No all i see is 5 hours of work done a week so monero GUI will be released 30 weeks from now
That is not what the proposal states. |
|
|
|
so with the stardard interest do you only get 5% apr ...... and with the term you get the bonus interest 1000% +
No. You get the standard interest (about 5%) no matter what. You also get the bonus interest no matter what, which is well over 5% now and continues until it runs out gradually over about two years. You also get the term bonus if you lock for a term. Your coins need to be moved every 30 days to keep earning interest, but not if they are locked for a term. also want to confirm the max compounding rate is 30 days ? so it is best to keep making 30 day term then lock it away for a No it is not. The maximum term bonus is for one year. Read the OP. |
|
|
|
Let me tell u the real problem with XMR.
its the devs, they dont work hard enough to make this wonderful coin succeed im waiting for 2 years for an GUI wallet not that i cant run a simplewallet !!!
its about adoption we need a GUI to go mainstream but the devs are taking it easy lets wait another year or maybe 3 years fk it im out for now
You should donate 1/2 of your holdings to the dev fund, that might speed things up. That's pretty silly. The GUI work is already funded, and it is under way. If someone thinks that mainstream adoption is right around the corner and the only thing holding it back is the GUI not being finished, and therefore "fuck it I'm out", I'm without words. Why sell an amazing coin?
fk it im out for now
Yes, this is normally what happens when there is a big pump. We get some fair weather friends, the pump stalls or reverses a bit and they're gone as fast as they arrived. It's all good. |
|
|
|
Now, what happens when we apply to Bitcoinocracy's coin voting the extrapolation logic used by Classic supporters when they asked demanded slush split his entire pool's block voting according to the expressed preferences of the can-bother-to-vote subset?  A lot of politics is what happens, not limited to this particular manifestation of course. |
|
|
|
It makes you wonder if BTT "does not matter" why they are here at all. Or does BTT not matter only when people say things on BTT they don't like?
For Iota BTT doesn't matter. For me everyone of you matters. Partially because I like to troll back to improve my English, partially because I'm a soft-hearted person with developed empathy skill and I care about your well-being. Confess, when I reply to your posts you do feel yourself less useless, don't you? No Your English, by the way, is quite good, but I haven't noticed any improvement. |
|
|
|
Potential Bitcoin owners are not "users of the network" (unless we broaden the definition to include everyone). Sure they are, or at least can be. Immediately prior to acquiring their first coins they have launched and wallet and synced it, possibly synced up their own economically-independent full node if they want to have maximum confidence the coins they are about to acquire are actually real. Other users who may not own coins or whose influence is not measured in coins owned include those with a large flow-through (services highly valued by their use, with such use not measured well by the coin ownership of their operator). Economic influence is a much more general and complicated topic (everybody drink when the phrase "intrinsic value" is used  ). And yet, this general and complicated topic is what actually decides which software runs the network. Coin voting means nothing, other than yet another way to spin politics. "Are" != "can be" (OK, notwithstanding the tiny transient edge case of new user bootstrapping) It's more than that. If you are about to acquire coins (and therefore economically significant) then you must have some access to the network. If not, then it isn't possible for you acquire coins! "A large flow-through" would seem to imply coin ownership or at least possession/custody (however temporary). Yes, but the amount of ownership may be small, or even in some cases nonexistant. An example of the latter would be joinmarket, an important and valued service that never takes ownership of coins. Coin voting means something, as does block voting via version bits and whatnot. Blowing off the resoundingly pro-Core/anti-Classic results on Bitcoinacracy is yet another way to spin politics.
These are all indicators of something sure, but they don't determine what software runs the network, any more than node count does. Even the latter indicates something, if something of vastly overstated importance by some in this debate. |
|
|
|
I measure presence or absence in the dev community via merit, demonstrated roughly by lines of code contributed and/or other analogous accomplishments.
The devs writing and voluntarily taking on responsibility for fixing the code when it breaks get to decide what goes into that code, and when.
