I preferred a free Bitcoin  It is getting closer. It seems that 2 of the 8 entries submitted for competition, named "wachtwoord" and "bluemoon", have bitten the dust. That leaves only 6 competitors remaining, and sgbett has not submitted for the last 2 rounds, leaving your chances for winning the whole thing quite good (unless you have disqualifiers looming for the coming rounds, that sgbett does not have due to his wide approach)!  Orange numbers: 0,0005 % 0,0005 % 0,0063 % 0,0063 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0010 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0010 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0010 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0010 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0010 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0010 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0010 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0010 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0010 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0010 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0010 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0013 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0017 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0010 % 0,0022 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0019 % 0,0079 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0026 % 0,0126 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0033 % 0,0215 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0044 % 0,0292 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0063 % 0,0368 %
0,0008 % 0,0008 % 0,0079 % 0,0422 %
0,0008 % 0,0008 % 0,0121 % 0,0464 %
0,0008 % 0,0008 % 0,0152 % 0,0479 %
0,0008 % 0,0008 % 0,0174 % 0,0493 %
0,0008 % 0,0008 % 0,0191 % 0,0507 %
0,0008 % 0,0008 % 0,0252 % 0,0654 %
0,0017 % 0,0017 % 0,0311 % 0,0669 %
0,0017 % 0,0017 % 0,0342 % 0,0684 %
0,0017 % 0,0017 % 0,0464 % 0,0698 %
0,0017 % 0,0029 % 0,0531 % 0,0711 %
0,0017 % 0,0042 % 0,0594 % 0,0724 %
0,0017 % 0,0072 % 0,3047 % 0,3431 %
0,0017 % 0,0587 % 0,4386 % 0,5276 %
0,0079 % 0,1077 % 0,5848 % 0,8193 %
0,0171 % 0,1710 % 0,6341 % 0,8316 %
0,0500 % 0,2714 % 0,6804 % 0,8434 %
0,1587 % 0,3915 % 1,2164 % 1,4620 %
0,4217 % 0,7663 % 1,7544 % 1,8663 %
1,3925 % 1,4736 % 1,8218 % 1,8899 %
1,5000 % 1,6869 % 2,0250 % 1,9617 %
1,6930 % 1,9039 % 4,5789 % 4,3089 %
3,7798 % 4,3089 % 5,3924 % 5,0133 %
4,6539 % 5,1223 % 5,8945 % 5,4288 %
5,8636 % 6,3061 % 6,9735 % 6,4633 %
8,6738 % 7,2986 % 6,8399 % 7,3681 %
10,4830 % 8,6535 % 5,8946 % 8,3654 %
11,6570 % 9,5828 % 0,2194 % 7,1138 %
0,2678 % 9,5244 % 0,2194 % 2,4879 %
0,2826 % 4,4480 % 0,2154 % 2,2374 %
0,2466 % 4,6903 % 0,2120 % 1,8969 %
0,1876 % 3,3472 % 0,1533 % 1,0627 %
0,1063 % 2,1544 % 0,0965 % 0,8193 %
0,0531 % 1,1447 % 0,0026 % 0,0271 %
0,0016 % 0,0342 % 0,0024 % 0,0252 %
0,0013 % 0,0159 % 0,0022 % 0,0229 %
0,0009 % 0,0126 % 0,0017 % 0,0020 %
0,0007 % 0,0100 % 0,0013 % 0,0017 %
0,0006 % 0,0079 % 0,0009 % 0,0014 %
0,0004 % 0,0006 % 0,0006 % 0,0010 %
0,0003 % 0,0005 % 0,0005 % 0,0006 %
0,0002 % 0,0003 % 0,0003 % 0,0004 %
0,0001 % 0,0002 % 0,0002 % 0,0002 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0002 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 % 0,0001 %
0,0005 % 0,0005 % 0,0005 % 0,0005 %
Leaderboard (includes also September results): Foxpup 451.82 dnaleor 167.02 sgbett1 18.20 sgbett2 25.01 sgbett3 10.97 sgbett4 2.99 The deciding thing was Round 4 - September forecast. Only 4 players forecasted anything and two of them had a probability of 0.0001% for what happened. The remaining players Foxpup and dnaleor reaped the rewards and are now well positioned. As usual, I am happy to answer any questions! |
|
|
|
Challenge
In a regime of slow initial emission of a currency, propose ways that capture the part of the value of the coins emitted (which currently goes to excess mining cost), in such a way that the value is automatically and trustlessly (or, as close to that as possible) spent/distributed in way that increase the adoption of the currency.
