40 BTC sellwall appeared.

If that gets eaten...

It already happened - down to 59.

That was your chance.

I wish they wouldn't do these "pre-hype hypes".

They just leave too much to the imagination.

Unless it's:

[1] - Amazon
[2] - Dell
[3] - Virgin buying out bitpay

...it'll now be a disappointment. Whereas if they'd just announce it straight out it wouldn't.

I couldn't agree more with this post.

It isn't just a question of technology and how "copyable" something is. BTC, LTC, Peercoin etc were all first with something that was far more "copyable" than DRK technology. Despite that their valuation was never challenged by any of the subsequent clones.

What this demonstrates is that - while 'clone' competition probably does have an impact, it's not definitive and brand appears to have far more influence.

Unless the Darkcoin people make some major mistakes this coin is on course for complete supremacy in the 'anonymity' sector and valuation will follow accordingly.

Maybe you don't but plenty do.

The reason is one of principle as much as practicality. If you follow any of the development blogs, discussions and debates about the evolution of cryptos and how the technology should develop, you'll see that designers fall over themselves to avoid any kind of centralised aspect to the technology.

Even something as apparently benign as checkpointing to mitigate the danger of 50% POW attacks was agonised and wrestled over. If ever implemented it's generally seen as a huge compromise. There is some basis to this kind of paranoia because the least bit of centralised control can be the thin end of the wedge even if it looks innocent enough at the outset.

I agree about dark wallet - it's another great plank in the infrastructure of the whole system and will prove to be very popular - justifiably so. But it's not the "real deal". It's a boiler plate solution. Darkcoin IS the real deal.


Thats probably a valid point. Will be interesting what the devs say about it. It surely must have crossed their minds.

Actually, most people DO need anonymity for their transactions.

The financial industry is falling over itself to present itself as "secure" which these days means secure information as well as secure money.

Everything from company payrolls to banking transfers to supermarket sales statistics are not available for scrutiny by all and sundry and I don't see that changing anytime soon.

Are you seriously presenting that as an issue for Darkcoin alone ?

The ENTIRE cryptocurrency phenonenon is probably the biggest threat that's ever loomed over the horizon for the mainstream banking industry. Do you really think they're going to pick and choose which ones they try to ban if that threat starts to become reality ?

Asides from the fact that these statements totally contradict each other:



Thats why I say it's FUD. Because there has been about 2 seconds thought put into this post and although there may be some loosely relevant points made, they pale into insignificance compared with the genuine originality and progress that Darkcoin has made.

I almost don't agree with a single thing in this post. In fact its content seems practically clueless.

First of all, any regulation that appears associated with cryptos applies to FIAT, not cryptos directly. That's because regulating cryptos boils down to telling people they're not allowed to pass pieces of paper between each other containing a bunch of letters and numbers. Saying "dark currency will not be permitted" is a meaningless generalisation thats about as relevant as saying "email will not be permitted".

Why would the "The rest of the crypto community will do well to cut off these currencies" when dark currencies embody the very essence of much of what cryptos stand for - anonymity, de-centralisation and integrity (in that there's no counterparty involved) ?

The attempt to associate dark currencies with illegal and subversive activities is also disingenuous. The entire fiat money system is totally opaque (at least as far as the general public is concerned) and yet the majority of the trading population isn't engaged in drug dealing and terrorism. Even commercial retailers don't freely divulge information about income from their various product lines etc.

A technology like darkcoin is one of THE most innovative developments in crypto since the outset. Saying that others can implement it does nothing to mitigate its achievements which are considerable. Apart from anything else, it's taken a good deal of constructive contribution from those that were involved in the development and testing which appears to have been done to a highly professional level. The approach to securing the network using paid for masternodes is also a well thought out and powerful concept.

This kind of post is nothing but dismissive FUD. I don't know what's behind it - whether you just want to malign a good thing for the sake of it or whether you've got some other axe to grind, but it's content is baseless. Sure the price may go back down - or it may more likely go up in my opinion. The thing is doing what it says on the tin and is going to provide a valuable service to the rest of the crypto economy.

All the same, whatever the price does, I find it difficult to arrive at any other conclusion than this is a great breakthrough in truly de-centralised, trustless and anonymous transaction technology. To me (and I only got into it a couple of weeks ago) it seems its valuation as things stand right now is properly greater than Litecoin, which given DRK's low coin supply is still a few 100%'s to go.
 
 

I can't see it dropping that far.

[1] - The masternode count is 82 and rising fast. That's 82,000 DRK out of the money supply in a currency that only has 4 million odd coins   in the first place

[2] - On top of that, look at the order depth on Mintpal. The liquidity on the ask side is thin as hell. Even if the price were to go down again there just isn't the liquidity to get any quantity the way there was before. Nobody's going to be dumping 1000s of DRK sub 50 after we've twice visited this level in the past week.

[3] - Those that are wanting to be in the business of masternode 'farming' need a thousand at a time and probably know that this is the last chance to get them at a sub 0.01 price.

I just don't see it dropping much further than this really -were in a dip already and it's being steadily bought but in crypto's few things are predictable.

Mintpal really is a SH*t hot exchange now.

