I know people don't mind, but it is an affect of our male-dominant culture that should be made aware of, or in the case of the natives, an affect of an ignorant colonist culture.
What about "it?" As in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDgS6qLsVM4This is how I imagine BCX spends its weekends.  |
|
|
|
I was just about to ask for his btc address when I looked over the terms of my bet. It seems I stated that 2.5x is equivalent to 250%, and that's true, but a 2.5x increase isn't equivalent to a 250% increase, so in a string of luck the wording of the bet would still have guaranteed a win. Albeit I was wrong originally.
slimy semantics wont save anyone forever And you have already displayed your stupidity so if I was you I'd just stfu and hope everyone forgets it. It was clever wordplay and I think you fooled just about everyone except me, but what in the world does that have to do with XMR vs DRK? Maybe Illodin's making a point about ellipses? Maybe Evan was like, "I'm not going to launch the coin today...." But with the ellipsis filled in, it reads, "I'm not going to launch the coin today (is what I would say if I were a liar)." So by this addition we can see everything is on the up and up with x-drk-dsh coin and there was no good reason to relaunch the coin--Oh, wait, he said it was an accident too. So maybe that ellipsis filled in says, "There was a bug and the coins were accidentally fastmined, (is what I would say if I thought people were gullible and trusted me implicitly, so let's see how much more shit I can pull on these dummies--maybe next I can add an Amway-type pyramid scheme to lock huge swathes of coins off the market and then I can claim anonymity without ever demonstrating it cryptographically, since i have these Amway-noder's locked in at a 1000 coins apiece, they act as a natural troll army to do my bidding...)" Or something like that....  |
|
|
|
...
People who are motivated by solving a problem or creating something new usually achieve wealth as a byproduct not as a intended goal. And people who pursue wealth without merit usually get neither.
Well-said And what about those who are both, motivated by solving a problem and getting rich while doing it? Is that allowed? Or is the only honorable way of running these projects that the devs should be poor and work their asses off to make the "investors" rich? Key words you glossed over, "without merit" in quoted text and "leadership" in OP. I assume Evan with his instamine, "it was an accident" story and then adopting new names to cover-up the fiasco is one of the Ron L Hubbard type who wants to bamboozle the world with vaporware, and is not one of the Elon Musk type who wants to better it through innovation. |
|
|
|
^ do you realize vertoe made that post after the price had doubled after he had dumped? Often it doesn't even take that much of butt hurt to make a man bitter.
Yes his posts were do to being butthurt just like you were butthurt from getting boned on the instamine. Oh wait? Sky is blue, trains go fast, therefor banana is yellow. Oh wait?  No wonder you a fanboi, your incapable of correlation. If you're trying to say something, just say it. Don't waste my time on your trolling strategies. I already said it, if your incapable of grasping it then that is your own failure. There was a hefty amount of butt hurt in vertoe's post, he felt he wasn't appreciated enough for his development efforts, and after he dumped the price went quite quickly from 0.01 to 0.024. There is zero butt hurt on my part as I managed to mine and buy cheap coins just fine. If there is something else you don't understand don't hesitate to ask. Your Hypocrisy is only outweighed by your deterministic assumption of knowing his state of mind. and doesn't enjoy his work being appreciated. Could be possible of course. It's not a matter of hating money, it's a matter of money not being your motivation. Think of Zuckerberg uploading a music app for free when Microsoft wanted to buy it. Personally, I'd rather have someone whose objective is creating something rather than profit working on an opensource project--especially when greedy leadership is easily identifiable by their minions and the people who support them. This is why I tend to avoid projects where the faithful are preoccupied with monetary gain--always touting profit, or assuming those who didn't get rich quick are butthurt. People who are motivated by solving a problem or creating something new usually achieve wealth as a byproduct not as a intended goal. And people who pursue wealth without merit usually get neither. |
|
|
|
"We must just do the best we can, now as always."
"Fear is failure; I must dare to do wrong. Good!"
"Apparently the method is just this: to store up—no matter how—great treasures of energy and purity, until they begin to do the work themselves (in the way the Hindus call 'Sukshma')."
"Don't worry; work!"
"Reward is the direct and immediate consequence of Work."
"I think that every failure will be certainly traceable to my own damn foolishness, every little success to courage, skill, wit, and tenacity.
