 Show Posts
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 »
|
The reason I posted the above, is because I don't think it's fair for users to hear that private keys are never sent to the server, because they were (are?) being, for whatever reason.
That's fair enough, and I apologise for misreading your comment as trolling. Two things, then. First up, it hasn't occurred (at all) since that thread, and at the time I could not reproduce it by regular access even from different machines around the globe. I also couldn't reproduce finding the errant code (as it would appear by default, ie. without fudging JS versioning) either via archive.org or in Bing / Google's cache. Since then I have checked periodically to see if it is appearing, but have not seen the session-to-cookie snippet pop up. The snippet has not existed on the server in any way, shape, or form for many, many months, and so I can only assume it was isolated and unexpected. Needless to say that if it *is* ever reproducible by me then I will be able to tackle the exact cause and fix it from there. Which leads me to the second thing I wanted to mention: I made it clear in that original thread, and it behoves repeating, web-based wallets are not "safe". Where a local wallet has a set of security risks (eg. a deviant local process can hijack your transactions as they are being built and redirect the funds) web wallets open up an additional class of security risks: trusting code that is delivered live, and passes through multiple points on the Internet. Using MyMonero involves trusting your ISP, trusting CloudFlare, trusting the CA, trusting MyMonero, and trusting the various data providers en-route, each and every time you use the web wallet. That having been said, MyMonero represents a smaller attack surface than a Bitcoin / altcoin-based web wallet where the keys are held on the server, as MyMonero is unable to spend funds independently of the user. Thus this attack would involve serving up compromised JavaScript, which would be noticed were it done on any sort of scale. To that end, I'd like to reiterate my original comment from our previous discussion on the security of MyMonero: It is important to note JavaScript-based wallets are never going to be really safe, and MyMonero is no exception. I've said before that MyMonero is merely a stopgap solution until we have libraryise completed (so that third-party GUI developers can better hook into core functions) and/or we've found an SPV-style solution (our current work is on using a bloom filter for viewkeys instead of passing the raw viewkey) for lightweight wallets. In fact, the website even says quite clearly: "The clients below are ideal if you are using Monero for the first time".
One final bootnote: the view key is sent to the MyMonero server every single time, so we don't state that "no keys" are sent to the server, merely that the spend key is not. That is a factually correct statement, barring any number of circumstances outside of our control, such as a user's ISP being compromised. I hope it is unnecessary for me to qualify that statement every time I make it:) Thanks for clarifying Fluffy, and it's true I have seen you say several times that MyMonero is more for convenience but if you want the best security then use SimpleWallet. I wish I hadn't posted now, I will sign off. Good luck with your upcoming DB release. BF |
|
|
|
"It is not sent to the server" For the sake of the Monero community I think I have to point out here that this is actually a lie that is told repeatedly by Fluffypony & Smooth and other core members. As I showed back in June, and Smooth is fully aware of, MyMonero.com had code specifically inserted to send private keys to the server, and was doing so successfully (and as far as I know, still is) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077775.msg11529538#msg11529538Fluffypony provided an explanation that it was used for 'testing' on that thread, but as far as I know, the Monero community was never told about it officially, apart from my post in the alt section. So if you have used MyMonero, it's likely your private keys *have* been sent to the server, and also stored in clear text on your own HD in a cookie. I never saw an announcement that this as fixed, or that the vulnerability exists - if it's fixed and you still want to use MyMonero, the safe thing to do is move your funds from any old addresses to new addresses, as the old ones are potentially compromised. I'm going to hazard that you're not BlockaFett, as he and I had a good chat about this