted by fluff. I believe this has to do with more Bitcoin regulation= Some investors getting out(It might have the opposite effect in the future if regulation "legitimizes" BTC in the eyes of the public). While no one can be certain of Bitcoin's (immediate) future. It still stands that altcoins can go up in price much, much easier than Bitcoin can at this point in time. I agree that altcoins have a much easier time going up than bitcoin. The problem is that they can go down much faster as well. There is nothing to sustain an altcoin pump other than speculation bringing in new money. Bitcoin has a working infrastructure in place that allows for actual transaction being made between actual customers and vendors. When an altcoin rises in value it's much harder to sustain because in the end you can't really do anything meaningful with it. True, but can't the same be said for Bitcoin, albeit on a higher scale? Bitcoin's price couldn't be sustained at $1200, or $600, so it's down to $300. Since cryptocurrencies aren't really legitimized or very widely used yet, there will always be drastic fluctuations in price. I overall agree though, that's where I believe marketing plays a role, in advertising your altcoin to the people most likely to use it; Anonymous altcoins to Private Companies, Markets, etc. Monero hasn't even begun advertising itself(it's still doing ok without having done so) to the sectors that would benefit most from it. I view altcoins(good ones) as potential competitors to Bitcoin if they can fill certain niches. Anonymity(Legal and otherwise) is a big niche and Cryptonote's(Monero) Ring Sig based anon is pretty good, along with the fact that you can send regular transactions as well. I believe it would appeal to those who want the option to be public or private at their choosing(Pretty much everyone). |
|
|
|
...What you're talking about is 3rd parties. DarkWallet uses the Bitcoin Blockchain, as does CounterParty, that doesn't make them a part of Bitcoin, more like an external function or feature which is a 3rd party( http://www.techterms.com/definition/thirdparty)... They themselves(developers for each), don't have the rights to modify the Bitcoin codebase though, only the core developers are able to accept pull requests from contributors. 3rd party is a nonsensical term within a decentralized project. Most of satoshi's code has been thrown away anyways and there is no "official" stack. You can use any stack you want to interact with the blockchain, they are all part of Bitcoin. You understand that even the core developers of Bitcoin core want multiple stacks interacting with the blockchain that they have no control over right? 3rd party is not a nonsensical term as here is the definition," In computer programming, a third-party software component is a reusable software component developed to be either freely distributed or sold by an entity other than the original vendor of the development platform.". Decentralized means there isn't any group of users that explicitly control the entire thing, such as a company. While Bitcoin is decentralized, that doesn't mean it lacks order, which is what you seem to think, that decentralization=lack of any order. There still needs to be people well versed in the field to be making the final decisions on what goes where and when, otherwise it would be chaos. |
|
|
|
It's still boring, and you are filling up the thread with shit that has nothing to do with the topic and that nobody cares about..
Actually, this conversion while tedious and boring is very important to the topic at hand. One of the main reasons why people invest in any alt instead of Bitcoin is because they are generally misinformed by the marketing of alts or general ignorance to software development in general. Many people download Bitcoin QT and are disappointed because it doesn't have the same feature sets as other alt wallets or looks as pretty when most of Bitcoin development has nothing to do with Bitcoin QT. Bitcoin has a tremendous development advantage above any other alt. Adoption and things coming forth from that, is it's only advantage. Having people make things for Bitcoin that aren't released on the mainnet doesn't matter, I think that's what your referring to. That's what seperates the need for altcoins from Bitcoin, altcoins can incorporate all sorts of features on its mainnet without fear of backlash which gives it room to grow and have wide opinions from it's users on the features etc, unlike Bitcoin. Also, investing in Bitcoin may only be worthwhile in the longrun. In the immediate future, investing in altcoins gives way more room for decent price increases than it would be just investing in Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
If this was true, then why can I clone the Github repository and make my own altcoin just like that?
Non sequitur . There are other stacks or software codebases that interact with the bitcoin blockchain and perform all the functions of Bitcoin Core. When you use "Dark Wallet" you aren't using the Bitcoin Core software stack at all but still performing some of the same interactions with the Bitcoin blockchain. The reason you don't understand this is because you don't understand how Bitcoin or probably any other alt works at a logical level and how the code is written. ...What you're talking about is 3rd parties. DarkWallet uses the Bitcoin Blockchain, as does CounterParty, that doesn't make them a part of Bitcoin, more like an external function or feature which is a 3rd party( http://www.techterms.com/definition/thirdparty)... They themselves(developers for each), don't have the rights to modify the Bitcoin codebase though, only the core developers are able to accept pull requests from contributors. |
|
|
|
Does anyone here think monero could explode 100 times, during the next bitcoin bubble?
