This is precisely why Monero exists, to be actual virtual cash.
What you just suggested, however, is that Monero is nothing close to virtual cash. You're effectively saying it only behaves like cash if I use it within the legal boundaries of whatever corrupt jurisdiction I happen to be transacting in. If governments wanted to shut down Monero tomorrow they could by computational attacks or by intimidation. Monero has bigger reasons for existing than to simply help you buy things online that are illegal.
Actual cash behaves like cash regardless of how I use it. |
|
|
|
No it doesn't. If it can't be used for illegal purposes then it's worthless. The point of decentralized crypto is to protect us from unjust laws and allow us to decide for ourselves what is right and what isn't. That's what freedom is all about.
Respectfully disagree. The Bitcoin blockchain is set up to easily allow someone who knows any addresses belonging to you to see who has given you money and where you are sending it. This is unacceptable from a privacy standpoint -- you would never accept a bank publishing all your transactions out in the clear. This is precisely why Monero exists, to be actual virtual cash. And, in any case, if you believe that there is a 100% foolproof system for payments that you can use to break any law you'd like to that exists online... well, I would say you'll probably find out soon enough that that's a bad idea the hard way. It's hard to tell if you actually believe what you're saying or if you're just attempting to limit your liability. I certainly can't fault you for that. But stealth addressing alone is plenty sufficient for the issues you describe: protecting your privacy from your "neighbor". However, it's not our neighbors we're concerned about. It's our brothers. |
|
|
|
I don't understand you. Are you saying private money is okay but private marketplaces are not?
No; but I don't know what the net effect on virtual currencies in general will be if OpenBazaar really takes off for illicit trade, and I don't support the use of Monero to break laws. If governments wanted to shut down Monero tomorrow they could by computational attacks or by intimidation. Monero has bigger reasons for existing than to simply help you buy things online that are illegal. . If it can't be used for illegal purposes then it's worthless. The point of decentralized crypto is to protect us from unjust laws and allow us to decide for ourselves what is right and what isn't. That's what freedom is all about. |
|
|
|
I would love to help but I bought in at about the peak and hold so little it would be a drop in the bucket.
but this Freemarket Idea is certainly the way to go. It is even better if it could be integrated into the gui wallet to be released. This should be a consideration from inception so as to make integration seamless from the getgo.
I certainly wouldn't support this, and if the rest of the core team did I would probably leave the core team. Privacy is a design component of Monero there for numerous other reasons than to break laws, just as it is for Tor. OpenBazaar is an experiment on top of the Bitcoin protocol, and if it becomes the de facto world standard for illegal drug marketplaces I certainly wouldn't want such a thing intertwined with Monero on any level. I don't understand you. Are you saying private money is okay but private trading is not? How is a decentralized marketplace any less legitimate? |
|
|
|
|
People might buy (read: hoard) currency because it may be valuable, but they use (read: spend) currency because it's easy and convenient. Convenience of use should be the ultimate priority when building a currency.
"VISA: It's everywhere you want to be"
The currency that replaces fiat will be easier to use than a credit/debit card. Much easier.
Apple Pay attempts to simplify payments by storing the user's credit card info on the device. It's a step in the right direction, but it can still be better (read: easier):
Imagine if checking out at the grocery was as easy as scanning your fingerprint and walking out the door? Instead of storing payment info on a device it could be stored in a database (or blockchain!). Sound scary? Absolutely... but damn easy!
Beyond a certain point, no amount of utility will increase adoption until it's actually easier and more convenient than fiat.
|
|
|
|
|
Zalek, the problem isn't Blockchain. The problem is the shady journalism that comes out of sites like CoinDesk, who run intentionally misleading headlines because they generate more clicks. Then they have the nerve to deny responsibility and tell you to ask Blockchain to rebrand!
It's also worth noting that the headline directly above the one you mentioned reads "New Blockchain Startup Brings Contracts into the Digital Age". In this case, "Blockchain" refers to an entirely different "Blockchain". How convenient.
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like BCX is finally carrying out his timewarp attack. We're all doomed. (jk)
|
|
|
|
Monero becomes 80% mined in 3.5 years from now. (Latecomers will look at it as unfair.)
Do you mean latecoming investors? Do you think investors are the end goal? Monero is intended to be a currency... you know, for trade. It's not a mutual fund. A common (and yet undemonstrated) assumption in this community is the idea that a property's "investment potential" will have anything to do with it's mainstream adoption as an exchange medium. Bitcoin demonstrates that the coin with the most liquidity has 99.9% of real world adoption. Investors provide most of bitcoin's liquidity. Therefore, a coin must be attractive to investors to succeed. Bitcoin demonstrates nothing. It has no real world adoption as a currency. If anything, it goes to show that an investment vehicle will always be treated as such and will never magically switch to serve another purpose. |
|
|
|
By the way, Google's IPO was 10 years ago. Has that stopped anyone from using it's products and services?
ahahaha - google isn't a currency you clown. lol - theres a diff between currency and business. there's room for hundreds of millions of businesses. there's room for as many currencies as there are armies. Indeed it's funny how you call me a clown and agree with me in the same sentence  |
|
|
|
|
By the way, Google's IPO was 10 years ago. Has that stopped anyone from using it's products and services?
|
|
|
|
Monero becomes 80% mined in 3.5 years from now. (Latecomers will look at it as unfair.)
