You can try this one: http://xmrtests.llcoins.net

It is a little bit noob-unfriendly in my opinion but if you follow the directions carefully it should work. I would try it with a small test amount first, then redo using the same steps for a real paper wallet.

Okay yes I remember that. It seemed at the time Bitshares was going through a lot of turmoil, which included seeking alternate sources of funding such as building custom systems for banks (not clear that they ever got any takers). I still don't know the details of it, but it seems that project model has not worked out very well ultimately, just as I said at the time. It appears that Dan sold his remaining coins at a much-reduced price and moved on, though it isn't entirely clear whether he may contribute to it in some manner in the future. All in all I can't see how that is called a great success of a project; you might disagree.

The Bitshares model was not replicated when Dan went and started his new project Steem, which to my mind means someone who knows a lot more about that model than I do also didn't think much of it. Now he's tried another (stealth-mine) model, which I also don't think has really worked out all that well either (though the jury is still out on that one objectively).

So maybe you have your own ideas how to launch a coin and make money. If you have new approaches, good for you. But I wouldn't try too hard to replicate the others. They're mostly failures.


That's exactly right, and I think I said so at the time. I even suggested that you take up on some offers that you had for paying work to get your personal finances in better shape (so you could at least afford to take a trip to a developed country for medical evaluation and potentially treatment).


Well if you think you can raise money without having developed anything at all on the basis of, for example, very questionable claims about members of the IOHK team being on their team or being advisors (which IOHK denied) and you think that isn't a scam, go for it. I don't think that path leads anywhere except putting some money into the organizers pockets, and maybe a token that can be pumped. I don't believe the $15 million number either, but I'd believe they did raise some.

That cross post is from another thread. I answered there.

No I don't. Anyone who has the cli wallet can create an account using the create_account command. It costs 10 coins (about $3) but as long as I don't get Sybil attacked that cost is not a concern for me at all. It is also possible for anyone to mine accounts without paying any coins, which I have also done for various people I know (from forum or otherwise). Those accounts are turned over for free if and when they want them.

Both mining and using the cli wallet/node requires a degree of technical skills (I think you have to compile it yourself, although it is possible there are Windows binaries somewhere), but once you have an account on the blockchain you can use the web site.


Because I think it is a useful site, and maybe it helps my personal reputation a bit to help people out (I got one or two positive trusts from it, though I never asked for any). Getting a free account from the site directly requires linking it to your Facebook account, which a lot of crypto people don't like or may not even have.

No I don't think it will improve liquidity. It would take far more than that (probably impossible).


OK, I mean when I'm busy with something else I barely comment. In fact I wouldn't even be writing this (or seen the thread) except that I was asked out-of-band by someone about it.

I have no problem with criticizing things I think are done poorly for whatever reason, and that includes Steem (as I just did in this thread, or maybe it was the other one).

If you think that community self-regulation is inappropriate when there is no other effective authority doing any regulation of abuses and scams, then we disagree. We also disagree on what it means to let things be wild and free, because pretty much all wild and free systems generally include some form of community self-regulation.

There is no 90% botnet. Period.

There was one actual botnet identified recently and the author of the report estimated the revenue as something up to $1000 per month, which if you work it out is a teeny tiny fraction of the hash rate. The larger the botnet the more likely it is to be detected and reported. 90% Monero botnets would be hundreds of thousands if not millions of computers. There is zero chance that exists in the wild without being detected and reported.

As far as I know that is what happened.

I saw the post on bitcointalk and like many new coins that I have mined I decided to mine it. I presume other people also saw that post.


I don't remember ever discussing Bitshares with you or anyone else. It seems unlikely because with one small exception I have always been entirely ignorant about Bitshares, something that even today puts me at a disadvantage in understanding Steem (since it is based closely on Bitshares). The exception is that I was pretty sure their original model of pegged assets was catastrophically unstable and would not work. They later added a price feed, which improved it somewhat.

It may be that I made some general remarks that could be interpreted as arguing against the success of Bitshares model, but I don't know.


The blog post was not made until several days after the Steem launch. I was already mining it.

I haven't read 100% of the posts on this thread (mostly just the first page) so I may have missed something. But the main question seems to be whether I endorse their launch strategy or anything else about it. The answer is mostly no, I just mined it, as a few said earlier in the thread.

The only thing I would endorse is that the web site itself doesn't seem half bad. It is a lot like reddit without the uncontrolled sock puppets. There have been some good crypto posts and discussion on there, and I was planning to mirror major Monero announcements on there so people could have another place to discuss if desired (but there haven't been any major Monero announcements recently so I haven't yet don't that)

If people want to try that (usually for free either by my bitcointalk account offer or their facebook/reddit offers), I see no harm in it. Does not require you to buy anything at all.

