I found out what the problem with BTER withdrawals is. They treat SuperNET as a NXT withdrawal. So they round to nearest full number with 1 whole unit fee.
they didn't round mine, they floored it If they don't fix this, they are about to make a lot of money off of us Perhaps people should hold off on the withdraws until we get an official confirmation. Doesn't BTER though generally charge withdraw fees though? I seem to remember hearing about x% before for something, but it's a bit vague. How much are their regular trading fees? |
|
|
|
The hashrate has now dropped to 5.25 GH/s for the network but the difficulty has not dropped with the hashrate drop. Why is that? Is that by design?
Changes every 720 blocks. |
|
|
|
|
Great idea. Can't wait to see what people come up with.
|
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is down big. It's not about CN coins. People are selling alts to for BTC to sell for fiat most likely.
|
|
|
|
|
One thing that I'd like to point out that is a big positive for BBR in the future is that being a part of superNET should take a lot of the marketing pressure off the coin. Part of the point of superNET is to act as the front end for users so that the people providing the technology like CZ and helpers don't have to worry as much about marketing.
So in that sense superNET should help take some of that load off and make it less of an issue if the name doesn't change. If there is user demand for BBR's improved anon then the name will matter less as people will be able to send BBR via BTCD/NXT. Which also includes buying BBR as part of that transaction.
So if superNET gains traction and a user base as it's intended to, then it won't really matter what the name is as long as people want to send fully anonymous transactions. Which I would assume there will be more demand for in the future. No superNET user is going to say "hey, no way I'm going to send anonymously with something called Boolberry, I'll just send a public transaction instead!". Of course if they need privacy, they're just going to use whatever tools are available through superNET to assist them(which would be teleport+BBR's improved ring sigs).
|
|
|
|
|
Confirm.
Good campaign so far. Well run.
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Do people in the BBR community generally agree that there are people who dismiss BBR simply because of the name?
If so, it would seem to be in your economic interest to change it to something that's less polarizing(whether it's Aureum or not, isn't important).
People who vote for Boolberry, do you feel that Boolberry in general is a superior name for a currency? If you think that cryptos are supposed be used by tech people only, then yeah it just might be. It's a good name for that market. On the other hand, if you think the end game of crypto currencies is a bunch of enthusiasts using them for fun, then we're already here and we've probably peaked.
I like the name Boolberry too, that's a fine choice. I'm not sure it's the name that's going to maximize demand for the currency though in the short term or the long term though. But it's not something we're ever going to know the answer to, as there can only be one name.
It would be nice if the market made objective evaluations of currencies based on their technology or what how they plan to increase adoption, but as we can see the market obviously hasn't chosen BBR yet despite it being currently objectively superior to other anonymous currencies.
the problem is that there are only two options. someone in the bbr thread proposed several rounds of voting with a big name pool, which would be a way better process. aureum just has a sound to it that i personally don't see as something i would want to pay with. i'd rather pay with boolberries. someone else mentioned the success of ethereums ipo, as proof that a latin sounding name is good. my first thought when i heard about ethereum was that the name sucks. might just be me, but i don't think so. when i think about branding a cryptocurrency i'm thinking more in the lines of a payment solution, because i think if there is to be a general adoption thats what most people will perceive it as. while boolberry is not the best option in that sense, it could be a lot worse. there are likely people who will not invest because boolberry doesn't sound serious. some of those voices could just be monero shills tho. they will have to be convinced or a better name finding process has to be introduced. Yeah, I can definitely understand not liking Aureum. To me it's a pretty neutral name that also has some meaning behind it. It's certainly not a flashy name or anything I don't think, fairly simple. There haven't been too many suggestions though really. I was hoping to hear more after the post I made yesterday. Maybe naming a currency is really hard and most of the good names are taken. I feel that the BBR community wants to end this chapter of re-branding as soon as possible, as there seems to be a lot of resistance to it. There's lots of different attributes that you can attempt to convey in naming a cryptocurrency. A payment solution is one. With BBR anonymity and privacy are also one, security is one as well. One problem with cryptos is that they aren't really succeeding yet as payment solutions. Perhaps overtime they will be developed in to something that can compete with personal credit cards, but we're still likely a few years off from that. With Monero and BBR I think the value proposition is mainly in the security and privacy of their respective technologies. Ah, what do you know. Aurumcoin random SHA256 coin created a few days ago. |
|
|
|
|
Do people in the BBR community generally agree that there are people who dismiss BBR simply because of the name?
