Greedy is being considered a bad attitude and the sole aim of getting rich is a pretty basic desire. While other people work pretty hard for their money, they don't want to see other people become rich by doing nothing, they feel this is unfair - which it is. When it comes to investments, people who don't dare to put money into an investment (Bitcoin) don't want it to succeed so they can rejoice not having lost an opportunity while staying safe.
The richest people in life did not become rich by working, they became and stayed rich by letting money and people work for them. It's a myth designed to keep people obeying and working for them, and keep the system alive, but the system is designed to suit the needs of the very rich. And everyone else suffers. Yeah, go on, work your ass off, earn a few pennies, maybe you can one day get "rich". Maybe you will get promoted some day so you can drive a slightly better car, life in a slightly bigger house. But you still get to waste most of your waking hours at a job you don't like and you will barely see your family and friends. And you will still be far poorer than the guy you call your boss. Investing is one of the best ways to get rich, yes it may ruin you it you bet wrong, but you can't get rich without taking a risk. Starting up a company, investing in a company or an idea both are risky, but if you just keep trying and keep looking for the right opurtinty you can get out of the rat race, and life a live free of the financial slavery and spend time doing what you actually like to do. More often than not they became rich by not spending and living well below their means. This provides them with the capital to take measured risk. They are also rebels that do not accept the system. In particular when it comes to themselves they say NO to everything the system tells consumers to do and do the exact opposite. |
|
|
|
|
The article is missing a critical fact. What operating system were the banks that were victimized running? My guess is that the operating system that was infected with malware was some version of Microsoft Windows. In this case the issue is no different than the many Bitcoin users who have had their Bitcoins stolen because the used the same operating system.
The real issue here is not Bitcoin vs fiat but rather the choice of Microsoft Windows over GNU/Linux that has made the banks victims in this case for the very same reason that many Bitcoin users have also been victimized
|
|
|
|
Anyone who has the skills to leave no trace of his crypto usage, can either:
a) not accomplish anything since no trace may be left;
b) not stay under the radar due to he is so skilled that he's certainly on the list already.
Try another frontier. Such as questioning the legitimacy of the whole charade. Bruce Fenton said he went on offensive when a cop was trying to fill his ticket quota with him, making the cop admit that he's on the morally losing side, but needs to get his family fed. In this case, at the expense of another family of 6.
It is only a matter of time before they will accept XMR for the payment of tickets https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=955358.0 |
|
|
|
from what I gather its about the monero economy.
My understanding is that the primary purpose of the site is to promote Monero. It is not a site specifically about the MEW or specifically about the Monero Economy. |
|
|
|
A site about Monero will naturally use the terms "Monero" and "XMR" so a search engine encountering for example xmrmonero.com would parse the name since it is considering the whole site not just the domain name when ranking the site. If there is one thing about SEO that I have learned over the years is that one has to consider the whole site not just the domain name, keywords, links, content etc. A possible concern about this is because the terms are not that well known is why I considered xmr-monero.com at a point; however upon giving this more thought I still consider xmrmonero.com the best choice since the site will naturally use both of these terms. Do you mean we should focus on the use case being "type monero on Google" and not "go to something.com"? I have the feeling that when asked to go to something.com, people actually go to google and type something.com. A lot of people do this. My favourite case was once watching an Internet novice teach another Internet novice how to use the Internet 10 years ago. The instruction was to type "Google" into the MSN search bar on the default IE5 home page on Windows XP. SEO is always about the generic term not the domain name. If someone types example.com into Google and it resolves Google will take you there as the first search result. If it is typed into the browser bar then a good browser will bypass search and take you there directly. Edit1: So yes the focus is on someone typing Monero or XMR into a search engine. Edit2: Try typing monero.com and go monero.com into Google with a space between the "go" and "monero.com". This is a classic example of the domain not supported by content. |
|
|
|
ArticMine I'm not at all an expert on SEO and you seem to know something about it, so I would ask whether xmr not being a word makes a difference. I'm thinking that bitcoinfoundation may be parsed by search engines as "bitcoin foundation", as would likewise moneroeconomy, but xmrmonero but they might have trouble with?
I also wonder how much domain names matter to SEO. Isn't it mostly based on linking? I would think any of these sites would become well-linked on the web from all sorts of cryptocurrency sites and articles as long as Monero continues to grow and MEW continues to be active in efforts to promote it.
