Last week I bought at 150 with the intention of buying on the way down. My first buy on the way down was yesterday at 170. I still can't get used to paying for bricks and receiving pebbles. My subconscious feels we are going up from here.
Large ascending triangle forming. Top of next oscillation in triangle is probably 0.02 to 0.022 |
|
|
|
Is the biggest risk to xmr a community launched zcash clone without the premine and founder tax, like how xmr began?
If I am honest, not many here are interested into Zcash so I do not see it even competing with XMR. Bear in mind, in order to succeed a coin needs network effect which is created by the community willing to buy and hodl - tech is not sufficient enough (we saw this from btc's first generation shitcoin alternatives). So far Monero has a community that is willing to buy and hodl, and if the community keeps buying and holding, more people will join into the party and that will accelerate the network effect and price surge to the Moon TM. If success = price being really high then sure your model works. Personally it may be fairer to say that price play a part of success. To me it shouldn't play a large part of the "success" definition. Success doesn't only mean people willing to buy and hold a crypto. Usage/utility and transactional/speculative volume needs to be a factor. If people are just buying and holding then it is essentially an example of the greater fool theory. Granted that is such a broad spectrum of things that is described as markets go up and down, but I personally would like it if people bought XMR if they need to, not want to just because of hoping the price goes higher. Then again speculators gonna spec...cu....late. Success may also involve a threshold of users/nodes that a crypto surpasses. Hitting critical mass is on the road to success, but is it success? I don't think so. If it holds its adoption over long periods of time then yes it would be successful. But this is 2.5 years into the coin's life, kind of early to call monero successful...yet. |
|
|
|
Funny monero, there's no need to get in this crap coin. Monero supporters will keep trolling and fudding.  .... coins without gui wallet are shit, accept that! or else.....get into other great coins rather than this piece of junk. So many newbie accounts. Does that mean once monero has a GUI it will not be shit? |
|
|
|
~24 hours left
CURRENT HIGH BIDS
| | | #1 | | | #2 | | | #3 | | | #4 | | | #5 | | | | Username | | | greenplastic | | | digicoinuser | | | greenplastic | | | tothemoonsands | | | bithalo | | | | Price | | | 0.5BTC | | | 0.22BTC | | | 0.25BTC | | | 0.25BTC | | | 0.22BTC | | |
|
|
|
|
It is a start for Litecoin, but Litecoin is going to have to deal with its effective 4 MB blocksize limit every 10 min.
This is assuming there isn't a repeat of the ETH/ETC fiasco. I find it odd that after several years of the claim that "Litecoin does not need development" there is now an attempt to include privacy enhancing features. What happened? Why the change of heart? Block size limit is an issue, but so is not having a tail emission to incentivize miners after block rewards hit 0. I think the statement that years of claiming "Litecoin does not need development" has occurred is somewhat misleading. It comes from a single tweet from a conversation between Charlie Lee in a conversation with user Darth Camel (December 2014). What Charlie actually said was "LTC doesn't need development right now. Adding gimmicks does not help a currency succeed. Liquidity, merchants and users does". The conversation was between an individual looking for more positive news for litecoin such as being added to coinbase. Charlie Lee goes on encouraging him to find ways to contribute to litecoin rather than just expecting others to make it happen. This statement has been used for years, taken out of context and is just another example of how special interests will use a simple sentence to mislead those interested in cryptocurrency but unwilling to do any research. The fact is Charlie never said "Litecoin does not need development" and was primarily trying to make a point about adoption. It still remains true that liquidity, merchants and users are needed for adoption in general (of any coin). Here's a link complete with a inaccurate title to bait the reader (what a surprise from cryptocoinsnews.com) for those interested in the truth: https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/litecoin-creator-charlie-lee-claims-litecoin-not-need-development-says-adding-gimmicks-not-help-currency-succeed/This is taken out of context and the time that happened was during a different phase in the cryptosphere. I believe during that time the cryptosphere was crazy about NXT and all the other platforms that had similar features like the ability to make your own token and have it traded in the exchange in the platform. Counterparty was also new and it had its own exchange. Then there was Dogeparty which was a flop. I speculate that there were a lot of people who felt that litecoin was going behind the times because it was not following that trend. But the statement by Charlie Lee that said that LTC does not need more development is what he really felt at that time and it is true. Then now seeing how XMR is going forward and in front of the rest in all of altcoins and also became accepted by the darknet, who would not have a change of heart? XMR could be the nail in the coffin of LTC if it does not have those features of XMR integrated. It is going to be an uphill battle if LTC is trying to implement and match the privacy features that of monero. Somehow I don't think that is the goal, based on recent statements, but it remains to be seen what is true. |
|
|
|
Sorry guys, I'm not sure why I felt so deeply about this. I'm not even invested it doesn't even effect me. It's just that I spent alot of hours trying to vet that and felt I was roadblocked and now it has come to pass. Whatever. I hope no-one lost money because of this.
I did go out and calmed down sorry for the rough language smoothie. I just took a pain pill and the news hit me in the wrong way.
