J1mb0 - A picture is worth a thousand words. Something was corrupt with BCN and you only need look at where the finger is pointing.
You could make the same point about BitMonero. Which would be just as irrelevant today as well. 3 Points; I am not comparing BCN or BitMonero to Quark. But look at the birth of Quark. Still alive with community. Price steadily rising.The mainstream press love a 'back story'. All the stuff around Bytecoin - They will love!  Whether true or false! BCN is the only cryponote of substance with a supply that is suited for day to day trading and spending by millions or billions of people [Edit] - I don't like to keep bumping this thread so I will start a new thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=761124.0I know Quark, as I had a bit back in the day and I just had to check the price based on your "Price steadily rising." comment. Need I say more? Historical Last Month |
|
|
|
Well, it's like someone reading about BTC in the NYT and then complaining that 'because it was only known about by a small community at BitCoinTalk' then it was '30% pre-mined'.
How are they similar in any way? Do you believe that it was actually released on the darknet despite not a single person familiar with darknet and the cryptocommunity outside the BCN team claiming to have heard about it But the fact that BCN released a intentionally crippled miner leaves me doubt about the code in general.
"Intentionally crippled". Proof? Just because things are constantly repeated does not make them true. http://da-data.blogspot.se/2014/08/minting-money-with-monero-and-cpu.htmlThe more I looked at it, the more clear it became: The original developers deliberately crippled the miner. It wasn't just slow, and it wasn't just naive; it was deliberately obfuscated and made slow by the use of completely superfluous copies, function calls, use of 8 bit pointer types, and accompanied by the most ridiculously slow implementation of the AES encryption algorithm one could imagine.From the horses mouth - rpietila pledged to support the XMR price So does every buyer. How is the proven that this is the ONLY reason for the price holding up. Every price is upheld the same way. By having people buying it. It's just a guess! Yes, but what did you base that guess off of? Really interesting read and thanks to whomever posted it in the last couple of days - apology if it was you! Reminder. J1mb0 - A picture is worth a thousand words. Something was corrupt with BCN and you only need look at where the finger is pointing. Basically, it says give up, let it go, walk away...   |
|
|
|
J1mb0 - A picture is worth a thousand words. Something was corrupt with BCN and you only need look at where the finger is pointing. Basically, it says give up, let it go, walk away... |
|
|
|
The trolling and FUD against XMR is very different than what I'm used to seeing. Typically, folks will troll or spread FUD if they've invested in a competing coin/technology that is losing ground. This is usually a result of ignorance, as the FUDsters would've simply made the better investment or shifted their holdings had they known the advantages. XMR has seen plenty of this as well.
However, what we're seeing in this thread is entirely different. These guys have a very personal hatred toward the monero project. Even if all their assertions were true (botnets, paid smear campaigns, etc.), it would still be one of the more legitimate projects in this space. Yet these guys are determined, at all cost, to see monero crumble to the ground. Makes you wonder... what's the beef?
My bet is that there is a strong BCN contingency here. As I said before, there would be no Monero if BCN wouldn't have done the 80% (or whatever) pre/insta-mine, whatever it was. Further, the point of the thread was to hurt Monero, clearly, but when you read through the thread, it is pretty clear than Monero is now higher than before the attack. Such is Anti-Fragile technology. Then there is that one effect we hear about so often online...  |
|
|
|
If you consider the total supply market cap, it's long crossed already!
But I agree the prices crossing will probably have a strong psychological effect.
0.00394 vs 0.00425 right now on poloniex...
WOW, absolutely amazing. I remember almost buying some DRK at .004 and thinking I missed the boat as it ran up. Then I found Monero  Lots of room for going up but more importantly, a real and anonymous money. |
|
|
|
ok so I just dropped 56 BTC on poloniex for XMR taking out the 0.004 wall... good lord that exchange is slow...it took 3-5 minutes to clear all of those transactions. Uber slow....lol Curious, why not try smaller buys periodically? But thanks! That is a lot of money. Early adopter? You know something we don't? Nice show of confidence.  |
|
|
|
The XMR devs are not capable of maintaining their coin as they simply do not grasp CryptoNote tech in full. Bytecoin developers are the ones who created it and keep contributing. Having such an enemy is very scary if you cannot develop the protocol yourself. And that is why XMR bagholders are so cruel to both Bytecoin and CryptoNote. They don't need such an enemy, they aim to discredit it. No matter what it takes.
