|
If you buy from Poloniex and send immediately to Alphabay, you are doing it wrong.
After buying from Poloniex the next step should be sending it to a wallet you created on a trusted computer (or better yet, offline).
My guess is people who care about privacy are using xmr.to or shapeshift for their initial buy and then using a wallet they secured themselves.
|
|
|
|
i was wondering what happened to this thread, and here it is.. its almost like the one who bumped this thread read my mind.
It's amazing how when people are desperate their little insect brains scurry to the same tune. |
|
|
|
Well, if you breakdown masteryoda's stats 40% of all Steemit posts involve Steemit...
So you have an incestuous echo chamber about "Steemit changing my life/the world".
Well, how about Bitcoin? It's a payment network right? How much of its daily volume is only the same crypto folks buying and selling other cryptos for Bitcoin? If you substract the crypto trading spam, what is left? Quite an incestuous echo chamber too... It's only normal that a technology caters to the interests of its early adopters. In the case of Bitcoin, it's been 7 years and it's still mainly a crypto-geek thing. Steem is a few months old. The Steem themed content is naturally still getting a lot of attention, but as time passes and users from more diverse horizons join, the relative proportion of Steem themed content will shrink. I really don't see this as a concern at all. Subtracting the Steemit spam, the "lotto plan" worked initially...
But users have been flat for a month now at about 3,000 random ultra low value daily posters...
Where do you pull these starts from? I'm seeing loads of new users joining everyday. Only this week we got Charles Hoskinson, Trace Meyer, Roger Ver and Charlie Shrem who joined among other well known Bitcoin personalities. If that isn't a sign of Steem spreading and gaining acceptation within the Bitcoin community, I don't know what is. Show me a single other project that isn't a sidechain and that's getting endorsement from so many Bitcoiners so fast. With no sign of a coherent marketing plan to do anything coherent except more of the same.
Facebook, Twitter and Reddit also did "more of the same", and ended up being huge social networks. That's unfair but it's like that: social networks benefit from network effects. There is no better marketing than existing users introducing their friends. How is this worth $160 million... maybe tech is worth $50 million if a marketing professional implements an actual plan.
It's worth what people are ready to pay for it. It doesn't matter if it means $50M or $160M or whatever. Like every crypto, what is fueling the price is speculation about future prospects, not really the current state. Ethereum in its current state is certainly not worth $1B either, it is almost entirely useless, all projects supposed to launch in early 2016 are late and the first high profile application that was launched on it was an epic failure. It's worth $1B because people think it's gonna grow to a $10B+ market cap. Same thing for Steem. If it grows to become a popular social network, it will have a multi-billion dollars market cap. Right now of course it's just a social experiment that could fail completely. Bumping. I make mainly pennies for every post (sometimes better), but seeing the followers gather slow and steady, and that they don't shy away from the tougher topics, that's what keeps me posting every day. Progress is progress, even if it starts from humble beginnings. |
|
|
|
If you want zero substance and much Ferrari then you are in the right place.
LOL ffs Do I detect a sense of humor? Say it ain't so. I guess some of us didn't read the tortoise and the hare? I'm guessing whoever is driving the Ferrari, should win--barring any inane or self-destructive behavior. I'm always amazed what people miss about the hare versus tortoise story--the hare lost, not because slow and steady wins the race, but because he was arrogant and thought his lead insurmountable, and therefore he could take a nap and still win. Read this way, the story seems to have more to teach Bitcoin Maxilmist than any altcoin developer or community. |
|
|
|
Although they both offer anonymity, I find Dash to be better lately. Apart for its price.
They also do have DASH DAO right now which somehow if going to be revolutionary and I like Amanda lol I wonder where they found her.
Dash's anonymity fails to meet end-to-end privacy standards, so offers inferior anonymity to Monero--pretty girls are hardly an argument for due diligence. Offering anonymity and delivering it are two very different things. Even without CT and kovri, Monero offers you the best privacy available--maybe you need less--cool. DOA The masses always catch on a day late and a dolla short. AFA XMR it has been so undervalued FOR SO LONG IT'S FINALLY GETTING THE ATTENTION IT DESERVED YEARS AGo its gets attention yet the price still are not going up still. its what matters as what we users are up to. it doesn't matter about anonymity/privacy anymore. bitcoin doesn't have that as well. if monero price goes up for maybe about $5, it may attract users but what other features does it have beyond that anonymity/privacy? It's like saying, "...besides an engine, what does a motorcycle offer over a bicycle?" Anyways: adaptable block size. |
|
|
|
Although they both offer anonymity, I find Dash to be better lately. Apart for its price.
They also do have DASH DAO right now which somehow if going to be revolutionary and I like Amanda lol I wonder where they found her.
Dash's anonymity fails to meet end-to-end privacy standards, so offers inferior anonymity to Monero--pretty girls are hardly an argument for due diligence. Offering anonymity and delivering it are two very different things. Even without CT and kovri, Monero offers you the best privacy available--maybe you need less--cool. DOA |
|
|
|
|
Will play as long as there is a game to play. While I'm tapped out as far as investment--I can contribute a couple hours a day to the project for as long as needed.
|
|
|
|
What the he'll is going on with XMR anyway. Gui being released or something? That coin is rising far faster than dash, I wouldn't say the two are tied together in any way...
