 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 »
|
|
Yes, a lot of these ICOs don't have the most experienced leaderships in terms of business. If they are any good though they will attract a good body of advisors to keep them on the straight and narrow.
In any case I must insist again: not just Linkine, also Crunchbase and the others. A lot of tech entrepreneurs have moved away from Venture capital to ICO funding. If they were trusted by venture capitalists in the past they have to be doing something right.
|
|
|
|
|
If you are juggling that kind of cash, I would insist on two things:
- Background checks. Check the backgrounds of the team to heaven and back. Not just to check for scammers, but also to check for teams with good intentions but insufficient skills.
- Ask how the project expects to make money. You can't just hope for the price of the token to rise on the exchanges because of hype. Does the project have associated value with the tokens, like a product or service? If it does, can the project justify the use of cryptocurrency to access its product or service?
With respect to the background, don't just check Linkedin. Check Crunchbase, gust, angel.co to see if the leaders have had success in the past with startups and such. Dig deep. If they have listed companies they founded, make sure they companies exist.
|
|
|
|
States do print money as a mechanism to control the economy (not control in the sense of dictatorial control, but management). When a state is in deep debt, or the economy needs a boost it isn't uncommon for central banks who have control over their own currency to commission a new amount of currency. This way, the value of the debt is decreased. The negative effects on consumers are managed or ignored, depending on the interests of the moment. On the other hand, they don't always need to "print" money: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/q/quantitative-easing.aspThey can just buy their own debt. |
|
|
|
|
Instead of looking for good "crypto writers", why don't you just look for good writers, period? People with experience in creating content (blog posts, white papers, books, academic papers) with sufficient technical background to be able to write about crypto.
Anyone with sufficient technical experience to actually develop crypto will probably have the writing experience anyway, as this is part of the job. You always have to write reports, technical descriptions, etc. If that isn't enough, get them coworking with a pop-science and tech writer: one of them makes it accessible, the other makes sure it is rigorous.
So in summary, drop the crypto tag: look for a good writer.
I actually know a few if you are interested.
|
|
|
|
I get the feeling that governments would be able to shut down decentralized networks anyway. Remember, they are governments. Resources are more like a way of counting for them, not a limiting factor. All they have to do is give ISPs the order to block out certain data transactions and voila, it is all gone. I remember at university people had their internet connections blocked for using BitTorrent. That was only a University IT department doing it, not a full blown government! For the moment, while governments are not stopping cryptocurrencies and so on, then decentralized crytpocurrencies are safe so long as the developers want them to be. If everyone is running your software without question then it should be quite easy to insert bugs which give you centralized control. Even if you don't want to, accidental bugs can lead to significant lacks of safety. Many projects put their codes on github, but I wonder if this is really relevant. Most people can't read code and most don't bother to read code that isn't their own. Crypto is safe for the moment because of the philosophy of crypto, and nothing else. But for now it is enough  |
|
|
|
Does anybody know their etherscan?
https://etherscan.io/token/0xbeebcfe2fbb3c72884341be2b73ae0fc6559b8fc#balancesSome key points: 99.2% (!!) of the tokens remain unsold, so it is clear that the ICO has failed big time. And it's been days since the ICO ended, yet there is zero comment from the q1n team here in the forum, on twitter, or on any other channel. What are they hiding? Those of you who have invested should push hard to get your questions answered, as they are clearly being ignored here. Literally a hate poster who apparently can't read, or chooses not to... and is obsessed with Quantum1Net. He is addicted to getting attention on twitter... Are you going to answer my questions, or are you just mad that I am asking them? Not my job to. By the way, you have not asked anything/much, and would you read the answer? |
|
|
|
Does anybody know their etherscan?
