MPEX may have invented the GavinCoin Short, but it will be far from the only exchange using it to nuke the Gavinstas' trollfork from space.
The same WMD can be used against Core too. This could be mutual annihilation (reverse wealth effect, which is levered) as you have mentioned. Or one fork could gain momentum and avalanche effect. Again I would sell BTC for XMR or dollars immediately. I own no XMR and I keep a small amount of BTC because I can't spend XMR easily (or at least hasn't been worth it for me to figure out how). I do intend to hold most of my wealth in crypto-coin in the near future. XMR will part of my holdings. BTC probably not. FYI, you can pay any Bitcoin address with XMR using xmr.to ( https://xmr.to/). That should make spending a lot easier for you. |
|
|
|
So the 0.0023 wall has just been eaten completely. Let's see where we'll bounce, I'm thinking in the 21,5-22,5 area.
One should notice that the asks also dropped down to 175k from around 205-210k, so seems like most of that was used to dump into the wall. |
|
|
|
This is correct, and I hadn't given enough thought to this problem prior to posting.
Now that I've given it more thought, I think it can be significantly alleviated by making collection from the pool span a longer period, on the time scale of years. Relative hashrate is likely to change over these period, so it may not be the best plan to publish excessively large blocks hoping to reclaim the fee (and publishing typical-sized blocks does not give big miners an advantage). Also, with a different function you can change the balance between the marginal and total penalty so that the actual penalty is small, nullifying the effect (it will require the cap to be a bit harder, but still more elastic than what we have now).
I agree that this calls for more analysis. A longer time period over which the reward is given doesn't help, as the larger nodes or entities will still get a larger ratio of the rolling over fees, by definition. Actually, making the rollover fees only extend over a couple of blocks would more likely mitigate the problem, but if you roll over the fee for about 3 blocks or so, then it might be worth it for a miner to hold blocks and release 2 at a time, depending on fee-over-time. This, in turn, might exacerbate the selfish miner exploit 1. The natural monopoly condition that already exists in Bitcoin 2 seems to be exacerbated either way. Getting around this would be tricky, if it's possible. 1http://fc14.ifca.ai/papers/fc14_submission_82.pdf2https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=176684.msg9375042#msg9375042An examination of the prior art is warranted.
Pointing to Monero as an examination of prior art is asking a bit much. Are you expecting us to dig through the Monero source code? How do they get around the problem? This is not very helpful; The Basics
A special type of transaction included in each block, which contains a small amount of monero sent to the miner as a reward for their mining work. https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/moneropedia/coinbaseDid you miss this link? -> https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/c41d14b2aa3fc883d45299add1cbb8ebbe6c9ed8/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain.cpp#L2230-L2244 |
|
|
|
The imposible monero>btc seems more plausible as time goes on
nope. with Monero wallowing at near all-time lows relative to BTC and way down at #13 in the cryptocurrency mkts, it's no wonder iCELatte and his buddies have decided to come into this thread and try to take advantage of the 20MB controversy. it's a shameless move yet quite expected from these altscam guys. too bad it's not going to work: - I have been reading this thread since early 2013, it is one of the little gems this forum has left. I respect your thoughts and what you have contributed. Until now I have refrained from commenting on/about anything monero in the little posts i make here, since there's an altsection for that. But what you're doing now is playing the exact same card that all the bitcoin sceptics are pulling to illegitimatize btc, which imo is a weak one. Bitcoin provided a mental exercise when it appeared on the scene. You've been able to make it to the other side and are one of the most forward thinking guys ion this subject(esp if compared to the rest of the world). There are a lot of viable arguments against alts or monero but the stance you've been taking is of the same sturdiness of the bitcoin-'haters' and have resulted in fallacies based on price. Maybe that is because of the monero-proponents here who sort of force you into this position. But don't become like the btc-haters who arn't willing to at least try out other perspectives on the matter. You resorted into the same kind of tactics as the old status quo you once battled. You've been getting a lot of shit here lately in all the debates. And although you are used to getting shit about these topics it almost seems that lately you're losing it a little. Call me a troll/newb/insignifact whatever. The paragraph i started with was genuine. i appreciate the feedback. i've already taken these types of thoughts into consideration. thezerg once accused me of being a dinorsaur with regards to innovation in Bitcoin, which you kinda are above. i don't think that's true. this whole debate is consistent with my long held belief that all innovation should occur on the mainchain. if Bitcoin fails to do that as an open source project similar to linux, which was supposedly the great promise it made imo, then the whole concept of cryptocurrencies has failed and we'll just go back to fiat for the next hundred