Days let's posit that your point about slow development of Monero had some validity (really I don't dig into Monero source code so I don't know), I have some reactions: 1. Could you please go post that in a thread about Monero, not in the Dash thread. Motivation/motive of Monero supporters (and myself who does not own a Moneroj) is not a factual answer to concerns about Dash. 2. The concern we've expressed about the Dash distribution is that it unfairly skews the control over the float and the profit from the coin to a smaller group. If you are implying this corrupt financial structure enables Dash to have more funds to develop their coin faster, my reaction is the technology of Dash isn't even at the level of a high school junior programmer. Don't forget I found a high school level probability math error in the InstantX white paper a year after it was released. Who the hell is doing your peer review? The anonymity is not end-to-end principled (a foundational principle of correct network protocol design), is horrendously slow, is not autonomous, and the masternodes could violate anonymity of users. Not sure if 263288 lines of new code added in 2015 alone defines slow development. See: https://getmonero.org/2016/02/10/monero-missive-2015-year-in-review.htmlBut like you said, this is offtopic and shouldn't be discussed here. |
|
|
|
What happens when halving passes without incident, a modest price increase and no major drop-off in hashrate. Lightning network goes on demo and suddenly everyone breathes a sigh of relief ?
The alt-coin market will experience a sudden de-hedging.
We must be prepared for that. Dash is better prepared than most because of its 'reserve" supply market which will mitigate a lot of the de-hedging. (Also it wasn't amongst the biggest gainers from the crisis, so won't be the biggest loser if the converse applies - they were perhaps Ether and XMR which experienced multiples).
But it would be good if marketing & technical developments could be appropriately timed to offset the rush back into bitcoin when everyone decides it's going to be ok.
XMR "only" went up ~3.5 times from it's bottom (I am taking current price), pretty much the same as DASH. For high multiples you should look at Factom, Maidsafe, and Ethereum. |
|
|
|
Also, I haven't been following the whole thing too closely...so basically a for-profit company called Blockstream is funding Bitcoin development, so core developers are basically in their pocket.
Some of the bitcoin core devs are also working for Blockstream. I don't remember the exact number but it's not that large, compared to the total contributors. Those working for Blockstream are amongst the most prominent though. |
|
|
|
Where have I repeatedly harassed someone about something that isn't even accurate, and refused to stop even when the issue was done?
Trolls like this guy and a couple others are pure scum. They should have grown up before computers so someone could knock some respect into their punk asses.
LAY OFF PEOPLE. I'm sick of it and I'm just about done with this "community".
I'm sorry that people are picking on you. I wish everyone here could be nice and get along. We are all in Monero together guys. Lets not fight! We dont want to drive anyone away from our community, and that includes interested people who read the thread and might be turned off by people bashing someone in it. +1, we should put the ad hominems aside and stick to a more qualitative discussion. I'd also like to see statements, whether bearish or bullish, backed up by analysis/arguments, may that be fundamental analysis, technical analysis or a mix of both. Ad hominems are simply childish and will make this thread look silly to readers and/or outsiders. |
|
|
|
[1] That only applies if miners are on average mining break even. With all those Chinese miners who are basically mining for free I presume on average miners are mining with a profit. You are right about the remainder. Worst case scenario the hashrate drops so much that you would need a emergency hardfork to adjust the difficulty. [2] Not entirely true, the hashrate "ramped up" in the summer, but you can see a decrease from around July 2012 until and somewhat after the halving (which was end november 2012 if I recall correctly). https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=1×pan=all&scale=1&address=[2] You shouldn't use logarithmic data when we're looking for a fall on the linear scale. It's even more helpful to use the averaged option as well: https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate?showDataPoints=false×pan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=7&scale=0&address=For example if number 1 happened we would see a fall to about 600kGH... Out of curiosity I wrote a script to search for crashes and found a few. It's calculated using the average 14 days, then comparing the new value. These are all over 25%: Average Diff New Diff Percentage Decline
9.60447475176 7.14510736828 0.256064745554
536.872239933 367.392898201 0.315679092951
10659.1147545 7641.93145599 0.283061339336
9484.62097297 6860.53271228 0.276667699023
25941.2798106 18975.3491722 0.26852686873
34557.2006617 25621.1386579 0.258587554337
314324099.393 229513533.571 0.269818846169
