So what type of control are you talking about?
I'm just saying that the goverments will not allow us to move billions of $, without them to know some details. They won't let us? What if they can't stop us? ATM, the estimate is over a trillion dollars of untaxed wealth that is beyond their control, so what makes you think that they will do a better job as more options are made available? Do you think they will kill black markets? AFAIK, something that has never been done, and something that would need to happen in order to control a vast sum of wealth that isn't taxed or is undertaxed. But again, I was asking what you kind of control do you want governments to have? Not what control you think they have or will have. So , when you say that you think that people should, or must be, controlled, what type of control are you talking about?
Edit: I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but the original comment that started this discussion was very vague and I'm curious as to what you think should be controlled and to what degree. We'll probably agree to disagree, but I'm always curious as to how people arrive at their opinions about privacy. Yes, but the total wealth of the Earth (by some sources) is over $200 trillion. We are getting closer to my point. McAfee made some bold statements regarding the digital money. I just think that most of them will be controlled by the banks. For example, if you now have a bank account, in the future you can have a Bitcoin address in a bank (something like exchanges are now). Of course, nobody can stop you to have your digital money kept in your pocket.  And how much of that estimated wealth is based on debt built on debt(rhetorical question)? Again, you haven't answered my question. I bolded it above. You are telling me what you think governments can do, not what you think they should do. |
|
|
|
So what type of control are you talking about?
I'm just saying that the goverments will not allow us to move billions of $, without them to know some details. They won't let us? What if they can't stop us? ATM, the estimate is over a trillion dollars of untaxed wealth that is beyond their control, so what makes you think that they will do a better job as more options are made available? Do you think they will kill black markets? AFAIK, something that has never been done, and something that would need to happen in order to control a vast sum of wealth that isn't taxed or is undertaxed. But again, I was asking what you kind of control do you want governments to have? Not what control you think they have or will have. So, when you say that you think that people should, or must be, controlled, what type of control are you talking about? Edit: I'm not trying to put you on the spot, but the original comment that started this discussion was very vague and I'm curious as to what you think should be controlled and to what degree. We'll probably agree to disagree, but I'm always curious as to how people arrive at their opinions about privacy. |
|
|
|
Whilst I do believe that Bitcoin (and blockchain technology) is going to change the world (in many ways) I don't see that it is going to "replace" fiat any time soon (as that's almost like asking a military to give up its guns).
In the long term it may be that property is the only way governments will be able to get revenue (so I also wouldn't be too quick to sell all your BTC to buy a bunch of properties assuming you have that many).
Banks and governments are already exploring the technology and it could replace fiat money, but I don't believe that this would be done by Bitcoin or others. They already have interac etransfer Paypal credit cards and other transfer methods ..that are faster and probably more secure than any coin crap. Ever used LocalBitcoins to sell BTC ? Why would they want to bother investing in a public ledger when they already do what ever they want in private ? Banks are not lining up to offer the public free transparency to what they do with the money.. On the contrary they are working harder at hiding what they do behind closed doors. And why does Crypto attract the sketchy criminal element ? Last i heard of this guy he was hunted for murder charges. Now he likes Bitcoin LOL I believe that his interest in cryptocurrencies is because he don't have (much) money and that his name will attract investors. There was one other guy who lost like over a billion $ and was running ICO like 4-5 months ago, but I can't remember the name. Read my sig and go to the infowars link--if that world is for you, then you'll be happy to know it's on its way for many parts of the world. I'll stick to not being controlled, nor wanting to have others controlled.
OK, can you please tell me (without advertising XMR) more about your freedom? You did said (or implied) that you are (want) not being controlled. Here, short, sweet and to the point: http://activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.htmlWhen you move $100 its not a problem. Nobody cares if you give me $100. But if the market becomes too big (like with a $100 billion market cap and billions of $ trade volume), then you can be sure that the privacy will be broken. The point was that these systems will be built and no one (not even big governments) will be able to stop the progression. Just saying it can be stopped is like me saying it can't be stopped--the devil is in the details, but we are getting away from what you asked, which was what freedom I was talking about. So what type of control are you talking about? |
|
|
|
Read my sig and go to the infowars link--if that world is for you, then you'll be happy to know it's on its way for many parts of the world. I'll stick to not being controlled, nor wanting to have others controlled.