years. this whole movement of Gavin to go to XT, if necessary, is innovation on the mainchain as i see it. he's simply going to upgrade the software to accept bigger blocks. and that's a good thing. if anything, the dinosaurs and fear mongerers are the one's wanting to keep Bitcoin artificially restrained. enough about that. as far as Monero is concerned, it is a completely new altcoin with a different signature scheme. to be honest, it is so far off my radar and so insignificant of an alt that i hadn't paid much attention to it. i still don't really care to understand how it works b/c i don't think it will go anywhere. could be wrong. i've always said i'd welcome more privacy in Bitcoin and it's possible Monero does that. i know there was a big technical issue months back but can't remember what it was. maybe someone could clarify. but that's beside the point. it is NOT innovating on top of Bitcoin which i quite frankly see as a problem for it. it is not leveraging upon the huge network effect already achieved by Bitcoin. does that necessarily mean it will fail? no. but i think we get one chance with this b/c the implications are so huge. if Bitcoin fails, they all fail. if it's not improved upon or upgraded, it will fail. if we all don't stick together as a group, it will fail. if that means the economic majority has to fork off and shed the likes of the Blockstream cabal, we have a chance. the more i think about it, the better i like the idea of getting rid of gmax and luke. i think they're toxic. yeah, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer but he can't be trusted with the keys or to run a company. he's a KNOWN Bitcoin bear and posts an XMR donation address. that's his prerogative but i think a core dev should be all out pushing and working on Bitcoin like Gavin does to advance the project forward. shedding those guys would be a good thing. everything i say is said in the context of the broader markets. we're probably heading into the next recession and in that environment i believer altcoins will be slaughtered. if Bitcoin can hang on, or even thrive, as a safe haven alternative, a major shift in finance may be upon us. Bitcoin has already survived an unbelievable 6 yrs and next yr we will halve. the way all the charts have lined up, it's just a matter of time before we start the next advance to end Bitcoin's longest Bear. this hasn't even been the greatest Bear, imo, which was from 32 to 1.98 in 2011. that is a great sign. i've always said that the majority of ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money. this is definitely playing out and includes Bitcoiners who bought high. it also includes full node operators and miners, btw, and accounts for the decrease in their numbers too. but that will easily reverse with new adoption and the next price rise. Bitcoin is like threading a needle; it needs to stay private enough to prevent all out war with TPTB. so far so good. is Monero in that category? i doubt it but i'm not saying it won't possibly find a niche with the iCELatte's of the world. oh, btw, it took me a while to figure out what his agenda was with him coming in here and pretending to be all concerned about Bitcoin when his real agenda was to diss it and pump Monero. even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev. i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that. also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin. that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion. but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening. i like to focus on what ppl's motivations are, that should be clear. i won't let that cloud my judgment however. i really think Bitcoin is on the right path, even if it has to fork to XT. to me, that would just mean a much easier path forward with a new group of devs. then the market can be free of financial conflicts of interest from the likes of Blockstream. i've heard enough complaints about how big players like Nasdaq won't entrust large amounts of money to a monetary system controlled by an unknown, anarchistic leaning group of new leaders. i wouldn't either if i didn't fully understand the system. that's why i would be willing to migrate to XT if need be. how would it be for Gavin to initiate growth to 20x at least for Bitcoin? not bad at all i'd say. we will overcome the technical constraints, if there really are some. the financial incentives to find a solution will be so great at that point that full node growth is bound to happen, bandwidth providers will be happy to accept more traffic and will be financially incentivized to find solutions, and Wall St will then jump in with both feet. and if we need to, we'll just pair the block size back temporarily until a real solution is found. Monero can't even be a part of all that b/c the big players won't be allowed to play. we will thread the needle b/c we can guide it to be so. I have to make a small remark here. I am guessing you assume that most XMR proponents are fully into it and don't hold any BTC. This is a wrong assumption, most of the XMR proponents also hold a significant stash of BTC (or atleast in propertion (e.g. most people are like 5-20% XMR / remainder BTC)). I have to agree though that some of the statements might look as if they are fully into XMR, but believe me, in fact most of them are not and also want BTC to succeed. not sure how you "know" that. certainly that's not true for iCELatte. just look at his handle. maybe you're inferring they're using XMR as a hedge. i guess that's ok if you don't believe what rocks and i are saying above about a single currency winning in the long run.