months ago and all was resolved. He seemed a reasonable, logical person who understood the situation and was content with the resolution. He's also perfectly capable of following up on his own research, you seem to lack the technical chops to do so. Pity, one always hopes that trolls will be a little less "talk" and a little more "action". Nonetheless, it's probably not a bad idea for you to exit stage right and let BlockaFett talk on this matter if he so desires. Hi Fluffy. No it is me, Blockafett. I can confirm that if you want but I would have to recover the account details as I scrambled the password - the reason is I didn't like how BCT was taking up all my time trying to argue with the dozens of posts a day attacking the main coin I am interested in coming from a minority of users here who get a kick out of bullying people and generally make life hell for anyone interested in that coin, now I just use the official forum and hardly look at BCT and life is much better. I made this second account when I came back temporarily. Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that I think that this was done deliberately to hurt Monero users, because I don't - if it was, it wouldn't be intermittent - it's more likely to be a CloudFlare cache issue / test code as we discussed, I explained this in that thread. The reason I posted the above, is because I don't think it's fair for users to hear that private keys are never sent to the server, because they were (are?) being, for whatever reason. You can be 100% honest but this can still undermine user's security - priv keys are stored on their local HD in clear text, and also sent up the wire to your server, so there are many ways these can be collected / intercepted / cached. I don't think it's unfair for me to point this out - if I was a MyMonero user (i'm not, but I have invested in Monero before) I would want to know this. So with Smooth here now saying priv keys are never sent, when 5 months ago I showed they were being, for whatever reason, is just not true, and he knows that very well because we spoke about it there. A lot of users here care about security, I think it's fair to point this out, and users have a right to know this vulnerability existed so they can take corrective action. And I'm not trolling, I never mentioned this issue on this thread once before, just on a separate thread in the alt section, I would have expected some official announcement here - maybe this happened already, and this issue is fixed. I don't know. If this happened on the other coin I mentioned, I think we all know there would be like 20 posts a day from Icebreaker and crew accusing the dev of being a "scammer!!!" in gigantic red posts as usual and generally trying to make people's lives there a misery for their own agenda - I haven't done that, but I don't like that it seems like users don't have this information when it's 6 months old already, which is why I posted it. And I do have issues with Smooth as I have stated before but that is not something I want to comment on here, but is the reason I felt I should post today. So to clarify, this is not a "Scam" accusation in any way, just I think users have the right to know their keys might have been compromised by anyone with access to their PC all the way up to MyMonero ISP / servers. What is the situation then, has this vulnerability been fixed or is CloudFlare still serving the code that sends the private keys? Apologies if this was announced already, but I didn't see it and I did a quick search on the thread earlier too. |
|
|
|
Will we ever see an official GUI wallet for Monero? How do you expect non-tech savvy people to use this coin without an easy wallet? Is it really too hard to make a wallet for 1.5 years?
I agree with the other posters. The engine is more important than the body. This is not to say that the body (GUI wallet) is not important. It's been said that it's coming, although technically there are GUIs now. The one that seems most easy to use is: https://mymonero.com/#/ Since it's web-based, it can be used virtually anywhere and only you know your private keys. It is great if someone can explain why "only you know your private keys." is true and how mymonero.com can check balance and send transactions on behalf of user without exposing his private key to mymonero.com owner. I think that it would be a FAQ. The spend key (and therefore one-time private key for each output on the chain) are derived by Javascript in the browser when you type in your login key. It is not sent to the server. Any transactions