IOTA at 50.000 is totally unrealistic. Since there are 2,8 billion IOTA there, it would meant that it's total market capitalization would be 140.000 billion. Current total market capitalization of all existing tokens and coins is 586 billion.
Actually, it's an undervaluation. IOTA is going to be >1 trillion or ~0. They are working with corporations and governments to become the backbone of the IOT. IOT is estimated to be 10-35 trillion dollars, so whoever successfully creates the network it runs on will get the lion share of that value. Anything under 10 will be considered a gift if they are successful. |
|
|
|
This is an uncensored topic for cryptokingdom. And if the topic- starter is scamming post about it in scam accusations
Not sure what you are talking about? I haven't seen generalizethis post anywhere in a long time regarding CK. I guess they are talking about smooth's thread--though not sure what that has to do with this thread other than Risto's editing forced us to create this thread. |
|
|
|
Github isn't a clear indicator of productivity, especially when much of the current work is in Proof-of-Concepts with multinational Corporations. But feel free to use at as investment tool and be caught offguard when it isn't indictitive to actual progress. |
|
|
|
Ad hominem! Hah! I'm not claiming Dash is anything but a coin with a higher marketcap than Monero, something you said would NEVER happen. Ever. Maybe if your post history didn't have so many examples of you being wrong it wouldn't be so easy.
I stated 3 different counter-points to your argument against XSPEC and Stealth Staking specifically and yet you replied to NONE of them. Literally, nothing in your response was even about XSPEC other than claiming you had "valid criticisms"! I'll state them out boldly because it seems you're having trouble with reading comprehension:
1. You have no basis for disproving Stealth Staking is possible other than "no one has even thought about implementing it" and "the devs are unknown" as your argument.
2. The developers of XSPEC have followed their roadmap and successfully developed so far, so there isn't a reason to distrust them yet.
3. Saying "its never been done before therefore it is impossible that this could be achieved" is a dishonest argument. You cant prove that its NOT possible and no one can prove that it IS possible, so spreading FUD about stealth staking is senseless.
There is nothing to PROVE that stealth staking isn't possible and it would take a genius. There is nothing to PROVE that the developers don't know how to do it. If you have solid evidence or facts I'd love to see how the XSPEC developers are scammers or that they don't know how to do stealth staking. I mean, as your profile says, facts are more efficient than FUD! So please, provide some solid facts to back up your claims. I'm all ears.
Why would i claim Dash's marketcap will never be higher than Monero? AFAIK, except for a week or two, it has always been higher. Maybe you misread, but I'm willing to recant if you can find the quotation. Also, what's your fixation with dash? I've also talked shit on vanillacoin and a few other lowcap privacy coins that never went anywhere--anyways.... 1. Correct, even Bitcoin released a whitepaper before implementation. And anyone following privacy coins seriously is aware of legitimate breakthroughs such as mimble wimble, SPECTRE (not to be confused with spectrecoin), Zstarks, and Zcash's sapling upgrade. These things don't appear out of nowhere and cryptographers, and those who follow the scene seriously, are well aware of new advancements well ahead of the implementation. It would be odd that something as novel as anonymous staking wouldn't have had at least a mention among the cryptography community. I suppose it's possible, but it would be unreasonable to ask people to trust an anonymous developer's word--especially when these systems are supposed to be trustless. 2. But nothing succesfully implemented from the roadmap indicates they are capable of such an innovation. AFAIK there isn't even a testnet up--which begs the question: are they planning on implementing a novel software without any open testing? That in itself would show sloppy technique in software development. 3. This seem a repetition of the prior two, so no need to repeat myself. |
|
|
|
Couple that with default stealth addresses and stealth staking to come in Q2 of this year, and you've got a speculative winner.