Furthermore, I personally think a sustained BTC bearmarket will also hurt XMR, because confidence remains low in the cryptocurrency atmosphere. Just look at what alts did in the November 2013 bubble, it can be concluded that a thriving BTC market will also help any notable alts.
just b/c they all thrived together then doesn't mean they'll do the same as 2013. in fact, a strong argument could be made that any launch in Bitcoin could spell doom for altscams that wither as a result. in fact, the voracity with which Monero and other altcoin proponents attack this thread and me is evidence that they think the same thing. they want Bitcoin to fail. in their minds, Bitcoin must fail for them to succeed. i'd throw gmax into that group too. [1] Most of them stated it in one of the XMR topics. Regarding iCEBREAKER I don't know, but you can't base an assumption for the whole userbase on just one guy in my opinion. Wouldn't someone hedge with the perception of one currency succeeding? If they believe XMR can complement BTC in someway, or take some share of a niche market, they wouldn't convert their BTC in order to hedge. [2] I have to agree on the former that past performance isn't really a great indicator of future performance, so I am revising my previous statement. But I would like to hear which strong argument could be made that any launch in Bitcoin could spell doom for altcoins. Furthermore, I don't think XMR proponents are really attacking this thread (maybe iCEBREAKER, but like I said before, don't create a certain view based on one person). Like I said before, most of them want Bitcoin to succeed as well and are only giving examples of how certain things are done otherwise in Monero. |
|
|
|
The imposible monero>btc seems more plausible as time goes on
nope. with Monero wallowing at near all-time lows relative to BTC and way down at #13 in the cryptocurrency mkts, it's no wonder iCELatte and his buddies have decided to come into this thread and try to take advantage of the 20MB controversy. it's a shameless move yet quite expected from these altscam guys. too bad it's not going to work: - I have been reading this thread since early 2013, it is one of the little gems this forum has left. I respect your thoughts and what you have contributed. Until now I have refrained from commenting on/about anything monero in the little posts i make here, since there's an altsection for that. But what you're doing now is playing the exact same card that all the bitcoin sceptics are pulling to illegitimatize btc, which imo is a weak one. Bitcoin provided a mental exercise when it appeared on the scene. You've been able to make it to the other side and are one of the most forward thinking guys ion this subject(esp if compared to the rest of the world). There are a lot of viable arguments against alts or monero but the stance you've been taking is of the same sturdiness of the bitcoin-'haters' and have resulted in fallacies based on price. Maybe that is because of the monero-proponents here who sort of force you into this position. But don't become like the btc-haters who arn't willing to at least try out other perspectives on the matter. You resorted into the same kind of tactics as the old status quo you once battled. You've been getting a lot of shit here lately in all the debates. And although you are used to getting shit about these topics it almost seems that lately you're losing it a little. Call me a troll/newb/insignifact whatever. The paragraph i started with was genuine. i appreciate the feedback. i've already taken these types of thoughts into consideration. thezerg once accused me of being a dinorsaur with regards to innovation in Bitcoin, which you kinda are above. i don't think that's true. this whole debate is consistent with my long held belief that all innovation should occur on the mainchain. if Bitcoin fails to do that as an open source project similar to linux, which was supposedly the great promise it made imo, then the whole concept of cryptocurrencies has failed and we'll just go back to fiat for the next hundred years. this whole movement of Gavin to go to XT, if necessary, is innovation on the mainchain as i see it. he's simply going to upgrade the software to accept bigger blocks. and that's a good thing. if anything, the dinosaurs and fear mongerers are the one's wanting to keep Bitcoin artificially restrained. enough about that. as far as Monero is concerned, it is a completely new altcoin with a different signature scheme. to be honest, it is so far off my radar and so insignificant of an alt that i hadn't paid much attention to it. i still don't really care to understand how it works b/c i don't think it will go anywhere. could be wrong. i've always said i'd welcome more privacy in Bitcoin and it's possible Monero does that. i know there was a big technical issue months back but can't remember what it was. maybe someone could clarify. but that's beside the point. it is NOT innovating on top of Bitcoin which i quite frankly see as a problem for it. it is not leveraging upon the huge network effect already achieved by Bitcoin. does that necessarily mean it will fail? no. but i think we get one chance with this b/c the implications are so huge. if Bitcoin fails, they all fail. if it's not improved upon or upgraded, it will fail. if we