Don't forget, cryptohunter, to add your friend smooth there in a list of scammers. He invests in what he belives is a scam and have no problems with making money with it  Damn right, I'll invest in anything that I think will go up in value and, when feasible, short anything I believe will go down in value. I've done both with Dash, Bytecoin, Factom, and a bunch other scams (haven't shorted Bytecoin). In no way is trading an endorsement. |
|
|
|
|
Steem has said they will be doing an airdrop in early July based on best content on their site. That suggests to me MVP will be operating for some time before that.
I was one of the people who mined STEEM both before and after the relaunch, so I'm somewhat familiar with it, but I will never shill for it because I do agree the launch was scammy. I have not followed Synereo, so it is hard for me to judge which will be first.
|
|
|
|
I'll start with this deleted post that was removed by one of their scam promoters claiming that Bitcoin is going "copy Vcash" by adding an adaptive blocksize. I pointed out that Monero (and previously Bytecoin) had such an adaptive blocksize almost a year before Vcash launched. A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave. You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations. Hey monero guy, how is the monero's blockchain bloat? Lol
Its adaptive blocksize that was launched in early 2014 is doing fine, thank you for asking. Enjoy this open, neutral forum for discussion of Vcash/Vanillacoin as my gift to you. Other resources from community members below. No endorsement implied. |
|
|
|
|
I agree there is nothing wrong with the sponsored node program they guy is running (for example, I've seen no evidence of getting multiple people to pay for the same node as was suggested), but let's get the discussion of it out of the speculation thread. Thanks.
|
|
|
|
Please tell me a cloud service for mining Monero AWS is fine if you're not paying for it. On an unrelated note, would it be possible to implement something similar to Claymore's new dual ETH/DCR miner, but replace ETH with XMR? What does that do? Mines ETH and DCR at the same time with supposedly very little hashrate loss compared to regular ETH miner. Apparently it's possible because ETH is memory hard algo and DCR is not, which I thought maybe possible to do here since I think cryptonight is also memory hard. I haven't tried yet because it's Windows only and my AMD cards are all on Linux boxes, plus been busy/traveling lately. Link here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1433925.0from my experience, you definitely can't mine XMR and ETH on the same card - I tried to do it using my nvidia 750 ti's. You can get both to fit on the card memory wise, but the xmr miner wins out over the eth miner (for whatever reason, maybe because cuda has higher priority than openCL). Not XMR and ETH, they're both memory hard, right? The idea was XMR and DCR. I don't know whether XMR is memory hard on GPUs or not. It was mostly designed for CPUs with AES hardware, which GPUs don't have, so the AES calculations require a fair bit of CPU. It makes sense that something like DCR with a small hash function certainly don't use memory, so you could add a memory-intensive task to the mix without slowing it down (much). My guess would that ETH and DCR are a better fit, but it might still be worth a try. |
|
|
|
|
Reminder that if you are using XMR as collateral you are exposed to risk in both assets. If your XMR collateral declines in value your short may be force closed even if the ETH side of the trade hasn't moved against you. This is less of an issue if you are significantly overcollateralized, but it is there.
|
|
|
|
Do we know if the pumper and the dumper were on margin?. One of the big buys was supposedly identified (by someone here) as being closing a short. |
|
|
|
Bitcoin's current protocol is thus headed to 0 spendable supply.
That means moon right? Awesomesauce. |
|
|
|
Key Priorities: ... Fraud
Common Internet Scams: .... Investment Fraud The wheels of justice grind slowly... |
|
|
|
Anyway, as I already explained, with Monero's tail reward it is mathematically provable that it converges to a finite supply with any rate of lost coins >0%.
That is the mathematical upper bound and presumes the tail reward is a not a percentage of the issued supply. The lower bound is potentially 0 supply if (or when if) the tail reward is less than the rate of lost coins. Yes that is the case for Monero. |
|
|
|
...
everyone know the infinite perpetual coin minting in monero will keep the coin crashing down becasue it will dilute the intrinsic value, everyone will sell at lower price until they all jump ship with fork and embrace "classic monero" or somethin
EDIT :: inflation is a theory backed by math
Monero's tail inflation rate is less that the historical inflation rate of gold, the Austrian "gold standard" for money. It will also reach an end state of a fixed money supply assuming any rate of lost coins >0% Aren't there other solutions to this problem? I wonder what S. Nakamoto had in mind for Bitcoin. Something genius good no doubt... Another solution would be expire outputs after some period of inactivity (presumably a reasonably long period) and then when they expire (which lost/burned coins certainly would), recycle that to new mining rewards. That would be similar in effect to Monero, though the mining rewards might be more uneven. There is no evidence Satoshi ever considered this approach. It would likely be viewed by many as a violation of the social contract at this point. Bitcoin money supply will definitely shrink if any coins are lost or burned (which they certainly will and already have, of course). Whether that is a problem is a reasonable matter of debate, but the Monero solution shows that it isn't necessary. You can have a fixed money supply over the long term even accounting for lost coins. But surely with an infinite number of coins you cannot have scarcity. No-one knows how many coins is too many. Where's the tipping point? Surely? Like you know any of these things for sure? I'm doubting it. Anyway, as I already explained, with Monero's tail reward it is mathematically provable that it converges to a finite supply with any rate of lost coins >0%. Do you think a rate of lost coins of literally 0% is plausible? I sure don't. |
|
|
|
Please tell me a cloud service for mining Monero AWS is fine if you're not paying for it. On an unrelated note, would it be possible to implement something similar to Claymore's new dual ETH/DCR miner, but replace ETH with XMR? What does that do? |
|
|
|
...