“I would rather obey a fine lion, much stronger than myself, than two hundred rats of my own species.”― Voltaire Rite? Let me join the off-topicness: "There is no good or bad but thinking makes it so..." Hamlet A2 S2 I used to mis-remember this as, "There is no good or evil only the thinking so--" which is probably mixing Hamlet's depression with Nietzsche's idea of a master morality. I think you could make the case that many people's good intentions are actually subconscious rationalizations supporting the status-qua of the dominant social order. Feel free to delete this Smooth. |
|
|
|
RIP Monero....i am really sad bought it at 0,004, im poor now...
Smart to be buying XMR instead of re-upping on a failed anon coin with instamine and dev issues, but it seems your math is weird; a 25% dip (that will go up most likely in the near future) wouldn't cause you to be poor as you were most likely poor already. Quick illustration: If you had a million dollars invested, then you would have $750,000 currently and would hardly qualify as poor by most standards--though by Bill Gates standards you were already not that wealthy and continue to be Microsoft poor. If you had a ten dollars invested then you'd have $7.50 now and were by most standards poor to begin with--though wealth should include family, friends, knowledge and other important things. Now if you look at it as accumulation of XMR for the purposes of spending that XMR as it gains in purchasing power, you're still not going to be made wealthy or poor until things increase or decrease by order(s) of magnitude. Good to be branching into a real privacy coin with real objectives and an honest developing team, but I'd work on how you define being made poor or rich. |
|
|
|
I have a lot of uncomfortable admiration for Monero traders and folks with large balances in Poloniex, although it is possible that most of them don't fathom what they are dealing with when it comes to Monero or the sudden rise that will happen with no way to get back the trading gambling stash.
What do you mean by this? If Poloniex were to get hacked, there'd be no easy way to buy back what gets lost. I just was asking myself: XMR is a great currency and why only big volume on Poliniex? For a more sustainable future maybe look if there are also othere exchanges for trading. Yes there is Bittrex but not so much volume there for XMR. Spreading the volume over more exchanges is good for future of Monero. Maybe build a special Monero exchange. XMR.FROM as a natural side-kick to XMR.TO has been talked about here. Not sure as to if it's being developed, but seems like it would be a good start to creating more Monero exchange options. |
|
|
|
Are people forgetting the single large volume buys that took us to 400+? Seems weird how people are scared the price went down again.
Monero can realistically replace btc in 3 years (the most optimistic scenario). No  I am glad that you had such a fundamental arguments backing your point. Monero is more than 3 years behind in terms of development. Monero is probably more than 3 years behind in terms of network effects. Monero is probably more than 3 years behind in terms of being known to the public. Monero is more than 3 years behind in terms of amount of news sources covering it. Monero won't replace bitcoin. Not in a long time. And if bitcoin gets replaced by a fully anon coin, chances are it won't be monero. I think monero really should carve out its own niche. There's no need to compete against bitcoin. I think it comes down to symbols. The symbol of cash doesn't exist in the digital world outside of a monero and once Monero is recognized as the (most?) digital cash symbol, there will follow a natural demand. I think Bitcoin enjoyed this cash-symbolization briefly before everyone realized that it was just another symbol for credit--though an asset class as digital gold will most likely prove to be Bitcoin's place in an increasingly digital life. There's a demand to replace the natural world's symbols with digital equivalencies, so these movements seem pretty natural to me--no different than replacing your physical self with an avatar on facebook or bitcointalk. On a less symbolic level, I think the need for a digital cash equivalent will be needed as the internet of things grows and privacy becomes more and more of an issue. Who wants theft drones intercepting their Amazon order because they could see the transaction on a public blockchain and make trivial calculations to figure where it was being sent from and to whom? |
|
|
|
look guys, you aren't going to get anywhere trying to pay software engineers in water rations from your village in bumfuckistan
Nobody pays anybody in lines of code
"Good coders" don't continue to live in places that pay 4000 euros a month, or 6000 euros a month, or 8000 euros a month, they all go to NY and SF and make way more than that, in U.S.DOLLARS, and everyone else is a subpar coder and/or preoccupied with the exact same reason that they can't go live in NY and SF
your poor cryptocurrency economy is going to stay poor as it will not be able to attract talent, there will be a continual brain drain from software engineers every time they see some 0.5 XMR bounty that some schmuck says "but it will be worth more in the future"
EVERY schmuck is trying to get software engineers to work for a stake in something greater, EVEN THE COMPANIES THAT ARE PAYING 200,000 USD PER YEAR ARE ALSO PAYING IN SHARES, OPTIONS, AND OTHER ASSETS POTENTIALLY WORTH MORE IN THE FUTURE, which is by the way over 16500 a month or 15000 eur/month
the database merge was coming soon since December 2014.