Ya, got any proof for that, like a white paper? No. I only have the word of the dev team. That's why I said SPECULATIVE winner. If I'm wrong, then its all for not, and I look like a fool. That's the nature of the beast. Much easier to look the fool with a noob account--some of us have a body of work to protect and can't shill every shitcoin that comes down the pipe with claims of, "We have magical powers and #1 privacy!" Spectrecoin has one of the worst prospects of success--no known cryptographer is actively proposing an anonymous staking system, so the idea that an unknown dev is pulling it out of his ass is pretty unconvincing. If you look at ring-signatures, mimble wimble, zsnarks, zstarks, SPECTRE (not Xspec)--these were all well known and reviewed (at least in cryptography circles) before any team decided to attempt them. There's a great deal of research that goes ahead of implementation, so absent that, it looks like fool's gold. I don't care what people do with their money, just don't push unknown cryptography on the rest of us and act like it's a foregone conclusion, or even a legitimate bet. Don't talk down to me like I'm some schoolyard kid. I'll do anything I care to do. And you can take your 'body of work' and shove it. There's so many noob accounts associated with this shitcoin it's hard to believe I'm talking to more than sockpuppets, but my point stands, unless you have a long standing account, looking like a fool isn't that big a deal. As for the rest, i can't think of anything more schoolboy than "I'll do anything I care to do. And you can take your 'body of work' and shove it." |
|
|
|
Couple that with default stealth addresses and stealth staking to come in Q2 of this year, and you've got a speculative winner.
Ya, got any proof for that, like a white paper? No. I only have the word of the dev team. That's why I said SPECULATIVE winner. If I'm wrong, then its all for not, and I look like a fool. That's the nature of the beast. Much easier to look the fool with a noob account--some of us have a body of work to protect and can't shill every shitcoin that comes down the pipe with claims of, "We have magical powers and #1 privacy!" Spectrecoin has one of the worst prospects of success--no known cryptographer is actively proposing an anonymous staking system, so the idea that an unknown dev is pulling it out of his ass is pretty unconvincing. If you look at ring-signatures, mimble wimble, zsnarks, zstarks, SPECTRE (not Xspec)--these were all well known and reviewed (at least in cryptography circles) before any team decided to attempt them. There's a great deal of research that goes ahead of implementation, so absent that, it looks like fool's gold. I don't care what people do with their money, just don't push unknown cryptography on the rest of us and act like it's a foregone conclusion, or even a legitimate bet. Generalizethis is a Monero die-hard thats been attacking competitors to Monero for years. This is what he said about Dash back when he was FUD'ing it a few years ago: A loosing campaign? Loosing the truth from the grasps of dashtards, maybe. This revolution hasn't started or won't start anytime soon (or won't start ever). It's really premature to count a few million in market cap as significant when real success will be counted in multiples of billions above the current Bitcoin market cap. And last time I checked dash's market cap had stagnated, so I'm not sure where you see the success or the winning campaign. It even seems that Dash has declined with the Evolution and the parallel marketing push. I think a reality check is in order. He was saying Dash had HORRIBLE prospects of success as well. Where is Dash comparatively to Monero in market cap at this moment? He can claim Dash is still a shitcoin/scam as well but denying its current market cap success (by HIS standards in the quoted post), is also laughable. In reality, XSPEC implementing Stealth Staking is a very real possibility. The developer is still working on a white paper explaining it and still has a plan for a rough Q2 2018 release. Ask yourself why Generalizethis is so invested in calling XSPEC a scam? The only reason he is fudding the prospect of Stealth Staking is because he sees it as a threat to the market share of Monero. Stealth Staking would change the game for privacy coins, and rightfully so. Come back to this post at the end of the year and see who had it right. Anyone claiming Stealth Staking is IMPOSSIBLE is just as bad as the kids believing 100% that it WILL be implemented. Wait and see. Regarding the topic of this thread, I definitely see Monero staying as the top dog for privacy coins. It basically has first-mover advantage and is already a solid, working privacy coin. I do think if XSPEC successfully implements all of its planned features it will eat up a lot of the market share of privacy coins, and could be seen as a good alternative of Monero. If you want to cherry pick quotations that's fine. The market proved that I was right about dash as a privacy coin--or does