I love reading and learning about the tech fundamentals, but for the average guy like me I'm looking at a lot of other things when I decide to take a punt on an alt. Who is the dev, how well do they communicate, do they sound 'authentic', who else is posting in their threads? A good altcoin speculator can (hopefully) distill something from those things...
So many here are fooled by the geek-cool communication, because they don't understand that what is being said is total bullshit. Then they attack me when I explain they invested in bullshit. |
|
|
|
meme magic, are you asserting only the thieves lose money on altcoins  |
|
|
|
The plaintiff rests.
Are you seriously sticking with the claim that no one can use a nose, eyeballs, eyebrows, and a moustache in a logo, because Nintendo used those features in one of their game characters My logo sketch does not resemble Wario which has a hat. The features are all different. By your logic, Nintendo is violating Paramount Pictures's intellectual property and Saddam Hussein's likeness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluto    |
|
|
|
AMP tokens for vaporware
You've got about two more weeks to use that lame retort before people will start calling you a blatant liar. No adoption and no use case is vaporware. Any one can write some code and do a testnet demonstration and claim they have created something. GitHub is littered with code that no one uses. We'll soon see.
If they wanted to raise funding to work on Synereo, they could have attempted a crowdfunding or to attract angel/venture private placement investment. But that would require them to have a well vetted business plan or convincing altruistic explanation. Instead they sell technobabble delusion to unwary n00bs and pumpers (same as Ethereum is doing, but at least Ethereum ran away to Switzerland so they think they can avoid USA securities law and still sell to non-accredited USA investors).
Any entity selling an ICO is (intentionally or perhaps cluelessly) corrupt. Period.
I warned you months ago. You have no one to blame but yourself, for not studying and listening more carefully.
Decentralized social networking projects are not novel. The list is littered with failures as you were told already upthread[1].
I don't hate them. I wished them good luck upthread. I am just feeding back frankly the reality. |
|
|
|
AMP tokens for vaporware
You've got about two more weeks to use that lame retort before people will start calling you a blatant liar. No adoption and no use case is vaporware. Any one can write some code and do a testnet demonstration and claim they have created something. GitHub is littered with code that no one uses. We'll soon see.
If they wanted to raise funding to work on Synereo, they could have attempted a crowdfunding or to attract angel/venture private placement investment. But that would require them to have a well vetted business plan or convincing altruistic explanation. Instead they sell technobabble delusion to unwary n00bs and pumpers (same as Ethereum is doing, but at least Ethereum ran away to Switzerland so they think they can avoid USA securities law and still sell to non-accredited USA investors).
Any entity selling an ICO is (intentionally or perhaps cluelessly) corrupt. Period.
I warned you months ago. You have no one to blame but yourself, for not studying and listening more carefully.
Decentralized social networking projects are not novel. The list is littered with failures as you were told already upthread[1].
I don't hate them. I wished them good luck upthread. I am just feeding back frankly the reality. |
|
|
|
AMP tokens for vaporware
You've got about two more weeks to use that lame retort before people will start calling you a blatant liar. No adoption and no use case is vaporware. Any one can write some code and do a testnet demonstration and claim they have created something. GitHub is littered with code that no one uses. |
|
|
|
So the users have the ideological motivation, but when it comes down to it, they prioritize what is convenient, efficient, and serves real needs they have, such as contacting mom and cousins on Facebook. That is the hurdle the the irrelevant income offer doesn't solve.
This is where we differ. You think people will perceive the income as irrelevant where as I do not. Even if they earn enough money to purchase a few meals out a year, Seriously I've learned the hard way several times in my life with failed projects that humans prioritize their important desires and needs. That income is absolutely irrelevant and worse yet is an insult to many people (which is why ChangeTip must die). Well, I think calling it an insult is a little severe. Most people would welcome any money they could earn off their online participation. I think they will be motivated to join and retake control of their personal online presence. Most people do not solely rely on Facebook to keep in close contact with their family members. It is more of a causal liaison point for posting pictures and such. Imo, changing over to another social network isn't that big of a hurdle for most users, especially when they will be transferring their information not only to a social network, but a social sharing platform which will host not only Synereo, the social network, but also a plethora of other online social software.
Afaics, Facebook is for sharing/interaction/feed amongst strangers, friends and family, with more emphasis on the first two than family. If the "other online social software" has some compelling features, then they may adopt. I have not yet seen a list of these planned features and an ETA on their implementation. The technology stack which Synereo utilizes and is built upon is an open source platform which any other type of social interaction software can use and build off of the existing softwares' userbase.
No API can do everything. Until we see specifics from Synereo, then that general statement is as useful as dirt.Facebook is in a similar but worse situation as MySpace was back then. Not only does Facebook not see the need to adapt to a decentralized setup, but they are in fact, structured in such a corporate fashion that they are unable to do so. Such a decentralized arrangement would cause massive, if not complete, revenue losses for any centralized social network, which would cause the entire corporation to go bankrupt and cease to be. |
|
|
|
Synereo pumper of presold AMP tokens for vaporware, wants to attack me already: All Shelby has released is a drawing that puts him on track to be sued by Nintendo for trademark infringement.