Don't know many INTJ's do you? |
|
|
|
Paraphrase: Here's evidence that Trolls troll.
Why do you even take the time? You know they'll just say, "But no GUI!!!" or some stupid nonsense. But thank you for taking the time; I think everyone here is appreciative of the project and the immense effort it takes to create something as innovative as Monero. Right, because copying pasting to clone Bytecoin takes huge effort. Maybe one day the devs will put in some actual effort and produce a functional GUI, LOL.Like this lazy effort (by volunteers with no instamine to support their yachting lifestyle)? Quoting Fluffy's figures as of 3/30/15: "35 weeks of development (245 days) since Monero was inherited by the Core Team 594 separate commits 11 contributors 10 221 modified lines 12 706 new lines 32 lines removed Combining the two together, there were 22 927 lines of code over the first 8 months, which is 18 342 hours of work, so $1 375 620 worth of effort." Like this non-GUI (you meant to include official, right? Cause the devs want to rush out an incomplete smart-wallet before they debug and test a db and other issues critical to the long term usability of the coin? Cause things like fast coded GUI's matter more than long term functionality? Right? You need to build the market before you can build the product, right? Isn't that what all the scamcoin shills are saying these days?): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1009221*Thank you. Every ill-informed troll is an opportunity to re-state the facts and test for argumentative weaknesses or to augment my knowledge-base. |
|
|
|
Paraphrase: Here's evidence that Trolls troll.
Why do you even take the time? You know they'll just say, "But no GUI!!!" or some stupid nonsense. But thank you for taking the time; I think everyone here is appreciative of the project and the immense effort it takes to create something as innovative as Monero. |
|
|
|
holy shit, at least volume is high  rebounce soon? i personally do not expect a longer downturn, but thats just me. sentiment turned very fast the last 2 days.. Yeah, I was watching the volume too--top five last few days. Not sure what to make of it all. The sell-off was in all three anonymity coins (maybe more, was only watching xmr, drk, sdc), so maybe a market wide reaction to --looks lemmingesque to me, but xmr seems to be holding the pattern--so why? Someone wants to accumulate at a lower price? Someone over-accumulated and took profit and redistributed coins? Someone trying to sink the market or wants to shake-out weak hands? Other? I'm assuming since the major buy walls disappeared around the same time the major sell wall (48K) appeared that it is a strategical move--though the general market may have played into it chaotically--seems the player(s) had the strategy well prepared for a market opportunity or just got lucky with the timing or had some divine intervention (I don't really believe the last point). Again, this assumes the buy walls and sell wall at 48K are run by the same player(s) which most likely won't be validated either way. So I'm speculating  |
|
|
|
Now you know Monero's dirtiest little secret - you're all prancing and hopping behind a lunatic.  The thing about smart motherfuckers is they sound like crazy motherfuckers to dumb motherfuckers. ^This is so close to becoming my sig--this or a Nietzsche quotation. |
|
|
|
guys check out crave , dev just finished testing the masternode system, looking very good  I will save other people from looking it up. It's a POS coin. It's what you'd expect. You mean I shouldn't trust a guy named Mr pumperitis? I think my faith in humanity is dashed. |
|
|
|
Lmao
Was Evan telling you about the time he instamined a coin and then said it was an accident? |
|
|
|
A couple of good questions--too technical for me to answer with precision:
Step 3 seems unnecessary. AFAIK cryptonote coins achieve this same effect by including old transactions with new transactions in the ring signature. Steps 1 and 2 also are covered by ring signature coins. Step 4 might always be up to the sender--though zerocash or quantum money might be able to fix this in the future (not sure as most of this work is still fringe).