I noticed you've been saying 'we' lately .. so I'm going to take a leap of faith. There would likely be no 'XMR devs' at all if you people didn't launch an 82% mined coin into the public eye. That alone has lost you your crown, regardless of how much better you think you can manage the project. That your opinion is that they cannot manage it better than yourselves is a 'no shit' kind of statement - you fucking made the code. Then you tried to tell 6 billion people they can only ever have 18% of your fantastic creation. That's just not gonna fly in this reality. That's why BTCtalk members and people outside your closed community treat Bytecoin and CryptoNote like crap: Hypothesis rejected. As far as 'enemies' go: You're still open source, and for the most part not really a threat. You want your software to be in the hands of 6 billion people as much as we do; however, it won't be your efforts that bring it to them. That responsibility was taken from you, be it right or be it wrong - it is fact: Hypothesis accepted. If we go back to H1 & H2, we can conclude that everything you see about Monero is fake. The Monero developers are not able to maintain and update the coin they've hijacked from thankful_for_today. In the meantime, botnet owners secure their profits by promoting XMR through purchased accounts, black PR, and fake trades. They continue to lure you into investing into their botnet mined currency so that they can profit.
Everything about Monero is more real than most everything I've seen in my entire short amount of time spent in this miserable forum. More real than the monitor in front of my face or the keyboard I type to you on. The developers will continue to live up to being able to maintain the code to an acceptably high quality - and it will take a different trajectory than you wanted it to. I get that you think that having 82% of the currency in your hands means it won't be in a botnets hands - but it violates a simple law that runs markets and gives things value: Everyone has paid the market price. You have not had a market for >80% of the existence of the currency, therefore you cannot follow this law. You lied, cheated and stole what you pretended to offer us - this is far more detrimental than any botnet can ever be. You did not pay the market price and now you're paying the ultimate price. If you would like to have some form of representation in the future of your project - I suggest you join teams with Monero now, else they (and those 6 billion people) will continue on without and despite you. Great post, as are so many in this thread. Thanks to the devs like fluffypony and others for stepping in here. I am more impressed by Monero, the devs, supporters, etc. AFTER this thread was started. Thanks to trustworthy Rpietila for bringing Monero to so many peoples attention. The bcn guys have now done a Barbara Streisand Effect like thing, and It is beautiful. What started out as a load of crap has turned quite informative and beneficial to Monero. Ironic, had bcn done the right thing to start off with, there would be no Monero... |
|
|
|
Guys, please do not continue to quote the same large chart on every post. Once per page is enough.
Future offenders will be deleted.
OP edited
What works well is just to shrink the chart down using this "img width=200" (Just add the "width=200") It is quite small but you still get what the chart looks like.  IAS |
|
|
|
Just a note. I am converting 80% of my BTSX distribution to XMR here at .00009490/.00392. I hold negligible amount of any alt besides XMR at this point, and for the most part have only dabbled in a few. Protoshares caught my attention about a year ago, and it is interesting to see the BTS project mature, but I am dubious of it's stability here.
It will be interesting to see if my timing is good. I don't usually publish my trades publicly, but thought it would be fun.
It is hard to say what is happening with BTSX though...
