… there are no XMR "investors". Monero is a medium of exchange and a store of value. If individuals purchase units of Monero they do not directly enrich me or the rest of the core team.
really? Of course they don't. They don't even necessarily increase the price if they don't buy at higher prices than previous investors did. Some new investors showed up during the low period, they bought slowly and cautiously, not bidding up the price. Either way the money from investors doesn't go into the project the way selling stock in a company does. Currency "investors" are always speculators; they are not buying a productive asset of any kind.ok. got it. lol! anyway I think what smooth might mean is that Monero as a currency won't find a productive use like say, gold has, past what it already does since inception. One monero will always be that entry in a private ledger, ultimately. The only thing that changes is how we interact with the protocol ruleset that allows as such. |
|
|
|
|
It is certainly possible that a reason why Bitcoin might fall is the same reason Monero becomes "successful".
|
|
|
|
Can someone help me find the quote that goes like, don't invest too much into Bitcoin because it's just an experiment and something better might come along?
I don't remember anyone saying these exact words, what we like to say to each other is: "don't invest more than you can afford to lose". Yeah I still can't find it. Maybe I'm mixing up a bias with the common aphorism. Though I could've sworn... |
|
|
|
In my mind it is much simpler why Monero can overtake Bitcoin; it fulfills the cypherpunk dream of an e-cash. I just use bitcoin as a tool to buy monero and it's because i want e-cash and nothing short of this will do. It's weird for me to think that an intellectual dream/problem could be abandoned because an "almost there" enjoys market share. Bitcoin is a nice attempt (entry point), but it failed the fundamental mission (exit point). I believe Satoshi understood Bitcoin as the start and not the end, so he's probably enjoying Monero's rise with the rest of us.
Can someone help me find the quote that goes like, don't invest too much into Bitcoin because it's just an experiment and something better might come along? |
|
|
|
Well whatever it is, this one has been a lot more easygoing than surmounting Bitcoin's learning curve. Maybe necessary now for the bigger fight we might have to have. Now, this is where it gets interesting. Those with the foresight to see BTC years ago is a rare thing. Black Swans are hard to spot, even when explained and handed to you (e.g. Just think of all the people who have heard of this space (from us) and do absolutely nothing. Some of whom might even ask you for investment advice 2 weeks after this talk but never bring up BTC! Hello, Hello, McFly). Anyway, so now these select few are looking for the next great step within and without this space. And imo, some have found it... Something (or is that someone) tells me quite a few of them are looking here.  |
|
|
|
If any alt reaches about 10-20% of Bitcoin's marketcap, Bitcoin is doomed in such a great probability that I'll sell mine (in favor of the alt).
Wasn't Litecoin at it's peak about $1 billion vs Bitcoin at the time around $10 billion? Now look at Litecoin... Litecoin, at its very highest peak reached ~0.05 LTC/BTC. Mostly it's been 0.03 or lower. Since supply is 4x that means LTC was worth 5*4 = 20% of bitcoin. , it should be clear from the context that this clause refers to the future (hint: use of will indicates explicit future tense).  I think "reaches" has a state satisfied by the quality of the binary, "has it been reached (or touched, if you'd rather)?". Presently, the answer is "yes" by Litecoin but by using a future tense verb in conjunction, you could infer that he effectively means "when an alt reaches (or "touches") again i.e. in the future". I think. I don't know :p |
|
|
|
|
Since when the hell was 5500BTC ever worth $40M?
|
|
|
|
Yes, the logo is actually supposed to be round  Puts me to mind of a Hofstadter joke: What w⬡uld this sentence l⬡⬡k like if π were 3? Ah Godel, Escher, Bach. Gladimor's "circle" was 2x a hexagram though... I've had him as a professor for almost a year now Took structured verse with him in the fall, now sexism in language. What a guy |
|
|
|
what if death was the best thing, who knows.
|
|
|
|
I don't know how anyone reads this SR shit and fails to feel unease. How safe are we really?
