...
I agree with zsmith; however I also believe that there is a very good chance that "Bitcoin Will Not Survive". The reason for my belief is that Bitcoin is being prevented from scaling. Can someone please explain to me how one can handle the daily transaction volume of JP Morgan Chase & Co on the Bitcoin blockchain with a 1 MB blocksize limit? In short Jamie Dimon may very well be correct but for an entirely different reason than the one he gives in the article. |
|
|
|
|
I am not an Aeon holder but I must say that this proposal makes Aeon one of only two POW coins that have solved the blocksize / fee market issue. The other of course being Monero.
|
|
|
|
Remove flash and Windows. I have extrapolated this statement to its logical conclusion. I will now be supporting Monero exclusively through pencil-and-paper manual mining and physical snail mail from now on. Thanks for all of your suggestions and concern; I will look into possible memory problems and flash. Who said pencil-and-paper manual mining and physical snail mail as an alternative to Windows. There is GNU/Linux. |
|
|
|
The funny thing is that none of the alts have fixed this either!
You are wrong. There is a solution already in the alts; however, if applied to Bitcoin, it comes at a very high price namely going over the 21 million maximum number of bitcoins. One way to fix this problem in a proof of work coin is to combine adaptive blocksize limits with a permanent minimum block subsidy. One alt, Monero, has done just that by combining the adaptive blocksize limits in Cryptonote (A quadratic formula that penalizes over size blocks by reducing the block subsidy) with a permanent minimum block subsidy. The original Cryptonote adaptive blocksize limits, as for example they are implemented in Bytecoin, fail when the block subsidy runs out. The penalty function simply does not work when there is no block subsidy. The key problem is that there is no clear way to establish a fee market in the absence of a block subsidy, and at the same time allow for the blocksize to grow. This is in my opinion the real reason why so many of the core developers are "dragging their feet" on this issue. Dodgecoin has a permanent minimum block subsidy but no adaptive blocksize limits; however one can argue that introducing adaptive blocksize limits is a much lesser violation of the social covenant than increasing the overall money supply. As for some of the proposed fixes we have: Bitcoin Unlimited: The same problem as Bytecoin, and most other Cryptonote coins except Monero, only worse since there is no penalty function. Some however will argue that orphan blocks do create an effective penalty function; however this effective penalty function is also dependent on a block subsidy. Bitcoin XT / BIP 101: The effectively pushes the problem into the future by replacing the 1 MB blocksixe limit with a 8 GB blocksize limit over a period of 20 years BIP 100: This effectively creates a mining cartel, where the miners effectively raise fees to maximize their profits at the expense of the rest of the network. |
|
|
|
Remove flash and Windows. |
|
|
|
The final nail in the coffin for zerocoin and the trumpet sounding the inevitable rise of Cryptonote coins IMHO. I would not trust any zerocoin/zerocash protocol instanced by an entity in a country where backdoors are mandated in software and projects. Sorry, still a proud patriot, but I do not love the surveillance state that has errupted in the past decades - it is an affront to the principals we founded ourselves on, and I say that as a law-abiding citizen with nothing to hide. This. Some relevant reading: https://igurublog.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/julian-assange-debian-is-owned-by-the-nsa/Also debian is planning to fully adopt systemd, that some argue is a giant potential backdoor (besides a clusterfuck) for the NSA/USG circumvent the Linux kernel. Reason why I'll be moving to Slackware or BSD soon. IMHO the next step (or already done) for NSA/USG is BIOS Backdoors in various devices. i dont think systemd is affected (i like it so i may be biased). i am in the process of installing gentoo right now... together with qubes my two favorit distributions. (gentoo uses openRC by default; qubes is Fedora based) I believe the risk with systemd is way overblown. It is after all FLOSS. As for BIOS the real issue is locked BIOS that forces the installation of operating systems signed by Microsoft. This was done at the behest of the MPAA and other "big content" players such as the NFL, and not the US Government. The real culprits here are those that market DRM "protected" content, not government agencies such as the NSA; however the NSA will of course take advantage of this. There is no need for back doors in the BIOS when there are already many back doors is Windows, especially Windows 10. |
|
|
|
Have anyone tested Monero 0.9 to see if it is system crash safe?
