Dead as a cat. Sad.
As a cat? primer- = Schrodinger? |
|
|
|
lol, obviously you're not a lawyer  Neither am I, although I did take several business and criminal law courses in undergrad. Just trying to clear up some misconceptions for you and others posting on this board who may be worried that what they post here could have legal repercussions. In my non-lawerly opinion, there is about a 0.00000001% chance that something you post on this message board would be considered by any court of law as libel. Just my two satoshi, take it for what you will. |
|
|
|
Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you? We will just have to see who's laughing at the end. I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF: Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet. Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none. Shitload of FUDsters posting bullshit AS evidence. There's a huge difference here. I am not even saying who's right and who's wrong here. I am just saying that if you call a public business person a scammer and you don't have proof, then you are definitely slandering. Now, how sure those "proof" that you think you have are real and you are not joining the paid slandering campaign? Please do tell. You keep using that word ("slander"), I don't think you know what it means... From ( http://defamation.laws.com/defamation-laws/libel-vs-slander ): Slander involves the oral "publication" of a defamatory remark that is heard by another, which injures the subject's reputation or character. Slander can occur through the use of a hand gesture or verbal communication that is not recorded. Libel, on the other hand, is the written "publication" of a defamatory remark that has the tendency to injure another's reputation or character. Libel also includes a publication on radio, audio or video. Even though this would be considered oral, or verbal, communication to someone it is actually considered to be libel because it is published in a transfixed form. It's libel, not slander, and you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. I don't give a fuck about XC or Dan Metcalf, I'm just telling you that you're wrong, and that speculating about public figures based on however flimsy evidence or rumors does not constitute libel of a public figure. |
|
|
|
Calling someone a scammers and causing MILLIONS in XC market cap to evaporate is opinions to you? We will just have to see who's laughing at the end. I don't care what happens with XC, I'm just trying to tell you that this court case, if it ever happened, would not proceed. Here is some more info about libel from EFF: Is there a difference between reporting on public and private figures?
Yes. A private figure claiming defamation—your neighbor, your roommate, the guy who walks his dog by your favorite coffee shop—only has to prove you acted negligently, which is to say that a "reasonable person" would not have published the defamatory statement.
A public figure must show "actual malice"—that you published with either knowledge of falsity or in reckless disregard for the truth. This is a difficult standard for a plaintiff to meet. Dan Metcalf is a public figure. There is a shitload of (possibly doctored) evidence floating around this message board indicating he might be a scammer. People speculating on this evidence, even calling him a scammer based on possibly bullshit evidence, does not meet the standard of "actual malice". Maybe instead of just telling everyone they're wrong you could provide some legal justification for your posts, or maybe you can't, because there is none. |
|
|
|
Some relevant facts from EFF ( https://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/liability/defamation ): The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are:
- a publication to one other than the person defamed;
- a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
a. being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
b. tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff.
If the plaintiff is a public figure, he or she must also prove actual malice. The bolded portion may be especially difficult in light of the following quote also from EFF: No—but merely labeling a statement as your "opinion" does not make it so. Courts look at whether a reasonable reader or listener could understand the statement as asserting a statement of verifiable fact. (A verifiable fact is one capable of being proven true or false.) This is determined in light of the context of the statement. A few courts have said that statements made in the context of an Internet bulletin board or chat room are highly likely to be opinions or hyperbole... Also look at the bolded portion above. There's no way that people on this forum speculating about evidence presented about other users is going to be treated by a court as libel. There is significant "evidence" floating around here that people are free to speculate whether or not anyone posting here is a scammer. I have to agree with other posters who say that any libel case centering around comments made on this forum would be laughed out of court. |
|
|
|
|
Is it just me or is asset-backed crypto asinine? If you want assets, why not buy Au, Ag, Pt, etc.? If you want crypto, why not buy btc, ltc, doge, xmr, drk, etc.? What's the appeal of buying some brand new shit coin that is supposedly backed by some anonymous dev with a metric ton of urine?
|
|
|
|
It's probably just variance as the nethash calculations are just based on the timing between blocks and are just an estimate.