My experience with SEO is that it is as much an art as a science. We are dealing in fact with the constantly changing propriety algorithms of Google and other search engines who are trying to provide relevant search. What matters is that the keyword or term is naturally used within the site, linking can play a key role particularly if the site that is doing the linking is not seen by the search engine as related (Sharing an IP address for example). If it is also present in the domain name then that strengthens the SEO provided it is seen as a natural use of the word. The whole here is not the sum of its parts. To understand SEO one must understand the conflicting interests. In the classic SEO battle the site is aiming for a very profitable highly competitive and generic keyword such as hotels or travel, while the search engine is trying to provide the most relevant results for say travel and Joe's recent affiliate travel site is not even close. If Joe's affiliate travel site tries to artificially push for travel or hotels and the search engine detects this expect a severe penalty on the site. My take is that highly generic terms such as "economy" or "money" in a domain name can actually hurt SEO for this reason if the search engine thinks the site is aiming for a not justified ranking on say economy, money etc. If the goal is a ranking on economy then that of course is an entirely different objective and the SEO has now increased in difficulty by many orders of magnitude. The way to compare how generic a search term is, is to search each term and see what the competition is like by looking at the number of results. It is also very important to start with a fresh browser session with no search engine cookies saved. One also has to consider that the search engine may skew results based on the location from which the search in made. Finally one must not log into the search engine while doing these kind of tests. We start with: Monero: 550,000 results. Dominated by Monero the currency. The first non Monero as a currency results are on page 3 of Google. one of which has the term in the domain. without a dash I must add. XMR: 1,050,000 results. Here XMR as the currency is strong but is in competition with XMR as an ATV, clothing etc. Economy 696,000,000 results. Way to generic to even consider targeting. Strengthening our position on XMR as a search term while supporting our position on Monero as a search term seems like a reasonable and achievable objective here. A site about Monero will naturally use the terms "Monero" and "XMR" so a search engine encountering for example xmrmonero.com would parse the name since it is considering the whole site not just the domain name when ranking the site. If there is one thing about SEO that I have learned over the years is that one has to consider the whole site not just the domain name, keywords, links, content etc. A possible concern that the search engine would not parse XMRMonero, because the terms are not that well known, is why I considered xmr-monero.com at a point; however upon giving this more thought I still consider xmrmonero.com the best choice since the site will naturally use both of these terms. |
|
|
|
An "about" page and a "member's section" should suffice, no? Maybe, but I see a lot of confusion on the focus of these names, as ArticMine pointed out. A lot of the names like monero-economy, I really wonder whether those make sense as an outreach an educational site for new users. But it certainly does make sense as an organizational site. As an exmaple of what I'm (and I think ArticMine is) talking about, compare the content and naming of bitcoin.org and bitcoinfoundation.org (again note the lack of a hyphen -- why are we going off and doing what almost nobody else does with their site name?). They are very different in terms of organization, branding and focus. The latter is clearly the site of an organization and the former is educational information for new users. Yes the distinction between bitcoin.org and bitcoinfoundation.org is what I am talking about. |
|
|
|
|
One aspect of this vote that is important is that there are two different issues here. The word combination and whether to use a dash or not. So we should vote on pairs xmrmonero.com / xmr-monero.com vs gomonero.com / go-monero.com vs moneromerw.com / monero-mew.com and then decide on the use of dash or not as the primary domain with the other domain in the pair as the 301 redirect.
I will be using xmrmonero.com / xmr-monero.com as the example since that is the pair I support. The non dash version is considered by far the stronger domain and is by far the most readable when used. It is also the best when the domain is communicated orally. The only advantage of the dashed domain is a possible slight advantage in SEO; however this is counterbalanced by the possibility that it could be considered aggressive SEO and be penalized. My own experience with using the dash vs no dash version on my own websites is comparable SEO results with a very slight bias in favour of the dash version. For everything else the non dash version wins hands down. For this SEO reason I had a very slight preference for the dash version and voted accordingly.
smooth has made a very strong case in favour of the non dash version which is way more than enough to swing my vote in favour of the non dash version. So I am changing my vote to xmrmonero.com.
|
|
|
|
These old threads can be very relevant to today's discussion about price speculation, and bring some nostalgia to those of us that were around then. I was a lurker on BCT at the time and had only started buying Bitcoin a month earlier at the then outrageous price of 5.41 CAD. The First Pirate Savings and Trust later to become the Bitcoin Savings and Trust had just been launched https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=50822.0. The latter is so significant since the First Pirate Savings and Trust was predicated on the premise that Bitcoin can only continue to keep going down in price. |
|
|
|
|
The first question here is what is the primary purpose of the site:
1) A site to promote Monero that happens to be a project of the Monero Economy Workgroup (MEW).
2) A site about the Monero Economy Workgroup (MEW) itself
For 1) The original four choices make sense. In reality there are two choices the pair xmr-monero.com with xmrmonero.com as a 301 redirect and the pair go-monero.com with gomonero.com as the 301 redirect.