Most of these were from the very beginning. Really the only one that I'd call a crash is "13/01/2015 18:15:05" I used log merely because the blockchain.info chart is a bit of a blunt instrument and I couldn't find any better. Without log the chart is hardly readible. Furthermore, in my opinion log is perfectly fine for looking it at (most traders use log for prices too) and it gives a better relative picture. If you hoover over the hashrate you can clearly see it dropping.EDIT: Disregard all I said about [2], apparently I have terrible (chart) reading comprehension late at night. I was looking at 2011 instead of 2012. Eduffield (and you) was (were) right and I stand corrected. |
|
|
|
.... Bitcoin's halving is around the corner and there is a concern that this will create mempool transaction problems on Bitcoin's network on a larger scale then previously witnessed ... Why is the halving expected to increase Bitcoin traffic / mempool size? ... Some predict that after halving and no price increase some miners could turn their machines off and hashrate could drop because of that more or less significantly. That would be ok but bitcoin difficulty adjusts every 2016 blocks so miners who are still mining would have more work to be done to solve a block than it should be for a hashrate like that for quite a long time (normally 2016 is 2 weeks and with lower hashrate this timeframe grows). This would mean larger time between blocks which in its turn would mean more transactions waiting in line to get into the block which could lead for confirmation problems which could decrease the price which will make it unprofitable for more miners which will turn their miners off and there you go - "death spiral". I've been thinking about this problem too recently. Actual size usage of blocks is somewhere ~800kb, which means we could see throughput of ~400kb per block for up to a month after the halving. The reason for this is pretty simple, if the profitability of the network drops 50% in one moment, 50% of the miners should drop off. Also, the difficulty only readjusts every 2 weeks, which will take 4 weeks with 50% of the miners. If we're using ~800kb in transactions, doesn't that mean we'll start added 400kb to the blocklog... every 10 minutes? What happens after 30 days of that? A 1.72GB mempool It's worth noting, miners didn't drop off last time. But the climate is completely different now. I have no idea what happens next, in either case it's sure to be entertaining.  [1] That only applies if miners are on average mining break even. With all those Chinese miners who are basically mining for free I presume on average miners are mining with a profit. You are right about the remainder. Worst case scenario the hashrate drops so much that you would need a emergency hardfork to adjust the difficulty. [2] Not entirely true, the hashrate "ramped up" in the summer, but you can see a decrease from around July 2012 until and somewhat after the halving (which was end november 2012 if I recall correctly). https://blockchain.info/charts/hash-rate?showDataPoints=false&show_header=true&daysAverageString=1×pan=all&scale=1&address= |
|
|
|
Spotted this on reddit: Exodus co-founder here, thanks for sharing! We started heavy on Monero integration last week and have been making some good progress. Here's a screenshot I took of my portfolio a few minutes ago: http://imgur.com/VjbW3MX - includes my first Monero purchase  I was optimistic that we'd be able to ship with Monero support this Friday (April 8th), but the user-experience needs a lot of improvement. In Exodus, it's imperative that every coin behave like the rest - this means instant notifications of receiving coins, near instant exchanges, etc. We hit some problems with Monero and are working on fixing them so that we can ship with Monero support If you have any direct questions, either comment here or don't hesitate to email me at jp[at]exodus[dot]io Soon™ I guess. |
|
|
|
Spotted this on reddit: Exodus co-founder here, thanks for sharing! We started heavy on Monero integration last week and have been making some good progress. Here's a screenshot I took of my portfolio a few minutes ago: http://imgur.com/VjbW3MX - includes my first Monero purchase I was optimistic that we'd be able to ship with Monero support this Friday (April 8th), but the user-experience needs a lot of improvement. In Exodus, it's imperative that every coin behave like the rest - this means instant notifications of receiving coins, near instant exchanges, etc. We hit some problems with Monero and are working on fixing them so that we can ship with Monero support If you have any direct questions, either comment here or don't hesitate to email me at jp[at]exodus[dot]io Soon™ I guess. |
|
|
|
Monero 0.9.4 released!! https://getmonero.org/2016/04/02/monero-0.9.4-released.htmlSUMMARY OF CHANGES This has important bug fixes to 0.9.3 Hydrogen Helix Fix remaining issues with coinbase transactions Removed connectivity_tool Switched to new Clang move diagnostics Added a new --generate-from-json flag to simplewallet to allow wallet creation from a JSON file Add a new and improved version of sweep_dust Various bug fixes to handle failures such as map resize failures and bad simplewallet exit[/li][/list] For those using 0.9.3 now is there any benefit to sync again from scratch? Or can the existing blockchain be used with 0.9.4 with the exact same results? Same. Correct, the blockchain is compatible. Therefore, you won't have to sync from scratch again. |
|
|
|
Someone posed a question I can't answer, but seems important:
I remember something about the block time and reward doubling. Did that happen already, and in short, what was the main reason?
