Ahhh - I'm very interested to see where this thread goes. There is some guy claiming VISA level transactions by using "partions" with nodes. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1191535.0It seems like this is a project that's been in the pipeline for years with the dev trying to do a presale at one point? Has anyone looked into it much that feels like doing a good tl;dr |
|
|
|
I have a theory they are working like madmen to get the PoS finished before they run out of money.
Why can PoS save them? If their coins are staking then that will generate recurring revenue stream for the foundation. Someone claims they received 500K of additional funding but I haven't found proof yet. There is also the Chinese automaker / financier that started a crypto 2.0 fund. But Ethereum seems to couch it in a way that it's a direct investment in Ethereum (from what I've read it's not) This is the reason for today's tanking price. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gavin-wood-ethereum-could-be-marketing-strategy-big-players-1524871 |
|
|
|
So you can be held legally culpable for slander. Why do people who want to get rid of the existing centralized legal system constantly threaten with it? I'm not just picking on you ... Cryptsy, Paycoin, the guys on Bitcointalk when I tried to start a small angel funding for the guy who was doing the bitcoin malleability attack. It seems so weird to me even if it really is slander or misinformation etc. Seems like freemarket / educated people's opinions should be adequate to deal with who does / doesn't have something valid to say. |
|
|
|
Who thinks that ETH will go below 0.001 in November? It seems crazy when ETH was first released but now nobody is laughing anymore.
If the foundation had 25% of their funding left for ongoing development from the core devs for the next 18 months it would 4X the current price. As it stands I think they are down to three months worth of funding (I need to run the numbers - wasn't it something like 7 months at $1.50? So like 2.3 months at today's price a month ago?) I have a theory they are working like madmen to get the PoS finished before they run out of money. I thought the presale Ethereum was a good bet. It needs to be half of the presale prices now to even consider unless the foundation finds a way to fund itself. It boils down to being bad stewards of the pre-sale. Not being transparent as promised, not cashing out for the currency that pays their salaries and opting instead to speculate, allowing scope creep to threaten their core project (which it did and is about to kill it) etc Edit: I misjudged. It looks to me like the foundation is down to close to 5 months left at previous burn rates. As of Oct 1st 200,000 CHF
1,800 BTC
2,700,000 ETH The foundation’s monthly expenditures are currently ~410,000 CHF and starting Oct 1 are projected to fall to 340,000 CHF; a mid-term goal has been placed of 200,000 – 250,000 CHF |
|
|
|
The reason for LTC´s pumps were several MLM shemes originating in china and hong kong.
I'm not sure what you define as "pumps" - but litecoin has had a long standing #2 spot for three years now? The ride from $10 to $40 I have no doubt was an artificial pump but the daily transaction volume has always dwarfed everything outside of Bitcoin. My analysis was directed at this - not the ride to $30 and crash back down to only 4 - 5X whatever the current leading alt is. Imo, the bet you should be making is on block chain scaling. Bitshares seems complex and like a be all / end all for everything from stock trading, market place, multi level marketing scheme, etc. NXT and SuperNET seem to have at least some of these attributes that make me think they will never see widespread adoption. Even Ethereum seems focused compared to those projects. I also hate their names and hate PoS (although for scaling purposes with transaction times maybe it's a necessity?) I guess I should spend some time outside of the PoW fold ... |
|
|
|
|
I actually just had an idea outside of being paid outright or starting your own coin if you wanted to bootstrap off of Monero or another coin with rich bagholders. And it's something I would be willing to participate in.
Get Risto to act as an ESCROW and Smooth and others to review your white paper to see if they think it will add significant value / demand to Monero. Those interested in investing tie up their Moneroes in a predefined ESCROW with Risto for a set amount of time (six months?).
On the hard fork that releases your changes and the price of Monero doubles (hopefully in conjunction with GUI release etc) you get the difference between the value of Monero between the time the money went into ESCROW and the time it's sold. If I put 10,000 Moneroes in at .40 per Monero and your changes increase the value to .80 then I only get half of my Moneros back - you keep the rest. If your changes don't add value and value doesn't go up I keep all of my Moneros.
I'm not much into crypto but if devs thought it was a significant step beyond anything we have now I might be willing to take a small 50/50 bet. 50% in escrow for your paid for by innovation long position and 50% privately held by me.
|
|
|
|
|
Here is where we disagree on what made early adopters rich (which I believe at its core was about supply and demand ... Not innovation that kicked bitcoins ass)
Litecoin was successful because there was a "demand" for a bitcoin backup in case something went horribly wrong with the network and early adopters who had money wanted to diversify. In combination with this there was a demand to anonymize by obscurity (there is a reason why the biggest litecoin exchange is anonymous and requires no identity verification). I think this is a better method and more widely used than coin mixing services. For it to work it needed liquidity which early bitcoiners wanting to cash out brought to the table.
