I agree you said. But Thailand's economy is not so good, I think it has a little difficult
Really? Why do you say that? The Thai economy is actually quite good and quite robust as far as I can tell. They had this damning price fixing of rice to a high level. Lots of rice destroyed in storage, and the government could eventually not pay out the farmers. If this story has ended now, please tell us. Yes, it's over now. The Army immediately paid out all the farmers out of public funds. Thankfully that whole situation is over with for the most part. Just cleaning up the damage that was done. That was probably one of the worst policies I've ever heard of. |
|
|
|
The CryptoNote team is behind Bytecoin, right?
No. CryptoNote team has their own reference implementation named CryptoNoteCoin which is developed for education only. CryptoNote team said they did not join force with a development team that developed a premined coin for profit Hmm. Interesting. I would have thought that they would have been involved with Bytecoin since it was the first CN coin, right? They did all that work inventing this novel technology and haven't made any obvious attempt to gain from it yet? |
|
|
|
CPU or GPU?
Scrypt, so GPU or ASIC. Moving away from GPU's though since ASICs are becoming common place. |
|
|
|
|
The CryptoNote team is behind Bytecoin, right?
Is there any animosity between the original CN people and XMR/BBR teams?
Or did they just plow a bunch of money into their forks in order to ride the wave?
|
|
|
|
There are different implementations of PoS, some are vulnerable, some are more secure than PoW.
Yeah. Just because some coins have flaws that have been exploited does not mean that PoS as a whole can be dismissed. People should be working together to push PoS technology forward as it's clearly superior to PoW. I find it hard to believe that someone could justify the excess of PoW if and when a PoS alternative exists. Other than making an argument for PoW purely out of self interest of course. Right now PoW is dominant. And there are some PoS currencies like NXT that are progressing well and appear to have a good chance of solidifying their place as the first secure decentralised PoS currency. Time will tell how it plays out, but it's looking good for PoS thus far I think. It's possible that PoS isn't feasible but so far even for 'Nothing at Stake' attacks, V. Buterin and Come-From-Beyond seemed to agree that there was a theoretical solution. And that seems to be the main issue right now against PoS. and how pos(One of the implementations) can deal with the situation in OP's thread? As i know the network forges blocks and results in a blockchain that is similar in function to how we use blockchains in PoW currencies now. If one person on the network did have over 50% of the coins then it would not be secure, in the same way that if one miner had over 50% of the network on a PoW coin they could mount an attack. In PoS people forge blocks with their stake and in PoW people mine blocks by finding the correct hash to mine the next block in the blockchain. Someone who has a better technical understanding about PoS than I can probably explain it better. I just follow along the debate as a layman and try to think about the practical applications. |
|
|
|
There are different implementations of PoS, some are vulnerable, some are more secure than PoW.
Yeah. Just because some coins have flaws that have been exploited does not mean that PoS as a whole can be dismissed. People should be working together to push PoS technology forward as it's clearly superior to PoW. I find it hard to believe that someone could justify the excess of PoW if and when a PoS alternative exists. Other than making an argument for PoW purely out of self interest of course. Right now PoW is dominant. And there are some PoS currencies like NXT that are progressing well and appear to have a good chance of solidifying their place as the first secure decentralised PoS currency. Time will tell how it plays out, but it's looking good for PoS thus far I think. It's possible that PoS isn't feasible but so far even for 'Nothing at Stake' attacks, V. Buterin and Come-From-Beyond seemed to agree that there was a theoretical solution. And that seems to be the main issue right now against PoS. |
|
|
|
XMR looking extremely strong and definitely has broken its previous trend.
It's been gradual enough that we might not see any major pullback. I'm not sure if the last run up is going to be indicative of how this(potential) run up is going to be but it is looking somewhat similar so far.
gradual? 0023 to 0042 in 72 hours is gradual? maybe i should be more ambitious. Haha  Relative to other historical run ups in XMR it seems pretty gradual. It's a 45 degree line rather than a 85 degree one. |
|
|
|
|
XMR looking extremely strong and definitely has broken its previous trend.
It's been gradual enough that we might not see any major pullback. I'm not sure if the last run up is going to be indicative of how this(potential) run up is going to be but it is looking somewhat similar so far.
|
|
|
|
If you are already mining in some way then you must accept that you are speculating and hope to acquire some Bitmarks with the expectation their value will rise, you must be inclusive to others who wish to do the same, that is fair.