Reward merely doubled to take the longer blocktime (i.e. 1 to 2 minutes) into account. The reward per minute remained the same. |
|
|
|
@AlexGR, don't try to derail the discussion to anything Monero related. Smooth and I might be Monero proponents, but TPTB_need_war who started this discussion isn't invested in Monero at all.
This IS Monero related. They think dash is too dangerous for their reputation. Dash is being used by scammers a lot. Some even buy it for 95btc each!
This might have something to do with it. The list is reserved for those who were instrumental in substantially ripping off folks in the cryptocurrency space.
Carlos Garza (GAW Miners)
Evan Duffield (DASH)
Trendon T. Shavers (Bitcoin Savings and Trust - BTCST)
The above was posted by known Monero troll Icebreaker, on the DASH thread. Otherwise I would be totally oblivious to the existence of this thread. TPTB has confessed a few months ago that Smooth (a Monero dev) talked to him about DASH (obviously in a negative light) and ever since he has been used as a proxy-critic. It is not surprising that he believed Smooth's lies, such as "ohhh Evan cut the coins down", when in fact that was a temp glitch from the code changes, and was set back up to a variable number that could even exceed the initial 84mn coins (it would depend based on difficulty). The final cut in supply was NOT Duffield's decision. Duffield came into the thread, he gave us the poll and we voted on it on whether we wanted lower or higher supply. The same happened with the instamine trolling back in march 2014/april 2014, when we got a similar poll regarding how to fix the instamine distribution and we, as users, rejected the proposed airdrop because there was already sufficient redistribution by that time. I didn't know about that post, but that doesn't make it Monero related at all. If an Ethereum proponent would have posted that in the thread, would that have made it Ethereum related? Furthermore, iCEBREAKER is a proponent of a bunch of other coins as well, does that make them related to this thread as well? TPTB has been a critic since 2014 as far as I know, he can probably address this himself better. He also states that upthread. I'll let smooth address the last paragraph of your post, since I haven't looked into that thoroughly. Also, I'll stay out of this thread/discussion since I have said my piece which Macno asked for. If he has any further questions I'll gladly respond to him. |
|
|
|
There is no concrete evidence that Eduardo DeCastro = iCEBREAKER. I've asked before to people to provide evidence, but like I said, I haven't seen anything concrete yet. Until then, it is a mere allegation.
You are the only fair and balanced Monero Dev I am aware of, so what`s your take on the "concrete evidence" regarding the accusations that Evan has scammed anyone? Do you think he should be on that list? I'll start of by saying that I am neither a dev nor a core-team member. Perhaps my "role" is better described as contributor. Anyway, like I stated upthread at least one person missed the launch due to Evan Duffield launching earlier than he said he would. That should be considered as someone (in)directly being "ripped off" in my opinion (or scammed). Furthermore, for every poster there might be 10-20 readers who experienced the same thing. He also confirms that he'll try again next week. That probably resulted in some people getting caught off guard regarding the launch. In addition, there were no Windows binaries available, which arguably represents a great part of users. However, he was apparently willing to throw 5k DASH at it. See I compiled the exe for Windows... no blocks yet, just a bazillion rejects.
Any chance you could upload that windows client exe? I'd be willing to throw 5k XCO at you. Just make sure it's the latest source from github As you can see from the timestamp, this was only 2 hours after the launch (launch was 18 January 2014, 11 PM EST). That is concrete evidence that he was at least mining during the first 48 hours. I also dislike the fact that, almost 2 years after, he tried to turn the "feature into a bug" with a lot of hype surrounding it. Analogies like "it's the same as startups" or building a company from the ground are just plain fallacies in my opinion. They might apply if you fairly lay out everything in advance of the launch, like Ethereum did, but you absolute can't make them after such a thing happened. Until Evan makes FULL DISCLOSURE of the truth, then he is scammer. There is no other valid sentiment.