all don't stick together as a group, it will fail. if that means the economic majority has to fork off and shed the likes of the Blockstream cabal, we have a chance. the more i think about it, the better i like the idea of getting rid of gmax and luke. i think they're toxic. yeah, gmax is a brilliant cryptographer but he can't be trusted with the keys or to run a company. he's a KNOWN Bitcoin bear and posts an XMR donation address. that's his prerogative but i think a core dev should be all out pushing and working on Bitcoin like Gavin does to advance the project forward. shedding those guys would be a good thing. everything i say is said in the context of the broader markets. we're probably heading into the next recession and in that environment i believer altcoins will be slaughtered. if Bitcoin can hang on, or even thrive, as a safe haven alternative, a major shift in finance may be upon us. Bitcoin has already survived an unbelievable 6 yrs and next yr we will halve. the way all the charts have lined up, it's just a matter of time before we start the next advance to end Bitcoin's longest Bear. this hasn't even been the greatest Bear, imo, which was from 32 to 1.98 in 2011. that is a great sign. i've always said that the majority of ppl investing in cryptocurrencies will lose money. this is definitely playing out and includes Bitcoiners who bought high. it also includes full node operators and miners, btw, and accounts for the decrease in their numbers too. but that will easily reverse with new adoption and the next price rise. Bitcoin is like threading a needle; it needs to stay private enough to prevent all out war with TPTB. so far so good. is Monero in that category? i doubt it but i'm not saying it won't possibly find a niche with the iCELatte's of the world. oh, btw, it took me a while to figure out what his agenda was with him coming in here and pretending to be all concerned about Bitcoin when his real agenda was to diss it and pump Monero. even smooth, who offers up decent stuff, was confusing me a while back before i found out he was a Monero core dev. i couldn't figure out why when i got skeptical about altcoins he'd always quickly negate anything i had to say on that. also when we got to talking about the 49%-51% attacks against Bitcoin he was posting highly frequently against Bitcoin. that's ok, he's smart and is entitled to his opinion. but it was never clear until someone mentioned his Monero connection what was happening. i like to focus on what ppl's motivations are, that should be clear. i won't let that cloud my judgment however. i really think Bitcoin is on the right path, even if it has to fork to XT. to me, that would just mean a much easier path forward with a new group of devs. then the market can be free of financial conflicts of interest from the likes of Blockstream. i've heard enough complaints about how big players like Nasdaq won't entrust large amounts of money to a monetary system controlled by an unknown, anarchistic leaning group of new leaders. i wouldn't either if i didn't fully understand the system. that's why i would be willing to migrate to XT if need be. how would it be for Gavin to initiate growth to 20x at least for Bitcoin? not bad at all i'd say. we will overcome the technical constraints, if there really are some. the financial incentives to find a solution will be so great at that point that full node growth is bound to happen, bandwidth providers will be happy to accept more traffic and will be financially incentivized to find solutions, and Wall St will then jump in with both feet. and if we need to, we'll just pair the block size back temporarily until a real solution is found. Monero can't even be a part of all that b/c the big players won't be allowed to play. we will thread the needle b/c we can guide it to be so. I have to make a small remark here. I am guessing you assume that most XMR proponents are fully into it and don't hold any BTC. This is a wrong assumption, most of the XMR proponents also hold a significant stash of BTC (or atleast in propertion (e.g. most people are like 5-20% XMR / remainder BTC)). I have to agree though that some of the statements might look as if they are fully into XMR, but believe me, in fact most of them are not and also want BTC to succeed. Furthermore, I personally think a sustained BTC bearmarket will also hurt XMR, because confidence remains low in the cryptocurrency atmosphere. Just look at what alts did in the November 2013 bubble, it can be concluded that a thriving BTC market will also help any notable alts. |
|
|
|
Maybe this Poloniex name and country thing is a blessing in disguise, then. It may cause a significant enough amount of trading to go to Bittrex, thereby encouraging more people to trade there too, and we end up with two "large enough" exchanges, one of which is suitable for suit type people who would only trade on a regulated show-me-your-papers exchange (whatever their reasons might be).
Doesn't it seem likely that bittrex follows along this account verification path fairly soon? Since they are US based as well, you can reasonably expect this. Taking this into account, it would make no sense to switch the volume to Bittrex. Furthermore, Poloniex has always been a solid and reliable exchange. |
|
|
|
<snip>
i smell Monero all over him.