you send are likewise created and signed in the browser before being sent to the server. What is sent to the server is your view key which the server uses to identify your incoming transactions. That key alone does not allow spending. "It is not sent to the server" For the sake of the Monero community I think I have to point out here that this is actually a lie that is told repeatedly by Fluffypony & Smooth and other core members. As I showed back in June, and Smooth is fully aware of, MyMonero.com had code specifically inserted to send private keys to the server, and was doing so successfully (and as far as I know, still is) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1077775.msg11529538#msg11529538Fluffypony provided an explanation that it was used for 'testing' on that thread, but as far as I know, the Monero community was never told about it officially, apart from my post in the alt section. So if you have used MyMonero, it's likely your private keys *have* been sent to the server, and also stored in clear text on your own HD in a cookie. I never saw an announcement that this as fixed, or that the vulnerability exists - if it's fixed and you still want to use MyMonero, the safe thing to do is move your funds from any old addresses to new addresses, as the old ones are potentially compromised. |
|
|
|
How surprising, personal attacks but no answers (as usual)  How does the timing of the scam matter? It's still a scam whether it happened yesterday or at launch. Dashtard logic at its finest. Having a fast emission does not constitute a scam Adam. A scam is where there is financial loss - like the users of Mintpal, something i know a bit about. Dash is just the biggest target for all the people who got scammed in alts with developers who dumped and left or hang around but don't deliver anything and just try to milk their communities - reason: invariably, scam devs like to gang up and attack the Dash dev - why? - because he's hurting them by showing how a decent & honest project is developed and run. Anyone with a brain measures a dev on 1) are they working hard long term proving commitment to do what they promised 2) what is their ability to innovate better than other devs in the market and how consistent are they at doing that. Looking at your history, pretty much every coin you invested in, the dev was a *real* scammer - they either left or didn't deliver anything over what they cloned. Dash dev quit his job and put his whole life into Dash, and if you had invested or mined early, you would now be in profit, and be looking at the most active and committed team in crypto, taking your investment forward. I guess, the fact that you are attacking a coin where no one has had any financial loss due to misdeads of the developer (and you never even invested in), instead of the dozens of actual scams you invested in, says a lot here: you are being paid by (i can't guess) to troll here every day mmmkay? |
|
|
|
Thanks for the heads up. Will be posting there as well. The more people that are aware of the toxic Darkcoin/Dash fraud scheme, the better. After a difficulty of 100, no matter what the blocks will return 15 DRK.
"No matter what" Funny how Toknormal the shilling scam defender didn't even acknowledge this in my previous post, he just went straight to attack mode. I won't hold my breath waiting for a response from EvanTheInstaminer & Co. Surprisingly, I only come here to see you and your other account comments, but your material is getting old... Could you please come up with something new to bitch about? You're not making me laugh anymore. And I'm not just giving you shit, I want something new out of you. So do better. Thanks. I think Adam's job is just to keep referencing the first 2 days of the public Dash launch, and insert the word "scam" as many times as possible, and to do this daily, possibly for money at this point. I think there's a reason all the trolls stick to the first 2 days too - day 3 to now is not that easy to troll, with "EvanTheInstaminer" still here, quitting his job and working full time on Dash for 18 months and building it into (IMHO) the best solution to fix Bitcoin's problems and go a lot further - even though I think most people don't get this yet, even though the key Bitcoin problems Dash solves are now becoming the hot topic in the Bitcoin world. Anyhow, don't expect much creativity, he's practically a "Troll bot" paid to spam this thread at this stage  |
|
|
|
Dash has 3259 paid nodes. Even subtracting that, it still has around 200 volunteer nodes, which is decent.