I've wondered with these BTC 2.0 type technologies, if any large companies are doing deals, if word gets out, what is to stop people from acquiring it ahead of the news? It is not insider trading imo. Brings up some interesting dilemmas. I was really interesting in BTSX a year ago as well, but something was just missing in their presentation and seemed off to me. Honestly, it seemed a bit "off" and I can't put my finger on it. I do wonder if anything is up. In general, I imagine Sesame St, I mean Wall St., and other big money players will get their feet wet with most. I mean the way money is continually being printed, it would be stupid not to. IAS |
|
|
|
Here is the two year chart of the adjusted number of bitcoin transactions from Blockchain.info. Note that in the past few days the smoothed log graph has turned downwards. The seven day moving average removes most of the noise caused by day-of-week variation, but looking back over the history of the chart it appears there are noisy movements remaining. So I will be closely watching this latest trend of the transaction quantity to see whether it reverses sharply over the next week to move higher, or whether it continues downwards. I believe that there is currently a divergence in the relationship between bitcoin price and number of transactions. The transaction quantity is now above March 2014 levels but the price is not. Let's see how this situation resolves.  That is an interesting divergence to look into. Have you looked at how accurate it has been historically? An overlay maybe? I understand it might not be an accurate relationship to price, but it probably still would average out to something somewhat leading. Outside of the usual movement of coins, it would be interesting to know (albeit it is probably difficult to ascertain), how transaction volume with goods, services, etc. is related to price. There have been good arguments put forth that show an increase in BTC usage can drop the price. But at the same time, I can imagine that an increase in usage would of course mean more people are finding out about BTC and then putting a few aside. Thanks for bringing the chart up, IAS |
|
|
|
Monero XMR buys hero member's accounts! Monero is a scam coin!
If you make it really really big, and red, it's obviously true. Good plan. It is illuminating how, after the "Every single coin is shit except monero" thread was forensically exposed as a lie, the Monero shills squeal like piggies! Btw - I don't agree with the OP that Monero itself or the devs are scam - just that there is an unofficial and concerted pump & dump conspiracy going on. How do you ascertain pump and dump from genuine growth, interest, quality dev team, etc? I don't see the pump, unless you want to include all the educated posters, programmers, cryptographers, etc. as being involved. But then it is what it is, with no bad intentions. Just a strong and resilient community that is consistently growing, both with BIG money and small. There was no pre-mine, instamine, etc. The volume has been huge and consistent. The dev team VERY communicative, progress has been consistent, issues addressed, etc. Questions are consistently answered. Techinical questions are always addressed in depth. Everything about Monero seems extremely professional. It is squeaky clean. Its about sharing PS - thanks to the OP and Shills for helping to get the price moving again. |
|
|
|
OP, nice try...  |
|
|
|
The ramp up to 0.1 XMR fees stopped the attacker dead in their tracks, and gives us a bit of time to regroup and finalise the changes we were making that will permanently prevent this in future.
Thanks for the detailed update fluffypony. I have a general question that would seem to apply to all alts, but perhaps more to XMR. What if there is an attacker (e.g. bank, large institution or even State) with relatively limitless pockets? It seems to me, there is a bell curve of optimal disruption they can cause, then beyond that, their buying is going to raise the price too much (and even then that might not be so bad). I'm talking worst case scenarios here and again, it would apply to all coins. From a game theory perspective, the game can be played in a number of unorthodox ways. Even 0.1 XMR is nothing for a determined attacker. For if he shows that he doesn't care about the fee as he has "tons of monero to spend", then he gets to achieve his aim by acting corrosively to confidence. Investors must be able to see that the devs are on top of the situation and if countermeasures don't work it's like "oh oh, these attackers will actually destroy monero"... so you can have an attacker, whether with the intent to destroy monero or to benefit financially, where he might sell before the attack, start the attack, wait for the price to lower due to lost confidence and then buy back. He can either win financially, win in terms of eroding trust (if he is from a competing coin), or win in terms of making Monero more centralized than it needs to be. If the currency itself is vulnerable to such attacks, then it creates a problem of centralization-response where, for example, fees must be changed every now and then to deal with an attack. This creates the perception that the currency needs babysitting to operate. And high fees also defeat the purpose of the currency itself, as it becomes unusable with too high fees. Thanks for the info (smooth as well). Nice reads and informative. What is interesting (and pretty self evident I believe), is that a "bad" attack actually makes the currency stronger. We have heard the Napster analogy many times with reference to Bitcoin, in how the music industry attacked Napster which then led to torrent, which, quite clearly is connected to these cryptos. They truly are anti-fragile (with our help). So, these attacks on Monero, etc., if not properly done (and barring selfish motives to acquire), just make us stronger, which ironically enough, is needed. It is sort of like how companies pay hackers to attack their networks to find vulnerabilities. But in this case, some of the attacks are genuine and coming from competitors (e.g. Dark). IAS |
|
|
|
What if there is an attacker (e.g. bank, large institution or even State) with relatively limitless pockets? It seems to me, there is a bell curve of optimal disruption they can cause, then beyond that, their buying is going to raise the price too much (and even then that might not be so bad). I'm talking worst case scenarios here and again,...