Ok, as you mention it, and this is not meant as an attack on Monero, what I really don't understand is how a truly anonymous coin can survive, regardless of the tech, when the lead developers are public figures (eg Smooth, who was extremely helpful when I asked about the 21inc stuff) and they have a very public 'castle' as the home of one of their lead promoters (Risto). How does that work if/when the SHTF ?? Honestly, I have nothing against Monero, but I can't wrap my head around how something that TPTB will obviously fight against can flourish with these criteria. $5 wrench anyone ?? Please enlighten me. I say this in a truly non-confrontational manner - I am truly confused I have to correct you for a bit here, Monero can be transparant on-demand. I also agree that a fully anonymous coin will probably get into some legal trouble.  |
|
|
|
For anyone curious as how to Monero's adaptive blocksize limit precisely works: As I noted in the thread, this is similar to the block sizing algorithm for Monero and other CryptoNote coins. A quadratic penalty is imposed such that block subsidy = base subsidy * ((block size / median size of last 400 blocks) - 1)2, with the penalty being applied after you build a block larger than the median size. The maximum block size is 2*median size. Because subsidy is based around the number of coins in existence, the 'burned' subsidy is deferred to be paid out to future blocks.
Unlike Meni's proposal, burned block subsidy is simply deferred to all future miners. So far, this has worked in CryptoNote coins without issue.
I am unsure of the incentives of the rollover fee pool method -- it seems like a way to smooth out and evenly distribute fees among miners, but I'm not sure if it work exactly the way it is intended to. For instance, it may disincentivize the inclusion of some larger fee transactions because the miner will fail to immediately benefit from them, and indeed, if the miner is small and only occasionally gets blocks, may never benefit from them. In this case, fees will end up being paid to the miner out of band, thus defeating the entire fee pool mechanism. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/389pq6/elastic_block_cap_with_rollover_penalties_my/crts1do |
|
|
|
Meni Rosenfeld proposes an elastic block cap where miners are penalized progressively for blocks bigger than whatever the limit is. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1078521.msg11517847The idea is to avoid a "crash landing" at 1MB or even at 8 or 20MB. Bitcoin adoption is known to come in order-of-magnitude spurts, so even 20MB isn't immune to a crash landing scenario; and think how much harder another order-of-magnitude increase will be from 20MB, or from 200MB. We need a way to turn these brick walls into gentle hills, not just lengthen the road leading to them. (To be clear, I think we should do both. Actually having no limit probably does both.) Relevant and interesting comment from Reddit on this subject: As I noted in the thread, this is similar to the block sizing algorithm for Monero and other CryptoNote coins. A quadratic penalty is imposed such that block subsidy = base subsidy * ((block size / median size of last 400 blocks) - 1)2, with the penalty being applied after you build a block larger than the median size. The maximum block size is 2*median size. Because subsidy is based around the number of coins in existence, the 'burned' subsidy is deferred to be paid out to future blocks.
Unlike Meni's proposal, burned block subsidy is simply deferred to all future miners. So far, this has worked in CryptoNote coins without issue.
I am unsure of the incentives of the rollover fee pool method -- it seems like a way to smooth out and evenly distribute fees among miners, but I'm not sure if it work exactly the way it is intended to. For instance, it may disincentivize the inclusion of some larger fee transactions because the miner will fail to immediately benefit from them, and indeed, if the miner is small and only occasionally gets blocks, may never benefit from them. In this case, fees will end up being paid to the miner out of band, thus defeating the entire fee pool mechanism. http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/389pq6/elastic_block_cap_with_rollover_penalties_my/crts1do |
|
|
|
I bet most of those 29000 XMR are from longtime holders, at least 2k are from me which I offered when Poloniex introduced margin trading and they're sitting there.
