@g8tguy

I'm not going to tell you what to do. If you think you should "Stop mining and sell all your coins ASAP" that is your choice to make.

Please read my earlier comments which have addressed most of your questions.

But frankly, I doubt you are really looking for answers; more likely you are looking to gain attention, provoke responses, and generally make a spectacle of yourself. I'm not playing.

I feel sad that you decided to veer in a self-destructive direction and take down not only yourself, but also the game, and in doing so caused great harm and pain to people far less able than you or me to absorb the losses (which includes both the unpaid debts as well as the loss of value of in-game assets; for a number of devoted players those assets were life changing before you blew up their value).

The least you can do at this point is at least pay the debts. If you don't want to work to undo the damage you did to the game, you can at least undo the damage to those you directly screwed by shorting the depository funds.

Fair point, but that was, I assume, your choice to invest in building a game that presumably you felt would be worth more than two million (after all, I consider you too intelligent to spend 2 million on something that you expect to be worth less than 2 million).

Indeed, most reasonable people would agree that it had a far greater chance to be worth more than 2 million before you went off the rails and started refusing to pay your debts, leading directly to the 'rebellion' and other issues you mention.


I will confess that not an expert on the game rules, but I do know this was done only after players found that they weren't being paid, for depository tokens which you created and which they had purchased (the terms of such purchase varied, but in nearly all cases players obtained those tokens by trading for other valuable goods or services, in some cases at least, other depository tokens purchased with other, real, out-of-game funds).

As a matter of damage control, I don't find freezing your accounts and denying access until the debts are paid to be unreasonable. Perhaps it violated in-game rules, perhaps not. If so, then the remedy for that should be in-game.

All that said, it it seems likely to me that an agreement could be reached with the appropriate parties regarding both restoring at least some degree of control over the game (with perhaps some enhanced integrity controls to prevent a recurrence) and payment of the debts. However, I speak for no one on this.

When you create depository tokens in the game but unlike everyone else, instead of actually depositing funds with the treasurer, you rely on your position as game founder, game master, etc. to promise to pay those funds later, that is not 'a game is a game and cannot collect from out-of-game assets', that is an out-of-game deficiency based on your own misconduct.

When you offer to purchase in-game assets (in particular, the above fraudulent fractional reserve depository tokens) for out-of-game payment (in large part to address the pre-existing deficiency described above), and such offer is accepted by others who deliver the in-game assets to you, but then you fail to make the out-of-game payment that was agreed, that is also not 'a game is a gam' that is an out-of-game debt.

Even if these agreements to purchase in-game assets for out-of-game payment were somehow invalidated or cancelled (though I can't imagine why that would happen), it would still leave those depository tokens in circulation and you in debt for the out-of-game deficiency for the funds that you failed to actually deposit when you created those tokens.


The suggestion is to stop acting like a scammer and pay your debts. The Poloniex funds alone are more than sufficient to repay the original principal and stop the accrual of additional interest. Such payment (or even undertaking a process of regular partial payments) would also strengthen your position in negotiating to restoring access to your in-game assets.

Okay, you could comment about the huge shit. Sounds interesting.

I think what he means is miners jump on, mine a bunch of blocks at low difficulty and then once the difficulty goes up, jump off. Then they wait for the difficulty to drop down again before repeating.

It doesn't really mean anything other than that the coin hasn't developed a strong following of steady miners.

Oh great. Everyone is 'out' yet somehow were are within 35% of an all time high...

What would you have him say when asked whether people should invest in Monero when he really doesn't believe it is a good idea (for most non-speculators to do so)?

You seem to want to make this into a "strategy", when it is really just a person giving his honest opinion rather than turning into a lying shill at every opportunity when given access to some sort of platform.

That is a bad thing?

Maybe we should have him post his technical analysis on the thread encouraging people to buy when he's caught aggressively selling OTC at the same time. /s

I'm only aware of one clear instance where the advice became a meme (on twitter recently) and I took it as being quite amusing. To view that as a problem shows lack of appreciation for humor IMO.

I seriously doubt that fluffypony is going to answer any differently when people ask him in interviews, etc. whether Monero is a good investment or whether people should buy it, but who knows I could be surprised. I won't be recommending it to grandma any time soon either (unlike, say, Evan who apparently recruited most of his family to 'invest' in Dash, and that has indeed worked out for them, so far).


I'll update the advice this way: If you have been studying and investing in crypto since 2011, have significant financial resources outside crypto, understand the technology as an experienced software developer, have a background in business, economics and finance including years of experience with securities and derivatives trading as well as startup investing, then go ahead. Otherwise, be aware you are stepping into a shark tank and people with these advantages are more are competing to out-trade you.