One could argue that those nodes technically aren't paid until they make 1001 DASH. That would be incorrect becase you don't give up your 1000. If you run a masternode for a short time, get one reward, and shut it down, you have more coins than what you started with. The people running a full node on BTC earn zero income from the node itself, no different from a node on, say, Quark. The fact that roughly 6000 people are doing it anyway (compared to 32 on QRK) says something about the strength and appeal of the coin. I'm also pretty sure that it costs quite a bit more to run a Bitcoin node than most (all?) other coins. For example, when I was mining on p2pool a while back I had to upgrade my bandwidth allowance (at extra cost) just to keep the Bitcoin node going, and the bandwidth is higher now. No other coin that I can think of has that level of bandwidth requirement. I wasn't saying anything bad about DASH btw. If you ignore the paid nodes and consider just the volunteer nodes (about 200) that puts DASH behind only BTC, LTC and DOGE, which is close to where it is in the market cap rankings (DASH is a bit higher than DOGE there). The only other two that are close to DASH in terms of volunteer node count are PPC (proof-of-stake) and NMC (anomaly as I mentioned). "If you ignore the paid nodes and consider just the volunteer nodes" It's kind of ridiculous to do so. A node is a node....pretending they aren't there is like pretending incentivized miners aren't there. I am guessing it might suit your purposes to do so, but in reality, Dash of course has the second strongest full node network, trying to spin it otherwise and say Dash only has in effect 200 nodes, is false. |
|
|
|
the trust comes from the number of nodes and how decentralized they are though, running one node yourself won't make your transactions more secure I think. You are mistaken. That is exactly Adam Back's point. Read what he wrote again. "it’s not just running a full-node, you have to actually use it for transactions" What do you think he means by that? He has also warned against renting nodes in data centers, which is exactly what you get when you pay people to do it. "It’s the amount of economic interest that is relying on full-nodes and has direct trust and control of those full-nodes" With this statement I interpret it that Adam is saying you need to tie-in the economic interest of the full node operators to ensure the security. Using your own full node is one way to achieve that, but operating a masternode for other users is another way because the operator doesn't get rewarded if they don't provide a secure service in the interests of the end users. About not renting nodes in data centers, if Bitcoin increased to 20MB blocks, on current broadband etc, I don't see how 20x the throughput can work in the foreseeable future on consumer hardware so there is no choice but to scale-up the node's hardware and use datacentres. It's how you keep a datacenter-based full node network decentralized is the big question, and Bitcoin full node network is already becoming centralized - again I think Dash is showing the solution because virtually all full nodes are on server hardware and decentralized across a lot of hosting companies around the world, because a user anywhere in the world can get paid to operate a decent node. I edited the post above with a link where you can listen to the interview where he explicitly says that renting nodes in a datacenter and do do transactions is "quite useless". You can agree or disagree with him, but that's what he says. As for 20MB blocks, he's against that, so his opinions are consistent at least. Thanks for the link I will have a listen https://soundcloud.com/epicenterbitcoin/eb-095Not sure personally if it's possible to scale a currency to 10,000's transactions per second like you would need for everyday use, without users having to use high spec hardware / connections, although if you keep ~7 transactions per second then I guess it's not an issue. He says high tps activity has to be done off chain (with period settlement to the chain which keeps things honest). I'm pretty sure Dash is going to go in that direction too. Chains are good for some things, not good for everything. At least that is one view. There is another view that says trust in Moore's (Kryder's, etc.) Law and it will all work out. It's kind of impossible to know which will turn out to be right really. makes sense, I hope Dash does go in that direction. |
|
|
|
the trust comes from the number of nodes and how decentralized they are though, running one node yourself won't make your transactions more secure I think. You are mistaken. That is exactly Adam Back's point. Read what he wrote again. "it’s not just running a full-node, you have to actually use it for transactions" What do you think he means by that? He has also warned against renting nodes in data centers, which is exactly what you get when you pay people to do it. "It’s the amount of economic interest that is relying on full-nodes and has direct trust and control of those full-nodes" With this statement I interpret it that Adam is saying you need to tie-in the economic interest of the full node operators to ensure the security. Using your own full node is one way to achieve that, but operating a masternode for other