If so, it would seem to be in your economic interest to change it to something that's less polarizing(whether it's Aureum or not, isn't important).
People who vote for Boolberry, do you feel that Boolberry in general is a superior name for a currency? If you think that cryptos are supposed be used by tech people only, then yeah it just might be. It's a good name for that market. On the other hand, if you think the end game of crypto currencies is a bunch of enthusiasts using them for fun, then we're already here and we've probably peaked.
I like the name Boolberry too, that's a fine choice. I'm not sure it's the name that's going to maximize demand for the currency though in the short term or the long term though. But it's not something we're ever going to know the answer to, as there can only be one name.
It would be nice if the market made objective evaluations of currencies based on their technology or what how they plan to increase adoption, but as we can see the market obviously hasn't chosen BBR yet despite it being currently objectively superior to other anonymous currencies.
|
|
|
|
aureum sounds like a portmanteau of auroracoin and etherium  This is very shortsighted thinking. Auroracoin is a barely meaningless footnote in the history of cryptocurrencies. You're thinking about this from a very narrow angle. Even if what you say has meaning, it's only meaningful to maybe 5000/7,000,000,000 people. What is an acceptable percentage of people that dismiss BBR because of the name? 1%? 10%? 30%? People are judgmental. That's doesn't make them right, but that's reality. The question is, what are the goals of the project? Monero people seem to think that they have the potential to become the global provider of dark liquidity. I think it's safe to say that if that's a realistic assessment, then BBR also as the potential to fill that role. And in that context, is Boolberry going to be a name that's widely accepted? Boolberry is a good name. But is it the right name? edit: Also Boolberry is a portmantaeu of Boolean and blueberry of course, yet barely anyone in the world is going to see the cleverness in that. Even though it's a good/clever/funny name. Your target audience is ultra small. |
|
|
|
I was going to post this in the vote thread, but I read the OP again and I assume you want to keep that thread clear of anything but voting. aureum sounds like a portmanteau of auroracoin and etherium This is very shortsighted thinking. Auroracoin is a barley meaningless footnote in the history of cryptocurrencies. You're thinking about this from a very narrow angle. Even if what you say has meaning, it's only meaningful to maybe 5000/7,000,000,000 people. What is an acceptable percentage of people that dismiss BBR because of the name? 1%? 10%? 30%? People are judgmental. That's doesn't make them right, but that's reality. The question is, what are the goals of the project? Monero people seem to think that they have the potential to become the global provider of dark liquidity. I think it's safe to say that if that's a realistic assessment, then BBR also as the potential to fill that role. And in that context, is Boolberry going to be a name that's widely accepted? Boolberry is a good name. But is it the right name? You can post this in the vote thread. Its a place for discussion between the two names. So its on topic. Ok, thanks. |
|
|
|
I was going to post this in the vote thread, but I read the OP again and I assume you want to keep that thread clear of anything but voting. aureum sounds like a portmanteau of auroracoin and etherium This is very shortsighted thinking. Auroracoin is a barley meaningless footnote in the history of cryptocurrencies. You're thinking about this from a very narrow angle. Even if what you say has meaning, it's only meaningful to maybe 5000/7,000,000,000 people. What is an acceptable percentage of people that dismiss BBR because of the name? 1%? 10%? 30%? People are judgmental. That's doesn't make them right, but that's reality. The question is, what are the goals of the project? Monero people seem to think that they have the potential to become the global provider of dark liquidity. I think it's safe to say that if that's a realistic assessment, then BBR also as the potential to fill that role. And in that context, is Boolberry going to be a name that's widely accepted? Boolberry is a good name. But is it the right name? |
|
|
|
Aureum  |
|
|
|
just wondered because my luck is sucking big time with another coin that also has POS and I'm wondering how mnay of the blocks are going to POS holders?