No, there are no free accounts. Someone pays for it. When you sign up on steemit.com, Steemit Inc pays for your account.

When they get around to it, if they feel like it.

It isn't out of line to suggest it, sure. But expecting to 'retire' anything is illogical. There will very likely always be someone who continues to give that advice. It'll never actually be 'retired'.

Furthermore, when and how did it become a "strategy"?

I never told anyone what to do or not do. What I said was, effectively, that telling people (who are not not extreme speculators and most are not) to not buy Monero is often good advice, and people (such as fluffypony) who want to continue to say that are well-justified in doing so.

There is also the good point (credit Febo) that no one has the right to tell anyone else what to say or not say. The suggestion of "retiring" the advice is out of line on that basis.

If you want to shill Monero or anything else, you don't need my permission, nor can I stop you.


That's mathematically and logically incorrect, although 'potential' is a kind of meaningless term since it says nothing about how likely that reward is to be a realized. Many trading strategies have high risk but do not have high expected rewards; they are just bad strategies that lose money (or at a minimum risk it without compensation). Occasionally high rewards can be achieved without high risks (for example, my rewards in Steem were achieved while risking essentially nothing). Your understanding of trading is overly simplistic and naive. All the more reason advice from you is likely to be dangerous.

There used to be a channel on a Monero slack, I was told (never joined it) and it was gatewayed to IRC. Don't know if that still exists.

Multisig is being implemented because it is widely useful.

I'm hardly chiding anyone for trading. I've consistently said that people have the right to do whatever they want with their own money. I also agree with tokeweed that a lot of the profit comes from the worse traders and I consider that all fair play: You step into the arena, you get what you deserve.

That's very different from cautioning unprepared non-combatants about stepping into the arena. But ultimately it is up to them (again, people can do what they want with their own money). I'm definitely against 'bans' and such.

BTW, I've made a lot less (and if asked other times, lost a lot less) from crypto than many others, mostly because I've always considered it a form of extreme speculation and limited (though not entirely) my exposure to it.

Sorry, guys, I have no idea how long their verification process takes, though I would guess after some weeks that they simply decided not to approve it (sorry, I also don't know how they decide).

To create a paid account you can either use a service such as https://steemit.com/@anonsteem or you can find an existing user who knows how to use standalone wallet tools such as cli_wallet or vessel (gui) to create an account. It can't be done through the web site.

If you sign up through the web site then no. Steemit Inc pays the fee for you. You will need to give an email or some such info and wait for them to verify it (have never used it so I don't know the details).

If you sign up directly on the blockchain then there is a (sort of) "fee" (though not really a true fee since the coins are deposited into the new account).

In the upcoming hard fork it is proposed to restore the ability to create accounts via mining.

No disagreement on the substance of that point...except for the fact that none of those other crypto currencies are our particular concern and people don't ask usually ask fluffypony whether they should buy them.

It is still reasonable general audience advice. In one interview, I heard fluffypony add something to effect of "If you are an extreme speculator then sure go ahead and speculate". For anyone else, the advice is perfectly okay. This is not a proven asset, it isn't in a proven asset class. There can be bugs that completely destroy the currency.

As for "extreme speculators", I question how many people really are that. Extreme speculator to me, means that you know that your investment has a significant chance to lose all or most of its value and accept that when buying in. That takes significant financial and emotional preparation and resources. How many people here on the speculation thread raise a stink and declare XMR dead every time the price drops by 20-30% (still 70-80% less of a drop than the the full-loss scenario)? What happens when we see a 90% drop, as has happened to XMR before, and to BTC multiple times?

How about, "If you are going to be upset when your investment loses 20-30% of its value (not to mention 90% or more), then don't buy Monero"? In practice that's going to be the same thing for most of the audience.

Exchanges make their own decisions about what to do. If hitbtc wants to use an unstable wallet, no one can stop them.


Monero has never done anything to "deal with" people who want to mine it. There is no KYC process for miners. Do you understand that?

Claiming that there is "too much" hash rate on a PoW coin is rather absurd when more hash rate is what makes the coin more secure. Don't be a cry baby if the hash rate (aka difficulty) is too high for you to mine with a high profit margin. Figure out how to mine more efficiently or go mine something else.


It is always a "possibility" but it was also not consistent with the observed data.


Yes and yes.

Nice web site. Very clever how their dataset ends just as the current version of the protocol (not susceptible to the methods at all) begins, and how they make no effort to explain how the effectiveness of these methods (when they worked at all) was plummeting since early 2016 (as documented in their paper).

Weak trolling, mate.