Hadn't considered that. Doesn't it take like 24 hours or so for the net hash/difficulty to catch up w/ the actual hash rate? Is all this hash rate new? Edit: I love the charts on the website. Seems like the good doctor has picked up the interest of a large friend, looking at the chart, you're correct, we're dealing with both variance and a surge in hashrate within the last day: http://boolberry.com/state.html Hope they're looking to hold! I'm not so sure it's just variance. I wrote a script for monero that xnbya runs with some modifications here ( http://minexmr.com/pools.html ), and in my experience it's not sometimes, it is all the time that the sum of the known pools hashrates adds up to be 20-33% larger than the hashrate calculated from the diff. I think the diff is based on last 24 hours, and the pools base their hashrate on the diff of blocks over the last 10 or 30 minutes. Maybe I'm wrong, but if it was just variance in the hashrate, then at some point the calculated network hashrate would be higher than the sum of the pools (since this isn't even including unknown/private pools and solo miners), but in my experience this is never true - the sum of the known pools is always greater than the calculated network hashrate. I don't know why this would be, just an observation from monero that also seems to hold true for boolberry and bytecoin. |
|
|
|
I mean, that's great and all, but you guys have less than $250 in volume in the last 24 hours: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/gridcoin/Not really that hard to double or quadruple the price when it takes one or three btc... |
|
|
|
I've changed the op you were right about one thing it was misleading and an oversight i apologise!
If that was you in that reddit post and you want to play that pick at words game then sure lets play! You didn't ask for a short explanation you have waited not even a week for an explanation to your junk filled comment, full of conjecture and utter garbage. You are nothing short of playing guessing games tbh
It wasn't my comment. I was the one who posted about the fact that 95% of shadowcash are owned by 84 addresses, which is another reason I wouldn't buy any. Also, I don't think the reddit poster or myself asked for a short explanation, at least I said technical explanation, which you have successfully avoided again. |
|
|
|
You could get it added there yourself, novag, see the below quote from their FAQ: We require a client wallet with a Bitcoin-compatible RPC API, that can be compiled from source code (preferably on github or similar) and that will run under Debian 7
We also currently ask for a contribution to hosting costs equivalent to $120 in BTC per year for young/short blockchains, and $150 for older/larger blockchains.
Hosting contracts are on a yearly basis as we do not have time/will to bug people about late payments. The yearly contract also allows to amortize costs (early on most costs come from explorer setup, later on they come from CPU/RAM/Storage costs)
Preferred contact method is currently through bitcointalk. Or if you don't have or want to spend that much btc, you could start collection too. You can't expect devs to do everything for coin, or I mean, you can, I guess, but you might end up disappointed, although it seems you're already kind of disappointed, maybe more disappointed...I'm just gonna stop rambling now. |
|
|
|
Btw Shadow devs invented Stealthaddresses added by mostly every anon coin to date.
I'm not going to argue about the dramatic bullshit, but the above statement made by OP is clearly false, unless Peter Todd and/or the bytecoin developers are working on shadowcash, which I'm pretty sure is not the case. Here's a link to an article from January crediting Peter Todd for bringing the concept to bitcoin: http://www.coindesk.com/stealth-addresses-secret-bitcoin-privacy/Also, bytecoin used stealth addresses in conjunction with ring signatures since late last year (2013) in a non-bitcoin clone, or two years before that if you believe the hype. Vertcoin was the first altcoin to implement stealth addresses in the core qt-wallet of any altcoin based on the btc codebase, before shadowcoin existed, and execoin also implemented them in an electrum based wallet I think before shadowcash existed. So who invented stealth addresses on the shadowcash team and when?  Shadow did not invent Stealth Addresses. No where did the SDC dev team claimed to have done so. Vertcoin's stealth addresses were closed source. Shadow did implement the first in-protocol dual key stealth addresses. In fact you can use it in the daemon cmd "sendtostealthaddress" you don't need a QT. The influx of coins with Stealth Addresses is a direct result of Shadow open sourcing it and has nothing to do with Vertcoin. This thread is to highlight a major advancement in cryptocurrency (zero knowledge) not mindless bash the efforts made at Shadow. But hey this is Bitcointalk and people could care less about advancements and more about trolling. I quoted the OP who said "Btw Shadow devs invented Stealthaddresses..." Here's a more detailed deconstruction of your bullshit from reddit than I can provide (that you guys failed to give any sort of technical response to): http://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/2k6yu4/shadowcash_introduces_shadowsend_v2_featuring/clinbzkI did. And you are correct, Monero is not zero-knowledge. But I contend that the shadow developers (probably) do not actually have any zero-knowledge technology.
I have some purely a priori logical reasoning, and I also have some experience from the field of mathematics under my belt to support my conjecture. First: if ring signatures work the way everyone in the mathematical community thinks they should, then why bother implementing zero-knowledge proofs? Easy answer: ring sigs aren't zero-knowledge, and are simply highly resistant to blockchain analysis, not immune to blockchain analysis. ZK would still be better to use, after all, even if ring sig technology works the way it's supposed to, unless the costs/constraints to using ZK tech overwhelms the benefits.
Second: if they have ZK technology that actually works, with more advantages than disadvantages, why bother implementing ring sigs? Ring sigs are huge compared to normal digital signatures, complicated in terms of implementation as a developer, and cause a big UTXO-set bloat. If you have ZK tech, ring sigs are not just a waste of time and money to implement, it's a waste of space on the network.
