I started a link here: https://www.reddit.com/r/i2p/comments/3cw3wm/discussion_i2p_and_ip_obfuscation_from_economic/

Hopefully, we can move toward a best-standard or a new solution that works better for everyone.

A market buy on Polo would currently net you 5185 xmr.

How do you plan to stop IP leakage with I2p? (A decentralized IP ring signature would be nice--seriously though, would a market solution built on top of I2p help unlink all the transactions? Or does the whole structure need to be overhauled/fine-tuned/scrapped?)

I do take issue with the bolded part as there is TOR (even worse) and I2p, so it is like choosing between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump (though, who knows how to order their awfullness)--AFAIK the Monero Devs are working to improve I2p function with Monero not just integrating the two--so without knowing how they are or are not planning to improve the IP functionality, how are you sure if the criticism isn't already addressed....

I would like to read their response and how you plan to improve the functionality as this is a huge opportunity to improve financial privacy.

TPTB_need_war is asking about I2p integration and Monero.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1049048.msg11842826#msg11842826

At least somebody loves bitcoin right now. 

https://privacyassociation.org/news/a/why-bitcoin-is-good-for-law-enforcement

Is there any way i can get the total market cap for all cryptocurrencies from a year ago? Would like to make a comparison chart of how coins have competed over the last year in respect to % of total market cap. 

They should just ban hands appendages thoughts; all crimes are perpetuated by thoughts. 

...inciting to talk about myself--LOL.

Until you offer your own coin for peer review, you're going to sound like that know-it-all brat on the basketball court who points out the flaws in everyone else's game, goes on endlessly about how great he is, but never picks up a ball and backs up the talk. Since your American, you've probably heard this: Put up or shut up.

Again, it's not that you are criticizing or refusing peer review, it's that you are simultaneously criticizing and refusing to put your project up for peer review--it may be a good (or even correct) strategy, but don't bitch when others point out its annoyance factor.

Wrong assertion of why people (at least me and some observable others) are criticizing you. Maybe, someone is, but certainly not everyone....

Gene Siskel, the better half of the movie critic duo Siskel and Ebert, was asked about if he ever wanted to direct--since he was so knowledgeable and his love of films was evident. He stated that he did want to direct, but as long as he was a critic, thought any directing efforts would be a conflict of interest. To put it more simply, he knew he could game his fans into believing his techniques were the best techniques and didn't want the potential to delude himself or the audience--even if his efforts were a sincere and earnest attempt at making a great film.

Rarely, do good critics make better artist. ATM Ben Jonson, the poet/critic is the only example I can think of, but that is more of a tie than him being better at one or the other.

This is great! Do you have a donation address?

Really? It's pretty obvious that you are fine with publicly scrutinizing other's ideas, but when it comes to your own work, feel that it is beneath him to deign to the criticisms of mere mortals. You're like a movie critic who fixes the flaws of others with his supreme powers of refinement, taste and technical prowess, but only lets his friends and family see select outtakes from his magnum opus.

Funny how I never read that in the Bible. Maybe it is the the lost Hitler Bible meant to replace the King James version after the Reich (successfully) goosestepped past the Volga-- But what book? The Gospel according to Himmler? The Gospel according to Goering? Maybe Eva Braun could play the part of Mary Magdalene and one of Goebel's experiments could have raised Lazarus from the dead. Because with National Socialism, we're all Jesus re-purposed as an Aryan descendant of the lost civilization of Atlantis and the line of David is replaced with Caesars and Pontiffs and Fuhers, Oh mY!

Risto, are you really citing a Jewish God/S.O.G./Prophet as the go-to critic of all things Hebrew, but failing to see most of the revisionism is Christians/TPTB/Romanized-slave-traditionalist trying to usurp (hardfork or c-section? Hmmmm) the Bible from its obvious pre-Nero birth--does every race need to have a persecution complex?

We can't become transhuman fast enough, because these old guard allegiances based on race make the best of us sound like a chimp in a tree throwing shit and trying to make us see the light of the you-wasp/me-wasp/we-good  brand of primal politics.

I'm gonna go meditate and forget how memes (especially horrible ones) sometimes make us more than we make them. Or i could go grab the biggest stick i can find and add to the shit-tossing madness....

You can always add to the mix. 

It's good to have free-thinkers and those who refuse to compromise around. As Delueze pointed out, the fringes become the centers and the former centers become the re-purposed blocks that form the foundation of the coming tower.

New scenario:

We are moving towards a corporate state were governments are slowly/quickly/surreptitiously supplanted by conglomerates that can more definitively guarantee and defend your user-defined safety. They will be more programmed (feature rich) than dictated, more efficient than top-heavy, and more user friendly than user threatening. These corporate superpowers will usurp power from the old guard as they don't need to build armies, but only have to have the capacity to build them more efficiently, more quickly, and more technologically adaptable than their adversary. DACs and self modifying programs will overwhelm potential adversaries with their ability to create armies and to modify consumer materials at a pace that swarms (and re-purposes) advancing armies with the full might of the society (consumer base) that they control. This corporate government model will be tested by the current system with overwhelming and catastrophic results.