I just don't know enough about ring signatures - I wish someone would explain them to me. My impression of ring signatures is that only a limited number of people can participate in each ring signature (I'm not sure of how it is arranged which ones participate). For example, in one instance when I tried only 10 could participate, so the probability is 1/10 that a member of the ring did the transaction, which is far less anonymous than the theoretical 1/N, where N=all users of the coin. Also, I'm not sure to what extent one can analyze standard denominations and sums of them etc with Cryptonote coins. One problem is that some transaction sizes (small or large) might be less common than others, reducing anonymity. Is the transaction size hidden in a ring signature? Also, when ring signatures includes old transactions, can this be arbitrarily far back in time? |
|
|
|
Thinking about this, why wouldn't a merchant like polo simply make payment ID a required field? I don't think it is necessarily monero's problem if they offer multiple ways to pay (anonymous or not) and the merchant simply decides to not require the portion that makes the transaction trackable? For a centralized exchange that needs exact accounting of all transactions, this seems like bad implementation on their part (and everyone else's part who needs to keep track of user transactions).
How can you make payment ID a required field on transactions that people send to you? It's not like you can return coins to the original address if they arrive without a payment ID (thanks to the deniability afforded by ring-sigs). The only way to make payment IDs a required field would be to maintain a list of exchange wallet addresses (which has the downside of needing to be updated any time an address changes or a new exchange opens) and then make the IDs required on all pool/wallet transactions to those addresses. No doubt some people would still mess it up and put the wrong ID in, however. Perhaps a warning message if the Payment ID isn't filled? Seems that is sufficient due diligence on their part and would familiarize the process to the uninitiated. I did this my first time--just ignorance--and was worried until the support team fixed it. |
|
|
|
Could it in theory be possible to create the perfectly anonymous coin?
Note the below example is completely unrealistic because of the growth in blockchain size it would imply, but it is still interesting as a theoretical construction or a way to take anonymity to the limit.
I am aware of systems such as Cryptonote, Shadowcoin and BitcoinDark, but I'm no expert on them and I'm not sure to what extent they achieve the "perfect anonymity" described below.
First, my definition of anonymous simply means that the probability that a certain person did something is the same for all persons. So if there are N people using the system, then the probability that a certain act was done by any person is 1/N. Here the key concept is "any act" for example it could be sending a transaction of a certain size (and/or amount) in a time interval or just sending any transaction in a time interval or sending something to a certain adress.
The below coin is not meant so much for practical use, but as a pure anonymization tool. For example:
Bitcoin ->(exchange)-> Perfectly anonymous coin ->(super anonymous transaction)-> Perfectly anonymous coin ->(exchange)-> Bitcoin in a new unused wallet.
As I see it the following conditions would have to be satisfied:
("Analyze" here means statistically correlate, deducing probabilities that are not equal to 1/N for everyone etc)
0) Enough people (N)
1) Impossible to analyze transaction amounts and sizes.
2) Impossible to analyze address usage
3) Impossible to analyze timestamps
4) Hide IP adresses
Here are the conditions in more detail:
0) Enough people (N) must use the coin. This cannot be enforced and is not part of the technology as such.
1) It should be impossible to track transactions of certain sizes (both size in bytes and amount in coins). This could be accomplished by forcing all transactions to be of the form: "1 coin from A to B", where A and B are addresses. For example if you want to send 100 coins, you must sent 100 transactions of 1 coin each. Transactions less than 1 are not allowed. Messages are not allowed. I guess this would mean that the price of 1 coin should not be too high - but maybe that will be self-regulating? It the price of 1 coin was too high less people would use it and the price would go down.
That the only allowed transaction is "1 coin A to B" could be enforced by miners - every other transaction is treated as invalid and is ignored. Of course I'm completely ignoring the issue of fees.
2) Tracking adresses should be impossible. Every address should be deposited to only once and can only contain 1 coin. When the coin is sent the adress must never be used again.
How to enforce? One way is with the software, but this still leaves open the possibility of someone making their own client that re-uses adresses which might ruin anonymity for themselves, but also others. Maybe the miners could ignore all transactions that uses an adress that has been used up (received and sent 1 coin). However the list of used addresses for them to keep track of would be staggering? (They are stored on the blockchain)
An example:
So if you receive 56 coins from someone, the only allowable way to do that would be to receive 1 coin at a time each to a different address that has never been used before. The problem is that the sender knows that these addresses is probable to all belong to the same receiver which would allow the sender to further analyze that persons transactions in the future. Maybe one must use some sort of stealth addresses like in Cryptonote or similar?
