Anyone wanna buy large amounts of cloak from me?
Pm if so.
why not just dump @ market price and hook people up with some cheap CLOAK/ If I dump my whole stack we'll be back at 60K. That's why. are you dumping your whole stack? LOL, hell no.. I might as well ride it out with the better part of my stack, but still the market cant bare my dumping even if I just dumped a small portion. aww c'mon bob time to bail on shadow and put cloak back in your sig : -) |
|
|
|
Posted 1 week ago. Guys be careful of Woolong Pump & Dumps. Now most on the thread are official bagholders of a coin with a single claim. Classic !
Thanks for the ride guys . Bought from 6000sat all the way up to 19000sat. Sold 1/4 at 79000sat and I had to sell the rest today avg 168000sat. Its been a great 41btc profit and to be honest CLOAK was always a speculative play.
As per my investment rules 75% of that goes to my core holdings of VRC, SFR, QOR, MYR, XC, XCP...plus 3 more I am still accumulating. All of the above I consider potential Wall Street takeover candidates.
Thats it in a 'sea of sh!tcoins' as you boys say.
Anyone know any serious coins besides the 6+3 I'm already in please PM me
Your selling points do not justify your boasting. Good luck with that wall street thing. |
|
|
|
This is not the same...you can not post one address and have money sent to it. <snip>
Did I say "I can post one address and send money to it and it is the same as stealth?" no .. I said "I can easily do that myself without a stealth address i.e. create a new address and send money to that. (yes I know the benefits of stealth that it automates a new public address everytime but I am trying to understand how it provides anon" Stealth hides the amount of money any person (address) has received.
No it does not .... all stealth does it provide "a new address" to the receiver (if I really care I can check the block chain and tell you which address those funds arrived in if I know 1. the sender or 2. denomination) ... in the block chain funds still move "visibly" via none-stealth public addresses which if you happen to spend makes it linkable... Dont troll with a "sr." account...its not becoming. Are you for real? I will wait for someone who understand what they are talking about to respond to me. Dev I would appreciate your thoughts and keep up the good work. You can not tell how much money a receiver received at a public wallet address. Like i said...Dont troll with a "sr." account...its not becoming. Dude you should do about 30 seconds of research and figure out who you are insulting before you insult them. You are making a fool of yourself. Are you going to spend all day FUDing this forum like you did yesterday? Why are you posting here? You are doing a fine job by yourself, I'll leave you to it. |
|
|
|
This is not the same...you can not post one address and have money sent to it. <snip>
Did I say "I can post one address and send money to it and it is the same as stealth?" no .. I said "I can easily do that myself without a stealth address i.e. create a new address and send money to that. (yes I know the benefits of stealth that it automates a new public address everytime but I am trying to understand how it provides anon" Stealth hides the amount of money any person (address) has received.
No it does not .... all stealth does it provide "a new address" to the receiver (if I really care I can check the block chain and tell you which address those funds arrived in if I know 1. the sender or 2. denomination) ... in the block chain funds still move "visibly" via none-stealth public addresses which if you happen to spend makes it linkable... Dont troll with a "sr." account...its not becoming. Are you for real? I will wait for someone who understand what they are talking about to respond to me. Dev I would appreciate your thoughts and keep up the good work. You can not tell how much money a receiver received at a public wallet address. Like i said...Dont troll with a "sr." account...its not becoming. Dude you should do about 30 seconds of research and figure out who you are insulting before you insult them. You are making a fool of yourself. |
|
|
|
So. Prominent use of Peter Todd's name to hype the coin. Did anyone check with him first?
For a coin that is supposed to be about anon, maybe respecting that sort of thing might be an idea?
