We'll need to make sure this is legitimate, is there word from the official Monero development team?
On poloniex there was said to connect David Latapie for more details, so I am pretty sure this is legitimate. |
|
|
|
|
Any update on the status with cryptsy? If I recall correct, somewhere end of july a member stated that they were in the progress of adding it.
|
|
|
|
somebody dumped 9400 XMR a short while ago @425
Total dumps that minute was around 13.5k. Take a look at the 1 minute chart and you'll notice. We broke out of the downtrend btw with considerable volume! Time to buy guys   |
|
|
|
Neem ook maatregelen om te vermijden dat dit in de toekomst nog voorvalt.
Zet je wallet niet op je dagdagelijkse pc.
Neem een oude pc of koop de goedkoopste laptop of mini-desktop.
Installeer daar Ubuntu op, met een ge-encrypteerd gebruiksgedeelte (dit is allemaal zeer eenvoudig, je vindt genoeg how-to's op internet).
Zet daar je wallet op, deze uiteraard ook ge-encrypteerd.
Backups van je wallet moet je maken en zet deze in een truecrypt container.
Veel succes met je pogingen tot recuperatie.
Truecrypt zou ik niet meer doen..... Heb ik iets gemist? Dacht dat het redelijk veilig was. Wordt niet meer ondersteunt of geupdate. Check http://truecrypt.sourceforge.net/ voor meer info |
|
|
|
Gaat over hetzelfde volgens mij, hier wat meer duidelijkheid omtrent de zaak. http://daskapital.nl/2014/09/zijn_bitcoins_geld.html#moreEen tegenslagje voor de acceptatie van bitcoins in Nederland: in de eerste bitcoinuitspraak in Nederland heeft de Rechtbank Overijssel geoordeeld dat bitcoins geen geld zijn in de zin van Afdeling 6.1.11 BW, maar een ruilmiddel. Het ging om een zaak waarbij iemand 2750 bitcoins van een ander wilde kopen tegen een koers van 8,05 euro per bitcoin. Na betaling van 22.137,50 euro werden echter slechts 990 bitcoins geleverd - 1760 stuks te weinig dus. De koper ontbond daarop de overeenkomst voor de bitcoins die niet waren geleverd en vorderde de 14.168 te veel betaalde euro's terug. Geen probleem, zo oordeelde ook de rechter. Gewoon een gevalletje wanprestatie en ontbinding. De koper vorderde echter ook schadevergoeding op basis van art. 6:125 BW. Daarin staat kortweg dat schade als gevolg van koerswisselingen van 'geld', op degene die verzuimd heeft kunnen worden verhaald. Oftewel: A koopt dollars bij B tegen een bepaalde koers, B verzuimt en A loopt daardoor winst mis omdat de dollarkoers is gestegen. A kan deze schade verhalen. Cruciaal is echter het woordje 'geld' in dezen.
De rechtbank oordeelde namelijk dat bitcoins geen 'geld' waren in de zin van 6:125 BW, en wees de vordering af. Kun je het mee eens zijn of niet en daar gaan we ons niet aan wagen, maar de redenering klopt van geen kant en dat is wel een probleem. De rechtbank bouwt haar betoog namelijk als volgt op: voor 'gangbaar geld' is niet vereist dat iets een wettig betaalmiddel is. Wat geld is, wordt in laatste instantie bepaald door 'maatschappelijke opvattingen'. Tot zo ver prima. Dan zegt de rechtbank echter dat bitcoins geen 'geld' kunnen zijn, omdat ze (1) geen wettig betaalmiddel zijn en (2) volgens de minister van Financiën geen elektronisch geld zijn. Tja. En die 'maatschappelijke opvattingen' dan? Dit klopt niet, meneer de rechtbank. We gaan ons niet wagen aan de vraag of bitcoins nou wel of geen gangbaar betaalmiddel zijn volgens maatschappelijke opvattingen, maar als dat de definitie is van geld moet de rechtbank dat in ieder geval wel doen bij het bepalen of bitcoins geld zijn. Kortom: hoger beroep. Dat bovendien gefinancierd wordt door een sympathieke crowdfundactie die het gezien de huidige stand wel gaat redden. Hup bitcoiners! Laten we hopen dat het gerechtshof haar logica wel op orde heeft. |
|
|
|
|
Seems like we're going down, altough there is support @ 0.00375-0.0038
|
|
|
|
Up or down? Closing in 2 days. |
|
|
|
What's the status of XMR's collaboration with i2p?
