LTC is at *WORST* a known-good hedge, safe haven, and hot-swappable BTC-compatible backup. This is a dumb statement. The Litecoin price has historically followed the Bitcoin price. Litecoin shares a large percentage of its code base with Bitcoin. To call it a hedge, safe haven or hot-swappable backup is laughable at best. The only hedge to cryptocurrencies are FIAT, stocks, bonds, commodities, etc... not other cryptocurrencies. The only possible exceptions to this are stable cryptocurrencies backed by smart contracts or a centralized entity a la Smartassets (bitshares), Nubits (Nushares), Tether, etc.. My statement is supported by empirical evidence. IE, when Bitcoin suffered a chain fork Litecoin shot up in value. Perhaps you are too new here to remember that time. The market has decided LTC is the best known-good hedge, safe haven, and hot-swappable BTC-compatible backup. You are dumb for trying to tell the market it is wrong. Good luck shorting LTC. Oh wait, you're not actually putting your money where your mouth is? I'm not surprised.  I was just pointing out that there are better ways to hedge a Bitcoin investment than to invest in Litecoin (or any other cryptocurrency.) Also, that there are better "backups" to Bitcoin, mainly ones that don't share 95%+ of the same code base as Bitcoin. If a flaw is found in Bitcoin that kills it, then Litecoin would likely be the next to fall due to the amount of code that is shared. If something major happened that killed Bitcoin, it wouldn't make any sense for everyone to switch to a cryptocurrency that is heavily based on Bitcoin so that we can all relive the same scenario several years down the line. Your "empirical evidence" constitutes of one small and short lived occurrence. I don't think you can call that empirical evidence when you compare the number of days that the Litecoin value followed the Bitcoin value to that one time that lasted a few days a couple years ago (or however long ago it was.. I'm too lazy to look it up, but yes I was around then.) It is because of that that the empirical evidence backing my side of the argument is much stronger. Anyways, anyone that knew anything knew that the Bitcoin fork you speak of was an easy to fix problem, which was in turn fixed very quickly. Its only served purpose was a method of separating weak hands from their Bitcoins. I also posit that most people that are invested in Litecoin don't truly think that "LTC is the best known-good hedge, safe haven, and hot-swappable BTC-compatible backup." They are simply speculating that the price will go up at least once from where it's at, and that they will be able to sell their Litecoins at a profit. Litecoin really provides no use or utility in the crypto community compared to other coins that actually bring something innovative and useful to the table. It is king of the alts for now because of the network effect, but network effects can be overcome, and I think Litecoin's time in the sun is nearing an end. We will see who is right in a few years I suppose. That's a really long way to say "I am smarter than the market and I'm here to tell everyone the market is wrong, because I know better." Endless babbling won't do anything to change the fact Litecoin almost always has the 2nd highest volume after Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Good spot on the Monero shill, USB-S. Nxt has never been forked, fyi, so I've got no idea wtf iCE is trying to say there. He's just got some hate on for Nxt, with no idea how it works/what it does, so.....meh. Or she's just trying to save Moneros ass....Nxt is about to introduce coin shuffling (algo reviewed and approved by Tim Ruffing, no less), and as Monero only has one feature advantage over BTC, its anonymity, this will make Monero even more pointless.  It is quite odd, I think out of all the coins out there NXT is definitely undervalued for all the tech it carries and the shuffling is just going to add to it. I think it must have something to do with the wallet being java and a little more complicated to get started. Java? On my PC? What is this, the late 90s?  Java on the PC is dead; it only belongs in the back office of enterprise platforms, not on consumer systems. You might as well make an Adobe Flash based wallet (and then wonder why nobody gives a damn about using it). NXT carries no tech that ETH can't do a better job of implementing. EG its "shuffling" is just crappy coinjoin, while ETH will use "monero-like" linkable ring signatures. Real companies (Microsoft, IBM, R3's 30 banks) and real start-ups (Auger, ConsenSys, Mycelia, Slock.it, Colony.io) are using ETH, while only scam-asset issuers (SuperNet, jl777) use NXT. Dozens of ETH devs attended Devcon1, while the number of people still coding on NXT could fit in a phone booth. |
|
|
|
