The sooner the official XMR forum will offer interesting, competent and helpful content the better. We should work on having search engines point to XMR forums rather sooner than later as I reckon interested "fresh" people would be rather intimidated by coming from Google to the equivalent of a medieval bazaar that is BCT, especially the altcoin section.
That does of course not exclude the necessary exposure on Bitcontalk as the historical hub of all things crypto. I could start creating a thread now, but since we decided for 168 hours then voting, we'd better wait the end of the vote to make any kind of official move. Of couse, as individual, you can post whatever you want  |
|
|
|
200 votes for proposal #2 now that the official Monero forum is out (even though there is not yet any MEW section). I believe it is an important enough even to allow people to change their vote if they so desire. |
|
|
|
if you would like, i can point my moneroforum.org domain name at your servers. Thank you for your proposal, that we accept. |
|
|
|
Great. A new all powerful bogeyman. Cryptofiat.
What are the essential characteristics of this new fictional threat? I note they have not been described anywhere up thread. Sorry if this was not clear. This means I should amend my text and make it more clear. Cryptofiat: governments (and megacorpo) recognize the usefulness of the blockchain tech but don't want to share the power of minting money with the world at large (Bitcoin) but want to keep tight control over it, like it'd been done for millenia (ahem, Fed). Example in the work: Nicaragua. Please, tell me if it is understandable. By "understandable", I do not mean you agree with it or not, just if you understand the idea. This is what Quanttek said and thank you for the link! Thank you for notifying me. If you get some interesting feedback, I'd appreciate you sum them up here. |
|
|
|
Hi, I am the Hotel Manager for Malla Mõis. I don't speak Estonian (yet) and you probably all know Risto Pietilä, the Finnish owner and major bitcoin holder. I would like to explore opportunites for regular meeting of Estonian people at Malla and the nearby town of Rakvere - we have good relationships with the previous mayor of Rakvere, Andreas Jaadla. Contact me for any question or proposal, including creating a dedicated thread here or elsewhere. I go where traffic goes! Aitäh |
|
|
|
A very interesting reply on the Reddit with particularly insightful remarks; one about the future use of mining (which reminds me how patent transitionned from a defensive weapon to an offensive one) and the second about an essential limitation of PoS. "mining will no longer be done for profit, but [...] power."
[...]
PoS coins, fiat coins, always end with centralization because, as I have said, once someone, or some nation, gains majority possession of the units of money, they control the currency forever. (beliathon, I was going to reply to your comment, but I said earlier that "I will not answer to [post using derogatory term or sentences], even if they are interesting." (and shitty is such a term). Now if you edit to make the sentence more neutral, I would happily reply.) |
|
|
|
I never understood why Proof of Work (or Proof of Stake, Transaction, Importance...) should make a crypto a commodity money. There is NO intrisic use of cryptocurrency tokens - even the most " intrinisically useful cryptos" (Primecoin and Riecoin) are still far from commodity money. So, if Proof of Work is not asset-based (commodity), then it is fiat. Period. Tell that to the miners that invested small fortunes in mining equipment that their PoW is not asset based. That's like that song " Money for Nothing" by Dire Straits. Just because you don't understand how it works only makes you sound foolish. Read my sentence again. I said that I never understood, not that I disagreed. Please refrain from making me say what I didn't, this is a sure-fire way to start ambiguity and flaming, which rarely leads to something productive. Back to topic. So you are saying that Bitcoin is backed by mining rig? This is a honest question. Cryptofiat is a joke, it's not going to happen, even if it did, who would buy in? Mmh, let me guess. The 98% of people who don't care about cryptocurrency and just want to continue using their credit card? They would not even know they are using cryptofiat, because it would be even less visible than a change of banknote. Thanks for reminding us all the three uses of a money (medium of exchange, store of value and unit of account). But I profundly disagree that one cannot separate blockchain and Bitcoin. Even disregarding all altcoins (which are blockchains but not Bitcoin), there are a lot of non monetary uses of blockchain (voting, smart contracts, directory, etc... you know the drill). As a final note (and this is not directed to someone in particular): please this thread free of "retarded", "moron" or other derogatory terms or sentences. I will not answer to such post, even if they are interesting. I'm happy to see people are considering the option (since they reading). Discussion is mother of improvement. |
|
|
|
I just looked up the definition of "fiat money" in my favorite dictionary of economics (former econ student here). I tend to like their definition far better than the typical wiki/bitcointalk definition. There is a dichotomy between money - either commodity money (asset backed) or fiat money. Fiat money is a type of money that has no intrinsic value. This would mean all national currencies as well as most digital currencies are in fact fiat under this definition. Interesting that the article doesn't really say much about the method of issuance. Glad to see I'm closer to the real definition of fiat money than the bitcointalk definition of it. Excerpt from the Monero Handbook: The dollars or euros or yuans or whatever you are using are fiat money (fiat in latin means “let it be done", like in fiat lux). A fiat money is a money that has no intrinsic value (“let’s give it a value by decree”, one might say).
