Last year trolling was more DRK-specific. Nowadays trolling is so widespread that it's not even funny. Trolls everywhere, whether it is altcoins or BTC (price discussion thread). And, well, it's easy. You pay 3-4 people a few bitcoins to do just that, day and night. And then there are those who are in it for the hobby, or due to having interest in other investments, who don't even get paid

In a year or so everyone will be emotionally immune to words like "SCAM", "BAGHOLDERS", "DUMP" etc, and the percentage of people using the ignore button will skyrocket.

The periodic sells of 1000+ DRKs that were ticking like clockwork for days, were not "people". More like a single whale exiting. Actual people (meaning a diversity of investors) weren't even selling even while the price was being driven up to 0.025 and liquidity was quite dry.


There is nothing grim about the future of BTC. The only "grim" thing are the multitudes of trolls infesting bitcointalk to create this specific sensation.


It depends how you calculate risk. If you see a few million marketcap as a ceiling when real world adoption takes place, ok. If you believe there will never be real world adoption either, ok. After all, BTC was trading at single digits for years because people couldn't see it in terms of real world adoption (which is starting to happen).


It would be trusted if one only did one round of mixing. That's why you go over several rounds of mixing were probabilities go down.

Every single anonymous solution makes some trust assumptions. Cryptonote doesn't have a third party performing the mixing, yet if you go over at Monero's thread you'll see how they attack Bytecoin for having a premine which deanonymizes future anonymous transactions. Large control of outputs = deanonymization. Is there a "trusted third party" there? No. But all mixing systems depend on having legitimate mixing partners. So how will that work?

Even when using zero knowledge, you have to trust that someone doesn't have -or won't have in the future- a quantum computer, or that they have really thrown the key away so as not to generate infinite coins on demand.

And even Bitcoin's trustless nature, which isn't anonymous, also makes certain trust assumptions when people are throwing their hash into centralized mining pools that could easily go over 51% and manipulate the trustless nature of transaction handling.


This is an area that can be "attacked" both ways.

If Evan stops => "Oh DRK is dead"
If Evan continues => "Oh DRK is centralized on Evan"

How can it be that a half-full (or half-empty) glass, always appears empty? There is a problem of perspective here.


Rounds of mixing + blinding are there to counter the trust issue into a probability that is not even ...real.


Just because something isn't experiencing widespread adoption immediately, doesn't mean it's useless. These things occur gradually.

InstantX is not just fast confirmations. It's a tool that can cut the middle-man from BTC transactions. With some bitcoin payment processors you can buy something instantly with zero confirmations. But the merchant relies on the payment processing company to take the risk for him. With InstantX the merchant doesn't even need the payment processing company and their zero-confirmation mediation. That's a nice thing to have in crypto, and even keep payment processors honest from requiring a few % per transaction in the future.

Low marketcap = easier swings.

Not really once you factor-in the distribution model of consequent coins.

There is a major scramble for the first 500k coins because these will produce/mine all future coins through staking/masternodes. And since the first coins don't even have 1mn marketcap, it attracts serious whale attention.

In comparison XC went to 10-15mn marketcap with the announcement of a centralized mixer...

I'm not accusing SPR or Crave people* for trolling DRK. Just noticing how it goes in terms of actual investment where masternodes are considered a nice asset that can greatly increase a coin's value... and then you have the trolls who troll DRK for ...well...masternodes

* There may be some investment overlap between all these coins, so it's not either these or these. Personally I hold quite a few anonymous coins, so...

Trolls on DRK's thread: "Masternodes? Booooo centralization".
Investors on Spreadcoin and Crave threads: "Masternodes? Bravo dev, way to go, hell yeah, to the mooooon"

Apparently masternodes are bad for DRK and good for everyone else lol.

Since I'm only buying speculatively on exchanges and I haven't seen the wallet itself aside from screenshots, I don't know whether this is actually implemented or not (I'm reading about TOR but I haven't checked it out)... anyway: I want to see seamless IP obfuscation from the wallet itself, where the user needs to do nothing.

The entire btc marketcap is multiple times lower than some random mobile messaging application for smartphones that is priced in the range of ...billions. And Bitcoin represents a financial revolution as both money (total money supply = tens of trillions in marketcap) and a player in the money-transfer market (trillions in marketcap with banks, swift, credit cards).