I think it's blows everything away - apart from maybe BTCe which isn't as pretty but sure is a workhorse that can function under heavy stress.

It just shows you how locked down the authorities have cryptos the fact that high grade professional exchanges can't get Fiat gateways for love nor money.

In my view, they're only covertly demonstrating what they're scared sh*tless of admitting publicly - that the fiat money system is under massive threat from cryptos.

It's under threat on two fronts - technological and economical. The technological threat is obviously the ditching of the counterparty in any financial transaction (otherwise known as 'banks'). The economic one is that it puts unlevered money straight in the hands of the public. Thats never happened before since the days of gold coins. If you have an unlevered base money system operating in parallel with a highly levered credit money system that only has 1 chair for every 10 people standing, it's clear where the herd is going to run in a crisis.

Major interesting times ahead.

Voted again Mintpal.

Seems it lets you vote once every few hours (about as often as JPC stakes   ).

https://www.mintpal.com/voting

If your coins are aged by at least 1 day already, then staking occurs anytime during the next 24 hour period.

It depends if they are all 1 bug lump of the same age or staggered as to how often a day it stakes. Leave it a day unlocked and you should start to see the interest payments stack up in the transaction list (with a 'mined' symbol next to them if it's the QT wallet).

I sometimes don't see anything for 10 hours and then 3 new transactions appear in the space of half an hour.

Yeah. You were right. We corrected from 640 to 635 LoL

Convergence-divergence mumbo jumbo looking good again.

Correction incoming.

More than that. Here's 4 things to chew on (and why this isn't a pump). I only got into DRK a few weeks ago, but it's one of the few coins I bought in on fundamentals as opposed to pump and dump. Here we go:

[1] - technology. The trustless anonymity thing is a genuine breakthrough that doesn't come easy. It puts DRK in a class way out on it's own on genuine originality.

[2] - strategic value. What this means is that it's not only of value to the DRK economy. It's of value to the rest of the cryptocurrency economy as well. i.e. it can service anonymity requirements of other cryptocurrencies because one can purchase DRK with a load of Bitcoin for example, carry out 1 DRK transaction to wipe tracks, then cash back out to Bitcoin and that's you broken your trail in the Bitcoin blockchain courtesy of DRK.

[3] - coin supply. Following from point [2], DRK's low coin supply does not inhibit its ability to provide this service to other coins. It's just a question of exchange rate. But the low supply means the price is high. For example, if DRK were to equal LTD in market cap it would have a price of 0.16 BTC (~ 6-7 times Litecoin's price). As it is I think DRK is actually a more valuable coin than LTC

[4] - the DRK nodes policy. This is a superb idea. It works economically and technically because it keeps the network at a high service level while at the same time creating demand for the coin

All in all. I think this coin does everything right (my opninion of course. I might have made mistakes in my appraisal but that's the way I see things at the moment anyway).

Voted Mintpal.

After that break of 6, all convergeance-divergeance moving averages have now blown wide to the upside.

Jeez. It seems to be heading for 7.

Where's this going to stop ?

Well that's progress. Perhaps you should tone down the emotive language in your commentary to reflect that fact.


Suggestive of what ? That the developer colluded with the initial stakeholders and they were all secretly part of the same group ? If that's what your suggesting then I think you should spell it out in the commentary so it's unambiguous, along with the basis for suspecting this. There would be nothing wrong with doing that and presenting it as something to be taken into account when making investment decisions since none of us can know one way or another. There does not appear to be any material evidence of such collusion but it could still be possible.

Where I take issue with your report is the wholesale slamming of a perfectly good project that has a massive community of constructive members - both developers and investors - based on this one issue that's fading into historical irrelevance anyway.


So you do think it's overvalued. At last a clear and simple market appraisal free of antagonistic jingoisms (almost).

Why don't you just state that then along with your reasons ? I happen to think it's undervalued since we are about to see a new phase of growth in 3rd party commercial ventures engaging with the NXT asset feature about to be launched. But that's just my opinion and you'd be entitled to take a different view of the situation. Would be a refreshing break from all the mumbo jumbo about distributions and what is and isn't 'insanity'.

Why are you obsessed with this point ? A month earlier than what ?

I can understand people being disappointed not getting in at the time (I didn't get in). I can even understand them getting angry. But what's it got to do with its market valuation or potential today ? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see.

Are you saying the market is overvaluing the currency or what ? This is not clear from your commentary when in fact it's the presumably the one thing that your readers would want to know. Nobody buying today gives 2 sods about how it was launched. They want to know if they have an investment that's going to give returns or not.

Are you saying there's an ethical problem with it ? I asked you this earlier but the most articulate response you're capable of amounts to nothing more than a load of toys being thrown of the pram.


Why is it "insanity" ?

Is this the whole basis for your appraisal ? That you feel the initial stakeholders made too much money ?

It looks like it to me. Even so, you don't take into account that 'market cap' is a theoretical number. None of the stakeholders can actually realise their holdings. They can only realise a tiny portion of it and by the time their full remaining holdings are realisable, the currency will be substantially distributed anyway.

So your whole line of reasoning looks like a mish mash of straw man arguments and making mountains out of molehills mixed in with a bit of jealousy. I don't think you're even clear yourself why you hold these views.