Now wonder who have interest to weaken both XMR and BBR communities by playing them off against each other...
It is a kiss of DEATH to Bitcoin if some "there" try to quench the "competition".The Monero camp is composed of large Bitcoin holders and if we collectively withdraw our support, at this point it means a steep dive for Bitcoin. I did not even mention the possibility that other honest bitcoiners might also want to switch allegiance. I know there are many. Bitcoin attracts scammers but also honest people. Seriously...... I am trying to understand what you are saying, but it seems you are suggesting that a few big bitcoin holders can collectively tank Bitcoin. If this is the case, then Bitcoin is the biggest scam ever. I have always held that old holders have to divest theirs coins for Bitcoin to move forward, I think your statement makes me certain of that sentiment now. Please sell your stash asap so we can all move along. Yes...the suggestion that there is a 'group' of holders 'supporting' the price (or able to influence it) might have held water in 2011, but not now. What a strange thing to say: even if it was true, revealing it on a public forum would be foolish and reckless. It does sounds like openly inviting Murphy to join the party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murphy%27s_lawBetter to be honest and upfront about it imo. I think it's commendable that someone like rpietila is willing to be quoted in places like the Washington Post saying such things. It's like the opposite of what the Dogecoin people did. They sold a false fantasy world to people who had no understanding of economics or the crypto world in general. And that's why so many people resent a lot of those who pushed people in to Dogecoin so hard. I don't know any exact numbers, but the amount of coins that groups like the Bitinstant four, |)ruid and associates, and other orginial stake holders have is a seven figure number almost certainly. I remember rpietila used to do research relating to this in an attempt to rank people based on their BTC holdings. I'm not sure if he's still interested in that now though. |
|
|
|
Now wonder who have interest to weaken both XMR and BBR communities by playing them off against each other...
It is a kiss of DEATH to Bitcoin if some "there" try to quench the "competition".The Monero camp is composed of large Bitcoin holders and if we collectively withdraw our support, at this point it means a steep dive for Bitcoin. I did not even mention the possibility that other honest bitcoiners might also want to switch allegiance. I know there are many. Bitcoin attracts scammers but also honest people. Seriously...... I am trying to understand what you are saying, but it seems you are suggesting that a few big bitcoin holders can collectively tank Bitcoin. If this is the case, then Bitcoin is the biggest scam ever. I have always held that old holders have to divest theirs coins for Bitcoin to move forward, I think your statement makes me certain of that sentiment now. Please sell your stash asap so we can all move along. Yes...the suggestion that there is a 'group' of holders 'supporting' the price (or able to influence it) might have held water in 2011, but not now. What a strange thing to say: even if it was true, revealing it on a public forum would be foolish and reckless. Public forum? See the Washington Post article!  It's not like this is a secret! Come on. It's always been like this and it will always be like this. There is nothing anyone can do. |
|
|
|
this is so wrong, please stop the ipo! I am furious I lost more than 15,000 nxt with this shit ipo!!!
I assume you bought from someone other than "Asset Issuer" which is clearly shown in the NXT AE as the selling account. bter is sleeping it is 3am, they will get credits for all the tickets please be patient You should probably try get some sleep.  40 hours without sleep is not healthy, and you need to be in this for the long haul as you know.  |
|
|
|
100,000+ nodes will do quite a lot of InstantDEX, Teleport, Privatebet, Tradebots, etc.
Went through .pdf file and some other places, starting post here and then noticed the number above. Out of all craps by now from jl777 mouths that one is the biggest one. jl777 is a pirate40 (nefario) in the making, watch out. Hey, I know your FUD from some months ago, I see you're still on that path of darkness  Given that majority of people are just like you - on a path of light - and the state of The World today, that is a compliment, thanks. Number of nodes on majority of cryptocoin networks is few hundreds at best ( Bitcoin is at 8,000 reachable nodes) yet SuperNET will reach 100,000+ nodes, complete bullshit but that does not really matter to you - just like none of other craps by jl777 and his buddies, it is all fine (until you finaly realise what the fuck have you participated in and done)! is this deliberately ignored? It's obvious he wasn't referring to the equivalent of Bitcoin full nodes. He likely meant nodes as in every user is a node on the supernetwork. People seem to be really grasping at straws here. |
|
|
|
Since the subscription is anonymous, and can be bought with BTCD, a coin that the same dev also controls, we have to keep the possibility in mind that the number of non-insiders participating may be very small, yet it looks like a great success.