Ok, so maybe these developers are using a Zerocash-style[1] system in which the basecoins are ring-signature based (already obfuscating the block chain). What happens? Size and speed of the protocol explode and all of a sudden we have a massive blockchain and a super slow network. Conclusion: Shadow doesn't have ZK tech under their belt, they are simply going to implement ring sigs and walk away while chuckling.
So, that's my a priori reasoning. Here's the experience from mathematics that supports my conjecture: ZK tech is the holy grail of cryptocurrency, Zerocash[2] is pretty much the only place you'll find a decent protocol. And, as I said, in Zerocash, you still have two types of currency, the basecoin and the zerocoin; if the basecoin choice is a ring-sig based coin, Zerocash is going to blow up in size and speed to the point where it's no longer useful. Anyone trying to sell ZK to you right now is probably scamming you because efficient, secure algorithms that work in a robust, general setting do not yet really exist. But I could be wrong, I could be not-so-up-to-date on non-interactive zero-knowledge algorithms. So let's pretend I'm wrong about their suitability: we still shouldn't be using ZK tech in coins, not yet.
Non-interactive ZK cryptography is currently in very young stages of the technology. The first time any sort of generality was proven to be POSSIBLE was only 2006[3] . So even if these developers have discovered some brand new math research (later than 2011[4] for example), something that is much more efficient and powerful than current technology? All that means they are still using brand-new cryptography. And that's a huge no-no if you actually want to secure your shit. Tech that's been around for 20 years like ring signatures? It's stood the test of time, it's been given a few decades for people to look for avenues of attack. On the other hand, if you pull a random paper out from The Journal of Cryptography published some time in the last year and implement it, you could have every mathematician in the world read that paper, come to the conclusion that the tech is tight and cool. And then the next week some 17 year old in their basement could crack it. Something that's been around for decades has withstood and passed that test of time. ZK proofs sound all fancy and nice, but in reality, they could be no more secure than any system upon which they are built.
Finally: let's just presume for a moment that these folks are brilliant developers who have a great zerocash-style scheme going on, or maybe even some other version of NIZK proofs that are distinct from zerocash and magically small and fast (remember, you get what you pay for in terms of size and speed when you are talking anonymity; there is a tradeoff). These brilliant folks? They are setting their network up to be secured with proof-of-stake. No amount of ZK or ring sig technology can save the coin if you can rewrite the blockchain, and proof-of-stake is mathematically insecure[5] (that link sometimes doesn't work, so just google "Andrew Poelstra Proof of Stake" the paper is a few years old but is very very good).
Look, spend your money where you want. But if you put money into ZK technology now, you are giving your money to a complete genius, a liar, or a fool. Usually fools can't make cryptocurrencies and afaik no one has really made NIZK proofs feasible for currencies yet, so these people are scamming you. Shadow is likely just another pump-n-dump. ZK tech may become feasible in a year or a decade, but the state of technology as-is? ZK is not feasible for currency transactions because it's slow and big and new.
The proof is in the pudding, bro: they won't make available any technical papers describing what zero-knowledge proofs they are actually implementing. I have a zero-knowledge rock here on my desk, it'll do everything they describe in that article, and I, also, refuse to explain how this rock works. Send me money, too, and write articles about me!
Full conclusion: either these folks are just duplicating a ring-sig based protocol like Monero's cryptonote and calling it zero-knowledge to start a pump-n-dump, or these folks are smarter than all the other developers in the world.
If a Shadow developer wants to hop on here and chat about what they are actually implementing, I'd love to hear it, ask questions, and get to the root of this. All I would like to see is 1) an explanation of why doubling up on anonymity with both ring sigs and with NIZK proofs is a good idea and 2) a few technical papers describing how they are doing what they are doing. That would undermine a huge amount of my above argument, possibly all of it except the PoS stuff.
TLDR: non-interactive zero-knowledge technology is too young of a technology to be feasible in a cryptocurrency schemes, and anyone trying to tell you different is probably scamming you. |
|
|
|
Btw Shadow devs invented Stealthaddresses added by mostly every anon coin to date.
I'm not going to argue about the dramatic bullshit, but the above statement made by OP is clearly false, unless Peter Todd and/or the bytecoin developers are working on shadowcash, which I'm pretty sure is not the case. Here's a link to an article from January crediting Peter Todd for bringing the concept to bitcoin: http://www.coindesk.com/stealth-addresses-secret-bitcoin-privacy/Also, bytecoin used stealth addresses in conjunction with ring signatures since late last year (2013) in a non-bitcoin clone, or two years before that if you believe the hype. Vertcoin was the first altcoin to implement stealth addresses in the core qt-wallet of any altcoin based on the btc codebase, before shadowcoin existed, and execoin also implemented them in an electrum based wallet I think before shadowcash existed. So who invented stealth addresses on the shadowcash team and when? |
|
|
|
Note: not fud
I just read in the polo troll box that dev is awol. Is this true?
