Please be specific about which "hyperbolic statements" because this seems like a very questionable statement. There certainly is a lot of evidence for various things related to the Dash instamine, subsequent actions taken which magnify the effect of the instamine, and about the poor level of Dash's cryptography and design.

Nevertheless "hyperbolic statements" is vague so I can't say you are certainly lying.

That's a fair conclusion here

There are some potential future issues but it is hardly REKT, for now at least.

In terms of quantum-resistance we have bigger problems to worry about (and so does Zcash)

Nice work on the quick merge.

Does double clicking a jar file work on Windows?

Maybe he needs to do "java -jar jarfile" in a command window?

Oh sure, I can't disagree when you state that you have defined requirements, done a diligent search and come up empty. (The above was mostly a response to AlexGR comments anyway.)

Now you just have to make a sound business case for building it, or if you can't do that then iterate your requirements.


Okay we mostly agree. The question is not only resources but also time to market (i.e. will the market wait?). This is not meant to suggest an answer.

It is not possible to you that Vitalik could be completely wrong? WTFF?!

Make whatever arguments you make but "Vitalik said so" er, ain't one.


There is definitely real fintech being done with Bitcoin (also some with ETH). A lot of it is startups trying to build something valuable while limiting competition so they tend to keep a lower profile than all these 'blockchain' efforts which have little substance and tend to be intentionally-conspicuous and loud vehicles for advocacy and fundraising.

This BTW, is another reason that ICOs are bullshit. If you want to build something with sustainable competitive advantage you need a degree of secrecy, at least for a time. That is incompatible with ICOs as a funding model for development, since those have to be as loud and visible as possible to attract many small investors, and also can't really be keep anything of substance secret without compromising disclosure, reducing the effectiveness of the sales pitch, or both. Real startups do this by raising money, initially, privately from a small number sophisticated investors.

Anyway, that's largely off topic for this thread. I'm still curious as to kushti's answers to my questions though:

These are constructed systems. It is almost certainly possible to construct systems that have stronger or weaker economies of scale, or those with smaller or larger natural limits, just as such variety exists in natural systems.

So I agree with both of you in that economies of scale and cartels are part of a freer market but not all such such markets will behave the same.

Proof?

Conflict of interest applies when one has a fiduciary duty. It does not apply here. If Coke found out that Pepsi were using baby parts in its formula, damn right they should speak up!

Journalistically and academically it is ethical to disclose any potentially conflicting affiliations. As if anyone doesn't know I'm part of the Monero core team by now ROFL.

Scrypt is not memory bound on GPUs. That is precisely the problem. Using the lookup gap technique it became possible for scrypt's (reduced) scratchpad to fit in local memory and not require scratchpad access on every iteration, so it becomes highly parallel and somewhat CPU bound.

Allegedly the equihash algorithm is provably resistant to such tricks. Still, it does have a compute component, and that could potentially be made more power efficient. Possibly the memory access pattern could also be exploited, since it is (I think) not necessarily random like with a cryptographic scratchpad-type algorithm.

The only "lack of Ethic" would be to see a bad distribution, a highly suspicious (at best) instamine, and bad crypto and not speak up. No thank you.

The usual standard of what passes for ethics in the altcoin sea of sleaze is virtually nonexistent but that doesn't and won't infect everyone.

"Exactly the same". I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

I thought Arux had posted some info on which repo to use and some tips for setting it up, but I looked at his post history briefly and I couldn't find it.

Arux, do you have a guide for setting up an AEON pool?

It is not because it still has mining. A small, even tiny, amount (block rewards are now <1/2% compared to the instamine), but it does have some.

It probably behaves much like a closed system, because the only permissionless link to the outside is a long, very narrow, winding path, but this is subjective of course.

Interesting post.


Certainly brings ETH to mind. XMR? Probably not, but we do have some high volume days too.

AEON was launched by some other anonymous dev, along with a large number (dozen or more) of other cryptonote clone coins launched around that time. I don't know his intent in doing so (nor the others).

I mentioned it because I'm maintaining it (most of the others are unmaintained now) and it also happens to be the one that is closest to Monero without other fundamental changes such as variable rewards, merged mining, etc. and finally was launched after the miner fixes.

Considering that he's responsible for a large portion of what you are likely calling troll posts, and he probably knows that he isn't being paid, then yes, he does. I would say the same.

tldr. You're full of shit.

I just explained to you that no group cloned anything. One guy cloned it, with the stated purpose of changing some parameters and relaunching, and he was later "fired" by the community.


This isn't even true really. No one knew it was "scam code". Bytecoin had a very fast emissions (twice as fast as Monero) and had already been 80% mined. It was claimed that it was launched two years earlier but not in public. Some of us believed it, some didn't (I mostly didn't), but it didn't matter because enough people just wanted to relaunch it regardless. Not much if anything was known about the extent of the Bytecoin scam at that point (until this post four months later).

So no, nobody KNEW it was scam code.

Nobody claimed it was anything but a relaunch of Bytecoin.

No one promised to review or improve the code.

No one was misled.

If it really bothers you, still, go right ahead and relaunch Monero. It was already done as AEON, BTW. That launched after the miner fixes. Maybe you would prefer to support the AEON project. You're welcome if you can manage to stop lying.

That's not what happened. Monero didn't exist. Some shady guy cloned it, to create Bitmonero. Then the shady guy starting making shady changes and broke it. The community had a meeting and tacotime decided to fork the repo using the shortened name Monero so there would be a stable source base that shady guy couldn't mess with any more (he could still push changes, and was invited to do so, but they would have to go through public review like anyone else). Later, it was decide to organize as a team and engage in further development.

Your whole narrative, while not backed by any evidence, also collapses on the basis of logic because it would make no sense for someone trying to "intentionally" exploit a crippled miner to voluntarily publicly release not one but three improvements to the miner within a short period of a few weeks. If the Monero developers wanted to exploit it they would have either released nothing or released just the first fix (which was sufficient to address the issue as far as was known at the time) and then gone and secretly mined away for months and months.

^ Look carefully. Do you see any evidence of intent?

Wrong. No one represented that it had been checked, nor promised to do so. The reasons for the forking of the repo were clearly stated at the time, and they did not include anyone stepping up to volunteer to do code reviews. There weren't even any real developers, until later, when the group organized to do so.  No one was misled in any way at any point in the process.