Not wanting to label anyone a scammer without proof, but so far everything fits in a con also, so keep this in mind.
James has always been courteous to me, so it is difficult to continue reminding of this uncertain but probable and serious possibility.
The amount of BTC and CNY seems to be significant. Lots of NXT too, but that's to be expected. |
|
|
|
This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up.
Because he doesn't have to, enough people will pay anyway. Apparently, since he's raked in several thousand btc today. I actually went and looked at the supernet pdf after today's ICO, and was not surprised to find that it's all vaporware at this point, but was a bit surprised that he says upfront 30% of supernet will be used essentially at his discretion. Where do you see that? As of now officially(from the thread at least) he only has 1% of funds to use at his discretion. He just said that anymore than 1% would have to be requested to the stakeholders and then put to a vote. |
|
|
|
|
James,
I think you might have made a mistake in only allocating 1% of the superNET funds. That seems like too low of an amount to cover all the expenses that will be required. Development for all aspects would benefit from multiple developers, superNET core code, GUI(I know you don't do GUI and you do have some people already), code reviews, security audits, all of these things are worth doing. And the cost of hiring good technical people can add up fast, and with a project of this size 50 or 100 BTC doesn't sound like very much to me considering projects are often raising 10-20 times that amount for development alone.
So I guess my question to you is whether or not you plan to pay for essential development expenses out of the superNET funds. Because I think it's important that you do so in order to make sure you get the best people helping you create the best product you can.
Don't limit yourself and the funds you can use to make your project the best it can be just to avoid message board trolls. I hope you get the freedom to leverage this amount of money to make superNET fully vetted and fully secure.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't understand why people are trying to use the anonymous angle to attack him. As rpietila said, he's not asking to be the sole controller of all the superNET funds. And when you're involved in handling as much money as he does it makes perfect sense to want to protect yourself and your family.
|
|
|
|
Do we still have fund managers here managing XMR for their clients? Are you planning any exit strategy for them in the wake of consistent exploits/attacks on XMR mainnet? I know it is much easier to still speculate in XMR with own money, but is there any concern for other people's monies yet?
I find it almost impossible to believe fund managers are involved in any cryptocurrency < 100 mil. Can somebody point to a quote? James What's with the fake jl777 account? I hope it's not for scamming purposes. |
|
|
|
As a technical experiment, that's fine. For timing speculation, okay. In the competition for the natural monopoly of private liquidity, 0.00001% more risk on one side than on the other pre-determines the outcome.
When you put it in that context, doesn't the increasing uncertainty surrounding the code base and recent events pretty much disqualify both BBR and XMR from holding that title? At what point will you and other stakeholders decide your money is better spent recreating the technology from scratch? I have (no?) idea what if anything BBR has to do with the bytecoin scheme.
I would put it more strongly: Event though it seems probable that CZ involved in cryptonote development, and hence in bytecoin development, there is nothing to link him directly with the pre-mine scam. If CZ was involved early in development but not in the fraud, almost certainly he was at least aware of it, so perhaps the distinction is too fine. If he was involved late, he could have been aware of it, but have no culpability in it. The closeness of the association, however, still would damage the risk profile of BBR in the market's view. Scenarios in order of increasing investor risk: 1) CZ had nothing to do with BCN, and is not AS. 2) CZ is AS but had nothing to do with BCN. 3) CZ was involved in BCN, but after the pre-mine. 4) CZ was involved in the fraud, but is reformed. 5) CZ was involved in the fraud, and plans to exploit the next suitable opportunity to take money from more honest people. In the best of these scenarios, BBR still suffers from the risks inherent in centralization of governance. It just gets worse from there on. That sounds reasonable. My guess is that he wanted nothing to do with BCN and thus went out on his own. As time goes on, if BBR continues to grow I think it's safe to say that CZ will not remain the sole developer past a certain point. And if for whatever reason he resisted that and wanted to stay in control alone, I believe that would be the end of BBR. |
|
|
|
2) Even if CZ was part of the original CryptoNote team, there's no indication that he was involved with Bytecoin at all.