Why would you worry about a name, do you see what they have delivered so far? Personally it means nothing to me what they have delivered or not. And that is completely beside the point. The point is they are using Peter Todd's name repeatedly to give an air of legitmacy. If the tech is good, why can it not stand on its own merits, without name dropping a dev who has nothing to do with the coin? And who in fact works for another coin? Stealth addresses were not invented by shadowcoin, but the idea first came from Peter Todd. This is why rynomster must reference his name, to give him proper credit. To not do so, would be misleading. Do you understand how this works? It's not that hard... However, ShadowCoin has improved upon current implementations of stealth addresses, and to prove it, they are open sourcing it. It is completely transparent that this 'crediting' is an excellent way to add an air of legitimacy. There are other coins using stealth address implementations that do not feel compelled to market under Peter Todd's rep without asking him first. I do not notice a similar 'crediting' to the creator of BTC for the blockchain fundament. |
|
|
|
So. Prominent use of Peter Todd's name to hype the coin. Did anyone check with him first?
For a coin that is supposed to be about anon, maybe respecting that sort of thing might be an idea?
Why would you worry about a name, do you see what they have delivered so far? Personally it means nothing to me what they have delivered or not. And that is completely beside the point. The point is they are using Peter Todd's name repeatedly to give an air of legitmacy. If the tech is good, why can it not stand on its own merits, without name dropping a dev who has nothing to do with the coin? And who in fact works for another coin? But what is wrong with getting one of the best known man in the Dark Scene to ask him for reviewing a promising new coin based on his books? I understand your concerns and I am with you. They have to deliver now but the Video looks interesting not more not less. Exactly. One asks, then waits for a reply. |
|
|
|
So. Prominent use of Peter Todd's name to hype the coin. Did anyone check with him first?
For a coin that is supposed to be about anon, maybe respecting that sort of thing might be an idea?
Why would you worry about a name, do you see what they have delivered so far? Personally it means nothing to me what they have delivered or not. And that is completely beside the point. The point is they are using Peter Todd's name repeatedly to give an air of legitmacy. If the tech is good, why can it not stand on its own merits, without name dropping a dev who has nothing to do with the coin? And who in fact works for another coin? Read the post above and you will get your answer..... Read it.The point was not adressed. |
|
|
|
So. Prominent use of Peter Todd's name to hype the coin. Did anyone check with him first?
For a coin that is supposed to be about anon, maybe respecting that sort of thing might be an idea?
Peter Todd is mentioned on the stealth address wiki http://sx.dyne.org/stealth.html. I'm not sure where you are trying to go with that statement. I don't think the coin needs hype the technology and hard work the devs are putting in is speaking for it. Peter Todd's name is used repeatedly in the last dev "update". Maybe the coin does not need the hype. Apparently the devs feel differently. And my original point remains. Very bad form to use such a high profile name without consent. It's called giving credit, moron. If sdcoin did not use his name then they would be stealing. Ahh, you calling me a moron lends such weight to your words. Junior high school much? |
|
|
|
So. Prominent use of Peter Todd's name to hype the coin. Did anyone check with him first?
For a coin that is supposed to be about anon, maybe respecting that sort of thing might be an idea?
Why would you worry about a name, do you see what they have delivered so far? Personally it means nothing to me what they have delivered or not. And that is completely beside the point. The point is they are using Peter Todd's name repeatedly to give an air of legitmacy. If the tech is good, why can it not stand on its own merits, without name dropping a dev who has nothing to do with the coin? And who in fact works for another coin? |
|
|
|
So. Prominent use of Peter Todd's name to hype the coin. Did anyone check with him first?
For a coin that is supposed to be about anon, maybe respecting that sort of thing might be an idea?
Peter Todd is mentioned on the stealth address wiki http://sx.dyne.org/stealth.html. I'm not sure where you are trying to go with that statement. I don't think the coin needs hype the technology and hard work the devs are putting in is speaking for it. Peter Todd's name is used repeatedly in the last dev "update". Maybe the coin does not need the hype. Apparently the devs feel differently. And my original point remains. Very bad form to use such a high profile name without consent. |
|
|
|
|
So. Prominent use of Peter Todd's name to hype the coin. Did anyone check with him first?