users is another way because the operator doesn't get rewarded if they don't provide a secure service in the interests of the end users. About not renting nodes in data centers, if Bitcoin increased to 20MB blocks, on current broadband etc, I don't see how 20x the throughput can work in the foreseeable future on consumer hardware so there is no choice but to scale-up the node's hardware and use datacentres. It's how you keep a datacenter-based full node network decentralized is the big question, and Bitcoin full node network is already becoming centralized - again I think Dash is showing the solution because virtually all full nodes are on server hardware and decentralized across a lot of hosting companies around the world, because a user anywhere in the world can get paid to operate a decent node. I edited the post above with a link where you can listen to the interview where he explicitly says that renting nodes in a datacenter and do do transactions is "quite useless". You can agree or disagree with him, but that's what he says. As for 20MB blocks, he's against that, so his opinions are consistent at least. Thanks for the link I will have a listen ( https://soundcloud.com/epicenterbitcoin/eb-095) Not sure personally if it's possible to scale a currency to 10,000's transactions per second like you would need for everyday use, without users having to use high spec hardware / connections, although if you keep ~7 transactions per second then I guess it's not an issue. |
|
|
|
the trust comes from the number of nodes and how decentralized they are though, running one node yourself won't make your transactions more secure I think. You are mistaken. That is exactly Adam Back's point. Read what he wrote again. "it’s not just running a full-node, you have to actually use it for transactions" What do you think he means by that? He has also warned against renting nodes in data centers, which is exactly what you get when you pay people to do it. "It’s the amount of economic interest that is relying on full-nodes and has direct trust and control of those full-nodes" With this statement I interpret it that Adam is saying you need to tie-in the economic interest of the full node operators to ensure the security. Using your own full node is one way to achieve that, but operating a masternode for other users is another way because the operator doesn't get rewarded if they don't provide a secure service in the interests of the end users. About not renting nodes in data centers, if Bitcoin increased to 20MB blocks, on current broadband etc, I don't see how 20x the throughput can work in the foreseeable future on consumer hardware so there is no choice but to scale-up the node's hardware and use datacentres. It's how you keep a datacenter-based full node network decentralized is the big question, and Bitcoin full node network is already becoming centralized - again I think Dash is showing the solution because virtually all full nodes are on server hardware and decentralized across a lot of hosting companies around the world, because a user anywhere in the world can get paid to operate a decent node. |
|
|
|
Adam back talked recently about how the number of nodes as a measure of security / decentralization:
Yes he did: “If you boil it down going down from the requirements about what Bitcoin is and why decentralization and permissionless innovation [are important], you can translate that into what are the mechanisms that make bitcoin secure, and the full node auditors — it’s not just running a full-node, you have to actually use it for transactions. It’s the amount of economic interest that is relying on full-nodes and has direct trust and control of those full-nodes. This is what holds the system to a higher level.”
That's the key. As a transactional participant you have to be running your own node to get the security benefits he's talking about. So that is individual merchants, investors, exchanges, etc. Setting up a system to pay people to run nodes independently is exactly not what he is suggesting. Anyway, this is independent of my point that you can't use paid nodes as an indicator of interest and support for the coin (across coins). We can agree to disagree about whether nodes-for-nodes-sake is a desirable goal. I will agree that if you think it is then incentivizing them is appropriate. the trust comes from the number of nodes and how decentralized they are though, running one node yourself won't make your transactions more secure I think. My point is, you don't get a high number of decentralized nodes with a busy network like Bitcoin, unless you incentivize them, Dash is an example solution to this in action. but it's ok to agree to disagree on this  |
|
|
|
thanks. In that case I vote for 3. d4
Is it ok if I change to team Boolberry after though?
Honestly I don't like the idea of people switching sides, especially after they have already recommended a move. When people switch sides it can add confusion and cause some to question the motives for doing so. If you are worried about Monero having a larger team, don't worry. I expected that. We all know that Monero has a much larger community than Boolberry. OK then, I think I will just sit on the sideline and chew oranges then. gg |
|
|
|
I think "Volunteer nodes" are part of the problem not the solution.
