|
Anyone who responds to questions or challenges about coin A with comments about coin B is a scammer, because this is an illogical argument that is being used to mislead observers and therefore fraudulently pump coin A and suck in gullible investor money to continue to prop up the scheme. This applies whatever coins A and B happen to be.
The only exception to this might be if coin B is Bitcoin and the question concerns general blockchain concepts since Bitcoin is the most well-known and understood example.
|
|
|
|
If it weren't for a plethora of scam coins fooling newbies/newcomers and even guys with 2-3 year experience in cryptos, XMR would have had enjoyed lofty high valuations even now. It's a shame that money is always tied up chasing bad decisions and investments, crypto or otherwise.
What I don't understand is where are all the people who lost money on P&Ds? Why do we never hear from them? The problem right now is I only read in this Altcoin Discussion forum about how excited people are about having bought some altcoins low and selling them for multi-baggers. I don't ever hear from the people who lost money. Where are they? Where did they go? To me this is easy to answer. They left the scene altogether. I can tell a personal story here, about some guy I met locally and sold Bitcoins p2p a while back. He told me he was using to buy some hot P&D coin, which was in the process of a moon shot at the time. He bought Bitcoins from me several times, until the P&D coin collapsed. Then I never saw or heard from him again. Without the sordid stories from the losers, everyone thinks it is silly to not try to get rich quick.
The fact that big losers often just quit and become invisible helps perpetuate the game. We're still here, and there are still plenty of P&D scams. But at the same time growth of the crypto community is limited. We chew up and spit out a lot of newcomers. |
|
|
|
Does that make sense? Is Monero the most free market crypto currency right now?
It is a plausible claim. It is certainly true that almost anyone can mine, at worst at a small loss, and in many cases at a small profit. When at a loss, the loss is generally small enough in absolute terms that suggesting people just mine if they support the coin and want it to succeed is not absurd, and some actually do it. The proposed idea of "egalitarian mining" from the white paper seems to have held up reasonable well after two years. It is a loss when you obtain your coins anonymously without needing to exchange through fiat? That is probably worth something extra to some people. Maybe not. Only really useful for small timers if you only need a small amount of coins though. I do think that some newcomers do this to obtain coins in order to be able to experiment, making it a nice onboarding tool (and then they may bother with exchanges if they want to obtain larger amounts later). For larger amounts it is impractical as you would need to become a semi-pro miner to mine enough. Why would being semi-pro diminish your ability to be anonymous? I didn't mean that it would, only that most people won't bother. If you have a strong need, then you might. |
|
|
|
Does that make sense? Is Monero the most free market crypto currency right now?
It is a plausible claim. It is certainly true that almost anyone can mine, at worst at a small loss, and in many cases at a small profit. When at a loss, the loss is generally small enough in absolute terms that suggesting people just mine if they support the coin and want it to succeed is not absurd, and some actually do it. The proposed idea of "egalitarian mining" from the white paper seems to have held up reasonable well after two years. It is a loss when you obtain your coins anonymously without needing to exchange through fiat? That is probably worth something extra to some people. Maybe not. Only really useful for small timers if you only need a small amount of coins though. I do think that some newcomers do this to obtain coins in order to be able to experiment, making it a nice onboarding tool (and then they may bother with exchanges if they want to obtain larger amounts later). For larger amounts it is impractical as you would need to become a semi-pro miner to mine enough. |
|
|
|
|
I don't know what any particular country does, but the idea of countries claiming jurisdiction over those doing business with their own residents, even if the business is located elsewhere is not unique to the US. It is very widespread if not nearly universal. Most countries would not stand up to the US over this not only because the US is powerful and gets away with laws like FACTA and strongarming everyone into MLATs, but just because they want the same powers for themselves. US companies have been on the receiving end here in several high profile cases and probably many smaller ones.
|
|
|
|
Nevermind. When a troll repeatedly insults you, you respond, and people have words for YOU instead of THEM there's something very wrong.
