It's my understanding that various compression schemes have been looked into and rejected, it's most likely that his code didn't break any new ground or worse opened up new DoS vectors. Failing that if it required a hard fork then it would defiantly be something for the back burners.

Hi, I bought about 2000 maidsafe coins a week ago and now if I sell I will make 0.11 btc profit I could have invested more btc into it but there's no point in regrets. The price of MAID seems to keep going up. Will it keep going up or go down?

I'm on the fence about dash.  I own some, not much, but I kinda like to hear the Dash skeptics speak.  I don't necessarily see this as FUD, just the cons part of pros & cons. 

Is Dash actually used anywhere?  I know that's a whole different discussion.

This is a good idea.  I think once Monero gets a better following then perhaps a bounty could be put up for setting up some basic node guidelines and maybe 6 initial nodes around the world could be set up. Strict guidelines for how they should be set up and updated should be established by the core dev team.  Question is who is going to pay for it.  Perhaps once more transaction fees are generated on the network then a small portion of that could be used to set up, establish and maintain some nodes around the world.  These nodes would be overseen by perhaps some of the devs or appointed trusted folks involved with Monero development.  Keep in mind I'm just thinking as i type so some of these ideas might not work.  I think BTC should have used a small portion of the transaction fees to establish better node integrity. If they had they might not be having the issues they have now with slow the transactions.  I realize Monero is very private currency but if a trusted committee oversaw these nodes it might build better network transaction backbone over the long haul.  Just a thought.  

Don't want to get to centralized but Monero has shown to be community supported and some small thing like nodes are something to seriously consider in the future especially if BTC users start using XMR for privacy.  After all using some funds to keep a basic network up 24/7 isn't encroaching on anyone's privacy and some of the developers out there might could use a well known established trusted node for their development projects.

This is an alt-coin. The Maidsafecoin can be changed to Safecoin when Safecoin goes live on the network. So you send you Maidsafecoin to an addres to burn, and Maidsafe (the company) will give you Safecoin on the system. So now we have 500 milj. Safecoin, what's next??

Well, as explained by @jibble Safecoins are created when someone delivers requested data out of his Vault to the network. So user A does a request for a Chunk ( a GET) and the Vault that holds the chunks will get that request (actually it's close nodes get the request). So when that node delivers that chunk (again, through it's close nodes) a Farming Request is done. So the close nodes will pick a random Safecoin address and when it's not owned, they sign it to the node that stored the Chunks and provided it to the network (to user A). And when 50% of all Safecoins are farmed (will take a very long time) half of all the Farming requests will fail because the address is already owned by a user.

Surfing/downloading data will probably be free on the network. But when you want to upload (PUT) data you ask your close nodes to do it for you. They say; okay, we will, but first you need to buy space using Safecoin. So you remove some ownership of Safecoin (the address that is) and that address (Safecoin) is now free to be farmed by a Farmer when his nodes pick this address at random. The address was owned but got free because someone uploaded data to the network. So Safecoins are recycled in a way an can only be created when people Farm (deliver data to the network). No POW or POS is needed. Well, the "proof of work" is that you got a request for a chunk out of your Vault and you delivered it to the network. Your group of close nodes (again, you can't pick your own group in XOR) will make sure you can't threat.

Read this topic to understand how you join the network and go from IP-level to XOR. It's quite magic if you ask me.

With the recent DDOS attack on specifically the bitcoin classic nodes, I wonder how much of a weak spot such an attack is on Monero.

Monero currently has +/- 150 nodes. So significantly less in numbers. Would such an attack be feasible? And what would happen if such an attack would last for some time?

I can as well imagine a scenario that most nodes are under attack, except the potential malicious one of the attacker.

There's no blockchain so the only thing left is something called "ownership". It's ownership of a 512-bit address. When you own Safecoin you actually own an address. And to change ownership from 1 person to the other, you sign a message getting rid of your coin and sign it over to another address. Your close group in XOR will confirm if you indeed are the owner. So they sign it as well, next to some other groups (I think about 100 nodes in total). So now the next node (or no node) owns that address. It has some groups signed it. The security comes from the fact that in XOR your close nodes don't know your IP-address. Only your relay-node does. But your relay-node just connects you to a group in XOR. You connect to the group using PKI so your relay-node knows your IP but not what you do in XOR. So when a group looks at a Safecoin address all they see is it was owned by "JfgjvkjVTFkgkhgfHTFHKGFkhgfk" and is now owned by "VVYTrytFtGHJVJHKJhjHJHJHJHJHJH".

All the encryption layers for SAFEnet

this seems like good stuff, what's your take on it iCEBREAKER?

does Core have or plan to have this?

i will try to explain

They are on the network and exist , the only data field is who owns it, cryptographically secured , having to reach consensus and cryptographic proof to change ownership , this because it isn't actually transferred anywhere, the coins are always in the same place, you only need to change the ownership field with 1 line of code, allow for instant transactions , from what i read , i think it requires more than 1 group of nodes to come to consensus to change ownership, so not only 1 group of 28 out of 32 agreeing , but 4-6 different groups of nodes all coming to consensus and agreeing which should be possible to happen in milliseconds usually. This also means that if someone was somehow able to control a single group of nodes they are unable to do anything dangerous or damaging to the system just sort of temporarily troll it, this is infinitely harder to do as the network gets larger.

What about this article?  I think it deserves a mention here also because it points out some of the concerns of those not directly involved in its development but who might hold an interest in the scalability.  I found it pretty interesting and germane to this discussion.

http://www.nasdaq.com/article/mit-media-lab-director-joi-ito-speaks-up-on-bitcoin-technical-development-environment-cm585158

Borrowed from this thread:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1377654.0

Only in your fanciful hyperreality does "miners can't mint 1m coins == miners have little to no power"

Speaking of shorts, it looks like our mystery shorter dumped 3000 more borrowed coins and may be placing some of that imposing sell wall.  
  
At this point they may be 'pot committed' and will get liquidated at an increasingly narrower margin of error.  They will continue to pile shorted coins on to avert the loss, digging their hole deeper and deeper until the slightest buying pressure creates a titanic liquidation of their position.  
  
Mystery shorter, you are playing a dangerous game.  Good luck, and I hope you will recover from the impending loss in time.

Here is the XMR/DASH price chart from the last 100 days:

[Fonzie_shark_cliche.jpg]

wrong. satoshi's "consensus-forming process" is PoW a.k.a. hashpower. what we are seeing now is nothing else than the miners trying to find a mutual solution before they make eventually use of their power, which is totally fine and a sign of respect.

It is a common misperception that Bitcoin miners determine the shape of the blockchain. So common, in fact, that I had an academic colleague fall into the same trap, where he thought miners could arbitrarily decide to mint 1 million coins for themselves.

@petertoddbtc

@JihanWu False nVersion settings risk accidentally triggering safety warnings, or worse, triggering forks; nVersion is consensus-critical.

I love Chinese 
So it's SHA???