An opinion that changed 180° in a couple of hours?
It is not his opinion, he just tells us that he is trying to sell or is trying to buy cheaper. There is zero information in his postings beside his side in the market.
I can't read his trash anymore.
Ignore button (or mental ignore button) please. It tells you something meaningful when an opinion changes 180° in a couple of hours. Interpret accordingly. This thread is filtered for on-topic or off-topic. It isn't filtered for only well-constructed or well-informed opinions. |
|
|
|
I don't have that much time for trolling here
Good news, go away. . |
|
|
|
Now that I no longer use xmr.to I wonder if anyone does  You are not special you know, the causality in your sentence does not exist. The causality exists but it is opposite in direction than what he suggests. I'm more likely to use the service since he doesn't like it. |
|
|
|
'Scam busting' and this righteous Monero image is just part of it's marketing drivvle That's nonsense. I posted about scams before Monero existed, most notably but not exclusively the Bytecoin scam that led to Monero being created. I just hate scams. It has nothing to do with "marketing" |
|
|
|
In doing so I'd suggest referencing this page which is a well-respected independent investigation of many coin launches including darkcoin/dash Extreme Caution: Coins That Are Bad Ideas For Investment or Usage
These kinds of coins may seem appealling at first, but one strong bit of evidence or a string of evidence makes their investment value self evident; they are highly likely to be scams.
...
The Darkcoin website expects around 22,000,000 DRK to be created. That means in less than 8 hours, almost 5% of the Darkcoins that ever will be created spawned in that 1/3 of a day. It's safe to say Darkcoin has left it's investors in the dark on this one.
|
|
|
|
bytecoin are direct competitors
No. Unlike Dash, which has a community and millions of thread posts, and volume and development and activity, bytecoin does not have anything. All tricks are made possible only because of the 99.9% concentration in ownership. I challenge you to find anyone who owns bytecoin!  I have a few million bytecoins sitting in a wallet somewhere that I bought in the pre-monero days. I'm not "holding" them as much as I haven't bothered to sell them due to their complete worthlessness. Likewise, though I don't think I ever bought, only mined. |
|
|
|
I believe the prospect of botnet mining, which is very difficult to prove either true or untrue, is a negative and a problem. It is a lesser problem though than the ones in Dash, or the ones in Bitcoin currently.
If it were perceived to be prevalent, it might be a PR problem. The technical factors which facilitate it are actually a huge plus, as they are proven conducive to decentralization. The economics described elsewhere tend to indicate that the perception is larger than the reality. In terms of market action, it helps to distribute coins, and botnets are relatively unlikely to hoard. And it is precisely the robust supply which has enabled us to accumulate in the early phase, so long-term holders have all benefited substantially from any impact of botnet mining. In the end, I find it difficult to feel very bad about the reality. Perception is another question, but the perception will align to reality over time, in all likelihood. Simply by accounting for known non-bot hashrate, I can entirely disprove the dominance of botnets during the first few months of the coin, which was (and still is) a frequent claim made by opponents trying to FUD. Specifically I can identify roughly 80-90% of the hash rate as being known non-bot miners (and certainly well over 50% as a bare minimum). Likewise, the current economics don't support the hash rate being dominated by botnets presently (the profitability is too high). I can't disprove the presence of botnets, and in fact I believe there were/are bots. So I'm not sure whether this makes any real difference to the reputational issue. As long as there are some bots, which will likely be always, they can be blown out of proportion and used to FUD. |
|
|
|
|
Deleted one spam post promoting another coin which contained zero content relevant to Monero (and not even any relevant to the promoted coin), along with one reply to it
|
|
|
|
DB version still not official ?! TAILS compatible binaries ?!
Incompetent idiots...
Welcome back primer-. I missed you. |
|
|
|
Satoshi was a visonary and he was sure that Bitcoin will last for long time, I can quote one of his quotes
"Aug. 5, 2010: While I don’t think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. … Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial."