My thought is that this system of government will work better for us (at least humans) if they are an archipelago of corporate states that have benefits for specific consumer states that would be considered drawbacks for other consumer states. A one corporation to rule them all would be subject to one fatal flaw to destroy them all and be also subject to rage against the machine. Better to have competitors than to have malaise or the constant threat of revolution within the system.

Though the last points are humancentrix and do not take into account the trashumanist movement that should/could/must take place at some point. We won't know what motivates AI and Transhumans until they exist in a meaningful way.

Did you ever ask these people who taught you, "Are there stupid questions? How would one define a stupid question? What would be the verifiable criteria for a stupid question? If there are no stupid questions, wouldn't it follow that there are no intelligent questions? Are the people teaching me that there are no stupid questions using faulty criteria to establish the answer they want to be true? If there are no stupid or intelligent questions, then what criteria should we use to evaluate a question? Aren't we inferring that the question itself isn't stupid, but that the person asking it is under performing mentally by asking it? Is a distracting or attention seeking question a dumb question as it is hiding the real intention and not serving to move the thought process forward in a meaningful way? Isn't an intelligent question one that opens others to new possibilities of thought, forwards the subject or shows a well endowed understanding of more complex themes in the subject that aren't available to most persons? If this type of forward progress is viewed as positive, can't we also view questions that aren't pertinent or lack understanding of common knowledge or only serve to waste time, as negative? Does it matter how we demarcate these distinctions if we find they exist and show that all questions aren't equal in matter, perception, understanding or desire to further knowledge?...."

Wonderlic is a test used in many industries to evaluate mental performance.

Depends where you live, but when I was asked this question,  I was teen working in Pennsylvania at a clothing store where there is no tax on clothing and there wouldn't be a handling fee. The point is to put it in the context of when it would be dumb to ask this; one time invalidates the argument that there are no dumb questions.

But maybe we should get really dumb with it, "If a monkey ate enough beans could he fart his way to heaven and beat up a time traveling Tom Cruise before he ascends the nth level of Scientology and has sex with all our moms?  

Or "Mr Officer, is all right if I take your gun, shoot you and then go on a shooting rampage at the local mall?"

Or just before the prosecution is about to close a slipshod case with no chance of winning, "Your honor, if you found all the money I'm accused of embezzling at 152 North Frampton St. in an 85' red buick with my murdered business associate, 12 kilos of coke, 500 pounds of explosives and detailed instructions to blow up a children's hospital, could I still get my parking validated?"

If you can have intelligent questions, you can have stupid questions. Back on topic, wonderlic's already sidetracked this thread enough.

Customer asks clerk, "I have a coupon for 25% off a hundred dollar purchase. How many dollars does that come to?"

I would say asking stupid questions is sometimes evidence of stupidity and not asking questions can mean you already have an answer or are willing to work it out on your own or are timid, none of which are stupidity. I'm almost tempted to take you off ignore to see what other words of high-school teacher wisdom you have for us.

@ Fluffy-- Yes, that would be the correct TL;DR.  

And look at this:


-troll (n.2)
"act of going round, repetition," 1705, from troll (v.). Meaning "song sung in a round" is from 1820.

-troll (n.1)
supernatural being in Scandinavian mythology and folklore, 1610s (with an isolated use mid-14c.), from Old Norse troll "giant being not of the human race, evil spirit, monster." Some speculate that it originally meant "creature that walks and talks clumsily," and derives from Proto-Germanic *truzlan, from *truzlanan (see troll (v.)). But it seems to have been a general supernatural word, such as Swedish trolla "to charm, bewitch;" Old Norse trolldomr "witchcraft."

The old sagas tell of the troll-bull, a supernatural being in the form of a bull, as well as boar-trolls. There were troll-maidens, troll-wives, and troll-women; the trollman, a magician or wizard, and the troll-drum, used in Lappish magic rites. The word was popularized in literary English by 19c. antiquarians, but it has been current in the Shetlands and Orkneys since Viking times. The first record of the word in modern English is from a court document from the Shetlands, regarding a certain Catherine, who, among other things, was accused of "airt and pairt of witchcraft and sorcerie, in hanting and seeing the Trollis ryse out of the kyrk yeard of Hildiswick."

Originally conceived as a race of malevolent giants, they have suffered the same fate as the Celtic Danann and by 19c. were regarded by peasants in in Denmark and Sweden as dwarfs and imps supposed to live in caves or under the ground (in their parents basement).
They are obliging and neighbourly; freely lending and borrowing, and elsewise keeping up a friendly intercourse with mankind. But they have a sad propensity to thieving, not only stealing provisions, but even Monero threads. [Thomas Keightley, "The Fairy Mythology," London, 1850]

Anyone who has been on r/bitcoin when a privacy thread comes up, knows that dashtards get in the way of any meaningful conversation. Dash is an obstacle and their anoncoin status by way of hype and repeated false arguments is annoying--about as annoying as when  people, who are most likely hedged* in both, ask this community to get along with a fraud.

*do your due diligence on privacy and the coins themselves and you won't need to dilute your investment with hedging.