That challenge is met by the empire, which distributes its coins gratis upon request. (I already said this, just to hear arguments against it, which of course were not received as there are none.) We already know from my previous posts, the 4 classes: - First class (developers, earliest adopters, big investors) - Business class (largish investors, businessmen, service providers) - Middle class (smaller investors, ordinary users) - Low class (owners of only a small number of coins). If coins are forcibly distributed to everybody, they come to low class in such an abundance (low class consists of 80% of people) that they have no use for them and either: - sell them as soon as there is a meaningful value to be extracted (cf. Auroracoin), or - keep them, making a huge overhang of value belonging to people who do not contribute to the economy. In these conditions, the Business class (of 3% of the people) does not have the means nor feels the need to develop services for these people, just to get the worthless tokens in exchange. There are so much better coin economies available that every productive person chooses them instead. Monero economy is valued at $5 million now. By distributing coins to everyone equally, it would be $0.001, needless to say such an effort is futile. I exhort everybody to read the question again and let the proposals flow. |
|
|
|
The existence of an XMR/fiat exchange with coverage of EUR and USD in a developed jurisdiction seems very positive to me. It means that XMR will be less coupled to BTC, and accessible to anyone willing to send funds by bank wire or SEPA. It may constitute a liquidity event, if interest is high enough. However, it will not make XMR more usable. Only DB and GUI work can do that.
Can you send me PM a memo how to get in there. I think they need more liquidity soon  |
|
|
|
But I am not yet convinced that anyone has a model that can tell us there is no evidence of an attack.
"No evidence" (to me, at least) just means "no evidence". I also have no evidence that I have cancer, yet it is still possible that I have cancer, I just don't have evidence. Edit: in short, don't confuse lucky hubris with repeatable science though I suppose your argument is speculators operate with imperfect information and form probabilities.
What I said is that CN will certainly be attacked in the future. Thus P("attack in any given day from now on") >> 0, and if P("BCX attack") is low enough, it does not make a meaningful contribution to the total propensity of attack, and, from a speculator's standpoint, is meaningless. Speculators are interested in the total probability, and whether the price has over- or underreacted to its changes. XMR price is low atm, but imo it can mainly be attributed to overall weakness in all coins. When BTC starts to rise (or even before if it takes long), I have a conviction that XMR will be one of the best performing alts. I try to move my contributions to other threads and the MEW however, so thank you for discussion! |
|
|
|
Hi. Have the Excel packages for this system been shared in another thread? This is all very intriguing No not yet. I am trying to make this introduced in the MEW in due time. |
|
|
|
Risto only said that there was a 4-8% likelihood this coin wouldn't live next month, that's not the same as BCX wouldn't attack. BCX could still attack but the coin may live on after that..
I am not convinced even he knew what random variable he was computing. You can try to quote him to correct my understanding, but when I read it the first time in private, I got confused. Perhaps I was tired. And I don't remember it being carefully worded to make it clear he wasn't saying only 4 - 8% chance to be worried about BCX. Seemed to me to be saying, "never mind BCX". (this soap opera is all about politics?) What do you personally think are the chances of a coin killer attack? And second, did you sell a percentage of your stash?
