You failed to note the correlation of BTC and altcoin price movements. You failed to read my prediction that only a paradigm shift altcoin could potentially go counter-trend and rise between now and the claimed forthcoming BTC price bottom.

Why do I have to re-summarize to you what I already wrote. Do you have the attention span of a 5 year old.

No technical information at the website.

The choice of PoS already exemplifies that the developer is not very astute on deeper concepts such as entropy.

http://bitcoinist.net/shadow-coin-developer-interview/


It appears he is saying that values stored in the outputs will be unknown to everyone except the sender and recipient. They apparently prove in zero knowledge that the sum of the inputs equals the sum of the outputs. Thus it is impossible to trace the coin values.

This is apparently combined with Cryptonote's one-time private keys (a.k.a. stealth addresses). That provides unlinkability but I don't see how that stops traceability as they claim (unless they are abusing the terminology), so maybe it is not the same as Cryptonote's feature but apparently it is and they are thus not providing untraceability. It is the one-time ring signatures in Cryptonote that provide the untraceability.


Most likely another decent programmer getting in over his head in crypto a la Evan of DRK. However they say they have a cryptographer, but that doesn't mean he understands the terminology and theory of anonymity.

I urged going long at $300 for a bounce. I said we'd initially do a bull flag at $350, then push back up to $400 - $440 test of prior resistance. After that I expect a further decline to eventually test $150 - $200 for a firm bottom. There is a small probability we could meander back into the $500s first.

You need to understand that all private investments (i.e. not government bonds) appear to be inverting to make a 2015.75 low, then phase transitions into 2017-2018 as government falls into the abyss after 2015.75, while government bonds appear to make one last gasp rally from now until that final cliff:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/14/so-when-will-we-know/
(at least read this one)

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/02/the-trade-of-a-lifetime/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/12/the-pending-phase-transition-cycle-inversion/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/09/the-dollar-the-greatest-short-position-perhaps-in-history/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/10/what-happens-when-government-collapses/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/13/the-dow-3/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/13/dow-today/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/14/dow-for-10-14-2014/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/11/us-share-market-for-next-week-oct-13-2014/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/06/24043/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/10/li-opening-shanghai-gold-exchange/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/12/pension-crisis/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/12/imf-admits-they-are-clueless-to-solve-world-economic-crisis/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/13/german-debt/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/14/will-2015-break-germany/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/08/eu-commission-to-reject-hollandes-budget/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/14/french-government-on-brink-of-collapse/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/14/brussels-shuts-down-catalonia-referendum/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/01/more-fraud-exposed-in-scottish-election/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/10/banning-extremists-from-social-media-and-tv/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/13/france-says-it-alone-will-decide-its-budget/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/03/hollande-single-handedly-destroys-france/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/02/swiss-pension-crisis-its-everywhere/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/09/ecb-negative-interest-rates-send-money-to-dollars/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/07/europes-answer-to-reform-more-of-the-same/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/04/the-troika-threatening-ireland-now-as-well/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/10/taking-photos-from-your-phone-now-pose-serious-risk-to-warrant-tax-fines-per-photo/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/09/civil-asset-forfeiture-police-corruption-exposed/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/08/is-revolution-coming-driven-by-the-youth/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/07/tass-reports-in-russia-obamas-attempt-to-cut-off-russia-from-the-entire-world-economy/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/07/gorbachev-one-of-the-last-few-world-leaders-blasts-obama-as-the-great-plague/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/06/obama-needs-to-be-impeached-he-has-lost-his-mind-if-there-ever-was-one/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/06/obama-is-out-of-control/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/01/obamas-russian-sanctions-are-backfiring-on-us-further-destroying-the-world-economy/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/06/obama-a-real-lame-duck-who-try-to-rule-the-world-like-his-children-i-will-cut-off-your-allowance-and-go-to-your-room/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/06/free-handouts-always-invoke-a-behavior-change/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/05/ecb-wiping-out-german-savers-with-every-step-it-takes/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/03/comment-from-europe-on-france/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/06/the-last-straw-in-a-dying-form-of-government/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/03/obama-holder-destroy-the-constitution/

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/07/31/ebola-virus-the-next-plague-due-2019/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/14/obama-may-turn-to-private-armies/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/10/ebola-in-spain-perhaps-greece/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/07/european-scientists-traces-aids-back-to-1920/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/05/cycle-in-bacteria/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/04/ebola-the-next-plaguepandemic/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/03/thomas-eric-duncan-lied-to-get-out-of-liberia/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/03/will-the-demise-be-plague-or-economics/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/02/ebola-plague-stupidity-is-a-real-epidemic-inside-government/
http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/10/01/the-first-ebola-case-appears-in-the-us/

Another ramification is that investment pumped crypto-currency will continue to wither until 2015.75. Only a paradigm shift crypto-currency can go counter-trend until then.