why is NXT supposedly dieing  NXT has been made hideously obsolete by Turing-complete technology such as ETH and rootstock.io. And it never did anything useful to begin with. It's just a scam platform for issuing scam assets. It's also been forked to death, leaving it with almost no community or devs. Leave the shills for monreo. Eth and nxt are completely different platforms and as of now nxt has a far better package. Wrong. ETH is Turing-complete, which means it can do everything NXT does, and more. Unlike the useless scam-assets launched on the NXT platform, ETH is growing a DApp store full of revolutionary new functionality. If NXT "has a far better package" why is Auger using ETH? If NXT "has a far better package" why is Slock.it using ETH? If NXT "has a far better package" why is ConsenSys using ETH? If NXT "has a far better package" why is Colony.io using ETH? If NXT "has a far better package" why is Microsoft Azure offering ETH as a service? If NXT "has a far better package" why is are ~30 banks of R3 using ETH? Stop insulting our intelligence with your asinine falsehoods. |
|
|
|
The first problem with obscure blockchains is to do with engendering confidence and integrity of the entire monetary ecosystem. Crypto's are attempting to be 'unbacked money'. That's a tall order. So if there's no worldwide, transparent, societally endorsed consensus over blockchain movements then you have a recipe for disaster - a confidence bomb just waiting to implode. All it takes is one dodgy wallet and a lot of rumour, then nobody knows what the f*ck's going on on that blockchain and everybody dumps "just in case". How do you think bitcoin survived all its various hammerings and media shitstorms over the Mt Gox debacle, the malleability scaremongering, and the rest ? Because throughought everything there were 10's of thousands of people every day scrutinising this type of publicly endorsed information, verifying their wallet balances from two or three sources, checking the progress of confirmations, squaring off balances between addresses and so on. Say what you like about privacy, but if you don't have at least that level of verifiable transparency in an unbacked monetary system, you don't have squat. The second problem with so called 'obscured blockchains' is that they conflict with traditional age-old distinction between cash and credit. These are two well understood, forms of exchange who's priorities and properties are almost mutually exlusive. Cash is fungible, anonymous and public (i.e. it's out in the open' not managed behind closed doors by a trusted third party) Credit is not fungible , not anonymous and therefore needs to be kept private (managed behind closed doors by a trusted third party) Crypto is a peer-to-peer monetary medium. It therefore needs to adopt the cash model, not the credit one and so the anonymous, publicy accountable blockchain applies. In that context, confidence and value are maximised by supporting the levels of transparency that bitcoin has, and transaction privacy derives from the inability of observers to make much of a distinction between the coins at one address and those at another. See here for more info. (And here). The problem with DashHoles isn't that they know so little, but rather they know so much that just isn't true. Please seek education on the basics of ring signatures and homomorphic functions before further embarrassing yourself. Here, I'll help. bitcoins with homomorphic value (validatable but encrypted) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=305791.0The starting point is it is known in the literature that you can do additively homomorphic encryption, and there are also zero-knowldge proofs of less than. (Proving E(a)+E(b)=E(a+b) is not enough you also have to prove that the attacker did not add n to his balance during the process as the addition is modulo n, the order of the group, not normal arithmetic.) Its more efficient to do less than a power of 2, but arbitrary values are possible by composition (all values are buildable from power of 2 ranges after all).
https://people.xiph.org/~greg/confidential_values.txtThe basic tool that CT is based on is a Pedersen commitment.
A commitment scheme lets you keep a piece of data secret but commit to
it so that you cannot change it later. A simple commitment scheme can
be constructed using a cryptographic hash:
commitment = SHA256( blinding_factor || data )
If you tell someone only the commitment then they cannot determine
what data you are committing to (given certain assumptions about the
properties of the hash), but you can later reveal both the data and the
blinding factor and they can run the hash and verify that the data you
committed to matches. The blinding factor is present because without one,
someone could try guessing at the data; if your data is small and simple,
it might be easy to just guess it and compare the guess to the commitment.
A Pedersen commitment works like the above but with an additional
property: commitments can be added, and the sum of a set of commitments
is the same as a commitment to the sum of the data (with a blinding key
set as the sum of the blinding keys):
C(BF1, data1) + C(BF2, data2) == C(BF1 + BF2, data1 + data2)
C(BF1, data1) - C(BF1, data1) == 0
In other words, the commitment preserves addition and the commutative
property applies.
