Wow. I'm not used to seeing Monero fall more than everyone else. This is depressing. I can handle a downturn but why would our awesome project be the worst of the bunch? Jesus, dark coin is going to over take us if this continues.
At least some of it was the forkcoin play. Recently it was announced that the launch would be postponed. Exchanges and custodian services need more time to implement the MoneroV technology for them to support the fork and credit XMR holders with XMV. We are in the process of helping leading exchanges (from the top five Monero trading platforms) to list MoneroV. These services require additional time for implementation and we are positive that postponing the hard-fork date so that more users will be credited with their XMV outweighs the drawbacks.
Monero’s own software update that will occur in March is causing confusion with the initial hard-fork date. This is a common complaint we hear from both the Monero community and our own. Postponing the hard-fork snapshot date will help both Blockchains.
Mining pools are asking for more time to implement MoneroV. We want to help these pools to prepare for the hard-fork split so that MoneroV will be more stable and robust.
Many users have difficulty storing their XMR locally using the Monero GUI wallet due to its large blockchain size. Postponing the hard-fork date will help more users to prepare and be able to claim their XMV’s.
Overall, taking into consideration these reasons, and although MoneroV’s codebase is fully functional, we are positive that it would be best to postpone the snapshot date. Here is what I think of all of those "reasons".  *edit* I love this gif so much. It's so funny. I could watch it all day. |
|
|
|
|
Wow. I'm not used to seeing Monero fall more than everyone else. This is depressing. I can handle a downturn but why would our awesome project be the worst of the bunch? Jesus, dark coin is going to over take us if this continues.
|
|
|
|
|
Of interesting note is that nothing before, during or after price crash caused the mem-pool to increase notably in size. Meaning people did not rush to move bitcoin to exchanges, not very many anyway. It appears to have made very few people freak out.
|
|
|
|
|
Also I would really like to see a video showing what the process is like for digitally signing a longish document on the trezor model t. Or does the model t still have a character limit on digitally signed text? As far as I can surmise, the ability to digitally sign a long document like a standard legal contract is the only real advantage over the original trezor. I would be willing to send a five dollar tip to anyone who makes this for me.
Also I would be interested to know If anyone has any other reasons why the model t is preferable to them over the original. Yes, I am searching for a reason to buy a new toy!
|
|
|
|
All done. 3 days. 240 xmr ain't peanuts anymore either.
120k subs on reddit. Typically 3000-4000+ online at any given time. Ya, not much for community support given the numbers. But we still get it done.
Topped it off with 68.45 XMR from the general donation fund
Anyone know how much is in the development fund? |
|
|
|
You all know I'm usually bullish af.
That said, who feels this poxy 165K BTC left in the care of the trustee is basically securing a bear till mid-late 2019?
Maybe this fuckening of BTC is a reason the market might finally move to slowly decouple quality projects like Monero from it.
I don't know. Not feeling stronk anymore.
It has been suggested that now that this story has broken he will probably be pressured to sell otc and also contacted by people who wish to buy otc. However even if this is the case the effect on sentiment may be more important than the actual selling or lack there of. Why wouldn't they auction them off like the Fed did, that didn't effect the market that I know of? Well now that's a good question isn't it. Presumably because hes just some government bureaucrat who doesn't give a fuck about anything. And an auction like that would fall under the umbrella of what I meant by "otc" in my previous post so hopefully they will do something like that going forward. |
|
|
|
You all know I'm usually bullish af.
That said, who feels this poxy 165K BTC left in the care of the trustee is basically securing a bear till mid-late 2019?
Maybe this fuckening of BTC is a reason the market might finally move to slowly decouple quality projects like Monero from it.
I don't know. Not feeling stronk anymore.
It has been suggested that now that this story has broken he will probably be pressured to sell otc and also contacted by people who wish to buy otc. However even if this is the case the effect on sentiment may be more important than the actual selling or lack there of. |
|
|
|
Maybe they really dont want to include monero on their analysis. Just look at their past price analysis Monero is not really included. There is no XMR mentioned ever since. i just dont know why. hmm
Everyone else pays them. We don't have a "marketing fund". |
|
|
|
First 2 funded, working on the third auditor now. If there is extra it will go to an audit for the multisig paper, so that would be good. I'll add some more too. 2/3! |
|
|
|
This market is a retard, notwithstanding this fact, even this market isn't stupid enough to pump on the 'promises' of XMV.
This minor upswing (from 0.029 (our 2 month average)) is everything to do with accumulation and nothing to do with that fork.
Projecting your own rationality onto others is a dangerous game. |
|
|
|
ZEC's only chance for long term relevance is if they can massively improve its performance with Zk-Starks or something similar. That may not necessarily be a terrible speculative (I must admit I'm considering it so talk me out of it guys) play but it is a high risk proposition. Monero works right now.