For a coin that is supposed to be about anon, maybe respecting that sort of thing might be an idea?
|
|
|
|
So this could be the end of the bitcoin bubbles, possibly. Will a competitor come and dethrone bitcoin? Or, are we just entering a new and much smaller growth period?
This may depend on how the question of the 1 MB max blocksize limit is handled. One thing is certain without an increase in this limit, and a hark fork is necessary for this, Bitcoin will be dethroned by a competitor. Once the limit is reached transaction fees will skyrocket as an ever growing number of transactions compete for the 1 MB space every 10 min. Fortunately Gavin Andresen understands the need for this. So do other Bitcoin developers. The real question in my mind is will they muster the necessary community consensus to make this hard fork happen? I don't think there's any plausible scenario in which the death of Bitcoin is somehow an opportunity for some altcoin to take its place. The death of Bitcoin would be the death of cryptocurrency. I don't agree. BTC is currently caught in the middle of two somewhat conflicting pulls: 1) a means of commerce and 2) and a deeper evolution of modern politics: that is, the changing balance of power between the individual and the state. At this point there are alts mpving full speed ahead in both these two directions, while btc seems paralyzed in the middle. In first direction, alts like Via are moving forward with sidechain possibilities and faster transactions. In the other direction, anons like Cloak and BTCD are moving rapidly towards privacy evolutions that BTC has now forsaken. Evolution, sythesis, antithesis - this is the nature of life. BTC and crypto in general does not stand apart from this flow. Although I agree that alt-cryptocoins can be a place for innovation, Based on the market, your conclusion about the stagnant state of BTC seems incorrect. BTC's share of the market cap continues to grow, while all of the others put together are NOT really taking any meaningful market share from BTC. This may show more of the demise of LTC rather than the demise of BTC. In conclusion, BTC seems to continue to hold its own, pretty well, and so far. Market share will be a future result of current changes. And the departure of Peter Todd for Via signifies everything that is stagnent about BTC dev right now. Sidechains & tree chains were a no brainer innovation for BTC to knock the stuffing out of the entire alt coin market. The opportunity has hung in the air for months. Nothing happened. And now the brains are leaving to go where the action & innovation can happen. This is a red flag for any entity - creativity and energy going elsewhere because the conditions for creative growth are not there. |
|
|
|
So this could be the end of the bitcoin bubbles, possibly. Will a competitor come and dethrone bitcoin? Or, are we just entering a new and much smaller growth period?
This may depend on how the question of the 1 MB max blocksize limit is handled. One thing is certain without an increase in this limit, and a hark fork is necessary for this, Bitcoin will be dethroned by a competitor. Once the limit is reached transaction fees will skyrocket as an ever growing number of transactions compete for the 1 MB space every 10 min. Fortunately Gavin Andresen understands the need for this. So do other Bitcoin developers. The real question in my mind is will they muster the necessary community consensus to make this hard fork happen? I don't think there's any plausible scenario in which the death of Bitcoin is somehow an opportunity for some altcoin to take its place. The death of Bitcoin would be the death of cryptocurrency. I don't agree. BTC is currently caught in the middle of two somewhat conflicting pulls: 1) a means of commerce and 2) and a deeper evolution of modern politics: that is, the changing balance of power between the individual and the state. At this point there are alts mpving full speed ahead in both these two directions, while btc seems paralyzed in the middle. In first direction, alts like Via are moving forward with sidechain possibilities and faster transactions. In the other direction, anons like Cloak and BTCD are moving rapidly towards privacy evolutions that BTC has now forsaken. Evolution, sythesis, antithesis - this is the nature of life. BTC and crypto in general does not stand apart from this flow. If Bitcoin can be replaced by a competitor, then it will almost certainly have failed to act as a store of value. At that point, why would anyone have confidence in the replacement coin not to be itself replaced in time. If this scenario were to play out, I think it would damage confidence in cryptocurrencies for the foreseeable future. I don't think it will be replaced.I thin it will remain as the mothership, if you will, which dovetails nicely with the store of value role. As for confidence in replacements, apply that logic to any investment heavy technology: if it were true, people would never build factories, large ships, etc. |
|
|
|
Slightly on topic. Very slightly.