I predict the first to hear about it won't be on BTT.

Eliminate wild-eyed speculation on gains from currency taking over the world, and don't actually provide any way for it to gain widespread distribution to become a currency, then nothing remains.

Pegging to USD doesn't a widespread digital currency make.

NuBits' pegging design eliminates any impressive speculative gains the early users of the currency could reap, which could lead to viral marketing.

P.S. I never wrote that a solution was to eliminate speculative gains. My first post in this thread does not assert that growing to be a currency is mutually exclusive to speculative gains.


Whether NuBits has a technological design and marketing strategy that can distribute it widespread is all that matters. I see none. For example one of the technological issues would be the maximum transaction rate that can be accommodated by the design. One has to look at many factors such as CPU load for verifying signatures and for updating the UXTO or Account Tree, network bandwidth, orphan rate, verification speed impacting propagation delays impacting percentage of the hashrate needed for selfish-mining, etc., etc., etc..

Amateur developers need not apply.

The criticism was absolutely apropos because tracking an external unit has nothing to do with creating a unit-of-account.

So the concept is we let the US Federal Reserve control the debasement of our crypto-currency.

On top of that we apply the certain failure of democracy (voting) to centralize our crypto-currency with ProofOfShit.

Nevermind widespread distribution as that wouldn't have anything to do with making a currency.

Absolutely fucking brilliant. Why didn't I think of that?

Sputnuts is so clueless that he criticizes the specific reasons that Doge is the only coin that has gotten close to changing the paradigm.

Short-term ≠ long-term.

Your humbleness requires an equivalently humble reply. Monero is definitely a legit coin. Smooth et al are very capable developers (and probably much more capable in terms of coding volume than one man programming alone could ever be). It has a legitimate anonymity functionality that is improving over time, e.g. the I2P integration is apparently being lead by fluffypony and the work continues on analyzing and improving the model of how the one-time ring signatures are implemented.

My reservation about the long-term potential is that afaics Cryptonote was not holistically designed to change the paradigm. Now whether smooth et al will borrow some of my ideas about how to change the paradigm is not known to me. I think I've explained to smooth (some publicly, some privately) why I think they will have difficulty competing with an off chain anonymity solution in terms of attempting to change the paradigm I allege. I am not saying he agrees with that assessment. I assume they are likely considering their options and potential actions in this regard, if any. The other irrevocable flaw (a feature from the perspective of speculative investors) that I allege prevents it from changing the paradigm is the debasement schedule of Monero.

Again I reiterate Monero is a legit anonymous coin. And it may see gains because of it. At this time, its design is not capable of being the currency that the world will use.

See this post about the relative importance of anonymity.

I desire no animosity towards you. You should know that by now. I understand well that your belief system is based on following the visibly strongest herd. Perhaps one day you come to appreciate the significance of the acute distinction that I operate in the realm of technological and market demographics facts. If I am healthy, it is very unlikely there will be failure to deliver technological and market needs. Enjoy constructing shish kabobs with my words for a while. I am not offended because your belief system is rational.


XMR could see gains, but like all altcoins its long-term is futile due to the the paradigm.

One thing that BCX said which was very astute, is that (paraphrased) all altcoins decline.

Q: Why are there so many alternative cryptocurrencies?

A: Because all crypto-currencies to-date are speculative "investments" (gambles), not currencies.

The demographics of crypto-currencies are currently speculative gamblers, not currency users. Thus there is always a demand for a new speculation which can be purchased earlier and cheaper. If someone ever creates a currency, then the users will demand there only be one, because having one unit-of-account means currency users aren't stressed with exchange volatility. Exchange volatility actually decreases currency use, because users have an incentive to not spend when the price is lower than their entry price, and not sell when the price is going higher.

Btw, the reason we are moving to a global currency is because currency users are beginning to transact globally more often, e.g. ordering online from Alibaba or DHgate, migrant workers remittances, etc..

Well now we know BCX's significant capabilities lie in the realm in social engineering, not software engineering.

I get the last laugh on his attempt to use me in the ruse, because those cheap XMR are not going to pay off as a long-term investment.

For all those who bet on the SuperNet, at least 5 of your BTC has contributed funding this outcome. Kudos to your leader.