[...] The oppositve of a fiat money or money without an intrisic value is a commodity money, or money with an intrinsic value. Gold is such a commodity money since it is used in jewelry or electronics. Note, however, that the intrinsic value change overtime, depending of scarcity (which in turn relates to utility, itself being contextual). I never understood why Proof of Work (or Proof of Stake, Transaction, Importance...) should make a crypto a commodity money. There is NO intrisic use of cryptocurrency tokens - even the most " intrinisically useful cryptos" (Primecoin and Riecoin) are still far from commodity money. So, if Proof of Work is not asset-based (commodity), then it is fiat. Period. Or we invent a third category (not a big fan of it). On the other hand, as I note it in the Monero Handbook, even value is relative. Dioxygen is worthless in everyday life because of its abondance and despite its critical usefulness. But on restricted environment like submarines or space stations, it is much more valuable. Same goes for cigarettes when shit hits the fan. Even gold: Native Americans did not value gold as much as Conquistadores did. So, how reliable is this "commodity money" thing if even critically-important stuff like dioxygen may be worth much less than utterly-superfluous stuffs like a Lamborghini? tl:dr: for me, fiat and commodity are mostly pointless ways to categorize money. There is stuff people want and stuff people don't. That's all. |
|
|
|
This can't be done with PoW. It can only be done with PoS. You can't force anyone to use a PoW because you don't control it. Your little tinpot dictatorship will be outgunned by your superior enemies that will overpower your miners and reverse their transactions. It would be a tactical error to use PoW in an oppressive regime. PoW is for the free man. That's why my sources are using PoS for their premined There might be a misunderstanding of PoS if one considers it fiat. I agree this is not Cryptoland definition of fiat (fiat = traditional money) but more a technical definition of fiat (fiat = mandatory currency - I will develop this more on the Monero Handbook I am writing). Plus "cryptofiat" conveys the right imagery. People seem to immediately understand what this is about. I agree. I always thought this will happen sooner or later.
It still needs more developement, of course.
But you need to take in mind, at that point with cryptofiat will be extremely easy to buy or sell bitcoin or any other crypto instantly. So bitcoin would probably benefit from it, being an alternative. Joe Sixpack could choose between a governement-backed, arguably sure, very widely adopted "normal" money (dollar, euro...) and a tiny rebels-driven, scandal-ridden complicated-to-pronounce cryptocurrency. It is easy to see the outcome. The tiny 1% of people choosing Bitcoin (or Monero ) will not matter at all in the grand scheme of things. |
|
|
|
At least this confirms that PoS is fiat. Not a all. PoS is a technology, like PoW is. Making it mandatory to use this particular crypto would make it fiat. Fiat means "let it be done" (like fiat lux) and, on the particular topic of currency, it means that a currency have been established as legal by decree. Any currency that has value from obligation (decree) instead of actual value is fiat. If a government can hardfork at will and not let users decide if they like it or not, this is fiat. Banknote or cryptographic token, this makes no difference. And the exact protocol (PoW, PoS, PoB, PoI, PoT...) makes no difference. |
|
|
|
With my question above, I was alluding to the fact that a blockchain with higher difficulty is more secure, the lock on the safe is harder to pick. Understood. This is what we are doing with HyperStake. It has the highest difficulty of any PoS, by order of magnitudes. Some specific code (read here if interested), just reputable people, good code, good karma, good promotion and no bullshit like "we'll replace BTC". What I mean is: if you have all the population of a country securing the blockchain, you can be pretty sure it will be secure (out of exploit, of course). You raise interesting points, especially regarding network setup/maintenance costs and the deep pockets of some groups. Although I still think it would be cheaper to hijack SHA256 miners if a big player wanted a POW system (loyalty dissolves quickly behind closed doors) miners will work for peanuts compared to establishing