Respectfully I disagree. Nodes in and of themselves don't actually do much that is useful other than seeding blocks, and you really only need a few nodes to do that. The reason I exclude paid nodes is not that one kind of node is better than the other, it is that I'm looking at volunteer nodes as an indicator of participation. If you pay people to do something, sure they'll do it, but it loses value as an indicator of anything other than the rate of payment, or at least it can't be viewed as an apples-to-apples comparison from one coin to another. You make a valid point that the cost of running a node is function of the amount of activity on the network in terms of bandwidth, storage, etc. so maybe that should be considered as part of the indicator along with whether people run nodes or not. If I had to guess that would probably increase the scores of DOGE and BTC and decrease the others. But size of the full node network is a bottleneck in the amount of transactions per second the currency can handle as full nodes process the transactions, Bitcoin it's only ~7 per second and hit capacity several times already with their fullnode network. Adam back talked recently about how the number of nodes as a measure of security / decentralization: “If you boil it down going down from the requirements about what Bitcoin is and why decentralization and permissionless innovation [are important], you can translate that into what are the mechanisms that make bitcoin secure, and the full node auditors — it’s not just running a full-node, you have to actually use it for transactions. It’s the amount of economic interest that is relying on full-nodes and has direct trust and control of those full-nodes. This is what holds the system to a higher level.” ...and how nodes are key in the blocksize debate: http://coinjournal.net/adam-back-on-the-overlooked-importance-of-full-nodes-in-bitcoin/And there are groups trying to incentivize Bitcoin full nodes e.g. Bitnodes https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/nodes/incentive/ and http://www.coindesk.com/adopt-node-project-aims-bolster-bitcoin-network-security/If we take Dash's working incentivized full-node network and transpose it to Bitcoin as a rough example, at 100x the market size, Bitcoin could have 300,000 servers for it's full node network instead of 5,000, or 30,000 at 10x the spec depending on how it was incentivized - wouldn't it be a different debate on block size in Bitcoin for example if that was the case? |
|
|
|
3. d4
Agree blobafett2's "suggestion" (not sure if he was trolling) of Bb5 is not terrible but I don't think it is to our advantage to trade bishops this early. it's a real opening, made famous by a 16th century Spanish priest, and one of Kasparov's favorites: http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/spanish-torture-ruy-lopezYeah I know. I played it in high school chess club. Sorry, just trying to help  In that case, welcome to the Monero team. thanks. In that case I vote for 3. d4 Is it ok if I change to team Boolberry after though? |
|
|
|
3. d4
Agree blobafett2's "suggestion" (not sure if he was trolling) of Bb5 is not terrible but I don't think it is to our advantage to trade bishops this early. it's a real opening, made famous by a 16th century Spanish priest, and one of Kasparov's favorites: http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/spanish-torture-ruy-lopezYeah I know. I played it in high school chess club. Sorry, just trying to help |
|
|
|
3. d4
Agree blobafett2's "suggestion" (not sure if he was trolling) of Bb5 is not terrible but I don't think it is to our advantage to trade bishops this early. it's a real opening, made famous by a 16th century Spanish priest, and one of Kasparov's favorites: http://exeterchessclub.org.uk/content/spanish-torture-ruy-lopez |
|
|
|
First I would break it down by those that pay for nodes and those that don't. The ones that don't pay for nodes but still have a lot of nodes are pretty strong. That's BTC, LTC, and DOGE. The PoS coins are hard to assess, other than Dash. Dash has 3259 paid nodes. Even subtracting that, it still has around 200 volunteer nodes, which is decent. NMC is a bit surprising to me. Would not really expect that to have 200 nodes. Seems to (incorrectly) show 0 for many coins that are not BTC forks. I think "Volunteer nodes" are part of the problem not the solution. Bitcoin incentivizes miners, but not full nodes - the result is a declining and centralizing full node network that can't scale as usage grows. You need to incentivize all the users or you end up with infrastructure not strong enough to support large transaction size / frequency / storage requirements, for example Bitcoin's block size debate, and node incentivization problems e.g. http://www.coindesk.com/adopt-node-project-aims-bolster-bitcoin-network-security/. Dash solved the problem with the protocol paying full nodes a % of the block reward same as miners, resulting in a very strong infrastructure, ~3,000 nodes running on servers, compared to ~5,000 in Bitcoin, at < 1% of it's market cap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FY1mciGGhO4 |
|
|
|
Team Monero (white pieces) vs. Team Boolberry (black pieces)white to move  1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 Based on the votes in this thread Team Boolberry has chosen to play d6 Now it is time for Team Monero to respond. Votes will be counted at 0:00 UTC tomorrow. Monero can play Bb5, the infamous Ruy Lopez. And Boolberry can't play the Morphy defense with c5/d6 they're in check. Another name for the Ruy Lopez is "The Spanish Torture" Smooth... maybe a bit ironic?  |
|
|
|
Ask yourselves why there is such hype directed by the dashtard cult about an instamine scam by a deceptive manipulating member of the community.