As safe as inverse to the power elite's ability to change written rules to fit their needs when needed :/ |
|
|
|
|
A consequence of "more" redundant systems is an increase in probability of component errors, and in Dark's case having more components only increases probability of overall system failure.
|
|
|
|
188 btc wall got eaten at 0.004 and then another 40 btc wall went right back up in its place. Taking some profit was tempting but there hasn't been an opportunity to buy back lower after selling in weeks. Even 5-10 btc will move the market 5% most of the time.
We've never had anything like Monero before, in terms of added value. Litecoin was the previous bar set and it has no fundamental difference over Bitcoin. |
|
|
|
|
Despite how difficult it may or may not be it is still at least an order of magnitude riskier to have to trust a third party!
|
|
|
|
So i guess that by that you are saying that math is so developed it can even describe the formation of the whole universe because you watched a video of a computer model?. And andytoshi said "I'm not sure what you mean by "math hasn't got to the stage where it can describe complex systems". I have a math degree and several published papers in mathematics and I can't for the life of me square this claim with actual work in the field. "So neither of you are aware of some fundamental unsolved maths problems which appear quite mundane, like a complete model for how turbulence works: "In particular, solutions of the Navier–Stokes equations often include turbulence, which remains one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics, despite its immense importance in science and engineering." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navier%E2%80%93Stokes_existence_and_smoothnesshttps://terrytao.wordpress.com/2007/03/18/why-global-regularity-for-navier-stokes-is-hard/or until a few years ago we didn't even have a model for how sound waves actually work: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_acousticsboth complex systems....math not work yet (ok non-linear acoustics was just found...) And my point that it is more secure to remove information from a system than to keep it in the system encoded, which means you don't need cryptography for all parts of a cryptocurrency, was avoided. ay, no offense but youre a dumbass. i just read your posts and all of them are wrong. your copy pasting stuff from wikipedia and have no clue about any of it. post starts with 'you are stupid' - you must be an XMR investor? i will try to make my point clearer, maybe i am not communicating well enough: DRK anonymity - does not rely on cryptography, information required to deanonimize is not accessible after the anonimization XMR anonymity - relies on cryptography, information required to deanonimize is accessible in the blockchain (encrypted) at any time after the anonimization ...then my understanding is people like andytoshi are saying 'you have to use cryptography' and xmr people are saying 'there has to be mathematical proof' to prove the anonimity is secure - my references to complex systems were trying to explain this isn't true. what has cryptography got to do with moving information out of a system (by making it more ambiguous)? how is using a process like cryptography better in this case? encrypting the info to deanonimize e.g. a darknet transaction and storing it on the blockchain in-perpetuity seems like a really dumb idea for anyone who cares about security. this is supposed to be an 'XMR vs DRK' thread, I haven't seen this point yet, everyone who just calls me stupid instead of showing how the above is stupid *is stupid*  You can't deanonymize anything on the Monero blockchain without the private key or view key of a transaction or wallet! That's all you can see, is what a key reveals, nothing more. You can't identify backwards who sent moneroj to that address. You can deanonymize DRK by MITM attacking the masternodes, a trivial task for law enforcement when such a large amount of Masternodes are on third party providers e.g. Amazon AWS. |
|
|
|
|
You have to trust masternode owners to uphold the value of your coins, because a lot of the value comes from owners' dependency upon financial privacy. It is totally contrary to the philosophy of the blockchain, so you trust absolutely no one but everyone for that. And value=/=price mind you
|
|
|
|
Blockafett, trying to get me to believe that depending on humans for security is a "good thing" is not going to work. The less a system depends on humans the better, and that seems doubly true for a system that is entrusted with your well-being (finances, privacy, security). * Here you go, Vokain, this was the post I remembered (not Fluffy's man hours  ) it was the db total: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=583449.msg10556465#msg10556465 The project total here is (taken from Fluffypony's estimate): "35 weeks of development (245 days) since Monero was inherited by the Core Team 594 separate commits 11 contributors 10 221 modified lines 12 706 new lines 32 lines removed Combining the two together, there were 22 927 lines of code over the first 8 months, which is 18 342 hours of work, so $1 375 620 worth of effort." --OMF--Organic-memory fail. I should have used the AFAIK safety word. I did send Fluffy a pm asking about his personal total, but he probably thinks I'm a tax informant now, so I don't know if he'll give me that total. But this should at least answer how devs calculate these figures. Go team! Thank you generalizethis, I think this is already sufficient for my curiosity. Of course things go deeper than this e.g. refactoring and testing but here are some numbers anyway: Average valuation of a man hour: $75/hr at around 1.25 lines of code per hour—about $60 per line. |
|
|
|
Can anyone even explain a masternode? I mean technically, not a outline, but a detailed explanation of all the moving parts?
