The scam changes because facts on the ground change. In addition to new disclosures about past events, there are new instances of active scamming. For example, the Dash thread used to merely claim "NO PREMINE" which while a half-truth, arguably might be not outright false. Now it has been edited and also claims "fairly and transparently launched" which is clear falsehood. Likewise, the "Darkcoin FAQ" making unsupportable statements such the instamine coins being distributed by the market used to be a community document but is now an "Official Communication", again upping the ante on misleading investors.

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"

I doubt miners will abandon ship, unless there is a price drop first. The argument that much of the mining is recent-gen ASICs that are mining at <0.5 BTC variable costs per BTC is reasonable.

I do think there is a high risk that many speculators and long-term holders who listen to people like r0ach and are waiting for the halving pump to cash out will all still cash out when it doesn't happen, leading to a bloodbath (which may in turn destroy the hash rate).

Don't worry windjc is back.

The runners up are illustrative

#2 developer of saffroncoin
#3 developer of stealthcoin
#4 developer of magi
#5 developer of vericoin

It doesn't get any better from there.

Dash is continuing to mislead investors in its official ANN OP:

Bitpay's proposal has no miner penalty on block size increases. It's problematic to do that in Bitcoin since the block reward is going away, but they didn't even try.

If you aren't interested in two years ago you might be interested in current misleading, incomplete, and deceptive statements still being used to scam investors:

For example, the current ANN says:


LOL.

Isn't an easy solution to too much p2pool participation just to have multiple separate p2pools? I think there are some alts where p2pool got really popular which have done that.

The game theory on this works quite nicely in fact, since being on a p2pool that is too small or too big are both undesirable, so miners will tend to spread out.

Of course, the current problem is too little participation, not too much.

Sounds like some better project management tools are needed

@TPTB_need_war

I'm not sure if I agree (by which I do not mean that I necessarily disagree) about the uselessness of (many) posts on this thread.

As you said, providing liquidity is a useful activity, and empirically Monero has had relatively high volume and relatively good liquidity (by which I mean strong order books) for most of its lifetime. Contrast that with coins that may have high volume during pumps, but turn into are ghost towns with pathetic order books the rest of the time.

This thread also happens to be the most popular alt discussion thread on the entire forum by a wide margin. Is that a coincidence, or is having a good, active venue where traders and long- and short-term speculators can communicate (sometimes seriously, sometimes more socially, sometimes ignorantly, sometimes informatively, sometimes manipulatively) part of what contributes to that liquidity?

I'm not sure it is really possible to separate out the factors that have made Monero as successful as it is.

It's certainly not for everyone though. If I were forced to consistently read the BTC wall observer thread, suicide would become an attractive alternative.

Yes and then the general public speculator spigot will open some and the price will rise on general public money until some other shiny object appears, but none of that will do much to give people a reason to use it. Some of the speculators probably won't even use it this time, since they will be buying ETFs, etc.

We don't disagree. I'm just rounding 0.01% of the population down to "nobody" for simplicity. Okay, as originally stated by me above, we disagree by about 0.01%. Fine.

0.01% for Bitcoin makes going "beyond Bitcoin" (the title of this thread) rather silly, unless you are the Larimers and looking for more hype to sell to investors and keep getting paid for another year or two.

Off by a factor of 10 here, but that doesn't change your core argument.

That's not going far enough.

Nobody wants to use any of this shit, Bitcoin included. Stores that accept Bitcoin usually do so via payment processors and auto-dump it. Accepting Bitcoin via payment processors is like an affiliate program for them; they don't care about the currency at all, it is just about traffic.

It just all doesn't serve any purpose that any sane mainstream person would care about, outside of a SHTF scenario. So until then the whole crypto phenomenon is a waiting game (which makes long term HODLing sane as speculation, but you don't need most altcoin features for that).

Trying design after design in a futile effort to chase "adoption" is churning investors to pay developer salaries. Bitshares investors are among the biggest suckers, since they paid (and I guess continue to pay, although I don't follow it closely) the Larimers to develop something which serves little to no purpose as decentralized crypto but can now be used as a vehicle to be paid again by banks for "blockchain".

Did you see me disagree?

Incriminating or not, at best it is obviously all double-talk, half truths, and speculation presented as fact. That alone is enough to make any sane person want to stay the fuck away.

I'm doubting that such a fix even happened. I've seen no evidence of it.

The fix I see was one to correct the extra coin rewards. That was announced roughly 17 hours after launch, with the fix to go into effect about 1 1/2 days after launch (ending the instamine):


There was an earlier fix for a "critical bug" about one hour after launch but I've never worked out exactly what it was that changed. I don't think it was related to difficulty or block rewards:


So as far as I can tell the claimed difficulty adjustment fix from the above so called Instamine Clarification "official statement" never happened.

In my opinion the real problem is that nobody wants this shit, and for the narrow market of people that do want it, Bitcoin is good enough. Therefore Bitcoin gets 99% of the adoption and the rest, whether bickering or productive collaboration, more or less gets nowhere.

There's also a lot of low-attention-span going on, where everyone wants their favorite consensus system (including Bitcoin) to take off like a rocket, and when it doesn't the reaction (Larimer's in particular) is to assume that something must be wrong with it and some other variation is needed. When in reality we are in the middle of a blizzard and it makes no damn difference what flavor your ice cream happens to be, because no one wants any ice cream right now.

This is of course the "assume good faith" model. In the bad faith model, the parade of "improved" systems are more a mechanism to churn investors to keep funds flowing to the developers, like some sort of sick penny stock boiler room.