Ongoing, we've formed a working group with i2p, Abscond, i2pd, and Anoncoin, called Privacy Solutions. i2pd is reaching a level of working-ness that should allow us to start integrating it soon. Given the number of moving parts it's extremely hard to put a timeframe on it. There is also an updated link on the OP (look for "announcements") with the latest detail on it. In other news, we updated the list of exchanges, adding latest exchanges and deleting those that failed to deliver. Please remember that we do not endorse any exchange; we only list them once we check they actually propose exchanging Monero. I see BTC38 listed under others, can you elaborate on this? Also can't find the trading pair @ btc38. |
|
|
|
Hmm... that was interesting (as predicted / discussed earlier): After careful deliberation, we have decided to not participate in the SuperNet ICO. I understand that a large community is excited about SuperNet, and since we were initially announced as the ICO host, I wanted to take a moment to explain how we came to arrive at this decision. For the past couple of days, we’ve been in discussions with our attorneys about hosting the SuperNet ICO. As several community members pointed out in this very thread, the sale of SuperNet tokens could be interpreted as the sale of unregistered securities. Our attorneys came to the same conclusion and have since advised us against taking part in the SuperNet ICO for this reason. Further, one of our ICO requirements is identity verification (https://www.poloniex.com/icoRequirements); this requirement exists to protect investors and to lend credibility to the ICO. Despite several attempts to convince James the importance of revealing his identity, we were ultimately unable to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties. We needed time for due diligence, to carefully assess the legal implications of taking part in SuperNet, and also the time to set up our backend systems to support it. James was very eager to get this going, however, so he chose to go with another host before we could communicate to him our findings and final decision. We have since communicated with James, and we wish him the best of luck. This worries me more. If he wanted to set up something legitimate, why doesn't he want to reveal his identity? Personally if I invested in this I would be more confident and less worried if I knew the identity of the man who set it up. |
|
|
|
If I recall correctly, this was not approved by the devs. to me everything is OK with exchanges(mintpal, polonex) with blockchain. can continue to troll and write useless posts There's no trolling here. After the recent attack, don't you think it's wise to be cautious of a blockchain that hasn't been endorsed by the devs? Wasn't saying that you or he were trolling, just that the link was not approved by the devs and people should be cautious when downloading it. |
|
|
|
If I recall correctly, this was not approved by the devs. |
|
|
|
There just has to be a financial motive for this. only thing makes sense
I agree. What about using foreknowledge of this to trade (assuming people will panic). rpitilla did say something about what he described as unusual trading that day. i don't know the details. He stated this: Wouldn't it be best to let weak hands dump and long term believers buy at discounted prices than artificially holding the price up?
With price-discovery in the markets, the definition of "artificial" is vague. In one sense, the decline from 510 to 400 and below was "artificial" (if we assume it was, at least partly, a product of preknowledge of the coming attack and speculation that it would further hurt the price). In the other sense, the essence of markets is that all knowledge is taken into account, information is not perfect, and seldom even the best informed players have access to many information that some of the others have, in turn. If we discount the last week downturn altogether, the price should be much higher by now. The attack failed - it could not damage the confidence towards XMR, it exposed the old scammers more, and proved how capable the devteam is. "Rolling back" the preparation of the attack from price history would lift us to 600 by tomorrow. But if the market collectively decides that a selloff is in order, we might find ourselves at 300 instead. That some buyers openly like XMR at 400, is no more artificial than others vowing in the trollbox that they will sell every one of theirs, at whatever price they can get once the trading starts. Depending who will prevail, buying at 400 may be the last opportunity to buy at 400, or the last opportunity to sell at 400. Most likely, given the meager actual effect of the attack, it won't be neither, and anyone making decisions based on what others have already done, is just impoverishing himself as a result. I have a largish number of XMR and BTC in the exchange, ready to react. But my reaction will be to buy if the price goes down, and sell if it goes up. This is my way of making slow and steady profit. Others have their way, and without panickers, my income would be significantly lower. |
|
|
|
Looks like some folks just got a lot of cheap Monero!
It was dropping yesterday before this incident, so they've not really got a lot of cheap Monero. More like panic bought a lot of Monero. Was dumped to +- 0.00375 and went straight up again, I think he meant that  Yep. Panic dumping out of fear is ALWAYS a bad idea. I watched it happen with BTC on the March 2013 hard fork, the SR crash, and all of the mini panics when Gox was freezing up all the time. This is reminiscent of those times. Yeah, those that panic sold BTC at $500-1300 must be kicking themselves. March 2013 hard fork caused most people to panic sell in the $30s. Yes they are kicking themselves. SR crash caused most people to panic sell in the $80 - 120 range. Yes they are kicking themselves. All of the times GOX froze were before they upgraded their trading engine which was before the October rally began. Those little panic sales were also a bad idea. I just mean when a minor issue occurs, newbs think that price is going to drop like a rock and not recover for a while. They think they'll have a chance to pick up coins later for cheaper. It almost never happens that way, because those that understand that the fundamentals have not been irrecoverably damaged buy all of their discounted coins. This just happened with XMR, although the panic was not as bad as I had expected. You're picking out moments in time, and you have no clear evidence that XMR is not priced high already. It is still just another alt, not even traded on Cryptsy. The panic sellers are probably right. Sometimes panic is good. There is no reason for panic sellers to take a risk and hold given XMR is young, not widely adopted, has broken code, and is one among 1000 altcoins. Cryptsy in the process of adding it was said in one of the missives or in the general monero thread (If I recall correctly, somewhere end of July). One that differs that from the others, based on my view. It's not just a simple clone, pre-mine, IPO or POS coin.. |
|
|
|
Actually I think this attack did more good to monero than bad, some external consultants were hired to resolve the issue and look at the code. Probably more bad or sloppy code was found which can be fixed now.