Time to short me some XMR and go check out the competition so I can promote something that doesn't leave a bad taste in my mouth. Keep doing what you're doing, guys. Soon all you'll be left with are morons like Lolikop and wpalczynski.
I guess we can nominate wpalczynski our prophet as his predictions about you whining came true.  Nice show man! I do not know what your aspirations are but I am not the one selling at these price points.
This is directed to no one individual in particular |
|
|
|
I presume XMR's mining is more decentralized since there is yet no ASIC and afaik it is as CPU friendly as GPU in terms hashes per Watt. Given that 65% of Bitcoin's mining is run through Chinese mining pools and within that perhaps a large portion of the hashrate is centralized amongst ASIC mining farms, I assume Bitcoin's market float is more manipulated than Monero's.
How "decentralized" the mining actually is would be hard to know. There are certainly some big miners, but they don't seem to shut out small timers. We can only infer much of it from indirect indicators such as newcomers who join the community and mine. Old timers probably mine some too, even if if not professional miners. I don't mine much any more but I have a computer or two I leave going. Mostly this doesn't happen with Bitcoin although some old timers do run semi-obsolete ASICs at a loss on principle (though mine are fully shut down). This gives the whole Monero mining scene a very long-tail feel to it. Botnets exist but claims of rampant massive botnets have always been doubtful to me, and I worked out some numbers in a recent post on this thread that supported reasonably strongly that it is unlikely. Small botnets (putting aside ethical issues of botting) add to decentralization. Does that make sense? Is Monero the most free market crypto currency right now?
It is a plausible claim. It is certainly true that almost anyone can mine, at worst at a small loss, and in many cases at a small profit. When at a loss, the loss is generally small enough in absolute terms that suggesting people just mine if they support the coin and want it to succeed is not absurd, and some actually do it. The proposed idea of "egalitarian mining" from the white paper seems to have held up reasonable well after two years. |
|
|
|
It's just an externality that can change at any given time. I guess it's only a problem if you for some reason believe sha256 will not be commoditized. The fact that energy costs keep becoming an ever higher percentage of the price per Bitcoin instead of hardware seems like it won't be a problem.
I see no evidence of that. In the GPU mining era, there was no extraordinarily efficient mining as there is now with the most efficient ASICs. All Bitcoins had approximately the same energy input. Now there a steep curve between the least efficient but still-viable ASICs and the most efficient. The area above that curve is missing energy. As far as I can tell the energy density of Bitcoin has decreased. I calculated the upfront hardware costs vs energy costs as a percentage of 1 Bitcoin between when that big Spoondoolies unit was originally released and also around a year or so before it. You are citing as a data source a vaporware miner that was never shipped to customers and may not even exist. With better analysis you will find that I am correct. I do agree this it may happen at some time in the future. When I don't know, but not yet. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1390781.0 |
|
|
|
If it is not a scam for the devs to be pulling a xcoin/dark kind of captive instamine then explain clearly why it is not a scam to be doing so.
Disclosure: i mined both before and after the relaunch. I have a small chunk converted to VESTS now. The only reason I consider this less of a scam is that the developer was up front about it being information-restricted and manipulated by him for his benefit from the very beginning. There was no "fair launch" in the sense of making everything available to everyone easily at the very same time, but there was also no pretense of a fair launch. if you go back to the original pre-relaunch thread, the post was very clear about it being explicitly "unfair": Complaints
There are many common complaints/conspiracies about STEEM that we want to address up front:
1. We know that our announcement could be vague and create a barrier to entry for those who cannot code
2. We have mined the vast majority of blocks thus far and we do not attempt to hide it
3. We have mined using forum names so that we can give those names to their rightful owners
4. We have mined to register accounts with popular boy and girl names because they might have extra value some day
5. We know that many here may chose to avoid or not mine STEEM simply because of how it was launched, that is your choice.
If you do not like how STEEM was launched please move on.