If data_n = {1,1,2} and BF_n = {5,10,15} then:
C(BF1, data1) + C(BF2, data2) - C(BF3, data3) == 0
and so on.  |
|
|
|
Lets look at what Nick Szabo actually said in context. When we do that, we find that in fact, he's talking about technologies needing practical exposure to markets and users in order to evolve. He's talking about it being messy "out there" and that iterative cycles of deploy-learn-develop are required to produce something that's robust enough and practical enough at the same time to be successful. Few cryptos have done as much justice to this ethic than Dash. It's basically had a baptism of fire since day one and successfully responded and improved according to market and industry priorities. Deployments have been delivered, revisions created, long term design goals refined and focused, new opportunities discovered - all from having been "out there". Most importantly - it survived and now has a roadmap that does justice to that survival. Meanwhile, by way of contrast, lets take something like Monero: Ironically, that WAS designed in secret in an ivory tower, got shoved "out there", has had almost nothing done on it since, has lost 90% of its value from launch, suffers from confidence problems, the wrong monetary model and a defective implementation at launch - all on top of an almost non-existent set of end user tools. Shipping broken code is fine or even ideal for some projects, but not ones involving people's money. Fintech has higher standards, such as ACTUALLY TESTING YOUR CODE BEFORE YOU LAUNCH A PRODUCT. Dash's 'design in secret, then launch and find out what's broken' approach is ass-backwards. That's exactly how the instamine fiasco happened. It's equivalent to building a house from the roof down, and pouring the foundation as the last step. That's not at all what Szabo endorsed and only a DashHole cultist would fail to see the difference. Your tu quoque (appeal to hypocrisy) is a logical fallacy, but I will address it anyway. Bytecoin was designed in secret; Monero is being rewritten in public starting from that point. As for end user tools, the CLI and mymonero.org web wallet work just fine for sending/receiving XMR. You are blatantly lying when you claim XMR "has had almost nothing done on it since." Anyone may easily verify you are a fucking liar by clicking https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/tree/masterand confirming the number of commits (presently 1,263). Dash  |
|
|
|
why is NXT supposedly dieing NXT has been made hideously obsolete by Turing-complete technology such as ETH and rootstock.io. And it never did anything useful to begin with. It's just a scam platform for issuing scam assets. It's also been forked to death, leaving it with almost no community or devs. |
|
|
|
DASH is game for a whale dump and lots of drama.
If 15 of the 3500 masternodes (just 0.4%) were liquidated, it would crash the Dash price all the way down to 0.0001. I can't wait for the DashHole drama when that happens. The fact it hasn't yet, despite the enormous penalty for not being among the first 15 to panic and GTFO, indicates all masternodes are held by whales and True Believers. It's really cute how they honestly(?) believe Duffield can (magically?) create an Ethereum competitor all on his own and in secret. |
|
|
|
Haha classic Mikey: They are interested in Ethereum due to its more powerful scripting language (and, I suspect, its better reputation, as Ethereum has not yet been sullied by people using it for trading illegal things). https://archive.is/l43uv#selection-11347.0-11347.200Ah yes, the exquisite hypocrisy of banksters who wallow in oceans of filthy lucre, and yet are somehow far too precious to sully themselves with nasty crypto. They seem to be using the Hegelian paradigm wherein the State is the font of virtue and perfection, and whereby all fiat's sins are washed away with the blood of the taxpayer and conscript. Given that, Hearn@sigint.google.mil is a great fit for Team Fiat (certainly much better than for Team Cypherpunk). |
|
|
|
(Again NXT is off-topic here)
Keep telling yourself that, darling I repeat again: "Ethereum has made NXT obsolete" |
|
|
|
 See? XMR and ETH go together like peanut butter and chocolate! You are just mad because ETH makes your precious bags of NXT as obsolete as flat panels made those heavy-ass giant old TVs. Keep telling yourself that, darling I repeat again: "Ethereum will make Monero obsolete" (Why don't you take your NXT obsession to the NXT-thread? Being intimidated by every altcoin must be confusing at times. Take a nap iCEBREAKER) Hmm, I don't know who to believe, you or Vitalik. Vitalik is the lead dev for Ethereum, and recently used "monero-like" linkable ring signatures to upgrade his project's privacy. You are some random die-hard (probably Because Bagholding) NXT scam defender. I think I'll go with VUB's opinion, ie ETH and XMR can get along just fine. Why don't you want to see XMR and ETH "play nice?" Is it because NXT's last ditch attempt at relevance is a coinjoin based mixer that is obsolete trash compared to ring sigs? |
|
|
|
It's very tiring to follow topics when they are crashed by the pseudologist.
But I think the TL;DR is "Ethereum will make Monero obsolete".