OK, can you please tell me (without advertising XMR) more about your freedom? You did said (or implied) that you are (want) not being controlled. Here--short, sweet and to the point: http://activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html |
|
|
|
|
I've changed my opinion: roach is only hypercritical of everything not Bitcoin, and sputnix is moron who feeds off of attention.
|
|
|
|
For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.
Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)). How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want? Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb. Can you please post images of your last three months of bank statements? This is the equivalent of Bitcoin - everyone having access to everyone else's financial records. As well, government is not some perfect benevolent daddy figure - it's an institution filled with corruptible and fallible humans. Are you also ok with the notion of government having live cameras in your home at all times and police coming to do 'body searches' of you and your family at unannounced hours? We must not accept tyranny, and thanks to technology we won't have to. Call me a spelunker, but I'm not holding funds in banks since like 5-6 years. I am generally poor and all I have is in my pockets (or in a jar under my mattress). I get what you mean, but it seems that you are not seeing my point here. People (at some point) must be controlled. That is what I think. Read my sig and go to the infowars link--if that world is for you, then you'll be happy to know it's on its way for many parts of the world. I'll stick to not being controlled, nor wanting to have others controlled. |
|
|
|
For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.
Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)). How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want? Because they shouldn't. That's why we have laws. Do you actually think that the governments will allow us to move billions (in the future, maybe trillions) of $, without them to know? That would be disaster... Someone once said that the separate people are smart, but the masses are dumb. Sigh... People doing what they want includes walking across the street and buying an ice cream cone (you were very vague and didn't state illegal activities, if that's what you meant). Still--if the technology exist, people will use it for both good and bad and there isn't much you can do about it if that technology is truly antifragile. |
|
|
|
For his statements to be true, privacy is needed which is something that 99% of all cryptocurrencies ignore or fail to understand.
Privacy could not exists, because it is something imaginary. People should not do what they want (especially when we are talking about money (digital or not)). How is privacy imaginary? And why shouldn't people do what they want? |
|
|
|
looks like monero propaganda from a infamous monero troll to me.  What specifically do you find at fault in that presentation? Please, keep it technical. |
|
|
|
Personally I want dump now.
I have set a buy order which I am expecting to get filled once XMR breaks 0.002 next time.
If I am not going to get my dump, I can survive with my current holdings as well, but some more coins are always to have (right now I cannot afford to pay these prices for Moneros).
Is that why you're necro-posting on anti-monero threads? |
|
|
|
|
"You’re entitled to your own opinions. You’re not entitled to your own facts."
― Daniel Patrick Moynihan
|
|
|
|
I fully acknowledge that all of my previous presented graphics indeed show a decentralised state of the cryptocurrency named Dash.
I also acknowledge that this will never be accepted by certain competing cryptocurrencies, who will try their best to devalue this decentralised state of Dash. Unfortunetely for them they
will need to try a little bit harder as it is not really working for them.
