If we advocate Bitcoin (read: crypto e-cash) becoming a critical system, how can we not also advocate multiple redundant backup systems?
Your "LTC as a backup" argument has never made sense to me. LTC would fail as a backup because it offers no security balance, and will suffer the same hypothetical fate as its bigger brother. Think about it: if the bitcoin network were suddenly brought to its knees, how would anyone be safer in LTC? AEON backing up XMR is equally absurd. I also mentioned BBR/XCN as possible/logical XMR backups, yet you pointedly failed to mention them. Any reason for that omission? Sorry, I can't parse "security balance" or understand why such a thing would overrule the market, which has put the upper bound of LTC value at something over $30 each and consistently awards LTC a market cap in the $100s of millions. LTC uses a different blockchain and proof-of-work and github (etc) than BTC; why wouldn't it be safer when BTC black-swans? Were you here that time BTC has an itsy-bitsy little chain fork and LTC instantly absorbed the FUD? I was, and so were a lot of other people. We're not going to forget that, no matter how impressively many zeros BTC adds to its uptime. Then there is the fact many (especially in China) see BTC and LTC as Coke and Pepsi. They don't need to understand my "LTC as a backup argument" because they don't even see LTC as an altcoin. Since you can't tell us how Bitcoin is going to fail, please don't presume to also assert that unknown, theoretical failure mode would necessarily be occupied by Litecoin or any (non-merged-mined) altcoin as well. |
|
|
|
I'd rather celebrate XMR's victories than cast aspersions on LTC's viability. We don't need to tear BTC/LTC down to raise XMR up. It's not zero sum. The crypto pie is growing so fast that all legit/useful/innovative projects may have a nicely sized slice.
This is where it gets interesting. At some point that pie will stop growing so fast. And by pie I don't necessarily mean market cap (as that at least did a long-pause if not a stop in 2013) but applications, use cases, and district community approaches to it. And at that point we will reach a consolidation phase, and then I think there will be actual coin failures (failures not necessarily in a technical sense, but economically and socially people will just abandon coins that don't make the cut). Consolidation (ie culling the weak from the herd) started years ago and never stopped. RIP Tenebrix, IXcoin, Paycoin, and Neucoin. All basically stillborn or pan flashers that were never in the top or at least not for much time. Old leaders fail too. Think Pan Am, Hostess, Sears. Those weren't even tech, where you might consider innovation and disruption. There you have Blackberry, Atari, Wang, AOL, and countless others. The crypto pie will grow astronomically faster In that case it won't happen for a while, but it will still happen. Yes, the Lindy effect strongly tends to protect incumbent technologies (eg big box store shopping and video games) much more than particular individual firms (eg Sears and Atari), until it doesn't.  I'm reminded of the tectonic metaphor often used to describe the decay of the Roman Republic into Empire as happening " gradually, then all at once." (Cite needed; sorry I'm a terribly lazy scholar.) Where do you see crypto as crossing its Rubicon of disruption into the hollowed out Marches of Fiat power vacuum? (I'm asking in good faith, not trying to set you up for a 'Gotcha! LOOL!' if you're a bit off or even completely wrong.) If pressed, I'd pick as the least arbitrary line of demarcation the moment when the market cap(s) of BTC+XMR exceeds that of gold+silver. |
|
|
|
You can clearly see icey's (and some of the other trolls) decay into madenss lately.
The insipid bitterness they display towards DASH rather than being happy for the success of their own coin is amazing. Then not so amazing when you understand that they and the cohort of group accounts which are used for FUD part of an organised effort to destabilised any perceived rival.