(Farewell iCEBREAKER)
Not really. A layer approach to security is preferable to reliance on any single platform/product. And they don't even to the same thing. See? XMR and ETH go together like peanut butter and chocolate! You are just mad because ETH makes your precious bags of NXT as obsolete as flat panels made those heavy-ass giant old TVs. |
|
|
|
what vertoe said when she left
You don't know, much less understand, the gender of the person you quote. Picking on my choice of pronoun is a red herring. But I'm not surprised you'd rather not discuss what vertoe said when he/she/it had enough of Evan Madoffield's golden donkey multilevel marketing scam.
i left because i disagree darkcoin or however it will be called next year is not a decentralized entity. it never was but i ignored it as long as darkcoin was following the same path i was following. the path to total financial privacy. and thats why i am so upset about how this currency is lead by a single person. darkcoin is like an old conservative company with strong hierarchical comamnd structures and a single person on the top of the pyramid. evan duffield. the rebranding using a detergent name was just a step forward in creating something like apple or paypal. fuck this i tell you. what we need is a trustless, decentralized and anonymous currency. darkcoin is not decentralized as it still relies on a single person. and this reaches deep into the code base.
the core devs were just a bunch of volunteers exploited for the big thing. the extended darkcoin team was the same with even a lower place to sit on that pyramid. and what was the darkcoin foundation again? right, something to reserve some rights on some names and collect money. who nominated and voted for the foundation board? who does even know who are these guys? how did we learn about the foundation? from local news papers! the team listings kept counting names of people nobody ever noticed before. and they never committed anything visible to the community or the repository. and i was spending 25 hours a day monitory everything that happened in the darkcoin community for more than a year. the things going on here are fishy, intransparent and rely on a single entity.
i will get out and and will contribute to something decentralized and anonymous. i always hoped darkcoin could fill that void. i cant blame anyone to stay with this project. you are probably investors trying to win a gold donkey. or you are simply trying to exploit every possible vector of profit in the coins space. whatever. you are not here because darkcoin is something it claims to be.
if you disagree with my statement above, i dont care, but answer that simple question: what if evan duffield suddenly announces he quits the project tomorrow morning?
|
|
|
|
That was utter destruction of Mike by Greg, in that whole exchange.
GMAX is back, and boy is he pissed! *epic pwnage ensues* nullc
You're free to have your own repository-- and you do in fact; you should try working on it instead of telling other people what to do in their own repositories for a change. I don't have to like what you do, and I can stridently recommend people not run it-- as is always the case; but you remain free to work on whatever you like and think is most important (and even benefit from my work too). Too bad you don't seem to respect that by the same token others do not have to do what you want. Ha, gmax just told Mikey to go shitcode on his XT shitrepo, and stop pestering the important people at the adult table.  |
|
|
|
So masternodes will still be used for mixing? This is a disappointment, I must admit  I don't remember this. I'm just working it out with what we're given. Still, I'd think this would be an excellent solution. No need to wait for blocks, how ever many MNs you have, is essentially the number of rounds. Seems logical to me. Maybe there is another way? I sure hope it won't be something that obscures the blockchain like Monero. I don't like something I can't check on. You don't know, much less understand, the roadmap of the coin you cheer-lead for and defend against attackers? Wow. Such blind faith. What sweet innocence. Typical cult victim. I will never understand how people become True Believers in some dude's shady hobby project, especially after what vertoe said when she left. |
|
|
|
It's highly complimentary to Monero devs that of all available anon/privacy tech, ETH choose theirs.  |
|
|
|
 you're such a pompous bitch  you come off like a smug know-it-all  Your butthurt is duly noted. |
|
|
|
"Anybody who thinks they can flesh out a protocol in secret and then deploy it, full-blown and working, is in for a world of hurt."
[Nick Szabo, 1993-8-23] [personal attacks; off-topic deflection] What makes you believe Evolusham can be fleshed out in secret and then deployed full-blown and working? You don't even bother trying to defend the indefensible secret development. I'm not surprised, given how well that's worked out for XC and Blocknet!  Any DashHole who thinks Duffield can flesh out Evolusham in secret and then deploy it, full-blown and working, is in for a world of butthurt.Think about that. |
|
|
|
I'm loving these last few pages. Vitalik is finding out that anybody who dares speak a negative word about Monero gets immediately flamed by all the Monero shills and trolls.
Where did Vitalik speak a negative word about Monero? All I see is Vitalik announcing ETH will imitate Monero's ring signatures, which is of course the most sincere form of flattery. And then there is the comment where he agrees they should play nice together. Are you mad ETH isn't using DASH-like masternodes or some other form of your cargo cult's bad crypto? |
|
|
|
Evan & team are doing a great job.
You are assuming facts not in evidence. Dash's botched launch fiasco is the furthest thing from "a great job." Ditto for the rebrand shitshow. Evidence of Evan & team doing a great job would be something like working code and/or a peer-reviewed whitepaper, not a teaser campaign ("What's in the Evolusham box???") for vaporware. Here is the evidence Evan & team are NOT doing a great job: "Anybody who thinks they can flesh out a protocol in secret and then deploy it, full-blown and working, is in for a world of hurt."
[Nick Szabo, 1993-8-23] |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