anyone,who isn't a dashtard or a noob, still considered it a privacy coin? Also, dash had an innovation, unlike spectrecoin, masternodes, which happen to be great at keeping coins off the market and the price artificially high. Sooner or later dash will be exploited (13 algos is 12 too many), but I am patient and don't need coinmraketcap to validate my opinion week to week. As for spectrecoin, it has an unknown dev claiming something that no cryptographer has even ventured to posit as a possible design, so not really going out on a limb to say, "Come on, really?" I was also buying Monero at .25 so I can see potential as well as flaws--it's just that the majority of privacy coins are vaporware or a terrible implementation of a potentially good solution (like I'll more than gladly use Zcash after sapling's implemented, but still won't hodl any as no one can audit the coin supply ). I have nothing against spectrecoin and it would be great if anonymous staking is a thing, but there is no good reason to believe it other than gambler's logic. The real competition will be SPECTRE (the one Monero may implement), mimble wimble, Zcash after sapling, and a Zstark implementation that seems, at least theoretically, an upgrade to Zsnarks. Its just so hard because there are tons of applicable quotes of you spreading FUD and it eventually coming back to bite you: As far as markets go, given Monero's volume compared to Dash's, I think we are doing just fine--imagine if we had 3,700,000 coins locked up in a masternode scheme? Seems odd that you're so intent on calling Masternodes an innovation now, when before, you were calling it a scheme. I'm noticing a pattern. You have the word FUD in your profile, yet you spread it so handily. You have no basis for disproving Stealth Staking is possible other than "no one has even thought about implementing it" and "the devs are unknown" as your argument. From someone that uses privacy coins so often, it seems a bit hypocritical. It seems your basis for FUD'ing XSPEC is something that you have ZERO evidence to back up. You spread FUD on the basis of what other projects haven't done. The developers of XSPEC have followed their roadmap and successfully developed so far, so there isn't a reason to distrust them yet. You buying ONE coin that has had success doesn't make you an expert in cryptocurrency my friend. I'm sure someone's opinion that bought in at Dash at 0.25 wouldn't hold the same weight as yours, eh? Saying "its never been done before therefore it is impossible that this could be achieved" is a dishonest argument. You cant prove that its NOT possible and no one can prove that it IS possible, so spreading FUD about stealth staking is senseless. I never said masternodes were a good innovation (in fact they create an oligarchy, which is why dash's claim of decentralized goverance is a joke), but I can acknowledge their use to keep coins off the market--perhaps why so many shitcoins try to replicate the scheme. But keep on using ad hominem to distract from my valid criticisms of spectrecoin. The fact that you are perusing my post history looking for anything to attack me with, validates that you would rather not acknowledge the criticisms head-on. I just think it's funny that you use shitcoin as an example --or are you claiming dash is a quality coin? We can have that argument if you want. Marketcap is no more an indicator of the quality of coin than record sales are an indicator of musical talent. |
|
|
|
Couple that with default stealth addresses and stealth staking to come in Q2 of this year, and you've got a speculative winner.
Ya, got any proof for that, like a white paper? No. I only have the word of the dev team. That's why I said SPECULATIVE winner. If I'm wrong, then its all for not, and I look like a fool. That's the nature of the beast. Much easier to look the fool with a noob account--some of us have a body of work to protect and can't shill every shitcoin that comes down the pipe with claims of, "We have magical powers and #1 privacy!" Spectrecoin has one of the worst prospects of success--no known cryptographer is actively proposing an anonymous staking system, so the idea that an unknown dev is pulling it out of his ass is pretty unconvincing. If you look at ring-signatures, mimble wimble, zsnarks, zstarks, SPECTRE (not Xspec)--these were all well known and reviewed (at least in cryptography circles) before any team decided to attempt them. There's a great deal of research that goes ahead of implementation, so absent that, it looks like fool's gold. I don't care what people do with their money, just don't push unknown cryptography on the rest of us and act like it's a foregone conclusion, or even a legitimate bet. Generalizethis is a Monero die-hard thats been attacking competitors to Monero for years. This is what he said about Dash back when he was FUD'ing it a few years ago: A loosing campaign? Loosing the truth from the grasps of dashtards, maybe. This revolution hasn't started or won't start anytime soon (or won't start