Maidsafecoin has been a target in more recent times. "Insipid bitterness" is an oxymoron. Something can be insipid or bitter, but not both (with the notable exception of improperly prepared eggplant). I understand your embarrassingly aspirational need to match my vocabulary, but please learn to dictionary before attempting to do so. And the phrase which you clumsily failed to grasp is 'decent into madness' (not "decay"). You'll need to read several thousand more books and periodicals if you intend to exceed my powers of erudition and articulation. Sorry if that upsets you.  If English is not your native language, I'm happy to be your tutor and recommend primary sources. First, read everything Shakespeare wrote. I am happy for the success of my "own coin." But that joy will not preclude me from crying fraud when I see Dash's fraud, for such an act of neglect would make me (or at least imply I am) a fraud. |
|
|
|
Send them to bitcoin address where you have the private key from.
But But But...  Bitcoin addresses are not private and easily linkable and traceable. SABR is the latest generously funded firm which intends to do nothing else but that (blockchain analysis). Why does an ostensibly anon-centric system like MAID use radically transparent, non-fungible BTC's host ledger for its parasitic quasi-coin? That doesn't make sense. Since an adversary can track your SafeCoins, they can track what you do with them on the Maid network. Why doesn't SafeCoin use an opaque blockchain such as Monero's? Are Maid devs intentionaly building a honey pot, or merely incompetent? |
|
|
|
I'd rather celebrate XMR's victories than cast aspersions on LTC's viability. We don't need to tear BTC/LTC down to raise XMR up. It's not zero sum. The crypto pie is growing so fast that all legit/useful/innovative projects may have a nicely sized slice.
This is where it gets interesting. At some point that pie will stop growing so fast. And by pie I don't necessarily mean market cap (as that at least did a long-pause if not a stop in 2013) but applications, use cases, and district community approaches to it. And at that point we will reach a consolidation phase, and then I think there will be actual coin failures (failures not necessarily in a technical sense, but economically and socially people will just abandon coins that don't make the cut). Consolidation (ie culling the weak from the herd) started years ago and never stopped. RIP Tenebrix, IXcoin, Paycoin, and Neucoin. Congrats to LTC, PPC, NMC, and XPM. Honorable mention to NVC and participation ribbon to FTH. The crypto pie will grow astronomically faster (think early inflationary universe feed by false vacuum energy) to quadrillions of times its present magnitude before it slows down. The post-exponential-expansion quiescence/stability doesn't occur until after fiat is disrupted, the BIS is razed and turned into a memorial garden for the victims of warfare/welfare statism, and we get bored of partying in the desert around Monero Mountain. There is so much low hanging fruit, ripe for disruption, as Bitcoin and Monero turn finance into a software problem (and ETH does the same for governance/arbitration/regulation), I don't even try to think of post-Cryptopia specifics that far ahead, because they exist in stable basins of attraction several chaotic quantum leaps beyond the present. Thus being deterministic, but not computable. |
|
|
|
Litecoin as "blue-chip" coin. lol, #timestamp
... Theory is nice, but when the theory doesn't match reality, adjust the theory. ... Or make a wager with people who have different theories. I believe I offered such a bet to Smoothie a while back, when LTC was trading >0.01BTC if memory serves. And FWIW - I consider the crypto-markets to be extremely immature, to the point where it's still very difficult to discern signal from noise looking over the entire history to date. Thus I'm certainly not abandoning theory at this point. Feel free to quote this in >5 years if Litecoin as a "blue chip" isn't obviously ridiculous by then. On a related note, it's been a theory of mine (and many others') for years that Bitcoin would remain strong in the face of alt-coin competition due in part to the idea that Bitcoin could and would adopt good innovations from the alt-space. But this is a theory that I'm listening to the conflicting data on, and am not so sure about any more, as Core dev and their narrow-minded high-hashrate supporters show that perhaps Bitcoin really isn't as strong and anti-fragile as I'd believed. From my perspective, Bitcoin has remained strong, even considering recent events. There has just been room for other coins to thrive as well. Pretty much what iCEBREAKER said about the crypto pie growing rapidly, where once slice becoming bigger does not make another slice smaller. If your theory was that Bitcoin was just going to streamroller over all other communities and simply assimilate all innovation and market development, well