Try this site: https://moneroaddress.org/

You can save that page and use offline.

...

[2] If I recall correctly, the creator of the genesis block holds some kind of masterkey. As a result, you have to trust this person. Even if this key was held by a group, you still have to trust that particular group. In addition, you have to trust the program they run to create the Genesis block (the masterkey could be in there)....

...

If I recall correctly there will not be an ICO you will have to mine them or buy them. There is to be an 11% devtax on mined coins. Somewhat off topic here though.

Shen Noether (aka NobleSir), who is obviously more knowledgeable about this subject than me, also made a comparison on reddit:



https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/41vg68/monero_vs_zcash_eli5_fundamental_differences/cz63pqw

TPTB_need_war has repeatedly been stating that Zerocash does not need IP obfuscation and therefore is not subject to I2P/TOR, which are, in his opinion, flawed.

However, it seems like Zerocash actually needs IP obfuscation as well and they seem to go with TOR, see -> https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/689958030859960321

I took out this excerpt from the discussion in this thread -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1139756.msg13623846#msg13623846 (starting point).


Bear in mind that I2P will be integrated in Monero, but you can always choose to run Monero over TOR if you want.

You can also store Bitcoin data files in any other drive or folder.

If you have already downloaded the data then you will have to move the data to the new folder. If you want to store them in D:\BitcoinData then click on "Properties" of a shortcut to bitcoin-qt.exe and add -datadir=D:\BitcoinData at the end as an example:

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Bitcoin\bitcoin-qt.exe" -datadir=d:\BitcoinData
Start Bitcoin, now you will see all the files are created in the new data directory.

There is a more simple answer, namely Chinese pumping literally everything that is in their reach.

Check -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1341729.msg13684861#msg13684861

And compare on CMC with the gains.

Those piecharts will also show that DASH (and XMR as well) barely have any Chinese volume, so are kind of left out of the "pump".

I'll just copy my reddit comment here:

I've made this list earlier:

List of possible pitfalls wrt ZeroCash/ZeroCoin:

[1] If ZeroCash/ZeroCoin is launched on behalf of a company, which seems the case here, the company can be given a gag order (e.g. to add a line of malicious code).

[2] If I recall correctly, the creator of the genesis block holds some kind of masterkey. As a result, you have to trust this person. Even if this key was held by a group, you still have to trust that particular group. In addition, you have to trust the program they run to create the Genesis block (the masterkey could be in there).

[3] It's too opaque in my opinion. If a bug existed that would create additional coins, there is no way you would see it.

[4] The math and cryptography backing it isn't peer reviewed yet and in an infancy stage.

[1] seems to be confirmed. They will be launching as a for profit company, see:


This could also invoke some legal issues, since they are basically not a decentralid currency and bear in mind they are **US** based (http://www.bizapedia.com/de/THE-ZEROCOIN-ELECTRIC-COIN-COMPANY-LLC.html). Just remember what happened with Ripple.

Basically, with Ring Confidential Transactions included in Monero it's basically pepsi vs coke (thanks to u/smooth_xmr for this analogy), where both have their advantages and disadvantages.

P.S. They are currently only on testnet, the "real-version" is at least 6 months away.

P.P.S. It seems like they transactions are also quit inefficient compared to Monero's. See this description on how to get from the basecoins (the transparent ones) to the zerocoins (anonymous ones):

I've done a little bit of comparison in the Ring CT paper / you can also look here for some facts on zcash- there are a few I've seen so far

[1] Setup: Monero (Trustless) vs Zerocash (Must Trust zcash company)

[2] Proof Generation: Monero (100's second ) vs Zcash (1/minute)

[3] Algorithm auditability: Monero (a decent number of people seem to understand ring signatures and confidential transactions) vs Zerocash (I'm not sure how many people actually understand the proofs besides the small group of authors) - although this point is certainly subjective.

[4] Poison-pill attack vulnerability: Monero (attacker would need 51%) vs Zerocash Vulnerable, (see zerocash extended paper section 6.4

[5] Anonymity set: Monero (although the zcash proponents note that a ring signature is a "smaller" anonymity set, they usually don't mention that the stealth address factor actually means that each transaction is masked, whereas the ring signatures provide additional plausible liability, furthermore, since keys appear in different ring signatures in different blocks in time, the anonymity set for when a given key is spent grows infinitely, and could eventually grow larger than the zcash anonymity set at any fixed instant in time) vs Zcash (anonymity set is the entire blockchain )

[6]Anonymous Multisig: Monero (yes! see "written up" link on ring ct sticky, this could make things like lightning potentially possible ) vs Zerocash (?)

