Chances are Tronald Dump is just anohter con artist from Poloniex trollbox.
Yeah, con artist, but I wouldn't say "just another"  Donald Trump is a con man. He’s also a fraud, a liar, a snake-oil salesman, and a carnival barker. Clearly he is running a scam on the country.
Trump calls himself a “deal-maker.”
I call Trump a Master Persuader.
It’s all the same thing. Either way, blocking remittances to Mexico may be bullish for crypto and end up building that wall /topicrelevancy Politicians tend to be master liars, unfortunately. I remember very well when there was a huge hype around Obama. Everybody thought he is the Messiah but nothing happened (except the Iranian rulers are now able to blow the entire world with their nuclear bombs). The hype even went to far that Obama got a Nobel prize for peace (before he had any merits besides creating the of "yes we can" -BS). Lying in business doesn't get one far. It's either everlasting legacy or bust for Trump. What would he prefer? |
|
|
|
Chances are Tronald Dump is just anohter con artist from Poloniex trollbox.
Yeah, con artist, but I wouldn't say "just another" Donald Trump is a con man. He’s also a fraud, a liar, a snake-oil salesman, and a carnival barker. Clearly he is running a scam on the country.
Trump calls himself a “deal-maker.”
I call Trump a Master Persuader.
It’s all the same thing. Either way, blocking remittances to Mexico may be bullish for crypto and end up building that wall anyway. /topicrelevancy |
|
|
|
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
PS well done Team Monero, pretty smooth hard fork from what I can tell Is this for real? Is this signed with a reliable public key that we know for sure belongs to satoshi? I think it's been months but to my present awareness I don't think anyone's proven that it's not real  |
|
|
|
Scrutiny can control Bitcoin if a state coerces businesses to blacklist/flag certain tainted bitcoins (yes it's happened). You can't "hide" the blockchain form the state without simultaneously hiding it from everyone else as well - i.e. the majority of the population who don't hold private keys and on who'm you're depending to endorse its value. Population doesn't always need to know everything to know enough ZCash and Komodo both have better anon implementations. Komodo will be backed by full hashing power of BTC.
Monero does not have any particular monopoly on anything.
Did it matter, does it now? Stephen would answer if he only knew how... ♫ |
|
|
|
Quote Goldman Sachs all you like. They didn’t invent cryptocurrencies and no-doubt make exactly the same mistake as people in this therad are doing - of projecting a banking model where a person is sysnonymous with an account onto a public blockchain, which is nothing like a bank. “Your money” is not stored on a blockchain. “Your money” is stored in a bank account with your name on it. On the other hand a blockchain is a public resource that may or may not have some value. By obscuring the outputs, all you’re doing is diminishing that value. Bitcoin has people crawling all over it day in day out, scrutinising every last address and dialoging over it. The fact that thats possible is about the only thing that actually turns such an unbacked resource into “money” because although every nook and cranny can be scrutinised, it can’t be controlled. That fact is what makes your private key have some power - and therefore value. With blockchain based unbacked “money”, you do not endorse the value - everyone else does. So turn that into a little “private club” where you need a private key to even see it, let alone touch it and you can have your provacy but forget it being worth anything All money is is some arbitrary medium people use to transfer things of value for other things of value. Does it matter what the medium is? By obscuring the outputs in a medium, one increases the value in said medium for people that want those outputs obscured. Transparent options still exist. Scrutiny can control Bitcoin if a state coerces businesses to blacklist/flag certain tainted bitcoins (yes it's happened). We can continue leaving the market to decide the value of privacy in a blockchain. |
|
|
|
A lot of dreaming going on in here. Well, dream on but sorry to tell you that an obscured blockchain does not ever have a snowball's hope in h*ll of becoming more valuable than a transparent one - not where unbacked "money" is concerned at least. All they are good for is being a decentralised private bookkeeper, or transporting something that already has value (such as fiat or bitcoin  ). You do not support "privacy" in a blockchain by obscuring the very thing that endorses its value. See if you can get a look-in on the steady drip of business development that goes on in transparent blockchain - until then I'd say that exchange-based pumping & dumping remains the best hope [...]
To wit, the firm sees blockchain technology as nothing more than a “fundamentally new type of database technology.” And as far as Goldman’s interests are concerned such as high-volume commercial transactions and sharing data between partners, it expects private blockchains to reign supreme.
[...]
The report further explains
Private or ‘permissioned’ blockchains behave in the same way as the public blockchain, except that the identity of anyone who attempts to access the blockchain must be validated against a list of pre-validated market IDs. We believe that the vast majority of commercial blockchain applications – particularly in capital markets – are likely to use private or permissioned blockchains.
|
|
|
|
Well we dont know but i heard that bitcoin is the only one can stay remain.. and monero is just alternative.. or other altcoin is just alternative that can never replace bitcoins.
You heard... from who? |
|
|
|
I have been following the recent block size debates through the mailing list. I had hoped the debate would resolve and that a fork proposal would achieve widespread consensus. However with the formal release of Bitcoin XT 0.11A, this looks unlikely to happen, and so I am forced to share my concerns about this very dangerous fork.