My vote is for xmr-monero.com with xmrmonero.com as the 301 redirect.
For 2) The choice would actually be Monero-Economy-Workgroup.com with MoneroEconomyWorkgroup.com as the 301 redirect since it is the name of the organization.
The site currently at xmrmonero.com is basically 1. It purpose is to promote Monero. The MEW should not make it about itself. There is nothing wrong with the MEW creating a site about itself, but it is fundamentally a different site with an entirely different purpose.
The rationale for xmr-monero.com is very simple. It combines the two main keywords for Monero, name and currency code in one domain in what, regardless of all the the new extensions remains by far the strongest ICANN extension namely .com. This is backed up by xmr-monero.bit and xmrmonero.bit in the Namecoin root and xmrmonero.com in the ICANN root.
To be fair I honestly do not get monero-mew.com at all, since MEW stands for Monero Economy Workgroup. As for Monero-Economy.com and XMR-Economy.com they seem to indicate confusion as to whether the site is about 1 or 2. The fact that both were proposed does indicate to me that XMR and Monero are the key keywords here.
|
|
|
|
...
Why are you comparing DRK to POS, the collateral for masternodes simply serves as a means of proof of service... there is no staking involved. DRK is and always will be, a POW coin.
I am comparing DRK to POS because the economic incentives of running a DRK masternode are essentially the same as staking a POS coin. This means both the security "cost of buying up enough DRK" to attack the privacy of the coin by controlling a large number percentage of the masternodes and the possible attack by "borrowing the DRK to set up malicious masternodes" are essentially identical to the economic incentives in a POS coin. The compensation is also the same since a portion of the mining rewards are diverted to the masternodes. This in effect makes DRK a hybrid POW/POS coin with transactions secured by POW and privacy by POS. Edit: The key difference with a POS coin is the minimum "stake" required to set up a masternode. This of course creates centralization and vulnerability to a possible regulatory attack. is that good saving this coins for long period?
That's debatable given emissions. One look at the chart and you'll see an apparent decline in price trend. Having said that, I am a fan of the tail-end emission (I believe that is the direction voted on) when it gets there as ongoing inflation not only incentivizes further mining, but also makes it a viable currency (at least by modern economics standards). The tail emission of XMR is capped at 1% not compounding placing the XMR inflation rate below the historical inflation rate of gold. The potential return in holding XMR at this point over a period of time will come from a significant uptake in its use over the emission rate and would most likely occur well ahead of XMR reaching tail emission. Seriously if XMR stays at these prices for the next seven years I doubt it will go anywhere. |
|
|
|
is that good saving this coins for long period?
My take is that buy and hold is the best strategy with Monero. So yes. Of course we are talking of a very speculative purchase. It is very possible to see a significant drop in price. No guarantees. |
|
|
|
Maybe, but there are many examples where the superior technology simply lost. The current reality is that DRK has over 7x the capitalization and 20x the volume. So unless the message of the superior XMR privacy technology gets out it could be to late. The reality is that XMR has many advantages over DRK including:
DRK has 2 advantages well 3 really. Ease of use Kewl Name Large Base for the above reasons I would not consider Kewl Name and advantage here at all. I mean Monero is actually way ahead of virtually every crypto-currency including Bitcoin when it comes to name. Picking the Esperanto word for currency was simply a stroke of genius by the Monero community. The biggest advantage is that it is both language neutral with at the same time a connotation of money or currency in many languages. |
|
|
|
...
1. Here we go again...
2. Not that it is a problem now but I'd wager this will be forked in as the coin continues to push release (albeit, excessively)
3. lol, apparently you aren't familiar with probabilities. Good luck getting loaned that many coins to get a small chance of succeed. Further, with breaking the inputs up across multiple nodes through blinding would further prevent any meaningful analysis.
As for the coins tied in masternodes, it's digital currency... it can be split out to as many decimals as you want to provide liquidity. Quit thinking in fiat terms of whole coin this, whole dollar that.
1. The little point in debating this. Eventually someone will ask for a ruling from FINCen and resolve this. 2. We are in agreement here. DRK needs to hard fork just like XBT over this issue. All I can say is that the 1 MB blocksize limit in XBT, rather than privacy, is what drove me to XMR in the first place. 3. This is a classic POW vs POS argument. I happen to be strongly in the POW camp which is one of the reasons I support XMR. I also believe that borrowed stake is the Achilles Heel of POS. There are many who disagree with me on this and are in the POS camp. The trouble that DRK faces is that one has to believe in both POW and POS to support DRK. If one is a POW believer seeking privacy then XMR is for you. If one is a POS believer there are other pure POS alts that offer privacy. |
|
|
|
In the end, if DRK does well, it brings attention to the privacy niche. People who look into the privacy niche more will eventually find out about XMR.
