What's the point of using a platform like Coinbase if your privacy is sacrificed to the government?
The point is that Monero would be more accessible. Sure, Coinbase and the government would know you bought Monero. But nobody but you would know what you do with it after that. Also, just because Monero gives you the ability to transact privately doesn't mean every transaction has to be super secret hush hush. It's money. You can be as public or private with your money as you wish. If Amazon.com announced they were accepting Monero, no doubt some people would scream "oh no, that's not private!" So what? It's money. |
|
|
|
visdude are you describing p2pool ?
I am not entirely familiar with the inner workings of P2Pool but I remember it could not garner enough hashing power to compete with the big pools back in the day, hence it failed. I also remember its peculiarity of needing a special or customized version/release of certain mining software in conjunction with some mining hardware. I surmised that it was still subject to Bitcoin's winner-take-all lottery mining reward implementation and therefore still functioned as an "external" mining pool (outside of core/protocol)...still had to compete with other centralized "external" pools for those winner-take-all block rewards to be divvied up among the participants. Is that an accurate assessment on my part? I mean, Bitcoin's block reward rule have not changed since the genesis block as far as I know. The model that I am thinking of is for a cryptocurrency to have a pool-like block reward distribution in its core/protocol, i.e. based on hashing share of participating "solo" miners instead of the current winner-take-all lottery reward paradigm. Whether it can be technically implemented or not, I do not know as I am not a coder; just a user with a somewhat wild imagination. If it can be technically implemented, the motivation to establish centralized "external" pools would no longer exist then as the block reward is already divvied up according to shares out of the gate or from the get-go. So then the current block rewards become something based on work performed, not based on some method of luck. This seems like a very good egalitarian voting system, where each vote counts as one that is deserved Yes. A paradigm shift from a competitive/gambling block reward model to a distributed or more accurately, a "cooperative" model. The nature or principle of Monero and other similar cryptocurrencies is unmistakably egalitarian in itself (all nodes are equal). So why not adopt the same principle in its mining reward implementation? So to make this "egalitarian mining" or "fair mining work for pay", would the code changes need to be made to core, mining, and pool source code? It seems pretty straightforward to implement, as the block rewards would simply be each in relation to each miners hash for a specified period of time - maybe daily work for daily pay is a starting point. I guess the first question to be answered is how often this block reward would be paid, as expressed in time vs blocks. It seems intuitive that a 24 hour period would be used, but maybe a 12 hour or 1 hour period is better? It seems that the communication of each miners daily PoW would need to be encrypted and sent to the network for inclusion in the blockchain, and it would be processed like a transaction, is this correct? That might add an additional component of blockchain bloat that will have to be dealt with "Egalitarian mining" is not exactly a new concept, and I doubt it's achievable as you describe without adding a significant amount of complication. Is there a better approach? Probably. For the purpose of discussion, let's try throwing our current crypto model out the window, and create an entirely new cryptocurrency: What if there are no block rewards in the first place? Hell, what if "distribution" as we think of it didn't exist? What if the hash itself (the PoW) is the token? "How much for the coffee?" "200 hashes." - Anyone with a computer can mine. You wouldn't even need an internet connection to mine. - Hashes only need to be verified at the time of transaction (by the receiver, by scanning the 'blockchain' to make sure the hashes haven't already been used/spent) - Inflation happens naturally as hardware improves and hashes become cheaper to create, etc. This is just an idea, but you get the point. The crypto of the (more distant) future probably won't need any fancy "distributed-mining" technology. I don't think there will ever be a drop-in solution for Monero or any of our current cryptocoin systems. We have to wait for the next generation, whatever it may look like. |
|
|
|
When will governments start to put pressure on monero? Is it just too small and not taken serious yet?
I've thought about this quite a bit in the past, but I can't really get my head around a solid answer for one primary reason. Granted, it's a foregone conclusion that "governments" will WANT to "put pressure" on any competitive currency that they feel is excessively out of their control be it bitcoin or monero or zcash or whatever. But in the case of XMR how exactly would this pressure work? Precisely BECAUSE it's anonymous, untraceable, un-linkable etc there is more than enough plausible deniability that someone IS NOT EVEN USING IT at all, already, right from the start... isn't there? So, basically, if the PTB tried to "ban Monero" and everyone just SAYS, "Oh, yeah, I hate that coin! I never use it! That's only for criminals!" But all the while, just the same, IF everyone is simply going ahead and USING it anyway? If nobody can *prove* that any transactions or coins or anything actually *belongs* to anyone in particular, what can be done about it anyway? Isn't it really this simple or what am I missing about how "banning" something that's fundamentally "anonymous" really can never work?A ban is not the concern. There are much smarter methods governments can use to attack the currency. One would be to place vocal "contributors" onto the scene who will build reputation over time but ultimately seek to undermine the project. This can be as simple as pushing to implement new crypto features before they're fully vetted or reviewed, or even having "trusted" personalities FUD/exit the project en masse. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the advice man. But its hard to take your word for it because your already long on it and in profit I assume.
I'll wait to get more advice and see where I can go from there.
It will probably be easier to trust your own research than the opinions of strangers on the internet. Start with the cryptonote whitepaper, then check out getmonero.org to see what makes Monero different and if it's something you want to be involved in. If you're still not sure, then you probably shouldn't be throwing money at it. |
|
|
|
I should have sold on peak and re-bought, but I held.
Now I will never get be able to get to a holding of 20,000 XMR and will have to settle for demi-whale status.
