I always thought there was something really wrong with XMR...
What exactly is "really wrong" with XMR? Please, provide some evidence of any wrong doing, if you can. Anything at all. Or you're a troll. |
|
|
|
monero is doing even better than I thought.
You can't be serious... Monero has gone absolutely nowhere. The standard is not ninja miner cost in April or whatever... The standard is the first week listed on Polo when the Ave Price was 0.00530 That's the fucking standard for "doing better" or sucking shit. I've made over 2,000 XMR trades because it's nice to scalp it on 3 exchanges... And the volume is real, but I'm certain XMR is being heavily manipulated by a few whales... Probably on direct orders from the McRisto Pump Mothership. Even the crack hos on the street know a Big Pump is coming... Every day I hear, "I'll blow you for some Monero, baby". XMR is positively levitating like a shady snake charmer... While far superior coins with SANE communities have gotten crushed. Let's face it... This is a Gen 1.0 one trick anon pony... Up against a Gen 2.0 Crypto Asset platform shoot out... With major corporations about to start rolling out well financed Gen 3.0 crypto. Nobody is forcing you to like Monero. But where's the evidence of it being a hoax or scam? I'm still waiting for this thread to live up to it's title. Come on, guys, where's the proof? |
|
|
|
PoW is an expression of value transfer (the expense of one resource to create another). I realize this is a major simplification, but if PoS can't represent some measure of GDP than it's security is irrelevant. It fails the most basic test.
With POW though is a true resource even being create to which the value is being transferred? Funny thing about so many people in the western world is they perceive their work has to be worth something even when they create nothing of value. If it wasn't valuable then the work wouldn't be done in the first place. PoW is an expression of value transfer (the expense of one resource to create another). I realize this is a major simplification, but if PoS can't represent some measure of GDP than it's security is irrelevant. It fails the most basic test.
My CPoS scheme will directly test this hypothesis and will certainly fail if you are right. In contrast, perhaps cryptocurrencies are valuable solely because some people think they are valuable. That would be nice, but fiat only works because it's centralized and policed. In a decentralized free market you cannot establish value out of thin air. I could be wrong. |
|
|
|
... lots of nonsense.
Nowhere in your rambling did you manage to point out any verifiable wrong doing by the Monero devs. If you consider "not being guilty of anything" a PR campaign, than I suppose Monero is guilty of that. I find it rather humorous that Monero's lack of suspicious activity is causing all these new accounts to whine about faul play. |
|
|
|
|
PoW is an expression of value transfer (the expense of one resource to create another). I realize this is a major simplification, but if PoS can't represent some measure of GDP than it's security is irrelevant. It fails the most basic test.
|
|
|
|
It appears that my post on the Cryptonote forum about the perceived merits of various cryptonote coins was deleted. (It was in a thread asking if the devs would ever delete the keys for the 80% pre-mine). I am glad I use a different password for every website. IIRC, Quasarcoin is one of the forks I actually liked. I did not like monero because for some unfathomable reason, they decided 60 second blocks were a good idea  Edit: I was thinking of doing my own investigations via another route: the release dates of the dependencies. Read my posts up thread. Nobody thought 60 second blocks were a good idea. TFT ignored everyone and launched bitMonero with it anyway. |
|
|
|
I have a question about Quazarcoin being linked to the original scam artist devs of Bytecoin:
If it's a scam, how is the dev OracionSeis benefiting? If it is was indeed a scam, the dev had an excellent opportunity to "cash out" when QCN hit Poloniex and soared to ~ 0.01 QCN/BTC. Why keep the whole thing going after this? Why post in the thread almost every day? Why is there no obvious bashing of Monero by the dev?
I like the investigative work you did, but you sort of call out QCN in your rage and don't really go into detail about anything else. Nothing I've seen over the past month or so makes any sense in the context of it being a scam. If it is one...it's a pretty damn harmless one.