This is true. No matter the negative connotation with the word 'speculation', the reality is that by mining(and thus spending money to acquire BTM) we are all speculating by definition. The difference between us and most cryptocurrency speculators though is that we're speculating that Bitmark will add value in the future and not just looking for a short profitable trade. |
|
|
|
Every system that is cheatable will be cheated, humans are greedy and will exploit everything they can. Thus your idea is totally horrible  Theoretically if there was an unexploitable system, would it be a good system? I have no idea if it would be good or not I just posted it for the sake of discussion since I found dreamsparks post interesting. And I generally agree with him/her that people in the Bitcoin community tend to be too committed to deflation as a positive economic force. |
|
|
|
Extreme inflation is almost the same as extreme deflation in both cases the economy won't work how it should. In extreme inflation you get numbers in currency "value" with bunch of zeros to the right 123 0000000and if there is deflation you get the opposite 0. 0000000123 bunch of zeros to the left. In case of extreme inflation the state usually makes the money reform and just removes the 00000 from the number like what was 12300000000 will become 12300 000000 after the reform. Maybe similar thing will happen with deflationary crypto currencies when developer decide to make "crypto reform" and change the value 0.0000000123 to 0.000 0000123 and at the end you will get 0.000123 0000  Anyway in both cases in extreme inflation and deflation the economy will won't work. You started by saying its not how the economy should work either way and I thought I was going to get a nice explanation of the economic effects of both but instead you then started talking about 0's. The simple fact is deflationary currency econnomically incentiveses saving rather than spending which is terrible long term. Inflationary currencies obviously do the opposite and incentivise spending and creating debt. In the crypto world most have agreed that high inflation is terrible see, USD etc. However the same people seem to champion complete deflationary currencies which like I said can be just as bad in their own way. The solution is simple. Niether deflationary nor inflationary. The principle is easy however its near immpossible to try and predict how much inflation you need to keep the total money circulated (all unrecoverable coins taken away from total coins mined) at the same level. With no real precedents to follow, crypto enthusiasts will argue this for a long time to come. This is just off the top of my head after reading your post, but what about a system where the more coins are 'saved' as in not moved for a period of time, the block reward increases to incentivise spending by increasing the money supply? Transaction fees would apply of course so that there is a cost to just sending coins in between two addresses. I'm not saying this is necessarily a good idea, just something i thought of as a way to address the issue you mentioned. |
|
|
|
never understood though why the link links to an ugly grey page
It looks ok to me. this is what I see:  It's actually a nice looking landing page. Your browser is not loading it correctly. I'm sure FXO will pass that on to their web guys when he/she sees this. |
|
|
|
Bitmark will end up on an exchange one way or another. The sooner it happens the easier people can get involved.
If you want to petition the exchanges and gather votes to get BTM listed, no one is stopping you. If enough of the community wants the same thing, then it will get listed. This is true, and if this does happen, then BTM in the absolute offers nothing different then the already 500 plus alt coins that exist and this project will be treated as such. It shouldn't really matter what happens. The value is supposed to be earned over time by adding useful features and creating a stable code base that is easy to use. Right now what we have is an up to date version of Bitcoin which uses scrypt. That alone is actually better than all the other coins using the very outdated versions of Bitcoin that Litecoin forked from a long time ago. However, no one is deluding themselves into thinking that simply having the updated Bitcoin core is enough to compete in the modern cryptocurrency marketplace. We're just using this as a solid base to start from. The value will be earned when we can determine what features are necessary to add to result in a useful currency for daily use. We have a general idea right now to start out by making it easy for shop owners such as yourself to accept Bitmark and to that end coinsolidation is going to be working on an improved API at some point soon. To me, it doesn't matter one way or the other whether it gets listed on an exchange. It's not going to change anything. There is no way we can stop people from using a public currency anyway. The focus is long term and nothing that happens now is going to change that. The project is bigger than whether it gets listed on exchange x or exchange y. If it was selling for 1 satoshi or a million satoshi it still wouldn't change anything about the project. This is just a distraction from what we all really want to see: progress on Bitmark. |
|
|
|
|
In the long run it's not going to matter whether some exchange lists Bitmark or not. Coinsolidation is committed to developing Bitmark long term at this point so it shouldn't have any effect on what happens over the next year at least.