I hope not, i just bought a shitload a couple weeks ago & the roadmap looked pretty good.
Maybe just an early Halloween?
He posted on the previous page less than 24 hours ago |
|
|
|
We are hardly working on XDN and improvements!
We are communicating with SuperNet devs.
Sorry for delays in answers, we are focused on main code improvements and new features.
What improvements and new features are you working on. Please elaborate. From like 3 pages ago, shojayxt: Hybrid PoW/PoS implementation. 17 weeks.
DarkNote mobile wallet. 12 weeks.
Aliases. 9 weeks.
Multisignatures. 4 weeks.
DarkNote web wallet. (JavaScript cryptography implementation). 2 weeks.
GUI client improvements. Every day. Frequently updated. Is GUI open source? If not, is there a timeline for that? edit: lol working hard or hardly working? yukyukyuk |
|
|
|
Whatever the measure, it is too high for a pool to have more than 50% of total hash rate. I am comfortable for any pool to have less than 25%.
Rather saying, http://monero.crypto-pool.fr/ has 3.31 MH/sec of Network Hash Rate: 14.25 MH/sec - join it with https://moneropool.com/ that has 9.95 MH/sec of Network Hash Rate: 14.27 MH/sec. => we obtain nearly 100% +- 30% total network power depending on network hash rate computation accuracy. Even if they compute hash rate with some errors, till +-30% or 50% accuracy, ***this is ABNORMAL!!!*** Furthermore, if we look at https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0 (this thread first page), there are NO moneropool.com LISTED in recommended pools at all!!!!!Who can explain, WTF happen with Monero?!! Nor do they list dwarfpool.com which does 3121.874 khs just now. I asked upon that pool missing from the list before. I think the issue is that the network hashrate is calculated from the diff, which is I think is based on blocks in the last 24 hours, I believe it's just (diff/(60*1024^2)), while I think the pools calculate their hashrate based on average diff of blocks in the last 10 or 30 minutes, so they are basing the two numbers on a different starting point. With that being said, it does seem strange how it always seems like the sum of the pools is greater than the reported network hashrate, but maybe that just has to do with the fact that I usually check it in the morning time of the USA. If you look at the pie chart here: http://minexmr.com/pools.htmlIt says the network rate is 18.6 Mh/s while the sum of the known pools hashrate is 22 Mh/s, and that's not including solo miners as well as private/unknown pools In any event, if you want to support the network, you probably shouldn't mine at moneropool.com, I think this much is obvious... |
|
|
|
where i can rent rig to mine monero?  Amazon Web Services Elastic Compute Cloud |
|
|
|
Look around the developers quietly piled on stage any marketing or real actions killed coin. RIP.
novag, you just complain ad nauseum about how the developers never do anything for the two altcoins in your sig. Why don't you stop complaining and do something yourself to help the coin(s), or launch your own coin where you do all the shit that you incessantly complain about? /rant Let me give access to the code and I'll do what should have been done 3 months ago, now I think I was too late. And all customers who bought the coins thinking that the price will soar lost their money. Price depends on the developers and their actions if they are not present then the price goes to zero, so it became more clear? You're free to submit requests on github, and if the developers think they're worthwhile they will merge them. Or if you really have awesome ideas and the developers just can't appreciate your brilliance you're also free to fork the code and start your own coin. Of course, you're also free to simply kvetch ad nauseam. |
|
|
|
Thanks for the offer, BitcoinNational, but I wiped the whole folder when I got rid of them. Best of luck turning it around though  If you want to get it on an exchange, maybe look into CryptoRush, they are trying to revive and are looking for exclusive coins I think. |
|
|
|
Look around the developers quietly piled on stage any marketing or real actions killed coin. RIP.
novag, you just complain ad nauseum about how the developers never do anything for the two altcoins in your sig. Why don't you stop complaining and do something yourself to help the coin(s), or launch your own coin where you do all the shit that you incessantly complain about? /rant |
|
|
|
RAM usage is continuing to get worse as well. I have 7.67/8GB in use now and rising as it's syncing.
We need per kB fee out asap. I believe it's the database that will help with RAM usage. Per kB fees relate to transaction costs. Per kB fee will reduce the total transaction size, thus RAM usage. No, the RAM usage is from the entire blockchain being store in memory while running the daemon. It will go down when the database is implemented; afaik fee size will not do anything to memory usage. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