You mean POW right? no : I mean blocks that are being generated are being shared between POW and POS Bitmark is pure PoW. |
|
|
|
The privacy you gain is that your ISP (or someone working with your ISP or who has compromised your ISP) can see your traffic and at present identify the transactions you originate (since they were not sent in, thus not relayed). Some may object to others being able to determine you are even running a Monero node (and presently this applies to not only to your ISP but also your peers). Tor or i2p largely fixes these with some caveats about how they can themselves be compromised, Sybil attacked, some issues with traffic analysis, etc.
I see. Thanks for the explanation. |
|
|
|
Who else is glad that they got out when Monero still had a lot more value than now?
If I were to get in again at this point I would've increased my holdings greatly
I have now spent more than a week in Malla, and after getting used to the normal life, this trollfest just feels... sad. I understand many of the people behind accounts created to attack Monero, and also to "support" it in stupid ways, really need the money. But still, sad, is the word. We are now starting the work. With the MEW. The focus of Monero has never been in the short term. We are doing important long term projects and decisions. So if dear reader wants to get involved, please check the moderated threads, it is obviously quite stupid for us to even write on the trollfest threads. I have an idea for you and MEW. You should recreate your original Supernode idea(the one that got sidetracked due to localbitcoins opening) but for Monero. But in this case Supernodes in the network can be committed to abiding by a set of best practices provided by MEW to do their best to ensure their customers stay anonymous as possible. This way you can establish an international network of people providing access to XMR for people who otherwise might not want to buy BTC first or go through other traditional channels. edit: You're probably already planning something like this anyway I assume. |
|
|
|
|
How does I2P integration apply to Monero? Can you currently use Tor? What advantages to privacy do you gain from using these? I guess what I'm asking is how much information you broadcast to others if you're not using any thing to hide yourself. Do people here consider it critical to use additional privacy tools?
|
|
|
|
I'd like to thank megaman84 for making a generous donation to the Bitmark development effort: https://blockchain.info/tx/d883dd98aac5a0c7704281996f16dc82d1fb1c2a126e6af818e1196ba70d29b6Anyone who would like to show their support as well can donate via the following ways: BTC: 1KsbYk2rMvwg456PyPmLuEgERPwyuxtGRL BTM(Mark Pfennig/coinsolidation's personal address): bTcCTUjkBCD5mvVsWquJTvGTv2xxiDaLzt Bitmark Foundation(funds locked for one year, 5000 BTM goal): bQmnzVS5M4bBdZqBTuHrjnzxHS6oSUz6cG Thanks to everyone for their continued support of the project.  |
|
|
|
The nature of marking is that it can go viral in unexpected ways, and it's important that the infrastructure can handle the load if that arises.
Yes, I agree. Baby steps. Marking is something that has to evolve slowly over time. Building a solid foundation is critical to its future success. |
|
|
|
The idea behind SuperNet is great tho I'm not sure if it's codeable at all and how long it would take.
Is there any interest you gain from SuperNet shares/assets or whatever you call it?
And setting up a buy wall is a sign of weakness for me. I expect the price to drop below IPO.
I believe investors receive dividends equivalent to 50% of the superNET profits. A lot of it is already coded. People are already testing the some of the networking involved as we speak. There is still a lot of work to be done though for sure. Much of that from people other than James as well, like the UI design and such. Unlike most IPOs the buy wall will be set at the raw net asset value of the currency held by superNET. Around 5700 BTC I believe(not to mention 3000+ BTC of added value from assets now). People who sell below book value are likely people who need their funds to pay bills or have emergencies that have come up in their lives. This is completely understandable and is bound to happen with any sufficiently large group of people. Compared to your average 'coin' IPO where people are handing hundreds of thousands of dollars to a random group of people who've made promises and delivered nothing this is gold. Having both a large amount of code already as well as being fully backed by the money invested is unprecedented in crypto as far as I know. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
