it doesn't cost that much, so 'great lengths' isn't quite accurate here.
eg. the fees on BTER for NXT is 0.18%. Thus if the price was slipping, I simply put out a small sale of say 500 NXT and then take that sale with another account. Cost here is roughly 9 NXT which is a few cents USD. A relatively small operation could sustain that for months. Of course if such an operation were to detect that people were no longer buying in, they would shut down the operation, let the price fall and get in a new round of people. Look for support offers of much larger amounts. If you are looking to get out of a pump and dump, just catch those support orders which they don't expect people to take(because they are below the apparent 'market price'). To take those order you need to be convinced you're in a pump and dump.
-bm
That would only increase volume, not more... And as you said, we have low volume, so no manipulation there. What your are trying to say maybe is, that the big holders made a syndicate to manipulate the price by artificially decrease the money supply. But even that only works if all agree, typical prisoner dilemma. HA! You clearly don't understand what Im saying. It doesn't increase volume. It's generally not possible to increase volume without spending money. It is possible to create an illusory trading price by creating low volume orders that you intend to take yourself(only cost here is the transaction fee). A common tactic to is create 'support orders' which are larger orders below the market price to make it appear as though there is demand. These orders are never taken and if the apparent price gets near the 'buy wall' then they take it down and move it. One way to beat this pattern, given that you're convinced it's being pumped, is to grab those large orders before they can take it down. If you do this enough the pumping operation must shut down. -bm |
|
|
|
|
it doesn't cost that much, so 'great lengths' isn't quite accurate here.
eg. the fees on BTER for NXT is 0.18%. Thus if the price was slipping, I simply put out a small sale of say 500 NXT and then take that sale with another account. Cost here is roughly 9 NXT which is a few cents USD. A relatively small operation could sustain that for months. Of course if such an operation were to detect that people were no longer buying in, they would shut down the operation, let the price fall and get in a new round of people. Look for support offers of much larger amounts. If you are looking to get out of a pump and dump, just catch those support orders which they don't expect people to take(because they are below the apparent 'market price'). To take those order you need to be convinced you're in a pump and dump.
-bm
|
|
|
|
Even if he netted the full 400 BTC he was aiming for, thats still only $240,000. these excuses are making the NXT community look like a den of vipers. Didn't it already have that reputation? -bm Gee, I guess the price action of NXT reflects your rippage pretty accurately, huh. Yep, NXT, joined the ranks of all those other failed coins and dropped to the single-digit satoshis for good.. Oh, it didn't? Oh sorry I must be in a parallel universe too. a low volume market can be fabricated fairly cheaply. -bm |
|
|
|
Even if he netted the full 400 BTC he was aiming for, thats still only $240,000. these excuses are making the NXT community look like a den of vipers. Didn't it already have that reputation? -bm |
|
|
|
|
the essential problem here, and completely unexplored by the author who is convinced he is in the possession of a economic weapon of mass destruction, is that of secrecy. How can one maintain the secrecy of blocks in a p2p network? It's not as easy as the author suggests and he ignores the GREATER incentive(and minimal cost) of maintaining the integrity of the network as a whole. Basically anyone who is invested in the long term viability need only create a double-agent that participates in the pool. Then through a back-channel the node publishes the secret blocks. The selfish pool has no way of knowing who is the snitch.
Sorry but Selfish Mining is not a fatal flaw in Bitcoin.
-bm
|
|
|
|
maybe ghash is buying while there is the 51% issue and prices are low then scale back hash rate after
its probable
|
|
|
|
Panic selling 50% of your BTC holdings is stupid. There ARE going to be bumps in the road before bitcoin goes mainstream. Considering the amount of community outpour over this issue, I have confidence that the bigger players such as Gavin, Andreas, etc. (and the community) will find a way to resolve this.
I'm not worried.
and we've never seen more evidence that it is going mainstream in all it's history! -bm Nope. I'm going to panic sell all of my Bitcoins, when we recently met the 100K merchant milestone, and when companies like Expedia, Holiday Inn, etc have started to accept it more. That's the smart thing to do, isn't it? also right before a major auction that has something like a 200k deposit requirement. -bm |
|
|
|
So, a flood of NXT isn't about to hit the market then?
