Please give conf file for 7950
Could you be a bit more precise? |
|
|
|
I got a great idea dump that Ethereum shit for Bitcoin and we all be happy.
Also Monero's competitor ZCash is 6 months out , does the emission rate of XMR kill it for good?
I made a comparison of Monero vs ZCash in another thread, I'll just quote it here. Klee, if you find this off-topic, feel free to delete it. 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: For its first four years online, a portion of every mined Zcash coin will go directly to Wilcox’s Zcash company 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): This operation (called a pour) might take a minute or two depending on your hardware. It is producing a zero-knowledge proof. (This operation's performance will be improved in the coming months.) Shen Noether (aka NobleSir), who is obviously more knowledgeable about this subject than me, also made a comparison on reddit: 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) https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/41vg68/monero_vs_zcash_eli5_fundamental_differences/cz63pqwAnd: 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/689958030859960321I took out this excerpt from the discussion in this thread -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1139756.msg13623846#msg13623846 (starting point). Look way back in 2014 when you launched Monero, I told you smooth and fluffypony that IP address correlation was the weakness. Fluffypony proceed to try to integrate I2P. I warned you all many times that was not an adequate direction. But you wouldn't listen.
I2P, and even somewhat Tor, is perceived as adequate by 99% of the market. The remaining 1% may be smarter but isn't obviously much of a market at all. Very niche-y. By the speculators because they are clueless. But the corporations do not use darknets. They want privacy on the block chain, like we have disk encryption. Mention dark nets, illegal drug trade, etc, and they won't touch it with a 100 foot pole. I would guess that many corporations do use Tor now for certain things. I2P will be integrated and invisible. No one will know or care how it works, except that the obvious network level vulnerabilities having to do with broadcasting transactions will be removed, and it will pass routine (though not intelligence agency level) technical muster for being private sufficient to satisfy most of the market. That's my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree. Zerocash still needs IP obfuscation for a lot of private usages in practice too. They acknowledge it in the paper. 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: 6.4 Additional anonymity considerations
Zerocash only anonymizes the transaction ledger. Network trac used to announce transactions,
retrieve blocks, and contact merchants still leaks identifying information (e.g., IP addresses). Thus
users need some anonymity network to safely use Zerocash. The most obvious way to do this is
via Tor [DMS04]. Given that Zerocash transactions are not low latency themselves, Mixnets (e.g.,
Mixminion [DDM03]) are also a viable way to add anonymity (and one that, unlike Tor, is not as
vulnerable to trac analysis). Using mixnets that provide email-like functionality has the added
bene t of providing an out-of-band noti cation mechanism that can replace
Receive
.
Additionally, although in theory all users have a single view of the block chain, a powerful
attacker could potentially fabricate an additional block
solely
for a targeted user. Spending any
coins with respect to the updated Merkle tree in this \poison-pill" block will uniquely identify the
targeted user. To mitigate such attacks, users should check with trusted peers their view of the
block chain and, for sensitive transactions, only spend coins relative to blocks further back in the
ledger (since creating the illusion for multiple blocks is far harder). 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. Bear in mind that I2P will be integrated in Monero, but you can always choose to run Monero over TOR if you want. |
|
|
|
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/689958030859960321I took out this excerpt from the discussion in this thread -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1139756.msg13623846#msg13623846 (starting point). Look way back in 2014 when you launched Monero, I told you smooth and fluffypony that IP address correlation was the weakness. Fluffypony proceed to try to integrate I2P. I warned you all many times that was not an adequate direction. But you wouldn't listen.