Short term speculation in moderate amounts of ZEC would be within my own risk tolerances, if I found a comparative advantage. Not large speculations or long-term holding. Fundamentally, I don't see any scenario in which there is a saturating adoption curve for ZEC It is disqualified from DNMs by optional privacy. Optional privacy is compromised privacy. The likelihood of TLA backdoors is high because of the SIGINT background of devs and public statements about backdooring it made by Wilcox and Greene (even ignoring the Bangkok incident). The novelty and complexity of the crypto makes for higher vulnerability, ceteris paribus. Finally, it is gradually choking itself to death even with little or no economic use; try supporting a DNM unicorn on ZEC, I dare you. Scalability problems will bring your business to a crawl, and the work-arounds compromise privacy even further. Although, frankly, I would be surprised if you stayed in business long enough to die from scaling. No, too much risk for me. If I wouldn't eat the dog food, why would I buy it? Anyhow, I have a cat already, which handles the mice quite well. Well said. There definitely could be money to be made getting in before zk-starks and out after but when you sum it all up like that I feel like I would rather avoid the risk also. +Merit for that one. |
|
|
|
I think one day the weak projects will collapse. Robust projects of the market like ZEC, such as XMR, can survive after such a time. It sounds like a solid project to me, MONERO.
ZEC's only chance for long term relevance is if they can massively improve its performance with Zk-Starks or something similar. That may not necessarily be a terrible speculative (I must admit I'm considering it so talk me out of it guys) play but it is a high risk proposition. Monero works right now. |
|
|
|
will we really get 10 xmv against 1 xmr?
Sure but if you think through the logic that just means that an xmv will be worth 1/10th of the already low amount that it would have been worth if they hadn't moved the decimal place. It has been suggested somewhere that moving all the XMR tokens to an interim XMR wallet before the XMV fork and then moving it back to the original XMR wallet after the fork would mitigate the security/privacy threat on the original XMR wallet regarding this event. Is this a valid method to a certain extent? If so, what are the other underlying or remaining vulnerability after employing such a method and how could it be improved?
 *edit* or you know only spend on one of the two chains. |
|
|
|
You would be hard pressed to find someone in this thread who doesn't know. But it's very nice of you to think about us  |
|
|
|
SHUM
Oh god you're gross man. I had to look that up. Ew. Not sure I want to know what you were looking up, but Should Have Used Monero apparently wasn't what you found  No. No it was not. I figured it out but I still blame aminorex for making me try to look it up. |
|
|
|
SHUM
Oh god you're gross man. I had to look that up. Ew. |
|
|
|
How high will this go xmr/btc ?
Excluding Bithumb ATH was half year ago at 0.035. So if it breaks that can go really high. Monero March Madness will be here. Interesting times. Obvious question is how much of this is being driven by the hot air of the fork. Then again Monero is a chronically undervalued crypto. Also there is the flippenig hypothesis. Basically the idea that people who were interested in the idea of privacy but didn't actually understand very much about the technology just went to coinmarketcap and found the highest market cap "privacy coin" and trusted the invisible hand. This idea states that dash had a sort of gravity well effect sucking in more capital because it had the most capital (leaving aside whether that's really true or not with masternodes holding the currency supply off market). To continue the analogy monero passing dash caused dash to give monero something like a gravity slingshot assist. Now we have the fundamentals AND that gravity well effect both on our side. Also I suspect we have McAfee out there talking his book aka our book. I don't know how big of a deal that is. It could be a little it could be a lot. He is connected. |
|
|
|
Anyone that knows anything knew the bolded is bullshit and tor has been compromised for years. Of course I think it's accepted that only the Bad guys need to worry about that, IOW because the NSA cannot come out in court and say "Yup we busted you cause tor is compromised" that it is safe enough if you are not doing something really bad and if you are they have special courts for you and you will not have the rights to demand the proof against you anyway. AFA the funding, so what The navy wrote the software in the first place this is well known. Well I mean there is compromised and there is COMPROMISED. Sort of like how there is a difference between "we can expend some resources and figure out a users activity if we need to" and "we have a searchable database cataloging all user activity on this network". We all knew that they could attack it by running tons of nodes and doing timing analysis and stuff like that. Maybe they occasionally found other vulnerabilities and exploits maybe those got patched maybe quickly maybe not so quickly. But I think it's an altogether different thing to learn that the entire operation is funded from top to bottom by the deep state. And I also think there is a difference between the original software being developed by the navy vs the orginal software being developed by the navy + the deep state is still funding nearly all of it's development to this day. Basically I'm trying to make the case that this is a meaningful revelation that tells us some things that we might have speculated about but didn't know before and that how ever much we trusted tor before (like you said about useful scenarios) we should trust it less now. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