I think smooth will find over time the bounty algorithm discussion and concepts will be worth the 2.5 BTC.

As for those who don't honor their contractual obligations timely, luck of the long-tail will not look kindly on you. In spite on my physical suffering and financial decline, I continue to do several $100s per month in charity to those less fortunate than myself. Actually the Bible says not to boast about charity, not let the right hand know what the left hand gave.

Implementing the Account Tree in CryptonIte with a Trie is not very astute, holistic engineering.

Yes.

It is important the new poster understand his theories were already covered upthread.

If UnunoctiumTesticles sees "this was already discussed upthread" instead of walls of text that obfuscate that fact and try to make it is appear that there is no risk from centralized exchanges, then he (or she  ) might toss his balls into this thread to make that clear.

UnunoctiumTesticles is interested in decentralized exchanges.

UnunoctiumTesticles doesn't give a left statestical about political ramifications on BTT. UnunoctiumTesticles is interested in factual statements about the merits of technological alternatives. UnunoctiumTesticles contemplates that centralized exchanges present some risks which may in theory be alleviated with decentralized exchanges. Thus UnunoctiumTesticles is interested in unmasking the obfuscation (by the walls of text on this page) of the new poster's concern about centralized exchanges.

Yes the probability for unmasking mixes via cross-correlating all overlapping groups of rings increases when the attacker owns some of the inputs of the rings. And this is not a linear relationship wherein if you know 10% of the inputs to a ring, then probability of being unmasked increases only by 10%. You would have to run some tests on a real block chain to see impacts of that 10% on unmasking, yet my intuitive guess is it will unmask non-linearly more percent as the percent rises. The bounty algorithm that AnnoyingMint provided was an attempt to test these unmasking effects. Testing the algorithm might provide insights into how to structure mixes to minimize (mitigate) probability of unmasking. Some of this would also apply to off chain CoinJoin-like mixes.

Yes centralized exchanges add risk, because one entity knows the identity of so many inputs of so many rings. Also if an attacker possessed those private keys from the centralized exchanges and could rewind the block chain with a 51% attack, he could in theory double-spend everyone's coins on the block chain. Checkpoints exist to try to unwind such, yet if a 51% attack was sustained and many users got their desired transactions intertwined with the attacker's sustained chain, one might be able to envision political fighting over which chain to revert to. Also centralized exchanges pool risk (e.g. cascade from double-spend attacks) and can be subject to massive theft (e.g. MtGotcha).

In short, centralized exchanges add risk, 51% attacks can possibly kill a coin, and widespread mixing increases cascade risk from double-spends. That cascade risk can minimized for non-51% attack scenarios by setting a wait before new transaction outputs can be respent, e.g. included as inputs in rings.

Some useful ideas have been presented by the altcoin scene, but afaik few have been implemented well (e.g. the decentralized exchanges are not decentralized, they still use a server; Doge shows how to use social networking to drive usership but the target demographic is too niche) or there hasn't been holistic cohesion of ideas packed into one coin that could really drive usership far and wide.

As I wrote previously, these effects are due to lack of a competent, dominant benevolent dictator arriving on the scene (yet), who knows how to make shit happen and gets it done, e.g. Linus Torvalds.

Edit: so much of the dysfunction is due to constant focus on political advantage and shaping public opinion within the altcoin universe, which hinders the focus on technological issues objectively and soberly. This is driven by the fact that the public opinion can be shaped here in BTT because the growth of new users outside of BTT is small or nonexistent, i.e. altcoins are targeted to speculating investors not to the global users.

The mining phase is complete. Conjaculations to all non-participants.

Mining starts now. 0% premine. 100% bullshit.

Note anything you pen in this thread can and will be used against you in an Eew (Eponymous Extravagance Whiskey) tribunal.

What do you expect when all crypto other than perhaps namecoin is designed for investors, not for users.


Crypto has not been designed for the general public.


No one in the altcoin universe has yet demonstrated how to financially motivate a capable full-time development team.

One camp says donations and no premine, as if communism ever worked.

Another camp uses premines to fleece the naive.


Those who know what to do are not going to share the instructions on BTT. Why not? Because has communism ever worked?

Crypto needs a benevolent leader who is capable of amazing feats. Until then we are witnessing the Logic of Collective Action.

Omitted question mark now inserted.

If verified, no one (including the proprietor) is quite sure if it was intentional or not. Personally I lean to the latter, but bear in mind my right statesticle is ostensibly more colossal than the former.



Exquisite substantiation.


Unarguably and provably superior.