Maybe, but there are many examples where the superior technology simply lost. The current reality is that DRK has over 7x the capitalization and 20x the volume. So unless the message of the superior XMR privacy technology gets out it could be to late. The reality is that XMR has many advantages over DRK including: 1) No regulatory risk over the centralized masternodes. 2) No 1 MB blocksize limit. DRK to my knowledge has not addressed the issue of the 1 MB blocksize limit that is currently plaguing XBT. 3) No Proof of Stake attack vector. Many think of DRK as a Proof of Work coin. This is true as far as transactions but not privacy. Privacy is secured by what amounts to a form of Proof of Stake. There is a reason for the 1000 DRK capital requirements for masternodes. So yes the "Second Pirate Savings and Trust" attack on proof of stake I describe in this post https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10182752#msg10182752 is actually possible against DRK. Where the attacker uses borrowed stake to create a large number of malicious masternodes. For 1 and 3 above XMR wins because of the use of ring signatures and a single user level set of nodes For 2 XMR again wins because of adaptive limits. The technical superiority of XMR is clear; however the market on the other hand is currently sending a different message. One interesting aspect here is that DRK requires a significant percentage of DRK to be tied up in the masternodes, These coins are not available to the market. This of course is not the case with XMR. |
|
|
|
Edit: The case for Darkcoin masternodes being MSB is actually very simple. The facilitate the exchange of one kind of DRK (un mixed) for another kind of DRK (mixed). This process adds value to the DRK of holder. The masternode is compensated for this service. So they are exchanging / converting money. DRK is not money. BTC is at best a commodity. Case (unfortunately) closed? No. Crypto-currencies starting with XMR are money. There is already a legal precedent in the United States when Trendon Shavers aka Pirateat40 argued that very point in court against the US Government and lost. I for one would argue that XMR is money in Canada for the purposes of the Excise Tax Act. http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/e-15/. Why because of this: “money”
« argent »
“money” includes any currency, cheque, promissory note, letter of credit, draft, traveller’s cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and other similar instrument, whether Canadian or foreign, but does not include currency the fair market value of which exceeds its stated value as legal tender in the country of issuance or currency that is supplied or held for its numismatic value;
Bold my emphasis. The implication is that there is no GST payable on XMR. The same argument can be made for any crypto- currency. By the way this legislation dates from the late 1980's but unlike the Australian case it was drafted properly. In the EU we see how more and more jurisdictions are coming to the sensible conclusion of treating crypto-currecncy as money for the purposes of VAT. So regulating DRK masternodes as MSBs is a small price to pay to avoid paying GST or VAT on XMR, XBT or DRK for that matter. Edit: Treating crypto-currencies a money has a profound consequence in any jurisdiction that has a GST or VAT. With the notable exception of the United States that is the world's strongest economies. |
|
|
|
...
I'm just stating current guidance, masternodes do not qualify as MSBs. You can flirt the idea all you want, but until revisions are made, it is what it is. You, and other XMR fan, are more than willing to get clarification if it helps your case but make sure you are actually describing the functionality of a masternode accurately. Bare in mind, going down this path, there is no difference then to any other node out there for various coins.
No. I am not going to seek this clarification precisely because of my investment in XMR. It would be very wrong on ethical and possibly legal grounds. No this clarification should be sought by someone who is invested in DRK and can make a good case that the masternodes are not MSBs Again, given the current guidelines, there's no need to seek clarification, as a masternode (and any full node for other coins) doesn't fit any of those qualifications. I'm not here to start the whole XMR/DRK debate again but you did come out with nonsense (at least from the current standings) and it bares correcting. If a bitnode hasn't been ruled a MSB (and it hasn't), then a masternode and any other full node carrying the coin's blockchain wouldn't either unless it performs one or more of those qualifications listed above. One critical difference is the minimum capital requirement to set up a DRK masternode. This is fundamentally different from the XBT, XMR LTC etc cases. To a regulator this smacks of the minimum capital requirement to set up a bank. |
|
|
|
...
I'm just stating current guidance, masternodes do not qualify as MSBs. You can flirt the idea all you want, but until revisions are made, it is what it is. You, and other XMR fan, are more than willing to get clarification if it helps your case but make sure you are actually describing the functionality of a masternode accurately. Bare in mind, going down this path, there is no difference then to any other node out there for various coins.
No. I am not going to seek this clarification precisely because of my investment in XMR. It would be very wrong on ethical and possibly legal grounds. No this clarification should be sought by someone who is invested in DRK and can make a good case that the masternodes are not MSBs |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