Bitcoin Core wallet is a nightmare because its database is quite fragile. If I closes the wallet suddenly, OS stops unexpectedly, I need to spend 3-4 days to reindex the database and re-sync block chain from the beginning
jesus really? i've beaten the hell outta 0.9. For instance, the development branch (which goes above and beyond 0.9, but uses 0.9 as its base) for a while couldn't be exited because the 0mq wasn't all wired up properly. So how do you stop the program? kill 9! or the plenty of times I loaded up bitmonerod in a putty terminal and then lost my wifi connection so had to kill the daemon (before I learned to through rpc calls at it). Long story short, LMDB is great. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Memory-Mapped_Databaseedited to add: LMDB was designed from the start to resist data loss in the face of system and application crashes. kudos to the monero devs for pushing this development. Are we the only cryptocurrency using LMDB? Are there still some situations where we use Berkeley db namely 32 bit or ARM systems? |
|
|
|
Both moves look okay to me but I like keeping our knight in the forward position putting indirect pressure on their king. It's also blocking their queen in on the left side doing nothing.
Nd4
20. Nd4 I agree. Nd4 keeps the strong knight on d5. |
|
|
|
Well if they try to monetize the emission in any way they will become an MSB and be subject to FinCEN regulation. This was the case with Ripple. FLOSS, a clean POW emission, combined with donations (money or in kind) to fund development as is the case with Monero avoids this regulatory risk. |
|
|
|
You have refuted nothing. Rather than debate this further, I suggest that anyone using the software carefully read the EULA, and form their own conclusions, before blindingly clicking: "I agree". |
|
|
|
... How do you arrive at that insane conclusion from the License of a Privacy Tool? The license of ShutUp10 has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the OS you use it on or even the remotest inkling of a relation to DASH. Did you just scroll for something that fitted your precast opinion? Because when you read the sentence correctly you arrive at the correct meaning: You may use this Software solely for private purposes. Clearly setting the scope on the tool itself, not anything you run it on or anything you run next to it (like a DASH wallet). This means that the product (a) will be distributed or otherwise made available at no charge (direct or indirect) and (b) is not used for any commercial purpose. This includes (though not limited to) any activity engaged for the purpose of generating revenues (directly or indirectly). Again clearly talking about ShutUp10, nothing else. Clearly stating that it's free software and that you are not supposed to sell this free software. That's what they mean with "generating revenue". I've read some convoluted and heavily constructed bullshit in my time, but this takes the cake. How you arrive at the conclusion that this tool has anything to do with using DASH is beyond me. I can only assume you're either trolling, or insane. Edit: Oh, so you're another Moronero troll. I already had a suspicion... So you're both.  By reading the EULA. Since the purpose of the software is to modify the OS to attempt to prevent spying the scope of the OS becomes the scope of the software. Distribution is covered in section 2 of the EULA if you care to read it. As for Monero I actually posted on the Monero thread suggesting that they stop developing for Windows. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg12862972#msg12862972 This has nothing to do with rival coins. It simply makes very little sense to run a privacy oriented coin (Any privacy oriented coin) on a proprietary platform with built in keyloggers. |
|
|
|
... Crosspost from [XMR] speculation, thanks to kazuki49 Sometimes I get the feeling that the development of Monero should be limited to GNU/Linux (or at least to Unix like OS) until most the development goals are reached. Those wishing to run Monero on Windows can be provided with a pre-configured Virtual Box GNU/Linux VM and instructions on installing Virtualbox. Does anyone seriously believe that one can have financial privacy running Monero on Windows 10? |
|
|
|
you proposed a way to identify possible privacy leaks in Windows 10 OS correct ...that doesn't mean every person can do it. Neither did I expect that, nor does that qualify my method in any way. Just because your everyday Joe can't operate a space shuttle, doesn't mean it's useless. Hence it is a flawed argument because it isn't an absolute solution for everyone. By asking for the impossible ("absolute solution for everyone" <-- doesn't exist) I suppose you can render every argument ever made as "flawed". The only thing flawed here however is your sentence, because it doesn't make any sense. Open sourced software that has been reviewed and used for years is much more trustworthy and has less need for you to have to review the source in order to know it is good code or not. You just asked for an "absolute solution for everyone" and now you rely on others to decide if you're dealing with good code. Contradiction much? Let me repeat, so you understand: Not everyone is a programmer to understand the code, so it's not an "absolute solution for everyone". <<-- This is obviously wrong, it only serves to illustrate your logic. Hmm who would I rather trust, Microsoft who releases closed source crap with anti-privacy crap turned on by default or a version of Linux that has been used for years that is "stable"? I never asked you to trust Microsoft. I talked about the privacy experts who made the software I linked. O&O is a German software company that has nothing to do with Microsoft except making a tool to deactivate Spy-Tools in Windows. Linux is a good OS, but the software I use doesn't run on it. I use it for specialized tasks like system-recovery or penetration-testing only. ____________ Sorry for the off-topic everyone. Last post on this, promise. I am with smoothie here and furthermore this is not off topic in a DASH thread. Take a look at the EULA of this software that is supposed to protect Windows 10 users from spying http://www.oo-software.com/en/shutup10/eula and one finds the following: (Bold my emphasis) 1. Grant of license
The Software Product is licensed as follows:
1.1 Installation and Use. O&O grants you the right to install and use copies of the Software on your computers. You may use this Software solely for private purposes. This means that the product (a) will be distributed or otherwise made available at no charge (direct or indirect) and (b) is not used for any commercial purpose. This includes (though not limited to) any activity engaged for the purpose of generating revenues (directly or indirectly). The software is in use when it is loaded into the temporary memory (i.e., RAM) or installed into the permanent memory (e.g., hard disk, CD ROM, etc.) of a computer for the purpose of being accessible to an end user.