The developers of this pretender-Bitcoin claim to be following my original vision, but nothing could be further from the truth. When I designed Bitcoin, I designed it in such a way as to make future modifications to the consensus rules difficult without near unanimous agreement. Bitcoin was designed to be protected from the influence of charismatic leaders, even if their name is Gavin Andresen, Barack Obama, or Satoshi Nakamoto. Nearly everyone has to agree on a change, and they have to do it without being forced or pressured into it. By doing a fork in this way, these developers are violating the "original vision" they claim to honour.
They use my old writings to make claims about what Bitcoin was supposed to be. However I acknowledge that a lot has changed since that time, and new knowledge has been gained that contradicts some of my early opinions. For example I didn't anticipate pooled mining and its effects on the security of the network. Making Bitcoin a competitive monetary system while also preserving its security properties is not a trivial problem, and we should take more time to come up with a robust solution. I suspect we need a better incentive for users to run nodes instead of relying solely on altruism.
If two developers can fork Bitcoin and succeed in redefining what "Bitcoin" is, in the face of widespread technical criticism and through the use of populist tactics, then I will have no choice but to declare Bitcoin a failed project. Bitcoin was meant to be both technically and socially robust. This present situation has been very disappointing to watch unfold.
Satoshi Nakamoto
PS well done Team Monero, pretty smooth hard fork from what I can tell |
|
|
|
Happy equinox  |
|
|
|
I can tell you this: Every single person from Goldman (and every other bank or prop shop or family desk or money manager) that I have spoken with mono-á-mono in the past 2½ years has bought some XMR for their personal. Never more than a few thousand. And I don't think any are selling yet. If they were, I would mock them viciously: DNMs are step 1. And we haven’t even made it half way through step 1 yet. This thing has its best years ahead of it. We can actually afford software now.
We know you're a perma-bull but are you just making shit up now?  Next you're gonna say all these "professionals" / hedge fund managers prefer to invest in monero over bitcoin Maybe I'm wrong but maybe that RPC FUD were pro hit pieces from an accumulator(s) |
|
|
|
@OrangeP
You have no idead dude how uninteresting these markets are atm for companies like goldman sachs etc. We talk about 12 Billion Dollar. That is nothing for them compared to stock exchanges. You have to learn a lot about this business. Cause they earn money with capital investmens, share holding and stock rollouts like facebook. A companie like Apple could buy all currencies over night.
We are with crypto what internet was with 56k modem in the 90s buddys.
This is why I'm sure they are not in the game. The market cap. would be much bigger. What I'm trying to say is that they will not join the game. They will try to kill it. edit: I'm a long term "small"-bag-holder. I also trade with small amounts for over 3 years now (without any notable success yet). ...
To wit, the firm sees blockchain technology as nothing more than a “fundamentally new type of database technology.” And as far as Goldman’s interests are concerned such as high-volume commercial transactions and sharing data between partners, it expects private blockchains to reign supreme.
... Maybe they mean internal blockchains, maybe they want a more confidential Bitcoin, maybe they want Monero, maybe they hedge a bit and keep an eye on all disruptive developments... By private they mean internal, controlled by them or shared only with similar entities like themselves. Just what Satoshi envisioned we could all be one big happy chain... |
|
|
|
@OrangeP
You have no idead dude how uninteresting these markets are atm for companies like goldman sachs etc. We talk about 12 Billion Dollar. That is nothing for them compared to stock exchanges. You have to learn a lot about this business. Cause they earn money with capital investmens, share holding and stock rollouts like facebook. A companie like Apple could buy all currencies over night.
We are with crypto what internet was with 56k modem in the 90s buddys.
This is why I'm sure they are not in the game. The market cap. would be much bigger. What I'm trying to say is that they will not join the game. They will try to kill it. edit: I'm a long term "small"-bag-holder. I also trade with small amounts for over 3 years now (without any notable success yet). ...
To wit, the firm sees blockchain technology as nothing more than a “fundamentally new type of database technology.” And as far as Goldman’s interests are concerned such as high-volume commercial transactions and sharing data between partners, it expects private blockchains to reign supreme.
... Maybe they mean internal blockchains, maybe they're referring to a more confidential Bitcoin, maybe they want Monero, maybe they hedge a bit and keep an eye on all disruptive developments... |
|
|
|
Is the current price pf Xmr at around .017 btc still viable to buy for a short term trade like a week or so? Im looking for altcoin to invest
"You can't tell til you bet!" lol @ "short term trade like a week or so" + "invest" bro So patience really is a virtue especially for newbies like me.
For everyone, really |
|
|
|
This is tragic too because normally Johnson would be a good candidate, he did amazing things for New Mexico, I am very impressed with his governance capability.. I will encourage Trump to hire him as a consultant or state association liaison. But we have Trump who is shining brighter than a super nova right now. How can America refuse this? Dear Mr. Johnson please do your country a great service and step down and throw your support behind Donald Trump.