There is no credible evidence (i.e. evidence not coming from them) that cryptonote and bytecoin are actually separate. The evidence from rethink-your-strategy would suggest otherwise. That evidence might be not totally definitive but the preponderance of the evidence definitely points in that direction (since there is no contradictory evidence at all) What I meant to say was he could have been part of the CryptoNote team but refused to participate in the Bytecoin scam. I agree that it's likely the Bytecoin creator(s) were part of the the original CN team. Someone could have helped create the CN tech and be completely innocent too.
I think it's worth pointing out at least that 1) Sabelnikov was never found guilty of any wrong doing and Microsoft agreed that it was not him who ran the botnet. 2) Even if CZ was part of the original CryptoNote team, there's no indication that he was involved with Bytecoin at all. Not only that, but if he was involved with CryptoNote, the act of creating BBR(with the new PoW) alone by himself would be strong statement that he disagreed with what Bytecoin did and wanted no part in any sort of scam.
Personally, I don't think it's likely CZ is a bad actor. Whoever he is. At worst it appears he could be a famous hacker responsible for writing some code that other people used in a malicious way(the botnet). I'm not going to defend that if that happened. But we don't know anything about that what happened in that situation and there's a whole range of possibilities, including being coerced in to writing code. We will likely never have sufficient information to make any sort of judgment either way.
So there is some risk with an anonymous developer, that is a constant. On the other hand with BBR you also seem to get someone who is an expert at dealing with what is becoming apparent is a very shaky code base. So there is some trade off there. I'm not making the argument that BBR is less risky with a single developer than XMR is with 7 or 8. But I do hope that anyone considering the situation will at least take the time to make a fair evaluation of CZ on what he's done so far.
edit: and that's not meant as a reply to aminorex specially since I know he knows all of this already, but anyone who is just looking in to this crazy CN world in general.
The evidence seems to point to CryptoNote and Bytecoin as part of the same scheme but were made to appear independent. (Note: the CryptoNote technology itself is impressive, but their ethics are apparent not) The line of thinking is, in order to carry out the scam, Bytecoin was created and chosen to take the fall so that in the event that the whole thing crashed and burned (and it did), there would be separation between CryptoNote and Bytecoin. Thus Bytecoin can be seen as a malicious off-branch that independently developed the coin and the massive scam, but CryptoNote is the innocent provider of technology and watched on the sidelines as its brilliant technology was misused. But people were not convinced by either the Bytecoin scam or the CryptoNote independence. Now not accusing BBR as a off-branch of the CN/BCN scam and coming for the same family but let's say that Zoidberg was involved in CryptoNote, why would his involvement, even if BBR does not look "scammy" be of concern? Because that's how the scam was originally suppose to work. Create a scam hoping that it would work (Bytecoin), but when it failed, create a new "clean" coin to replace it (Bitmonero), while maintaining clean hands (CryptoNote independence). But the community didn't buy that, and Monero was the result. BBR would be like Bitmonero, a "clean" coin designed to be "fair" after the scam but was controlled by the original "scammers". But even if this were the case, it doesn't look to me like BBR fits in with this pattern at all. The fact that CZ deliberately chose a different PoW makes BBR the odd one out. |
|
|
|
(BBR) was drifting down around .00015 for a looooong time. All of a sudden, starting last week (August 28th), volume on Polo is wayyyyyy up and the price is up to .001.
What caused this?
edit: Supernet, maybe? If so, where can I short the fucker?