I2P, and even somewhat Tor, is perceived as adequate by 99% of the market. The remaining 1% may be smarter but isn't obviously much of a market at all. Very niche-y. By the speculators because they are clueless. But the corporations do not use darknets. They want privacy on the block chain, like we have disk encryption. Mention dark nets, illegal drug trade, etc, and they won't touch it with a 100 foot pole. I would guess that many corporations do use Tor now for certain things. I2P will be integrated and invisible. No one will know or care how it works, except that the obvious network level vulnerabilities having to do with broadcasting transactions will be removed, and it will pass routine (though not intelligence agency level) technical muster for being private sufficient to satisfy most of the market. That's my opinion, and you are welcome to disagree. Zerocash still needs IP obfuscation for a lot of private usages in practice too. They acknowledge it in the paper. 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: 6.4 Additional anonymity considerations
Zerocash only anonymizes the transaction ledger. Network trac used to announce transactions,
retrieve blocks, and contact merchants still leaks identifying information (e.g., IP addresses). Thus
users need some anonymity network to safely use Zerocash. The most obvious way to do this is
via Tor [DMS04]. Given that Zerocash transactions are not low latency themselves, Mixnets (e.g.,
Mixminion [DDM03]) are also a viable way to add anonymity (and one that, unlike Tor, is not as
vulnerable to trac analysis). Using mixnets that provide email-like functionality has the added
bene t of providing an out-of-band noti cation mechanism that can replace
Receive
.
Additionally, although in theory all users have a single view of the block chain, a powerful
attacker could potentially fabricate an additional block
solely
for a targeted user. Spending any
coins with respect to the updated Merkle tree in this \poison-pill" block will uniquely identify the
targeted user. To mitigate such attacks, users should check with trusted peers their view of the
block chain and, for sensitive transactions, only spend coins relative to blocks further back in the
ledger (since creating the illusion for multiple blocks is far harder). 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. Bear in mind that I2P will be integrated in Monero, but you can always choose to run Monero over TOR if you want. |
|
|
|
|
Thanks (again) for your analysis on Monero and Bitcoin Klee!
|
|
|
|
Some TA from Klee: Thanks Wexlike, good think with PnF is that if you know which charts to watch the signals are pretty straightforward. My short term charts gave a very strong bearish signal reverse and the daily was a double top breakout, so this was a good signal to take. If the short term charts where only a double top break too, I would be more conservative to go long. As we all know, S/Rs are objective too, though keep in mind that some are meant to be broken (like the 420 resistance in the daily, but we still have resistance there in the 2h). Bitfinex 2h HL 1%x3 Ethereum almost triple topped - POLONIEX 1D ETHBTC HL 2%x3:  0.00405957 is probably a buy though someone may wait for 0.00414076 to be 100% certain! Monero ready for a bullish catapult? POLONIEX 1D XMRBTC HL 3%x3.png:  |
|
|
|
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: For its first four years online, a portion of every mined Zcash coin will go directly to Wilcox’s Zcash company 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): This operation (called a pour) might take a minute or two depending on your hardware. It is producing a zero-knowledge proof. (This operation's performance will be improved in the coming months.) Shen Noether (aka NobleSir), who is obviously more knowledgeable about this subject than me, also made a comparison on reddit: 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) https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/41vg68/monero_vs_zcash_eli5_fundamental_differences/cz63pqw |
|
|
|
Well, I left bitmonerod opened for several days. Here is what I see today:  This was asked on #monero yesterday as well: <TL123> ERROR {2} {p1} 2016-01-19 15:32:37.489227 [abstract_tcp_server2.inl+494 ::do_se nd_chunk] send que size is more than ABSTRACT_SERVER_SEND_QUE_MAX_COUNT(1000), s hutting down connection
<TL123> Server send que max count 1000? Is that something i should rise or what is causing that
<fluffypony> TL123: it's on the list of things to fix, it's harmless and does go away, or else just restart the daemon
|
|
|
|
The masterkey has to be produced in a way that no one knows it. The proposals had been to use a public ceremony and a computer examined by everyone attending, to be sure the masterkey is unknown to anyone.
Note if the masterkey is known, that person can create coins out-of-thin-air, but he can't unmask the anonymity. That is a crucial distinction.
This is why I proposed the idea of using Zerocash as a mixer that eventually times out, so that we can be sure the mixer hasn't created any new coins. Everyone going into the mixer takes the risk that they may not be able to come out of the mixer if the attacker has already created coins. Then we could have many of these mixers in a free market, and users would decide which mixers they trust. Again anonymity is never compromised and the run on the bank can only be a loss to participants, not to the entire ecosystem. I am pretty sure this solves the problem and this is why we can take their open source and beat them.
I am loaded with ideas and designs to solve real problems in crypto. Hopefully some smart devs are going to realize they are better off working with me.