That is true, but it is users of the network who decide which code to use. Thus far there has been no real momentum by users toward changing vendors, but if there were, number of commits by developers of a single vendor's implementation would not make any difference. It's not the number of commits that matters, it's the merit demonstrated by their utility that matters. I'm not sure how I could have made that any more clear. I guess "number of commits" is just a trigger for some people, no matter how many layers of disclaimers its embedded context. I don't care how many extra commits Hearn and Toomin added to XT and Classic, because they were all BS like checkpoints and blacklists. OTOH, LN and SEGWIT are high on my DO WANT list. You have an influence, yes. So what is on your DO WANT list, matters, but you are only one among many. And merit certainly has a role in influence, though people can disagree on what constitutes merit. The users of the network are those who own coins. Not entirely. Economic influence is more complicated than that. For example, value depends entirely on willingness to accept (aka buy) coins, whether the person buying already happens to own coins or not. Potential Bitcoin owners are not "users of the network" (unless we broaden the definition to include everyone). Sure they are, or at least can be. Immediately prior to acquiring their first coins they have launched and wallet and synced it, possibly synced up their own economically-independent full node if they want to have maximum confidence the coins they are about to acquire are actually real. Other users who may not own coins or whose influence is not measured in coins owned include those with a large flow-through (services highly valued by their use, with such use not measured well by the coin ownership of their operator). Economic influence is a much more general and complicated topic (everybody drink when the phrase "intrinsic value" is used ). And yet, this general and complicated topic is what actually decides which software runs the network. Coin voting means nothing, other than yet another way to spin politics. Certainly I agree this has nothing to do with node count. |
|
|
|
All ico should post usernames of investors really.
Usernames? LOL. no. ICOs as they are currently understood are just unsalvageable in terms of non-transparency and susceptibility to abuse. All you accomplish with such easily-abused measures is to put a shinier veneer of legitimacy on them. |
|
|
|
I measure presence or absence in the dev community via merit, demonstrated roughly by lines of code contributed and/or other analogous accomplishments.
The devs writing and voluntarily taking on responsibility for fixing the code when it breaks get to decide what goes into that code, and when.
That is true, but it is users of the network who decide which code to use. Thus far there has been no real momentum by users toward changing vendors, but if there were, number of commits by developers of a single vendor's implementation would not make any difference. It's not the number of commits that matters, it's the merit demonstrated by their utility that matters. I'm not sure how I could have made that any more clear. I guess "number of commits" is just a trigger for some people, no matter how many layers of disclaimers its embedded context. I don't care how many extra commits Hearn and Toomin added to XT and Classic, because they were all BS like checkpoints and blacklists. OTOH, LN and SEGWIT are high on my DO WANT list. You have an influence, yes. So what is on your DO WANT list, matters, but you are only one among many. And merit certainly has a role in influence, though people can disagree on what constitutes merit. The users of the network are those who own coins. Not entirely. Economic influence is more complicated than that. For example, value depends entirely on willingness to accept (aka buy) coins, whether the person buying already happens to own coins or not. |
|
|
|
The smartest speculators will recognize the fallacy that will haunt the space, namely: A coin can easily be replaced with a little improvement in technology with no ill effects on the economy.
The key question is what constitutes "a little" improvement. Even something like LTC could be major improvement, in theory. You can't measure qualitative improvements in terms of number of lines of code changes. If scrypt really were a much better and nearly optimal PoW algorithm and 2.5 minutes a much better and nearly optimal block time and coblee a much better and nearly optimal community founder/leader, and 2011 a much better and nearly optimal time to launch a cryptocurrency, then BTC could indeed have been replaced by LTC, yet BTC could not have been replaced by anything, becase at least on these metrics, it would be nearly optimal, rendering further major improvements impossible and the fallacy is no longer a fallacy. |
|
|
|
I did not receive payment for this one yet.
Playing stupid won't add credibility to your posts. You accept the bet or I add this thread into favorites and remind it every time I meet you in threads to show that your words are worth nothing. You have 24 hours to save your face. Well, after you said of tptb's thread that BTT does not matter and you will find others to sell iota to who are unaware of the sock puppet ICO ...then I guess whatever you show people on here will not hold much influence. It makes you wonder if BTT "does not matter" why they are here at all. Or does BTT not matter only when people say things on BTT they don't like? |
|
|
|
The devs writing and voluntarily taking on responsibility for fixing the code when it breaks get to decide what goes into that code, and when.
