|
is this renaming stuff serious? why?
IF you do not like boolberry PLEASE simply call it BBR - rebranding at this stage does not make sense at all.
despites I would probably not support one name change except it would be brilliant, the chosen names are horrible.
please stick to the name or use BBR
|
|
|
|
As to credibility, he's found exploits before, and used them before. However, he also likes to come on the forum and pad his ego.
he talked about this specific exploit in july and no one cared. we will see how this works out. maybe he is right but I do not see his motivation in what he is doing |
|
|
|
Hahem am I the only one that think BCX's findings are worrisome?
What were the findings again?
[...]
* I have found very specific exploits in CN that have not been fixed that would be successful on XMR. Most are what I call annoyance attacks, that would be fixed and the coin would probably survive, but one is a coin killer. In XMR there exist a flaw involving the keyrings that under the right conditions will allow an attacker to steal your wallets and hijack your addresses. To fix this, anonymity will need to be sacrificed. These exploits are why two top exchanges who have asked for my opinion have not added XMR.
[...]
not a developer but he told about that flaw back in july, which worried me a that time. I think it is either very hard to find or non-existent in the way bitcoinexpress wants it to execute. but could be dead wrong here. btw. he said he does not want to execute it |
|
|
|
|
what incentive should an early buyer have tohold a coin when a S-cure is used?
S-curve emmission is in my opinion only possible with a central institution (call this a weakness or a strength of a social contract in cryptocurrencies)
|
|
|
|
|
if 50% of the fee goes to development - what happens to the rest?
|
|
|
|
Regarding donations - we already have about 20% of the Monero owners joining MEW. If we get this number to about 50%, then it will be easier to fund development as a community effort because there is no free riding.
how to get in there? a third idea and that is basically how mike hear financed his project is to convince very rich anarchists/libertarians that this project has a lot of value. finding these guys in the bitcoin environment should be easy  convincing them that there is place for a second major currency is hard. first because the person probably thinks it shoots its own leg, second because there needs to be an incentive for him. that said I think there are people who see besides their own profit, moral reasons to invest in a project like this. |
|
|
|
I guess they do not realize that they are really turning off 90% of the community with their bs.
I guess they do, otherwise they wouldn't be here. a sub-board for cryptonotes/monero would be great. the monero community is widely supported by established bitcointalk members. probably that would be possible, |
|
|
|
Alleluia Monero brothers and sisters!! Looks like we collectively invented the most price-wise stable coin of all time!  I assumed that in boring xmr times, and that is basically right now, the price would go much lower due to the high level of inflation and the very limited way to use xmr at this point of time. Maybe I was wrong. |
|
|
|
So Risto. If I understand you correctly you now think the failure risk of bitcoins is 50%? Sounds much more reasonable to me than the dramatically smaller risk for failure numbers you were speaking of half a year ago. Does this have to do with Monero entering the stage and the fact that you see chances growing for alternative coins or does it have to do with your view of bitcoin itself?
Yes, if "failure" is defined to mean "will not rise to $5000+ ever". Still if the probability for rising such is 50%, it is an incredibly good buy, and this is what I have been saying all along. I appreciate your posts, but did you know, that in reality there is no such thing as a 'probability'? The so-called "Master Argument" was apparently first formulated clearly by Diodorus. He argued that the actual is the only possible. He observed that if something in the future is not going to happen, it was therefore true in the past that it would not happen.
Modern philosophers like J. J. C. Smart like to think that the future is "already out there" in the relativistic space-time continuum of the "block universe."