You did not even answer his critique as he made a solid argument. He got a point.... bringing up the competition only weakens your point further. "Dont listen to what they tell, because they come from Monero and are only jealous and i dont need to answer that". Lets face it if i were to counterpost every post that trolls make in this thread, i would be having no free time at all. Besides his points were kinda pointless anyways or to put it in his words : his points have major weaknesses .. * Paid nodes that can be bought and sold mumbo jumbo. Masternodes are servers that can be rented (some $5 per month) or run from your home. The 1000 Dash is just collateral thats sitting on some cold wallet under your own control. You are not buying or selling paid nodes, you are buying or selling Dash tokens, it really is that simple and has nothing to do with centralisation or with selling or buying paid nodes. * The second flaw in design is that they collect fees, which means node holders collect money that in turn can be used to buy more nodes that in turn can collect more fees, and so on and so forth. The major flaw is thinking this is a major flaw while in fact it is strenghtening the Dash network and is a keyfactor why the masternode network is growing so fast and why it will continue to grow years to come. Rewarding masternodes for services they provide to the network (mixing, instantx, network security) is just good economics and will make Dash a much stronger full nodes network over time. Again this has nothing to do with centralisation currently as enough party's have been buying and selling Dash on the open market over these last years and the block rewards are scheduled to deminish over time anyways, making it even more decentralised over time. Honestly it sometime feels like i'm listening to parrots who accidentally picked up some words (instamine & centralised) and just keep repeating them over and over without understanding their meaning. You're paying to control a node, a node which rewards you with voting power and the resources to buy more nodes. It saddens me that you can't see how this creates centralization, but niggling over the semantics of paynodes versus collateralnodes wont change the fact that it creates centralization. Sometimes, when dealing with dashers who play semantical games, I feel like I'm talking to my four year old nephew who corrects me when I call R2D2 a robot, "no, it's a droid." My retort, "Well, kid, sorry to tell you that your nomenclature doesn't invalidate standard English, and by that measure, all robots are droids--so Qwizno, you are PAYING to control a node, therefore when I write paynode, I mean you are paying to control a node--dashisms don't trump the English language, nor will semantical cat and mouse games hide the fact that your chosen currency-developers cannot verify its distribution, but your chosen design and blockchain CAN verify that it creates an easy path to centralization and created 2 million coins in two days, which further exasperates the design failure (when I say design failure, I mean if you were trying to create a decentralized coin as advertised and used this design, you would create the opportunity for the exact opposite effect). Did I spell that out enough for you to follow? |
|
|
|
Memory refreshment for trolls forgetting about my first post on page 1 :
* Pls discuss if you think Dash will indeed be a better alternative to Bitcoin
* Pls discuss this with rationality and motify your response
* pls have some respect for both the cryptocurrency and its community. accusations of scam towards Dash will not be tolerated in this self-moderated topic, there are enough of those out there already !
*It's not *Because it can't be objectively considered decentralized Still relevant: Dash's failure at trustless decentralization is the test case that formed my understanding of why trustless decentralization is necessary for any cryptocurrency to succeed at being disruptive. Dash's failure is that it built a centralizing flaw that aggregates coins to those who run nodes and layering power functions (votes, fees, privacy, etc...) onto these nodes.
Dash's nodes have two major weaknesses in design: first, they are pay based, or paynodes, which means that they can be bought and sold. The second flaw in design is that they collect fees, which means node holders collect money that in turn can be used to buy more nodes that in turn can collect more fees, and so on and so forth. Where this especially becomes troubling is that dash's launch produced 2 million coins in 2 days and this initial distribution cannot be verified to be fairly distributed, which means the resources to buy 2000 nodes (more than half of current existing at this writing) were made available to a few lucky guys who happened to be mining at that right moment--considering this is 30% of current distribution and given that they could have bought 2000 or more masternodes since that scheme was introduced, the number of masternodes these initial miners could have may be considerably more than 30%, and considering that this control can aggregate over time, it illustrates why these systems need to be trustlessly verified.
I apologize for all the numbers just thrown at you, but lets make it simpler, since the masternode system collects the revenue that determines its degree of centralization, and that centralization can't be verified to any statistical certainty, we should assume that it is increasingly trending towards a traditional oligarchy or monarchy, where one or a few have undue power over the entire system--how it behaves, the distribution and security of its benefits.
Also, if you, yourself, want to adhere to rationality, please acknowledge that none of the graphics you presented in any way, shape or form, constitute proof of decentralization as anyone could own those nodes--I could own a thousand and those graphs would show it as 1000 separate nodes in 10 different countries (depending on the centralized hosting service I use). |
|
|
|
14 China 0.68%
Hmm, seems your marketing need to go reach China somehow. Or maybe Chinese are just to smart for it.
