Happy pg. 900 everyone!!!  I remember reading on here when 500 was big... can't wait until the big 1000 and beyond. *edit: well that was embarrassing...  * People delete their posts over time anyway, so your celebratory post is ensured to drop back some slots eventually. It seems our post count is accelerating though. Just a few months ago we were at page 600. Believe it or not, I think that within a few years we will be at page 9000 and laugh about celebrating page 900. Monero Speculation remains the thread with the most views and the most posts in the Altcoin Discussion. What I find much more interesting however is the recent price action. |
|
|
|
... Nor does it mention the blinding speed at which the block size issue was dealt with.  The market will be the final judge on how effectively the block size issue in Bitcoin was dealt with. The current trend in ETH/XBT indicates the market is not particularly pleased with how this issue was dealt with. |
|
|
|
Of course the article does not mention the adaptive blocksize limit in Monero nor does it mention the tail emissions in Monero and Dogecoin. Both adaptive blocksize limits and a tail emission are needed to implement the only known solution to the Bitcoin blocksize issue. Also Confidential Transaction was initially proposed for Bitcoin and then adapted for Monero, although it is becoming apparent that confidential transactions in the form of RingCT will be very likely implemented in Monero before confidential transactions are implemented in Bitcoin. Edit Coinjoin was proposed for Bitcoin well before Dash or its predecessors were created. Do I see a pattern here? |
|
|
|
Eth will kill bitcoin. I've been watching the aerospace for three years now? It has actual innovation, developers from multiple sectors and they can actually deploy changes.
Bitcoin is dead. People just don't realize it. A private company is fighting to maintain control, the community is literally killing off any chance for real innovation. A.) Even if blockstream can do sidechains they have lost so much face with their underhand tactics no one will cooperate. B.) The private sector is excited about the blockchain(Google articles and vc funding and compare to bitcoin vc funding and articles) . At this point bitcoin can't scale. 3.5tps to 7tps isn't good enough.
Ethereum is the only game in town that comes close to trying to meet the needs of taking crypto mainstream by proving a dev language on the blockchain and next making it scalable.
They might fail. I don't know. But they're the best shot and have been for over a year.
P.S. Don't buy today's hype. Wait until it's "dying" or boring. Don't let anyone tell you "remember what it was like buying bitcoin at $10". There was one bitcoin. Ethereum had had hype and public exposure surrounding it since day one.
Way to be overly dramatic. Bitcoin is far from dead and statements like that makes it hard to take anyone saying it seriously. I wasn't trying to be overly dramatic. I was just stating what I see 5 years into the future. Here's a quote from some article I read today ... "I'm struck by how many times I've described this problem to people at the office or at Toastmasters events, who have nothing to do with bitcoin, and they have difficulty understanding what the actual problem is. When I tell them that this issue was artifically added into bitcoin after its launch, they simply ask why it takes years of discussion to change something back to close to the way it worked before. " I'm not even sure I have an opinion anymore in the block size debate. Blockstream needs the funding to give itself a reason to exist that comes from the 1% fee on the lightning network. Bitcoin needs blockstream to push sidechains etc. I just don't see it happening man. Going from 1MB blocks that are almost full to 2MB blocks is like trying to pull a bad tooth from a bear who hasn't been sedated. I just don't see how it can move. VC funding dries up next (more VC funding is being poured into "Blockchain" projects that will do nothing to increase the value of bitcoin), then interest shifts from bitcoin to something else (Gavin Wood is a good example of someone who was excited about Ethereum but thought bitcoin was silly), then big providers shift to whatever is next (people who don't censor their company on their reddits for testing out a piece of software Theymos doesn't like). Circle is talking about adding Ethereum. Coinbase is testing Classic (which won't work - bitcoin won't fork) and maybe they are still banned on bitcoin reddit. Not sure. Last piece is when a few old time bitcoin whales panic that have a cost basis of $0.34 per bitcoin and start dumping for alternate currency or fiat. Then you'll see panic. I am being overly dramatic for today I suppose. But not overly dramatic in the next 1 - 5 year time frame. Watch an see. (I'm not convinced it will be Ethereum - just that it won't be bitcoin). I for the most part agree with this assessment of Bitcoin. If one steps back from the short term hype and takes a medium to long term view of Bitcoin it is hard to not to reach a similar conclusion. The fundamental