ever). It's really premature to count a few million in market cap as significant when real success will be counted in multiples of billions above the current Bitcoin market cap. And last time I checked dash's market cap had stagnated, so I'm not sure where you see the success or the winning campaign. It even seems that Dash has declined with the Evolution and the parallel marketing push. I think a reality check is in order. He was saying Dash had HORRIBLE prospects of success as well. Where is Dash comparatively to Monero in market cap at this moment? He can claim Dash is still a shitcoin/scam as well but denying its current market cap success (by HIS standards in the quoted post), is also laughable. In reality, XSPEC implementing Stealth Staking is a very real possibility. The developer is still working on a white paper explaining it and still has a plan for a rough Q2 2018 release. Ask yourself why Generalizethis is so invested in calling XSPEC a scam? The only reason he is fudding the prospect of Stealth Staking is because he sees it as a threat to the market share of Monero. Stealth Staking would change the game for privacy coins, and rightfully so. Come back to this post at the end of the year and see who had it right. Anyone claiming Stealth Staking is IMPOSSIBLE is just as bad as the kids believing 100% that it WILL be implemented. Wait and see. Regarding the topic of this thread, I definitely see Monero staying as the top dog for privacy coins. It basically has first-mover advantage and is already a solid, working privacy coin. I do think if XSPEC successfully implements all of its planned features it will eat up a lot of the market share of privacy coins, and could be seen as a good alternative of Monero. If you want to cherry pick quotations that's fine. The market proved that I was right about dash as a privacy coin--or does anyone,who isn't a dashtard or a noob, still considered it a privacy coin? Also, dash had an innovation, unlike spectrecoin, masternodes, which happen to be great at keeping coins off the market and the price artificially high. Sooner or later dash will be exploited (13 algos is 12 too many), but I am patient and don't need coinmraketcap to validate my opinion week to week. As for spectrecoin, it has an unknown dev claiming something that no cryptographer has even ventured to posit as a possible design, so not really going out on a limb to say, "Come on, really?" I was also buying Monero at .25 so I can see potential as well as flaws--it's just that the majority of privacy coins are vaporware or a terrible implementation of a potentially good solution (like I'll more than gladly use Zcash after sapling's implemented, but still won't hodl any as no one can audit the coin supply ). I have nothing against spectrecoin and it would be great if anonymous staking is a thing, but there is no good reason to believe it other than gambler's logic. The real competition will be SPECTRE (the one Monero may implement), mimble wimble, Zcash after sapling, and a Zstark implementation that seems, at least theoretically, an upgrade to Zsnarks. |
|
|
|
This coin is a complete scam, people got and get funds stolen on a regular basis. And nothing is done to prevent this.
Only recommendation one can give, stay away from it!
Again, show me where the devs promised an enterprise level wallet to investors that would alleviate them of the responsibility of proper seed generation--I use a seed generator, but somehow I figured out that changing some chars and being offline were things I ought to be doing (those funds are safe and sound). The wallet is fine--it's just not idiot-proof. It's amazing how quickly some forget the mantra "Be your own Bank," and that that statement implies. You can read that all up, just don't be lazy. But it does not even matter if you read it or not, as it is a fundamental design flaw to use a private key to log into ones wallet. I wrote that before. It's not a design flaw--it doesn't make the network insecure, it just means you have to not use a seed generator from a random site--the same as not using a random dude to make your house key or safe combination. The failure to understand that is your fault, notice how most didn't make that mistake--anyways have fun with blaming someone for your own failure (maybe you should read up and not be lazy). |
|
|
|
Bosch AMA: https://www.reddit.com/r/Iota/comments/7sxgx0/bosch_ama_january_25th/When asked about using Bosch sensors with IOTA's tangle: We can use this with the Tangle and IOTA if the application requires accountability and audit-ability of the process. The use cases can extend to smart building, cities, manufacturing etc. We are planning on launching a Proof of Concept in our plants today. Between this and the data marketplace it'sa interesting to see actual use for IOTA and the furthering of IOT as a network. |
|
|
|
This coin is a complete scam, people got and get funds stolen on a regular basis. And nothing is done to prevent this.
Only recommendation one can give, stay away from it!
