is there any wall @ .01 on finex
12k |
|
|
|
didn't the finex wall have 6k something?
Currently at 8.5k. |
|
|
|
The dumpers on BTCe just keep getting it back in their faces.
160 BTC dumped in 2 minutes. 80 into existing bids, the other 80 eaten in 3 minutes.
Looks like a few people's shorts are well underwater by now.
What was the rationale to short anyway? |
|
|
|
I saw Dash and though that sounds crap. Then I read short for Digital Cash and liked it a little more, always mention the digital cash part. or. Just call it Digital Cash. ty.
Makes sense , as much as my suggestion of Dart . The community could have been consulted more : not for politeness and procedure, but simply to harness the sheer power and information available in the decentralised model. Evan (or a few people) may be brilliant developers, but the naming requires wider skills. I've been thinking about it, trying to stay as neutral as I can... Could it really be consulted? With everyone trying to register domains and forums and then sell them for profit at the hint that the direction could go towards a certain name? |
|
|
|
No, I simply disagree with the math and find that number implausible. I believe that most masternodes will ultimately be compromised, either directly or via VPS or other back doors.
When you deal with entire eco-systems, then you simply have to try your best at the area of your expertise. Our own PCs might be compromised. HDD firmware, processors, network equipment firmware, software backdoors, RNG fixing, etc etc. And then the entire Internet might be controlled, thus someone like NSA can see the whole network flow in a "transparent" way. If we take such hypotheses as somewhat probable, then no coin will ever be private or anonymous. We (all people involved in anon projects) might as well throw the towel and go home. You're incorrect. Even full (as in 100%) network flow for example, does not deanonomize Monero transactions. It does identify Monero users (which is why we are adding i2p to obscure it) but not the flow of coins. As long as there is some piece of hardware, under your own control that you can use to sign transactions properly, the rest need not be trusted. That's a much lower and more plausible expectation of trust than some nodes operating mostly in VPS hosting centers. If the nodes know not what they transact, what advantage does it give you to control the hosting company or the nodes? |
|
|
|
No, I simply disagree with the math and find that number implausible. I believe that most masternodes will ultimately be compromised, either directly or via VPS or other back doors.
When you deal with entire eco-systems, then you simply have to try your best at the area of your expertise. Our own PCs might be compromised. HDD firmware, processors, network equipment firmware, software backdoors, RNG fixing, etc etc. And then the entire Internet might be controlled, thus someone like NSA can see the whole network flow in a "transparent" way. If we take such hypotheses as somewhat probable, then no coin will ever be private or anonymous. We (all people involved in anon projects) might as well throw the towel and go home. |
|
|
|
As for DRK / NSA PRISM 2.0 analogy, I mean please... it's Bitcoin code with mixing on top. Open source stuff. Too much FUD  No that is not true at all. You as a user can verify that you are using Bitcoin code or whatever code you want to use. If it were peer-to-peer like bitcoin that could be enough. But it isn't. It is peer-to-masternode(s)-to-peer. You can't and never will be able to verify what masternodes are doing, as long as they appear to be doing what they are supposed to. But what else they are doing you have no idea. At all. The elegance of DRK (prior to MN blinding) is that it assumes the worst of the nodes (=that they are corrupt in a high percentage) and works around the issue by multiple rounds of mixing, thus getting very low probabilities of identification even with controlled nodes. You know someone has a FUD vector when he cites the 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000x % probability as a definite loss of privacy or "real danger" or "not anonymous" etc etc. The fact that it also takes a loooot of money to buy all the nodes, which would make the price reach astronomical levels if done by a single entity like the NSA, also helps from a Game Theory perspective so that it can't really happen as the acquisition cost multiplies while an NSA-like player tries tries to obtain the remaining percentages of the MN network. I think it's about time all the FUDstorm is buried with the masternode blinding where the MNs don't even know what they transact. |
|
|
|
LOL, nice way to dismiss the fact that both enormous concentration of ownership (likely but difficult to prove) and blatant manipulation of supply in the form of enormously cut to available new supply (which has inarguably occurred), a) matter, b) can affect market cap, and c) make the whole thing look like some kind of penny stock joke.
Really I don't think any of the market caps matter very much though, as they are all trivially small. We'll see what happens if and when that isn't the case.