 A copyright owner can’t prove infringement by pointing to features of his work that are found in the defendant’s work as well but that are so rudimentary, commonplace, standard, or unavoidable that they do not serve to distinguish one work within a class of works from another.
The "stock" idea of working class hero, gaining abilities from powerups, and South European origin are however all usable.
Features of above logo: ✓ Wavy moustache ✓ Pointed eyebrows ✓ Eyes with misaligned pupils ✓ Semi-long nose ✓ Hair above a music headphone I presume DecentralizeEconomics is alleging infringement on Wario?   ✓ Jagged moustache ✓ Curved eyebrows ✓ Eyes with aligned pupils ✓ Stubbed nose ✓ Hair on the sides under a hat |
|
|
|
Synereo pumper of presold AMP tokens for vaporware, wants to attack me already: All Shelby has released is a drawing that puts him on track to be sued by Nintendo for trademark infringement.
A copyright owner can’t prove infringement by pointing to features of his work that are found in the defendant’s work as well but that are so rudimentary, commonplace, standard, or unavoidable that they do not serve to distinguish one work within a class of works from another.
The "stock" idea of working class hero, gaining abilities from powerups, and South European origin are however all usable.
Features of above logo: ✓ Wavy moustache ✓ Pointed eyebrows ✓ Eyes with misaligned pupils ✓ Semi-long nose ✓ Hair above a music headphone I presume DecentralizeEconomics is alleging infringement on Wario? ✓ Jagged moustache ✓ Curved eyebrows ✓ Eyes with aligned pupils ✓ Stubbed nose ✓ Hair on the sides under a hat
The plaintiff rests.
Are you seriously sticking with the claim that no one can use a nose, eyeballs, eyebrows, and a moustache in a logo, because Nintendo used those features in one of their game characters My logo sketch does not resemble Wario which has a hat. The features are all different. By your logic, Nintendo is violating Paramount Pictures's intellectual property and Saddam Hussein's likeness: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bluto |
|
|
|
All Shelby has released is a drawing that puts him on track to be sued by Nintendo for trademark infringement.
A copyright owner can’t prove infringement by pointing to features of his work that are found in the defendant’s work as well but that are so rudimentary, commonplace, standard, or unavoidable that they do not serve to distinguish one work within a class of works from another.
The "stock" idea of working class hero, gaining abilities from powerups, and South European origin are however all usable.
Features of above logo: ✓ Wavy moustache ✓ Pointed eyebrows ✓ Eyes with misaligned pupils ✓ Semi-long nose ✓ Hair above a music headphone I presume DecentralizeEconomics is alleging infringement on Wario? ✓ Jagged moustache ✓ Curved eyebrows ✓ Eyes with aligned pupils ✓ Stubbed nose ✓ Hair on the sides under a hat |
|
|
|
Rimbit is prob the biggest Joke in the cryptocurrency world!!! as well as one of the biggest SCAM's . make a cheap clone POS shitcoin , premine it all and then sell it to ignorant fools who dont have a clue about Crypto's who believe the spiel that its the revolutionary new money of the world and will overthrow Bitcoin in no time!!! What a joke, at the end of the day its a crap POS coin with absolutely nothing going for it that the dev premined and sold at a rip off price!!! There are countless other POS coins that werent distributed as an outright scam and actually have innovation and amazing features, why on earth would anyone be interested in Rimjobs in any way. Its such a joke!!! And the fanbois on there lol, if you want a great laugh go check out their forum and videos, its highly entertaining shit!!!  And unfortunately Indiegogo hasn't replied further and appears to be doing nothing about this. More people have been allowed to contribute to the campaign since I reported the Prohibited Perks to Indiegogo. Indiegogo is now knowingly facilitating this investment fraud. |
|
|
|
Just for the sake of addressing the thought, has anyone considered the possibility that so few people have lost more than they've gained here that there's just not enough stories to have a cemetary at all?
Have you ever considered the elementary school math of addition and subtraction which tells you that it is impossible for everyone to make more than they lose, since all money invested has to originate with us collectively. We are not investing in businesses which sell a product or service to generate revenue. Zero-sum game: Zero-sum is a situation in game theory in which one person's gain is equivalent to another's loss, so the net change in wealth or benefit is zero. A zero-sum game may have as few as two players, or millions of participants.
|
|
|
|
SEC sent out a warning in January 2016. Hope the pumpers are preparing for their jail time: I get where you're coming from but that link statement doesn't tally with what you've written. That link is talking specifically about Ponzi schemes which involve an individual or group 'personally' taking money from a person or people to pay off previous investors thereby creating a false impression of investment return. You need to learn to read: Look Out for Potential Scams
Using Virtual Currency
We are concerned that the rising use of virtual currencies
in the global marketplace may entice fraudsters to lure
investors into Ponzi and other schemes in which these
currencies are used to facilitate fraudulent, or simply
fabricated, investments or transactions |
|
|
|
so... why monero dev seem so obsessed with law and regulation what would happen if law and regulation forbid anonitmity Supporting, not supporting, or merely recognizing an existing specific law, should not be equated with supporting or not supporting all (existing and hypothetical) laws. Who in their sane mind would advocate having no law whatsoever. Why do you support a law which prevents me from shooting you in the head without any repurcussions What would happen if law and regulation would forbid you from breathing Society has established laws to protect itself from investment scams. We hope society will protect a right to digital transactions privacy (or at least the right to use encryption), but if society decides we must all shoot ourselves in the head, then we'll be in a Dark Age. (I advise you don't pursue any career which involves applying logic) |
|
|
|
|
My main conclusion is that market cap does not tell us how wide the adoption difference is between Bitcoin and the altcoins.