problem with Bitcoin is that nobody has found a solution to securing Bitcoin after the block subsidy runs out while at the same time allowing the blocksize to scale. What rdnkjdi has described above for the most part can be traced back to this fundamental problem. This also means that any POW coin that has a fixed maximum number of coins will eventually run into the same issue. My take is that Ethereum is not the answer to a Bitcoin replacement simply because that is not what Ethereum was designed to do. I say this even as the market has for the short term treated Ethereum as a "Bitcoin replacement". Ethereum will succeed or fail on tis own merits not as a replacement for Bitcoin. If one's car breaks down one can use an 18 wheeler transport truck as a temporary replacement, but ultimately what one needs is a car that works. Of course this does not mean there may be a perfectly valid market for 18 wheeler transport trucks and investing in their production could be very profitable. As for a "car that works" the strongest candidates are Monero (POW, adaptive blocksize limit, tail emission) followed by Dogecoin (POW, tail emission). I include Dogecoin because adding an adaptive blocksize limit, in a hard fork, is a very minor change in the social covenant of a coin compared to adding a tail emission. Cryptonote coins without a tail emission, for example Bytecoin, will also fail when the block subsidy runs out. |
|
|
|
|
Or maybe the SEC will simply turn the whole thing over to FinCEN.
|
|
|
|
That dump hit closely above supported, but rebounded quite nicely:
...
Triangle breakout on the upside after a false breakout to the downside? |
|
|
|
...
The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations.
So you propose a security without an issuer? In the case of Monero, hypothetically, the "issuer" would be whoever is orchestrating the scheme to funnel investor money for their benefit with some investor expectation of a future return. Whether someone is "orchestrating" Monero as a scheme to do anything depends who you ask. Like if you ask ceti or Spoetnik, its all being run behind the scenes by Risto or me (or I am Risto). It's obviously nonsense, but if someone were to make the case, that's the argument they would make. In the case of this thread, it is clear that there is a scheme with two coins, one with an ICO (i.e. clearly funneling investor money with some investor expectation of a future return), and various relationships between a number of involved parties, some anonymous. The scheme is laid out, at least in general terms, on this very thread for all to see (or maybe the posts I read are on another thread). Yes, but even the the above example "the scheme" rather than Monero itself would be the security. There is a subtle difference here. A good example is Ethereum. Many would argue that Ethereum is a security because of its initial ICO, but in reality was the security the promise to deliver the Ethereum at a future date or the Ethereum itself? Another example would be a promise to deliver gold at a future date, The promise to deliver gold at a future date may very well be a security, but that does not make the gold itself a security. |
|
|
|
...
The Howey test doesn't concern itself with the issuer, rather only the economic reality of whom is securing the investor's expectations.
So you propose a security without an issuer?
Your FinCEN guidance is entirely out-of-band of investment security law.
...
No argument there; however compliance with investment security law does not mean there exists or there does not exist an illegal activity in another area of law. |
|
|
|
...
The definition of obfuscation is you will not see.
Stop playing dumb please. You know what I meant. Decentralized proof-of-work distribution may be another obfuscation of the economic reality of an investment security.
That Monero is forcing hard forks periodically clearly shows the developers are in control of its future which investors expectations are based on. I read in Monero Speculation that Monero investors are investing based on the expection of Shen-noether implementing Ring Confidential Signatures.
The obfuscation is actually quite weak.
"Holier than thou", as AnonyMint would write.
I'm done. You take the last word. Good luck.
Let us start with the basics: Who is the issuer of the alleged security? |
|
|
|
...
Then should we dredge up AnonyMint's explanation of how Monero is potentially also an illegal unregistered investment security.
...
Please do, since he is dead wrong on this. By the way a better example would be Ethereum. |
|
|
|
...
Now you act like CfB from the IOTA scam. If you ask that man what time is it now or in fact ask any questions such as does a bear shit in the woods or anything really which has a question mark, CfB will offer you a 50 BTC bet to deal with the question ... since he knows nobody gives a monkey about the betting offer of a scammer.
Isn't the interest of your investors to know who the fuck you are? Why you need to complicate this simple question with a fucking 10 BTC bet? The TPTB_need_war ICO starts as he finished here: fishy and messy.