Regarding "blatant manipulation" see what I wrote above to celestio. Regarding market caps, high marketcaps tend to spread coin ownership. Darkcoins costing 17$ each at its high, do not leave much space for the instamine argument. People who get coins for nothing do not usually appreciate them. That's what happened at the launch and why people were selling batches of 10k DRKs for 0.25 BTC. A few months later, why would an instaminer ...hold at 17$ a coin? Market dynamics and market behavior indicates that he would sell a lot of his coins as the price rose. And that's precisely what happened all the way from 0.0000x BTC per DRK, to 0.000x BTC per DRK, to 0.002 BTC per DRK, to 0.028 BTC per DRK, with waves of market reshuffling. Things like mintpal going down and scammers getting wallets like 400k DRKs and then dumping them at frequent batches were more of an actual factor compared to the instamine non-issue (for the last year or so and in relation to the market). The instamine is only brought up to increase the FUD-vector... "DRK instamine... DRK not secure... DRK forks... blah blah blah" etc. As for DRK / NSA PRISM 2.0 analogy, I mean please... it's Bitcoin code with mixing on top. Open source stuff. Too much FUD |
|
|
|
So then why would a developer purposely change their coin's emission rate on their own accord, as well as the total coin supply?(Which is what Darkcoin's developer did several times). The very "social contract" has been violated, since the coin's parameters have been severely changed after conception. That means Darkcoin is not a decentralized cryptocurrency, but a centralized pennystock.
I think you are missing some key elements of history where the community has debated these issues in the DRK-thread / DRK-forum or participated in off-DRK-thread polls by eduffield, for issues regarding inflation / emission, total number of coins, fixing initial distribution through an airdrop of new coins, masternode payments etc. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=525093https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=559932(I think there are a couple of threads like this around btctalk and darkcointalk). Thus you make it sound quite dictatorial, in a sense, when things are not at all like this. |
|
|
|
Please RT if you're on Twitter.
WHAT ?? DRK ON BTC-E ?!?! Holy Smokes. LTC holders must be shaking badly right now. Congrats DRK !! Booo-ya!! DRK's not listed there nor btce made a statement about going to add it. What are you guys talking about? I think it's intended more as a campaign to get it added, rather than stating it as a fact, however the post should be edited to reflect this (?). |
|
|
|
there was darkoin dev chaepin he disapear
maybe he mr spread
he knows code darkoin
There are inconsistencies between the two personalities so I'm fairly certain they're not the same. |
|
|
|
To be honest if I had the same skill set as a top dev with my mentality this is exactly what I would do. In three days you could have accumulated a huge amount of your SPR from weak hands.
This would be corrosive to market trust (dev perceived as a manipulator / pump&dumper through self-inflicted FUD). But there was no dump. At least not from him. No I mean if a coin dev did this on purpose to buy low / sell high or something. Obviously if that was the plan by Mr. Spread he'd first dump and then rebuy lower - which it hasn't happened from what I'm reading (I'm not tracking his coins). |
|
|
|
To be honest if I had the same skill set as a top dev with my mentality this is exactly what I would do. In three days you could have accumulated a huge amount of your SPR from weak hands.
This would be corrosive to market trust (dev perceived as a manipulator / pump&dumper through self-inflicted FUD). |
|
|
|
Ok thanks  |
|
|
|
|
Is the rise triggered by an actual comeback or a speculated one?
|
|
|
|
|
BTC dumping initiated... (BTC @225)
|
|
|
|
Didn't otoh put there a wall few days ago? Shit  I wonder what DRK would do without this otoh???  A smartest question would be "Why Otho is so heavily interested in Darkcoin?" Get you it ? An even better question is "Who is buying all these DRKs, ahead of Otoh's walls?". We are talking thousands and thousands of DRKs sweeped by that buyer. |
|
|
|
|
At some point we* need to fix this thing with the pools "cheating" or deciding who gets paid. Enforcement is not a solution.
I know it's been tried and that it delayed development for months back in May-June and it's best (in retrospect) that we* focused more on DarkSend and InstantX, but masternode payments needs to get sorted eventually to be a decentralized solution where payments are decided by the protocol itself.
*We = the coders of course, not me.
|
|
|
|
pump or news ?  InstantX testing... |
|
|
|
As for Oblox's question about the national currency and trade, well, international trade is always conducted through the "buffer" of foreign reserves that a country has. All the european countries outside the euro do that, as did the eurozone countries prior to entering the euro, as do all other countries globally. It's not an issue as long as your trade of goods and services is balanced. In other words if you import 50bn euro stuff and export 40bn euro stuff, you need 10bn euro in loans - or you'll have to prioritize imports. Greek imports are larger than the exports but in the services sector (primarily ships and tourism) we have a huge surplus which balances both out. So goods+services together are balanced in terms of in/outflows.
True, but who would want to loan to Greece if they cannot repay their existing debts. Where do you draw the line? That's why you go the balanced trade route after a national currency, because you can't go the "new loan" way. You import less or equal compared to what you export. All the other things are serviceable in the new national currency (bank accounts, government employees, pensions etc). New loans can be taken but they'll require strong collateral (like a country's gold, land etc). The issue here is to avoid it altogether. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