Have you considered that Gary Johnson is doing his country a great service? If he manages to take his party to at least 5%, the Libertarian Party would for the first time be a fair contending party in the next election cycle. I love Trump, but Gary is more hands off in government, and I want that diversity in opinion on the Hill, even if I'm not voting for him this election. Why even worry, Trump is going to beat Hillary in a landslide, if she even makes it to Election Day |
|
|
|
I'd be very happy to see the Libertarians get at least 5% of the vote to receive FEC matching funds
Johnson did great things for NM but he really needs to drop the act that he is actually running for president. At least McAffee had the correct platform a 3rd party should have this cycle: "do not vote for me I am running to talk issues only" All Johnson can do is take away votes from Trump and Hillary. Then the scammers can tell us Trump lost by a little while the voter machines rig the hackathon for Hillary. They both have almost identical platforms except in a few areas and so there is no point since Trump is willing to adapt to the people's will. Trump is our manager. Trump can do the job. We do not need a 3rd rail this time around. So we should continue the two-party system... Who cares about the parties. We do not have a 2 party system anyway. This year it is 1) vote for Trump and we remove cancer from government and reboot or 2) More of the same failed government snakes. But we should keep it down to 2 people yes. The round before this had lots of people and it was weeded down to 2 now more people getting introduced is fuck all. What has a third party ever done for a presidential election except totally fuck it up? Or in the alternative get rid of the party primaries and let the candidates all compete in rounds leading up to the final choices like the primaries but not monopolized by a "party". You say "totally fuck it up", I say "makes it a party" Considering that Bush Sr. is voting for Clinton now, do you really think that a Bush presidency in 1992 would've been that different over a Clinton one? What do you mean by more people getting introduced? Jill Stein and Gary Johnson have earnestly run for president for years. They do it because their platform otherwise gets no voice in the two-party system. At the very least the third parties are able to introduce ideas that rarely are heard from the other parties. If Ross Perot didn't run, would we have heard about NAFTA and its effects the way we did? http://www.businessinsider.com/looks-like-ross-perot-was-right-about-the-giant-sucking-sound-2011-2 |
|
|
|
I'd be very happy to see the Libertarians get at least 5% of the vote to receive FEC matching funds
Johnson did great things for NM but he really needs to drop the act that he is actually running for president. At least McAffee had the correct platform a 3rd party should have this cycle: "do not vote for me I am running to talk issues only" All Johnson can do is take away votes from Trump and Hillary. Then the scammers can tell us Trump lost by a little while the voter machines rig the hackathon for Hillary. They both have almost identical platforms except in a few areas and so there is no point since Trump is willing to adapt to the people's will. Trump is our manager. Trump can do the job. We do not need a 3rd rail this time around. So we should continue the two-party system... |
|
|
|
|
I'd be very happy to see the Libertarians get at least 5% of the vote to receive FEC matching funds
|
|
|
|
its organically growing again
yeah a sudden 1000btc buy is organic lol with 24k BTC daily volume 1000 BTC is on average traded every hour. we need to get used of huge volumes in Monero. I posted chart somewhere of last 30 days Monero volume. that reached over 500 millions USD. let me find it. I made it since i think it will be a 30 days record for soem time. 1/4 of BTC volume of last month. Not to mention that is actually more since some that wanted to buy Moneros with fiat had to buy BTC first.  Bear in mind the coinmarket cap trading volumes are biased and created in such way that bitcoin will always have the highest volume. If you break down to the components of Btc trading volume you see it consists not only btc-fiat-pairings but also btc-xmr-pairings (and other alts also). So the truth is a lot of btc bought with fiat for the purpose of buying Monero is inflating the trading volume of btc but also when those very same bitcoins are dumped into Monero markets, it also boosts the trading volume of btc for the second time. Am I alone here or is btc just a zombie? I'd say BTC with its hard won liquidity and acceptance serves as a useful bridge from everything on that list to most the of rest of the finance world, for now. Maybe more like a pelican pecking herself to feed her young with her own blood. |
|
|
|
I'll just use that new credit card I got. What's one more maxed out credit card?
You are joking right? No. Do I pay off CC or buy more Monero? Obviously buy more Monero. One of the best things I ever did. Less than 2 years ago I was eying the last can of beans on the shelf. Now I have beans and Monero. I'm glad it worked out for you but remember you haven't truly won until you cash in your chips. Maybe it's a good time to take some profit off the table and pay off those high interest loans? This is coming from someone who has never carried a balance of even 1 penny ever in his life so your story terrifies me.  Sometimes its the right move. Worked for me, as described, except I played some margin to pay it all off on this rise without actually selling any of my moneroj. Finally. And CC doesn't always mean 'high' interest. Most of mine were 3-6% until about a year ago when the banks started dicking me around. Now I just give them the finger they most deserve They try to lure me with card signup bonuses, so I take them, pay off my balance, and move on to the next card when I fulfill the requirements. My little way of sticking it to the credit card companies Locally, I tend to spend cash though to help out business owners on tx fees |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
