Would you like to explain how to scientificly measure your ''evidence'' because im a bit lost, thanks. To translate, because he's that brainwashed BADecker has rewritten the definition of a scientist so it fits his religion better, kind of like how religious people try to re-write history and everything else in order to make the world try and fit in their respective religions, why do you think that they always try to wipe out other cultures' and beliefs? Too bad for him the real world doesn't ever work like that, otherwise why would all these other religions and beliefe systems exist in the first place if his was so perfect? It's mostly that standard modern scientists don't WANT to explain that they are proving God exists, more and more all the time in the things of science that they prove. The ones who DO express how science proves the existence of God, are ignored by the universities, or worse, ostracized. It's all a political ploy to tear down the strength of our religious nation, so that the politicians can more easily control the wealth of the people, and take over the world. Yet the proof for the existence of God is here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg10718395#msg10718395 and https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=737322.msg8331233#msg8331233.  My professors at Indiana beg to differ. "Can science and religion coexist" is a common theme here. |
|
|
|
What determines the per-KB transaction fee?
The size of the transaction once it is encoded? I maybe didn't understand the question? No, the size of the transaction is variable mostly upon the mixin count as far as I understand it, but what determines the fee implemented to check blockchain "spam"? Oh there is a hard coded minimum of 0.01 currently, which is the recommended fee for <= 1 KB. Nothing lower than that will be forwarded. Eventually we would like to move to something more like Bitcoin 0.10's dynamic fees. Miners can fill blocks with their own spam however they want but their reward will be reduced if the block size exceeds the median of the last N (I think 720) blocks. It would be pretty stupid to do this though since it will slow propagation and result in more orphaned blocks, even more so than with Bitcoin. Thank you. I had a look at 0.10's release notes and find them favorable. So FWIR, given that we have no blocksize limit, and presumably as XMR prices go up and disk space costs go down, we can then assume that the cost to spam the network dollar-wise goes up too, and statistics would be taken to reflect this and tend towards lower and lower transaction fees? Edit: I don't quite understand how or why miners would fill their own blocks. They would be paying their own, now not guaranteed to be found, award. Smooth, could you please explain more what you meant by your second paragraph? Edit2: oh is that rule in place sort of as to reward optimal and regular block sizing accepted by miners? Edit3: and the check against too slow verifications given when tx volume increases is that the block size miners want to verify begins to only steadily increase? bump |
|
|
|
Looks to me, like (there is a strong chance) the Darkcoin community is going repeat the same errors the Litecoin community did.
More and more regular, vocal posters in their community, show this well known "LTC attitude (& behavior)".
(arrogance, sense of superiority, clearly not technically-versed people are opinion-forming & dominating discusssions/the community, losing touch with reality, very self-centric, (trying) to disallow any neutral & critical opinions, questions & discusssions, anyone not 100% hyping DRK will be stigmatized and ridiculed as troll, fudder, shill, etc.)
This is a new development. Like in the last 3 months. Could get pretty dangerous for them (see Litecoins history).
Why does it matter? Because this observation should be an indication of importance & motivation for us, to further develop and actively maintain our healthy community.
Moneros community must always stay:
open, friendly, objective & open-minded, fact-based, respecting to everyone, esp. non community-members, democratic, fair, transparent, (strictly) skill-based task & job assigments, intelligence driven (always searching for & acknowledging the best solution, even if this best solution is not XMR compatible)
The Monero Project is so strong and well positioned. We can talk openly & objectivly about our (coins) weaknesses.
We don't have to lie, create our "own golden reality" or prohibit open discussions.
With objective discussing & reflecting about XMRs weaknesses. We will find better solutions & improve, we stay focussed (and won't create an hyping circle-jerk scene) and we will gain alot of respect, from all in crypto currencies interested parties (others projects, experts, newbies, press, professionals, ...).
Because, no one likes the LTC attitude.
I see some evidence of it in this camp too esp. on Reddit and encounters with other camps on controversial topics when mostly objective logos type of arguments should be employed. A condescending demeanor is ugly and hurts this collective's ethos appeal. Not to single anyone out but... https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=978447.msg10717653#msg10717653I expect much better than this :p |
|
|
|
What determines the per-KB transaction fee?
