Sorry, I don't agree. Allowing it to spread without being challenged is part of what makes it happen. Or only challenged for a short time, and then, after some nachiog-imposed deadline, scammers who are persistent enough get a free pass. Same with Paycoin and every other scam.
A scam doesn't become not a scam just it is old and you find it "fucking annoying" to keep hearing about it. If you don't like it, sign off and ignore the scam (and the challenges to it).
Yes it sucks that people scam, but part of the problem with this environment is that honest people don't push back against it. The issue here is because this practice is damaging more the reputation of the honest coins than of the scams. A lot of people here have a bad opinion about Monero because its core team and Monero's fanboys/fangirls (sometimes with sockpuppet accounts) are going to "overcriticize" and importunate Dash, Bytecoin or even Bitcoin over this forum, and sometimes just to promote Monero. I guess you can't please everybody all the time. Nevertheless, I will continue to speak out against and fight scams in every way I can, which includes encouraging other honest people to do the same. |
|
|
|
If this is a long con, they are certainly putting in a lot of effort. So far they have been public for a year and now have a long vision road map. No sign of a dump yet but the market isn't big enough if you want to make retirement money.
When does a long con turn into a business plan?
They own roughly 80% (possibly more by now) of the coins and the market cap is around 4 million USD so theoretically -- on paper at least -- they've made 3.2 million USD on it. Obviously the more newbs can be pulled in the more they can cash out and/or pump that higher. Not a bad plan. I doubt it taking a year to score was the plan from the start, but as long as there seems to be promise the numbers add up to continuing to try (see previous paragraph). |
|
|
|
But instead of discussing the obvious, you can turn this into a useful scam. The technology behind it is unquestionably great and can provide a proof-of-concept. So, fork and do it better. There is no "instead" that is a false dichotomy. Both forking and calling out has been done and continues to be done. And don't worry with people buying this coin. If they are buying a clearly scam coin, let them do this. Good luck for them, maybe they can do some profit, although improbable. Or maybe they deserve to be scammed. The history behind this is very well-documented here ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=740112.0 ), so we don't need to go to every topic about this coin to do the same discurse, as anti-scam paladines. Sorry, I don't agree. Allowing it to spread without being challenged is part of what makes it happen. Or only challenged for a short time, and then, after some nachiog-imposed deadline, scammers who are persistent enough get a free pass. Same with Paycoin and every other scam. A scam doesn't become not a scam just it is old and you find it "fucking annoying" to keep hearing about it. If you don't like it, sign off and ignore the scam (and the challenges to it). Yes it sucks that people scam, but part of the problem with this environment is that honest people don't push back against it. Things are changing though. Slowly, but they are. It's part of cryptocurrency reaching some minimum level of maturity. |
|
|
|
So I would guess they are being intelligent enough to take their small victory and run off as there is no way they can ever win on the merits of the topic.
I think it's been quiet because almost everything that possibly could be said has already been said from every possible angle. Although the matter of having to trust that no single entity (or entities collaborating) holds too many XMR's to deanonymize the transactions hasn't been talked about yet, unless I missed it. That is addressed in MRL-0004 and will be implemented in a future update. At the moment there is no particular reason to believe that any one entity holds e.g. 80% of Monero. I guess its possible that Poloniex does, but I doubt it. Also, remember this only affects traceability not linkability (so, loosely speaking "half" of anonymity). |
|
|
|
Guys, i have access to free electricity  Can anyone provide me with details to what kind of power is needed to mine around 200 XMR daily, and the ROI minus electricity cost. Thnx 200 XMR/day is about 1.3% of the current total. The entire network is roughly 15 million hash/sec (with variation obv) so roughly 195 khash/sec As far as ROI you will have to work that out since it depends on your costs. |
|
|
|
AND this here is the Crux on my question. MyMonero can Lock or remove access to those funds that were created with the key on their site. Now while some may think this is compromising of a trust-less system (it is) By generating a Key with the simple wallet first will bypass this as you guys have affirmed.
So now that this has all been fleshed out in my mind, here is my thought.
MyMonero can be used as an Escrow system where the Funds can be locked. Correct?
Create a wallet and a second login user for depositor (Site would have to guarantee wallet was created through site).
No because the code to restore a MyMonero wallet elsewhere first of all rather trivial and second of all already implemented in some github branch somewhere (just not merged to master yet) So it would be quite insecure to rely on not being able to access those funds. Ahh, thx Smooth looked like an easy change to add an automated XMR escrow page. Hmmm What about if both parties received part of the seed. Something that that could work, if it were seen as useful enough. In that case only both parties together would be able to retrieve the funds. I don't know if that is useful but it's certainly possible. |
|
|
|
I think XMR will be #2 on that filter non mineable and premined list in 2 years. That filter should also filter Dash. So actually XMR is #4 currently.
