|
Again, there needs to be incentive to buy XC itself during the blocknet IPO to get blocknet shares, Ive already proposed something where each coin are given more percentage offs at different times(EX: for the first 8 hours of blocknet you get 15% off when buying blocknet shares with XC, then after the 8 hours is up the percetnage off goes down to 10%, then NHZ gets the 15% off the next 8 hours and etc etc). If not, then people will just buy a bunch of random coins in the blocknet, without focuing on 1 coin at a time, which would lead to low or no price increases.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin overall is going down and down. I even read a post on the general disussion bitcoin thread about one of those early adopters turning away from btc and into alts....
maybe alts should start having USD/EURO/CNY pairings for altcoins, instead of being paired with btc, As bitcoins pretty much bringing down the price on all alts atm, and im tired of alts being tied to btc.
If that happen will be bad for alts at least on short term. I am sure there are many investors, that invest in alts so much since they believe that if bitcoin will raise x10 in USD price all alts will also. If there would not be this believing, many would pull out part of majority of their investments. Well, it'd definitely be better for them in the longterm. I'm saying that Alts can still be tied to BTC partially(during uptrends), since they are all cryptocurrencies, but they need to start cutting themselves off from Bitcoin(having their own payment processors, their own exchanges, and etc) in some ways so if bitcoin is in a bearish state, it wont affect the alts that much. |
|
|
|
|
People should start trading XC on Poloniex an Cryptsy. Bittrex's UI sucks ass.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin overall is going down and down. I even read a post on the general disussion bitcoin thread about one of those early adopters turning away from btc and into alts....
maybe alts should start having USD/EURO/CNY pairings for altcoins, instead of being paired with btc, As bitcoins pretty much bringing down the price on all alts atm, and im tired of alts being tied to btc.
|
|
|
|
The level of having standard anonymity on all transactions in a coin (in my mind) increases the anonymity by as much adoption as the coin has. Instead of the powers that be being able to narrow down trying to track or trace the 5% of transactions that are anonymous they will have to attack the entire userbase to get any information. Boolberry is conservative with standard anonymity: it makes sure all transactions have >1 mixin. Some transactions with Monero are not entirely anonymous (some can have mixin=0). Monero is not a pump and dump. If you look closely at most coins - it's a game. Get in early, create a restriction on supply (in comparison to the availability of early supply) to force the prices up quickly so early holders can dump fast. Throw in some features after you've got your early coins to drive demand.
As far as I know, most coins do not change their supply after starting, and do not have an extremely fast emission. A "pump and dump" is a coin that has been pumped and dumped. Monero has increased in price from 0.0002 BTC to just under 0.01 BTC, and has since fallen to just above 0.002 BTC. A 5000% increase qualifies as a "pump" and a 80% decrease qualifies as a "dump". If Monero is not a pump and dump, then most coins are not pump and dumps so what's your point? If Monero does change its emission like is actually being considered by the MEW, then it is in every way a ridiculously hypocritical pump and dump. BBR made the decision to prune ring signatures. Which if I understand correctly makes it impossible to mathematically prove previous transactions were actually anonymous without the code base (or something along these lines). I 100% want to figure out how to make the blockchain smaller per transaction - but I feel like being conservative about keeping proof of anonymity is a decision that bodes well for the future of the coin.
There is absolutely no evidence that pruning reduces anonymity. Monero didn't get caught in the SuperNET hype. I could be missing something here - I honestly could. But the best I can understand the SuperNET is more like an exchange that is built into the wallet that can use another coins features by triggering two trades. Trade Bitcoindark for BBR -> send BBR to person -> trade back to bitcoindark (someone please correct me if I'm wrong). Based on what I've read on both the SuperNET and the BlockNET I'm 99% certain they are both gimmicks. Both require code implementations into a wallet. It won't bode well for a coin that legitimately has a future - to buy into a gimmick that was created primarily to allow a developer to offload his coin assets to create a demand.