My take: Risk is poison. BBR is controlled by a lone anonymous actor, possibly Andrey Sabelnikov, probably a member of the team that produced the bytecoin scam. In contrast, the XMR team includes several well-known persons, some of whom identify by legal names openly. BBR just has a lot more risk baked in. The market priced the caps at a 32:1 ratio as a result (and ended up oversold due to momentum). This made hedging XMR with BBR cheap. That, and CZ's well-deserved reputation for development, kept attention on BBR. (Also the bytecoin gang's sockpuppet theatre raging against XMR kept using it as a foil, which drew attention.) SuperNET was all it needed to pump. Regardless of James' intentions he certainly seems to be surrounded by a cloud of PnDers. Now the hedge is no longer attractive, and only momentum and the pump keep price flying here. I won't comment on how to short SuperNET. Look at its components. I have a lot of skepticism of SuperNET myself, but it's based on circumstantial factors rather than substantive ones. I find it difficult to locate the substance. Something about the copy always makes my mind rebel if I try to read it. It's like trying to look into your foveal blind spot. I probably have too much training in "legacy" finance to understand it properly. I'm too old, and I'll die soon, so that innovators can sail smoothly over the rainbow to crypto-valhalla without my trollish philistinism to harsh their mellow. To short BBR, you need to find someone who will loan it to you. The interest rate will probably be exhorbitant. When I shorted I did fairly well but paid out a large chunk as interest. My short performance was degrading rapidly at the end, which means I was taking increasing risk, so I lost interest. Also I think I was making volatility worse, rather than better, at the end, which is bad for BBR, so I knew it was time to stop. Good mean-reversion strategy performance should result in lower volatility in the underlying. If it is doing the opposite, you're doing it wrong - or you're trading momentum. I may do again, but not until I have more clarity on the fundamental and technical situation in BBR - which may never happen since it is just not very interesting to me. I want to buy future reserve currency, stack it high, and hold it long. Anything else is just a distraction. I think it's worth pointing out at least that 1) Sabelnikov was never found guilty of any wrong doing and Microsoft agreed that it was not him who ran the botnet. 2) Even if CZ was part of the original CryptoNote team, there's no indication that he was involved with Bytecoin at all. Not only that, but if he was involved with CryptoNote, the act of creating BBR(with the new PoW) alone by himself would be strong statement that he disagreed with what Bytecoin did and wanted no part in any sort of scam. Personally, I don't think it's likely CZ is a bad actor. Whoever he is. At worst it appears he could be a famous hacker responsible for writing some code that other people used in a malicious way(the botnet). I'm not going to defend that if that happened. But we don't know anything about that what happened in that situation and there's a whole range of possibilities, including being coerced in to writing code. We will likely never have sufficient information to make any sort of judgment either way. So there is some risk with an anonymous developer, that is a constant. On the other hand with BBR you also seem to get someone who is an expert at dealing with what is becoming apparent is a very shaky code base. So there is some trade off there. I'm not making the argument that BBR is less risky with a single developer than XMR is with 7 or 8. But I do hope that anyone considering the situation will at least take the time to make a fair evaluation of CZ on what he's done so far. edit: and that's not meant as a reply to aminorex specially since I know he knows all of this already, but anyone who is just looking in to this crazy CN world in general. |
|
|
|
Do you think the average person really cares about such things, or is going to become educated on such matters in our lifetime?
The average person cares about price rise. When supply of a useful commodity is predictable and cannot be increased at a whim, the price tends to rise. That's when an average person takes a notice and wants to take part in the action. The side effect of this is he can learn about supply, inflation and other stuff. If crypto 2.0 and beyond can continue to develop in a way that can be presented as simple and easy to use for the average person and also somehow communicate the economic facts in a way that the average person can understand, then perhaps. It's possible. But we have a long road ahead of us. |
|
|
|
W h a t a g r o s s i r o n y that the most legitimate and economic initial distribution of any cryptocoin existing (and therefore the most potential #2 coin in the months and years to come) happens to be a coin with an unbelievably messy codebase, intentionally made scammy, buggy, unoptimized, crippled and obfuscated by the (B)CN scamdevs.
XMR is not the most legitimate and economic initial distribution of any cryptocoin existing. There are other people(myself included) who have gone to great lengths to attempt to create the fairest possible initial distribution for a cryptocurrency. Hah, contradiction already in the second line. Sorry to say but your logic has been going down since last year. There have been other currencies that have been launched with no premine, no instamine, no IPO, with development entirely funded by donations. And that didn't have a crippled hash function at launch. Monero has had a relatively fair launch. But to make a claim as grand as you just did is quite strong. There are many other positive aspects of Monero that are based in fact and can be proudly trumped instead. One of which is the solid dev team that takes an honest approach to communication and doesn't sugar coat the issues. This is rare and exceptional in my opinion. I think what he probably meant was not only no premine, etc. but also a relatively huge amount of trading that redistributed the coins to people willing to pay a market price for them. And it is true. For a young altcoin the volume has been huge. So much so that the trolls accuse it of being "fake." Yes, if the volume is any indication of the quantity of individuals who trade XMR then I agree that the post-launch liquidity and availability has been excellent. But if we evaluate distribution of a currency on the percent of the total supply held by individuals, I would be a bit more skeptical. (But wouldn't make any claims either way with no evidence) |
|
|
|
W h a t a g r o s s i r o n y that the most legitimate and economic initial distribution of any cryptocoin existing (and therefore the most potential #2 coin in the months and years to come) happens to be a coin with an unbelievably messy codebase, intentionally made scammy, buggy, unoptimized, crippled and obfuscated by the (B)CN scamdevs.