I'm pretty ambivalent about the whole exchange situation. On one hand we want to stick to the general mantra of 'no hype, let the project speak for itself' and let things happen naturally. On the other hand I can sympathise with people who want to offset some of their mining costs.
The important thing to to keep in mind is that we're all thinking long term here. So whatever happens now in the short term really should have any lasting effect on Bitmark.
|
|
|
|
|
I use Poloniex and I find it to be pretty good.
But they have people with accounts vote on which coins they wish to see. So it might take a while to get to the top of the list. It's a non-bitcoin voting system though. You don't have to send any money, you just vote for which coins you like.
|
|
|
|
|
We could do spreadsheet trading first if people really want to buy and sell their BTM.
|
|
|
|
I don't see how it could be a stealth launch. It was announced here 3 weeks before launch. I do think the OP need a rework though to grab some attention. It's really uninspiring. I'm not suggesting bullshit just for the sake of it but first impressions are important. Maybe someone here with some marketing experience could help the dev with it. Just a suggestion.
It is quite a bit different than the average ANN page on this forum, but to me the straight up facts no nonsense approach is inspiring. The tl;dr at the top there sums it up quite nicely I think. I'm not against marketing or anything. I just think it's easy to come off the wrong way in the altcoin world and sometimes things can just speak for themselves. And I can't see anyone making any sort of argument that it could be a stealth launch considering discussion has been going on here for weeks spanning multiple threads. |
|
|
|
I hold 99 xmr per btc at the moment.
^---- I suggest everyone should use this way of expressing their XMR/BTC ratio. ----^ (The alternatives, such as "1% in XMR" are misleading, reliant on the exchange rate etc.) => Just the pure "how many XMR per BTC" tells it all I have in between 1-5 XMR per BTC, so I am slightly overweight. The 75/25 ratio someone suggested, would at this price equal 100 XMR per BTC. * * * * Wow, I think the rally has more legs!  (Currently everybody cannot buy 100:1 leverage, because the coins outstanding is 0.15:1....) Yeah, as I suspected the money is starting to flow into XMR again. BBR, not so much. Unless there is simply a significant lag in BBR following XMR it looks like I might have overestimated the XMR/BBR correlation this time. |
|
|
|
Every single business following the HYIP model has turned out to be a ponzi scam.
I would think that a "legitimate" HYIP would be possible however. Think of the real estate business. If you have a rental property as an investment, it is possible to make a 8-15 percent annual profit. A business could buy a property and sell shares in the property which would return a weekly, monthly, or yearly profit. Shares could be resold once bought, hence leaving your initial investment intact.
There are also professional stock and forex traders who are able to earn a living by trading in these markets. A business could be set up that allows people to pool their investments together into a single fund. Successful traders would be given the option of using the funds in this pool in addition to their normal funds, and if they choose to do so, they would be entitled to a percentage of their profits. Therefore, a trader who has $100,000 of his own funds and normally makes $50,000 a year would be able to gain access to $1,000,000 of investors' funds and make an additional $500,000 a year. Even if he was entitled to just 10 percent of profits, the trader would now be making $100,000 a year and the investors would get $450,000. Everyone wins.
Finally, there is also an opportunity to profit by giving out loans. This includes mortgage loans. A business could be set up that allows investors to pool their money together and give out loans. The profits would come from the interest that is paid once the loan is repaid.
I can think of other business models that might be able to pool investors' funds and give out the profits in a weekly, monthly, or yearly manner. Life insurance, for example.
Got any other ideas?
All of the things you speak of are already a reality but most people don't called them HYIPs. HYIP is just a euphemism for ponzi. Hedge funds aim to yield high returns for its investors but you would never catch anyone calling one a HYIP. There are investments with more risk that also yield high returns. Just beware of anything calling itself a HYIP. |
|
|
|
|
I'm unsure if I made the right choice in putting 25% of my trade towards BBR instead of putting it all in XMR.
I'm pretty confident that I'll be able to make a profit on the XMR, but I'm also making a big assumption that BBR is going to follow XMR like it did before.
Do people still feel that BBR is heavily correlated with XMR? It has not stayed at a consistent 25% like it was a little while ago. I don't know if that signals a change or not. The fact that the market has let it trade at a deeper discount might indicate something, but I'm not sure.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