I tend to agree with Eclipse Crypto that he probably did get screwed, and the reason he got screwed is he treated it as something vaguely like a fair launch where he could go and mine a lot of coins and get away with it. By contrast, although I also have access to essentially-infinite mining power, I recognized that this coin was set up as unfair from the start, and if one wants to participate at all, one is better off doing so as a minority partner and not directly challenging the developer. 1) Never outshine the master
|
|
|
|
3. Did that guy lose any money, or more specifically did Evan rip him off in some way?
If he bought post-launch, he bought at 0.000025 per BTC. Price in mid April 2014 was around 100 times as much. If he waited a few more days, his money would be another 5x at least (500x). Where did he lose money? How did Evan rip him off? I call bullshit.
I don't know if that guy lost money but clearly there are many people have been scammed by Dash and have lost money, most notably those who bought on the initial pump up to about 0.0267, a price which has not been reached since, but also on later pumps. When you create a coin with narrowly distributed supply from the start due to highly concentrated mining, further restrict the supply with mining reward and total supply cuts and masternode incentives (along with redirecting almost half of the already-cut mining rewards to masternode holders), then fuel that with deceptive and misleading statements (including the claim that the unstained coins were "redistributed", which Evan now acknowledges is not true, since he claims that to be his "startup equity"), along with other spin and pumping from the lead dev and a crew of shills, the result is certainly going to be unsustainable pumps to high prices which cause investors to lose money. The sad part is, you are still doing it. |
|
|
|
Why don't you take a look at your Monero which WAS CODED INTENTIONALLY AS A SCAM with an INTENTIONALLY CRIPPLED MINING CODE, so that some SCAMMERS could mine multiple times what naive miners were mining.
Because first of all no one involved with Monero now (which is a fork of the coin that was coded as a scam, from which the crippled code was quickly removed, limiting its impact to a few percent at most, unlike Dash's 30% instamine) had anything to do with it, unlike Dash where Evan and most of the instaminers are still out there shilling it today. Second, because it had minimal impact because steady long term mining distribution has the effect of reducing the impact of any short term issues on launch as in Monero or Litecoin (which is exactly why Dash's instamine, being the opposite, was so catastrophic). And finally, because prominent Moneroers, certainly including myself and fluffypony among them, are on record repeatedly telling people not to buy Monero unless they are extreme speculators who are comfortable with the fact they will likely lose money. No one is continuing to try to rope in investors with spin and misleading statements and shifting stories about whether the instamine was redistributed or held by insiders as an incentive (reframing it now a "good thing"), unlike Dash. By contrast, in addition to continued misleading statements about the instamine and the role of current leaders and insiders, Evan posted technical analysis telling people how great it was to buy Dash (EDIT: quoted below -- read for yourself, if that isn't transparent pumping, i don't know what is) at the same time it was later disclosed he was privately selling it. And finally because it is off topic. In what brain dead logic does bringing up other coins like Litecoin or Monero serve as a defense of Dash's massive instamine scam, and of the ongoing shilling and pumping and spinning to suck even more investors into it?. But here's more evidence of AlexGR's continued participation, instead of throwing in the towel and finally allowing the scam to collapse, preventing even more investors from being scammed. Well done, AlexGR. I'm seeing all sorts of stuff happening in the charts all at once, which is a great sign when you see a bunch of bullish formations at once. This is how I used to day trade for my firm back in the day. The general idea here is you go from the shortest time period, then you walk out to the longest. If you see bullish or bearish signals in all of the charts at once, it's quite meaningful. Here's what I'm seeing: On the really short term chart, there's a triple top:  Moving averages are crossing as we speak, so momentum is changing from negative to positive: If you step out a bit, It looks like we're going to cross in a couple days, for a much more meaningful MA If we break above 0.011, I believe this was a false breakdown When trading, there's also a couple other things to consider: - The order book on the buy side, which is quite nice. - Then there's the fundamental side for the trade ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0GACaNvBlwc, The budget system and governance system? Plus everything we're about to do) Away, that was fun.... back to coding |
|
|
|
I recently answered on another thread: Anyone who bought Dash on the basis, in whole or part, of misleading statements from Evan or the others and then lost money has been scammed.