Otoh is a known long time manipulator who has met face to face with a number of bitcointalk users but who are these anonymous people and what is their agenda?
Good question. BTW I see your "All in" is now down 42%. Maybe if you cry a little more the price will go back to your breakeven of 0.017! Otoh is a deceptive, manipulating individual but because he has a lot of BTC you fawn over him like a bunch of teenage girls. He'll do or say anything if it means a higher Dash price so he can continue dumping dozens of BTC worth of masternode payments daily, and that includes starting bullshit "star chart" threads like this one. You dashtard scam apologists are the funniest in crypto. secretly you love Dash Adam |
|
|
|
If you hold any Monero or Dash I would cash them out really fast because there is no future.
Cash out while you can because the price keeps on dropping.
Dash just successfully innovated and launched the first pure-decentralized way to manage the currency's future and fund development and the other tasks that need to be done. That means Dash network is now an autonomous entity that runs itself, the first of it's kind anywhere in the world. Some people think this is history in the making...I guess if the FUD-driven price on a few exchanges in the backstreets of the Alt coin grotto puts you off, maybe you should sell your Dash and provide some liquidity, i'm sure the smart people are looking ahead a bit Funny thing, Smart people keeping on to their Dash while the price keeps going down. No development that can be mentioned as incredible, community growing thinner and thinner. Sell your Monero and Dash, thank me later Selling Dash now would be like selling your angel shares in Google back in 1998...but go ahead...some of us are buying No holding on to your Dash and Monero would be the same as holding on to you Enron shares. OMG you really made me laugh comparing Dash with Google. Seriously you need a reality check. Google innovated a lot of cool tech, but they never innovated a purely decentralized autonomous corporation - Dash just did. All these alt coins pushing websites bolted on to their coins and saying it gives them value - decentralization is the key to value in crypto currencies, the most decentralized currency in the world is now - Dash. What you are saying makes no sense and could also me implied for seashells. Seashells the most decentralized currency in the world. I don't think we're on the same page. But good luck with your investments |
|
|
|
If you hold any Monero or Dash I would cash them out really fast because there is no future.
Cash out while you can because the price keeps on dropping.
Dash just successfully innovated and launched the first pure-decentralized way to manage the currency's future and fund development and the other tasks that need to be done. That means Dash network is now an autonomous entity that runs itself, the first of it's kind anywhere in the world. Some people think this is history in the making...I guess if the FUD-driven price on a few exchanges in the backstreets of the Alt coin grotto puts you off, maybe you should sell your Dash and provide some liquidity, i'm sure the smart people are looking ahead a bit Funny thing, Smart people keeping on to their Dash while the price keeps going down. No development that can be mentioned as incredible, community growing thinner and thinner. Sell your Monero and Dash, thank me later Selling Dash now would be like selling your angel shares in Google back in 1998...but go ahead...some of us are buying No holding on to your Dash and Monero would be the same as holding on to you Enron shares. OMG you really made me laugh comparing Dash with Google. Seriously you need a reality check. Google innovated a lot of cool tech, but they never innovated a purely decentralized autonomous corporation - Dash just did. All these alt coins pushing websites bolted on to their coins and saying it gives them value - decentralization is the key to value in crypto currencies, the most decentralized currency in the world is now - Dash. |
|
|
|
|