As far as I know the exchange happens behind the scenes so each coin participating can use the features of other coins, e.g. A NXT user uses BBR's anonymity without buying BBR. This requires no change to the protocol of participating coins. Even if SuperNET is a "gimmick" it won't affect Boolberry or its future. To wrap up - I'm fairly confident that if nothing on the cryptocurrency market changes (there are no significant contenders - which I DO BELIEVE there is room for one to come absolutely dominate the market but it would have to be a work of genius) then Monero is the clear winner in the anonymity PoW race. I believe the value crypto is strongly tied to psuedo anonymity & perhaps full anonymity when people discover they can have it.
This is ridiculous sentiment. Monero will be the only CryptoNote with long term success, and will eliminate all the other fair forks of Bytecoin because it was the first fork by less than three weeks? Monero is anything but the clear winner. To point something out, I believe when rdnkjdi is saying "not a pump and dump", he means the coin is not made solely for the purpose of pumping and dumping to gain profit, like many altcoins out there, which is true. While I don't think there's a clear winner, yet, I do believe that Monero is in the top there. There's just....something about BBR that displeases me. (I am not invested in Monero yet, so do not take my words as those of a desperate investor) |
|
|
|
Side-Chains wouldnt matter. You can already build entire currencies ontop the Bitcoin protocol. All side chains do, as another user suggests, is create a monopoly within Bitcoin, and would stop future innovation in cryptocurrencies. That's why I believe side chains wouldn't be popular, people buy alts for a reason, and that's either for p/d, or the belief that their altcoin will eventually overthrow Bitcoin one day given it improves upon Bitcoins many faults.
You can already build entire currencies ontop the Bitcoin protocol -- Currently, no you cannot do that. In order to change something you would need a fork. All side chains do, as another user suggests, is create a monopoly within Bitcoin, and would stop future innovation in cryptocurrencies. -- Side chains allow for all of the innovation of an alt while remaining within the blockchain, so the only thing that is monopolized is the finite number of bitcoins (which is a defining feature of crypto imo). The innovation can still happen just as it would in a pure alt. Ah you're right about, Currently, no you cannot do that. In order to change something you would need a fork. I was really referring to coins like Counterparty that use the Bitcoin blockchain. I need to read up more on side chains, but going by your defintiion, I don't see any incentive at all to add side chains to Bitcoin, there would be no incentive to develop the chain(altcoin). And, I believe altcoins are made to improve upon Bitcoin itself or even outdo Bitcoin eventually, so Bitcoin having a sidechain doesnt seem like a threat... |
|
|
|
In the wake of http://www.blockstream.com/ essentially making sidechains an inevitability - what is the point of holding XMR now? Wont all of the privacy Monero offers be available within the bitcoin blockchain? how? As I understand sidechains, you can essentially utilize all of the functionality of an alt while remaining on the bitcoin blockchain. This therefore removes the need for any alt, including Monero. i see. it is done by hand-waving. it is a familiar technique, which accomplishes much - but it does not accomplish what you suggest. Expecting a serious response to a serious question, but I get trolled. If you are looking to instill confidence in Monero this is not the way to go about it. Side-Chains wouldnt matter. You can already build entire currencies ontop the Bitcoin protocol. All side chains do, as another user suggests, is create a monopoly within Bitcoin, and would stop future innovation in cryptocurrencies. That's why I believe side chains wouldn't be popular, people buy alts for a reason, and that's either for p/d, or the belief that their altcoin will eventually overthrow Bitcoin one day given it improves upon Bitcoins many faults. |
|
|
|
Sir Synechist, Charlie Shrem is saying ALT coins are dead with the new whitepaper on Sidechains. Care to respond to his comments on twitter? If ALT are dead, will the Blocknet host the Sidechains or the other way around  They are going to clone all the innovative alts and make sidechains based on them. The monopoly power of bitcoin will be used to push adoption of these clones and destroy the originals. So they will not only be stealing innovation and destroying equity, their plan will also have a chilling effect on future innovation in this space. Why would a brilliant person develop a new coin only to have it stolen by the monopoly? A sane alternative would be the blocknet, where everyone is free to innovate and compete, but try telling that to bitcoiners. That...That actually makes sense. If Bitcoin sidechains do happen, then there would be no incentive for further innovation to happen in the cryptocurrency world. Blocknet would probably be the solution to that, a way out of the Bitcoin monopoly. |
|
|
|
Sir Synechist, Charlie Shrem is saying ALT coins are dead with the new whitepaper on Sidechains. Care to respond to his comments on twitter? If ALT are dead, will the Blocknet host the Sidechains or the other way around Charlie Shrem was convicted of unlicensed transactions as well as using bitcoin to trade Drugs on silkroad. He's in the same field as Bob Pierce, the alleged child molester. Those former(shrem) and current(pierce) members of the bitcoinfoundation are the last people on earth to listen to. |
|
|
|
Hmm... the more I think about the Blocknet stuff, the more I am growing with uncertainty. Of course, I think it's quite a brilliant project. But is it going to weaken the position of XC? The price drop since the Blocknet announcement reflects that opinion.