He was certainly not an accurate visionary on the 5-year timescale. The storage and bandwidth requirements needed to use Bitcoin for micropayments do not seem trivial. Even in 10 years (4 from now) that seems doubtful. Yes he was very close to being accurate and he still has 5 more years for that saying of his to come true which imo is possible with wide adoption of bitcoin, that being said, i will not be able to buy a gift card online in 2010 with 0.02BTC with all the transaction costs, but now it is totally possible as the costs of bandwidth and storage have gone down significantly and the value of bitcoin has grown from few cents to hundreds of dollars. He said storage and bandwidth would "seem trivial." They don't. You still have reasonably intelligent people arguing that the block size should not be raised or should only be raised very slowly and carefully because it would make it too hard to run full nodes. That's not something that seems trivial at all. And that says nothing about the storage and bandwidth requirements to widely use it for microtransactions which would far exceed the current 5-7 tx/sec volume nothing (by factors of thousands at least). I will acknowledge that in 5 more years things may be different. |
|
|
|
Monero idealists are saying it doesn't matter that the hashrate is dominated by botnets.
Monero coins have been and are being minted by criminals using unaware people's computers and electricity without their consent, and the people buying those coins off the criminals are happily receiving stolen property while riding their high horse of crypto morality.
Nonsense - we invented Smart Mining to address both mining centralisation AND the risk of botnets. We're not ignoring the risk, and anyone who says otherwise is delusional. Bitcoin, Dogecoin, and Litecoin have all had major botnet mining problems, I don't think any cryptocurrency can pretend it's not at risk. The difference is that we're actually doing something about it instead of pretending it doesn't exist:) What about it is nonsense? The premise of hashrate dominated by botnets is nonsense as I explained earlier. I take it the situation has changed to the better recently for some reason? I have first hand knowledge that two botnet operators are mining XMR as we speak. So whether or not you or I think it is profitable is a moot point.
XMR has a relatively narrow user base, as much of the coin is being mined by the botnets. For instance, 4 MH/s botnet was discussed on #monero-dev and this is one botnet only, which gives about 240M difficulty. God knows how many of them there are actually, but my guess is more than 80% of the whole hash rate.
The largest XMR miner on minergate, botnet also. There are numerous ones mining XMR, and more will come for sure as the coin increases in value & exposure.
Botnets are a real problem. One pool owner shared with me this info  It's certainly possible that heavy botnet activity could occur for a short term with mining still being profitable for others (those posts were all a few months after launch), but it isn't credible for that to continue for a year or longer. Again, I'm sure there are botnets still but I don't believe they are close to dominating the hash rate. Even during that time period it was well documented -- later -- that dga had a huge part of the hash rate, at times over half, and he wasn't a botnet. So those claims about "huge" botnets early on are even a bit more suspect in hindsight. Also OracionSeis was outed as a bought account some time ago, and was certainly a scammer who tried to launch QuazarCoin using the exact same name as Monero until the community shot down that dumb idea. So not exactly a credible source for anything. |
|
|
|
I doubt anyone can give you an honest answer about this OP, everyone will just post the coin they support here.
I'll give an honest answer. I don't think Monero is the most undervalued coin. I don't know what is, but it's probably something fairly unknown at this point. It is hard to say that any top 20 coin is the most undervalued. |
|
|
|
Satoshi was a visonary and he was sure that Bitcoin will last for long time, I can quote one of his quotes
"Aug. 5, 2010: While I don’t think Bitcoin is practical for smaller micropayments right now, it will eventually be as storage and bandwidth costs continue to fall. … Whatever size micropayments you need will eventually be practical. I think in 5 or 10 years, the bandwidth and storage will seem trivial."
He was certainly not an accurate visionary on the 5-year timescale. The storage and bandwidth requirements needed to use Bitcoin for micropayments do not seem trivial. Even in 10 years (4 from now) that seems doubtful. |
|
|
|
|
Greetings Aeonians.
I'm preparing a new development plan for the coin going forward and I would iike to offer this as an opportunity for suggestions from the community. I have some of my own ideas but all serious ideas will be given serious consideration.
|
|
|
|
Monero idealists are saying it doesn't matter that the hashrate is dominated by botnets.
Monero coins have been and are being minted by criminals using unaware people's computers and electricity without their consent, and the people buying those coins off the criminals are happily receiving stolen property while riding their high horse of crypto morality.