Not sure if you read up thread, but look into how QCN started. OracionSeis attempted to hijack the community by maliciously forking Monero's code base and relaunching as Monero. After failing to do so, he deleted his original posts/threads before renaming the coin to QCN. I used to have archive.org links on hand for proof, but you can do some digging and find them yourself. "Hijacking the community" really makes no sense--nobody can hijack a community. I don't have access to any of the drama but I see mentions of it early in the QCN threads so I cannot really comment on this further. Was he just upset about how Monero was launched? Was he on the dev team of Monero and didn't like how things were operating/progressing? Or is the OP claiming in a roundabout way that OracionSeis is part of the original Bytecoin team (proof?) and that he is trying to destroy Monero out of vengeance by forking Bytecoin and launching his own coin? If the launch of Quazarcoin was a malicious act towards Monero and its community, it's failing hard at appearing and being malicious. As of now it simply exists as an alternative cryptonote coin with altered coin specifications and different development path. If OracionSeis was driven purely by malevolent intent, surely he would give up developing a coin that was not having the desired effect. It's a huge waste of time to put months of effort into keeping a coin alive (regardless of how well he is actually developing things). As an outsider looking in on cryptonotes and QCN's existence, this is a situation that at worst looks like a disgruntled member of Monero/Bytecoin that was not happy with something (I still don't know what) and launched his own cryptonote coin as a result. At best, it looks like an alternative cryptonote coin that aims to develop a very "primitive" and "young" cryptonote technology down its own path. The OP of this thread is suggesting that OracionSeis is part of the BCN scam. Fact: OracionSeis came into the XMR thread, called everyone scammers, and attempted to direct traffic to his own fork of the exact same name. If OracionSeis is one of the BCN guys I wouldn't be surprised. |
|
|
|
|
It seems a lot of folks confuse the history of bitMonero/Monero. It was not simply a rename of the same coin.
thankful_for_today (TFT) pretended to create a fair relaunch of bytecoin in bitMonero, though it's apparent now this was an obvious attempt to corner the market and capture the non-bcn-believers before some other fork came along.
TFT pretended to listen to everyone. I even collaborated with him via PM to help him launch bitMonero on schedule (I was also planning a bytecoin fork at the time and wanted to combine resources). He appeared cooperative at first, but then stopped responding and suddenly launched with parameters that were either never discussed (much steeper distribution curve) or publicly and unanimously vetoed (60 second block times). I believe the steeper distribution was his subtle attempt to capture more block rewards with an optimized miner.
This move actually turned me away from the coin altogether. I was again planning a fork until David Latapie and others took over the project and have since turned it around.
The way I see it: bitMonero and Monero are not and should not be considered the same project.
|
|
|
|
I have a question about Quazarcoin being linked to the original scam artist devs of Bytecoin:
If it's a scam, how is the dev OracionSeis benefiting? If it is was indeed a scam, the dev had an excellent opportunity to "cash out" when QCN hit Poloniex and soared to ~ 0.01 QCN/BTC. Why keep the whole thing going after this? Why post in the thread almost every day? Why is there no obvious bashing of Monero by the dev?
I like the investigative work you did, but you sort of call out QCN in your rage and don't really go into detail about anything else. Nothing I've seen over the past month or so makes any sense in the context of it being a scam. If it is one...it's a pretty damn harmless one.
Not sure if you read up thread, but look into how QCN started. OracionSeis attempted to hijack the community by maliciously forking Monero's code base and relaunching as Monero. After failing to do so, he deleted his original posts/threads before renaming the coin to QCN. I used to have archive.org links on hand for proof, but you can do some digging and find them yourself. |
|
|
|
After that interview I was certain that cryptonote was a scam.
Yup. I remember arguing with you in defense of bytecoin. I just couldn't believe these people would attempt such an elaborate scheme with technology that was so promising. It makes me wonder if they really were the original cryptonote developers, or if they stole the tech from someone else and rebranded it as cryptonote. |
|
|
|
This was an interesting read. You forgot to include the fact that QuazaarCoin was a malicious fork of Monero originally intended to confuse/hijack the community  I hope nobody forgot about that. |
|
|
|
Here you go. I compared BTC to XMR in 2 ways, the first is a lifetime-to-lifetime comparison and the second runs from 5/20/14 - 8/12/14 (I couldn't find price data for XMR before 5/20).
The average % daily change for BTC across its lifetime is 0.84%, with a standard deviation of 0.0713 (this is the "volatility" number).
The average % daily change for XMR across its lifetime (starting on 5/20) is 1.16%, with a standard deviation of 0.1671, or 2.34x greater volatility than BTC.
The average % daily change for BTC in the same time period as XMR (from 5/20 to 8/12) was 0.33% with a st. dev. of 0.0277, which is 6x less volatile than XMR.