a centralised body. And also a widely spatially distributed network is far superior to attack resilience. I believe corruption scales worse than a full-fledged on-purpose solution. In other words: hijacking SHA256 is good but there a better solutions, especially if you are thinking long-term. My prediction is that we will see a fractional reserve system atop POW crypto before fiat. Miners initially sharing the spoils of the debt repayments (and transaction fees). An interesting article about fractional reserve in crypto and why it is a dangerous road to take but could be coming.. And bitcoin.it wiki article on it (did not read, probably interesting, but lazy). edit:
a truly anonymous blockchain will never be allowed to flourish. Keyword is allowed If a government were to adopt cryptofiat they would also be establishing a convenient means to leave their fiat for something else. Cryptofiat Law, January 1, 2017. "The only cryptocurrency that can be bought with euros/dollars is CryptoEuro (EUR)/CryptoDollar (USD). Violators will be prosecuted. Natural persons of age 18 or more will be fined of 1260 $/€. Natural persons of less than 18 will have their parents or tutor pay the fine. Officials will be fined 1520 $/€ and businesses will be fined 25,200 $/€." (pure fiction, of course) "A piece of paper is stronger than any technology" - Agent from the DRCI (France counter-espionage agency) Voilà! |
|
|
|
Hi, First, thank you all for your insightful remarks. This really makes my day. Isn't the market capital that you can safely store/transact in a blockchain only proportional to the power (difficulty) of the overall network? Can't answer, I don't really understand. Could you reformulate, please? How would a crypto-fiat survive? If any serious capital existed in it then it would make financial (if not ethical) sense to brute force hack the blockchain. First, big money can recruit the crème de la crème for the technical part. If I understood correctly, a large part of Bitcoin protection comes from its peta-hash network. I assume crypto-fiat would have a several order of magnitude higher network, exa-hash or even zetta-hash. Or, since we are talking 100% premine, take the PoS route that I know well with HyperStake (shameless plug here). Mega holders (central banks), major holders (top 500) as well as the long trail of small-time taxpayers would secure the network by stacking. Speaking of PoS, government would like so much inflation to come back... Cryptofiat with 3% inflation, they'd like it (just joking on this part, I don't know if PoS inflation can be compared with real-life inflation - if presstab comes by, he could give his opinion). In any case, major network security here. Won't protect against exploit, but will make them seriously expensive still. Finally, still on the PoS idea, there is the whole "protecting the planet" thing. Protection against terrorism is becoming passé. Protecting the planet has (sadly) a bright future. As a famous modern French thinker, Jacques Attali, pointed it, dictature in the name of ecology makes completely sense (not that cryptofiat would necessarily mean dictature, but it would be easier to make "transparent transaction" acceptable for the public opinion if it is "in the name of Mother Earth"). Crème de la crème and bazillion-hash network are just two parts of it. The other part I see it that network WILL be attacked. Cyberwarfare, mon ami. We all know fiat scheme operators like to run their games with minimal overheads, I can't see them investing in or evolving the network hardware too much. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Myths#Bitcoin_mining_is_a_waste_of_energy_and_harmful_for_ecology "No more so than the wastefulness of mining gold out of the ground, melting it down and shaping it into bars, and then putting it back underground again. Not to mention the building of big fancy buildings, the waste of energy printing and minting all the various fiat currencies, the transportation thereof in armored cars by no less than two security guards for each who could probably be doing something more productive, etc." Should apply for more than energy. Plus, the price of computing hardware decreases very fast (an avatar of the Moore Conjecture, a.k.a. Moore's Law). If that was not enough, the price of wetware (organic traditional computers, colloquially called "humans") increases - and the price of brick-and-mortar stuff as whole