I'm watching a Muse (the band) live concert on tv and during a song this banker comes on stage and throws away worthless dollar bills to the audience. Or whatever the message is.
Anyway, this specific clip is in b/w but the notes he throws away are brightly coloured.
I realize this is probably the most simple effect nowadays but someone explain to me how they do that with moving objects without having to add the colour frame by frame.
just a guess, but they might have green screened the same throwing motion with dollar bills, seperated out the dude, then had him do the same motion in the concert scene ... |
|
|
|
So this could be the end of the bitcoin bubbles, possibly. Will a competitor come and dethrone bitcoin? Or, are we just entering a new and much smaller growth period?
This may depend on how the question of the 1 MB max blocksize limit is handled. One thing is certain without an increase in this limit, and a hark fork is necessary for this, Bitcoin will be dethroned by a competitor. Once the limit is reached transaction fees will skyrocket as an ever growing number of transactions compete for the 1 MB space every 10 min. Fortunately Gavin Andresen understands the need for this. So do other Bitcoin developers. The real question in my mind is will they muster the necessary community consensus to make this hard fork happen? I don't think there's any plausible scenario in which the death of Bitcoin is somehow an opportunity for some altcoin to take its place. The death of Bitcoin would be the death of cryptocurrency. I don't agree. BTC is currently caught in the middle of two somewhat conflicting pulls: 1) a means of commerce and 2) and a deeper evolution of modern politics: that is, the changing balance of power between the individual and the state. At this point there are alts mpving full speed ahead in both these two directions, while btc seems paralyzed in the middle. In first direction, alts like Via are moving forward with sidechain possibilities and faster transactions. In the other direction, anons like Cloak and BTCD are moving rapidly towards privacy evolutions that BTC has now forsaken. Evolution, sythesis, antithesis - this is the nature of life. BTC and crypto in general does not stand apart from this flow. |
|
|
|
|
good on ya james. link to a wiki giving a "big picture" of how it all fits together might be good.
|
|
|
|
|
Dutchtrades, did you get back in?
|
|
|
|
Give it time... PoSA has been out what, since yesterday?
Come on now...
I only recently realized that crypto (at the stage it is now) is primarily about patience. Like any investment strategy, crypto will mature and everyone who has their neurons in order will understand that investing in crypto takes a mastery of patience. All the immaturity in this forum is just a product of people who haven't learned to master their patience, yet. Many will, many wont... but the hyper-developing world of crypto has agitated those who aren't very skilled at controlling their patience. Crypto may suffer growing pains because these people can't be patient, but those who understand the importance of patience will understand how unimportant all these immature posters are to the bigger picture. ' Well said. |
|
|
|
Based on the PoSA public beta (which is mind blowing) and the exciting CIARA news, Cloakcoin should be skyrocketing in price, but it has fallen back some instead. If you think that all the name calling, arguing, and bad sentiment in this thread, twitter, wherever has no negative effects, then you are wrong. I totally get what Wheatclove is saying. There are no regulations in crypto, you are free to do and say what u please...just know and remember that it does reflect on the coin. Investors are probably coming here today to see what cloakcoin offers and now all they are greeted with is BS.  Agreed. I still have a small amount of this, wondered why the price is rather stagnant (or declining), and figured I'd check out the thread to see some news ... something. Instead I see giant memes, FUD, and people arguing about... arguing. I didn't plan to invest more into this, but if I did, why in the world would I based on anything I am seeing in this forum? A little mature discussion would be nice. Perhaps some updated news on PoSA or One Market news... something. Maybe you should work on your reading skills, because there was a big update today. It would be quite sufficient to give him a link to the post you are referring to without the personal attack. This sort of thing is what makes this thread so juvenile. |
|
|
|
|
Good idea. Sort of like what rpetilia did in the btc spec forum. Has turned into a solid thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
