Was it ever revealed who was reviewing the coins before public release?
Unoriginality is not the way to go.
You baited me back with this and I attached the original artwork 'flipped' just to show its nothing like it. As for the whole concept sure I got inspired from bitcoinarchitecture but this is a coin which has been made for people as a more interesting way to invest in bitcoin. His was a work of art. So how I stole anything is completely beyond me. I even offered to give the person involved a free coin so he can see how art can turn into a coin and to say thank you for the inspiration.   Anyhow we have decided to clear up the 'bulls' head issue. This has been wiped off everything and replaced by something incredible. Actually this is even better. What we have replaced it with is also copyrighted and we have permission to use it for a fee. Thank you tremendously for all the haters anyway I do appreciate it. There will be a few people ignored during sales and I am sure you know who you are. There are certain ways to speak to people whether in life or online which are considered disrespectful and all those who fell into that category will unfortunately will be ignored. smoothie I feel like giving you a free coin for baiting me back to this. We were simply going to carry on with the new design which is going to be even more grand but because of you this coin is back on the menu. Time wise both coins will be released 1st or 2nd week in November. Only a few will be sold on this forum as we have buyers willing to buy already and also want to attempt to target different markets in order to bring more appreciation to bitcoin. Thanks for taking the time to read and I wont answer any more questions until coin sales have started. To be clear I was talking about the usage of the Chicago Bulls logo which from what I gather is a direct copy of the original art. Am I mistaken on this presumption? Also I don't believe giving constructive criticism is "hating". Then again I can only speak for myself and what I have said thus far. Speaking from my own experience in making coins, I've always tried to keep to originality. All my art is custom art (with the exception of the simplistic LTC logo I used on my LTC coins which was open to community usage). I know you said the artwork is not like BitcoinArchitecture's but is it a copy of the STIFEL image you posted? |
|
|
|
Bitcoin value will increase as it exits the Dark Net Marketplaces. (Remember what happened after the Silk Road bust? New ATH)
Monero value will increase as it enters the DNMs.
Right place and right time for both.
Agreed. With being on the cusp of financial calamity alternative assets/currencies will likely revalue to the upside in the impending global economic contraction (i.e. recession and possibly beginning of a depression). I suspect in the next 2-4 months the financial world will have some huge rumblings. |
|
|
|
|
random spots for me. My first raffle so i'm a newb.
|
|
|
|
monero is the most private, block size is not an issue and blockchain pruning would work well for an anon currency anyway!
Only thing i dont like about monero is the transaction size, most of my mined stuff is worthless because of the micro payments made to me by the pool.
I would imagine the micro payments have nothing to do with monero, but simply the pool software/settings/payment policy. |
|
|
|
Were other people unable to access BCT for a couple hours?
time to take a nap?  |
|
|
|
Since you chose to run away from the issue and not even quote my original response, your's, and my clarified response refuting your claims...here it is... To remind you what you said: One can argue if the XMR growth can be called "organic", but my personal opinion is that this is a pure speculation.
What I said: Op is flawed saying that monero's price growth is purely speculation.
At least some of the price rise is due to actual vendors accepting it for payment.
To be even more clear of my point refuting your original claim in the OP: Op is flawed saying that monero's price growth is purely speculation.
At least some of the price rise is due to actual vendors accepting it for payment.
No, I'm not flawed, but looks like you are. I have asked a simple question: What is the XMR volume on the DarkNet markets?
Because 99.7% of the current (shown) volume (~$65Mn)of XMR is on Poloniex and Bittrex. Se we have few scenarios: 1. People are buying Monero, because they have seen its usage on the DN markets (i.e. they actually saw it was heavily used). 2. People are "buying the news" of DN acceptance. 3. Number 2 + speculation. Which one is it?
Purely = 100%
The fact that people are accepting it for payment makes it not 100% speculative (added for emphasis).
The fact that I accept it for my physical coins also shows that it isn't used only for purely 100% speculation.
Sorry buddy you are wrong.By dismissing my response as "getting defensive" and claiming you've proved your claim (with no actual proof I'm aware of that refutes my response to your claim) it would appear that you are getting defensive. I have not "chearlead" for monero in a while. Yeah I sell physical coins but I wouldn't consider my input on monero as of late as "cheerleading". But once again you are deflecting with suppositions of what I am and am not doing without actually having the decency to ask me if what I am doing is what you think I am doing (i.e. giving me the respect to speak for myself without attempting to put words in my mouth). |
|
|
|
I did said something and it was proved to be true. I created a thread, which should serve like "trading point of view" and we all saw what happened.