No external consultants were hired to deal with the attack. We did everything ourselves with a little helpful input from Crypto Zoidberg (though in reality he was asleep most of the time, but if he were not I'm sure he would have helped more). The discussion of consultants was part of an ongoing process that started some time ago (as discussed in Missives) and will continue. It had nothing specifically to do with the attack. Didn't knew it was part of an ongoing process, thanks for elaborating. some external consultants were hired to resolve the issue and look at the code. Probably more bad or sloppy code was found which can be fixed now.
This could create an erroneous impression. I'd ask a core member to give color on it. Do you still think this after smooth's explanation? If so, could you elaborate for me please? Looks like some folks just got a lot of cheap Monero!
It was dropping yesterday before this incident, so they've not really got a lot of cheap Monero. More like panic bought a lot of Monero. Was dumped to +- 0.00375 and went straight up again, I think he meant that Yep. Panic dumping out of fear is ALWAYS a bad idea. I watched it happen with BTC on the March 2013 hard fork, the SR crash, and all of the mini panics when Gox was freezing up all the time. This is reminiscent of those times. Yeah, those that panic sold BTC at $500-1300 must be kicking themselves. There is a clear difference between this (where the issue was solved) and when the BTC Bubble popped (actually bad news). Actually I think this attack did more good to monero than bad, some external consultants were hired to resolve the issue and look at the code. Probably more bad or sloppy code was found which can be fixed now. A difference which you have not explained. I meant that the news from China was a clear sell signal, because it wouldn't be solved within a day. The attack of today was different in my opinion. The devs showed that they couldn't handle this and came up with a solution. I think this only boosts the confidence in monero and the devs, while the China news didn't boost the confidence in bitcoin. |
|
|
|
Looks like some folks just got a lot of cheap Monero!
It was dropping yesterday before this incident, so they've not really got a lot of cheap Monero. More like panic bought a lot of Monero. Was dumped to +- 0.00375 and went straight up again, I think he meant that Yep. Panic dumping out of fear is ALWAYS a bad idea. I watched it happen with BTC on the March 2013 hard fork, the SR crash, and all of the mini panics when Gox was freezing up all the time. This is reminiscent of those times. Yeah, those that panic sold BTC at $500-1300 must be kicking themselves. There is a clear difference between this (where the issue was solved) and when the BTC Bubble popped (actually bad news). Actually I think this attack did more good to monero than bad, some external consultants were hired to resolve the issue and look at the code. Probably more bad or sloppy code was found which can be fixed now. |
|
|
|
Looks like some folks just got a lot of cheap Monero!
It was dropping yesterday before this incident, so they've not really got a lot of cheap Monero. More like panic bought a lot of Monero. Was dumped to +- 0.00375 and went straight up again, I think he meant that |
|
|
|
XMR is exciting. So much emotion and entertainment around. Funny to see all the anti-XMR trolls out and about. I'll be waiting to buy on a dip for XMR when trading opens.  Would be funny if we don't even see a dip |
|
|
|
Breakout?  Asks are down to 160k and bids up to 540 btc. I hope we can gain some momentum! Do you guys think it will break the previous tops @ 0.0058? Personally I think we first need some good news or update about the wallet before we can break that.. |
|
|
|
Possible break out scenarios: GUI wallet interface released by dev team. Cryptsy ads XMR to their exchange. ( Rumour) Open Bazaar is modified to work with Monero. A decent online wallet is released. I say BTC-e adding XMR will have a greater impact than it would being added to cryptsy. There are still a lot of whales on cryptsy, adding XMR would boost up price and volume. For example see the dogecoin volume, which is around 50-100k a day. Total traded BTC volume on a daily basis...BTC-e blows cryptsy out of the water. Yeah I totally agree on that, but my point was adding it to cryptsy would also do monero good. I described it wrong in my previous post, sorry for that! Personally I think that would take a long time for btc-e to add XMR, they first need to delist some coins which barely have volume. |
|
|
|
Possible break out scenarios: GUI wallet interface released by dev team. Cryptsy ads XMR to their exchange. ( Rumour) Open Bazaar is modified to work with Monero. A decent online wallet is released. I say BTC-e adding XMR will have a greater impact than it would being added to cryptsy. There are still a lot of whales on cryptsy, adding XMR would boost up price and volume. For example see the dogecoin volume, which is around 50-100k a day. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