I disagree with the scrypt / decentralization as being much of an innovation. It failed when GPUs replaced CPUs and then again when ASICs replaced GPUs - litecoin failed to follow its decentralizion innovation very intentionally. And the wealth in litecoin did not move into what tried to carry on it's original intention (Scrypt-N / Vertcoin & X11 / Darkcoin)
The reason Darkcoin succeeded was due to the masternode method of tying up 50% of the coins and cutting down emissions to a fraction of what was originally planned to limit supply.
Dogecoin I agree had the most innovation with marketing.
But (correct me if I'm wrong) the marketplace is full of innovation that takes crypto well beyond Bitcoin. Monero / cryptonote wipes it's ass with anonomization and supporting a dynamic block size out of the gate (what Bitcoin has been fighting over for years). Cryptonite fixes the blockchain size / bandwidth issues. Ethereum provides a programmable blockchain and has much better transaction time and ongoing development than Bitcoin. I would argue the talent they've brought in from outside of altcoin world greatly exceeds bitcoins (and the same might be said for Monero). I do agree that scope creep and mismanagement is 90% likely to kill the project.
I guess my point is that the pattern of getting rich for early adopters has much less to do with innovation and market penetration (compare Monero and Darkcoin) than making sure supply is much lower than demand. The most successful projects judged by making early adopters money are the least innovative (Darkcoin vs Monero, Litecoin vs Vertcoin or Cryptonite, Dogecoin ... Maybe it doesn't have an equivalent etc.). Innovation is divorced from payoff in this space.
|
|
|
|
And most of all, remember the victors go to those who bet correctly, with the most discernment. The greatest gains for speculators on altcoins have come from the coins created by one or two guys, e.g. DogeCoin, Litecoin, BitsharesX. Maybe because creativity doesn't come from large teams, but rather from individuals. Perhaps you invested in Ethereum and Monero with their large teams and are sitting on 10 bagger gains? You are saying Dogecoin and Litecoin are more creative / innovative than Ethereum and Monero? Successful sustained projects, innovation, and early adopters getting rich are all three are completely different things and they don't have to go hand in hand. In crypospace I would say they have never gone hand in hand outside of bitcoin. The devs of Monero seem to be more interested in capitalizing on the first priority I mentioned at the expense of the latter two. Ethereum - on the second and third priority (although replace early adopters with "Foundation Members"). Dogecoin and Litecoin defiantly have primarily the third priority. If your primary motivation is raising $25,000 I would heavily suggest doing a presale and launching an imperfect coin. That's 100 bitcoins - way more has been raised for way less. If the first project dies (hell you can even plan on it dying and still be less of a scam than 90% of the projects around here), then integrate your tech into Monero or Darkcoin or whatever you perceive the leading privacy coin is with best chance at mass adoption. You get your health issue fixed, early adopters double their money dumping on the heads of noobs, you have the energy to move your tech into a legit project. I'm not interested in investing but I am interested in coming up with some type of solution that drives innovation forward. |
|
|
|
|
I've been gone for a long time - is Boolberry still part of Supernet?
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not pretending to know or have a solution because I don't ... But look at what happens to bitcoins price when we whisper about a fork to increase transactions. Value falls by 30%.
Or spam/stress test the network.
No other asset class depends on intentionally burning energy (money, electricity, whatever) to secure it. They depend on guns and laws. No other asset class has security bound together by who is willing to burn the most energy.
As much as I hate PoS I'm starting to think the cryptos that survive will be PoW that convert to PoS when the rewards get too low. Not like these fly by their seat 3 month PoW coins. But after years of PoW
|
|
|
|
This is something that will eventually crush the current economic model of crypto (IMO).
Say you have a blockchain with .05% emissions daily with a market cap of $5,000,000. You are paying a "tax" of 18% a year to blockchain security.
Fast forward 3 years and say you have a market cap of 100,000,000 with an emission rate of .01. You are paying a tax of 3.6% a year.
The financial incentive to attack a network to short a coin marches towards something that makes sense the older a coin grows. Where you should be paying more for security - you are paying multiple times LESS for security as your network grows. The incentive to attack (large network that is competition with someone else or that you want to short) grows while the % of rewards fall.
I don't really see where you can say that, for example, 3.6% is "not enough" security. How much would you want to pay? I'm pretty sure you can secure gold or other valuable assets quite safely for less than that. If 3.6% isn't enough, then crypto will fail simply because it is uncompetitive. I don't think you can really compare gold and crypto. For instance "securing" crypto is paid via dilution vs gold being an outright expense. Also an attacker for gold is just trying to get your stash - not crash the entire gold market. I agree with the differences at that level, but from the perspective of a holder, I don't see a difference. Why would I pay 3.6%+ when I could secure my wealth for less? Man there are so many reasons. Have you ever tried to cross borders with gold? Is there any chance that gold can allow frictionless transactions by all market players from criminal to mom and pop businesses outside corrupt government control? Wealth is simply things being more efficient than they were and humans reaping the benefit (often the wrong people reap the benefits but still the wealth was created) Crypto has the potential of making things more efficient . Gold is simply a limited supply that represents a store of value. I view them completely differently. Crypto may very likely wither and die (aweful store of wealth). Gold won't. Crypto may usher in a new economic era uncontrollable by powers that be. Gold can't. Gold is the currency that always has been. Crypto is the currency that might be. |
|
|
|
This is something that will eventually crush the current economic model of crypto (IMO).