Again, show me where the devs promised an enterprise level wallet to investors that would alleviate them of the responsibility of proper seed generation--I use a seed generator, but somehow I figured out that changing some chars and being offline were things I ought to be doing (those funds are safe and sound). The wallet is fine--it's just not idiot-proof. It's amazing how quickly some forget the mantra "Be your own Bank," and that that statement implies. |
|
|
|
All privacy focused coin might loss their charm because at end when we will be willing to exchange those coin for fiat, we have to expose our personal identity and privacy because almost all fiat supported exchange platform have KYC policy.
There is no other ways to remain anonymous with crypto other than selling coin through peer to peer exchange platforms.
Feeless + instant transaction might become big thing this year.
As far as exchanges tracking your coins, unless you fail to move your coins after the initial withdrawal, that taint will not follow you, at least not with Monero. If you are just hopping from exchange to exchange without any movement in between, then you are your own worst enemy. |
|
|
|
Couple that with default stealth addresses and stealth staking to come in Q2 of this year, and you've got a speculative winner.
Ya, got any proof for that, like a white paper? No. I only have the word of the dev team. That's why I said SPECULATIVE winner. If I'm wrong, then its all for not, and I look like a fool. That's the nature of the beast. Much easier to look the fool with a noob account--some of us have a body of work to protect and can't shill every shitcoin that comes down the pipe with claims of, "We have magical powers and #1 privacy!" Spectrecoin has one of the worst prospects of success--no known cryptographer is actively proposing an anonymous staking system, so the idea that an unknown dev is pulling it out of his ass is pretty unconvincing. If you look at ring-signatures, mimble wimble, zsnarks, zstarks, SPECTRE (not Xspec)--these were all well known and reviewed (at least in cryptography circles) before any team decided to attempt them. There's a great deal of research that goes ahead of implementation, so absent that, it looks like fool's gold. I don't care what people do with their money, just don't push unknown cryptography on the rest of us and act like it's a foregone conclusion, or even a legitimate bet. |
|
|
|
byteball > xrb > iota
It's more like this: IOTA>ComeFromBeyond>XRB>ByteBall |
|
|
|
You still did not understand it. Get some basic knowledge in information security.
Have to blame myself here too, as this was prone to happen sooner or later. It happened before and it will happen again, if they don't fix it, it is a major design flaw.
You know I can copy/paste the stuff you ignore without much effort? To reiterate: Anyone implicity trusting a unknown site to create a random seed is trusting the access to their funds to a stranger--either change the key (random char) or don't bother. My analogy is apt as the seed is what you need to get in the house/safe--a piece of paper won't give you this acces or prevent a theft from someone with a key. Again, where did the devs promise more than a bare bones wallet? Nice you have ignored this detail. Dom said he didn't want the Foundation building wallets--that includes idiot-proofing them. You did a stupid thing, own it. |
|
|
|
Obviously you have no clue of what you're talking about.
But let me explain it, a seed in your comparison would be your rental contract, or your house document (authentication), Your monthly rental or purchase price would be your accounting. And authorization would be the key to your house.
The latter IOTA forgot to implement.
Clear now?
Anyone implicity trusting a unknown site to create a random seed is trusting the access to their funds to a stranger--either change the key (random char) or don't bother. My analogy is apt as the seed is what you need to get in the house/safe--a piece of paper won't give you this acces or prevent a theft from someone with a key. Again, where did the devs promise more than a bare bones wallet? Nice you have ignored this detail. Dom said he didn't want the Foundation building wallets--that includes idiot-proofing them. You did a stupid thing, own it. |
|
|
|
I have just looked at your thread. I am sorry that your coins have been stolen, but to me it looks like you've used a service without any thought, which is obviously dangerous to the security of your wallets.
Yes, exactly, it is not only "my thread". Many people got funds stolen and it is not only 4mUS$ as reported in some news, more likely in the 3 digits numbers. Theft is still reported every day here and most people probably did not even realize this yet. https://forum.helloiota.com/9284/Call-to-action-lets-catch-the-thiefCan only share this so people realize how dangerous this investment is. So far I know that police in 2 states in Germany (Hessen and Berlin) are investigating the heist. If you go to a random guy on the street to make your house key or give you a safe code, you need your head examined--learn how seeds work or don't "Be your own bank." Seriously, this is beyond stupid. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
