|
Does Ora have an IRC channel going?
I checked #ora on freenode but that's obviously not it.
I like a lot of the ideas behind Ora and like to follow what's going on.
|
|
|
|
I was beginning to wonder if my post was somehow invisible  The silence was unexpected after my post, I am glad somebody at least read it This thread is full of XMR holders and developers.  BTCD has gone from zero to ~70% of XMR's market cap extremely quickly. To be honest, I'm not sure what you were expecting in the altcoin XMR observer thread. I don't currently hold XMR or BTCD fwiw. And I've passed on your proposal to an appropriate person to consider your offer. |
|
|
|
This article is speculation. He connects a lot of dots and passes it off as fact. For instance, in a proper debate.. people can use facts and statistics to support the argument for each side of the debate. However, it doesn't mean that either side of the debate is more right or wrong than the other. In this case, it is one side of the debate written as if it's a fact and there isn't a debate to be had, or in other words... another side to the story. Furthermore, the author is clearly biased and heavily invested in Bitcoin so I would take it with a grain of salt. The same author also wrote this article which is also speculation, one side of the debate, written as fact: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/the-coming-demise-of-altcoins/It is pretty obvious to me "the satoshi nakamoto institute" was established for one thing and one thing only, spreading pro-Bitcoin propaganda and ALT coin FUD. I plan on addressing both of these articles extensively when I get a chance, proving there are two sides of the debate, and those articles are not facts- only speculation supported by facts. I can support the other side of the debate with just as many facts and connect the dots just as well as those articles did, but in support of the other side. Yes, I agree with you. I'm surprised I see that article linked so often. The arguments seem vague and weak. The obvious pro-Bitcoin agenda and apparent lack of objectivity on most of the opinion pieces there really jump out at me. They remind me of Mircea Popescu's writings. |
|
|
|
Since you seem to be an expert on altcoins, I'm curious as to which ones are currently targeting adoption from people outside the crypto-sphere right now?
Not an expert, I just collected a lot of metadata which occasionally prompts me to ask some obvious questions of prognosticators. ... such as the one you just asked, it's a good question ... The short and honest answer is that I've no real idea. In a small number of instances both intention and action are clear, e.g. DOGE, TIPS, WKC but there's a larger untold number where intention/action is unclear. In essence, there's no reliable way to tell unless the user-base is already slapping you in the face with a fish or the programme is sufficiently extensive as to be unmissable. Is a dedicated subreddit evidence? An FB page? A merchant adoption programme? Without a close inspection of the details, it's impossible to distinguish between actual targeting and the results of merely ensuring that the pre-launch check-boxes for the latest PnD are all apparently ticked. There's nothing in the metadata that would directly signify explicit targeting but perhaps there's an opportunity to derive such. I'll make a note to check. I have yet to put the DOACC dataset through its paces properly. If I've got it right, it'll be a useful resource. F'rinstance, there's a recent bitcointalk thread Sleepers, in which BitcoinNational maintains a list of trading symbols and btctalk thread links. I can extract the trading symbols (by hand, sadly), wrap them in a SPARQL query to retrieves additional data. The query phrasing requires a bit more boilerplate than usual but the core of the query is quite SQL-like (symbols taken from an early post): PREFIX skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#>
PREFIX doacc: <http://purl.org/net/bel-epa/doacc#>
SELECT ?node ?label ?symbol ?incept ?ps ?pow WHERE {
?node skos:prefLabel ?label .
?node doacc:symbol ?symbol .
?node doacc:incept ?incept .
?node doacc:pow ?pows .
?pows skos:prefLabel ?pow .
?node doacc:protection-scheme ?prots .
?prots skos:prefLabel ?ps .