That is true, but it is users of the network who decide which code to use. Thus far there has been no real momentum by users toward changing vendors, but if there were, number of commits by developers of a single vendor's implementation would not make any difference. |
|
|
|
What is your estimate of how many users I looked at to find those 10?
In the list of users sorted by the date of registration? The same order of magnitude. Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias and you'll get why your sampling was incorrect. The sampling was not incorrect for what it was intended to accomplish. I looked at users active in promoting or expressing interest in IOTA to see if their backgrounds have surprising commonality. Answer: I looked at 11 such accounts. The second or third I looked at was not an obvious hit, so I excluded it, but arguably it too could be included. They are all extremely similar relative to the population of currently-active forum users, and not just in terms of registration date, though certainly that. Conclusion: The users expressing interest in IOTA are predominantly at best a narrow group with an unusually common background and forum activity history, and at worst a cheaply assembled group of sock puppets. |
|
|
|
I looked at those dates, they cover 2 months period which is 1/6 of a year. Both, Nxt and Iota, are innovative projects, so it's not surprising that they attract people. Common sense says that finding 10 users that registered within 2 months and got attracted by Nxt and Iota is not so improbable as you want to say.
What is your estimate of how many users I looked at to find those 10? |
|
|
|
Yes, but Azure is only adding the coins that were build from scratch.
Not the clones.
ROFL no. Read the OP. TLDR: "All the altcoins saying that Microsoft is partnering with them are being disingenuous". Most likely scams in some form. Stay away. Take special note of the coins that post in this forum hyping Azure and using a self-moderating thread so they can't be called out for their bullshit. "apply, fill out the forms correctly, and you're in." |
|
|
|
How many of the IOTA pumpers are new sock puppet accounts
Why does a bomb always land in the epicenter of the blast? Once you find a answer on the above you'll get that new accounts will be inevitably created if people outside of BTT take part in a sale or hear about a project post-sale. You selectively quoted changing the meaning and leaving out context, and then did not respond to my original question. The original quote was: How many of the IOTA pumpers are new sock puppet accounts or >1 year dormant accounts that were likely purchased or left over from some previous organized pumping effort?
The answer to that question is a number or a fraction. You obviously prefer not to give one, so you instead throw out another question. Maybe someone will look into this more closely. I know if I were considering investing in IOTA buying IOTA software, I would want to know as much as I could. |
|
|
|
I don't have time to write up a detailed study. I made an observation and asked a question. Perhaps someone else would like to look more carefully.
It's only you and me who cares about this and I'm too lazy for this, so... Yet, you stated that the data were incorrectly sampled and focused on a particular subset. I'm wondering how you know that. For that matter, I'm also curious how you know what other people care about. |
|
|
|
Until a company like SABR.io posts a detailed mega-file of hundreds of darknet user's recent activities as proof of concept. Using a public ledger for a DNM is about one of the most absurd things ever when a vastly superior alternative exists.
This is indeed strange and unreasonable. They simply dont adopt. Why?! Chicken and egg to some extent. Monero is small and relatively unknown for another. Okay, its pumped a bit, and is now a reasonably solid #8 by market cap (not the only ranking of course). By "pumped a bit", I assume you mean some individual or group intentionally inflated the price temporarily. Do you have any thoughts about who has been pumping it, how much the price (and volume) has been pumped, and how those amounts compare (in %) for other coins on Poloniex (such as ETH)? I don't have any inside information, and I think much of the pumping had nothing to do with Monero specifically but was across a group of alts, somewhat including ETH, but much of the moves of the others came after the big ETH move. |
|
|
|
Does anyone else find it curious that nearly all the accounts posting in support of IOTA and that expressed interest on the IOTA crowdsale thread were created at the same time, shortly after the Nxt launch, and many of them show the same long period of inactivity from 2014 until IOTA ?
It's spotlight fallacy combined with incorrectly sampled data. And you know this how? Add the names to the list, please, otherwise we can't verify your data.
I don't have time to write up a detailed study. I made an observation and asked a question. Perhaps someone else would like to look more carefully. |
|
|
|
All alts are going to get slaughtered during the BTC halving pump.
What is your view on what it will mean for BTC and alts if there is no (big) halving pump? However unlikely that might be, please consider the hypothetical. I'm interested in your view. EDIT: typo |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