Strange, how the Bad Guy faces have changed. But maybe there wasn't only an attack, but more use of the network? Remember that some mining pools payout in 0.1 XMR slices. So that got perfectly bummed by raising transfer fees onto exactly the same amount! I'm not sure I understand that last part, as the mining pool payouts are done in bulk. So, they are not charged .1 XMR for each individual payout but rather are charged .1 XMR for the bulk payout to all recipients. (I think I see your point anyway though, for if the mining pools were not being efficient here with their payouts they were forced to be.) The mining pools made out well with this change. BTW - If you didn't know that you can do bulk payouts, it is a great and easy way to send coins to different paper wallets at the same time as you are charged once, and not for each individual transaction. If you are curious here is how to do it with BTC and Electrum wallet - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=451707.msg4982576#msg4982576IAS |
|
|
|
Some of the working strategies include:
- market making (holding both multiple buy and sell orders spaced around the current price) to capture volatility
- buy ladder (having multiple buy orders somewhat apart from each other and periodically delete the lowest and put a new one on top of the highest one)
- in a downtrend, put a small bid in front of every large existing bid, waiting for a dump
- in an uptrend, try to keep your very small order on top of the bids
- in an uptrend, market buy, especially if there is a sell wall nearby so that you can secure a large amount
Thanks. That is very interesting. I would understand if you don't want to answer this next question - But, have you seen the above transpire? (Might take more than an eye, perhaps some analysis tools of course.) From my simplistic perspective, it certainly looks like there is a party that is accumulating but I wonder if others have been paying attention to what you posted, and more??? The volume alone is screaming out. IAS |
|
|
|
The ramp up to 0.1 XMR fees stopped the attacker dead in their tracks, and gives us a bit of time to regroup and finalise the changes we were making that will permanently prevent this in future.
Thanks for the detailed update fluffypony. I have a general question that would seem to apply to all alts, but perhaps more to XMR. What if there is an attacker (e.g. bank, large institution or even State) with relatively limitless pockets? It seems to me, there is a bell curve of optimal disruption they can cause, then beyond that, their buying is going to raise the price too much (and even then that might not be so bad). I'm talking worst case scenarios here and again, it would apply to all coins. I just think it is something, of course, we need to watch out for especially, due to the larger blockchain, at least at this time. I understand no coin can perhaps stop a full on attack, due to their design, at least at this time, but it would still be nice to have an understanding of the ramifications (which in part, you have just given us - I'm just talking about amplitudes greater in the attack vector.) Related, if BTC, Monero, etc. do experience such attacks in the future, is there a way to just prune the attack transactions out of the blockchain? Or another solution? Thanks in advance, IAS ps - Of course I am a holder of Monero. |
|
|
|
Man, that was a pretty big buy for XMR that just took us over .004 (temporarily).
I've watched this before and this is getting more and more common - Buy orders for 50BTC or so.
I've been certain of this for a while now, BIG money (relative to the crypto space anyway) is continually moving into Monero.
There doesn't seem to be any large walls right below for support though. I wonder why the buyer didn't try that first to get filled, instead
of spiking the price up?