Prime among those are the ones to whom the instaminers dumped their coins during the initial pump up to 0.0267, a price which has not be reached again in two years. That not only funded the project, it likely put a lot of money straight into insiders' pockets. Subsequent pumps and prices inflated by continued double-talk and spin from Evan and others have only added to their ranks. |
|
|
|
|
@ dewdeded
MEW is defunct. No willing organizers or leadership existed. Funding was returned to members.
If you think an organization is needed to promote the initiatives identified in your post or others, you will need to create a new one.
Anyone can do this.
|
|
|
|
Most people don't even realize Bitcoin has it's own decentralized exchange, but it does.
Which only 0.001% of the population can participate in profitably. And it ceases roughly 2033 or unless transaction fees scale up but there is a Tragedy of the Commons dilemma there as well. It doesn't really even matter if it's profitable or not. You can define Bitcoin in one sentence: The purpose of mining is to create a permanent two way peg, decentralized exchange, which thus results in a permissionless system.The economic incentives are a side issue, but seem to work thus far. It's designed to bounce back and forth between profitable and unprofitable. The fact that it's deflationary creates a time opportunity cost reward to generally remain profitable over the long haul. You missed the point entirely. Only 0.001% have the economies-of-scale to mine Bitcoin profitably. Sorry your argument fails on the economics of proof-of-work hash functions, unless you can argue there is one that can't be significantly optimized for an ASIC and economies-of-scale for cheaper electricity located next to utility scale hydropower (even free electricity perhaps if you do a handshake and wink in China with a Communist Party official). R0ach's argument is valid, to a point. Even if only 0.001% can mine (hypothetical number of course) then 70000 can mine (importantly, as independent entities), enough to create a competitive market. If you believe the number is even much smaller than that, as I suggest has been the case with ASIC mining, then there may not be a competitive market and his argument fails (with respect to Bitcoin at least). Satoshi's design makes the marginal miner lose relative share of the hashrate over time due to reinvest of profits, because they are less profitable, so the ultimate end game is only the miners with the lowest costs. In a normal market, the marginal producers are more nimble and can respond to changes in the market more quickly and thus they are always regenerated. But Satoshi's design is static and the marginal miners have no competitive advantage in order to sustain their existence. QED. As r0ach correctly pointed out, it is dynamic and there is always give and take. A particular marginal miner my drop out but another will take his place. Costs are always changing. Even political connections with a corrupt local official in China can disappear at a moments notice with one bullet. Nor does China have a monopoly on corruption, so cheap electricity appears elsewhere. The cycle continues. |
|
|
|
Until Evan makes FULL DISCLOSURE of the truth, then he is scammer. There is no other valid sentiment.
Even if disclosure were made now, there have been two years of deception, obfuscation, and spin (not only by Evan but by the other useful idiots like AlexGR who, assuming no more explicit involvement, got in early and allowed themselves to be recruited by their own greed as accomplices). That can't be erased from history any more than MtGox would cease to be a scam if Karpeles showed up and told us the missing coins, that he misled people about for possibly years, was all just a big accident. Anyone who bought Dash on the basis, in whole or part, of misleading statements from Evan or the others and then lost money has been scammed.Thus a correction is needed: Evan Duffield, along with AlexGR and the rest of the Dash shills who continue to scam investors (DASH) |
|
|
|
Most people don't even realize Bitcoin has it's own decentralized exchange, but it does.