Cryptocurrency is in the middle of a bloodbath. Crypto wealth is fleeing to the safety of fiat. Talking about a coin going up 100X seems out of place right now. I'm starting to think that bitcoin has found it's spot. I don't think it will go much lower but I also think there's a good possibility it won't see levels above 500 anytime soon if ever again. Monero is positioned as good or better than many coins. But that means nothing if money keeps flowing out of crypto. As for Monero or any other coin increasing in value 100X. It isn't going to happen anytime soon so don't get your hopes up. People need to be realistic and realize that things could get much worse than they are now. I'm not making any predictions just keeping my eyes open and avoiding getting distracted by fluff. I believe this has to do with more Bitcoin regulation= Some investors getting out(It might have the opposite effect in the future if regulation "legitimizes" BTC in the eyes of the public). While no one can be certain of Bitcoin's (immediate) future. It still stands that altcoins can go up in price much, much easier than Bitcoin can at this point in time. |
|
|
|
I know the Core Developers of Bitcoin don't control Bitcoin, they for the moment maintain and decide what's best for it. If they controlled Bitcoin, it would not be Open-Sourced.
No, you still are spreading misinformation. "Bitcoin Core" is merely one stack that interacts with the Bitcoin blockchain. There are other stacks they have no control over. Why is this so hard for you to understand? If this was true, then why can I clone the Github repository and make my own altcoin just like that? Does the Bitcoin codebase not comprise all those different branches? From https://bitcoin.org/en/development, " The Bitcoin system was originally designed by Satoshi Nakamoto. His original Bitcoin codebase is now being maintained as Bitcoin Core by the following developers and a community of volunteers."
| | | | |
|
|
|
From https://bitcoin.org/en/development, " The Bitcoin system was originally designed by Satoshi Nakamoto. His original Bitcoin codebase is now being maintained as Bitcoin Core by the following developers and a community of volunteers." You understand that "Software developer" = "contributor" on Github right? As said in my previous post:
2)I have never thought of Contributors as software developers. In a way that makes some sense, but it would lead to confusion when trying to explain a Bitcoin Core Developer from a "Core" Contributor on Github. So overall, saying, software developers, is inaccurate or a misleading...Also, why are you mentioning "Software Developers"....You went from Core Developer to Software Developer.
In order to be a contributor, then you'd have to know code and/or cryptography, so you'd have to be a programmer, which are naturally software developers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_developer |
|
|
|
There is nothing more boring than two people arguing about the definition of a word.
Yes, but it isn't just about semantics. He is very confused to how the development process is done within Github and all the other implementations that interact within Github. He seems to be under the impression that 5 developers control the "Bitcoin" project and is misleading others with his FUD. Those 5 Core "Bitcoin core" developers don't have control over other stacks or implementations like libbitcoin and others. From https://bitcoin.org/en/development, " The Bitcoin system was originally designed by Satoshi Nakamoto. His original Bitcoin codebase is now being maintained as Bitcoin Core by the following developers and a community of volunteers." You are misinformed..(read the above quote). I know the Core Developers of Bitcoin don't control Bitcoin, they for the moment maintain and decide what's best for it. If they controlled Bitcoin, it would not be Open-Sourced. |
|
|
|
1)Third Party does mean something, " In computer programming, a third-party software component is a reusable software component developed to be either freely distributed or sold by an entity other than the original vendor of the development platform." So anyone creating programs using or ontop of Bitcoin constitutes are a 3rd party, like DarkWallet. Also, all those things form the Bitcoin codebase, and any pull requests still have to be accepted by none other than the Bitcoin Core Developers. You can't just submit any old pull request and get it published immediately without being it overlooked(if that was how it worked, Bitcoin would be destroyed by now).
No, no , no .... you still don't get it. You are completely confused and spreading misinformation. Those 5 Core "Bitcoin core" developers don't have control over other stacks or implementations like libbitcoin and others. Within Alts their is a small team of developers that control the whole coin , within Bitcoin there is one large and mostly used codebase with a large team of developers contributing and peer reviewing and many other codebases that can interact with the Bitcoin blockchain and perform the same actions as Bitcoin core. Bitcoin core is only special because it currently has the most developers and users. It has no priveledges or rights above any other software stack that interacts with the bitcoin blockchain! 2)I have never thought of Contributors as software developers. In a way that makes some sense, but it would lead to confusion when trying to explain a Bitcoin Core Developer from a "Core" Contributor on Github. So overall, saying, software developers, is inaccurate or a misleading...