What's the reason for this? The rate you get is pretty negligible in comparison with the counterparty risk. Furthermore, it gives dumpers/shorters some additional liquidity. My conclusion is that those XMR would be better suited for an actual wallet. |
|
|
|
so what exactly happend? i had no time to follow the market today. the previous wall at 0.002 got dumped and a new one showed up?  shit happens man i'm pessimistic about a new run up just now, but i also realized not everyone sees the current situation with polo as critical as i do, so everything seems possible. as always, preferred move would be UP  I am also pessimistic about the bull run currently. Also it is a scary fact that there is 29 000 xmr on sidelines waiting to be shorted and dumped + there are additional 20 000 xmr on the sell order book, that is 49 000 XMR can potentially be dumped any time. And while some of the shorters are closing their short positions at profit, the lenders are ready to offer their coins to new shorter and that potentially might create actually pretty vicious cycle for the price.  To me this pump looks simply like the big holders want to sell their coins and therefore they are pumping the price up and after they have sold, they will remove the buy walls or dump into their own buy walls. The rates imply that the demand for shorting currently is quite low. That 10k offer has been there since the introducement of margin trading on poloniex. I think you're a bit paranoid here, there is also enough BTC on the ask side to dump it to zero, so that argument isn't really viable. At your last sentence: Could also be the case that they genuinely want to buy. You are stating this as a fact, while de facto we will never know what the real reason behind these walls is. |
|
|
|
Little DB update I saw on reddit It's worked on Windows since quite near the beginning. What you probably read is that we were making a platform agnostic blockchain import format, which we've also subsequently completed. There are performance issues we're dealing with at the moment, and we have to get those 100% right, else we could end up with a network fork (half of the network on the database version and half on the in-RAM version). |
|
|
|
I haven't investigated this yet. That's why the title is "investigate?". This is just seeing what other people think to find out if it is worth investigating. So far all my points have been dismissed.. In terms of input from Fluffy, he is welcome to answer my above questions, this is an open forum  That is really shitty man. We aren't children on the playground gossiping about each other. Why would you post on the forum without first talking to the person you are accusing and asking them wtf is going on? You are no better than every fucking whiteknight SJW posting on tumblr. People like you make me sick. Grow up and stop acting like a kid. Just send the dude a message and tell him what you're worried about. Are you so scared of him that you're posting this shit on a forum thread first? Coward. Hi - no disrespect, but what exactly is Fluffy's word on any of this supposed to prove? If my concern is a structural problem with Monero that is unhealthy and I ask him if he's using that to gain market info and then trade big on Poloniex where volume is all locked in and he says "oh no, not doing that" - then I shouldn't have posted this? And he's free to come here to discuss, why do I need to contact him privately? EDIT: again, I am not trying to single out Fluffy here and attack him. I am saying MyMonero / 95% Polo volume seems like a bad idea basically because it *enables* someone to take advantage and undermines the core selling point of the coin, I don't know if anyone is doing that or not. Like othe already said, XMR has been on top of the voting list at cryptsy for several months. Instead of really adding it, they still come up with flimsy pretexts (e.g. we're still in the process of adding it (they already said this a year ago)). Devs even offered to help with the integration, there is a guide to full php integration avaible, but they never bothered to ask for help. They will probably add it some time in the future, but this could still take a while. I can not comment on Mymonero, but like MikeCorleone already said, if you are worried about MyMonero, please ask fluffypony himself. He is in almost everyday in #monero on freenode, so what's stopping you? If you didn't even contact him about your "worries", then this is just pure FUD spreading in my opinion. |
|
|
|
280 more. love u all, keep it up! 8c84195304a4093d8a794f4f58508bb31a41fb33d59899bdb88ad1aab05ec599 p.s: The donation address on the front page of this thread is broken. you can not see it by eye, but if you copy and paste it you will realize there is a space/linebreak inside(position 80). would be good if someone could update it  cheers To fix it, just add code address /code (both within [], can't precisely post it here otherwise my post is getting messed up). This will also make the address itself stand out better. |
|
|
|
BTW you didn't read my point about why Dash isn't centralized - "I think it's obviously an idiotic conclusion to say wallets hosted around the world in different countries running as masternodes are centralized" - Centralized means centralized, with a central point, e.g. MyMonero.com...not user's wallets running in different countries, I thought this was obvious...but I wasn't here to argue that, just point out what this thread is about so maybe Trollero doesn't waste another 10,000 hours of crypto people's time in their quest to "replace" Bitcoin with a dysfunctional Cryptonote clone with zero development.
From the MyMonero.com website.... The private spend key is never stored or known by the Services, which means that it is cryptographically impossible for us to spend funds on your behalf.