https://etherscan.io/token/0xbeebcfe2fbb3c72884341be2b73ae0fc6559b8fc#balancesSome key points: 99.2% (!!) of the tokens remain unsold, so it is clear that the ICO has failed big time. And it's been days since the ICO ended, yet there is zero comment from the q1n team here in the forum, on twitter, or on any other channel. What are they hiding? Those of you who have invested should push hard to get your questions answered, as they are clearly being ignored here. Literally a hate poster who apparently can't read, or chooses not to... and is obsessed with Quantum1Net. He is addicted to getting attention on twitter... |
|
|
|
|
I remember seeing somewhere that weed was forbidden because it would compete with the textile and paper markets... capitalism going head over heels to try and control market interests.. for the past couple of centuries.
|
|
|
|
|
Too many ICOs on the market => diluted quality... it is just another way of crowdfunding really. It is a shame because it is a very interesting idea and blockchain is a very cool concept.
Maybe going for utility tokens which are associated with a profitable project is the way forward.
|
|
|
|
|
Due dilliegence takes a long time. If you are not willing to put the efforts in to deeply check out an ICO team, don't risk it. Also, if you don't understand a project, don't invest in it.
Basic practices from ordinary investment which are transferible.
|
|
|
|
Your timeline mentions a release party. Who would be invited and/or how much would I have to invest to get invited?  I love teneriffe and I’d like to meet the crew behind the project. At the rate the ICO is going, i'd guess you'll need to buy 29783701 q1s tokens for the party to happen.  Are you so ill informed that you think investment funds and enterprises dabble with cryptos when investing in ICO startups? Seriously? You keep saying that the developers don't give information or answer questions, but when they do you ignore it. |
|
|
|
|
Everything is market worthy apparently...
|
|
|
|
|
TBH I still have a hard time seeing where the value of btc and Eth actually comes from...
|
|
|
|
Not happy about this. Venezuela has serious issues and isn't left alone by the international community. Using a state's name as a way to try and sell a coin... is bad for the country and bad for the people  ... |
|
|
|
Great question ! Okay okay, before you rush and say "To prevent spam attacks!!", please wait and read this whole thread.
^The above argument is what I hear all the time. However, there is something not quite right about that reasoning. It doesn't make sense.
Let's start with a little background info...
Satoshi implemented the 1 MB blocksize limit without telling anyone; He just did it randomly. There was no discussion beforehand and after he did it, he did not mention it anywhere. People had to look at the code/use it to see the change. The mannerism in which the 1 MB blocksize limit was added is already strange in itself and as soon as it was done, debates/arguments among the community started happening.
Satoshi never told people that the 1 MB limit was to prevent spam - its just what everyone inferred.
Okay... history lesson over.
Now here is why it doesnt make sense:
The process of a transaction getting confirmed and added to the blockchain goes like this:
1) Tx. is broadcast with a custom fee
2) Tx. is added to the mempool
3) Miner collects tx. from the mempool (usually they will pic tx. based on which has the highest fee and work their way down from there)
4) Miner adds tx. to their block
5) Miner calculates the proof of work
6) Miner publishes block to the blockchain
Okay now we have the process outlined we can analyse the miners incentives/behaviour. I'll be using game theory to explain this and here is where it gets interesting.
The miners main goal is to make profit. This is why he adds tx. to his block in the first place (it allows for more fees and thus, more profits). So we can assume that without the blocksize limit, the miners would add infinite tx. to their block right? WRONG!
Allow me to explain:
Look at step 3.. Collecting the tx. from the mempool and adding it to their block takes a set amount of time and the longer that the miner spends collecting the tx. and adding it to their block, the less time they can spend calculating the proof of work - thereby giving their competition (other miners) the edge. The miners would naturally (based on game theory) find a nash equilibrium between collecting as many tx. as possible and finding enough time to calculate the proof of work in order to give them the maximum profitability. Thus, we can assume, that without a blocksize limit (infinite), the block size would stay relatively the same.
This is why an infinite block size limit is not an issue. I honestly cannot understand why he added the 1 MB limit.
Can someone please, please explain? I have been pondering this for over a month now. Thanks.
