GUI needs to be finished "SOON"
Everybody take two shots and drunkenly post Soon® memes! |
|
|
|
Introducing Maxwell Maximalism  rbtc FUD machine #REKT omg so epic; literally dying  Now do the boating one! That pic is begging for swagification... |
|
|
|
Introducing Maxwell Maximalism rbtc FUD machine #REKT |
|
|
|
How is it over? The devs are still out of money. Maid went sub 9k, making new lows for this downtrend, the project is still behind schedule...
MAID is losing market cap to newer, more shiny IPO/ICO quasi-investments such as Lisk and DAO. You know it's true when the cheerleaders come into this thread, waving their pom-poms in denial. MAID has nothing to show for 10 years of "research" and a million dollar plus annual burn rate. And now they're scraping the bottom of the barrel, dumping millions of secret/surprise coins that shouldn't exist onto the market, as the scam moves into its exit phase. |
|
|
|
the only thing more disgusting from Bitcoin maximalists is monero maximalists.
Have you even seen a Dash maximalist? They say stuff like "Evan Duffield >> Satoshi." Compared to DashHoles, BTC and XMR maximalists are the epitome of charm and wit. |
|
|
|
Before DASH may benefit from Schnorr signature aggregation (tree sigs), it will have to implement segregated witness. When is DASH getting SEGWIT? DASH can't just stagnate while Bitcoin adds Schnorr sigs, SEGWIT, CLTV/CSV, RBF, sidechains, payment channels, etc. It will be obsolete long before Evolution is done. It will never happen. Bitcoin will always be behind. If you were not such a idiotic schill you could have seen what is dash fork of. Bitcoin already has CLTV/CSV, RBF, and is soon getting SEGWIT. Those functions allow sidechains and payment channels to be build out as a very high tps Layer 2. DASH does not have CLTV/CSV, RBF, and is not soon getting SEGWIT. DASH will not have sidechains or Lightning. Given those facts, why do you say "Bitcoin will always be behind?" I guess you meant to write "Dash will always be behind." |
|
|
|
Before DASH may benefit from Schnorr signature aggregation (tree sigs), it will have to implement segregated witness. When is DASH getting SEGWIT? DASH can't just stagnate while Bitcoin adds Schnorr sigs, SEGWIT, CLTV/CSV, RBF, sidechains, payment channels, etc. It will be obsolete long before Evolution is done. |
|
|
|
For anybody that's concerned about the price of Dash at a given point in time, consider two very big factors outside our control: the correlation with Ethereum's price and the inverse correlation with Bitcoin's price. Blaming external factors is a lame excuse for Dash's recent price crash, especially after using the BTC-E listing (hello, external factor) as an excuse to pump and shill. How did the rosy predictions about BTC-E turn out? # Source Pair Volume (24h) Price Volume (%) Updated
1 Poloniex DASH/BTC 370 BTC 0.01327950 BTC 49.83 % Recently
6 BTC-E DASH/BTC 16 BTC 0.01330000 BTC 2.20 % Recently
The real problem isn't "not enough listings" but rather the fact the market is now aware of the instamine and general lack of a fixed emission. Everybody knows Dash has no fixed emission (nor brand, nor core mission other than to pay Duffield's bills). There's no way to tell when the next wacky proposal (EG massive emission cut to amplify instamine, rebrand to soap name, etc.) will be arbitrarily imposed by the 100% centralized DARKCOIN FOUNDATION INC. governance structure. Perfect example of my point right here: ShadowCash Proposal Conditions
1.) Converted funds will be locked for a period of 90 days
2.) We're looking for some kind of commitment from the core team that they'd work on darkcoin for at least a year beyond this. They could work on whatever they like, at the pace they're working now.
3.) DRK Will be paid for in a 1:1 relationship, dollar wise from this moment forward. 494909 (SDC MarketCap) / 9833182 (DRK Market Cap), therefore 5.03% of the total number of DRK coins will be created on a future block, totaling 240277DRK. The exchange rate will be 31.33SDC for 1DRK.
4.) SDC users will be awarded DRK based on coins destroyed and signed (sign the private key proving you own the key). A user will send coins to a non-redeemable address, if those coins for example equal 1% (64435 SDC) of the total number of SDC ( that would amount to 2056DRK being awarded.