FILTER (str(?symbol) IN ("DGB", "MYR", "SFR", "FCC", "NET", "FLO",
"GLC", "LKY", "PYC", "EMD", "DMD", "CACH", "RT2", "ARK", "TEK",
"HBN", "CAP", "PHS", "BTG", "PXC", "ORB", "LK7", "SMC", "BTC",
"MRY", "SPT", "WAS", "888", "RIC", "GRC", "YAC", "BET", "P$", "MZC",
"XJO", "FFC", "TAK", "BTE", "PLT", "BCC", "BITS", "MAST", "SAT",
"WAS", "AC", "CAIX", "LGD", "DEM", "NEC", "STR", "NOAH", "420"))
} ORDER BY ?label
I can then post this to DOACC's public HTTP API, get the results back in a standard XML format, transform the XML with an XSL stylesheet and get something I can literally paste into this very textarea (edited for brevity and expository clarity): You can check the full results for yourself by copynpasta, dump the above query into the web form that's fronting the SPARQL endpoint on Minkiz: http://minkiz.co/sparql/ In this example, query and results are quite straightforward, more complex queries can be posed, I just need to get a sense of what's worth querying. If I can formulate some hypotheses about relationships I can fish around and see if the results form a consistent pattern. Short block target times might be indicative, biggish number of coins and short transaction confirmations. That'll do for a start. The info is in the metadata (not consistently tho', it depends on what info was originally available, there's nothing to prevent backfilling the data, if the gain in statistical confidence is considered worth the effort). Working on an update atm, another 140-odd coins to add. Cheers Graham Edit, extended examplesVery interesting work you're doing. Is Bitmark(BTM) in your next batch of 140 you're adding? Just wondering. Thanks. |
|
|
|
I just checked out the website of Stellar and I noticed this: "Stellar is a not-for-profit." If that's true then it's already better than Ripple considering the massive issues and conflicts of interest involved with the debacle which was XRP. Stellar org has already proven that to be a disingenuous label. Here is a great article on nonprofit millionaires. As far as I can see, Stellar is repeating the same debacle from the early days of Ripple in fast forward. Are you aware that: - Founder distributions exist
- Employees are planned to receive Stellar grants
- Stripe possesses 2% of all Stellar
I am in no way opposed to individuals and corporations seeking profit, but find it amusing that Stellar has attempted to market itself as somehow existing for the greater good + community. Even at a code level, the system is rigged to give advantage to the most wealthy. Incidentally, Stellar org and its founders are the most wealthy in terms of STR. If not beneficial to the world's unbanked, I am sure that Stellar will at least be great for the bank account of Jed McCaleb. I'm not surprised really. It sounds too good to be true and didn't line up with what I've been hearing anyway. They are probably legally "not for profit", which as you point out doesn't necessarily mean much. |
|
|
|
LTC obviously isn't improving much if not at all. If all coins focused on adoption this would create an even bigger mess. You would see random coins being accepted at random places. If the technical features behind the coin have proven themselves enough, adoption will come with time.
Another thing regarding Litecoin specifically: Yes, at one point Litecoin was focused on adoption quite a bit. And you would see lots of new places accepting LTC. Imagine that Litecoin kept up with it's adoption efforts and had strong active development pushing forward by adapting useful technologies and creating infrastructure that made it easier to use than Bitcoin? It could have been much bigger than it ever was. Imagine it was demonstrably easier to use than Bitcoin. People would have been recommending people start out with Litecoin. It's already faster. And in this situation you would probably have Bitcoin being the one doing the copying. What would that say about Litecoin, and how much credit would Litecoin gain from that? It could have happened. But it didn't and now it's time for others to try to make it happen. |
|
|
|
I think when Litecoin came out back in 2011 I think it was fair to say we needed a fair Bitcoin alternative on a different PoW algorithm in case something happened to Bitcoin. At the time we were plagued by scamcoins like Solidcoin and Tenebrix. There really was no alternative at that point. So Litecoin was lucky in the sense that it was in the right place at the right time.