The size of the transaction once it is encoded? I maybe didn't understand the question? No, the size of the transaction is variable mostly upon the mixin count as far as I understand it, but what determines the fee implemented to check blockchain "spam"? Oh there is a hard coded minimum of 0.01 currently, which is the recommended fee for <= 1 KB. Nothing lower than that will be forwarded. Eventually we would like to move to something more like Bitcoin 0.10's dynamic fees. Miners can fill blocks with their own spam however they want but their reward will be reduced if the block size exceeds the median of the last N (I think 720) blocks. It would be pretty stupid to do this though since it will slow propagation and result in more orphaned blocks, even more so than with Bitcoin. Thank you. I had a look at 0.10's release notes and find them favorable. So FWIR, given that we have no blocksize limit, and presumably as XMR prices go up and disk space costs go down, we can then assume that the cost to spam the network dollar-wise goes up too, and statistics would be taken to reflect this and tend towards lower and lower transaction fees? Edit: I don't quite understand how or why miners would fill their own blocks. They would be paying their own, now not guaranteed to be found, award. Smooth, could you please explain more what you meant by your second paragraph? Edit2: oh is that rule in place sort of as to reward optimal and regular block sizing accepted by miners? Edit3: and the check against too slow verifications given when tx volume increases is that the block size miners want to verify begins to only steadily increase? |
|
|
|
Monero strong like bull
Well, the moon is currently in the sign of Taurus until 9:22am EST tomorrow :p |
|
|
|
What determines the per-KB transaction fee?
The size of the transaction once it is encoded? I maybe didn't understand the question? No, the size of the transaction is variable mostly upon the mixin count as far as I understand it, but what determines the fee implemented to check blockchain "spam"? |
|
|
|
|
What determines the per-KB transaction fee?
|
|
|
|
I think the title Altcoin Gangster is kind of badass. Voting away! |
|
|
|
As far as I know, the only place currently available that has USD-Tethers is on BFX, as a withdraw option (they also have the capability to allow fiat deposits like wires on there). Tether access is still beta-only so it has yet to proliferate too far. So if you want to buy XMR with USD, the closest way past P2P exchanges is to acquire USD-Tethers by depositing USD in BFX |
|
|
|
https://ca.linkedin.com/in/petertoddBasically a BTC core dev, or at least, contributor, but he's all over the place consulting various organizations in Cryptoland. He has a beautiful mind. http://www.coindesk.com/video-core-developer-peter-todd-bitcoins-future/
Core developer Peter Todd is known for his forthright ideas on how to improve the security and stability of bitcoin, while staying true to the technology's decentralised roots.
An avid twitter user and conference regular, Todd has worked on everything from off-chain transactions and privacy-enhancing stealth addresses to '2.0' projects like Viacoin, Counterparty and coloured coins.
In this video, he discusses his first experiences with bitcoin and precursor Hashcash and I ask how centralisation, regulation and scalability might shape bitcoin's future.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn6MUJLJfFc
|
|
|
|
Hehe I first introduced Monero to him last year when I had a question about how to bridge separate blockchains |
|
|
|
I would do it but in the US you need a money transmitter license to legally sell crypto for fiat... http://www.burtw.com/I recommend working on increasing organic volume on an XMR/BTC exchange to the point other exchange operators realize they're losing out on commission potential (e.g. >volume than DRK on Bitfinex) |
|
|
|
|
Subbing, I'll let you know if I run into my binder at my mom's.
|
|
|
|
|
@GingerAle: I remember being at a computer fair in Indianapolis when I was still probably a preteen (maybe about 10 years ago) and they gave out Ubuntu (I believe 4.10, "Warty Warthog", its first release) live demo disks for free, but it was good software.