I am quite an insider in the situation, since I belong to the remedy team, and have communicated with all the main actors. I cannot evaluate the tech, but I know the turns of the events. I currently give a 92-96% chance that Cryptonote will live to see the next month As a result, I believe that currently the market is too bearish. Here you go. Sounds like "ignore BCX" to me. How do you interpret it? It is the "next month", and Cryptonote is alive. There is no real evidence of attack along those lines, but CN will certainly be attacked in the future using various paths. I would join NewLiberty in saying that our real test is how to make maximum good come out of this attack threat, which demonstrated our commitment to defend Monero, proved that the coin is not so easy to attack, and encouraged the owners to join the MEW in much higher numbers than anticipated. This is a good start. |
|
|
|
2 da m00n or 2 da dungeon?
I think the price is still under the fear from BCX "attack". He comes on every few days and says he "still has time" ( it was 22 days....) Until that threat is resolved either way we aren't moving much up or down. I don't believe anyone with money to move the markets is waiting on that. Weak hands sold, strong hands held, new hands are buying. Business as usual. With a little less Monero-centric worldview you could see that Bitcoin and alts are fighting for their life, so a low price is just sympathy. |
|
|
|
As well I could have said that the hoarding is the only thing that gives value to anything [ ... ]. If there is no interest in anyone to hoard (save) in your currency, even the marvellous use cases do not give it any value, as it just travels lightning-speed through the use cases, but is not in demand by anyone.
Hm, this is quite a change from the arguments used up to six months ago. Claims like "1 BTC will soon be worth over 100'000 dollars" were entirely based on the prediction that bitcoin would capture some fraction of the e-payments in the world, and the price would have to be that high in order to have that much dollar volume with 21 million coins. Although I reserve the right to change opinions, that is something I have never emphasized. Only that someone else but you has said it, does not make me responsible. |
|
|
|
Hoarding has the goal of delayed buying. Of course, some people can hoard for the sake of hoarding, but most do it to store value for purposes of future consumption. Which again brings us to unique consumption cases that this or that currency can provide.
Once the expected loss in transaction costs is smaller than the expected loss of the transactional currency being a weaker store of value, people prefer currency exchange to hoarding the transactional currency. Between cryptos, currency exchange cost is very low, so I don't give much chance of success to a coin that is a weak store of value even though it had superlative transactional use. But higher usage on the other hand makes a coin gain in value also, therefore making it a better store of value. |
|
|
|
Nah just pick your favorite POS and try to articulate. I don't mind pictures either. Without any way to convince that you are doing something great, the chances that anyone will buy it with significant value are slim.
Well, here is one way to articulate it. The only real driver of demand for a currency not backed by unique tangible properties (all cryptos fall under that category, PoW and PoS) is when something unique can be purchased for that currency and that currency only. That is the key to success. Why is USD in such great demand? Because you need it to buy oil, no modern economy can operate without oil. Create unique use cases that others don't have and you're ahead of others, but not for long if you stop creating those unique use cases. Algorithms, inflation rates, proof-of-xxx models are not significant. What really matters is what you can use it for. If you think of unique use cases for various cryptos, you may come to interesting conclusions. But you need to try to use various cryptos (PoW, PoS) to be able to appreciate their pros and cons and envisage their potential. I won't pick one PoS, you know which PoS is ahead of others at this point. This can change, but the concept of PoS is here to stay as long as the concept of crypto currencies in general survives. Of course I understand that you are hard pressed with time, but that answer seems very focused on one aspect of the economy. As well I could have said that the hoarding is the only thing that gives value to anything (absent debt money of course which is very insidious, since the unfulfillable requirement to pay back (= debt slavery) gives them their value). If there is no interest in anyone to hoard (save) in your currency, even the marvellous use cases do not give it any value, as it just travels lightning-speed through the use cases, but is not in demand by anyone. Therefore I posit that transactional uses are important, but mainly as a marketing and community building tool. Without increase of hoarding, the currency does not gain any value. (That is a different discussion whether currency should even have any value at all - I am looking at this from the opposite viewpoint, I first select my unit of account and hoard it, and then try to use it as a transactional medium as much as practical as well. This has been the way money emerged and evolved over millennia, and attempts to change it are synthetic and futile.) |