Overtime the Litecoin community degraded to the point that it's at today, but I think that three years ago it was reasonable to expect it to keep a marketshare of 2-5% of Bitcoin, just on the fact that there was no real alternative.
I was not around this back in '11, but I've read up what happened in the past. Indeed back in the past there was a need for a second solution and Litecoin was enough. Now there isn't such a huge need for more currencies yet they keep surfacing. It's good that some did, because LTC obviously isn't improving much if not at all. If all coins focused on adoption this would create an even bigger mess. You would see random coins being accepted at random places. If the technical features behind the coin have proven themselves enough, adoption will come with time. But Bitcoin will always stay the kind of adoption. Bitcoin has a lot of good companies like Bitpay and Coinbase pushing for adoption. But they are on their own in the sense that it's unlikely Bitcoin development is going to make any special modifications to the protocol like faster transactions or allowing sidechains. The fact that no one is really thinking about innovative ways to increase adoption outside of Bitcoin and developing the technology to do so means that there is room for a competitor. There are still lots of people in this world who know nothing about Bitcoin, but imagine if instead of Bitcoin, their first interaction with cryptocurrency was easy to use and actually provided them value over their normal ways of transaction. And what if it wasn't Bitcoin, but another currency that was directly focused on this type of person and building infrastructure that made crypto easier to use for regular people. Seems like there is still a huge market out there for whoever steps up. Our internal market, the one were all in now, is obviously over-saturated. But there's still a blue ocean of people who can benefit from this new technology. Only if it's presented well enough that they would actually want to use it though. It has to provide value for them. |
|
|
|
I am really new to the cryptocurrency world. It seems to me quite funny that new altcoins are appreciated for the method of their mining. It is like to debate if a new fiat currency can be printed on the ink jet or laser jet... And pumping and dumping at the exchanges is another crazy thing. So, I agree 100% cryptocurrencies must focus on their usability for everydaylife. On the other hand I am not able to understand the concept of Bitmark (I read this http://bitcoinbarbie.com/project-bitmark/ and I am confused). Is there any explanation of this idea for idiots like me? :-) Some example: I like some article on the web and I want to like or "mark" him somehow with Bitmark. What should I do and what is the sense of it for me, for the publisher of the article and for the cryptocurrencies? Marking is the first major adoption initiative of Bitmark. What you will be able to do is use marks(0.001 BTM) in different ways, here are some examples: - Using marks to mark posts you like on a message board. The posts that have more marks are more visible. Think karma on Reddit, but customization for any particular community who integrates Marking. People who post good content and contribute can be rewarded with currency and there is less incentive to mark content is merely average. Posts that are bad or considered spam could be marked that way, and if enough people mark it as spam as well or when a moderator checks it, the post could be deleted and people would receive their marks back and possibly a small incentive reward from the site. You risk your own value to keep it honest.
- Reading an article on a blog, you'll be able to tip the author in marks if you wish. It will be an easy way to tip in general, but that's probably the most basic usage of marking.
- A website that integrates marking could raise money for a charity by allocating a percentage of all marks used on the site for donations to their charity of choice.
- Micro-transactions on a website that integrates marking will be simple and easy. Buy digital media, order a t-shirt. Play a game that requires many small transactions worth pennies that would be eaten up by transaction fees otherwise.
- You'll eventually be able to mark things like restaurants which in effect acts as a review, or their reputation. It will be a simple and impartial way for people to share their opinions.
- Building on that last point, in general eventually you should be able to mark almost anything by marking it's GPS coordinates. That could be used for much more than just restaurant reviews. There's a lot of possibility there.