Wow this whole thread only dropped the price of NXT at most 4%, smaller than the average intra-day variability.
You know how I can tell NXT isn't a "scam"? Its price barely budges regardless of how many haters come out of the woodwork to rip on it.
ya those 2 cent USD sells sure are keeping this market in shape. -bm |
|
|
|
Finally got around to reading this Selfish Mining Paper. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1311.0243v5.pdfWe now describe our strategy, called Self sh-Mine. As we show in Section Sel fish-Mine allows a pool of sufficient size to obtain a revenue larger than its ratio of mining power. For simplicity, and without loss of generality, we assume that miners are divided into two groups, a colluding minority pool that follows the self sh mining strategy, and a majority that follows the honest mining strategy (others). It is immaterial whether the hon.est miners operate as a single group, as a collection of groups, or individually. Here the author makes some very poor assumptions. It is possible to easily thwart this attack by making a double-agent miner who claims to be part of this subversive pool, but isn't and publishes the selfish chain information to the outside. This double agent miner need not even have any real mining power, they only need to CLAIM such. Thus the cost of this defense is virtually negligible. This would thwart this attack vector entirely. -bm |
|
|
|
John (Peter Manglaviti) was essentially the public leader of NxT, he was the one who represented NxT's booth at several public conferences / expos and seminars and he was the man the public dealt with. For all intensive purposes, while he may not had been a developer, he was essentially the public face of NxT. He was the man the public saw at anything NxT and he was the one persuading people to buy it.
You assume it's just the BTC stolen. Probably ran off with all the NxT he collected as well. You assume "John" (Peter Manglaviti) is his real identity. Linkedin profiles are easily just as faked as Facebook profiles. The best fake linkedin profiles are those which combine truth with outright lies.
John wouldn't be the first person who thinks he can scam investors and get away with it. After all, has the Visacoin guy gone to jail yet? Has anyone actually gone to jail? Even just one person?
The statue of limitations for these sort of crimes is 7 years or less. The time to investigate, acquire the evidence, book a court room hearing, et cetera, can take years, that's even IF the police can be bother to actually to issue a warrant. They generally don't go after 'small fish' like John.
The only people who have been arrested in crypto currencies has been people like Charlie Shrem and mainly due to drugs / DEA. I've yet to hear of a crypto scammer who has gone to jail, even with their personal details wide out in the open.
This guy is the major public face of NXT. He was at the convention booth promoting NXT as the public face of NXT. Again - proof NXT is to the core a scam - he knew it and wanted BTC only. Agreed that this person is absolutely NOT a good person to be representing this project. He even admits that he's not committed to NXT. -bm |
|
|
|
Panic selling 50% of your BTC holdings is stupid. There ARE going to be bumps in the road before bitcoin goes mainstream. Considering the amount of community outpour over this issue, I have confidence that the bigger players such as Gavin, Andreas, etc. (and the community) will find a way to resolve this.
I'm not worried.
and we've never seen more evidence that it is going mainstream in all it's history! -bm |
|
|
|
|
I tend to think that yes, this was a price manipulation. If so it's a great time to get in.
-bm
|
|
|
|
Hi Tai! when are you posting this video to the internet for everyone to view? -bm 1. I want to let everyone know that myself, QBTC, Uniqueorn, and Damelon have been on video conference with John to investigate this matter. The others will confirm what I say when we finish the talk with John.
2. We are trying to be as neutral as possible to investigate this matter. So far John has answered all our questions and has been very cooperative and has not been evasive in his answers. He has been open to volunteer access to his personal emails, computers, etc for forensics review.
3. We will figure out what we need from John to investigate this matter further and he is being cooperative and open to give us access to his personal accounts because he wants his name cleared.
Please give us some time so we can review and research this matter.
Thanks for your patience.
Tai Zen
BM....u cannot expect that they recorded the conference call ? Sheesh....I'll trust Tai Zen and QBTC to figure it out. EDIT: I mean it, QBTC is very seriously straight. She's worked with J+Cointrop (and a lot of other people), but that won't be a factor. don't know about QBTC, only that John declared she was part of the team some time ago. Not exactly an impartial judge of this. yes I expect them to record the questioning. How do we know this isn't a kangaroo court? -bm |
|
|
|
1. I want to let everyone know that myself, QBTC, Uniqueorn, and Damelon have been on video conference with John to investigate this matter. The others will confirm what I say when we finish the talk with John.