That's easy to say in retrospect. The bitcoiners who sold at the $150 "peak" in summer 2013 are still waiting for their chance buy back. You will always want more. 20k is nice, but if you had it, 30k would sound so much better. |
|
|
|
|
The Betamax/VHS war is a poor example to cite as well. Betamax had crippling limitations, like the very limited record time per cassette, on top of the fact that it was a closed format. Most importantly of all, Betamax's fate wasn't decided by the consumers, but the distributors and retailers reluctant to adopt it. Even if that weren't the case, I'd hardly call Betamax a "superior" technology.
|
|
|
|
This is a market and as I keep saying it doesn't matter what 'the truth' is, its what the madding crowd decides. Much like democracy and the saying "the electorate is never wrong", you can't evade what the majority think, however much you disagree with it or believe they are wrong. Price is the ultimate vote.
That assertion is false, and Monero's rise is a perfect example for you. The DNMs didn't adopt Monero because the price went up. Monero's price went up because the DNM's adopted it. The masses are the sheep that follow the knowledge workers of the economy. They want to ride the train, but they're not the ones running it. Their "vote" decides nothing, because at the end of the day they will shut up and accept whatever is available. |
|
|
|
or the market is rejecting the idea of it as a viable coin. I think its the latter.
"Viable" in terms of what? Trading profitability? Usability as a store of value or medium of exchange? Please explain, because it otherwise just seems like you're talking your book. My opinion is that, despite what many speculators pretend to think, markets have no such authority to make assertions on "viability." |
|
|
|
|
My prediction is that zcash price will initially dump (as do most super-hyped cryptos out of the gate).
My strategy would be to wait for the dump, buy your stash, then when the inevitable pump comes sell the profits for XMR.
As for XMR, I believe the market will continue to do what everyone thinks it won't.
|
|
|
|
Are any of you guys worried that governments might try and succeed to do something to monero or even bitcoin that can hurt their value?
Bitcoin is much easier to control. And make no mistake, "regulators" do not want to regulate; they want control. CN or US can establish BTC control if they choose, but I doubt that any other nation can establish control - although RU or IL or a few others could destroy it if they were motivated to do so. So far, they have not overtly asserted control. I don't know of a reason to expect that to change soon. Monero is small enough yet to be easy to destroy for most developed nations, but also too small to bother. By the time it is a target, it will be much more difficult to destroy because of the fullnode jurisdictional diversity, and Kovri tech. More difficult to destroy than bitcoin, but effectively impossible to control, unless the core team is co-opted - in which case, the community will fork it. The community has already forked Monero once away from thankful_for_today in 2014, so there is no reason why it could not happen again. The core team serves "at the pleasure of the community" nothing more. Forking from thankful_for_today was rather painless because so few people were involved in the project at the time. If the core team were to be compromised in the future, we could be looking at a situation on par with the BTC/Blockstream drama. |
|
|
|
Why not just to open it, if we will reach it everyone will be happy, if not, you don`t miss anything. Am i right?
We do miss something. It's my understanding that if we don't reach your goal, the donations are just rolled into the general dev donation fund. That's all fine and dandy, except that some of us (myself included) prefer to fund specific work that we'd like to see expedited. Does that make sense? It's in few people's interest to contribute to your proposal if it's unlikely to reach its goal. And it's in few people's interest to contribute to any proposal if the funding system habitually allows unreasonable funding goals. |
|
|
|
|
I think you're being greedy, but here's my suggestion:
If we reach 5678xmr, everyone is happy. If we don't reach it, you get nothing, and you still release the sources. How does that sound? Still want to see how the community feels?
It's not my decision though. I thought FluffyPony was being too harsh on you at first, but now it's clear he was right and you're wasting everyone's time.
|
|
|
|
My suggestion is to start fundraising for my wallet with reasonable goals we can decide together, not 14000 XMR, but not 700 XMR too. You should understand that this software is very important for XMR and now it is a good chance to have it.
So if 700 isn't enough, what is? 1000? 1500? Whatever you ask for is coming directly out of the pockets of the volunteers and contributors of a decentralized, open source project. There is no ICO or premine to bankroll your endeavor. I'm sure you can ask for quite a bit from companies with significant resources, but this isn't a company, and there are no resources. You will get donations in excess of the initial 700 (if you manage to raise it), so please either take up FluffyPony on his offer or quit wasting everyone's time. |
|
|
|
|
24 hour volume under 10k btc... next wave imminent.
|
|
|
|
|
I expect the 24 hour volume to dip just under 10k BTC before the price explodes upward. Will probably happen in the next few hours.
|
|
|
|
Anyone else notice CoinTelegraph is starting to look more and more like CoinDesk? |
|
|
|
DEV is in Tahiti laughing at everyone for making him rich...
Which dev? |
|
|
|
What potential conflict of interest were you referring to? What do you believe to be Roger Ver's true motive? Do you believe he made a substantial investment in Monero, which was more than in any other altcoin?
Roger Ver is an investor in zcash: https://z.cash/team.html |
|
|
|
10× is not organic growth....
Why not? What does the magnitude of price increase have anything to do with the growth being "organic?" While you're at it, please define what you think "organic growth" even is. To me, it's an increase in demand, which is exactly what we're seeing here. |
|
|
|
This is very old news. Also: @fluffyponyzaNo. of @coindesk articles, by market cap:
BTC-5725
ETH-228
XRP-383
LTC-486
DASH-75ish
MAID-32
DOGE-295
XMR-2 minor mentions
FCT-43
BTS-34
Fortunately, nobody really gives a shit what Coindesk thinks. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