But I can tell you what are your attempts. I mentioned Monero in the thread and all of the sudden some of you become so defensive. It always happens when you say something about Monero or DASH. You all scream "power to the people", but you are all hiding, because of your "privacy". Step up and do something with your name, then we can have a discussion.
You have still not refuted my response. Once again just because you "said" something doesn't make it true. Creating a thread doesn't automatically make your claim infallible. Pointing out a fallacy in your statements (that you are unable to acknowledge) is not being defensive. It is actually calling you out on your claims and asking for this "proof" you claim to have made which you have yet to either link me to that refutes my response or you repeat it here. The more you deflect the more it appears you have an agenda. I actually wanted to know if you could refute my statement which you then decided not to quote in your response....conveniently. Once again, projecting a mind-set on myself or others by presuming what we are thinking (i.e. "getting defensive") makes you look very foolish. You can just ask me what my motivations are and I will tell them to you, but you have yet to do that either.  |
|
|
|
@smoothie
Quoting me 101 times would not prove you're the right one here. I'm not attacking your beloved Monero.
Just because you say something, doesn't make it true. You have yet to refute my previous post. But that's okay, you aren't the first to do such a thing.  Also I never accused you of "attacking" monero. Please stop with attempting to construct a deflective strawman argument there to divert attention away from your clearly flawed statement. |
|
|
|
I wonder if team monero realise that now the currency is associated with the dark markets (which is by no means exclusive anyway), they have precluded the currency from mainstream adoption, which dash is aiming for. No one will touch a currency associated with the sale of guns, drugs and child pornography. I think when people realise this, the steam in monero's recent will run will all but disappear. This is something dash will now not have to deal with  Cash is a currency used to buy guns, drugs, and child porn. Your assertion is flawed. |
|
|
|
To the OP: *if* the main usage/goal/... of a crypto currency is to be a better's token between gamblers (eh, sorry, "investors" and "speculators") trying to smart out each other and strip off (fiat) money from "the other gambler" in this big zero-sum game, then honestly, "anonymity", "smart contracts", and even the existence of a block chain and code doesn't matter. All what crypto has become is nothing else but casino tokens. Unfortunately, my impression is that this *is* what makes 95% of the price of crypto, bitcoin included.
So I wouldn't know what it means "to be adopted by the masses". Does it mean that Joe is now also invited to play in that token casino ? Is that what we call "adoption", and is the OP warning and suggesting that we should "protect" ordinary Joe from playing the household money in the crypto token casino, because "whales" are smarter casino players ? Buying tokens to hope to see them rise, and dumping them on a greater fool ? Is that "crypto adoption" ?
Does "adoption" mean that there is this big reservoir of ordinary Joes that are still unexploited as bigger fools to get ripped off by the "early adopters", the "miners", the "devs" and (mainly) the exchanges, which are the true outlets of value in this zero-sum machine ?
Ordinary Joe is not buying Euros and then dumping them for dollars or yen. Some do, but that's a very small minority of people, and it is not the people that buy and sell fiat to hope to see it rise or fall that makes the "adoption of fiat". Adoption of fiat doesn't come from the fact that people buy and sell fiat on FX exchanges. It means that they use it, to earn it and spend it. Not that they are gambling on it.
I would suggest to ordinary Joe (and in fact to just anybody) to stay out of this token casino. It is ripping one another off, without ANY value creation (except for making the casino holders - the centralized exchanges - rich).
However, if by "adoption" one means USING crypto to do what one is doing now with more classical means: buying stuff, earning wages, doing business, transferring wealth, and yes, why not one day, signing agreements ("smart contracts"), NOT for the sake of crypto itself and speculation on its price, but to really use it, then yes, THAT is true adoption, and then, anonymity is an absolute MUST, because the open ledger of bitcoin is a *nightmare* for everybody looking for a minimum of privacy, or more, as a defensive weapon against the criminal syndicate that is the state.
By the time that people would use *bitcoin* to buy a coffee at Star Bucks (they never will en masse because bitcoin cannot handle that on chain), one should hope that there is something like monero or even dash or another anonymous coin where you can hide all the details of your earnings and spendings. But we are VERY REMOTE from that day.