There are three possible answers: 1) Satoshi didn't completely understand the implications of his random choice, which seemed reasonable at the time to him. 2) Satoshi knew very well what he was doing, was an evil mind, and he was lying through his teeth all the time, to trick us into his nonsense. 3) Satoshi was a true god and genius, and even though we think he might have made a mistake, he was absolutely right in everything he ever did and we are simply too dumb to see it. There have been a lot of discussions over that issue, and people warned Satoshi that his random decision was recipe to disaster. The truth is maybe in the 3 things at once. It is obvious that the spam limit is a joke. In fact, it makes spam worse. The excuse was that if a fool mined a single block of 10 GB full of nonsense, the blockchain would be spammed to an incredible size in no time. That was clearly wrong, because in order for that block to be incorporated into the chain, other miners would have to agree with it. There's no reason why honest miners would mine on top of a crazy block. In other words, implicitly, there would be a gross maximum size set by miners and that would grow dynamically. By putting a hard limit on block size, you actually increase drastically the effect of spam, as we saw. Once the block is full of spam, transactions are hindered. This is an efficient DDOS of bitcoin. If the blocks are elastic, you can spam a lot, that will increase the size to some point, but transactions can go through unhampered, and you'd have to spam like crazy in order to have an efficient DDOS. Hard limits make DDOSsing of bitcoin in fact much easier. Satoshi was clearly in favour of very large blocks if useful, and he explains that in the beginning, where he tells us that most normal users shouldn't run a full node, "left to specialists with farms of specialized hardware". That was in November 2008. People explained him that putting a hard limit in the protocol would require a hard fork at a point, which might be problematic. He wavered that away: just changing a constant in the code. Maybe Satoshi did put a "time bomb" in his bitcoin system because he considered it an experiment from which we have to learn, and it should self-destroy at a certain point in order for us to make a new system with better properties. Maybe Satoshi wanted to put in a trap, so that only if his heirs were smart enough to have good governance, and if they cannot even change a simple parameter, then it is better that this system dies. Maybe Satoshi wanted to develop a whole crypto market, and needed to put something nasty in bitcoin, in order to make it lose its first mover advantage and open up the market. Maybe Satoshi was designing a reserve currency for big, dark, deep state players, and only needed Joe Sixpack to ramp it up, but needed him to be pushed out of bitcoin once the system was up and running, to leave it to the big boys. Claiming it to be a currency of the people, but at the same time, making its use too expensive for the people, and only allow the big boys on it, was maybe his hidden plan. But I think that Satoshi simply made a mistake. He made many. Bitcoin is quite ill designed. That doesn't take away the fact that he was a bright mind. We have hindsight he didn't have. But he was wrong on this one, as he was wrong on many choices. Makes Satoshi sound like John Kramer! |
|
|
|
Hi! This looks like a very interesting project. It is good to see that a solid team is going for the quantum problem! It's odd you guys have not got more traction yet. Are you going to build on the research explained in the yellow paper?
Yes, the working prototype is built based on what is explained in the yellow paper - stay tuned as we are releasing more articles about the research behind the project and our prototype! Thanks for your answer. The yellow paper is very interesting, I can't wait for the follow-up work to be released!! |
|
|
|
|
Hi! This looks like a very interesting project. It is good to see that a solid team is going for the quantum problem! It's odd you guys have not got more traction yet. Are you going to build on the research explained in the yellow paper?
|
|
|
|
|
At some point it must relax to a stable price though (with stable I mean like any other currency, without fluctuations from 20000 to 13000 dollars in a couple of days!). I have some ideas. It is hard to get an unbiased opinion.
If it doesn't stabilize then bitcoin will have a hard time becoming a true currency... which would be amazing if it did become it.
|
|
|
|
|
The title is self-explanatory.
What do you think the fundamental value of bitcoin is? At what price (in fiat currency) will it have a change to stabilise?
|
|
|
|
|
I like this idea. In my country freelancers have to pay high government fees or sign up for agencies which take important percentages of billing. How will your project try to fit in with legislation regulating freelancing?
|
|
|
|
|