Alphabay is adding XMR 9/1 and Oasis added it already--GUI is soon.... |
|
|
|
Can't be soon, it is still no.10 market cap coin. Eth should be next "possible" to replace bitcoin, but the market cap is still 10% of bitcoin, won't happen in 5 years.
It's not a few lines of stack commands--the market has too many variables for an orderly progression of events. |
|
|
|
I think Z-cash will eat Monero's breakfast, lunch and dinner on the back of pulling in the punters on the back of its impressive cast of investors and engineers. Cannot see Monero being more than a niche alt.
 --Thanks! Haven't heard that argument Ripple through the privacy community for awhile. |
|
|
|
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels. Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now. I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say). But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x  I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed. The problem is that even with the incentives offered at the level of our small-scale network (right now), most people bail. If the incentives don't work now, it is only logical to question how will they work when rewards are divided /100 or more? If the casino-effect (1/37) tends more to lottery effect (1/xxxxx), it simply won't work. I don't know - it seems clear as day to me. Of those people who bail, how many are original content creators? Even a genuine comment can be original content creation. So it's hard to quantify (and I don't even have the metrics to do so)... Will advertisers bid for a blogger's following, perhaps buy them outright?
Will content creators create content for advertisers (this assumes advertisers establish themselves as a pressence)?
For the time being the assumption is no ads, so... I'd assume original content would be content that has been augmented in a large degree so it serves another purpose (who can rely-on/define novelty?), or that actually has expressed something that has never been expressed before (the former creative and sometimes unique, the latter genius and art--which of course has the former by necessity). When I say advertiser's presence, I mean (for the most part) something akin to a facebook page, but in steemit's case it would be a dedicated blogger/avatar--this is what I'm waiting/watching for. |
|
|
|
One of my main concerns is that the system is not viable in the long run due to problematic reward scaling. In other words, if userbase goes 1000x to 70mn people, the marketcap must go to 1000x (that's 200 BILLION $) to keep up the rewards at current levels. Why rewards should remain at the same levels as today? if userbase rises 1000x why should we also have 1000x more people earning thousands and hundrends of dollars per blog? I have not done any calculations but intuitively I don't think there is any problem with that, rewards are HUGELY overpriced right now. I don't disagree with the overpricing and part of the reason why payouts are high today is precisely because the reward pool is intended for a larger audience (as are the witness payouts - because the service provided right now is elemental from what some witnesses say). But we have to remember payouts are high only for a very small number of authors. The others get peanuts. So the "peanuts effect" will go 1000x I don't agree with your various statements about market cap entirely, but to the extent I do, I see this as an early adopter incentive, not very different from how mining usually works (blogging is considered a form of mining in Steem). It is often easier to mine more early on and this is by design, as an incentive to join a small network. With a larger network, less incentives are needed. The problem is that even with the incentives offered at the level of our small-scale network (right now), most people bail. If the incentives don't work now, it is only logical to question how will they work when rewards are divided /100 or more? If the casino-effect (1/37) tends more to lottery effect (1/xxxxx), it simply won't work. I don't know - it seems clear as day to me. Of those people who bail, how many are original content creators? Will advertisers bid for a blogger's following, perhaps buy them outright? Will content creators create content for advertisers (this assumes advertisers establish themselves as a pressence)? |
|
|
|
Yeah some nodes dropped off because they failed to update despite the latest wallet version being out for over 2 months now.
Price sure took a huge hit, after it exploded from 7 to 14 dollars. I don't know how Dash will ever recover from that 20 cent loss.
Never mind that many experts have stated that complex designs are the bane of any good cryptosystem, and inane designs built complexly are about as stupid as adding wheels on the top of a Yugo in case you flip--never mind that, but what any dasher has to be worried about is that its competitor (whether we want each other or not) is pushing its market cap higher and higher, while the price jostles upwards and CT and a enterprise level GUI and OASIS/XMR integration looks immanent --that's what you should (of) mind. Good luck. |
|
|
|
Cool thanks for the thoughts! There might be differing opinions on what follows, but the original intention with CK is that it should help and support Monero, and make Monero bigger and more successful. Not the other way round. Specifically, the return on investment should predominantly be the success and increase of value of the players' Monero stash. Even if CK also could provide a positive return, which historically it indeed has done, even in excess of XMR. After this long period of juggling with a tiny self-supporting community, ongoing game, and evolving design and development spex, we are now in the crossroads. It is hardly truthful to say that a small scale game for a few hundred people is crucial for the life of Monero. So that path, even if easy to take, should not be taken because it avails nothing. It leaves us with a significantly enlarged game, or no game at all. As I said, "enlarged" hardly means much more features in the software, but it means much more work for the team, in polishing and testing the gaming platform, making it scale, marketing, and all the other activities happily ignored all this far. It does require a conscious decision to do it, and a plan on how to do it. There has to be a number of people committing time and money to it. This is also the community seal that we are doing important stuff. [As previously, nobody needs to commit without expectation of a handsome return if the game succeeds.] * * *
Why do I suddenly question the very existence of the game? Last summer, we were in dire straits, Town was in debt, there was no gaming platform at all, it had been paused for 3+ months, and much less accounts than now. Most importantly, we did not have a developer. So, why question it now? The answer is: Monero is 400% up from that time. (fiat terms) We are in the situation with 5x the finances to make the game great. So I am waiting for encouraging PM's from people who want to inject cold, hard cash to the development as it costs them nearly nothing compared to a year ago or any other time. Enthusiastic community is a must have, in community-based development that this is. While it is understandable that everyone needs a break (also I had one ), coming back after the break with renewed zeal is quite central. We are not so many, and if everyone ignores the game and becomes wealth managed instead, we don't have a playerbase, and no game. This is not a Poloniex after all. Playing is a part of it! When is the game going to be available for evaluation? |
|
|
|
I have a question. Let us say that the Evan guy did not instamine Dash. Would it be considered a good coin in general? Is the instamine the only impeding factor that is making it considered a bad coin?