increases too). Plus, biology-based computer hardware (in its infancy for the moment) promises to decrease even faster ( see Juan Enriquez at 6m). Meanwhile, human will still cost as much (or even more, as more and more countries will have crossed the Lewis turning point where employees demand more social right and salaries). I for one, welcome our parabiologic overlords. Even if you couldn't extract any capital out of the system (due to traceability issues) it would still be a target for a competing government on the global stage. Yep. More fun for competing countries terrorist organisations. I think a premined coin can never hold alot of capital for this reason. Test drive with companies already started (I discussed some ideas for making Monero part of this game too, I expect the future crowdfunding platform to make it a reality). We'll see how it scales, especially considering that some companies, like Disney[/email] or [url=https://plus.google.com/explore/citizensamsung]Samsung are not that different from countries.. Prepare popcorn. I dont get why gov would like to create own cryptocurrency. I mean if we agree cryptocurrency = decentralized currency with public ledger nobody is granted to control. You assume too much Ripple, Stellar, MaidSafe... started as centralised. Now, the issuer cannot control what you are doing with the token once it gives it to you (but he can know what you are doing with it, because transparent blockchain). The same way today a government cannot prevent you from buying a forbidden documentary but can know you did (well, he can freese your bank account and could probably freese your address, especially if freezing could be implemented without hard forking, buy using a "consensus freeze" that 51% peers would follow). There is one way to prevent such control, it is by using cash (coin, not banknotes). In crypto, cash is ring signature. You know where I'm heading (if not, check my sig). Excelente analysis. Second, it is easier to win if your competitor lets you win. Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across. If a governement can take advantage of crypto (and I already explained it can), make it so that this is a mutually-profitable agreement. Hatred does not go far; negociation goes much farther. Hey, I'm French, I know what I am talking about, we have an A-grade in Stubborness and Stupidity (Africa, Indochina...) whereas the British were much smarter.
Governement wants money and control. Let him do it whilst allowing anyone on an individual basis to opt-out. If we create the tool, it will be possible. If we let the government create it, much less.
What concrete actions must be done in your opinion about this second point? You will pardon me to speak about what I know the best: Monero. First the code. Monero is transparent by default, optionally anonymous and can whitelist inquisitive institutions if you want to (viewkey). This means that you are in control and can exercice you control as much as you want: absolutely for private transactions (this "special package" you really don't want people to know about), moderately for ordinary transactions (buying your daily coffee at Starbucks), lowly for public transaction (a charity receiving a donation, a public company or a governement). Everyday transaction: mixin count 0 Private transaction: mixin count 2+ Public transactions: viewkey either to everyone (on the website, like we do for Monero), or to specially appointed people (justice, FinSen/SEC...) Second the initiative. The Monero Economy Workgroup exemplifies the title of this essay: United we stand. To increase adoption, to be better able to speak to institutions, we must unite. So-called "investors" are not enough. We need actors, people willing to actually do something with the technology they have. The best tools is of no use if you don't use. There is a word for this: empowerment. To answer your question more directly, Manu92: what concrete actions must be done. - promote optionally anonymous cryptos (I believe mandatory anonymity is not much better than mandatory transparency) - do not just buy; also promote, propose, throw yourself into (in French, to invest and to throw yourself into are very similar which leads to confusion: "investir" and "s'investir" are different things) - always remember the big picture, what is truly at stake Sincerely, |
|
|
|
Hyperstake already rising,..no plan to make more beautiful website,..