1.2 Backup Copies. You may also make copies of the Software Product as may be necessary for backup and archival purposes. Now suppose someone used a Windows 10 system to store DASH that is used for one or more masternodes, and the software in question to attempt to prevent some government agency from getting a hold of the DASH private keys for said masternodes. Running DASH masternodes produces revenues and protecting the DASH used for the masternodes would qualify as a "activity engaged for the purpose of generating revenues (directly or indirectly)". The bottom line is that proprietary software and operating systems simply have no place in crypto currency. One thing the DASH community got right is that one cannot run a DASH masternode on Windows. |
|
|
|
Not to be blunt but when will Monero have an official GUI wallet ?
Official, because the other wallets I dont trust that much. Can anybody tell this? Or atleast a time range 1-2 months?
Figure out this and one has a real opportunity to profit by trading Monero. |
|
|
|
|
I voted no. One of the reasons is that this site can provide FinCEN with easy access to the IPOs/ICOs that are launched by unregistered MSBs. This will assist FinCEN is prosecuting them.
It could also be helpful to regulators in other jurisdictions.
|
|
|
|
The ponzi stays solvent as long as price of Bitcoin rises faster than the rate of return on the ponzi.
The ponzi can also run while being insolvent for quite a while, which is how they traditionally go. They do that by limiting withdrawals and whatnot. This could go on for weeks, months, or years. And it's impossible to know when it will collapse. Throw it in the pile of wildcards. Of course it can. The key in my mind is to understand how the ponzi is positioned and make a long term bet against it. When the ponzi collapses then there is an opportunity to profit from its demise. In the pirateat40 ponzi the ponzi was a bear ponzi so a buy / hold position in Bitcoin during late 2011 and early 2012 turned out to be very profitable in 2013, after the ponzi collapsed. In this case we are likely dealing with a bull ponzi since the ponzi returns are not denominated in Bitcoin, so staying out of Bitcoin with say an XMR / USD (or XMR/ other fiat) mix actually makes sense to me. |
|
|
|
...
From what Ive been reading this russian guys ponzi is way bigger. Apparently people lost around 30-40 billion dollars like ten years ago in another of his ponzi schemes. The current ponzi is already well established in many countries, running for 5 years but only recently turned to Bitcoin due to likely banking issues (LOL). There is a very large participant user base already involved and now they are being forced to use Bitcoin.
If the ponzi operators stay long Bitcoin this could potentially cause a sharp spike in the price of Bitcoin. The ponzi stays solvent as long as price of Bitcoin rises faster than the rate of return on the ponzi. If the price of Bitcoin falls the ponzi will colapse and in the process magnify the resulting bear market in Bitcoin. A combination of Monero and fiat may turn out to be a much safer postion than Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
...
Little remark, it was either September 15, 2015 or October 15, 2015 if I recall correctly. However, since we passed both already your argument is still valid and furthermore I agree with it.
It's quite simple, mr manipulator and the bears will be able to determine the price (+control the market) until we have a new release.
Well Mr. Manipulator sure has a taste for hammers. One more red one in the daliy chart. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