Modern determinists/compatibilists on free will like to argue that just as the past cannot be changed, so the future cannot be changed. "Change it from what to what?," says Daniel Dennett. It doesn't really matter whether probability theory is true in the pure definition of reality. What matters is that it's accurate from an individuals perspective. which can never be verified or falsified assuming that time + innovation is non-repetitive over time. I think there are quite much better indicators than probability to classify the state of nature in the cryptoenvironment. I would not say that risto was lucky with his investments, he found the right indicators and gave them probabilities - the second part was probably unneccessary. |
|
|
|
|
the supply is rising if the price is falling and vice versa? - it does not make sense
the supply should be rising when the price is rising and vice versa.
maybe this stuff is traders business but from an economics point of view this does not make sense at all
|
|
|
|
|
I am a long term supporter of xmr - but the market manipulation on poloniex is sick.
or is it human stupidity that the amount of bids is rising when the price is falling and vice versa? or is it bots going full retard?
economically it does not make sense at all
|
|
|
|
to put this thread in the right direction I want to discuss counterparty/xcp which started in january 2014: the protocol: it is a financial protocol build on top of bitcoin: it includes buildung assets, betting, contract for differences etc. pp. the creation of the token: the creation of the token was done by a proof of burn: the bitcoins were sent to an unspendable adress and in return the burners got xcp. approxiametely 2,1 million tokens were created. they are slightly deflationary due to the cost of creating an asset (0,5 xcp) the function of the token: unlike bitcoin, the token can be taken in escrow within the bitcoin blockchain. this has serious implications for betting, cfds etc. the team: https://www.counterparty.co/team/it is a non-anonymous team which has put great effort in building the protocol, keeping highest moral standards, being visible on several bitcoin conferences and especially trying to network outside of bitcointalk. the progress: well I followed the project over the entire time and they really build a remarkable protocol and somehow managed to become bigger than its biggest competitor mastercoin. they are in contact with overstock, who has serious interest in building an asset on top of the network. several crowdfundings already happened on top of counterparty. regarding the token, I had serious doubts that they are really needed and that they are plan for using the token as the native currency within the network really works. you can use bitcoin whereever it is possible. the token was for the most time quite illiquid but now the market got a higher liqudity (well not today ). the number of transactions, following http://www.blockscan.com/I only hold a small amount of xcp in my portfolio, so this is not bagholders shilling, but my compliment to the xcp team for building this protocol. if the token xcp really gets useful, I still have doubts, but I think they have a long term interest in building the platform and maybe their plan that their native currency finds its place will work out. opinions regarding counterparty? |
|
|
|
is a social contract. it can by definition not have catastrophic design errors, because no one is forced to sign this social contract. And when the majority do not adopt the social contract, it is a catastrophic failure. It the money doesn't circulate, it isn't a currency, and there is no adoption. See the Quantity Theory of Money. in my language there is a very gentle distinction between cash or money and currency. by no modern definition in economics bitcoin or monero is a currency, because certain characteristics of a currency cannot be given by definition in a decentralized system. what bitcoin or monero basically is, is a payment network with a store of value function - this is probably much closer to the definition of cash or money. gavin andreesen uses the term electronic cash nowadays when he describes bitcoin. also the analogy to gold is much closer than the analogy to currencies. since we are all vain I shortly come to your defamation regarding my economic skills: you are quite a smart guy who has massive skills and coding and great analytical skills. but this does not hinder you from using a theory in an area of application where it does not fit at all. but you are forgiven: even proper economists often fail to do that correctly. Keynes put it this way: Economics is the science of thinking in terms of models joined to the art of choosing models which are relevant to the contemporary world.  |
|
|
|
(edit: In addition to wishing more coins would copy Gatra's soft-start approach to block rewards used in Riecoin, more coins should copy Zoidberg's 1% ongoing dev fee from BBR. The incentive difference between a 1% premine and 1% ongoing revenue is HUGE. The premine invites a fast pump and dump; the 1% ongoing revenue motivates continued long-term development.