Do you mean latecoming investors? Do you think investors are the end goal? Monero is intended to be a currency... you know, for trade. It's not a mutual fund. A common (and yet undemonstrated) assumption in this community is the idea that a property's "investment potential" will have anything to do with it's mainstream adoption as an exchange medium. |
|
|
|
|
What happened to AnonyMint in all this? He always says he's leaving the forums, but usually is posting again within a couple of days.
|
|
|
|
|
Clean interface. Good work. Is there a reason I can't specify a mixin greater than 4?
Also, maybe the Payment ID field should be labelled "(optional)"
|
|
|
|
the market is recovering ,anything XMR can do to boost its price???
Some sweet media coverage might help... or maybe some new threats from BitcoinEXpress? |
|
|
|
Experiments with faster and slower Cryptonote emission are being conducted by Darknote and Boolberry; we clearly see the market prefers XMR's middle path.
The market's preference of XMR as a whole tells us nothing of the success of an emission strategy. By that logic we should abandon crypto altogether, as the market clearly prefers fiat. |
|
|
|
There are two GUIs available, and XMR is easy to store offline even with the CLI. You just copy your address from wallet.bin.address and paste it into the withdrawal field on the exchange. Then you put your wallet.bin.keys file on a couple of high quality USBs and that's it. Oh, and remember your password.
If XMR was "easy" to setup, this thread wouldn't be 829 pages long. We all get it. Don't trust exchanges. Now everyone on BCT can stop echoing it 892345792 times. Perhaps the reason folks (myself included) keep some coins in their accounts is because they like to trade on a regular basis, especially when fleeting opportunities present themselves. I doubt it's because someone didn't tell them for the billionth time that it's a bad idea to store coins on exchanges. Oh by the way, did you know it's a bad idea to store coins on exchanges? |
|
|
|
|
100 votes for proposal #2
I agree with ArticMine's reasoning above. Proposal #2 is the long term solution and the move will happen when the time is right.
|
|
|
|
It seems that a lot of folks here got into bitcoin/crypto (at least at first) not for the investment opportunities but for the idea of decentralized money that could change the world. Absolutely true. In the early years there was no value, and while some people thought it might become very valuable, skepticism was rampant. It was almost similar to DOGE in being viewed as something of an inside joke and trying to force it to have some sort of value (aka the 10K BTC pizzas). I agree that the cool factor is probably not a strong enough motivator, but that doesn't mean early adoption can't be achieved by superior utility, as opposed to investment potential in the coins themselves.
It would have to be one of two things: 1. Potential of future utility, since the early network would be too small to have actual utility. Who do you transact with, and for what (pizzas? tacos?)? That is ultimately speculative, but perhaps there is a subtle psychological difference I don't dismiss. 2. Actual (present) utility achieved with high adoption, initially, in a small subculture. A historical example here was eBay, which started as a site for trading Beanie Babies and other collectables. Since it was focused, it was possible for a small site to achieve some degree of network effect in that subculture where the buyers and sellers could transact in the same network. Otherwise buyers would avoid for lack of sellers and sellers would avoid for lack of buyers. Obviously, from there the site was able to grow into a larger marketplace incrementally. Ideas for how to target one or the other or both or something else are certainly welcome. I like to think of the current state of cryptocurrency as the late 1980s of the internet. It's impossible to know or even guess the future utility or impact something like this will have on the world even 10 years from now. But the current state of bitcoin adoption isn't a developmental issue but a fundamental one in that there's little incentive for non-acarchists/freedom fighters/goldbugs to give a shit. Regular people already use rewards and points and miles and all kinds of virtual currencies. If we can get coins to as many people as possible and make them easy enough to spend, the utility will take care of itself. But I don't think we do ourselves any favors by creating scarcity with declining block rewards and limited money supplies. |
|
|
|
So the easy (and common) assumption is that the early adopters are investors, which I would say is currently the case in this community. I'm arguing that early adopters don't have to be investors, only enthusiasts who see the utility in the project. Thus we shouldn't feel obligated to cater to investors when designing a currency, because they may not be the "early adopters" we wish to attract. It is very hard to imagine a lot of (EDIT: early) adoption that is not inherently speculative or greed-based in some manner, because of the bootstrapping problem. Without much of a network there is no reason to be interested. "It seems cool" is somewhat of a motivator (in fact that's why I'm here), but I'm not sure how much we can expect to get from that. The later adopters can be pulled in by the network (thus we don't need to be concerned about giving them a direct incentive), but the early ones can't. Paypal, for example, gave 10 USD away to everyone who signed up for an account in the early years, obviously a financial incentive, but a small one along the lines I suggesed (going to 15-50% of the potential users), as opposed to giving 10 million USD or 100 million USD to the first person to sign up, and 0 USD to the rest. They also waived processing fees for a long time, again a small financial incentive that got spread out among a lot of early adopters." It seems that a lot of folks here got into bitcoin/crypto (at least at first) not for the investment opportunities but for the idea of decentralized money that could change the world. I agree that the cool factor is probably not a strong enough motivator, but that doesn't mean early adoption can't be achieved by superior utility, as opposed to investment potential in the coins themselves. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