So no matter how you want to cut the numbers, you're wrong.
This is a load of crap and you know it. Comparisons have to be made across a common metric (any measure of value that is not one of the subjects being compared. Regardless whether or not trading pairs exist, you have to establish an independent, single measure of value or the comparison is bullshit). Not only are you failing to do that, but you're using one subject as a base for making calculations on the other. Either you're very stupid or intentionally deceitful. You decide. |
|
|
|
|
Regarding mixins, it might be useful to have a low-end random mixin as a default. So if the user selects "Low" or doesn't specify, the mixin would be a random value between 2 and 10 (for example).
If the user selects "Medium" ambiguity, mixin is a random number between 11 and 20.
If the user selects "High" ambiguity, mixin is a random number between 21 and 30.
etc.
|
|
|
|
No. I think I got the point. The other side of that is... if Coindesk is just a glorified trollbox then why does it even really mater what they think or report on?
The problem is that many people are not aware that Coindesk is a glorified trollbox (at least I wasn't), and so they think they're getting an objective view of the crypto space, when in actuality major developments are going unreported. This is not about me being upset that monero isn't getting attention. A lot of people follow CoinDesk, and I want everyone to know that CoinDesk has a hidden agenda that is of no benefit to its readers. |
|
|
|
"They won't write about what I like so they don't have integrity anymore"
Around here, we call people like you whiny bitches
Pretty much this. And to be honest if I worked for Coindesk this thread would make me somewhat wary of Monero. Of all the people I expected to completely miss the point, you weren't one of them. If CoinDesk is really nothing but a glorified trollbox, it doesn't really matter what they think, does it? |
|
|
|
"They won't write about what I like so they don't have integrity anymore"
Around here, we call people like you whiny bitches
As I already said, it's not even about Monero specifically, but the idea that a reputable news source is intentionally witholding information on major developments in the alt space. If you're a CoinDesk reader, you should be concerned regardless of your interest in Monero or CryotoNote tech, as their motivations apparently extend beyond reporting the news. |
|
|
|
they load up on coins and spam the site with ad's (stories) for whatever coin they HAVE now..
everybody knows they are biased.. it's common knowledge.. they have little clout as a news outlet because of this.
I wasn't aware of this. If it's true, I'm disappointed. this minute there is 4 Monero topics on page 1 ....i think that says it all LOL
That's more topics than any other alt has on page 1 ... but I don't know what that's supposed to mean. I support Monero but that's not really the point of the topic. The point was to raise awareness of shady behavior from (who I thought was) a reputable news outlet |
|
|
|
Coins currently immediately above and below XMR on coinmarket cap are blackcoin and XCurrency. Blackcoin has various mentions on coindesk (usually as part of a list along with dogecoin for some reason), but XCurrency has only one. Cloakcoin is right below XC and has been somewhat hot recently, but that's not mentioned either.
So I think it is fairly normal for them to not cover alts below the top 10.
That does not explain removing your comments though.
CryptoNote is HUGE in the alt scene. Right now I count eight different cryptonote related threads in the first page of the bct alt section. It would be pretty tough for someone not to be aware of its existence. Additionally, it's not so much the lack of CN/Monero related articles as much as it's not even mentioned in articles specifically about anonymous tech in the alt scene. For example, the most recent article mentions XC, Cloakcoin, Keycoin, and an obscure new anon coin called RobotSexNickels, yet somehow fails to mention Monero, the coin that occupies some 25% of the altcoin discussion on bitcointalk. Gimme a break. |
|
|
|
What? They lose credibility? Its THEIR choice what they want to do with their service
Sure it's their choice, but biased news sources who intentionally withold information from readers are not credible. |
|
|
|
Since you comment on the site I presume you are a regular reader (I'm not, although I do occasionally follow a link to the site if it looks interesting).
Do you have any idea what is their motivation for not covering Monero? Do they generally cover other altcoins?
I've been a regular reader for a while now, and have enjoyed CoinDesk for their coverage in the alt space. I always thought it was kind of weird how XMR repeatedly failed to come up in relevant articles but always dismissed it as an innocent oversight. I'm not sure what their motivation is. Perhaps the authors are all heavily invested in darkcoin? I only suggest that because there's been quite a bit of darkcoin coverage on CoinDesk. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