so ,all the informations can be found at there? On the way. We got one paid offer, that looked good and one free offer that we don't know yet. Since we could not decide yet, we took the free offer and we'll see. If Hyperstake continues to appreciate, we might go for the paid offer if the free offer cannot scale enough (which we don't know for the moment). And no, no roadmap. |
|
|
|
Est-ce qu'il y aurait des personnes intéressés à intégrer une "French team" ? Vu que je pourrais me retrouver à la tête de l'UFE Estonie et que NxT me taraude toujours un peu, ça pourrait m'intéresser. Même si j'ai besoin d'une remise à niveau sur NxT, c'est encore plus compliqué qu'HyperStake ! Puisqu'on parle de financer des startups, l'Estonie a de très méchants avantages fiscaux pour les entreprises transnationales. Moi, je dis ça, je dis rien... |
|
|
|
Je peux avoir un résumé de ce qui s'est passé sur NXT sur, disons, les deux derniers mois? Ce que j'en comprends comme ça : NXT, une belle idée sabotée par des profiteurs. Toute proportion gardée, comme Dogecoin ( http://www.dailydot.com/business/moolah-dogecoin-alex-green/). Je ne trolle pas, je vous dis juste ce que j'ai compris, hein. Avant de taper, merci de me donner votre version des faits. Est-ce qu'il y aurait des personnes intéressés à intégrer une "French team" ? Vu que je pourrais me retrouver à la tête de l'UFE Estonie et que NxT me taraude toujours un peu, ça pourrait m'intéresser. Même si j'ai besoin d'une remise à niveau sur NxT, c'est encore plus compliqué qu'HyperStake ! Puisqu'on parle de financer des startups, l'Estonie a de très méchants avantages fiscaux pour les entreprises transnationales. Moi, je dis ça, je dis rien... Update: vous pensez que NxT peut justement servir à parer le " cryptofiat"? |
|
|
|
coinreporting.com fait un bon travail pour les listes coins. Go to http://www.coinreporting.com/transfer.php et cherchez "easy enter" (oui, je sais, leurs traductions sont pourries). A côté, vous aurez le nombre d'alt qu'ils gèrent. Aujourd'hui, 1038 (techniquement, 1037, puisque BTC n'est pas une alt). |
|
|
|
This is a call to arms. Cryptoland as a whole is entering into decadence. We are resting on our laurels because BTC reached 1000 dollars and even now it is three times its 2013 ATH. Delusion of grandeurWhile we are partying, the real competition 1 is readying its weapons. What? You really think banksters will disappear, fiat will disappear, a several century-old institution (fiat currency) will disappear thanks to a 5-year old technology? That some 50 year-old people (maximum, most are in the 20-30's) could change one of the latest powers of nation-states? Even the European Union's euro has a hard time doing it and it is not that big of a change. If fiat exists for so long, it is not only because of the lack of a better technology. It is also because it suits us (mankind). "But again, truth be told...if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror." Any meme several centuries old is adaptable enough to survive Radio was supposed to kill newspaper. TV was supposed to kill radio. Internet was supposed to kill TV. See a trend, here? Fact is this is just not how things works. Without going at length about the differences between protocol and symbol ( sumbolon), let's just say that centralised money is here to stay. Sure, it will have to negociate its position with decentralised money, like newspaper did with radio and so on, but that's all. And let me tell you: cryptofiat is a thing to come. Newspaper adapted to the rise of internet by going digital (ebook and apps), because being paper is a protocol. Providing daily written information is a symbol. Symbol don't die, protocols do. That's the same with fiat. It is a symbol, something that unite people 2. Fiat could change its protocol, like moving from arbitrary (decree, fiat) to cryptographically-enforced. Yes, cryptodollar or cryptoeuro or cryptoyuan could very much become a reality; or cryptocredit, if you buy the SF staple of one universal money - doesn't change much, except if you are in the forex or exchange office businesses. And guess what, nation-states won't have any desire to share power with hippies/hackers using this Bitcoin thing. Once they'll realise prohibition doesn't work and cost them money 3 (some are starting to understand it), they will create their own cryptofiat. Nicaragua is doing it and I know some other places are doing it too. The best way to kill bitcoin and all is to make it irrelevant. 