Evan, I had no idea you were considering "printing" more Darkcoins to bail out ShadowCash. There should be a better solution. This will create a bad precedent and what will stop you not 'print' more money in the future? Ok, I get it, we need new dev team but we don't have to bail out a failing coin. Let's think about an alternative plan. I don't think "printing" is a good analogy to what we're doing. It's more like moving their marketcap in ours, remember they're destroying coins to create them in Darkcoin. Besides that, we've talked about reducing the eventual coin supply to compensate for the new coins, so there's actually no inflationary effect in the long term. I'll add this to the document. Also, we're not acting unilaterally. There was an idea that has been proposed to their team and will only be done with the consent of the community. Be that as it may, you are altering the reward structure by being able to print a superblock to increase the coin supply. It goes against what crypto stands for. The decision to change the reward in terms of balance between miners and masternodes didn't change the max coinage--it was still the same block reward, but split differently. What you're talking about is actually changing the amount of outstanding coins... please tell me you see that. What happens 6 months from now when another opportunity arises, are we just going to print another superblock to merge with them? Where do you draw the line? This is beyond preposterous for two reasons:
a) You're going to dilute my DRK holdings to merge us with some shitcoin nobody has ever heard of?
b) You have the power to do so? Isn't crypto all about decentralization and math-based consensus to a (relatively) immutable basic protocol? I realize we are still in the development stages of DRK and consequently Evan has an unusual amount of power (e.g. enforcement), but this is a real reach. One person creating more coins in direct contravention of the basic protocol? If Evan can create more coins any time he wishes, how is he any different than the Federal Reserve?
c) This *WILL* fork DRK. Guaranteed. Look at the massive amount of opposition so far...I haven't counted but it looks about 2:1 against. Even if you reverse those numbers, you will have a significant number of DRK owners who *WILL* fork DRK into another coin. And then what do you have? The exact brain-drain you were hoping to avoid, plus market ambiguity, plus a massive loss of investor confidence.
P.S. Even with the reward structure of future blocks being altered to prevent inflation, the creation of a superblock by the DRK devs *after implementation* will rock our coin onto its heels. If one person (Evan) can create more DRK for a good reason, what's to prevent him from creating more DRK for a bad reason (at some point down the road)?
I have been one of DRK's biggest supporters, and everybody here knows this. But hearing that the dev team is even considering something like this makes me almost want to sell my coins. It's that bad of an idea.
|
|
|
|
These coins look very nice. But, why Monero???  Because Monero is *the* best-of-breed altcoin. For one thing, it's already 100% fungible at both protocol and socioeconomic levels, thanks to Science ®. For another, it has a vibrant dev/supporter ecosystem. I could go on, but will instead invite you to pursue the links in my sig. Welcome to Monero Mountain!  Meh... Not the "best of breed" when it's #13th.  Bitcoin is fungible. Litecoin is fungible.  I wanted smoothie to answer, not a Monero mouthpiece/bull. Were you paid to create this physical coin for Monero? Or, was this a deep, personal interest into Monero? If this was a Bitcoin coin, I would not hesitate to buy this. But, because it's Monero...  BTC and LTC are fungible only at the protocol level. Blacklisted coins demonstrate they are not fungible at the socioeconomic level. |
|
|
|
These coins look very nice. But, why Monero??? Because Monero is *the* best-of-breed altcoin. For one thing, it's already 100% fungible at both protocol and socioeconomic levels, thanks to Science ®. For another, it has a vibrant dev/supporter ecosystem. I could go on, but will instead invite you to pursue the links in my sig. Welcome to Monero Mountain! |
|
|
|
The recent "appropriation" of what should be non-existent funds is disgusting and prompted my exiting altogether of, for want of better term, investment.
"Investment" is exactly how the courts and regulators will approach security fraud like MAID. Functionally, it's almost the same as the infamous ventures listed on Bitfunder, Havelock, and BTCT. The only change is in the name, so exchanges can pretend to be more at "arm's length" and merely allowing coin trading rather than acting as a stock market per se. The Judge won't be amused at such obnoxious attempts to skirt the letter and spirit of the law. Poloniex profiting from IPO/ICO quasi-investment scams like MAID is the biggest danger to their customers, more than hax0rz or whatever. They're waving a bright red flag at the .gov bull, putting all decent XMR speculators in danger just to squeeze a few pennies out of the latest hyped scamvestments. |
|
|
|
Maid taking 100btc dumps to the face right now...
Maybe people are starting to realize the "MAID" product sold at Poloniex has zero value backing it, as it merely represents a ticket to ride some vaporous non-existent rollercoaster, if that rollercoaster is ever built. The Kraken guys don't list that kind of pure trash, because they "want to stay out of prison." Cite: https://soundcloud.com/tuur-demeester/jesse-powell-on-why-kraken-is-not-touching-thedao-im-trying-to-stay-out-of-prisonI guess Polo thinks they have better lawyers than Kraken, or feel the extra BTC they make from Maid trading fees is worth the risk. |
|
|
|
When my non-retirement BTC and retirement GBTC combined values exceed something like 20% of my total wealth then I will consider taking some profits *but* where does one park it? I'm looking for a better investment than Money 2.0? Tough.