|
|
|
|
if zerocash comming out soon, than i think drk and xmr will be pointless
So since fusion is coming soon tm it is pointless to focus on oil/gas/hydro/solar/wind tech. Right? And as far as i understand there is a trust issue with zerocash. again, beautiful |
|
|
|
Following up http://blog.omni.foundation/2015/02/19/2015-mastercoin-foundation-board-elections/I only have a mobile phone with spotty internet access in Vietnam at the moment so I apologize for any brisk conduction of the elections, but vote away. If anyone procrastinated in signing up and would like to be put up for candidacy (as we currently have five candidates) before the elections close in two weeks on the 20th of this month, just message me either at antonyvo@mastercoin.org or PM me here, and I'll assign you a BTC address, I'm pretty flexible. Again, all you have to do is send a dust transaction from an omni-holding address to send an equivalent amount of votes to a candidate. J.R. Willett 1G3KnLZLsLCHNwSVM7o5QUVqiaFCx8qkZ6 I invented Mastercoin, and would like to be sure that what funds are distributed are spent wisely. David Gilman 15fH5mspYMqqRkbUvY1gVbVuiQpsEwMa9F As a member of the Mastercoin Foundation board I would push to liquidate all Mastercoin Foundation assets into Bitcoin, return the bitcoins proportionally to Mastercoin holders and close the foundation. Craig Sellars 1D7A2HSchwcNxq1EKyejoDozFHVcwDnTsc Technical Leadership for the past 12 months at the MSC Foundation Antony Vo 17LcCUzNA7j7afk8GsWW5QwyP1wuN6Bj3c Founding board member Patrick Dugan 1KLMKeZGphWcDGQxEEPLxysmntPRqNteMd Patrick Dugan has worked as a game designer, ran an organic food company in Chile, and is a serial entrepreneur with 7 years experience trading financial markets. He has been involved in the Foundation since February 2014 and conceived the models of decentralized futures contracts and decentralized banking. He is currently focused on algorithmic market making for bitcoin, various fiat currencies and smart properties, and is passionate about turning money into a vehicle for improving the world, from Argentina to Sierra Leone. And we have our five! Thank you everyone for volunteering, happy Pisces new (super)moon and total solar eclipse on this spring equinox Plant those seeds—and let's see what happens next! |
|
|
|
Since the emission mostly happens in the first 4 years (?), I'm not really in agreement regarding fewer people accumulating.
If we are to succeed, besides places to spend Monero (which might just amount to plugins in the near future), we need a wide disbursement.
Here's my consideration: at this point in time, it is also not without strong hands accumulating and holding that the price rises to reflect/organically attract a larger network effect. Strong hands that hold are another simple component of the power law, and are also more likely to be able to hold a position without contributing to the emotional roller coaster that traders create in the market (because considering the long term, they have less of a tendency to trade in a panic), and those disciplined will contribute to lowering volatility through market making. A wide distribution would be welcome, but without more fundamental developments aside from the already considered community development track record and non-user friendly though decreasingly so privacy software, we don't yet have anything concrete (referring to dev and research goals graphic) so this organically widening just won't happen until you have something a wide userbase could scalably use—til then it's still just speculation, and strong hands typically speculate to invest. |
|
|
|
Any plans to give an interview on the Let's Talk Bitcoin network (alt channel so to speak). I just listened to an interview with the creator of DRK/dash and it was interesting to say the least. I would have liked a Monero guy on there to give an opposing/alternaive viewpoint. I think a little debate will help the stronger coin out. I'm in XMR's corner of course, but not reading much these days on its main competitor makes me feel a bit out of touch.
Related, can we ever have a wallet app on e.g. Android, for XMR as opposed to a web wallet- is there anything creative we can do?
IAS
Porting LightWallet to Android seems possible given reasonable inputs of time/effort/skill and/or funding/bounties. XMR competes with BTC; Darshcoin competes with CLOAK and other shitcoins. XMR has no serious competition in the 'legitimately trustless privacy-enabling digicash' sector. Bitcoin, with its high-volume array of 3rd party tumblers/mixers, comes the closest. Darsh enjoys 1st mover status in the 'scamcoin marketed as privacy-enabling digicash' field. But its technology is unproven, and outside of the cult (who stand to profit from their Ponzi nodes) not many will trust it for security-sensitive applications. 10000 this, you'll rarely or almost never see any Bitcoin stuff making the slighest hint about Monero, unless the person really likes/understands it, after the scamcoin "bought"(subverted) dashcoin I have enough evidence to support my paranoia that Bitcoins already started to rolling behind the scenes to stop or slow down XMR acceptation. At minimum there is a silent conspiracy to ignore Monero/cryptonote.Certainly agree, you rarely see articles about Monero/cryptonote popping up on prominent altcoin/bitcoin newssites. Also, Coindesk seems to remove replies where Monero is mentioned and has never written an article about it. The only website that isn't currently doing it and is open to the technology is LetsTalkBitcoins, albeit they are an advocate for Dash/Dark as well. From my perspective I don't really talk about Monero except amongst us because... I don't really care to attract more competitors while I am still accumulating. |
|
|
|
|
How about implementing automatic mining with donations to development the default and a secondary setting where auto mining turns on after passing a default yet user-adjustable threshold where one pool has over x% of the network?
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