Heck - XMR should add this so the team has food on their plates. :-)
Duly noted and implemented.You keep finding a way to write something so important that I feel compelled to reply. I see some motivational advantages for this idea also versus a premine, but unfortunately it is insufficient. For any coin that does not have Monero's catastrophic design error of rapidly declining the block reward, the 1% will be insufficient when it matters most at the early stage where all the critical work is done before inertia and vested interests prevent further radical improvements (e.g. Bitcoin). The rapidly declining block reward is a design error because the early hodlers lock up the coin and the rate of velocity of money and adoption decelerate (e.g. Bitcoin and Monero). Another problem with the developer fee: it is a resource to fight over and it can fund the development of a bureaucracy, e.g. the MEW foundation (just see what happened to the Bitcoin foundation and you can be sure the same will happen to the MEW despite the best intentions and will of the current participants due to the Iron Law of Political Economics aka Mancur Olsen's treatise on the Logic of Collective Action). Also it does give the appearance of being a corporation instead of an open source project. The best funding model is still (as it was for Bitcoin) for the brilliant creator to take his stash and run after he has made the coin so popular that no one can refuse nor fork it. Great thing about a premine is all those who obstinately won't buy the coin until AFTER everyone else does. I love that. I normally appreciate your posts but this one is wrong on many levels. Designing a model of distribution, and that is what basically a block reward is, is a social contract. it can by definition not have catastrophic design errors, because no one is forced to sign this social contract. it basically does not matter if the block reward halves, doubles or does whatever it likes as long as people see the social contract as valueable. Designs like monero or bitcoin give cash a store of value function which is probably a first order condition for money. I cannot imagine a system in which you would see a velocity without value. hodling bitcoins or monero is neccessary for giving it value. the argument that they are hodled forever is wrong, because every person will find a point where he is willing to sell. the only argument against this fixed supply design is volatility. I have to admit that I like bitshares idea of using a token to create a derivative which maybe has a somewhat price stability and is more useful for spending and using, but to call the design of bitcoin and monero a catastrophic design error is wrong. regarding the idea of voluntarily giving 1% of mining to development I would strongly suggest doing it. the argument that miners do not profit from development is also wrong. |
|
|
|
|
this place is not bored academics and/or bored rich mans hang around, this is the very wild wild west/hell of cryptoszenery.
points for disrespect to you are:
you are destroying scammers business
you are very harsh to some serious developments, for reasons that are most time well founded but to little explained.
I thank you a lot for the first 50 pages of the altcoin observer, which was by far the highest quality thread in this part of the forum.
what I encourage you to do is to is to write quality comments as seen on the first pages of the altcoin observer and monero economics thread. if you reason why you come to your conclusions, you will get a lot more respect. and you are probably able to give eye openers why some of the stuff people are talking here is completely delusional.
I'm almost indifferent to you personality and for some reasons far beyond this thread I do not think that all of your methodology of analysis is appropriate; but that said you add a lot of value to discussions by your conclusions if they are well funded and comprehensible.
|
|
|
|
|
well retarded was the wrong word, you are right.
the point is to make this move rational, you need assumptions that this works out as intended. if I had put the orderbook down to 34, I think it would not have worked.
|
|
|
|
|
I was in the exclusive position to hold my speculative part of my investment in xmr on mintpal during the fork - which was liquid all the time.
I thought about dumping this position - it would have moved the price from 42 to 34 or something with the intention to buy back at cheaper prices. I decided against it, partly due to moral reasons. Partly due to the retardedness of the argument to sell with the intention to buy back later.
the fork will be a performance benchmark for the nature of investment in xmr by population. My assumption is that it will go down, but much lesser than anticipated due to a huge (in altcoin terms) amount of the coins being an investment, not a pure speculation. that said this low prices will only last for a short period of time.
Maybe I am delusional and brainwashed, but from what I have seen over the last ten month in the altcoin scene, monero seems to be the first coin which has a realistic possibility to gain network effects.
|
|
|
|
Pretty suspicious that he already knows how to solve this  trying to induce a brotherwar is far more suspicous. it makes absolutely no sense to disrespect bbr from xmrs standpoint and vice versa - that is probably the only argument I share with james |
|
|
|
|
why the fuck does mintpal not stop trading?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