Which only 0.001% of the population can participate in profitably. And it ceases roughly 2033 or unless transaction fees scale up but there is a Tragedy of the Commons dilemma there as well. It doesn't really even matter if it's profitable or not. You can define Bitcoin in one sentence: The purpose of mining is to create a permanent two way peg, decentralized exchange, which thus results in a permissionless system.The economic incentives are a side issue, but seem to work thus far. It's designed to bounce back and forth between profitable and unprofitable. The fact that it's deflationary creates a time opportunity cost reward to generally remain profitable over the long haul. You missed the point entirely. Only 0.001% have the economies-of-scale to mine Bitcoin profitably. Sorry your argument fails on the economics of proof-of-work hash functions, unless you can argue there is one that can't be significantly optimized for an ASIC and economies-of-scale for cheaper electricity located next to utility scale hydropower (even free electricity perhaps if you do a handshake and wink in China with a Communist Party official). R0ach's argument is valid, to a point. Even if only 0.001% can mine (hypothetical number of course) then 70000 can mine (importantly, as independent entities), enough to create a competitive market. If you believe the number is even much smaller than that, as I suggest has been the case with ASIC mining, then there may not be a competitive market and his argument fails (with respect to Bitcoin at least). |
|
|
|
It's just an externality that can change at any given time. I guess it's only a problem if you for some reason believe sha256 will not be commoditized. The fact that energy costs keep becoming an ever higher percentage of the price per Bitcoin instead of hardware seems like it won't be a problem.
I see no evidence of that. In the GPU mining era, there was no extraordinarily efficient mining as there is now with the most efficient ASICs. All Bitcoins had approximately the same energy input. Now there a steep curve between the least efficient but still-viable ASICs and the most efficient. The area above that curve is missing energy. As far as I can tell the energy density of Bitcoin has decreased. |
|
|
|
There is a new fix that replaced sweep_dust with sweep_unmixable. It is in master, so you will need to either try building your own non-release or wait for the next update.
It's not just sweep_dust, my wallet balance is 233 and I am unable to move them: transfer_new 2 44pFi8kPVuyeuGMYSUctVB1RMHyf6W8W7SNYTcmRWCrGcCTeA2xv68qiXUAvfuP3dNTnDuHFj8x8viY gzjo9cDZm7bysCV3 230 Error: not enough outputs for specified mixin_count = 2: output amount = 0.000409493368, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.002414704633, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.003717045132, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.003606717702, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.009650623277, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.006665032337, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.009533575300, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.004791355170, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.002659999878, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.009310307244, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 13.710000000000, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.001342661501, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.000803378292, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.004706702380, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.008922997310, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.007809272310, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.003133238788, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.005944119888, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.009974389276, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.001947352563, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.009374052943, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.007383043021, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.002457197904, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.009857052484, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.007818049378, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.008702140695, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.000331096140, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.002760541350, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.005597569951, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.008160421065, found outputs to mix = 1 output amount = 0.008662205823, found outputs to mix = 1 refresh Starting refresh... Refresh done, blocks received: 59 Balance: 233.062914014341, unlocked balance: 233.062914014341, including unlocked dust: 1.442914014341 Doesn't work with mixin 0 neither Obviously those crazy amounts are unmixable, so mixin 2 won't work. You would have to find the exact same amount on the blockchain to mix with, and that won't happen. Mixin 0 general doesn't work, except for sweep_dust/sweep_unmixable. And sweep_dust doesn't work well and is replaced with sweep_unmixable, so see above. |
|
|
|
|
There is a new fix that replaced sweep_dust with sweep_unmixable. It is in master, so you will need to either try building your own non-release or wait for the next update.
|
|
|
|
so with the stardard interest do you only get 5% apr ...... and with the term you get the bonus interest 1000% +
No. You get the standard interest (about 5%) no matter what. You also get the bonus interest no matter what, which is well over 5% now and continues until it runs out gradually over about two years. You also get the term bonus if you lock for a term. Your coins need to be moved every 30 days to keep earning interest, but not if they are locked for a term. also want to confirm the max compounding rate is 30 days ? so it is best to keep making 30 day term then lock it away for a No it is not. The maximum term bonus is for one year. Read the OP. ok thanks how much better it the Term bonus then just leaving it in my wallet? is there a comparison You will end up with many more coins by locking for a term. just wonder if it better to lock away for 12 months , then leave it in my wallet and sell it when the price goes up in 6 months  No one can answer what is "better" because the future price of the coin is unknown. You will have to apply your own judgement. also is there any way to unlock a term deposit ( even if you lose the interest ? penalty? ) No also do you lock the interest rate at the current price if you get a term deposit ? Yes you get the current rate (plus bonuses) for the entire term. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