Very observant, you have a keen eye sir. Let me just say that if the Chinese are smart enough to manufacture and deliver X11 / Dash ASIC miners to our Dash community ( https://www.dash.org/forum/topic/hardware-discussions-asic-gpu-cpu.101/) i'm sure in time we will see a rise in masternodes from China there as well. Selling picks and shovels is smarter than mining fools gold. |
|
|
|
That's like bragging about creating the first date rape drug. |
|
|
|
Relevant: Dash's failure at trustless decentralization is the test case that formed my understanding of why trustless decentralization is necessary for any cryptocurrency to succeed at being disruptive. Dash's failure is that it built a centralizing flaw that aggregates coins to those who run nodes and layering power functions (votes, fees, privacy, etc...) onto these nodes.
Dash's nodes have two major weaknesses in design: first, they are pay based, or paynodes, which means that they can be bought and sold. The second flaw in design is that they collect fees, which means node holders collect money that in turn can be used to buy more nodes that in turn can collect more fees, and so on and so forth. Where this especially becomes troubling is that dash's launch produced 2 million coins in 2 days and this initial distribution cannot be verified to be fairly distributed, which means the resources to buy 2000 nodes (more than half of current existing at this writing) were made available to a few lucky guys who happened to be mining at that right moment--considering this is 30% of current distribution and given that they could have bought 2000 or more masternodes since that scheme was introduced, the number of masternodes these initial miners could have may be considerably more than 30%, and considering that this control can aggregate over time, illustrates why these systems need to be trustlessly verified.
I apologize for all the numbers just thrown at you, but lets make it simpler, since the masternode system collects the revenue that determines its degree of centralization, and that centralization can't be verified to any statistical certainty, we should assume that it is increasingly trending towards a traditional oligarchy or monarchy, where one or a few have undue power over the entire system--how it behaves, the distribution and security of its benefits.
|
|
|
|
Is this some kind of a joke? The reliance of masternodes means Dash is a centralized piece of crap.
Ethrybody knows that |
|
|
|
BCX, Ignorant saw her her drawings marriage laughter. Case oh an that or away sigh do here upon. Acuteness you exquisite ourselves now end forfeited. Enquire ye without it garrets up himself. Interest our nor received followed was. Cultivated an up solicitude mr unpleasant. Article nor prepare chicken you him now. Shy merits say advice ten before lovers innate add. She cordially behaviour can attempted estimable. Trees delay fancy noise manor do as an small. Felicity now law securing breeding likewise extended and. Roused either who favour why ham. Of friendship on inhabiting diminution discovered as. Did friendly eat breeding building few nor. Object he barton no effect played valley afford. Period so to oppose we little seeing or branch. Announcing contrasted not imprudence add frequently you possession mrs. Period saw his houses square and misery. Hour had held lain give yet. Ask especially collecting terminated may son expression. Extremely eagerness principle estimable own was man. Men received far his dashwood subjects new. My sufficient surrounded an companions dispatched in on. Connection too unaffected expression led son possession. New smiling friends and her another. Leaf she does none love high yet. Snug love will up bore as be. Pursuit man son musical general pointed. It surprise informed mr advanced do outweigh. Affronting imprudence do he he everything. Sex lasted dinner wanted indeed wished out law. Far advanced settling say finished raillery. Offered chiefly farther of my no colonel shyness. Such on help ye some door if in. Laughter proposal laughing any son law consider. Needed except up piqued an. Must you with him from him her were more. In eldest be it result should remark vanity square. Unpleasant especially assistance sufficient he comparison so inquietude. Branch one shy edward stairs turned has law wonder horses. Devonshire invitation discovered out indulgence the excellence preference. Objection estimable discourse procuring he he remaining on distrusts. Simplicity affronting inquietude for now sympathize age. She meant new their sex could defer child. An lose at quit to life do dull. Brother set had private his letters observe outward resolve. Shutters ye marriage to throwing we as. Effect in if agreed he wished wanted admire