I am aware of that. However, for an stand-alone altcoin creating coins out-of-thin-air is just as detrimental as unmasking the anonymity, because both will likely result in the coin dying.
RingCT has the same problem. I explained in I believe both the chess thread and my Zero Knowledge Transactions thread. This is another reason I abandoned it (in addition to the inability to get reliable anonymity since it doesn't hide meta-data the way Zerocash/Zcash does).
No it doesn't, because coinbase transactions are mixin = 0 in Monero and therefore you can check if the total supply hasn't been tampered with. I don't think you should bet against them, because Zerocash has anonymity and nothing else does! The community will make sure it is peer reviewed. We must. You had better start figuring out how to transition and pronto.
I don't say I do. eb3f stated on reddit the following: "Monero uses ring signatures, as you may know, which is battle-tested and well-understood in the cryptography world and in practice". Even with community review it will take a long time to get to this state. I also don't agree with bolded here, but I won't go on a back-and-forth discussion with you over that. I'll let others which are more knowledgeable comment on the metadata. |
|
|
|
They are the same The Zerocash protocol is being developed into a full-fledged digital currency, Zcash. I don't know what happened. Last time I thought I loaded that page, I was looking at two young developers one of which was Asian. I need to sort out my confusion. I am very perplexed as to what I accidentally loaded last time. You loaded this -> http://moneta.cash/ |
|
|
|
What do you really expect from a speculation thread? Higgs boson?
Correct. I have not seen a Monero technical thread often popping up in the top of the Altcoin Discussion listings (and the marketing thread seems to be troll thread), so apparently I didn't have another venue to try to reach the audience. Or maybe I am just unaware of the correct thread (even if I posted in it before) because Monero has so many threads I can't keep track. That would be very very much appreciated. Let us lowly folk discuss the price swings and short term market action. Best of luck and thanks for moving to more serious threads.
Will do. You could use this -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1190988.0Or just the ANN thread? -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.0Or this -> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1139756.0 |
|
|
|
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: For its first four years online, a portion of every mined Zcash coin will go directly to Wilcox’s Zcash company 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): This operation (called a pour) might take a minute or two depending on your hardware. It is producing a zero-knowledge proof. (This operation's performance will be improved in the coming months.) |
|
|
|
I have no clue what just happened, what a rollercoaster.  Someone should make that for Monero. |
|
|
|
Interestingly the price of XMR in USD is still only 52.5c. Just not a big change really.
I surely thought there would be more fanfare around this price action. I think we have ourselves in a closed loop of "well its steady on USD" so when it goes down in BTC terms, there's confidence that its still holding value, and those that care about USD value don't understand all the moaning and groaning with the "ermagerd why's it dropping". And then when it goes up in BTC its because BTC is going down in USD, then the "BTC price is the only thing that matters" crowd gets very quiet. * GingerAle confused I am a bit confused too, seems like a lot of traders are dumping Monero to catch the BTC train. It baffles me why, because if you simply hold on to your alts and do not dump them, the BTC ratio won't go down and therefore the USD value will increase as well. Since 12:00 (UTC), when the BTC rally started, nearly 60k Monero was dumped. EDIT: 4h candles show -7.54% for Monero (XMR/BTC) and +9.08% for Bitcoin (BTC/USD) |
|
|
|
Shorts are being bent over and spanked. New monthly high achievement unlocked.
There are hardly any shorts (despite no shortage of people who talk as if they would). I've watched the lending market and seen almost no demand, and relatively little supply. There may be off-exchange shorts, for example, people who sold hoping to buy lower, and are now risking a spanking by the FOMO paddle. I saw available for lending XMR go up to ~50k (a new high) before the our rally started, when Dash was still spiking. Now the ~0% almost free ones are long gone, we're down to ~30k, and my offers are being nibbled gobbled. I concede you watch the market more closely than I, but IMO there are ~10-20k XMR in (deeply underwater) short positions. Okay 10-20k = 14-28 BTC = hardly any to me. Volume is 175 BTC today. So 10-20K XMR in shorts needing to cover (all in one day) wouldn't account for much of that. I wouldn't want to be them though. Loan offers down to 28.5k. Loan rates rising very quickly from here. ~15k in short covering is enough to eat the wall protecting 0.00145. But bids above 14 are thin. Very exciting!  Speculation: Dash being suppressed as XMR loan fees require constant liquidation of scamcoin collateral. And the upcoming fair relaunch of Dash Classic can't be helping! You can see the total offers over time here -> http://monerodice.pd.to/polo.phpIt seems indeed various traders are taking out loans and putting them in front of the wall (the 11.5k). In addition, like I said before, various bots are also placing asks in front of the wall. Therefore, it induces (major) resistance currently. I think it will significantly break out once we tear down that wall. EDIT: Weighted average borrow/interest rate is currently between 0.85% and 0.95%, whereas it was between 0.01% and 0.03% yesterday. This confirms a lot of shorts are taken out currently. |
|
|
|
Has it forked again ? Difficulty is way lower than it usually is! Expecting all time low (low 4xxx 's) 8 hours from now...
