Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification ( https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties. In a commercial exchange, the party that delivers first has the right to know the identity and past history of the other party. If someone asks you to pay upfront but refuses to identify himself, you should assume he is a scammer, and not have any business with him. To be fair, James understands this and has contacted reputable, public, community members as regards escrowing the whole thing. |
|
|
|
This is September. Last September I sold BTC2000+. Now, "I will not sell 2000 BTC this month. I will not sell 2000 BTC this month. I will not sell 2000 BTC this month."  |
|
|
|
I am lending BTC and XMR for speculation, but only against 150% guarantee in the other coin. So there IS an actual opportunity to leverage also without buying the options.
The APR we are talking about is 5-10%, in addition comes a one-time setup fee.
so at 5% borrower gets 1BTC (time 1 year) and post 1.5BTC worths of altcoin (of what acceptable coins?) the borrower owes 1.05BTC to get bonded coins back can we get a hint on the setup fee too  Yes, plus if the value of the collateral goes too low, it will be liquidated. Setup fee is based on the time it takes to setup it, if I know the person, the simplicity of terms, collateral etc. BTC0.3 is the lowest that I can imagine. Haggling makes it go higher due to longer setup time. |
|
|
|
I have (no?) idea what if anything BBR has to do with the bytecoin scheme.
I would put it more strongly: Event though it seems probable that CZ involved in cryptonote development, and hence in bytecoin development, there is nothing to link him directly with the pre-mine scam. If CZ was involved early in development but not in the fraud, almost certainly he was at least aware of it, so perhaps the distinction is too fine. If he was involved late, he could have been aware of it, but have no culpability in it. The closeness of the association, however, still would damage the risk profile of BBR in the market's view. Scenarios in order of increasing investor risk: 1) CZ had nothing to do with BCN, and is not AS. 2) CZ is AS but had nothing to do with BCN. 3) CZ was involved in BCN, but after the pre-mine. 4) CZ was involved in the fraud, but is reformed. 5) CZ was involved in the fraud, and plans to exploit the next suitable opportunity to take money from more honest people. In the best of these scenarios, BBR still suffers from the risks inherent in centralization of governance. It just gets worse from there on. , so they have no investor risk. It is implausible that there is any way for CZ to take money from more honest people using Boolberry, so scenario 5 is extremely unlikely. Oligarchy is just as centralized as monarchy. False. Take an example of XMR. If David Latapie, fluffypony or any of the others was exposed as a scammer, I would race to the exits, and so would everybody. Why? Because they knew I would, and wanted to exit first. The value of the coin would be destroyed. If this would not happen with BBR, well, it talks more about the great divide concerning what kind of people invest in that vs. in Monero, and to each his own... |
|
|
|
Since Bitcoin is not going to take over the world, now I am searching for that incredibly undervalued one that will take over the world. Make sure you buy it cheaper than I do or invest more than I have (which won't be difficult), else I will have bragging rights Smiley Make sure you tell us when you found it ok? He would be a fool to tell you until he has accumulated substantially, and a fool not to tell you afterwards. I am a fool in the first count |
|
|
|
Define 'more complicated' mathematically? Would it be what you are more familiar with?
Not a very general definition, but if model B has all the terms/functions that model A has + extra, then B is strictly more complicated than A. How are you so certain that Bitcoin adoption has not slowed??
I am not saying that. What I am saying, is that: - logistic model has (much) better R^2 than log-logistic model - logistic model is simpler than log-logistic model - behaviour now is well within the bounds of expected volatility (based on historical volatility ex. 2012/2013) It is just that under these conditions there is no ground to assess a higher probability to log-logistic than logistic. As a reply I accept your post containing a graph how terrible fit the log-logistic model actually is and how mistaken trading signals it would have given in the past. |
|
|
|
Thank You Peter R! I will add this model to the toolkit when I try to explain to people why sometimes (2013) it rises 100x and sometimes (2012) hardly at all. Randomness.
Randomness is not the only possible explanation. Log-logistic adoption is another possibility for a declining rate of appreciation. So it is not sufficient to say, "the model must be my fit, and randomness explains why the fit is off this year". The burden of proof is on the "fit" that fits the data less (despite being more complicated), i.e. yours. (I seriously think you are wasting your precious time, trying to argue with me about statistics. Tell me when I do likewise re: your strong point.) |
|
|
|
the panic was not as bad as I had expected.
I got lucky: "ristopietila: my dream scenario would be a dump to 370, low enough to enable some acquisition and carve a low, but high enough to end the dreaming of monero ever going as low again" Nice call. Did your bid get filled? I see a low just shy at .003735! Not really. I had applied to Poloniex that the investors could enter orders before the markets open (which has been the case in every market since time immemorial but seemingly not crypto, as both Mt.Gox and Poloniex have refused to do it). Because I am slow to type, I could not participate in the initial whipsaw (which in my opinion should not even happen if the exchanges would take the time to study how it is to be an exchange). Poloniex did get some minuspoints, the first ones from me. |
|
|
|
the panic was not as bad as I had expected.
I got lucky: "ristopietila: my dream scenario would be a dump to 370, low enough to enable some acquisition and carve a low, but high enough to end the dreaming of monero ever going as low again" |
|
|
|
I agree re waiting, but by December it should be clear (at least short term), don't you agree?