|
|
|
- coin generation schedule should take into account the size of the economy;
Is there an economy behind BTC or any altcoins? Altcoins are bound to BTC and BTC is bound to the USD. But I never heard a company is producing and selling their goods for a fixed BTC price. Everyone still calculates in fixed $ prices and adjusts BTC prices every minute/hour/day. [/quote] Luxembourg is typically considered a state, yet its economy is 75% connected to the neighboring states. Therefore it has no economy? You would have to define quite strenuously what an economy is and is not. One way to go is attributes of money: - in the transactions, Bitcoin is typically quite minuscule % of even those who use it - in the unit of account, quite many use it internally, but things priced in bitcoins are rather few (Malla event was priced in bitcoins and made a huge loss due to exch fluctuation and cost being in fiat) - in the store of value, the Bitcoin heavy users store most of their value in Bitcoins. Alts similarly, but to a smaller global degree of course, since all alts combined do not match 10% of BTC. |
|
|
|
...awaiting the explanation.. I don't think I can explain, it's a clash of ideologies. In that kind of opposition verbal arguments, which there's been no lack of recently, just don't work. There is a reason they made the "A picture is worth a thousand words" proverb, because sometimes you have to see it to believe. Nah just pick your favorite POS and try to articulate. I don't mind pictures either. Without any way to convince that you are doing something great, the chances that anyone will buy it with significant value are slim. |
|
|
|
- none of the current POS are in a right track (but I am glad to be proven wrong! ). You seem to be overall a nice guy, but you're wrong about this one Well this is the place to discuss about it. Sorry that I always want the people to explain it to me, instead of me going to the source. But awaiting the explanation.. |
|
|
|
My newest thoughts about monetary economics, plus exhortation to find a new initial coin distribution paradigm. I believe that: - coin generation schedule should take into account the size of the economy; - it is not necessary to waste 100% of the value of the new coins as energy - that was necessary in gold era because trustless generation could not be otherwise maintained; - it might be possible to find a way to distribute this value trustlessly in a way that enhances the economy and adoption; - none of the current POS are in a right track (but I am glad to be proven wrong! ).
|
|
|
|
|
Back to the core of money creation
In the current fiat system, when new credits ("money" eg. USD) are created, someone takes an obligation to pay it back with interest. Since very little money is actually created "out of thin air", there looms a constant threat that the debt defaults cascade and not enough money is found to pay them all (there is not enough in existence). This would theoretically allow the bankers to seize all property of everyone, because typically people are citizens of countries, whose governments have taken debt from the bankers. As long as this grand theft does not happen, the bankers and their cronies are busy consolidating the natural resources of the planet, such as gold (already about 80% in bankster vault), land and water and mineral deposits, in their control.
What they have managed to accomplish, shows that there is a great network effect in money, which can be 100% pocketed to the perpetrators of the system. In coin terms, that is like an infinite premine to the devs, and people can only get the transaction medium by promising to pay it back with interest. All the benefits of the system, transaction fees, interest payments, etc. go to the devs. In aggregate, the rest of the users are just running deeper and deeper into unpayable obligations, allowing the devs to force a dysfunctional inhuman lifestyle (called the "western world") on them, plus the devs having the killswitch as well.
"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again. However, take away from them the power to create money and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create money." -Josiah Stamp, Bank of England.
Seeking for alternatives
(Once again I assume that the network security will be maintained by a mechanism, the best of which so far is POW, so that the rest of the chapter is talking about the initial creation of the monetary stock only)
We have already outlined the alternatives, of which one is POW. This is similar to gold mining in the sense that new units of money can be created by (theoretically) anyone, but the marginal cost of production of money is so high that the benefits for doing it should optimally be only comparable to the benefits of engaging in any other industry.