Diversify Money 2.0 profits in gold/silver (Money 1.0) and Monero (Money 3.0). Re-balance as needed to avoid being under/over-exposed to any one sector. |
|
|
|
Connection Error
Sorry, we're unable to connect to the server at the moment.
Please try again in a few minutes.
Ray ID: ?? Error reference number: 502 Check our Twitter page for status updates. Aaaaaand it's gone! Happens, when believing into a Bucket Shop Coin traded on merely one Exchange. Anybody thought about alternative methods of trading Monero? Oh, I see ... you allready did. Don't worry, Polo is just down while they upgrade a few neglected features. New XMR pairs including ETH/XMR, LISK/XMR, and DAO/XMR will be added when it comes back up. |
|
|
|
We should all be proud, smoothie just made XMR more popular and more people are now looking at the coin's tech! Yep, smoothie did us Mustangs a solid. Many people will come for the shiny-pretty-shiny and stay for "the coin's tech." And he's donating something from each sale to the dev fund! What a guy.  |
|
|
|
So the real reason why Core prefers soft-forks over hard-forks has now been revealed.  They don't want to lose control of "their" project to free market forces. They want to be able to push through whatever change they want without anyone else being able to have a say in it.  [ Reddit Army Agitprop ] I'm loving the last ditch effort of the Gavinista hivemind to stave off complete obsolescence and irrelevance. As if dozens of gossipy shitposts fixating on GMAX are going to help Klassik recover from its death spiral. One is reminded of the Imperial Japanese "fanatical defense" at the end of WW2. The True Believers knew in their minds they were not winning the war, but their hearts could not accept the Emperor's (nor their own) fallibility and loss. Likewise, the Gavinista kamizakes are blowing up what little credibility they have left (and trying to buy more) in this desperate gamble to justify their governance coup "Because Evil GMAX." It's almost as if some cynical/smart-ass small-blocker infiltrators are pretending to have Hearnias and are intentionally toxifying rbtc with endless discussion of personalities.... |
|
|
|
Sweet! Don't forget to change your sig.  |
|
|
|
Those are nice, but where is the 1000 XMR, 1oz platinum? Does the Hawaiian stuff mean "Is it true?" |
|
|
|
Similarly here, by putting all the transactions on-chain, you have to strive to find the best possible on-chain scaling technology, like thin blocks doing right now. But if you start to become lazy and try to use the old centralized financial models like payment channels because they can provide millions of transactions per second, then you just drag bitcoin into the old banking model, which will dramatically reduce its usage and increase its risk, especially when there are many other alt-coins provide on-chain scaling
I can't agree at all. Payment channels are _nothing_ like old centralized financial models. Who is the trusted third party? No one. When you go on and on about "on chain" you're confusing a technical mechanism for a social or business business goal. Everyone being able to transact with everyone else at low cost and without the risk of censorship or exposure to extraneous counterparty risk is a laudable goal. "On chain"-- meaning transacting in a lock-step synchronous world wide flooding network-- is a technical mechanism. On that, to the best of our current understanding _cannot_ deliver that business/social goal. Fortunately, we do know ways to deliver it. It's like walking up to some aircraft engineers and demanding that the next design be exactly the same but have a wingspan twice as long, when really your goal was to double the number of pounds of cargo it could carry. Maybe the change lets it carry more cargo, or maybe it just makes the plane unstable. Regardless, a particular _mechanism_ was confused with the business goal, and as a result an end-run around the science and engineering that could, potentially, have actually met the goal if given a chance and allowed to make the required tradeoffs. Of course, there is always someone out there that will tell you that you can solve any complex problem with this one weird trick. But there is a word for them: Scammers and their patsies. And right now, there is a whole clique of the Bitcoin old timers who were bamboozled by Craig Wright and his 419 scam which predominantly featured a ton of magical scalablity claims... it's going to take a while for their wide and greedy eyes to blink and realize they've been tricked, and that maybe these magical scaling claims were just as fraudulent as everything else. Klassique isn't about transactions per second, Klassique is about sending a message. That message ("we have ways of making Honey Badger give a shit") will be best propounded on the upcoming bamboozled.bitcoin.com site, which will serve as Craig Wright's personal vanity platform. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