Yes... why on earth does that filter NOT include dash? and bytecoin, what is wrong with coinmarketcap. Horrible decision on their part. In fact they originally tagged BCN as premined (as it obviously was) but removed it when the BCN shills complained. |
|
|
|
I like that Gliss took HitBTC off the site as an exchange. It has affected the volume for Bytecoin and should help noobs to not touch it. EDIT: to make this post more about Monero speculation, does anyone think removing Hitbtc's volume from Monero on Coinmarketcap will impact us negatively? Maybe a little (makes us looks even more concentrated on Poloniex) but I'm still happy to see the cryptocurrency reporting scene cleaned up a bit. |
|
|
|
AND this here is the Crux on my question. MyMonero can Lock or remove access to those funds that were created with the key on their site. Now while some may think this is compromising of a trust-less system (it is) By generating a Key with the simple wallet first will bypass this as you guys have affirmed.
So now that this has all been fleshed out in my mind, here is my thought.
MyMonero can be used as an Escrow system where the Funds can be locked. Correct?
Create a wallet and a second login user for depositor (Site would have to guarantee wallet was created through site).
No because the code to restore a MyMonero wallet elsewhere first of all rather trivial and second of all already implemented in some github branch somewhere (just not merged to master yet) So it would be quite insecure to rely on not being able to access those funds. |
|
|
|
Yes we report fraud when and where we see it. If more people did the same the world (and certainly the cryptocurrency community) would be a better place. If you see fraud and don't shout fraud, you are a fraud.
Yeah, I've noticed the Bytecoin scam team is trying mount a bit of a comeback and lure in unsuspecting people who are probably not familiar with what actually happened.
Definitely a good time to get this thread out again to hopefully save some people money.
|
|
|
|
Who knows how long this will last but for now....  and on the filtered (no premined/tokens/etc.) list:  |
|
|
|
What are the purpose & benefits of automated source?
I think the primary (only?) benefit is that you get bytecoin, with automated updates, without the 83% premine. It's 83% now? LOL. On the bytecoin thread they were just complaining that it had grown from 80% to 82% |
|
|
|
Hey smooth, you seem to be everywhere  I am playing with the newest Bytecoin source to get it working with the AEON blockchain, IMHO it would be a very good starting point for developing from there. AFAIK the protocol and block data are compatible (once the Cryptonote parameters used by AEON are changed), I am right ? Well, its hard to say. That certainly would have been true of the code from last year but reviewing all of the changes since then I don't know. Ummmh, already tried, it's choking on block 214 (too big) and then inserts a duplicated transaction into blockchain and repeats ad eternum. I guess it's not so trivial, will have to take a closer look. Good thing is that previous blocks seemed to work ok. In general I'm not in favor of this approach although you can certainly continue to research it. As a Bytecoin clone dashcoin already exists, so I don't see a good reason to go that route here. I can certainly tell you that the dashcoin community would welcome any help now that their previous developer was paid off by darkcoin/dash to abandon it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018296.0I personally wouldn't be comfortable trying to maintain something based on the Bytecoin code given how the development process is so non-transparent (only enormous commits to github, for example) and also their shady reputation means that every single code change would need to be carefully scrutinized (of course not a bad idea anyway). But overall its a lot of work for a small coin like this, at this stage. At some point in the future I wouldn't rule out merging some features from Bytecoin, but again we have to confront the issue of community buy-in on a significant license change. Yeah I understand your point of view, as I said it would only be a "starting point", the memory requirements right now are outrageous, developing from zero is an enormous work, and from the current implementations, the bcn one is the most field tested one, and besides that I found the LMDB Monero implementation approach a bit of an overkill for a "simple" blockchain. I will keep investigating. Implementation-wise it is arguably overkill, but from a code merging perspective it is fairly trivial (once the Monero project works out all the kinks in it), since it is a direct descendent of the code from which this coin was originally forked. So it does require a bit of more waiting until Monero is solid enough to consider merging, but given the age and history of this coin already, just the fact that it is being maintained at all is a huge improvement. Also, the memory usage of Bytecoin still seems fairly high to me (>1 GB). I think the LMDB approach will turn out to be lighter weight once its ready. |
|
|
|
Hey smooth, you seem to be everywhere I am playing with the newest Bytecoin source to get it working with the AEON blockchain, IMHO it would be a very good starting point for developing from there. AFAIK the protocol and block data are compatible (once the Cryptonote parameters used by AEON are changed), I am right ? Well, its hard to say. That certainly would have been true of the code from last year but reviewing all of the changes since then I don't know. Ummmh, already tried, it's choking on block 214 (too big) and then inserts a duplicated transaction into blockchain and repeats ad eternum. I guess it's not so trivial, will have to take a closer look. Good thing is that previous blocks seemed to work ok. In general I'm not in favor of this approach although you can certainly continue to research it. As a Bytecoin clone dashcoin already exists, so I don't see a good reason to go that route here. I can certainly tell you that the dashcoin community would welcome any help now that their previous developer was paid off by darkcoin/dash to abandon it. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1018296.0I personally wouldn't be comfortable trying to maintain something based on the Bytecoin code given how the development process is so non-transparent (only enormous commits to github, for example) and also their shady reputation means that every single code change would need to be carefully scrutinized (of course not a bad idea anyway). But overall its a lot of work for a small coin like this, at this stage. At some point in the future I wouldn't rule out merging some features from Bytecoin, but again we have to confront the issue of community buy-in on a significant license change. |