The initial distribution with POW has the issue of fixed supply. This is not economically without problems. With gold, if the purchasing power of gold rose, it encouraged more mining and more supply. With all current coin designs (save possible emunie), rising price does invite more mining, but the emission is not affected. With Bitcoin, this may have contributed to the self-fulfilling belief that the fixed supply is a resource to be hoarded, and sold to the later comers at a higher price. With altcoins, which do not have the luxury to call themselves "the one and only true coin", this thinking is likely a false premise. Just because a coin has a limited number of units, does not mean it is valuable based on that alone. It is always possible to make a new coin and once key people migrate to that, the previous alt is bound to die a slow death.
Coins with a very fast and fixed distribution (POS) just aggravate these problems, so I am not going into them.
Monero serves as an example of a coin that holds great promise, is 100% POW, no premine/instamine or that, and currently its price is below the average of its emission-weighted history (and also volume-weighted history, which is an easier qualification). It has of course the same challenges that every coin has, in building a community. But a special challenge comes from the ultimate "fairness" that Monero, partly because of the idealism of the current core team, partly because of its history, has: there is not enough funds to develop the coin at a speed that is required to keep up. The debt currency developers (bankers) have all the money in the world, same to a smaller degree applies to POS and premine coin devs, but Monero devs do not have it.
The economic history of Monero is that a great resource has been expended to mining it. Some of it has been miner profits, but most has been consumed as mining costs. The current price is below that of purchasing the coins for the aggregate of investors, so the investors have been not only paying for the mining costs but also subsidized the mining profits from their own pocket. On top of that, the developers, who also own stakes, have subsidized the coin creation + subsidized the development. It has been a wonderful experiment, but we have to face the facts that at present we are deeply on the red.
I am not proposing anything to Monero (this is important to say since I serve as Operational Executive in the MEW, so my words might be interpreted to apply to that), just thinking how the initial distribution system could be make better so that it retains all the fairness, but the added value from the emission, or a part of it, could be captured to serve the adoption of the coin so that in the end the network effect would make everyone better off, not only the first, middle and latter adopters, but the society at large. Optimally, the universal adoption of the currency would be such a great boon to the liberty and well-being of everyone that even the ones who "lose" as a result of their previous wealth's purchasing power reduction, are mostly happy with the result.
Challenge
In a regime of slow initial emission of a currency, propose ways that capture the part of the value of the coins emitted (which currently goes to excess mining cost), in such a way that the value is automatically and trustlessly (or, as close to that as possible) spent/distributed in way that increase the adoption of the currency.
|
|
|
|
These paid votes are worse than any government tax as it serves no legitimate function, and nothing is done with that money except line the recipients pocket. it is just a bribe.
Probably folks do paid votes as just an individual decision. It makes sense for the exchange, to cover the setup costs. I may also make sense to folks that like to stick with one exchange and already use it. If their time is worth a little money and they figure that they will save some time by not switching back and forth. Paying voters are the ones who have a massive stake in the $hitcoin. It is only fair that the exchanges try to recoup the implementation costs from the ones who actually gain from the exchange listing - the preminers and pumpers. I think this is a good symbiotic system. Exchanges should pay DEVS % of their commission to list the good altcoins. Good altcoins are already listed. |
|
|
|
These paid votes are worse than any government tax as it serves no legitimate function, and nothing is done with that money except line the recipients pocket. it is just a bribe.
Probably folks do paid votes as just an individual decision. It makes sense for the exchange, to cover the setup costs. I may also make sense to folks that like to stick with one exchange and already use it. If their time is worth a little money and they figure that they will save some time by not switching back and forth. Paying voters are the ones who have a massive stake in the $hitcoin. It is only fair that the exchanges try to recoup the implementation costs from the ones who actually gain from the exchange listing - the preminers and pumpers. I think this is a good symbiotic system. |
|
|
|
These 4 are things that I think will 1) bring us closer to the GUI wallet full functionality, but also 2) open up business opportunity in the near term even before the wallet is ready. If you think "no vote before effort assessment" and we can't get 10% that want to vote on this proposal, then we can probably get a 10% quorum to vote on asking to get effort assessments, and pass that with a simple majority.