Its about sharing
If they put up a large buy order (wall) others would just bid above it, making the price rise and leaving no XMR in their pocket. If someone is genuinely trying to accumulate, not manipulate the price, it seems risky to place a huge order like that. Hence the big market order. That crossed my mind and that is why I mentioned in the economics thread about putting the buy order a big below the current price. But your comment is appreciated. Just trying to figure things out here. I don't see Monero as undergoing manipulation from what I can tell, but being that I have a decent % of my holdings in it, it is a good idea to understand the trades - for the reason you clearly state - looks like accumulation for a while now. Thx for the replies guys IAS |
|
|
|
|
I'm curious, if you wanted to acquire Monero, considering what the order book looks like, how would you go about doing it?
It seems to me that the relative illiquidity is causing buyers, from what I notice, to spike prices from buying chunks at a time.
As I just mentioned in the Monero Economics thread, I noticed a large 52BTC (or so) buy go through for close to 13,000 Monero. That jacked
the price from .0038 to .0041 and now it is settled at .00388. I'm sure at these prices, in the end, it won't matter much, but I wonder
is this the best way to acquire XMR in relative bulk?
I would try fairly large buy walls at 3% or so below current prices. Has anything similar been happening?
At least I would just have a bot constantly picking up coins in a range, has this happened from your your point of view?
Just trying to learn here.
Its about sharing
|
|
|
|
|
Man, that was a pretty big buy for XMR that just took us over .004 (temporarily).
I've watched this before and this is getting more and more common - Buy orders for 50BTC or so.
I've been certain of this for a while now, BIG money (relative to the crypto space anyway) is continually moving into Monero.
There doesn't seem to be any large walls right below for support though. I wonder why the buyer didn't try that first to get filled, instead
of spiking the price up?
Its about sharing
|
|
|
|
A shocking fact to me is, how easy it has been to convince people that:
- Monero is now in the situation where Bitcoin was in 2010
- Monero fixes Bitcoin's worst flaw, lack of privacy.
People who have never owned Bitcoin are flocking into Monero starting about now. I am helping them by accepting fiat as payment.
How is Monero like Bitcoin in 2010? were you around at that time or is that from third party sources? Feels nothing like it to me, (Cryptonote itself, a somewhat different story) Not sure how much of that is attributed to the fact the concept of p2p decentralized crypto cash is already embedded into our consciousness however. I think I was essentially saying the same thing in my post above (regarding opportunity). Quite simply, we are extremely early adopters in Monero, or even BTC for that matter at this time. Back in 2010, BTC was around .08 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Bitcoin and it was essentially unknown. Looking at Monero now (a bit over $2 I believe), the opportunity for returns in is there. (In general, people looking into Anonymous coins now are about as rare as people looking into BTC in 2010 I'd say.) In the next few years this space will blow up. If BTC does indeed hit $10,000-$100,000 in 5-15 years, I can easily see Monero being in the hundreds. That, in a sense, would be like getting into Bitcoin in 2011 sometime (if Monero blows up in the next 4 or 5 years.) Ok, so I'd go with we are where BTC was in 2011, but Rpietila can jump in... What you are saying makes no sense. I guess you could twist your prediction, and say we are playing "possible worlds", and indeed it is possible that Monero will do what you claim. However, I don't think using the fallacy that whatever BTC has done, Monero has to do, will help achieve this possible world. Anyone that buys into your way of thinking is likely to be quite stupid, so I wouldn't expect them to have lots of cash, or to to be able to work out how to use the MSDOS-like client. I don't really understand your reply. I gave a fairly clear reason but it was just a possibility, an educated gamble (as BTC was and is). Essentially, we are in the early days of something quite substantial, I'll let you figure out the rest. It is just basic math with a little bit of foresight thrown in. Not sure that name calling nor what followed it (and partly preceded it) makes much sense. Perhaps you can rebut with something more substantial. (And I see you are on a roll, spreading the insults. Do you realize this just discredits you more?) Spread the love, IAS |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