that theory does need some reexamination (and LTC is very much valid evidence for this not happening, among others of course), at least so far. If we advocate Bitcoin (read: crypto e-cash) becoming a critical system, how can we not also advocate multiple redundant backup systems? This logic is almost universally applied to gold and silver in terms of fiat, AEON and BBR/XDN in terms of Monero, generators and batteries in terms of COLOs/hospitals, etc. When appeals to argumentum ad Las Vegas wagering are made, we may take that as indication Melbustus' mind is made up and does not wish to be confused with facts, whether empirical or analytical. When his theory doesn't match reality, he'd rather move the goalposts 5 years into the future than check his (obviously flawed) premises.  Le sigh. I suppose we should welcome the LTC and BTC obituary writers into our ever-expanding Monero tent, as an auspicious sign of our community's growing diversity. Who else is ready to lean into Monero's Eternal September? I'll throw the first handful of dirt on our little Golden Age of Wild & Free Mustang Enlightenment...AP can carry the torch from here.  On a side note, I can't believe Smoothie is being so nice about the LTC smack talk! I guess he's in a good mood, what with the XMR moon and all. Or there's more drama/history to the wager than Mel alluded to....   |
|
|
|
Ridiculing scams like Dash is great fun and a public service, but I speculate we don't need to write obituaries for legitimate pure-proof-of-work blue-chip coins in order to promote our own.
I don't think he's promoting XMR by expressing skepticism about LTC. I felt the same way about LTC, for much the same reasons, before XMR existed, and he probably did too. Obviously I was wrong back then, in the sense that LTC is still here. OK, so what have you learned from being spectacularly wrong about LTC for so many years? How has that new information changed your assuredly well-informed and rigorously logical opinion? Healthy skepticism about other coins in the XMR speculation thread is one thing. Making the eleventy-millionth 'zomg LTC is totes useless and will die Soon amirite' post only invites others to bring up the digressive usual points about CNY/LTC volume, the desirability of redundant backups for critical systems, and overflow capacity for price/time sensitive use cases. I'd rather celebrate XMR's victories than cast aspersions on LTC's viability. We don't need to tear BTC/LTC down to raise XMR up. It's not zero sum. The crypto pie is growing so fast that all legit/useful/innovative projects may have a nicely sized slice. |
|
|
|
in Litecoin's case, on "me too" tech that offers nothing to the ecosystem You mean like how a hospital's secondary (backup) and tertiary (failsafe) generators are "me too" tech that offer nothing to the doctors and patients inside? LTC stays in the 9 figure range because it works, and a 'generation' of (Chinese) bitcoiners were introduced to both at the same time. LTC is the one made by a super-smart Chinese-American guy from a very successful family, which doesn't hurt at all for PR purposes.... And you are literally wrong, because LTC's additional tps capacity is next in line to absorb marginal use cases priced out (or timed out) of BTC. Ridiculing scams like Dash is great fun and a public service, but I speculate we don't need to write obituaries for legitimate pure-proof-of-work blue-chip coins in order to promote our own. |
|
|
|
can you explain to me the point of blocking withdrawals for 3 days just because I activated 2FA? If anything, enabling 2FA should allow you to withdraw more quickly. Why penalize users for taking more responsibility in helping with security? Disabling (or lack of) 2FA should trigger a waiting period, not doing the opposite. Just stick with Polo. No reason to support such a ridiculous policy. And Polo has lending markets, which often provide interest rates higher than Masternodes. |
|
|
|
Never heard of this, so I had a look: Exchange Summary
Total Markets: 1535
Total Trades(24 hours): 3938 Haven't heard of 90% of the coins listed either. Not that I look much at that stuff, but still. Trading XMR would likely blow the top right off the exchange. One bot would increase their volume by an order of magnitude  I commend the initiative and effort, but can't recommend an exchange that -puts new listings up for a vote, then utterly fails to act on the results (cough, Craptsy, cough) -says XMR is a priority in Oct 2015 and still needs to be gently nudged 6 months later (Craptsy did that) -supports 1500 shitcoins but can't bother with an innovative/fairly launched/top 10 coin (more shades of Craptsy) -needs hand-holding tech support from (potential?) customers to sort their backend (I expect an exchange to know more than I do) -only provides updates (in the form of lame/implausible excuses) on the previously promised pair when prompted by inquiry |
|
|
|
Does anyone in here actually use EXMO?