Thus the $billion market cap for Ethereum is really only about $60 million if compared to Bitcoin's $6 billion.
|
|
|
|
Well why the hell are they even bothering with it then? Clueless?
(another plausible answer is that LN works perhaps only with a fully centralized coin, so perhaps that is where Blockstream has been paid $75 million by the banksters to lead us to, but I am hoping that is not the case) (or alternatively, the banksters have paid Blockstream to clusterfuck Bitcoin, whether Blockstream realizes it or not) Control freaks inherited from Mozilla such as the HTML5's Ian Hickson prototype now in control of Bitcoin too. I've been butting heads with these control freaks for more than a decade. They conflated the framing and data layer for Websockets for example even after I explained that to them. They'd rather do it wrong than to not be the one in control of the doing. And gmaxwell got his ass handed to him by myself in that debate on the Ogg container format for which he was the co-inventor of one of the key codecs: Doing so would also increase the overhead for the format by 20% or so. As mentioned, accurate indexes are not small-- and many things compromise by just not providing accurate indexes; which then leaves applications linearly scanning or not permitting sample accurate seeking.
I assume the 20% estimate is only for when the optional index is present. So it is presumed someone would use an index only when that 20% was justified by their use case. Again I argue you should not remove degrees-of-freedom and hinder the optimization of use cases which you did not envision because no group or person is omniscient. And how is not having the index any worse than not allowing an index. I fail to see the logic. Seems you are arguing that the receiving end will expect indexes and not be prepared for the case where indexes are not present. But that is a bug in the receiving end's software then. And in that case, there is no assurance that software would have done the index-less seeking more efficiently for the status quo of not allowing an index. None of this makes sense to me. Also I don't understand how you calculate 20% increase in file size for adding an index. For example, lets take an average 180 second song consuming roughly 5MB for VBR encoding. Let's assume my users are satisfied with seeking in 1 second increments, so that means means I need at most 180 of 22-bit indices, so that is only 495 bytes which is only a 0.01% increase! On top of that I could even compress those 22-bit indices into relative offsets if I want to shrink it by roughly 75% to 0.0025%. Note that doesn't mean these guys aren't smart and expert in some areas. In Blockstream's case, taking into account SideChains and LN, I am thinking they follow the Rude Goldberg principle of design. In Ian's case, I think it is "simplicity is beauty at any costs" or something like that. Note Brendan Eich has been doing well with EMCAScript (Javascript) apparently. I've had no experience with him so it is not a blanket accusation towards Mozilla, but rather apparently some of the people who have gravitated to open source standards work apparently due to the political control. |
|
|
|
It isn't accurate at all because with very low fees you can definitely have spam but you can also have transactions that are spewed as manipulation to make the coin seem used.
That would be if this metric was already widely used, and so coins were trying to manipulate the metric. So for the moment, using transactions instead of fees is a reasonable proxy as a first approximation until someone can compile the data for fees. (Even high fees would be irrelevant if the insiders also control the mining, but this wouldn't generally correlate with a high hash rate.)
That is why I include the hash rate in the metric and then take the square root. Bytecoin is a good example of this. It has tiny fees and junk transactions generated by some automated process 24x7.
I hope someone can compile the fees data. But we can already see that Bitcoin is 100X ahead of all the altcoins. We can presume the altcoins are generating more spam transactions than Bitcoin, because they have an incentive to hype as you indicate for Bytecoin. But then, a lot of exchange volume (especially in China) is also documented to be fake, so it very hard to make these comparisons meaningful.
Fees aren't fake in any case (unless very low hash rate and can pay to themself as miners), which is the point of using fees (and multiplying by the hash rate). |
|
|
|
While 24h volume is much more easily manipulated it is still more useful imo (if we look at the average of 24h volume).
It is not as meaningful as "Sent transactions" as measured from the block chain instead of only volume reported by exchanges. See my prior post on why. Transacrions fees vary wildly so I also don't think that's useful. Besides, automated services (like gambling) or even pools which pay out very frequently will push the transaction fees up.
The entire point of using transaction fees is to capture the actual amount of adoption use for a metric that can't be faked because it is a fee that is lost to the miners. Hash rate is also somewhat useless due to its fluctuating nature.
It is necessary because it indicates the competition that faking the transaction fees by paying to yourself as a miner would cost to achieve. In other words, it measures the security against cheating the transaction fee metric.
Also increased hashrate implies increased security against a 50% attack, assuming the hashrate is well distributed.
That's a pretty big assumption. It is only necessary that the cost would be implausible of faking the transaction fees by paying them to yourself and significantly impacting the average transaction fees per unit time. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