Or if you want to read for yourself https://mymonero.com/#/terms Chapter 4 So what? Fluffypony can still *see* all the transactions, know what is moving around, know when a pump or dump is coming, take the site offline to stop people withdrawing, it gives Monero core team / his ISP / the NSA full *acccess* to Monero for all intents and purposes. And he keeps any information on MyMonero usage, or even the MyMonero source code, to himself. And he has *tried this before* on Vertcoin, and is *trying it again* with Paybee.com MyMonero.com is 100% centralized and undermines all Monero's claims of being anonymous / untraceable - it's a fucking centralized payment website for a coin they are marketing as 'untraceable' lol. And you defend that and say Dash is centralized because it works with users on the official wallet in different countries, like Bitcoin just more alternate reality Monero bullshit....keep going Trollero. These ad hominem attacks are getting ridiculous, you're not even taking the time to respond to the original post. Nowhere is stated that you, as a Monero user, are obligated to use MyMonero, it's basically the same as blockchain.info. Does blockchain.info make Bitcoin centralized? Oh and PS, the official CLI wallet does work, but I guess you can't be bothered to try. |
|
|
|
...
We may at some point impose a maximum age for outputs to be mixable (at which point they can be removed from the UXTO when spent, just like Bitcoin; to avoid losing untracability you would have to respend the outputs back to yourself prior to the deadline, or allow a wallet to do so automatically).
...
Whoa... Seems to me that would very much break some fundamental use-cases for Monero. People probably want to store some wealth privately, for a potentially long time, without any ongoing effort; eg, print a paper key, toss it in a few safe locations, and forget about it. That's been the case for a lot of people who embraced bitcoin as a store-of-value, and I'd guess it is/will-be similar with Monero. Requiring respends obviously breaks that capability. If the wallet does this automatically for you, the problem is solved right? Check his last sentence. If you don't have to do anything yourself nor access the wallet, this argument can be debunked in my opinion. Smooth, do you have any comment on this perhaps? |
|
|
|
What is your opinion on 2016, will we breack a new ath?
If BTC rallies up as well that could certainly be possible. With rallying up I mean a scenario where it would go to for instance 500-600$, it doesn't necessarily have to be a bubble. Such a rally will already vastly boost the confidence of cryptocurrencies in general and that is exactly what we need in order to achieve a new $ or BTC all time high. EDIT: I have to add that you should also keep an eye on the dollar, if the dollar is still high it would be a lot more difficult to achieve a new all time high. Currently most of the asset classes are down against the dollar. |
|
|
|
i know it is hard to guess but when do you guys expect a significant rise in prices?
do you think it will still be happen this year?
1 month. You guys need to define what you're talking about. Rise in BTC or USD. BTC is in a downtrend. XMR must keep rising just to stay flat in USD. But that's not rising in real world purchasing power. Breaking the ATH of 6$ isn't feasible in this current BTC downtrend in my opinion and increasing in USD terms while BTC decreases further will also be pretty hard. However, appreciating against BTC is certainly feasible, although I don't think we will surpass the old ATH (0.01) this summer. That could still take a while. |
|
|
|
The RSI divergence is pretty obvious already, so my predictions are that there is a 80% chance we won't see 0.0016 in the next 3 months.
80% - how did you come up with these number? 3 months - why are you so confident in timing? There is no exact formula to calculate probability in markets like in statistics, so the 80% means I'm pretty sure an uptrend will start, but unexpected events, like a bitcoin crash sub 200$ or some bad news about Monero can invalidate every trading analysis prediction. I have chosen the 3 months period because the last price rise and fall cycle took about 3 months. I think the price has a good chance to go up to the 0.004 level again this summer. If the 0.0043 top is broken, then 0.01 might be the next target. If the price fails to break the 0.0043 level, then the price will return to the current levels or maybe even lower. But again, the 3 month period is only valid if the price starts to rise now. If the near-term bottom at 0.001678 is broken, then the price can go pretty fast to 0.001. All of above if pure speculation based on trading analysis: observing trends and support/resistance levels in the past and making conclusions based on the most frequent price evolution patterns. But it is not a 100% accurate tool of predicting the future. I hold about 30% of my crypto wealth in Monero and I'm bullish right now both on shorter (weeks-months) and longer term. Thanks for the analysis, appreciate it. I got one little remark, after 0.0043 is broken, we will still stumble upon 2 heavy resistances, 0.0051 & 0.0058 (which were previous tops). If these two get broken as well, we might see 0.01 indeed. |
|
|
|
So what happened with the meetups and conferences ?! Must have been a huge fail since no one uploaded any videos Fluffypony said he would make a summary of the meetups/conferences (probably with pics as well) once he is back. IIRC it was filmed in Brussels, but some phones died overthere. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