In the mean time, the very, very tiny real adoption that crypto has, is probably there were there's a genuine need to hide from the prying eyes of the criminal syndicate which is the state, and where one wants to live freely and exchange freely: dark markets. Even if this only concerns a very small part of the market, there is at least a real use case for crypto. It is the only genuine adoption of crypto I know of, apart from a few online services (which are MY only use of crypto).
The reality of a block chain, and the reality of the cryptographic aspects of hiding history, only matter if one uses crypto. When it are betting tokens, the technicality of the coin has no importance: they are mainly abstract IOU on exchanges' websites. And if one uses crypto, the actual price of a coin doesn't really matter too much (it shouldn't change too much between earning and spending of course).
I would have preferred by far a small but real "adoption" USING crypto, even by a very small minority of people, with a modest market cap sustaining that real usage, rather than this big token casino that attracts institutional players, lawmakers and all that and kills the freedom of crypto even before it even took off.
If the "anon coin" rise is due to token casino stuff, it will attract lawmaker's troubles before it even got used for real, simply because their equivalent abstract betting IOU on centralized exchanges are hyped by gamblers.
By adoption I always mean "average" Joe using it. Such pumps and dumps are not helping, because of the volatility. And why do you think that anonymity is a must? If the anon market becomes big enough, all the authorities need is to wave some badges and documents and screw it. They are not even obliged to say anything, except that is a matter of national security. How the americans ripped off Kim Dotcom for example? The guy even hasn't been in the USA. We can reach certain privacy even with Bitcoin. There are a lot of people who has amounts of money for which even their closest friends are not aware of. How often do you tell to people how much you worth? You can even fool the banks if you use different accounts, so there is your privacy. History shows that a lot of smart people who knows how to protect themselves were caught. Why do you think yours/mine case would be different? Maybe in a later future part of the market could be anonymous, but currently its too tiny to begin such "wars". You don't go to a war with handful of people. And the situation can be compared with war, because once the authorities feels threatened, they are starting to use "techniques" which even Snowden could be scared to explain. Bottom line. Currently we can somehow compare (though its not very accurate) cryptocurrencies with FX, but the average Joe does not trade. We should forgot for a moment about the gimmicks and focus on what really matters - to prove that Bitcoin (and others) are money, and that they can be used. Op is flawed saying that monero's price growth is purely speculation.
At least some of the price rise is due to actual vendors accepting it for payment.
No, I'm not flawed, but looks like you are. I have asked a simple question: What is the XMR volume on the DarkNet markets?
Because 99.7% of the current (shown) volume (~$65Mn)of XMR is on Poloniex and Bittrex. Se we have few scenarios: 1. People are buying Monero, because they have seen its usage on the DN markets (i.e. they actually saw it was heavily used). 2. People are "buying the news" of DN acceptance. 3. Number 2 + speculation. Which one is it? You obviously have a difficult time admitting you are wrong. Purely = 100% The fact that people are accepting it for payment makes it not 100%. The fact that I accept it for my physical coins also shows that it isn't used only for purely 100% speculation. Sorry buddy you are wrong. |
|
|
|
It is clear that these prices are not sustainable and are a major bubble and manipulation by big holders. The reason it can take of the way it does is mainly because what people have seen happen to many other coins recently after the volume increases.
The people are just jumping on board of the train and will jump off the second it looks like it will start to decline again.
I still think these "anonymous" coins are pure marketing trick and will never gain mainstream adoptation purely because they are anonymous.
I suppose usage of cash on the black market is a marketing trick? Black markets exist whether we like them (or support them) or not. Hype does exist at times and fear does exist....not disputing that. But to say that something will never be utilized to its full potential is to say for example as some have said "The internet will never amount to anything" OR "No one will want to have a personal computer in their homes". A privacy-centric currency does not need to gain mainstream support and acceptance to be successful in its purpose. I side with him, but not because of anonymity. It's more because cryptos are still way before their time. People still have issues with things like PayPal, which is a LOT less complicated than trying to use a crypto wallet. Now you have to secure the wallet, keep it backed up, etc. It's a complicated process for 99% of the people out there. This will absolutely hinder adoption. Agreed it is complicated. And that will limit how many people utilize cryptos to the extent that some of us do here. That part of adoption is years away. That's not the focus right now. |
|
|
|
It is clear that these prices are not sustainable and are a major bubble and manipulation by big holders. The reason it can take of the way it does is mainly because what people have seen happen to many other coins recently after the volume increases.
