Is there a way to top up without going via BTC ?
CNY on BTER OTC for some sort of fiat (or non-BTC crypto) payment EDIT: Poloniex XMR pairs, including vs. USDT. (Thanks macsga, I forgot those.) |
|
|
|
Appearently we have conflicting views on the matter, we have Dash's view on the matter which is explained in great detail and accepted by the Dash community (who are the one's actually financially involved with this cryptocurrency) and we have the view on this matter by one of many Dash's competitors. I will leave it with that  That's actually quite fair, though I'd note there are certainly people with the 'outside' perspective who are not Dash competitors. While both of the above cited quoted are from me (which I used because I am more familiar with my own writings and I find them to be of high quality), there are numerous other threads, posts, and poll results where it is unlikely those expressing a negative view on the instamine are direct competitors. Especially because some of those critical threads and posts pre-date any of Dash's currently-active direct competitors! Anyway, thank you for the respectful discussion, I think both perspectives have gotten a fair presentation here. |
|
|
|
Such obsession with the instamine while Dash has moved on and so have their users. Fact is those of us involved with Dash
know about the instamine and just dont care about it anymore.
There are always insider and outsider perspectives on anything, and a self-selected component to those are are insiders. In other words, you stated it one way, but the other way also applies: Those who don't care about the instamine, or who think it was a good way to launch a coin, are now involved with Dash; those who do care and do not think it was a good way to launch a coin tend to not be involved. Or for those interested in some facts from an 'outsider' rather than 'insider' perspective, where the possibility that it was not an innocent 'accident' and/or can't be shown to have been an accident is given more exposure: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=999886.0 3. That Evan misled people into thinking that the launch would not happen for days (and specifically "definitely" not in "hours"), then it happened in a few hours, late at night in the US and during the early morning hours in Europe. Considering the >500K coins mined in the very first hour alone, the effect of this "ambush" was enormous.
4. That the stated reason for delaying the launch for days was to do more testing and fix bugs. Yet when the coin was lunched it still had a "serious error." Why was the rushed ambush launch done in this manner?
5. That Evan withheld information about the purpose, features, and goals of he coin development until after the instamine was complete. It was absolutely impossible for you to have any reason to mine this coin unless your strategy was to mine 100% of new coins that were launched, you just happened to stumble into it, you were friends with Evan, or you were Evan. In effect it turns the instamine into a premine, because the coins were mined before the coin was properly announced.
or a more recent take on it: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1220064.msg12795405#msg12795405And these people could not have foreseen that Xcoin(which Dash was built upon) was going to get any value at all. That is true for most people. But someone who knew that it had actual development plans would have a far, far better chance to conclude this than people operating in the dark (no pun intended). The only people with this enormous advantage were Evan and people working with Evan. |
|
|
|
I've upgraded Ubuntu (with Monero daemon) to 15.10. So now there is libboost 1.58 instead of 1.55 and now Monero daemon (built 2015-Oct-14) doesn't want to start because "libboost_chrono.so.1.55.0" doesn't exist. I've tried to remove libboost 1.58 and then to install "libboost1.55-all-dev" but stuсked at "Unable to locate package libboost1.55-all-dev" error. I'm not an expert in Linux usage so I don't know how to solve this. Please help.
15.10 doesn't appear to have a boost 1.55 package so you will have to recompile Monero. |
|
|
|
In a Ponzi scheme, the idea is that you always need new money to pay off old investors. If the number of people speculating on the price of Bitcoin stagnates, then the price will simply remain around the relatively same level without crashing down to zero. There are no payouts that need to be made to Bitcoin holders on a regular basis, so there is no way for a scheme to be exposed.
This is incorrect. Mining means there is an ongoing supply of new coins that need to be paid for by someone. If the miner keeps them then the miner is paying (i.e. putting in new money) with mining costs, otherwise someone else needs to pay money to the miner to buy them. If there aren't enough buyers then the price will drop until buyers show up. If no one wants to put in new money then the value would in fact drop to near zero. Whether this meets the holistic definition of ponzi scheme is another question, but you can't deny that new money is need to sustain price in a mined cryptocurrency, because it is. Anyway, what I was asking about was not whether BTC (or Dash) is itself a ponzi scheme, but whether the current price gains are driven by a rather large external ponzi scheme that is using BTC. The existence of the "MMM" scheme (which has by now become large enough to span several countries) is not in question. Here is their youtube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCzQPrNRVBh6hYOE6uINRHRQHere is their founder talking about Bitcoin: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRVhYWxhsNI |
|
|
|
I think this is exactly what spreadcoin does. It kinda didn't work... asked about it on their thread, and I'm pretty sure I got a solid answer. Though at one point smooth convinced me that fud mainly killed the coin and the anti anti-pool countermeasure was nonexistant... but I remember ultimately being convinced that it didn't work.
It wasn't me. Someone else reported back on the AEON thread after it was discussed that it was FUD. When I looked it seemed to me that the pool was using a closed source miner as a countermeasure, which sort of works, but only as long as no one cares enough to attack it. |
|
|
|
Should a good person mine with a bad computer? Bad = 35 H/s
If yes then, solo mine or pool?