It's built overly complex and purports itself to be a panacea for every cryptofad that comes along: "ETH? We got DAO's too! Fast? We're so fast we turn back time! Anonymity! Pst, we were once called darkcoin--do you think we'd brand ourselves dark if weren't anonymous???" |
|
|
|
Monero price is going up to 3 USD firstly this year, currently around 2.18 USD - very nice and promising altcoin.
Let's not hurry too much. It's 2.14 now and it has a history of low prices in the winter.... Zero cash release date just announced. Monero has around 9 weeks of life left.
First to dump wins.
Algo in not new. Coin is not anonymous. What does this coin bring? Endless beta and zero value? I'll refute your off the mark comments and ignore the inferences posed as questions. The newness of the algo is not an issue--if the coin does the most with that algo (ct development, strongest network, ect,) the coin it was forked from has lost first mover advantage, so becomes a non-issue. The coin is more anonymous than any other (no coin ATM is NSA proof) and continually working to strengthen its anonymity with measures like ct and kovri development with I2p--I think you are making the mistake of most people when they talk about fungibility when describing it as yes/no, on/off, either you have it or you don't--this is wrong in both cases as they happen in degrees. Can't really keep people from thinking in only binary terms, but I can certainly tell you that it shows a lack of insight or nuance in your conception cryptocurrencies, and you'd be good to learn how to judge these technologies in a nuanced way--though that takes some work, I'm sure it would be worth your time. |
|
|
|
Rocket ascent is the outlier in the graphs you used
Are you referring to Google search popularity that I mentioned in my blogs week ago? Facebook reached 1 million users in 10 months: On February 4, 2004, Zuckerberg launched "Thefacebook", originally located at thefacebook.com.
1 million — End of 2004.
5.5 million — End of 2005.
12 million — End of 2006.
20 million — April 2007.
50 million — October 2007.
100 million — August 2008.
150 million — January 2009.
175 million — February 2009.
200 million — April 2009.
250 million — July 2009.
300 million — September 2009.
350 million — End of 2009.
400 million — February 2010.
500 million — July 2010.
608 million — End of 2010.
750 million — July 2011.
800 million — September 2011.
845 million — End of 2011.
901 million — March 2012.
955 million — June 2012.
1.01 billion — September 2012.
1.06 billion — December 2012.
1.11 billion — March 2013.
If yes, note steemit has already peaked and is declining: https://www.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%203-m&q=steemitI could have said the same thing about facebook using a 3month sample from various time frames--I was referring to the graph you posted a while back that showed the large jumps in usership occurred at around the 2 year mark for most social networks--the only outlier being Instagram. |
|
|
|
My guess it is in more in the 2 year time frame for social media success--and not in the rocket ascent of an instagram outlier.
I believe it is unlikely for Steem to make any changes that would create viral adoption. I thus believe it will peak at much less than 1 million users. Yes I think you need a rocket viral ascent.
The Chinese appear to be coming to game Steem's curation reward system: This has never happened before, and Maximum CPC exceeds 800%
Later they will realize they need to collude to take more of the money, as did the Bitcoin Chinese mining cartel. But Bitcoin has a use case. I fear Steem will unravel. I don't think it can sustain at a low level of usership because the forces holding it up are expectations and later these must turn into fighting over money (Tragedy of the Commons). All that changes perhaps if Steem has a widespread use case. But I don't see it. Rocket ascent is the outlier in the graphs you used, so I'm not sure why you assume steemit would be the exception--Instagram's straight out the gate burst was probably due to low user expectations as far as language and interface is concerned (a monkey could probably be taught to use it), whereas steem is more complicated, so lag should correspond to complexity. Unless someone finds a way to dumb it down tremendously, they probably maintain their lead. All the algo and initial distribution arguments seem like theater of distraction at this point. If serious people can maintain their interest and grow their bases organically, then there's a chance that it works (at least as far as blogging goes). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