The people are just jumping on board of the train and will jump off the second it looks like it will start to decline again.
I still think these "anonymous" coins are pure marketing trick and will never gain mainstream adoptation purely because they are anonymous.
I suppose usage of cash on the black market is a marketing trick? Black markets exist whether we like them (or support them) or not. Hype does exist at times and fear does exist....not disputing that. But to say that something will never be utilized to its full potential is to say for example as some have said "The internet will never amount to anything" OR "No one will want to have a personal computer in their homes". A privacy-centric currency does not need to gain mainstream support and acceptance to be successful in its purpose. |
|
|
|
So you never said anything pertaining to people needing oversight to protect them from their bad behavior? I have the day off tomorrow, so if I have to look it up, I'll look it up....
No need to dig around. I did said something like "people (at some point) needs to/must be controlled" and I stand fully behind my statement. That doesn't mean I am against privacy, it means that I am trying to be realistic here. EDIT: P.S. My statement doesn't mean I am against "anonymous coins". I just want to warn people not to fall in the current hype. This statement is not clear to me ^ What do people need to be controlled from exactly? I think the idea of putting the word "people" in the context with the word "controlled" in such a way implying they should have some sort of oversight does not ever mix. You warning people not to fall into the current hype is not a form of control. So I am confused what type of control you imply. |
|
|
|
Monero broke number of records (price, trade volume), but it looks like many people believe that SDC and AEON will follow its trend. One can argue if the XMR growth can be called "organic", but my personal opinion is that this is a pure speculation. Both ShadowCash and Aeon have never reached such prices and volume (you can check their history) and I think that investing in them at this point could be called dangerous.
As long as people continue being stupid and throwing their money at random stuff in the hopes they will magically get rich, manipulation, scams, and failed projects will continue to grow in number. That's the point of the thread. We can't prevent them, but we can reduce them. Yes, you can say that there are a lot of "stupid" (I'd like to call them naive) people who would most likely "buy the news", but I don't think that's the main problem. Imho the main problem is people being greedy. People being greedy is perhaps a problem, but a problem that doesn't have an absolute solution over the masses. Not sure what is the point of this thread once again as has been previously been asked. People are responsible for their own actions. If they don't do their research into what they are investing into then that is no one's problem but theirs. I don't believe that monero has branded itself as being an "anonymous" coin. At least not to my knowledge. |
|
|
|
Let the squeeze begin....start nibbling.  edit: wall pulled...lol not a minute later... |
|
|
|
Now that monero has surpassed Dash in marketcap and price...what do those who support dash say now?
At one point it was "lack of gui" is why monero is priced lower. Now what?
The justification sometimes surprises me.
Is it now that monero is "too private"?
#movingtarget
There is the argument arising that the view key feature of Monero could be a liability. I am curious if you are caught by the authorities, can a court order force you to use it and show your XMR transactions? If it can why not get rid of thr view key feature? What is the reason why it is there? Anything can be a liability. The purpose of the viewkey feature is to allow the user to decide if they want to be transparent to whomever they choose to be transparent about their transactions. It empowers users to choose who gets to see their transactions or not, despite a court order. The freedom of choice whether it is "illegal" or "against the law". Not all laws are just in our world...but i digress... Shouldn't one be willing to work with authorities assuming there is good reason to? "Caught"? Caught doing what?...assuming there is no illegal activities going on or no reason to believe that a user is using it for illegal/nefarious reasons, why would they need to prove their transactions other than a general audit? |
|
|
|
Great find, thanks for posting....just what I've been looking for. Now, I just wish this eejit with the 1500BTC sell wall would bugger off. or he should just dump it and move on. Obviously putting out a wall like that is not because they intend to actually sell. Just a for-show barrier. Is it a shorter trying to hold the market down? Possible. Not sure if there was that many XMR up for shorting. |
|
|
|
Great find, thanks for posting....just what I've been looking for. Now, I just wish this eejit with the 1500BTC sell wall would bugger off. or he should just dump it and move on. Obviously putting out a wall like that is not because they intend to actually sell. Just a for-show barrier. |
|
|
|
Long term, I think they're a pretty safe bet and I'm happy holding.
Long term XMR will go back to 1$. Long term this post will be referenced and possibly laughed at in the future. This account ^ long term may go silent because of this prediction. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