Even if disclosure were made now, there have been two years of deception, obfuscation, and spin (not only by Evan but by the other useful idiots like AlexGR who, assuming no more explicit involvement, got in early and allowed themselves to be recruited by their own greed as accomplices). That can't be erased from history any more than MtGox would cease to be a scam if Karpeles showed up and told us the missing coins, that he misled people about for possibly years, was all just a big accident. Anyone who bought Dash on the basis, in whole or part, of misleading statements from Evan or the others and then lost money has been scammed.Thus a correction is needed: Evan Duffield, along with AlexGR and the rest of the Dash shills who continue to scam investors (DASH) I also mostly agree with this quote, I'll address the part of misleading statements. Evan Duffield has documented his own version of what happened with the instamine here: http://dashdot.io/alpha/?page_id=118I'll take some excerpts out of them which I disagree with. First: It’s also important to note, I was working a very challenging day job while working on Dash in the first couple weeks. So I was putting out fires every night, keeping tabs on Dash during the day (while getting yelled at by my boss when he caught me a couple times). Eventually I quit when I got Dash stable enough to work on full time and decided I really wanted to explore what I could do with it. “ This is basically the same as him saying it was a hobby, which I addressed in my other comment upstate. That statement directly contradicts the email he sent out to the Bitcoin dev mailing list. Second: 3) Evan’s point in the above video is that, without the instamine Dash would not have captured the interest of it’s Founders. Addressed this earlier in the post. The fact that the instamine had to happen to capture interest of the founders is a bit sketchy in my opinion. Third: Dash Early Distribution This shows a graph of transactions from early addresses to other addresses. However, one could have simply sent his "instamined DASH" to another address and made it look like the coins where distributed. You simply can't post that graph and say the the coins were redistrubted. There is not enough evidence for this. Fourth: Dash was buggy at the beginning In my opinion, he should've done some more testing like he said than instead of seemingly rushing to launch like he did. Whether the instamine was intentional or not, I am leaning towards probable. I do admit though, that there is not enough concrete evidence to be certain of this. Whether he should be on the list or not. He certainly isn't as worse as most people on that list, but he "ripped off" people to some extent. I'll leave the decision open to Gleb Gamow. Finally, the instamine will probably always be a dark cloud hanging over DASH, which will hinder its ability to grow. Even Charlie Lee, a completely unbiased person, said this. The mere reason for this is not the instamine per se, but the fact that the instamine represents such a large part of the current supply. It's ~31.5% of the current supply. Like AlexGR pointed out, Litecoin had some kind of instamine as well, but it only represents <1% of the current supply. This issue might have been avoided if he didn't cut the blockreward to 1/4th (if I recall correctly). @AlexGR, don't try to derail the discussion to anything Monero related. Smooth and I might be Monero proponents, but TPTB_need_war who started this discussion isn't invested in Monero at all. Furthermore, the discussion here doesn't destroy the functionality of the thread, because most of the functionality is in the opening post. |
|
|
|
Do you know iCEBREAKER is Eduardo the HASHFAST scammer who is a big time supporter of Monero yet you didn't mention he's name ever?
No I didn't know that. He and I used to fight always, but he stopped attacking me when I stopped attacking Monero. I was very much against the HASHFAST scam. I know some of those who lost money. There is no concrete evidence that Eduardo DeCastro = iCEBREAKER. I've asked before to people to provide evidence, but like I said, I haven't seen anything concrete yet. Until then, it is a mere allegation. |
|
|
|
@AlexGR, at least one person missed the launch due to Evan Duffield launching earlier than he said he would. That should be considered as someone (in)directly being "ripped off" in my opinion. See: Ok now it insta crashes when I type "setgenerate true".
Time to go to bed and try again next week? Yeah, let's do that. I obviously need to do some more testing. Thanks everyone! Best thing to do I guess. Please, confirm you won't be launching after some minutes/hours even if you fix it, and the sooner would be tomorrow, thanks. Definitely not. I'll also follow up with this post when I do set a time. Launch is being moved to 11PM EST!