Its all good man.  |
|
|
|
Ok, thanks for the update/info very much, but is it possible to order just one coin from one of the 2 sets? Apologies if I missed that part, Thanks! Yes, if you want to order only one coin by itself that will be possible. |
|
|
|
Gorgeous, I see so much work went into this release. Just in case would you give some notice before opening sales and knowing how it'll work. If you'd accept reservations for sets. I have expressed my interest right on the first page just in case. I've seen before other coin makers announcing a date and time for reservations to start. Wouldn't want to miss on lower numbers Hi thanks for the interest and the questions. Once sales begin, there will be no reservation of particular numbers (unless you won an auction). I do not know how many auctions I will do. Set numbers will be randomly determined. To be clear I did not mint all 250 of each coin type. I've minted less than that to get the ball rolling on this series of coins. If I sell out or look like I am going to sell out I will make an order for more to be minted and indicate if there are any lead times to be expected outside of my normal turn around times. Also I should state that I reserve the right to lower the mintage limit (max mintage) at any time for any reason. Of course I would never raise the max mintage limit. I will only sell what I have, and not do any preorders (morally I think it is wrong to do any form of pre-order) given the past scams that have taken place. I hope this clears things up. |
|
|
|
Yeah and everyone was calling me an asshole for digging into the RPC. I warned you all it was a point of vulnerability and no-one would listen. Please link to both: 1. Where someone was calling you an asshole 2. Where you pointed explicitly to it and spoke exactly about this particular vulnerability. You have a search ability, I'm not wasting my time. That is the specific reason I was questioning what the vetting process of the new RPC and why I have been stating there is no reason for a fucking WRAPPER!!!! Losing the rpc on local wallets would have removed that vulnerability dammit. Why do you think I have been arguing to release a wallet with direct access and no middleware? Here's one: And I thought that this was replacing remote communication as well. Which is a VERY BIG DEAL. But after listening to the Podcast you linked I see that it is intended for interprocess communication currently but Fluffy did say it can be extended for wiring protocol replacement.
In terms of "dev notes", a lot of this stuff goes down on IRC in #monero-dev and sometimes even #monero. The bi-weekly dev meetings are the culmination of these discussions that span thousands of lines of text over many days. Could you post those logs on pastebin? 0MQ is a trivial decision to make, because it's a backend change as you've observed. Our only option is either a messaging system (of which 0MQ is unequivocally the most battle-tested, with the largest number of implementations) or replacing the current HTTP server with something far more performant. Obviously, short of forking nginx, the latter is not really an option.
I don't quite understand why there needs to be any wrapper at all for local communication, why not use direct input and add the daemon functionality to say the gui? Is there any reason these need to be separate for end users? I just see this as a injection point where one doesn't need to be.To speak to your other concern: we are definitely looking at replacing the wire protocol. Since we'll have 0MQ in already, and since we want to enable developers to build consensus-compatible implementations in whatever language they'd like, the logical choice is ZMTP ( http://zmtp.org). This is, again, something that is battle-hardened and has implementations in tons of languages. Our other option is picking one of the Tor pluggable transports, something like obfs4, but that's somewhat less desirable for cross-implementation purposes. I do remember this discussion being touched on in this thread I think but I don't remember a decision being announced. Making the product more accessible to a larger is base is laudable as I said I just want to make sure it is not at the cost of security. Especially with the vultures hovering looking for any attack vector they can find. The current home-grown Boost::ASIO wire protocol is significantly more risky than switching to something that is standard. It's entirely possible that there's some weirdness under the hood that we haven't uncovered yet, so swapping it out for something that is well-known and widely used in FOSS projects is extremely desirable. Complexity is the enemy of good security, and in this case custom protocols way worse than well-known standards.
Perhaps more importantly, though, the wire protocol is hardly an attack surface. The major risk it represents is an MITM attack revealing what transactions you were the first to broadcast (mitigated by end-to-end encryption in ZMTP), and fingerprinting attacks being able to correlate your clearnet IP with your i2p address (mitigated by introducing some execution randomness to the i2p connectivity, and completely separating the information shared with nodes on both interfaces). Beyond that, a compromised or poisoned wire protocol won't be able to "do" anything particularly bad. The daemon has no idea what your private keys are. It has some information about your transactions you send out, and the ones you're interested in, but if it were revealing that it would be spotted very quickly.
This is actually my top concern, I want to see how this has been vetted. Call me paranoid but changing a core protocol with off hand remarks is worrisome and I just want to verify that we are not just taking anyone's word on the fact that the crypto in 0MQ is sound and safe when it comes to a currency that cannot be checked for manipulation. http://arstechnica.com/security/2014/01/how-the-nsa-may-have-put-a-backdoor-in-rsas-cryptography-a-technical-primer/BTW we are very close to losing beta status correct? How long will this be tested within the beta phase? I don't know anything about this so I wanted to see a peer review or a word from our scientists that they have verified this is bulletproof. Looking into ZeroMq I see it uses Curve25519 correct? http://zeromq.org/topics:encryptionZeroMQ 4.x has extensible encryption, and comes with CurveZMQ as a built-in security mechanism. Pieter Hintjens has some articles that explain how this works. The only extra dependency is libsodium, which provides the Curve25519 security functions. https://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/1ms5fu/new_zeromq_4_does_strong_encryption_and_perfect/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curve25519
I no longer trust the constants. I believe the NSA has manipulated them through their relationships with industry
— Bruce Schneier, The NSA Is Breaking Most Encryption on the Internet (2013)
*********************************************************************************************************** Will Monero pitch to Anchor into Factom blockchain after they do Ethereum?