Say you have a blockchain with .05% emissions daily with a market cap of $5,000,000. You are paying a "tax" of 18% a year to blockchain security.
Fast forward 3 years and say you have a market cap of 100,000,000 with an emission rate of .01. You are paying a tax of 3.6% a year.
The financial incentive to attack a network to short a coin marches towards something that makes sense the older a coin grows. Where you should be paying more for security - you are paying multiple times LESS for security as your network grows. The incentive to attack (large network that is competition with someone else or that you want to short) grows while the % of rewards fall.
I don't really see where you can say that, for example, 3.6% is "not enough" security. How much would you want to pay? I'm pretty sure you can secure gold or other valuable assets quite safely for less than that. If 3.6% isn't enough, then crypto will fail simply because it is uncompetitive. I don't think you can really compare gold and crypto. For instance "securing" crypto is paid via dilution vs gold being an outright expense. Also an attacker for gold is just trying to get your stash - not crash the entire gold market. I just see incentives running the opposite direction of where you'd want them to if securing the network was your primary goal. I think it's really a competition between driving adoption (get rich quick by getting in early) and security once a coin grows big enough. Maybe I'm wrong ... guess we'll know in 5 years  |
|
|
|
|
This is something that will eventually crush the current economic model of crypto (IMO).
Say you have a blockchain with .05% emissions daily with a market cap of $5,000,000. You are paying a "tax" of 18% a year to blockchain security.
Fast forward 3 years and say you have a market cap of 100,000,000 with an emission rate of .01. You are paying a tax of 3.6% a year.
The financial incentive to attack a network to short a coin marches towards something that makes sense the older a coin grows. Where you should be paying more for security - you are paying multiple times LESS for security as your network grows. The incentive to attack (large network that is competition with someone else or that you want to short) grows while the % of rewards fall.
|
|
|
|
|
Where to go to read development plans - just the announcement thread?
I might have a laptop I can throw at the hashpower ...
|
|
|
|
So what are we doing to actually make cryptocurrencies interesting to new people? So far everyone seems to insist we'll all be rich as soon as someone comes along and actually makes Bitcoin useful, very few people are actually trying to make it useful.
Quite frankly, I think the limited supply which forces early adopters to get rich if it's successful has created a crowd so aweful no one wants to deal with it. Back on topic. I followed Ethereum from the start and actually was able to recover some massive crypto losses that I should have never had in the market in a hail mary throw on the project. I STILL find it interesting and they have done a better job on most fronts than any other 2.0 coin. From marketing to people outside the crypto community to plotting out user friendly software (mining Ethereum is a dream compared to what litecoin ever was). I'm interested / excited to see where the project goes. But three massive failures. Transparency. Scope creep. Distribution. Tual left left when Vitalik payed out what he'd promised early adopters without consulting the foundation (and started a hissyfit publicly on reddit ... what kind of PR guy does that?) Frankly I liked Charles much better - his original vision of Ethereum was what made it interesting to me. If I'd seen it marketed as dApps in the beginning and then understood that marketing was on top of a virtual machine no more powerful than a smartphone for all users I would have rolled my eyes. This bringing a Chinese auto company with a 50mil angel fund for crypto 2.0 is no less than bizarre to me. A bank or any number of institutions I could understand but I read the history of the company. Maybe someone's rich kid who has an interest in crypto?= |
|
|
|
Fully agree. Please dont jump and get hyped about any coin, because of some strangers in the internet. Take time and do plant of research and, before you start trowing many on any coin.
I guess the main question I would have now is, where would I go to do a non biased research on the coin I want to look further into? It seems impossible to do this, especially with all of the information about cryptos being on the internet. What made you feel strongly about Monero in the first place? What makes you feel even more strongly about Monero now? I want to see for my self, but I would have no idea where to start. Two things that help with all of the bullshit ... 1. History. Look into the origin of a coin. 2. Followers. (IE Bobsurplus vs tacotime) |
|
|
|
|
Sorry for my laziness ... is ZeroCash actually doing something? Maybe I need to pay more attention.
Ah - early next year. Just did a little reading. Guess time will tell. If it was purely ZeroCash I would expect Darkcoin to get hit too.
|
|
|
|
|
Honestly polo is better in almost every way I can think of. I hope they do well ... outside of the overnight change to withdraw limits which was bad. They have exceptional service and innovation. Hope they are here for the long haul.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