Here is a bit more to think about on this proposal so far:
#1 is what is needed to get paper wallets, coin-wallets, all that sort of thing. There are lead times for making items that can be quite long in some cases. Having this will start the clock rolling on that. So I put it first.
#2 is something business and accounting will require. To me, the killer app for Monero is not the "i fear my government" folks. No, it is the 100% legal high finance and multinational business enterprises internal settlement accounts.
Here's why: If you are the C-level exec doing business internationally, and you are looking to expand in a foreign region, you are going to run up against entrenched interests. In many/most areas, these will include the local banking systems. If you want to keep your business advantage of first mover and avoid industrial espionage risks letting the in-country folks collude against you, you want a way to move your money within your company in private OUTSIDE THE BANKING SYSTEMS. Sure you could use Bitcoin for this, but with its public ledger, if the opposition has half a clue, they can track it. Sure you could take steps to obfuscate the transactions, but then you can't delegate it to your low level functionaries.
MONERO solves these problems in ways we do not expect Bitcoin to address anytime in the near future.
And here's the kicker, that market is 100x what Bitcoin is today. Even if the only one doing it was Apple Computer, it would overwhelm the total market cap of Bitcoin today, and there are 10,000 companies in this situation.
It's #2 because there are a lot more pieces needed to do this, but this one is crucial. It will have to be perfectly internally auditable, and perfectly obfuscated externally.
#3 is the Small and Medium Enterprise function. Merchants will need this.
#4 is for basic reliability. We have to have usage, but when they have it, it needs to not break. I think if we asked our developers to do them in this order, we would be well suited to engage marketing solutions more swiftly.
These are designed around business needs, geared to promote success of the technology, and to take us to the next level.
If we get to 50%, we can send it as a request for development priority to dev team. Short of that, we can talk about this or other proposals, but I am also looking for some quick actionable things that we as a functioning body can put forward to get things moving.
I am in favor of sending a message concerning priorities. What we need to efficiently do it, however, is to open the own discussion channel first. (I heard there is a freenode, but am not a member yet.) Then we can do what the voting protocol requires, which is draft the initial proposal for discussion, and then the final proposal to be voted when the discussion ends. The voting is allowed to take 168 hours, but it can be ended when the absolute majority (50%+1 vote of all votes) is reached. Then we should gather the financial information from the devteam, for making these things happen. This should accompany our initial donation of about 3,000 XMR. Please others - we don't want to be guiding the devteam too often, if you have something important for them, it might be possible to write a one-page communiqué distilling pretty much all that the community members want of the devs. After having this information, the rest we'll have to do ourselves! And that's going to be fun! |
|
|
|
How does "new money"'s perception of the coin change if the inflation period is long? I mean, what benefits are there in the long inflation period for investors? How is growing economy of the coin dependent on the length of the inflation period?
Nobody loves inflation, but few people regard it as a horrendous evil to be avoided at any cost. Normal people do not expect that a hoard of cash will keep its value, much less grow more valuable, by itself, over time. And, for the good of the economy, they shouldn't "invest" in cash or other "dead" assets: they should use their intelligence to choose productive enterprises, and invest in them. Cryptocurrencies were meant to be means of payment; their repurposing as long-term investment has always been criticized by economists. My view is more practical. I believe it is a good idea to have an uninflatable store of value (this is the original Bitcoin thinking). But if I am faced with a choice to buy into a coin whose community is growing and consists of people willing to store their savings in this inflatable currency, or a coin whose community is eager to unload their stash to the next generation at greatly higher prices and live well off the proceeds, I go with the former. That I am currently part of the latter also, should not be a distraction. Bitcoin was the best choice in 2010-2013. Now I have been the early promoter of this thinking, and the coin I believe best suits it, Monero. The amount of actual attacks speaks about that it is taken seriously. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
