The value of Dash derives purely from speculation. Yes the masternodes produce income but it is essentially all in the form of new coins paid for locking your coins into a masternode (i.e. staking interest). The income is not from revenue paid to provide a service, it is just redistributing coins within the system.

If you have something that provides a service people actually want and pay for, the valuation model would be completely different.

Selling ICO coins in "presale" where the code isn't fully developed and the ICO funds are allegedly going to be used to pay for development, and where the buyers reasonably expect to make a profit on the ICO once the coin launches (assuming all goes well), is very clearly going to fall within the scope of securities law. Anyone who denies this is delusional.

Dumping or not dumping is completely irrelevant.

As you get farther away from this pattern, the conclusions may (or may not) differ, but the fact that some very high profile projects have done this and gotten away with it (so far) does not change that as a starting point it falls squarely within the scope of securities law.

Economic reality, as you said. If you really give away the coins and the money really doesn't flow into your pocket, that's one thing. If you "give away the coins" and then next day you happen to mysteriously discover funds to buy a Lambo, that's something else. Much better chance to end up in the slammer in the latter case (though both may still be small risks in an absolute sense, or not).

If you want 100% guarantees, too damn bad. They don't exist. You could do absolutely nothing having to do with coins/investments/securities and the next day you could be out jogging instead of inside coding and get hit in the head by a meteorite and killed.  Everything in life is deciding which risks to take, and even then accepting that much is unknowable and uncontrollable.

That's a neat trick, shifting the mixing time from the sender to the recipient. When you receive coins, you now have to mix them which means you haven't really received them for X amount of time.

The other thing that is going on that makes Darksend even remotely usable is "liquidity providers" which is paying people to Sybil attack the system. That's even worse than trusting masternodes.

BU nodes do not accept the longest chain if it disagrees with their idea of validity (e.g. block size), until that longest chain is a sufficient number of blocks ahead. This creates forks that will persist for up to an hour or even longer, and can be used for attacks. Many merchant systems currently use 1-3 confirms on Bitcoin and will either have to change that to a higher number or be easily attacked.

If you look at the amount of actual discussion going on the difference in community interest is very obvious.

Subscriber counts, etc. that's all shilled bullshit (on every coin). But actual content is harder to fake.

At least using an old version to see if it will open the wallet at all seems like a good first step.

75 H/s is not bad at all. I typical desktop will be something like 100-250 depending on CPU.


That just shows a count of incoming and outgoing connections, so if you don't have an open port you will always see "__+0". You can still send data to the other nodes. As long as you stay connected and your top block (try "diff" command) matches what you see on chain explorers such as moneroblocks.info, everything is working fine.

You are a absolutely a full node.

No question that 12 H/s is very low, but every bit helps. But if your computer is horribly inefficient (e.g. no AESNI) then I wouldn't really encourage it, because it is just wasteful. Better that you help support Monero in other ways.


Even that you can do, if the other node opens its port and yours connects to it. Once the connection is established it works the same regardless of who had the open port.

First of all, if you are talking about criminal culpability in a theoretical sense, you don't need to prove anything, the prosecution does. In a practical sense it might help to use KYC-type procedures, have low-barrier methods to receiving free coins without limiting that to only a portion of the distribution, keep good records, etc. Or maybe it is impossible, I don't know.

It certainly isn't the case that every ICO has to be of the form "hey anonymous investorsoh-sorry-I-meant-users, send your BTC to this address and we'll send you some coins, and remember this investmenttoken is not an investment".


I was responding specifically to the OP's statement here about giving away 100% of the coins. If you don't give away the coins but instead sell them (or do anything else like pretend to give them away while actually keeping them or giving them to privileged affiliated parties) you are likely taking a bigger risk.

I doubt distributing 100% at no cost is a problem.

What I suspect will never escape some degree of capability is selling ICO coins. No matter how many times and how many different ways you claim "it isn't an investment" we all know it really is an investment. Prosecutors and judges know too.

But sure get your own legal advice. Better yet, pay multiple lawyers to give you different advice. Then you can pull out whichever one you need and claim good faith since you were relying on competent advice of counsel.

I wouldn't single out any coin. There are literally hundreds of dumb coins with circle logos.

Take a look at coinmarketcap right now. 7 out of the top 10 DO NOT have circle logs (I'm not even sure we should count BTC since it was first out the gate with the circle). 8 out of the bottom 10 on the first page DO have circle logos.

Even if the idea was good when Bitcoin did it, it has been ruined by overuse.

Fees for a "typical" (3-4 kB) transaction are 1-2 USD cents.

There is no such thing as perpetual motion. If you are using resources in the system it is reasonable to expect to pay for them, with 1-2 cents not being even close too high.

Or to put it another way, you can send virtually any amount to anyone, anywhere in the world, relatively quickly, and be extremely private about it for well under 1 USD (even assuming much larger tx size, but in most cases still just a few cents). Sounds like a great bargain to me.

Okay I give up. What the hell is Bitcoin Ultra?

I count 3 fast blocks not 4.

I'm not going to work out the combinatorics and probability, but it just isn't a big deal. Wait long enough and all sorts of "strange" patterns emerge.

Nobody knows what the future holds. It is a decent bet that if we do everything exactly the same as Bitcoin we will have the same outcome (except always being 5 years behind in maturity and adoption which makes this a bad plan). Trying different things has a possibility to result in a different outcome.

But yes smartmining is still planned. GingerAle made an interesting observation on reddit, that a normal CPU is about the same percentage of Monero's hash rate as an AntMiner S7 is on Bitcoin. The difference, of course, is that you don't have to shell out 1250 USD for one, you just have to run a program.

Yes. Multisig means having multiple people signing a single transaction (e.g. 2/3 means two out of group of three people can spend coins in a wallet, but one person alone couldn't). It could theoretically be done without CT (instead of ring+CT+multi, just ring+multi) but it seems we are combining that with CT now.

The sort of rig he's talking about is a computer. I imagine he would install Linux and the necessary node, miner, etc. for you but some skills might be necessary to deal with upgrades (unless you pay him or someone else to maintain it for you).

You'd need a very high end Xeon to get near 1.6 kh/s and those are thousands of dollars just for the processor. So GPUs are certainly more economical in terms of equipment cost. In terms of power it may be more of a horserace but I can't see spending the kind of money necessary to mine at scale with a CPU. The best approach is probably to mine with what you already have (may be CPUs and/or GPUs) and if you want to expand, go with GPUs.

Phi is more of a CPU-GPU hybrid and I haven't see anyone try to mine with those. It could be another sweet spot in theory, especially if you pick up some of the cheap previous-gen models that sometimes come on the market in large quantities (I guess supercomputers upgrading?) but hard to say without someone actually developing and optimized miner and trying it.