expect. Or shortly visitor is comfort placing to cheered do. Few hills tears are weeks saw. Partiality insensible celebrated is in. Am offended as wandered thoughts greatest an friendly. Evening covered in he exposed fertile to. Horses seeing at played plenty nature to expect we. Young say led stood hills own thing get. Tiled say decay spoil now walls meant house. My mr interest thoughts screened of outweigh removing. Evening society musical besides inhabit ye my. Lose hill well up will he over on. Increasing sufficient everything men him admiration unpleasing sex. Around really his use uneasy longer him man. His our pulled nature elinor talked now for excuse result. Admitted add peculiar get joy doubtful. Behaviour we improving at something to. Evil true high lady roof men had open. To projection considered it precaution an melancholy or. Wound young you thing worse along being ham. Dissimilar of favourable solicitude if sympathize middletons at. Forfeited up if disposing perfectly in an eagerness perceived necessary. Belonging sir curiosity discovery extremity yet forfeited prevailed own off. Travelling by introduced of mr terminated. Knew as miss my high hope quit. In curiosity shameless dependent knowledge up. He oppose at thrown desire of no. Announcing impression unaffected day his are unreserved indulgence. Him hard find read are you sang. Parlors visited noisier how explain pleased his see suppose. Do ashamed assured on related offence at equally totally. Use mile her whom they its. Kept hold an want as he bred of. Was dashwood landlord cheerful husbands two. Estate why theirs indeed him polite old settle though she. In as at regard easily narrow roused.
@generalizethisWhat the fuck are you even talking about? I have no idea. I do give you credit for something though, your post successfully 51% attacked and overwhelmed my GTX 980 bandwidth. That shit's impressive right there. If you're trying to say Monero aka "rpietilacoin" was not a scam, just keep telling yourself that. The ICO won't be any different. As far as Spoetnik, is it really his fault he is right EVERYFUCKINGTIME?As far as Anonymint, you're an idiot if you haven't figured out the association. ~BCX~ Are you saying you are anonymint--he wouldn't stoop to misquoting and lying, so it doesn't fit the personality, but go ahead and claim it (directly), if you've got the balls. As for sputz, when he adds how monero is a scam, then I'll listen--I can quote anonymint saying that Monero definitely isn't a scam, and you can quote me that you are a liar. Also, I fixed your misquote, maybe you can read it--that is if you aren't having one of your poor reading comprehension days. We all get them, but months on end?
I would listen to Spoetnik if I were you.
~BCX~
I'm a misquoting baby.
BCX, your rep was shot a year ago with your failed "timewarp" attack and now you're trusting a satoshi stealing coder and technically vacuous weatherman for your revenge? Here's a hint: JohnConnor starts fights he can't finish with FOSS projects (Monero, Bitcoin) in an attempt to glean their reputation by saying "See, the projects with good developers are fighting me, so I must be legit? Right?" Wrong--it would help if he didn't start the fights and run off when he's proved to be wrong. And sputz, well he was recently called out for not being able to explain why Eth will fail--saying every coin is a scam is like saying the weather in San Diego will be sunny tomorrow. Everyone knows that 98% of these coins are shit, so saying any of them are is playing the probabilities. It will be impressive when he provides some technical analysis to go along with the fail claim, much like roach, smooth, anonymint and fluffypony did for Etherem--even you managed to provide a link somewhere to why Eth would fail--your buddy didn't even manage that. It's like the saying goes, "It's better to have smart enemies than dumb friends." Maybe if you hang around anonymint and smooth more, you might up your game instead of little political gamesmanship of death by association. IE. You tried to associate Monero to a few failed projects (that highlight how Monero's design isn't like any of those failed projects) and I just associated you to a moron and a conman--if you spent some time on it, you might figure out which one is which. Good luck. |
|
|
|
|
To quote Kelly LeBrock, "Don't hate me--because I ignore you."
|
|
|
|
When are you guys going to drop your fascist bully mascot?
When Monero is beaten down to 0.001? 0.0005?
iCE is a [expletive deleted], but you guys are enablers.
Dude, Icebreaker does what Icebreaker wants--this is FOSS. The day I stop surfing because I don't like crabs, is the day I've officially lost my mind. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