Nonsense - we invented Smart Mining to address both mining centralisation AND the risk of botnets. We're not ignoring the risk, and anyone who says otherwise is delusional. Bitcoin, Dogecoin, and Litecoin have all had major botnet mining problems, I don't think any cryptocurrency can pretend it's not at risk. The difference is that we're actually doing something about it instead of pretending it doesn't exist:) What about it is nonsense? The premise of hashrate dominated by botnets is nonsense as I explained earlier. |
|
|
|
5. Darknote - possibly tied to the original Bytecoin fraud, but not proven. Totally opaque process and little traction. Also the launch with an absurd
"Darknote - possibly tied to the original Bytecoin fraud, but not proven". 1. I claiming again and again and again - XDN, also known as duckNote, also known as DarkNote tied to original bytecoin ONLY by using their source code. 2. You have no proofs, but you say like that, thats a FUD. The way said it was exactly the opposite of FUD. I was very explicit: but not proven 3. I have proofs. Interesting to hear, but unfortunately you didn't provide any. If you have something that constitutes proof of your organizational independence from Bytecoin, please let us know because I'm quite interested. Also, I would welcome proof that the original silly branding (or however you want to call it), followed by a fast mine, followed by a rebrand wasn't deliberately orchestrated to massively concentrate ownership, or that it didn't have that effect, Seriously, I'm interested in this. As you know I'm impressed with a lot of the stuff I've seen from ducknote/darknote. Finally, regarding what you call the game, I'm not sure we see that 'game' in exactly the same way, but in any case I don't hate the player. I'm not sure what game you are playing though. |
|
|
|
innovation is the primary unique differential any investor looks for because it represents the greatest barrier to entry for competition to a first-mover tech.
If you were investing in ownership of the innovation (intellectual property) that is true. Buying a coin does not buy ownership of any intellectual property (other than the somewhat pedantic point that private keys may be a form of intellectual property), so your comment, as usual, is nonsensical. If you want to "buy innovation" you should get the hell out of the cryptocurrency space and go buy into tech startups or other investments where you are actually buying a share of some innovative and protectable intellectual property assets. Cryptocurrency is the most innovative space I have seen for a while That may be (I actually agree), but it isn't 'investable' in the sense of buying defensible intellectual property. You are projecting your desire to 'invest' in something that you see as innovative onto a vehicle -- buying coins -- that doesn't do what you want it to do. but when no crypto has 'changed the world' yet, without continued innovation, what is an alt coin supposed to be for exactly?
Moving the technology forward to the point where that may happen, either with a particular coin, or with a successor. That or pump-and-dump speculation. There really isn't anything else that altcoins (or Bitcoin) are 'for'. |
|
|
|
innovation is the primary unique differential any investor looks for because it represents the greatest barrier to entry for competition to a first-mover tech.
If you were investing in ownership of the innovation (intellectual property) that is true. Buying a coin does not buy ownership of any intellectual property (other than the somewhat pedantic point that private keys may be a form of intellectual property), so your comment, as usual, is nonsensical. If you want to "buy innovation" you should get the hell out of the cryptocurrency space and go buy into tech startups or other investments where you are actually buying a share of some innovative and protectable intellectual property assets. |
|
|
|
Ask a simple question like 'what is Monero's unique value/innovation compared to any other Cryptnote coin', or 'what uniqu innovation have the Monero dev's actually done over Bytecoin code'
Then get 20 Monero posts evading the question, shouting about FUD, a million lines of code, attacking DASH...
But not one person actually tried to answer this question
In fact both questions were answered. I answered the first by explaining that no other cryptonote has an open public development process and a strong community (in fact arguably none has either one) and fluffypony answered the other with a specific list. so zero innovation then, you admit that? 1. Cryptonote is uniquely innovative and for all practical purposes Monero is cryptonote. 2. See bold above. My question is not whether Cryptonote is an innovation, because there are lots of Crytonote coins There is only one that matters, but your logic is flawed. If cryptonote is innovative then all cryptonote coins are innovative, at least until one dominates over the others (which has happened). Question is what actual innovation (world-changing, profound etc) has Monero done on tpop of Cryptonote, after this whole year of development, and that would be any barrier to any other Crytponote coin springing up with the same innovation level, if the market wanted that...
It is impossible for any code-level development to be not be copyable in a public open-source environment, so your question as I believe you intend it is nonsensical. In terms of non-code-level developments, I already answered. It is impossible, or at least extremely difficult, for any other cryptonote coin to "spring up" with the strength of the Monero community. Lest you think I'm doing some kind of reverse justification here, I was preaching the extreme importance of strength-of-community in coin development last year, before during and after Monero's creation. I'm sure someone who is motivated can find posts supporting that. It should be obvious as a coin is inherently a social phenomenon. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