|
|
|
Hey smooth, you seem to be everywhere I am playing with the newest Bytecoin source to get it working with the AEON blockchain, IMHO it would be a very good starting point for developing from there. AFAIK the protocol and block data are compatible (once the Cryptonote parameters used by AEON are changed), I am right ? Well, its hard to say. That certainly would have been true of the code from last year but reviewing all of the changes since then I don't know. |
|
|
|
Since there are no binaries available this can help someone : Compile steps for Windows x64 using MSVC First of all let's get all the tools we need : - Download and install Microsoft Visual Studio Community 2013 (It's a free version of visual studio with some license limitations). You can uncheck the web development tools and SQL tools since you won't use them for building AEON. This will take time to download and install and you will have to reboot upon completion. - Download and install cMake for windows from : http://www.cmake.org/download/ (Win32 install)[/li][/list] - Download Boost 1.57 from http://www.boost.org/users/download/ , use the zip or 7zip archive and extract. You can use c:\boost_1_57_0 since this is what I am using for this steps.[/li][/list] - Download and install Github for Windows from https://windows.github.com/ (This also includes a Git shell that we will use later). Now the nasty part compile & build time ! - Build Boost : Open a command line and type : > cd c:\boost_1_57_0
> bootstrap.bat
> b2 --toolset=msvc variant=release link=static threading=multi runtime-link=static address-model=64
- Open the Git Shell (or Git bash) depending what you downloaded previously and do. > git clone https://github.com/aeonix/aeon.git
> cd aeon
> mkdir build
> cd build
> cmake -G "Visual Studio 12 Win64" -DBOOST_ROOT=c:\boost_1_57_0 -DBOOST_LIBRARY_DIR=c:\boost_1_57_0\stage\lib ..
> cd ..
> MSBuild Project.sln /p:Configuration=release
You should now find the exe files under build/release/src . Very nice work especially since there is a free version of Visual Studio available to all Windows users. I didn't know that! I'll include a copy of this post in the OP for now. |
|
|
|
That 'evidence' is bullshit. I was around and I verified the original claims of rethink-your-strategy (as did others) before content on web sites started getting changed to support "alternative explanations" (euphemism for obfuscation, denial, and doubling down on the fraud).
Anyone should read the thread and arrive at his own conclusion. While there was problem with CN whitepaper, the version on Bytecoin website was ok. You did not check it sticking to the text of OP only. That's the story, not what you're trying to tell here. What I'm saying is that when the original report by rethink-your-strategy was posted, I looked at everything because as you well know the whole BCN "mystery" was something that interested me at the time. I downloaded the white papers, looked at their dates, signatures, etc., checked web source for the CSS reset, etc. Everything checked out just as it was reported. Then, conveniently, things started to change. New versions of the white paper were "found" on the deep web (much like BCN was supposedly "found" don't you think?). Web sites were edited to remove the CSS reset code, etc. Reports were being posted to refute or question the original research by accounts that were very clearly shill accounts (act now) or very likely purchased (or possibly just affiliated with BCN) hero accounts (bitcoinbear). Unfortunately, it is no longer possible for people to "read the thread and arrive at his own conclusion", at least not with the same degree of confidence one could at the time, because once that thread was created, evidence started being altered and hidden. If you weren't around at the time yourself and able to check things, you can only rely on people who were, and I'm certainly not the only one who was there and saw what happened. In fact you were too. EDIT: after discussion in PM I removed the negative trust rating on Rias. I don't know whether he is actively supporting the scam or just confused/open-minded. Since I don't know I won't judge. |
|
|
|
Perfect. In the mean time since this drive is the tailend of an SSD, can I specify a different disk with >16gb of free space on it with an argument at launch? If so, what would be the appropriate argument? I know with the BTC codebase, it's a matter of specifying -datadir, just wondering if there is an equivalent for cryptonote.
I think it is --data-dir But just run bitmonerod --help to make sure. Also remember to move your blockchain and bin files there.  I know I don't always do. yep - bitmonerod.exe --data-dir D:\wafflesSince you're synching from scratch you shouldn't need to move anything, and you can nuke %APPDATA%\Roaming\bitmonero Yeah, I figured that out shortly after posting it that the help would be the most obvious location to look. So really, it doesn't matter if you already have a synced blockchain.bin, it needs to rebuild the database anyway. It's syncing now. If you did have a blockchain.bin, you could use the converter (or alternately, with lower memory usage, the exporter followed by the importer) instead of syncing, but syncing is fine too. |
|
|
|
why would someone want to burn Monero?  It's sort of like the preprogrammed lifespan in Blade Runner. You burn a bunch of Monero now leading to forced suicide later. |
|
|
|
The only thing that comes from here is the giant INSTAMINE SCAM. Everything else was ripped off from somewhere else.
Who made x11 first then? It's a small modification of Quark. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