3) Analysis of timestamps must be impossible: Is a transaction takes place when it is daytime in the pacific, then it is more probable that a person living there has made the transaction - hence ruining the perfect 1/N probability which is anonymity. If you know when someone comes home each day, a persons habits with respect to time, then timestamps would ruin anonymity, but only if the users themselves can choose when to make transactions. Therefore:
All users are forced to send 1 coin every x minutes, either to themselves or someone else following the above rules. The problem here is enforcement - the client software could do this automatically, but anyone could make their own client not following these rules. If x is too long a time, then you would only be able to send and receive every so often, and if x is small, the blockchain would grow rapidly. Still maybe one cannot rule out the idea of such a currency being used for a limited amount of time for pure anonymization purposes and then stop using it when the blockchain is too large and start over again?
Another problem is that the timestamps will not necessarily be exactly equally divided because of differenes in network speed for different people, which could be used to create profiles, hence contributing to de-anonymization. Another option is to send in randomly distributed times, but they must be truly random in that the time intervals must not be serially correlated or in any other way non-random.
4) Hiding IP adresses: This I simply assume that all users can do themselves using suitable proxies/TOR/I2P etc, or alternatively that the client has a builtin proxy. I don't consider this as an interesting part of the coins protocol as such but I'm more interested in a completely non-analyzable blockchain.
If the above assumptions are met the entire blockchain would look something like this:
1 coin A->B Time: T0 + x*1
1 coin C->D Time: T0 + x*1
1 coin E->F Time: T0 + x*1
1 coin G->H Time: T0 + x*1
....
1 coin I->J Time: T0 + x*2
1 coin B->L Time: T0 + x*2
1 coin M->N Time: T0 + x*2
1 coin O->P Time: T0 + x*2
....
.......
As I see it this would be completely impossible to analyze. You cannot see just by looking at the blockchain which addresses belong to the same person (unless you have the private key) and every address is used for only one input and one output. You don't know which transactions are people sending to another person or to themselves because everyone sends all the time. You cannot track transaction sizes because they are all equal.
Step 3 seems unnecessary. AFAIK cryptonote coins achieve this same effect by including old transactions with new transactions in the ring signature. Steps 1 and 2 also are covered by ring signature coins. Step 4 might always be up to the sender--though zerocash or quantum money might be able to fix this in the future (not sure as most of this work is still fringe). |
|
|
|
There is nothing we can do without dev's support and they just don't care... They should be all over this, pooling all unclaimed xmr into one big fund for the core team and other third-party contributors...
Frankly, I find the suggestion morally dubious. Those funds were sent to Poloniex to trade, that they cannot be linked to an account through human error does not free them up for us to take. Those funds belong to the people that sent them to Poloniex, and we have no way of knowing who they are or how important those funds are to those individuals. If Poloniex choose to take some independent action and donate the funds we won't stop them (nor would we even know it was them who donated unless they tell us), but if we go kick up a storm, demanding the funds, what do we do if in 6 months time someone comes along and says "oh dear, those funds I thought were on Poloniex actually aren't!" You're quick to accuse us of "passive problem solving", but if the alternative is borderline theft then I'd rather take the accusation of being passive. I agree. We at xmr.to are facing the same problem of course; even worse, we don't have any means to identify and contact users (which is, after all, the whole point of the exercise ) Thankfully, up to now, every time someone sent a transaction without a payment ID, they contacted us and claimed it. However, we discussed internally what we will do with unclaimed payments, and until now we did not see any option other than sitting on it. As already said, the money doesn't belong to us so we can only act as a custodian of our customer's funds. Now, if the community wholeheartedly agrees on donating orphan funds after some time-out period to the devs, we might consider to amend our terms of service. However, I personally find this kind of blanked statement on customer funds morally borderline. Would be different if we could use an opt-in on an individual basis, but alas... Playing devil's advocate: Wouldn't it better to make code that fixes the problem than to create a communal solution that isn't 100% or can be abused? Say someone is in a car accident and left in a comma for two tears, is it ok to tell them, "Sorry your 1000xmr were donated to the Monero dev fund because you hadn't claimed them within 12 months" ? Isn't there a way to code around this problem? I've also read on the Polo troll box complaints about the payment id and some claiming to have lost their funds because of it--maybe this is a good time to get ahead of it and keep potential FUDstorms to a minimum. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