I see no evidence of a fork. Seems like the usual fluctuations, although i would agree it is odd to see the difficulty dropping as the price is rising. Good time to mine. It's far from usual, hover over the current rate/time then look a week or a month back, it is usually in the 8xx range.. http://www.coinwarz.com/difficulty-charts/monero-difficulty-chartI'm expecting 45xxx in 8 hours.. If it would really go that low it would be a bit unusual indeed, but so far it looks pretty normal. |
|
|
|
I noticed most bots are setting there asks in front of that 11.5k wall, therefore creating (huge) resistance. So, time to tear that wall down |
|
|
|
That makes no sense to me, can you explain?
I am just worrying about what happened to bitcoin happening to dash, but I don't know the details enough to do more than just generally worry about it. I assume if there was a hostile takeover of the foundation they could do some bullshit like fork dash and prevent anyone else from using the trademark. I don't know how the foundation is governed though. If the foundation really owns the trademark, they won't even have to fork DASH in order to prevent anyone else from using it. However, I think the shareholder concentration of the foundation is probably very high, so that will likely deter a (hostile) takeover. But you can never know for sure. Let's say they offer a huge premium, who knows what might happen. I think worrying about the coin foundation that has bylaws and who's members are all Dash stakeholders having a trade mark, is a way smaller risk than not having the trade mark at all. Do you understand the risk of someone completely unrelated to the project owning the trademark? It is a way bigger risk. Look for example at the cases of Monero or Lets Talk Bitcoin, they both have had real trademark issues with owners of other trademarks. In the case of Monero the now closed down Uruguayan Bitcoin company Moneero https://twitter.com/moneerohq actually filed some claims. Fortunately that company closed down. Lets Talk Bitcoin recently got their Youtube channel closed on trademark related issues. Do you know who owned the Bitcoin trademark, at least at the time they filed for bankruptcy MtGox did. I am lazy to check who owns it now if it was already sold. http://phys.org/news/2014-05-mtgox-bitcoin-trademarks.htmlSo saying that Dash taking control of its own destiny and owning rights to the trademark is a bigger risk is disingenuous. Dash has substantially mitigated the risk of outside sources attacking on a trademark basis. I was merely talking about a hypothetical situation and how it could play out. I, however, certainly agree with you that it's better to have Dash stakeholders holding the trade mark (because they obviously got incentives to hold it) than someone completely unrelated. The latter would also be easier to "takeover". I was going to add something to my initial post about incentives, but had to run. Yes, I am aware of that and trademarks are generally a pain in the ass. Thus, in your case, having the trade mark is certainly beneficial. Yes, I knew Karpales held it. Also, my initial post wasn't really meant as criticism, just describing a hypothetical situation. |
|
|
|
Not now, I did not bought it enough yet while it is still relatively cheap.
Still pllenty available below 0.0015. |
|
|
|
That makes no sense to me, can you explain?
I am just worrying about what happened to bitcoin happening to dash, but I don't know the details enough to do more than just generally worry about it. I assume if there was a hostile takeover of the foundation they could do some bullshit like fork dash and prevent anyone else from using the trademark. I don't know how the foundation is governed though. If the foundation really owns the trademark, they won't even have to fork DASH in order to prevent anyone else from using it. However, I think the shareholder concentration of the foundation is probably very high, so that will likely deter a (hostile) takeover. But you can never know for sure. Let's say they offer a huge premium, who knows what might happen. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