It is only confusing to you because you are obviously not a software developer and are merely reading the words on those pages with no knowledge of how these software projects are actually developed. Do you see the term "Developer" with Githubs glossary? https://help.github.com/articles/github-glossary/How about in Permission levels? https://help.github.com/articles/permission-levels-for-a-user-account-repository/According to https://bitcoin.org/en/development, you're wrong...If what you're saying is correct, then that would mean anyone can add anything to the Bitcoin codebase, have it peer reviewed by other random contributors, and accepted. That there doesn't make any sense. The Github pages are owned by people(s), yes code is reviewed before being accepted, but they're reviewed by presumably the Core Developers of Bitcoin: https://bitcoin.org/en/development, or those they give special rights to. Being a contributor does not make you a Core Developer, as again, Bitcoin is Open-Sourced and anyone can contribute. |
|
|
|
1) For Christ Sakes, a Bitcoin Core Developer as shown on: https://bitcoin.org/en/development, are those that determine what gets added to the Bitcoin code and what doesn't. No, you seem to be under the impression their exists no other implementations. You do understand their are multiple software stacks that interact with the Bitcoin Blockchain right? Bitcoin Core is just one of them. These aren't "third party" as such a statement is asinine when talking about an open source decentralized project. "Bitcoin core" has the same access and privileges as libbitcoin, btcd, Bits of Proof, bitcoinj, picocoin, caesure, ect... Again , "third party" doesn't mean anything in an open source decentralized project. I never said anything about "software developers". A Contributor is NOT a core developer, I can contribute, so can you, that just makes me a contributor, this Bitcoin is Open-Sourced. What don't you understand?
Obviously, you are not a software developer as you would understand that we do consider Github contributors as software developers. 1)Third Party does mean something, " In computer programming, a third-party software component is a reusable software component developed to be either freely distributed or sold by an entity other than the original vendor of the development platform." So anyone creating programs using or ontop of Bitcoin constitutes are a 3rd party, like DarkWallet. Also, all those things you mentioned form the Bitcoin codebase, and any pull requests still have to be accepted by none other than the Bitcoin Core Developers. You can't just submit any old pull request and get it published immediately without being it looked over(if that was how it worked, Bitcoin would be destroyed by now). 2)I have never thought of Contributors as software developers. In a way that makes some sense, but it would lead to confusion when trying to explain a Bitcoin Core Developer from a "Core" Contributor on Github. So overall, saying, software developers, is inaccurate or a misleading...Also, why are you mentioning "Software Developers"....You went from Core Developer to Software Developer. |
|
|
|
1) So now you've backed off you're original claim of the Bitcoin Core Developers working for DarkWallet. Exactly why have you included this info "There are many Bitcoin projects , implementations, and stacks. Bitcoin Core is one of them, here is the github - https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin". How is that relevant to what's being discussed at all? It's plain and simple, as shown here: https://bitcoin.org/en/development, and here: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/bitcoin-dark-wallet. There are no Core Bitcoin Developers who are also on the Development Team of DarkWallet, which you claimed there were. Also, these projects are open sourced, as I said multiple times in my previous posts, so Anyone can contribute. Someone contributing to a project does not make them a core developer. Core Developers are the ones who make the final decision on what gets accepted, so there may be Amir Taaki contributing to the Bitcoin Code, but he is not a core developer as he doesn't determine what pull requests actually get accepted. Re-read my posts: 3rd party?
Dark wallet is created by the some of the same developers who work on Bitcoin Core. Trust should be placed with trusted developers and by looking at the source code yourself. I trust Darkwallet devs much more than many alt devs. Dark wallet has more dev support and peer review than many alts do.
Other Darkwallet /Bitcoin Core devs -
"Bitcoin Core" developers is not the same thing as " Core Developers working on Bitcoin Core". You don't seem to understand that contributors who write code that get accepted to a project are indeed software developers. As I said a million times, Bitcoin has much larger adoption than other cryptocurrencies because it came way before most of the altcoins out here today. Bitcoin for ex has a 4 year headstart on Bitshares, so obviously it will have more contributers on Github for the time being.
There are more developers working on Bitcoin projects than all other alts combined right now. 1) For Christ Sakes, a Bitcoin Core Developer as shown on: https://bitcoin.org/en/development, are those that determine what gets added to the Bitcoin code and what doesn't. I never said anything about "software developers". A Contributor is NOT a core developer, I can contribute, so can you, that just makes me a contributor, this Bitcoin is Open-Sourced. What don't you understand? 2) I already explained the reason why there are more developers working on Bitcoin is because Bitcoin came out long before most altcoins today, and thus has much wider adoptance. You're just saying the same things over and over again. You're probably confused on the point that a contributor who gets their request accepted on Github, can be incorrectly claimed as a "Core Developer" because their code got accepted to "Bitcoin Core", on Github...In other words, the "Core" in their name references to the name found in Github, "Bitcoin Core". A Bitcoin Core Developer and a "Bitcoin Core"(Github) Contributor are two very different things. If you seriously can't understand the difference between a Core Bitcoin Developer that determines what gets added to the Bitcoin codebase and what doesn't, from a Contributor who puts out pull requests on Github because after all, Bitcoin is open sourced, then I don't know what more to tell you... |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