Ethereum is for smart contracts Factom is for data and Dash or Monero is for privacy.
Actually I don't know who's better between Dash or Monero and I know there is heated debate about this so not opening that pandoras box because I don't have a horse in the race. Anyway both are experimental technologies in field worthy of pursuit.
Well just looking at XMR's rich list should tell you something.  http://moneroblocks.info/richlistIt could be worse, but there's a hint of smugness to the writing on that page. As there should be, this project is headed by some of the smartest and capable people I've ever seen, they are so advanced they take for granted that we as a community know the things I ask in this thread. I feel like the kid in class that asked the question because others are lost and afraid to. Not to say I don't get lost, my brain is on life support these days. Lol This project gets the hardest scrutiny and has never to my knowledge lied, misled or deceived the community, how many other ones can you say that about? Still waiting on a reply here. Perhaps you need to calm down a bit. Go outside, get some fresh air, etc. I was asking nicely, so I don't appreciate the hostile response, although it doesn't offend me, I do think it is over the top and inappropriate. Let's all act like adults please. Thanks for the link, reading it now... |
|
|
|
Yeah and everyone was calling me an asshole for digging into the RPC. I warned you all it was a point of vulnerability and no-one would listen.
And we will do it again unless it's more than HYPOTHETICAL! RANDOM THOUGHT! WHAT IF! Bullshit! I never got to my point because I wasn't getting the answers to my questions. Nice spin. You could have just made your point. Kind of hard to make an argument (of making a point), when your point hinges on someone's response. If you have a point, make it, otherwise it is all supposition. |
|
|
|
(next fork in 8.7 hours)
So amazing that we can still just HF without a big drama. I am ready! As time goes on and monero grows its user base hard forking will become more and more difficult. Hence why it is so important to implement features like RingCT in January 2017 as opposed to waiting too long. |
|
|
|
Yeah and everyone was calling me an asshole for digging into the RPC. I warned you all it was a point of vulnerability and no-one would listen. Please link to both: 1. Where someone was calling you an asshole 2. Where you pointed explicitly to it and spoke exactly about this particular vulnerability. |
|
|
|
Monero can't replace Bitcoin (for now) but Litecoin is easy target.
100% Litecoin the one you want to knock off, at this point in time it really serves no useful purpose. I would also like to see Ripples lose their market share, it's worrying that they are worth so much. I predict that within 4 months XMR will exceed and hold steady above LTC's marketcap. |
|
|
|
Seen it earlier at 524. Much higher than 6 months ago when it was at 100 or so. |
|
|
|
i have nothing better to do at bad weather Even my dog doesnt want to go out  I suggest code review, as a productive indoor activity. And a personal security audit of your computer and how you store your funds (hot and cold wallets). |
|
|
|
Sharing this very nice initiative by Athan Clark. He is creating a light GUI wallet for only 200 XMR: https://forum.getmonero.org/6/ideas/86924/nice-gui-walletAnd it's going to be finished very soon. Quick guy! Quote: "I will have this app finished in 1.5 weeks at most. If you doubt me, put your money where your mouth is! "
I also speculate we are going sideways until friday evening. People please exercise caution before storing any substantial amount of XMR or BTC on machine running new code. Make sure you either look into the code yourself or make sure that others have reviewed it for exploits or backdoors that could steal your funds. I'm all for a GUI and 3rd party guis etc, but people need to be vigilant when it comes to installing newly released software, that includes the core code as well. Do your own research and homework before storing any large amount of funds that could be stolen on a machine that has newly installed software (that includes almost all kinds of software). Be paranoid, as paranoia can be a very healthy thing in prescribed quantities. |
|
|
|
Thanks for reminding me. - ASIC neutralizing proof of work - (XMR check) How hilarious that people whine about ASICs *AND* also whine about botnets, in the case of PoW for which no ASIC exists! Some people don't understand the concept of tradeoffs and how tradeoffs effect technology--these are the same idiots who don't get why speed increases usually add to data limits and data decreases usually result in decreased security, but I guess botnets has a nice scare-appeal, "WOOOO! Bot-Nets!" So reb0rn21, how do you propose any coin to be ASIC resistant and not be botnetable?  |
|
|
|
|
so you need a bitlicense in NewYork for bitcoin businesses but you don't need a USD license to operate a business that holds customer funds?
|
|
|
|
lol.... XMR don't have even official GUI after 2 years and you want to be top What will you say once it has a gui? It is the top anon/privacy coin thus far. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