I only have troubles and stress with them so far (KYC a nightmare, DASH withdrawal blocked for 3 days because I had changed something in my profile and I use 2FA (!) and now they lost a EUR deposit). Sorry you're having such a bad time over there. There is no logical reason why the price would be higher on an exchange with tiny overall volume than on one with massive overall volume. EXMO is probably just the new Livecoin. It does not Seem Legit ®. Dash price is being artificially boosted there in a transparent attempt to encourage arbitrage, and (more importantly) a shift in volume from Polo. It's not going to work any more than the lulzy failure of Dashcurex. |
|
|
|
Cryptsy really sucks.
Cryptsy is one of the best exchanges out there. one of the best exchanges....at failing! |
|
|
|
As if that wasn't bad/lulzy enough... |
|
|
|
Lots of dumping today, but price has barely moved.
It wasn't that long ago when dumping this much would have crashed the market completely.
Some people might be nervous about the upcoming fork. Assuming it happens without any major problems I think the market may respond positively! Much of the dumping may be assumed to be shorts gambling with borrowed XMR. Lending rates are even higher than BTC's (the usual highwater benchmark). That's tens of thousands of coins which must be repurchased and repaid with not-insignificant interest. The success of the hard fork and Shen's latest groundbreaking work on adding multi-sig to RingCT, along with his spiffy MiniNero remote GUI thingy, should provided fuel for our rocket's ascent beyond 0.004. The ATH >1k unique views on /r/monero is also a nice barometer indicating an ongoing/upcoming storm of interest and possible gains. |
|
|
|
ZOMG, A NEW WHINY RAGE-QUIT. THIS IS GENTLEMAN! Very disappointing article from Slush. My hands just drop, perhaps this is the beginning of the end of the Bitcoin experiment for me, too. The excitement about the future, the limitless possibilities, it's all just been turning to ash lately. I've moved my meager hash to F2pool for the time being, and will be selling all the hardware soon. For the first time since 2011, I won't be participating in this upgrade cycle. I just can't, in good conscience, have a meaningful portion of my net worth tied up in something I think is on the wrong track. |
|
|
|
http://www.newsbtc.com/2016/03/21/first-global-credit-ceo-gavin-smith-on-bitcoin/NewsBTC: Despite being a famous company in Bitcoin space, you have remained quite calm on Bitcoin block size issue? How do you see the current scenario?Gavin: My view on this is very different to that of Brian Armstrong. I believe that, providing the timetable is maintained, the proposal by the core developers to introduce Segregated Witness followed by a blocksize increase in 2017 after extensive testing is the correct approach. Brian Armstrong’s view is based on how his company uses bitcoin. They need to complete a large number of what can be very small transactions. He is less concerned about bitcoin as a store of value, for him it’s all about the transaction fee. His willingness to propose rapid change, with what I and many others consider inadequate time for testing might keep transaction throughput cheap and efficient, but I feel is imprudent. First Global Credit, on the other hand, is striving to build a capital market around digital currencies in general and bitcoin in particular. Therefore, we prefer an approach that ensures the hard fork is carefully tested and adequate time is taken to ensure the change doesn’t have unexpected consequences that adversely impact bitcoin as a store of value – we believe the proposal by the Core team meets this objective.
Did you notice any funny volume fluctuations on your platform during the recent FUD against Bitcoin?One thing that has been a constant in the Bitcoin space is the disinformation spread by the mainstream media about its viability. I think it’s a shame that some within the community have now started adopting the same tactics to promote their own agenda but I guess that’s to be expected when corporates start to get involved.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