... seriously? Just woke up to this  How many hours have I lost? Oh, well. Time to git pull and launch it again. @Gleb Gamow, see above and: This: Evan Duffield states, it was merely "a hobby", which is directly contradicted by: Hello, We’re a startup looking for 1 or 2 really good C++ programmer that is familiar with the bitcoin internals to help with a for-profit startup. We will be able to provide more information about the project after signing a non-compete/non-disclosure agreement. Our coin will be one of the truly unique coins that are not just a clone of the original Bitcoin code. In short the project will be a merge-mined altcoin that will provide a very useful service to the whole crypto-coin ecosystem. If you have added any features to Bitcoin or related technologies this is a definite bonus. Please include information about the work you’re done in the space. We have detailed plans on how to implement it and the roles we are looking to fill. If interested please email eduffield82 <at> gmail.com with a description of your work experience and we’ll vett the applications and share our plans to see if you’re interested. Thanks, Evan & Kyle Hawk Financial Group, LLC And perhaps also: I was just thinking about this for a coin I am considering making... I think it's a good idea for the following reasons.
* Primecoin started out very low performance and the community took it upon themselves to improve it.
* If the coin is a really good idea, people will adapt your c# to cython/c/c++ to gain an advantage and after the advantage is leaving they would open source it
I think this would basically add 1 extra step to the arms race that happens with new coins. I.e, Bytecode, machine code, GPU, ASICs, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
The quality of this thread is, alas, significantly detoriating over the last few days.
|
|
|
|
Just realized what day it is today… nvm. I was interested in the future of Cryptonote when they start factoring bigger numbers. Thoughts? In Quantum news: http://news.mit.edu/2016/quantum-computer-end-encryption-schemes-0303OK, so they factored the number 15 ("who's that sniggering in the back?"), BUT it's a potentially scalable solution. The beginning of the end for encryption schemes?
New quantum computer, based on five atoms, factors numbers in a scalable way.
(…)
Now, in a paper published today in the journal Science, researchers from MIT and the University of Innsbruck in Austria report that they have designed and built a quantum computer from five atoms in an ion trap. The computer uses laser pulses to carry out Shor’s algorithm on each atom, to correctly factor the number 15. The system is designed in such a way that more atoms and lasers can be added to build a bigger and faster quantum computer, able to factor much larger numbers. The results, they say, represent the first scalable implementation of Shor’s algorithm.
“We show that Shor’s algorithm, the most complex quantum algorithm known to date, is realizable in a way where, yes, all you have to do is go in the lab, apply more technology, and you should be able to make a bigger quantum computer,” says Isaac Chuang, professor of physics and professor of electrical engineering and computer science at MIT. “It might still cost an enormous amount of money to build — you won’t be building a quantum computer and putting it on your desktop anytime soon — but now it’s much more an engineering effort, and not a basic physics question.” EDIT: Is it just me or is the name Isaac Chuang a beautiful synergy between east and west, ha! http://web.mit.edu/physics/images/faculty/chuang_isaac.jpgSee: Do you have suggestions for how the developers should respond to this threat now (aside from panicking)? Formulate and articulate a plan to manage transition to qc-aware signature algorithms. Add necessary supporting interfaces to development plans. Eventually someone will submit a pull request. If they know what sort of thing will be well-received, i.e. what and where are the prefered interfaces, it becomes about 100x more likely that pull request will be useful. Shen Noether commented this on reddit: Once the current round of improvements is finished (apps/ guis/multisig/etc) the attention will likely move to quantum secure, and hopefully by then there will be more signature implementations available to choose from, I.e. Hopefully a Bernstein type will have coded the new ref for quantum. Note that a lot of the necessary math ( I.e. Ring sigs / one time keys) has been studied already in the literature.. https://www.reddit.com/r/monero/comments/4c3f1c/monero_and_the_impending_threat_of_quantum/Change Monero to the the right non-april fools word :-P |
|
|
|
There's no doubt I made a bad trade, but that really isn't the issue. Trying to break the trend line so you can buy at 250k is the issue. I'm just tired of wasting time on TA in markets that move according to the greed of a small number of individuals. So yeah, even if it doesn't go to 299k I'm pretty close to taking my profits while I still have them. Forex was more complicated because of how much has to be considered in the fundamentals, but at least when things happen you can figure out why and the answer isn't "because someone put up a huge buy/sell wall".
Frankly, because of the illiquidity of many cryptocurrencies, i.e., they can easily be broken by one "entity"/trader, one shouldn't put too much weight on trendlines in my opinion. Personally, I like to look at (major) horizontal support and resistances zone. They usually work best. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