If you're mining to help the network (and that's really the only reason with a bad computer) and you can, solo mine. You may want to look into underclocking/undervolting to make the efficiency slightly less bad, unless you 100% don't care about electricity/heat. |
|
|
|
If I tried to talk up Monero, interested listeners would go where for an "easy" XMR wallet?
MyMonero is an easy wallet. I know, web wallet, blah blah, but I've met a fair number of Bitcoin users in person and a huge portion, something more than half, used either blockchain.info or coinbase as their wallet. |
|
|
|
than keeping forum.getmonero.org alive
The forum is plenty alive. It isn't the highest traffic forum around but it does what it needs to do. Many people prefer to interact here or on IRC or reddit. Nothing wrong with any of those. |
|
|
|
I've always believed that "more inflation now <=> less inflation later".
Yes, it is correct. What the community refused to believe a year ago, and seemingly still do, is that both are harmful. Now we don't need much inflation as the coin is small and inflation does not benefit anyone (including the usual but completely incorrect claim that it "distributes the coins" which can only happen if the community grows, and can be witnessed in marketcap growth). Later we would need more inflation to show that the coin is not a pyramid game but that the monetary base is growing as newcomers enter in. Seems unlikely to me that a 2x (or 3x or whatever) time factor would make much difference, as I said earlier. In five years there will still be coins created. Would it matter if there were somewhat more coins being created? I don't really see it. How do we even know that five years is the right time window? Or how much inflation will be needed to accommodate newcomers (i.e. how many newcomers there would be and when they will arrive). Maybe it is 3, maybe it is 20. It all seems like guesswork to me. I remain unconvinced that any fixed schedule defined in advance, within some broad boundaries, is significantly different from any other. |
|
|
|
So in this thread Bitcoin's innovation is rewarded by the market, and in Monero thread it's a ponzi bubble?
It was a question. What do you think? If Bitcoin's value is significantly inflated by its use in a large ponzi scheme then perhaps Dash is a better alternative after all. How would Dash avoid it's price being driven to unsustainable levels by a ponzi scheme? |
|
|
|
|
Normally the "rate" is relative to the current supply so it is twice that. Won't be below 4% for a while.
|
|
|
|
What's the current inflation rate of Monero? When does it drop below 4%?
Never. Show your work |
|
|
|
So in the end, I think emission has basically been a nonfactor over the past year.
I've always believed that "more inflation now <=> less inflation later". One side of this equivalence is a negative pricing factor, the other is a positive. Therefore as long as the emission curve isn't grossly defective, the specific curve doesn't matter that much. This doesn't show that Monero's (or any coin's) emission isn't grossly defective but small changes like doubling or halving it probably wouldn't change that. |
|
|
|
Summary - monero Picture/Text
Name: monero
Posts: 53
Activity: 53
Position: Jr. Member
Date Registered: April 23, 2014, 09:58:58 PM
Last Active: October 16, 2015, 01:02:25 PM
Has the dev abandoned XMR?
No. That is just an account that the core devs use to post updates that are worth posting with concerning monero. Fluffypony Smooth TacoTime Contact them ^ if you have questions. Or just post it in this thread. Confirm. The main use for that nick currently is to edit the OP when needed. Also, the official forum is forum.getmonero.org. Announcements and discussions are often posted there instead of here, though may also get cross posted here. |
|
|
|
regarding that, how would the monero network defend itself against a hostile attack by a large computational power? I.e., if Tianhe 2 ( http://www.top500.org/lists/2015/06/), for whatever reason, unleashed its 33.86 petaflop/s of power on our network... ?? I analyzed this exact thing once before on this thread. The best way to compare is by power usage. The Monero network at about 15 MH/s is probably something like 3 MW. That's respectable on the Top 500 list, and one of the really big supercomputers, if dedicated to the task, could probably overtake it, but we are not so far (in orders of magnitude at least) from that no longer being the case. |
|
|
|
Monero hash rate is keeping it afloat technically, most miners don't want to secure networks because of the good in their hearts, greed is the fuel, thats the mark of Satoshi's genius, a system that if the price rises the hash rate will inevitably follow.
Even today the dual link between mining power and price still befuddles me. It is an amazing chicken & egg moebus strip. If anyone has any further reading or mathematical analysis on the considerations of such a problem, I'd love to read it. Are they both just on ramps to the same highway: increased interest in the coin compels people to want the currency; some choose to mine it and some choose to purchase it from an exchange. One drive the hash rate up, and one drives the price up (through scarcity). Are they both responsible for the price? There is no spoon |
|
|
|
Hash rate used to be about 25% higher than it is now  Why would hash rate decrease that much? Is there another PoW coin with high profitability right now or something? I'm not sure the time frame being looked at. In September 2014 hash rate peaked in the high 20s. Now it seems to be about 13, with significant fluctuations (though I'm not sure how much of that observed fluctuation is measurement error). That seems in line with the price action (in fiat) for the most part. |
|
|
|
|
Bc3 (LucyLovesCrypto)
Qf4 (ArticMine, xmrpromotions, 8XMR, smooth)
Qc3 (QuantumQrack)
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
