Nothing related to bad crypto, as far as I know.

ceti, I think that one is missing from your Monero hate thread.

Please more specifically address the bad crypto you claim is in STEEM, that would at least be on topic here.

Do you even understand what "bad crypto" means in the context of this thread?

Was there some relevance there to bad crypto, because I didn't see it?

Oh I get it. The same personal vendetta that has john-conner following me around like a stalker and posting off-topic personal attacks has you doing the same thing.

There are many ways one could implement messaging, but I don't favor storing p2p messages on the blockchain itself. Encrypted is even worse, in a way, since that can't possibly be of any benefit to anyone other than the specific recipient. (At least if you store bible verses or dick pics, there might be a few people who are interested in that.)

I would propose something like:

Create and submit a small transaction that pays a fee and includes a hash.

After the transaction is successfully mined, you may submit a message packet up to some maximum size (for example 32 KB) that matches the hash (assume the message is encrypted, but it wouldn't necessarily need to be) into the mempool, where it will be stored and relayed to peers. Once the transaction reaches a given depth in the chain (for example seven days; 5040 blocks), the hash expires and the message may no longer be submitted or relayed.

It is true that it is extremely difficult if not impossible to prevent use of the blockchain for storage of arbitrary data that does not benefit most of the people incurring the cost of the system, but providing a useful mechanism that does much the same thing in a less harmful manner is a good way to discourage it.

Possibly the lifetime and allowable size of the message could be a function of the fee paid, but there is no good way to set the fee, nor a good way to compensate the node operators for storing and forwarding it, so the suggestion of a fixed life and size is intended to limit the cost to something reasonably negligible.

Clearly wrong. It is entirely feasible to pass on investment opportunities, even if they are reasonably good ones (and I'm not saying this is), pursue others, and not end up poor.

I'm reasonably certain that you are more likely to end up poor if you overinvest in this than if you ignore it.

The problems have become much harder. Just to properly make or service a request on the web probably requires more code than his entire word processor, and it may not even be close.

You can step back and say, "Who needs this shit?" and to an extent you would be right, but it's here and we have to deal with it. The tools have to evolve accordingly. Large code libraries (both public and private) are essential to most modern programming, and good methods of abstraction are essential to creating effective libraries.

dga posted that they spent $100K+ per month on their mining operation. I have no reason to doubt it.

Very early mined coins (a relatively small number of them, due to the well-behaved emission curve) were very cheap, of course, no different than any other new and relatively unknown coin. iCEBREAKER just posted about mining blocks using the public miner on a $5 VPS, I did the same on my own equipment, etc.

That is one question but the total amount of coins mined during the time period in question is also certainly relevant as an upper bound and is objective.

Also relevant that the emission was not later reduced as some wanted to do, which would have magnified the effect of any early irregularities.

Two can play that game.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=920344.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1151160.msg12128046#msg12128046

By way of background, john-conner is among the scammers who don't like me because I am one of many who have called him out for ripping off Bitcoin's code, disguising it with reformatting, and using that to fraudulent promote his coin while violating Bitcoin's MIT license (which has only the requirement that you attribute it and not try to pass it off as your own work). For whatever reasons, these people have a tendency to become stalkers.

I repeat that I have no sock puppet accounts, and have never had any. I do control the 'aeon' account which was transferred to me when I took over maintenance of the coin and I use to read PMs (mostly spam) that get sent there and edit the AEON OP. I have never posted with it or used it for ratings.

"Exactly" is a bit extreme. There are always some variations due to random block production and other details (hash rate adjustment isn't perfectly instantaneous, etc.). The point is it was damn close.

Why don't you check a block explorer? Or you could estimate from the published emission curve. Since difficulty adjustment worked properly, the latter is pretty close.

There is some confusion between the concept of not including the signature in the txid and the particular package of changes that is being done in Core that does this and more but is also commonly called sigwit.

And this one if you want to understand why john-connor the plagiarist and one of the few people in the history of open source to ever violate the MIT license has an agenda against Monero: Because I called him out on his scamming. Note, by the way, that most of the people quoted in that post documenting his ripping off of Bitcoin's code are not affiliated with Monero nor me in any way, I just quoted them.

If you have any questions about Monero and would like to learn about it from a credible, non-scammer, source, please stick around.

I basically agree with this, including the 5pt type.

But as I have said many times before, noobs should not invest in cryptocurrencies, period, and especially this one where everything is set up in a very complicated manner that is as you call it a 'noob trap'. I happen to think there is potential here, and there are interesting things going on, or I would have just dumped all my mined coins, as I have done with other coins where got the jump and mined a lot. I'm not one who is afraid to dump junk for a profit (or even to limit a loss).

Nevertheless, what I think doesn't matter. If you don't know exactly what you are doing here, and have a well-reasoned business case for why it might succeed despite the nature of the launch, stay far away. If you can't afford to lose every satoshi you put into it, stay away anyway.


I'm doing no such thing. I have a stake in it, that is all, which I may very well lose if and when it fails. I'm giving no support to the method of launch nor am I encouraging anyone to invest in it.

I never disagreed that it was managed to achieve the outcome they wanted (controlling most of the coins). I simply took issue with the specific claim they admitted relaunching for that reason. I never saw such an admission.


Hold on there, I never said it was 'okay', but the reality is that I solved the puzzle they presented and got some coins for doing so. I don't see how it was my problem the devs decided to launch their coin as a puzzle, or that I solved it and some other people didn't. I never said it was fair either, and, no, I don't like the 'NO PREMINE, NO INSTAMINE' stuff in the header. I already said it should be replaced with 'NO FAIRNESS'.

I appreciate your wording, though, stating that I am "starting" to lose my credibility. Thank you for the endorsement. It'd be a while before my credibility is much affected by having mined a coin and correcting the facts on what the devs admitted or didn't admit.

Who would ever buy magical internet money that exists as a bunch of ones and zeros in a computer?

Every chain has a degree of spam, that's included in the 2.5 GB Monero chain as well. In reality the 7 TPS benchmark (which comes to 240 bytes) for Bitcoin just turned out to be an unrealistic ideal scenario, or at least unrealistic unless extreme transaction packing efficiency is forced by high tx fees. But that too applies to every chain in various ways. For example here is a mix 4 transaction that is only 758 bytes. If people really cared about fees, transactions would likely be constructed in a more compact manner. YMMV.

http://moneroblocks.info/tx/9fd92998d3bfef59b86aeb09f29746eaf0f49846736965533714800be0eaa31e

It's not. It is closer to 0.5KB-1 KB, in some blocks >1 KB

Look at the recent blocks.