... maybe she is just afraid the elephant in the room will step on her. |
|
|
|
I am just disapointed that its going to be an IPO... thought it would be different this time.....
After all the hate talk of IPO's that TPTHwar has released I guess he will finally become as culpable as the rest.
Not that i see much wrong in him needing investment money, but he has been holding us all accountable to a higher standard that he now is willing to overlook.
Remind me to come take a look 1 year after its released.
I would not be concerned about TPTB_need_war outsourcing his ICO/IPO to avoid legal and / or moral liability. I would be concerned about FinCEN launching a wave of enforcement and its impact on the alt-coin market given that IPO/ICO is a favorite way of raising investment money in the alt-coin market, Here is an article on the subject by Arnold & Porter LLP http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=4dea5c6a-110a-4949-a5dd-a82c034210b1The article refers to the FinCEN guidance I quoted above in this thread and some further guidance from FinCEN. I find the Analysis of Past FinCEN Enforcement Waves section particularly relevant to alt-coin speculators and investors. This is the elephant in the room that very few people in the alt-coin market are willing to talk about for obvious reasons. |
|
|
|
to drive investment in the proposed ICO.
will your ICO be legal in the United States of America and the Philippines? Are any ICOs illegal in the United States of America? Isn't that a question for the appropriate authorities or your attorney. Probably not and that's why anonymint has created honcho.
I noticed your Waves signature. I advised that ICO. IANAL In the United States I would take this guidance from FinCEN under consideration. https://www.fincen.gov/statutes_regs/guidance/html/FIN-2013-G001.htmlIt appears to me that an ICO would require the registration of the issuer with FinCEN as an MSB within the required time period in order for the ICO to be legal in the United States. Edit 1: Here is the FinCEN Enforcement action against Ripple over this issue https://www.fincen.gov/news_room/nr/html/20150505.htmlEdit 2: The above is the reason I stay well away from ICO coins including Ethereum. |
|
|
|
...
Not really. I removed the simultaneity requirement in CoinJoin. Since when has CoinJoin been similar to Cryptonote.
...
It will reduce the block chain size considerably. I also see how to put a viewkey in it. And the mix anonymity sets can be huge, say 50 or 100 transactions per mix (or more!). The disadvantage is the masternode can see the correlation of inputs to outputs. But just like any mixing method, if mix over and over, the probability of your anonymity set being known to any one party diminishes in probability.
You'd still need stealth addresses to achieve the delinking from the recipient's public key.
...
Stealth addresses and viewkeys. This is starting to look like a Monero - Dash hybrid and technically I can see why. By the way your idea from a technical and theoretical point view is actually quite interesting, with a dose of shall we say "community irony" thrown in for good measure. |
|
|
|
...
Post a link to the tweet showing a timestamp before the incident was already known to the public ...
C'est impossible. 16:06 - 15 de mai de 2016. |
|
|
|
... I performed the exploit that lead to the Monero network consensus failure 4 months ago and posted screenshots of me doing so using a Mac Mini(twitter also proves date/time). Monero cost me two SSD's in the process leading up to the exploit. These types of bugs (lack of validation) only come from amateur computer programmers. There are 12 ZeroDay flaws left to be exploited unless I discover more. I will keep you informed. Feel free to try and debunk this fact.  Anyone can claim that there are n zero day exploits in a software project. All you have here is an exploit that was fixed four months ago and a what is starting to look like a desperate need to manipulate the price of certain crypto - currencies. Edit 1: Do I smell some kind of pump and dump group involving multiple crypto - currencies? Edit 2: Or do I smell desperation? |
|
|
|
... First Crazy Uncle Shelby will have to demonstrate how he has broken Dash, then he may sell them the cure. Not sure how this thread turned into him fighting with DashHoles about something that's not exactly clear, but it happened anyway!  He is trying to sell the Dash community something that can best be described as a hybrid between Monero and Dash. |
|
|
|
...
No i was asking a question i got an answer that tweet is fake that attack happend 4 months ago and the GUI is not till 2026 or something they said
Not your post. That was a genuine question. There is a lot of FUD around Monero and some of it is starting to sound very desperate. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