I assume human elements will always fail (greed, corruption, stupidity, good intentions) as they do in real life, so if the mastenode system depends on humans obeying best practices to function securely, it follows reason that they will be broken. But if the masternode system does not depend on humans following best use practices for security, then the system should theoretically work--so can I get an thorough explanation?
just my opinion but on this idea that masternodes rely on a human element and humans can't be trusted so they are insecure, personally i don't think so because: human trust fails on individual/small cases - so if human trust governed say transactions, they wouldn't work. but a *network* of humans is a very different thing same as a network of ants or network of neurons in your brain. first it's a chaotic system, second the security is a statistical result and governed by more chaotic predicitions like game theory, not a binary one where a single human is either trustworthy or not in an algorithm. so its misunderstanding at a systems level to say masternodes require human trust - like if I buy BTC i am relying on human trust because miners / fullnodes are run by humans. chaotic systems are governed by actors and their incentives anyway... About the structure from the masternodes, there is a white paper here: http://www.dashpay.io/downloads/DarkcoinWhitepaper.pdfIDK the minutia because i try not to get into detail level on everything. but i can try to explain the concept if u want (others can do it better though i'm sure) 404 error :/ |
|
|
|
https://getmonero.org/knowledge-base/people --more devs than you can shake an angry troll stick at, and they're volunteers not paid by an instamine, but go on trying to sell your concern pericope like a two bit trial lawyer. Also, if they believe x-dark-dash is a fraud, they have every right, and I applaud them for it, to call it so. Your concern trolling is very appreciated--you obviously put a lot of time and effort into it. Buddy, I have more XMR than you, I guran-fucking-tee it. And I'm actively bringing new investors in, so please stfu about concern trolling. It's true that I have Dash as well, but my only concern is to see the development of the best technology. I just think that devs should be coding, not arguing with idiots on a forum. Then donate some of the xmr to the devs or learn to code. Criticizing the devs is doing what? You think they're all beholden to your opinion? Like your a shareholder? They are volunteers! With lives! Opinions! And have every right to do what they want they aren't working on the project. Fluffy alone has donated over $300K in manpower hours to Monero. Have you donated a single hour? Can I please see a citation, if this is information he chose to make public? The one summer undergraduate accounting class part of me is curious as to how it was calculated. |
|
|
|
Wonder if Vertoe will contribute to XMR instead? Need some more devs who care more about building the coin than pointing out the flaws in the competition. For the life of me I can't understand it. They say that Dash is fundamentally flawed, yet they continue to spend their time arguing about it. Imagine if scientists spent more time arguing with crazy evolution skeptics than doing actual science? Nothing would ever get done. You have core devs, whose time is of the utmost value, arguing with internet trolls. It's absurd.
I've learned a lot from David, fluffy, and smooth (+othe, eizh, sorry didn't know you were devs too!) from their time on the forums. I think they form a wonderful bridge from the engine to the community and have mature thoughts to contribute towards steering this ship. Importantly, they inform so that the community can do so self-sustainably. |
|
|
|
the only kind of credibility is "perceived credibility".
Of course. We only know as far as we're aware. Are you a fan of Bertrand Russell's two heads argument? That we have two heads suggests that our perception is the same reality-tunnel that bridges the two together. From the same book linked, Obviously, the faster we process information, the more rich and complex our models or glosses — our reality-tunnels — will become. Resistance to new information, however, has a strong neurological foundation in all animals, as indicated by studies of imprinting and conditioning. Most animals, including most domesticated primates (humans) show a truly staggering ability to "ignore" certain kinds of information — that which does not "fit" their imprinted/conditioned reality-tunnel. We generally call this "conservatism" or "stupidity", but it appears in all parts of the political spectrum, and in learned societies as well as in the Ku Klux Klan. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