[7] Mining: Monero (has it's own strongly decentralized mining process) vs Zerocash protocol from the paper lacks it's own mining (it's essentially just a distributed anonymous database), so there must be another coin which is mined to convert to zerocash tokens

--note that point 4. is an actual potential compromise of anonymity, which contradicts some of the statements the zerocash team has made.
.
Other Differences are slight: Slight differences in transaction size - however Monero transactions should end up being a bit larger when transmitted, but cost less in terms of storage (their eventual block-chain cost will be approximately 32 bytes* (n+1) where n is mixin + epsilon, where epsilon is the current tx size - ring signatures (Note in the recent Ring CT drafts, there is pruning mentioned for the range proofs, see the "written up" link)

Zerocash does not need IP obfuscation when all the transactions are in the private zerocoins. Cite the section of the paper. I think you must be misunderstanding something. You are probably conflating the use of the regular non-anonymous coins mentioned in the paper.

Here you are making excuses again. Corporations are not going to trust unprovable shit. And moreover, mixnets are always vulnerable to flood attacks. They are very, very unreliable. Not only do I disagree, but I also think you are ignoring basic fundamental realities about the technologies.

Edit: arguing for Tor/I2P is akin to arguing for Dash's off chain mixing. Now look in the mirror and remember your arguments for End-to-End Principled ring sigs (versus off chain mixing) and realize the same logic applies to why Zerocash is superior to using off chain mixnets. Hypocrite.

Edit#2: okay I see the section you are referring to:


I will need to understand this attack better. Seems to me they are saying that you need to spend from a block where your pour transaction was the only transaction in the block. But the user would I think know this and thus not spend the coin any more. Thus I believe the anonymity remains provable without the use of any mixnet. I will need to understand this more deeply to be sure.

Wire transfer, interact transfer, visa, etc.  You can transfer fiat electronically in many ways however none of them are decentralized.

Aw, come on, one of our community members who lives in the area, who I won't name, brought his friend in who wore the bathing suit.  If you knew him, it's perfectly within his character, LOL.  The conference people did not approve and had her leave.  I don't think it lasted very long at all, and he's had his ears full of scolding off threads, so that's the end of that, and it's not really that big a deal, other than we didn't get a good picture of her   (I'm an old lady, and I'm not offended) They've used pretty girls in bikinis all my life to sell cars, so what the heck is it with everyone getting so damn prude in Miami of all places?  Whatever...!

Because I viewed the linked archived content (and saw the existence of the Bittorrent forum archive going back many years even before 2008) when I made the post in the Monero Speculation thread, and now as you can see the entire archive is gone. And that was only a few days ago. So the probability that the sudden removal of that archive did not result from me pointing out that Bittorrent is in bed together with the corruption of the Net Neutrality movement is approximately Nil.

I am not saying necessarily that any particular Monero community member was responsible for the removal of the archive. I am saying that someone who reads the Monero thread and/or who reads all my posts was responsible. And it is very likely that TPTB are watching very closely all my posts, because they understand (as do many astute readers) that I am one of the brighter minds on the forum who is very truly anarcho-Libertarian oriented and that I have the marketing skills to actually make something happen on a large scale.

However, TPTB shouldn't fear me, because I am not going to do anything illegal.

The most important point to take from the post I made is that Bittorrent is a political gimick used to fool the masses into submitting to taxation of the internet bandwidth via Net Neutrality. Bittorrent was never economic. It is a fraud and those who are stealing content deserve their fate by buying into an uneconomic lie.

And this pertains to the Technology vs. Marketing thread in the context of we are discussing whether potential markets and technology are viable. It makes no sense to state marketing or technology are important, if we don't understand how delusions about each can be foisted upon us. Also I was responding to an upthread post claiming that we can replace centralized social media with decentralized variants. And to address that possibility, I must talk about the foundational issue of decentralized file storage. That should have been obvious from the post (and its context) that you are reacting to.

Also for those who don't fully grasp my economics point, the point is that if we try to force ISPs to give away bandwidth for free, then we in effect socialize ISPs. And then the government can step in with Net Neutrality taxation to make it "fair" by compensating some ISPs for others or what (but in essence what we have done is attempted to steal and thus the government is called upon to take over and steal from all of us). We are fucking idiots!

For those can't deduce the implications, without stealing bandwidth by doing file transfers P2P (taking the expensive upload bandwidth that ISPs have statistically allocated for client-server model paradigms) then we can't have file storage that is resistant to regulation and thus we can't steal copyrighted content (as I explained in my prior post that hosting content on servers will be regulated by the hosting provider's Terms of Service). Afaik, the reason upload bandwidth is expensive for ISPs, is because telcom "last mile" technology is focused on maximizing download bandwidth for the client-server model of HTTP. It is a natural law of physics that you would not run a main line water/gas pipe from the substation to each home, instead use multifurcation from the main to progressively smaller diameter pipes.

P2P can not be a bandwidth driven paradigm! Fuhgeddaboudit.

It's not a mandatory update from 0.9, but it is a mandatory update from 0.8.x. A fresh sync with 0.9 works just fine, a lot of 0.9 nodes aren't on the bad fork any longer (longest chain rule), and the 1 or 2 nodes that still seem to (bizarrely) be stuck will figure out they need to update.

Re: the thread title, with the mandatory hard fork policy every update is mandatory. We can put the latest version in the title, but I'm not sure it's necessary to use the word mandatory - thoughts?