I'm not promoting it. I'm providing a service for people who want to try it by mostly giving away accounts (or charging a small anti-spam fee for sybil accounts). Whatever you think of the merits of the token and the whole incentive scheme, there do seem to be a large number of people who like using the web site.

I've never told anyone I though it was a good investment or even a good idea. I also never supported their stealth mining launch idea, in fact I think it is a flawed and ineffective business model for a variety of reasons not even necessarily having anything to do with the crypto token itself. I exploited it to my own advantage (their goal if you read his blog post was to minimize and discourage outside participation -- which is exactly the opposite of what I and a few others managed to do).

That said, there are a few good ideas contained within it (I think you would probably agree). You can't dismiss 100% of something just because it got some parts wrong.

My offer for bitcointalk users is another one: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1485403.0

I haven't deleted anything from my github, nor do I plan to start. In the non-immediate future things may change. Even github itself (a business if I'm not mistaken) may disappear. Who knows.

Correct. What is going on is change being sent back to the original sender. Just like any transaction it has to confirm to be fully received.

The javascript source has BSD license notices in it so should be considered explicit open source. The part that isn't open source is the back end server.

Exactly. I'm on bad internet so I didn't post links but if you click through the bitcoin.com link above they link to the wired article. You can see the above in context. I don't think there is any reasonable conclusion other than that the writer explicitly decided to remove Ver's name or was told to.

It's even a little bit worse than that. The original Wired article they quoted included Ver's name but they took it out of the quote.

bitcoin.com:


Wired:

I forked the coin and wallet repos. I couldn't easily fork the pool repo because I already have one with the same name. I don't know if there were actually any useful changes there or just his config files.

https://github.com/iamsmooth/bitcediwallet
https://github.com/iamsmooth/bitcedi

I have no intention of doing any development on this coin at the present time. I just forked it so it doesn't disappear.

We don't have exact figures but we think it will be reasonable close to the current situation. What happens is the added overhead from CT is offset by the reduced overhead from not needed to break up amounts into fixed denominations (123 = 100+20+3).


RingCT makes Monero more private. Not only are the amounts hidden better but the reduced number of inputs and outputs on typical transactions reduces other traceability issues (similar to Bitcoin where you can usually assume that all the inputs come from the same spender), and also improves the situation when it comes to output sizes that don't have a large set of outputs to mix from (outputs of size, for example, 8000 being much less common than 10).


Maybe? Hard to answer questions about something that doesn't exist yet.

I've been following and been a small part of that debate. I think I favor a sort of middle ground where there is a development branch and everything is accepted there and then maybe rolled back, but the master (production) branch is curated by the regular development team. So people outside of an active development process would never be exposed to the possibly-bad stuff, but inside development there is a permanent record of everything good and bad.

Monero also has had a development branch in the past and hopefully will have one in the future but some complications made that difficult for a while. It looks like that is in the process of being resolved.

First Steemit AMA starting in 6 minutes:

https://steemit.com/ama/@wmougayar/hi-im-william-mougayar-from-toronto-canada

LIBOR (trillion+ dollar market) was/is whale-manipulated. If anyone thinks that any of these little cryptos including Bitcoin but certainly any of the others that are 1+ orders of magnitude smaller than BTC aren't whale manipulated, you are delusional. If anything XMR is (a little) less whale-manipulated than most because it is probably better distributed.

Welcome to the real world.

Agree that XMR is not "hot" right now and is largely ignored, which will make it hard for any kind of rally to occur. It will likely experience continued low volatility and some price weakness (at least relative to BTC) until there is something to spark renewed market interest. All the focus is on Lisk, Eth, small cap players are looking at Sia, etc.

Not talking my book, FWIW. My XMR book hasn't changed significantly in many months.

There is nothing wrong with trading being concentrated in one place, that is actually the most efficient configuration. (Why did everyone gather under a particular buttonwood tree instead of each standing on his own street corner?)

The important question to consider is what would happen if Poloniex were to suddenly disappear tomorrow and probably the answer, in practice, is that there would be a lot more trading on Bittrex. If all regulated exchanges disappeared then I bet we would see a lot more p2p and bitsquare.io.

The availability of many different mechanisms despite people not being stupid and focusing on the most efficient one makes Monero trading very resilient.


Most of the time, none at all. Why does that matter?

Where can you buy 10K BTC without slippage? Where can you buy non-trivial amounts of anything at all without slippage?