XMR is not the most legitimate and economic initial distribution of any cryptocoin existing. There are other people(myself included) who have gone to great lengths to attempt to create the fairest possible initial distribution for a cryptocurrency. Hah, contradiction already in the second line. Sorry to say but your logic has been going down since last year. There have been other currencies that have been launched with no premine, no instamine, no IPO, with development entirely funded by donations. And that didn't have a crippled hash function at launch. Monero has had a relatively fair launch. But to make a claim as grand as you just did is quite strong. There are many other positive aspects of Monero that are based in fact and can be proudly trumped instead. One of which is the solid dev team that takes an honest approach to communication and doesn't sugar coat the issues. This is rare and exceptional in my opinion. edit: attempt and succeed btw. |
|
|
|
W h a t a g r o s s i r o n y that the most legitimate and economic initial distribution of any cryptocoin existing (and therefore the most potential #2 coin in the months and years to come) happens to be a coin with an unbelievably messy codebase, intentionally made scammy, buggy, unoptimized, crippled and obfuscated by the (B)CN scamdevs.
XMR is not the most legitimate and economic initial distribution of any cryptocoin existing. There are other people(myself included) who have gone to great lengths to attempt to create the fairest possible initial distribution for a cryptocurrency. The XMR distribution obviously had some minor issues which don't need to be brought up again. And I'm not here to say anything negative about XMR in anyway(in fact while I'm here, congrats devs on handling this attack well) but it's probably best just to stick to facts. |
|
|
|
Yes, full fledged digital fiat and decentralised cryptocurrencies are a separate animal. One question might be why the average person would want to use something like bitcoin when the government is offering them what they know already in a safer and more convenient form.
Because supply of crypto currencies is predictable and cannot be inflated at a whim and thus can be a store of value? Do you think the average person really cares about such things, or is going to become educated on such matters in our lifetime? |
|
|
|
I am still waiting to hear how digital or digitized is different from fiat in electronic form. Fiat is fiat, no matter how you slice it. Fiat is 'by decree'.
Crypto currencies function by no decree. They are decentrally produced.
And it's not even by decree that matters, although that is important too. What matters is predictability of supply, which never works for fiat, because governments always tend to overspend and overproduce fiat. Fiat has been around for ages and we all know how it ends every time. So what does Ecuador change here?
Yes, full fledged digital fiat and decentralised cryptocurrencies are a separate animal. One question might be why the average person would want to use something like bitcoin when the government is offering them what they know already in a safer and more convenient form. That's average people, not us. Not predominately white, educated, tech focused investors and speculators. And as AnonyMint pointed out, Hong Kong has already started transitioning to this sort of system many years ago(10?) by way of their octopus smart cards. Which are quite convenient and easy to use. And money there is printed by private banks as well which is interesting and different. Is everyone here really fully convinced of Bitcoin hegemony in the near future? edit: Altcoins are the only hope. |
|
|
|
Can we get back to talking about AnonyMint's idea of government backed digital currencies? It's something that seems inevitable but everyone seems to conveniently ignore.
Imagine the efficiency of tax collecting through a database of currency you control. It's the government's ultimate weapon.
Seriously please don't. I advise rpietila to moderate post about this. This such a boring old subject that has been discussed all over Bitcointalk "What if government blabla" Truth is government will not succeed because no one will support it this is the whole idea behind Bitcoin, that Bitcoin is unstoppable, and anyone who thinks otherwise is just a complete tin foil hat that can go back to the conspiracy forum. Can we go back to technical discussions about altcoins and not some conspiracy nut job theories from AnonyMint. I'm not the type that people would consider a 'nut job' I don't think and I don't agree with many of AnonyMint's theories on what's going to happen with the world, but do people really think that in 20-50 years the world will still be passing around pieces of paper? It's not even a question of if, it's a question of when. What sort of government wouldn't love to eliminate cash and control their currency through a centralised database? They have nothing to lose and everything to gain. To dismiss this as some kind of crackpot theory seems very odd to me. |
|
|
|
|
Can we get back to talking about AnonyMint's idea of government backed digital currencies? It's something that seems inevitable but everyone seems to conveniently ignore.
Imagine the efficiency of tax collecting through a database of currency you control. It's the government's ultimate weapon.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