As for the manipulation, it's unlikely big BTC whales want to hold the price down (or induce it to an artificially higher level).

-Price suppression would cost them their BTCs (dumping to lower the price)
-A price bubble would cost them a lot of fiat to sustain, to absorb daily coin production.

The fiat Elite have more to gain by manipulating BTC.

Whats the weight and composition of the coin?

That was the normal in the 1800's. But silver was used for the smaller denominations.

Copper + Copper/nickel = ultra small denominations (1,2,5c)
Silver = small denominations (10c-1$)
Gold = large denominations (2.5-20$)

Thinking about it, with 500k coins and 500 per node, it will max out at ~1000 nodes if every coin goes for nodes (which it won't).

No I mean who does the rating process of how good each solution is, that in turn produces the chart?

Where does the comparison table (illustrated in the video) between anonymous systems come from?

Is it related to the review/comparison of anon systems that is expected to be published at some point by the independent reviewer?

If you loaded some live cd distro recently, it might have done it due to other regional settings.

Probably daylight saving (the OS took care to change the hour for you, perhaps for the second time after a recent reboot).

And just because you said so, I should believe you? I've mined a large number of shitcoins. Why should I care about any of it if they give top BTCs for my mining efforts? I shouldn't.

Coin specs, fundamentals etc are only for long term investment purposes. Otherwise you just mine & dump.

So if you mined & dumped, as miners tend to do, you sold at like 5-10% of the coin's (materialized) potential. Hence you are butthurt and try to rationalize to yourself why you made a good choice.

He isn't bitter. Just butthurt

Price March 2014: 0.001
Price March 2015: 0.01 - 0.025 (10-25x)

Ooops.

If it's an 1 oz coin (31.1grams), around 1200$.

Aha, ok. Now we have the source.


Yes, I would expect that to be the case.


I was relatively (too) young back then to care about the economics of coding.


I have no criticism in this regard. I was just wondering about the figure of lines/code that my mind can't accept as natural.


Yes, Germany has a relatively high wage for this type of work because there are many companies that want good coders. Wages are a function of demand and supply. There are no major software firms around here, or manufacturing companies that want software written for their equipment. So if you want to work as a coder (here), you'll get a much lower wage. Many coders / few seats / employers have the upper hand in negotiations. Coders get the upper hand in time, as companies become dependent upon them.


That's a lot of money for a forum. I wouldn't pay 1/10th of that. But then again, that's me, not living in the US, seeing "costs" in a different way.

But even a new feature is not something static and, it too, requires maintenance and further work or re-implementation. DarkSend operation, or Masternode operation, has been radically altered and tweaked a lot. DarkSend must have been rewritten as to the way it works at least 3-4 times since Feb '14, to the point that it's no longer DarkSend but rather a ...premix of coins that are sent normally. And it continues to evolve (blinding).

The Masternode system and the way the nodes get paid has also changed quite a bit due to all the problematic forks and payment cheating due to the semi-voluntary way that is currently in use. Although what I had in mind when posting "from scratch", was Bytecoin itself and Shadow (with marketcaps that wouldn't even justify the work that has been done if we take the accounting provided a bit earlier at face value), and of course the developers also have to maintain the code for problems or bugs.

In any case, I don't think that it's easy to quantify (in terms of value) the coding task and then throw a price like that. I don't have the right formula to provide the precise value of a coding work, but my mind can't accept 6 and 7-digit values for what, again, my mind perceives as much less than that (in terms of work).

We had the same discussion a few days earlier on the 200k USD payment processor and I asked what am I missing... I saw the answers but I still couldn't get my mind to accept them. I finally concluded that in my part of the world, these numbers are simply astronomical for coders while in other parts they may be considered "normal". With 200k USD you'd probably hire at least 10 full-time coders for a year around here.

But then again I was thinking it's not only a difference in salaries between Greece and the US. For example, if XMR's work is indeed 1.4mn USD, then how can that be reconciled with what I read in a linked post to the VIA thread the other day? According to the posts there (explaining what happened to their ICO money) Peter Todd is working for them for 4k per month... So for the alleged 1.4mn for XMR's work, you'd get more than 25 Peter Todds for a year (?). Again something doesn't compute.