Things that concern me are:
- People will be able to use the private transactions of XC via the blocknet
- XBridge which will be open source and used by all the blocknet coins, is based on Xnodes
The more I think about it, the more I would have liked to have seen XC feature more of a central role in the Blocknet.
This Blocknet stuff doesn't seem specially connected to XC anymore than any of the other coins that take part. Or am I misunderstanding? Of course Dan is involved and their is the XBridge, but none of that helps the value of XC.
If I'm missing something, please let me know. Because I'm an XC supporter and follow the XC events fairly closely.
Hey Mr_Random In my opinion, to wonder whether XC is weakens by people using XC's private transactions over the Blocknet is like wondering whether using Google over the internet weakens Google. :-) The Blocknet means a massively increased user-base for XC, the leading privacy service provider. There's no better way than actual usage to spread awareness about a product. And of course Xnodes will get fees for mixing. Again, I agree with mr_random,I believe the coins that are going to play a direct role in the blocknet intially(and that means XC and NHZ from what I could see and prob. others) should be the "core group" of coins. This would create a solid base from those coins that would provide most of what the blocknet would offer initially. |
|
|
|
I mean normal for win 32 from devs. The developers of this coin were the major sponsors of that GUI wallet project. There is nothing wrong with third party wallets. Having multiple wallets to serve different audiences is a good thing. All of the major wallets for Bitcoin are third party, including Electrum, Multibit, Mycelium, Blockchain.info, etc. The developers sponsored it, decided it wasn't good enough and then started making a new one from scratch. The new one has been in development for many months. I took that as an indication of no confidence from the development team. Win 32.....That made me lol. |
|
|
|
TBH there needs to be incentive to get XC to buy blocknet shares.. I see that Dan is most likely leading the project
I can think of no greater incentive than it being Dan's vision, and it being an amazing idea with massive resources. But evidently some people seem not to think the same. Boggles my mind how that's possible, but hey. :-) I mean like offering more than 10%, maybe 12% when using XC to buy blocknet shares. We can't offer any more incentive than other coins. Imagine the trouble that would unleash. :-) How long will the ITO last? What about switching the 10% off between different coins at different times? EX: during the first 8 hours of the IPO, you get 15% off when using XC to buy shares, then after that 8 hours NHZ gets 15% while XC goes back to 10%, etc. I'm just saying there needs to be incentive to get each coin since unlike supernet this wont have a core(centralized?) network coins. |
|
|
|
TBH there needs to be incentive to get XC to buy blocknet shares.. I see that Dan is most likely leading the project
I can think of no greater incentive than it being Dan's vision, and it being an amazing idea with massive resources. But evidently some people seem not to think the same. Boggles my mind how that's possible, but hey. :-) I mean like offering more than 10%, maybe 12% off when using XC to buy blocknet shares. |
|
|
|
|
TBH there needs to be incentive to get XC to buy blocknet shares.. I see that Dan is most likely leading the project
|
|
|
|
What if Darkcoin and XC teamed up, with DRK being part of Blocknet?