Not at all. There is a great deal of psychological research that shows how our human minds try to find patterns that aren't really there. A fantastic book on this topic is "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. IMO, the growth rate for bitcoin would need to decline strongly (or retreat over a long period) to truly invalidate the exponential growth model. Here's a model that fixes bitcoin's market cap at inception at $500,000. The "rationale" is that Satoshi spent approximately 2 years building it, and the market-value for Satoshi-level talent is $250,000 / year. https://i.imgur.com/OiKgYfu.pngI'm not arguing for this model, just pointing out that if growth slows to a more modest (but still exponential level), arguments could still be made that we are on trend. IMO it would take a failure to reach a new ATH by 2017, or a sustained (1 year+) fall below $250, for me to say that "bitcoin growth has halted." ... It's so easy to be fooled by randomness. Here's several simulations of the same underlying exponential growth model. But instead of solving a regular differential equation to get a smooth exponential curve, I'm solving a stochastic differential equation that adds process noise. The people in Alternate Universe #1 who get to ride the upper purple curve will think bitcoin is the most fantastic thing! The people riding the bottom blue curve are going to make up story after story about how it's failing. But in all cases, the only difference was randomness.  Interesting.. However, if bitcoin will go though it's "plaque" years and then will be glorious by 2070, it wouldn't matter much to me. I am of the opinion that each generation has to build their own wealth, not ride on savings of their folks, so it does not look really appealing if some of my descendents will be very wealthy because of my activities in the first half of this decade. Thank You Peter R! I will add this model to the toolkit when I try to explain to people why sometimes (2013) it rises 100x and sometimes (2012) hardly at all. Randomness. |
|
|
|
We don't have much time remaining. We are dicking around.
Please re-iterate your actionable plan for people who don't have a particular skillset and aren't particularly wealthy but belong to the middle class and are fortunate enough to read you. |
|
|
|
W h a t a g r o s s i r o n y that the most legitimate and economic initial distribution of any cryptocoin existing (and therefore the most potential #2 coin in the months and years to come) happens to be a coin with an unbelievably messy codebase, intentionally made scammy, buggy, unoptimized, crippled and obfuscated by the (B)CN scamdevs.
XMR is not the most legitimate and economic initial distribution of any cryptocoin existing. There are other people(myself included) who have gone to great lengths to attempt to create the fairest possible initial distribution for a cryptocurrency. Hah, contradiction already in the second line. Sorry to say but your logic has been going down since last year.  |
|
|
|
The fact that I don't care to argue about economics with almost anyone, does not magically mean that notlambchop was right, nor that I agreed with him. And I am still at a loss to understand how this all relates to the thread...  |
|
|
|
Note to newcomers: BBR is the only (non-XMR) cryptonote coin that is not conclusively proven to be lead by the original CN scamteam  Well, thanks, at least some recognition You (as well as me) have received all kinds of slander. Some is rather easy to debunk, some is so ridiculous that it does not need to. Since you are such a competent CN developer, I just have to keep the most obvious possibility open - that you have been developing it all along. If this is indeed the case, you belong to the scamteam, by virtue of lying about it if nothing else. Don't worry: I am sure this matter will be found out soon. Until it is, I do not have the grounds to decide on either way, and frankly it is not of my great interest either. Disclosure: I don't own BBR. |
|
|
|
|
W h a t a g r o s s i r o n y that the most legitimate and economic initial distribution of any cryptocoin existing (and therefore the most potential #2 coin in the months and years to come) happens to be a coin with an unbelievably messy codebase, intentionally made scammy, buggy, unoptimized, crippled and obfuscated by the (B)CN scamdevs.
|
|
|
|
|
The reason why deflationary money has not been used is that there is no such thing.
Price deflation arises from economy at function. When economy is doing bad, prices rise. If economy is doing good, prices fall.
|
|
|
|
+1. the fact that xmr devs fixed a bug that extended to every cryptonote coins is incredibly bullish.
if you've tracked the code changes, and their propagation through the coins, you know it is not an isolated incident. certainly most of the codebases have introduced fixes (and bugs) so there is no monopoly, but if you were to listen to the trolls you would think XMRs core team, and their staff of expert consultants, were the reincarnation of the three stooges. that could not be more wrong. what constantly surprises me is their incident and risk management skills. If I did not know and even have met some of them, the determination and skills, combined with the fact that they don't receive any salary (rather actually fund the development from their own pocket, despite being only medium holders), would surely make me suspect that it is a 3-letter-agency plan all along. A comparison to Satoshi is not hard to make. |
|
|
|
I was trying to be helpful. Clearly, I wasn't.
Clearly my views and investment are not welcome.
The thread is 670 pages long, and most of it is repeating the same unfounded criticisms over and over again by accounts that have been created during the short history of Monero, and whose posting history includes nothing constructive. Since your post fell into this category, the answers by one of the core developers, in the day of intense fighting against an attack made possible by (B)CN scamdevs, may sound terse. |
|
|
|
it's pretty funny how many people talk about the hypothetical problem of deflationary currency, even though we have never really used deflationary currency.
While at the same time you never hear anyone complain about the problems of an economy based on exponential inflation. Like the earth can sustain exponential growth.
Especially as there cannot even be such a thing as a "deflationary currency". If nobody would work due to it being "more profitable to hoard", the amount of goods produced in the economy would be reduced and the "problem" would correct itself. People have decided they get richer by hoarding and not producing, so the money just gets more valuable every year despite there soon being nothing to buy.Oh Keynes - I know you were a smart guy, but your followers don't seem to find a contradiction in the italicized part, which I regard as a pretty grave mistake...  |
|
|
|
The problem is not economy, it is the perpetrators of injustice.
That's what the Jacobins, the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge, the People's Liberation Army, and ISIL said. Even winning the revolution does not constitute winning simpliciter. Exactly. For this reason it is not a proper course of action to hunt down every goon and let their corpses lay unburied. It is a proper course of action to speak out in the forums, and appear blameless in your own deeds so that they don't harass you, but even if they do, your conscience is pure. There is currently a disparity of power in that goons can rob me of my property, liberty, and life (and 2 first ones have been tried), whereas I renounce my power to do likewise to them. By so doing I give them time to repent. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