2. We are trying to be as neutral as possible to investigate this matter. So far John has answered all our questions and has been very cooperative and has not been evasive in his answers. He has been open to volunteer access to his personal emails, computers, etc for forensics review.
3. We will figure out what we need from John to investigate this matter further and he is being cooperative and open to give us access to his personal accounts because he wants his name cleared.
Please give us some time so we can review and research this matter.
Thanks for your patience.
Tai Zen
We have been talking with John for more than one hour and I've been very pleased with his transparency and willingness to help resolve this unfortunate situation. -bm |
|
|
|
i'm thinking it's impossible to make a completely decentralized cryptocurrency. the game changes, and if you don't have people who fix the issues to address those changes, then the crypto will just die out. hopefully there's a way to do it, and someone innovative will come along.. but at present i don't think it's possible.
so far, we have yet to perfect Monetary Theory itself. There are many different schools of thought (primarily the Austrians and the Keynesian), thus why would we assume that we need to some kind of perfect theory of cryptocoins to have a usable one? Fact is Bitcoin offers features no other technology does. I think there are room for innovations, but there is nothing compelling out there at the moment. -bm well, because most people (at least here) love bitcoin mainly because it's supposedly decentralized. when you put power in the hands of the corrupt, then there will be.. corruption. a lot of people complain about status quo economics.. at least most here. what happened to the USD when it became centralized? did it's value go up or down? -bm U.S. currency has always been centralized.. at least from the date that they started using paper notes. so how do we know when the value has gone up or down? and if you even want to talk about when the federal reserve was instituted, then $1 at that time was worth a lot more than $1 today. good point, but inflation aside- centralization means better security. -bm |
|
|
|
Hi Tai! when are you posting this video to the internet for everyone to view? -bm 1. I want to let everyone know that myself, QBTC, Uniqueorn, and Damelon have been on video conference with John to investigate this matter. The others will confirm what I say when we finish the talk with John.
2. We are trying to be as neutral as possible to investigate this matter. So far John has answered all our questions and has been very cooperative and has not been evasive in his answers. He has been open to volunteer access to his personal emails, computers, etc for forensics review.
3. We will figure out what we need from John to investigate this matter further and he is being cooperative and open to give us access to his personal accounts because he wants his name cleared.
Please give us some time so we can review and research this matter.
Thanks for your patience.
Tai Zen
|
|
|
|
i'm thinking it's impossible to make a completely decentralized cryptocurrency. the game changes, and if you don't have people who fix the issues to address those changes, then the crypto will just die out. hopefully there's a way to do it, and someone innovative will come along.. but at present i don't think it's possible.
so far, we have yet to perfect Monetary Theory itself. There are many different schools of thought (primarily the Austrians and the Keynesian), thus why would we assume that we need to some kind of perfect theory of cryptocoins to have a usable one? Fact is Bitcoin offers features no other technology does. I think there are room for innovations, but there is nothing compelling out there at the moment. -bm well, because most people (at least here) love bitcoin mainly because it's supposedly decentralized. when you put power in the hands of the corrupt, then there will be.. corruption. a lot of people complain about status quo economics.. at least most here. what happened to the USD when it became centralized? did it's value go up or down? -bm |
|
|
|
I might be cracking open Libre Office Writer pretty soon...  -bm |
|
|
|
i'm thinking it's impossible to make a completely decentralized cryptocurrency. the game changes, and if you don't have people who fix the issues to address those changes, then the crypto will just die out. hopefully there's a way to do it, and someone innovative will come along.. but at present i don't think it's possible.
so far, we have yet to perfect Monetary Theory itself. There are many different schools of thought (primarily the Austrians and the Keynesian), thus why would we assume that we need to some kind of perfect theory of cryptocoins to have a usable one? Fact is Bitcoin offers features no other technology does. I think there are room for innovations, but there is nothing compelling out there at the moment. -bm |
|
|
|
I don't think there is any way to completely disconnect two chains, if you want the same security guarantees that Bitcoin provides.
I do think there is a way to factor them. I just dont think Todd knows how. -bm |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