100% premined fiat would not even need to change money creation (a crypto can be infinitely inflationary, like most Peercoin-based cryptos or Dogecoin). On top of it, cryptofiat would make surveillance so much easier. And since blockchain has tremendous uses out of money (see #powerofblockchain on Google+), you can be sure that incentives for moving to "crypto-everyting" will be there. Governement could even encourage it. Every passing year, somewhere in the world a law is promulgated to reduce the amount of cash that can be used for buying something. Connect the dots. Meanwhile, what we, Cryptolanders, doing? Self-congratulation ("we're gonna kill banksters") and infightings ("my coin is better than thyne"). These are signs of decadence. The Chinese Empire decayed in the middle of the last millenium when it decided that there was nothing interesting outside of its frontiers. And we are far from being the Chinese Empire. We are digging our own hole. Narcissism of small differences. A friend used the word of "crypto-balkanization". That's exactly it. This is a war and we are soldiersNow, what can we do? First, we should both not care too much about infighting (the altcoin war is also Darwinian evolution at work, it has its uses) and at the same time still care enough to remember what really matters. Speaking of that, what does really matters, mmh? You have four hours. Second, it is easier to win if your competitor lets you win. Build your opponent a golden bridge to retreat across. If a governement can take advantage of crypto (and I already explained it can), make it so that this is a mutually-profitable agreement. Hatred only go that far; negociation goes much farther. Hey, I'm French, I know what I am talking about, we have an A-grade in Stubborness and Stupidity (Africa, Indochina...) whereas the British were much smarter. Governement wants money and control. Let us do it whilst allowing anyone on an individual basis to opt-out. If we create the tool, it will be possible. If we let the government create it, much less. Third, read history. Remember WIR. Remember how local currencies die when crisis are over (or sort of). Fiat won't disappear, it will adapt and there is room for non-fiat cryptocurrencies as long as it makes sense. What could an "illegitimate" currency (as in "not backed by governement") be good for? I believe that anonymity is the important thing 4. You can be sure that cryptofiat will be traceable. You can also be sure also there will be a need for untraceability. A homeostatic system integrates its own opposition, that's why it is homeostatic. In simpler terms, legality has to tolerate illegality to continue to exist (which doesn't mean that tools useful for illegal action can't be used for legal actions - you do pay your coffee with some quarters, right?) And while the biggest arms dealer in the world is your boss, the President of the United States - who ships more merchandise in a day than I do in a year - sometimes it's embarrassing to have his fingerprints on the guns. Sometimes he needs a freelancer like me to supply opposition forces he can't be seen supplying. You call me evil, but, unfortunately for you, I am a necessary evil. It would be embarrassing for a government to have his fingerprints on an untraceable currency - after all, if you have nothing to hide, you have no reason to refuse traceability, right? Sometimes a governement needs a freelancer like us. So stop infighting and look at the real threat. Come on. It would be one of biggest missed deed of our time if open source failed to liberate more than code. Update: a very interesting reply on the Reddit with particularly insightful remarks; one about the future use of mining (which reminds me how patent transitionned from a defensive weapon to an offensive one) and the second about an essential limitation of PoS. "mining will no longer be done for profit, but [...] power."
[...]
PoS coins, fiat coins, always end with centralization because, as I have said, once someone, or some nation, gains majority possession of the units of money, they control the currency forever. Update 2: How to adapt and change nothing: First, let's dispense with the idea that they care a great deal about money. They don't. The currency they deal in is power. Money is merely an aspect or symbol of that power. Losing control of it it is catastrophic to the way they currently do business, but if you look at the history of rulership, they're incredibly adaptable. In America, they have turned a nation of renegades and individualists into a sociofascist empire that maintains and appearance of liberty. So, looking to that, how might blockchains be incorporated?
One that I find obvious is that they can hide their legerdemain in plain sight. Instead of fractional reserves, they have an adjustable rate of proof of stake, based on some metric they control. It appears that all money creation is above board and clean... but they control the metric.
I could go on for a while on the ways they might subvert the technology while APPEARING to "fix" the economic system. If they can come off as heroes, then they elevate themselves and again appear to be the benevolent overlords. Update 3: How a state can destroy Bitcoin and, consequently, Bitcoin requires the implicit approval of a state: The Stateless Currency and the State: An Examination of the Feasibility of a State Attack on Bitcoin. Damn interesting. And also State-sponsored cryptocurrencies
1. I don't like the word "enemy", it brings hate and I am like Churchill, I don't hate people, I just compete with them. 2. Sumbolon: which unites. Diabolon: which divides. 3. Forbidding prostitution doesn't work but doesn't cost money, for instance. 4. Full disclosure: I am a core team member of Monero, a currency whose main selling point is anonymity. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
