2 @ 0.6

1 @ 1.05

+1

Velocity and usefulness are the keys to the value of any currency (not just crypto). Both velocity and usefulness are tied to the confidence people have that they can USE the currency to buy things of value. Similarly, people won't hoard a currency unless they have confidence in its future usefulness.

I predict that when a truly useful cryptocurrency exists -- one that is valued based on its velocity and utility -- I predict that its price will also be much less volatile than the cryptocurrencies we have today.

Following.

Smart move, IMHO.

I don't have time to read the entire thread. But one thing strikes me, that I feel I should comment on.

You are talking about an IPO here. The word is right there in the title of the post.

In my opinion (an opinion that is informed by ten years experience as a Security Principal for three different securities broker/dealers) everyone involved (James and everyone who is thinking of investing) needs to understand clearly the definition of the word "security". In this case, the definition we are interested in is the definition that involves investments.

In the United States, the US Supreme Court has ruled (in SEC v. Howey) that a "securities contract" is defined as a contract, transaction, or scheme whereby a person invests his money in a common enterprise and is led to expect profits solely from the efforts of the promoter or third party.

If you are offering an IPO for SuperNET, you are almost certainly creating a "securities contract".

Let's look at this definition in terms of the issuance of a cryptocurrency. Let's say that the promoters issue a certain number of coins to the company or the development team, and then open up sales to the public. As soon as someone buys those coins from the promoters, with the expectation that the value will go up, you are walking straight into "securities contract" territory. I believe there is very a real possibility that the SEC could (and would) take the position that the developers have offered and sold a security. The regulators would make the case that sale of the coin is a "transaction or scheme" where people are investing money (by buying coins), in a "common enterprise" (the IPO) with the expectation that the value of the coins will go up based on the efforts of the "promoters" (SuperNET and its developers).

All it takes is one dissatisfied purchaser to bring this to the attention of regulators (if they aren't already aware of it). Far from unifying the crypto community, this could easily lead to more scrutiny from the regulators and a black eye for the community. And, frankly, it could even lead to civil or criminal charges.

But wait. What if the developers of the business and coin are incorporated in a jurisdiction outside the United States? Or, what if the business is a Distributed Autonomous Corporation, with no headquarters or jurisdiction anywhere? In either case, if a developer individually, or the "company" as an entity sells to US citizens, it generally needs to comply with US laws. And, I think it is fairly clear that it also doesn't make any difference if the start-up company's coins were purchased in exchange for another cryptocurrency, like Bitcoin, NXT or BBR.

The guys like Ethereum who have done this type of thing successfully have structured their offer very carefully, have given investors lots of disclosures and warnings, and still could be treading on thin ice.

Since Poloniex is a US company, I think they should take a long, hard look at what they are potentially getting themselves into before they start participating in an offering of unregistered securities. I like Poloniex -- and have coins there -- so I hope they have a good attorney.

To any potential investors, I would point out that this (SuperNET IPO) is exactly the type of risky venture that the securities regulations are designed to protect you from.

Please note that I am not taking any position, pro or con, about the technology involved, or about James as a person. I'm just trying to warn about a situation that could be harmful not only to individual investors, but the entire community.

I don't have a lot of time to try to follow this thread, so don't necessarily expect me to reply to the (probably inevitable) crush of angry replies.

I must say that my enjoyment of this thread has increased immensely as a result of putting five or six of the most offensive trolls on "ignore".

Try it. You'll like it.

If enough people ignore them, and enough people resist the temptation to reply, they may eventually go away.

I usually don't like to do this, but...

+100

Excellent post, FluffyPony.

Smooth speaks the truth here. I have read much of the XMR main thread over the past 3 month, and I can tell you that there is very little BBR-bashing there. I hope that I would find the same here regarding XMR.

Thanks to everyone who answered my question up-thread. This gives me a pretty good idea of some of the factors and forces that are at play here.

In the end, I still have a good impression of BBR technology and the future of coin. So I will be arranging my finances and looking for a good point at which to buy BBR.

I'm new in this thread, but I have been watching and investing in Monero for several months.

Now that I have studied Boolberry a bit, I am puzzled as to why the price of BBR is less than a tenth the price of XMR. There are actually a couple of features of BBR that I think have advantages over XMR. It seem to me that the prices probably should be closer to parity.

I guess it is a bit weird to ask this here, but is there something I'm missing that has led to this big price difference?

I might buy some BBR if I can wrap my wits around this discrepancy.

I was thining about trying the QT wallet listed on the OP (Qt GUI (Cross-platform) by Neozaru). But when I follow the link, all I get his the repo on Github. I have searched around there a bit, trying to find a Windows binary, but haven't been able to find anything but the source.

Am I over-looking something? Is there somewhere else I should look? Or am I forced to build this from source myself.

Has Neozaru continued to work on the GUI wallet after the bounty was paid? I would think Neozaru (or someone) would have posted a working Windows build by now.

I'm probably just not looking in the right place, but a Google search didn't turn up anything useful. Can anyone point me in the right direction?

So, let's say that I wanted to make a Monero transfer to Alice. And let's say I specifically wanted Alice to be able to know/see my payment address (for example to be able to make a return transaction, or as a way of verifying that the specific transaction came from me). How would I accomplish that?

Would it be sufficient to simply choose no mixin for that transaction? If so, what would be the correct command for that? If not, how might I link my address to that transaction?

I know I would be breaking the anonymity, but the situation I am thinking of would be a rare and special circumstance.

I hope someone with a better understanding of the protocol than I have can take a moment and give me a clue on this.

Thanks.

Thanks, Risto. Good thread.

Following.

I gotta tell you, I really appreciate you guys working through these bugs and hashing out these new releases. I think this is a tremendously important project, but I don't personally have the time (or the technical chops, frankly) to do the testing and debugging you are doing.

Cudos to all of you, and especially to BitFreak and Catia.

Thanks for making this happen.

Without even reading the entire OP I can tell you that this "IPO" is an SEC lawsuit waiting to happen. Whoever is behind this is obviously offering unregistered securities. As soon as the SEC or FINRA get wind of this, you can count on the fact that this whole house of cards will collapse.

The sad part is that this type of hype and illegality gives the entire crypto community a "black eye" with the regulators. It just makes it harder for people to take cryptocurrencies seriously.

"A word to the wise..."

Get out while you still can.

When I look at the "Pool Blocks" tab on MoneroPool.org, I see that almost 40% of the blocks show as "orphaned".

What's with that?

Is this a result of the 60 second block time? Is it the result of some other flaw/factor in the CryptoNight algorithm? As far as I know, most other coins have much smaller orphan rates.

I assume if other pools were any different, someone would have reported it here.

This seems to me like a HUGE waste of everyone's hashes. Not so?

Thank you.

When I get my new AMD FX-9370 up and running, I should be able to mine up to 16 threads (but will probably only mine 14). How much RAM should I be planning to put into that box, in order to handle up to 16 threads? I know the CryptoNote mining process is memory intensive. But is it RAM or cache or what? Can someone give me a hint on this point?

Thanks in advance.

I believe in the underlying technology too. That's why it is a bit distressing not be able to mine the coin profitably, even though I started trying around block 20,000. I believe enough in Monero to have bought several thousand on the exchange, in part because I wasn't having much luck with mining. I suppose if a lot of other people come to the same conclusions, and start buying instead of mining, the price will start to rise. I guess that would settle my concerns some.

I'm pretty sure I am on the latest binaries, but I have not tried running a second instance of the miner. My CPU usage is already 99% with the single instance. Am I really going to get more hashing with another instance?

Thanks for your input.