Just dump your shitcoins and buy DRK. Your blockhead scam will screw a few idiots out of some BTC then vanish. You know it, I know it. I know very well the entire history of Darkcoin. Please don't go there, as DRK's bad past isn't something that'd you'd want me to get into. For the record I haven't bought XC yet, but I plan to before the ITO simply because if it becomes anything like BTCD's IPO, then I stand to make quite a sum of $. |
|
|
|
It does work, and its not open source for several reasons, including the fact it is the most advanced mixer technology on the marketplace and would be cloned immediately...
Please dont call it the "most advanced mixer technology" when its closed source. If you want that title, open source it, have it scrutinized and present your case to the community. Its claims like this that make investors run away. +1 i think so too. and it really sucks to see the price falling like a stone. maybe the blocknet idea wasn't the best idea at all? i think publishing this idea after REV3 was released would be much better as we lost 30% in just a few days. even most of the coins that joined the blocknet train are nearly worthless Coin - Marketcap - Price change last 7 days APEX - $ 62,861 +225.72 % SSD - $ 126,504 +15.98 % SWIFT - $ 491,164 +13.32 % XST - $ 369,854 +1.69 % NHZ - $ 188,442 -13.81 % UTIL - $ 150,427 +31.07 % FIBRE - $ 190,156 -11.86 % XC - $ 1,942,676 -28.71 % Why were only coins added that are nearly worthless? Why didn't you try to get at least one coin that has a market cap > 1M$? And as it seems nearly all of them increased in price only XC lost dramatically. I think a blocknet would make sense when coins that already have a high marketcap join forces to build something big but this somehow feels like XC is used to bring more value to some useless coins. First of all, you are a moron, "Why were only coins added that are nearly worthless?" - Coins are not added, coins can apply to join. "Why didn't you try to get at least one coin that has a market cap > 1M$?" - You angry cause your investment does not go up fast enough? "And as it seems nearly all of them increased in price only XC lost dramatically." - what does that tells you? "I think a blocknet would make sense when coins that already have a high marketcap join forces to build something big but this somehow feels like XC is used to bring more value to some useless coins." - money money money and money again. Full of morons... Dont be so quick to shoot him down - I think he has made some valid points. By XC associating with other currencies which are "worthless" you can say that the market is reacting by bringing XC down to their level. If all coins are the "same" on blocknet, XC should be worth similar to what the other majority of coins are. I would not be sucked into the marketing hype of "this will increase the user base exponentially".....what if it doesnt?? If I just wanted to use the service of a specific coin why would I not just buy that coin, why go through the need of having to go through the decentralized exchange, potentially get a crap exchange rate, lose money etc. Also, what will happen to the value of XC when other coins fail or dev's go rogue in the blocknet? The failure rate of crypto coins is VERY high. Whats being done is XCs marketcap has been tied to these other coins so if something happens to them, you can expect a knock on effect... I have to agree, which I why I believe that their should be a group of specially chosen coins, or even just XC that form the core base for Blocknet. I also propose different tiers, with XC being the 1st/core coin, and another 2 being on the 2nd tier, etc. |
|
|
|
99% of altcoins are dangerous bet IMO.
And Bitcoin isn't? Honestly, altcoins and bitcoin itself are all dangerous bets. Bitcoin's price from May/June fell by half(from around $600 to around $300 now). But that's the beauty in altcoins, you can make much more $ than you ever could with Bitcoin, and if the altcoin has a reputable team/developers behind it, I'd say it's in close proximity with Bitcoin for "Hodling". |
|
|
|
|
What if Darkcoin and XC teamed up, with DRK being part of Blocknet?
|
|
|
|
|
Quarkcoin, Asiacoin, and Litecoin, probably aren't ever going to go up big again.
Peercoin should be your best bet.
For the record: Asiacoin wasn't launched last year, it was this year(2014), and it turned out to have a hidden premine.
|
|
|
|
|
Such anger. I've made a little under 300 btc from daytrading, holding, and IPO's. The whole point is to make money. Such stupid arguing going on. I actually agree with XC's decision to branch out and develop more features. The altcoin space needs more innovation, nevertheless Competition. I would like to see Blocknet vs Supernet once both are complete.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