everyone know the infinite perpetual coin minting in monero will keep the coin crashing down becasue it will dilute the intrinsic value, everyone will sell at lower price until they all jump ship with fork and embrace "classic monero" or somethin
EDIT :: inflation is a theory backed by math
Monero's tail inflation rate is less that the historical inflation rate of gold, the Austrian "gold standard" for money. It will also reach an end state of a fixed money supply assuming any rate of lost coins >0% Aren't there other solutions to this problem? I wonder what S. Nakamoto had in mind for Bitcoin. Something genius good no doubt... Another solution would be expire outputs after some period of inactivity (presumably a reasonably long period) and then when they expire (which lost/burned coins certainly would), recycle that to new mining rewards. That would be similar in effect to Monero, though the mining rewards might be more uneven. There is no evidence Satoshi ever considered this approach. It would likely be viewed by many as a violation of the social contract at this point. Bitcoin money supply will definitely shrink if any coins are lost or burned (which they certainly will and already have, of course). Whether that is a problem is a reasonable matter of debate, but the Monero solution shows that it isn't necessary. You can have a fixed money supply over the long term even accounting for lost coins. |
|
|
|
...
everyone know the infinite perpetual coin minting in monero will keep the coin crashing down becasue it will dilute the intrinsic value, everyone will sell at lower price until they all jump ship with fork and embrace "classic monero" or somethin
EDIT :: inflation is a theory backed by math
Monero's tail inflation rate is less that the historical inflation rate of gold, the Austrian "gold standard" for money. It will also reach an end state of a fixed money supply assuming any rate of lost coins >0% |
|
|
|
now have a problem on their hands sifting through all the proposals
LOL, yeah, you offer an opportunity to sign up to be paid money (often to shill Dash as in Daily Decrypt, Michael Terpin, and Juan S. Galt; who else?) and you're surprised that people are all over it. |
|
|
|
but no one outside of your little fan club and shilling society who is or becomes fully informed is buying it or ever going to buy it. LoL ! Oh yes they are because otherwise you'd not be spending every other hour frantically monitoring these threads posting the same old crap you've been doing for the last year and a half. There is no evidence anything I've written has been effective nor that it has been ineffective. In reality, I enjoy calling out bullshit when I see it, so that's its own reward, and oh boy does Dash provide me with ample rewards. |
|
|
|
Lets see, the instamine flack didn't work so lets say it's about rewarding fat cats...
The two are really one and the same. The coin has operated to reward founders and extreme early adopters from day one and every decision, action or "accident" since then * has support this. * Including (but probably not limited to): 1. Misleading launch time statement, followed by early launch (insiders knew to be ready anyway) 2. Evan announces serious error after the launch (insiders could easily have gotten the fix earlier, giving an advantage of hundreds of thousands of coins; Evan certainly did have it before he released it) 3. Multiple bugs all cause too many coins to be created too fast; none cause too few coins to be created to slowly. 4. Evan announces instaminers get to keep not only high number of block rewards, but the erroneously-extra coins too 5. Total supply and mining rewards cut (retroactively increasing the instamine) 6. Masternode scheme with extremely high rewards paid to people who already own coins (and further cut to mining rewards, again retroactively increasing the instamine) 7. High minimum masternode coin requirement means small holders are left out entirely and medium holders can't earn compound interest like large holders can. 8. Voting scheme set up according to Evan, "by design" so that founders lose complete control only "eventually" (in reality it doesn't even do that) You can claim that is all coincidence, accidents, or an unintentional consequence of some other decision, but no one outside of your little fan club and shilling society who is or becomes fully informed is buying it or ever going to buy it. |
|
|
|
Kano, you're being a bit of a jerk here: Luck is luck, and you know the numbers: Your pool has a .9% fee, therefore someone mining there will make .9% less than mining on P2pool. (edit: mining p2pool without a fee. p2pool ops can charge fees)
That assumes they are equally efficient. Efficiencies can sneak in on both sides so it is hard to say really. Agree that luck is luck. IMO the luck on p2pool is marginally acceptable even at the current hash rate for people who aren't impatient cry babies, but its getting close to the point where it isn't really viable unfortunately. |
|
|
|
so whats stopping them?
In my opinion there is a bootstrapping process that has to proceed at some natural pace. For example, on the investor side, no one playing with billions of dollars can get involved with Monero at all right now. We can only potentially appeal to slightly larger investors, whose participation would expand the market cap and liquidity, making it potentially accessible to the next step of investors, and so on. It takes time and development effort on many fronts. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