There's lots more ways marking can be used, and there's still more ways that people will figure out over time. It's something that's going to grow over the next few years. What makes it special is the fact that marks will be universal. You'll be able to transfer them between websites that have adopted marking, you'll also be able to instantly convert them back in to Bitmark by getting them back on the blockchain if you wanted to. There's also the possibility of sidechaining the marking system with the Bitmark blockchain, which will be evaluated as time goes on. And if it's deemed to be benefiical or necessary at a later date, it will be integrated. It's one of the things that need to be decided over time. https://github.com/project-bitmark/marking/wiki is an overview of the concept that's still in development. There's still a lot of documentation that needs to be written as development takes shape. The big thing is that there will be a lot of opportunity for people to either integrate marking in to their existing business if it provides value to them(which to start with, would clearly benefit lots of different websites), and there will also be a lot of opportunity for people to be new business that take advantage of marking. Think web 3.0, the semantic web. By interacting with meaningful tokens that actually have value(unlike facebook 'likes') much more meaning can be gleaned about what users actually like and how they can interact on the web with the services they use. It's not about tracking people all over the web, it's about improving the services people have already decided to use. |
|
|
|
I just checked out the website of Stellar and I noticed this: "Stellar is a not-for-profit." If that's true then it's already better than Ripple considering the massive issues and conflicts of interest involved with the debacle which was XRP. |
|
|
|
on altcoins, I'm curious as to which ones are currently targeting adoption from people outside the crypto-sphere right now?
Storj coin is targeting cloud storage users. Its very early days yet but apparently they've had some commcercial interest to host video content. If it turns out that Storj can provide fast and cheap hosting for companies that do video and other high storage/high bandwidth type operations then I think they have a good chance of success. If they can pull it all together technically and make it work I will be amazed though. I wish them luck, it just seems too good to be true. But I would honestly love to see it work because if it does that would be incredible. on altcoins, I'm curious as to which ones are currently targeting adoption from people outside the crypto-sphere right now?
Storj coin is targeting cloud storage users. Its very early days yet but apparently they've had some commcercial interest to host video content. Because as a cloud user I don't want my personal data stored by a reputable company, or as a business we don't want our collaborative data stored by a business with whom we have an SLA and whose sole job is the safe storage of data, we want it spread out across random hard drives, right? Or better yet - stored on the hard drives of tens of thousands of computers infected by a botnet, where the destruction of the botnet means the destruction of every redundant copy of my data. Sounds like a great idea! There's also this: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/appcoins-are-snake-oil/Well, to be fair I'd assume the data is going to be encrypted of course. And have multiple redundancies. And I think that article is far too general and doesn't really cover all the potential use cases. Storj(if it actually ends up working) could easily be valuable considering what they are trying to achieve. And having a convenient way to compensate and give incentive to people providing hard drive space to the network has utility. I don't know exactly how they deal with Storjcoin as a currency, but I could easily see it being better than Bitcoin for this particular use. The only argument I could see against it is that they could just use Bitcoin and it would be better, but that's not necessarily true. |
|
|
|
Although we have informed everyone that we are currently under testing and our systems are still being refined, we have still had several requests for hosting, due to this we will start to offer hosting on a per request basis and will be calculating the BTM charge manually. If you require hosting please either contact me via PM or by email at bct@cryptocloudhosting.orgI'm using it right now and it was extremely easy to switch over and get set up. Highly recommended |
|
|
|
We can't have you being lonely Just chucked 100mh/s at the pool. Hey, why not. Cool graphics and lower fees than the other pools. Plus it helps to spread the hash around. That's great. We really do need more people to mine at MineP.it and miningpool.co. They are both excellent pools who should be receiving more hashing then they currently are. Having 5+ pools evenly spread out would be nice. And the variance would be fine as well. |
|
|
|
how does Dogecoin fit your definition of “$hitcoin” in this context?
It's a $hitcoin because its' lead developer just took LTC and slapped a dog over the silver coin. And that's the extent of your analysis? Fiat lux. Thank you for the enlightenment. Cheers Graham Since you seem to be an expert on altcoins, I'm curious as to which ones are currently targeting adoption from people outside the crypto-sphere right now? |
|
|
|
Maybe most people disagree with me on this, I don't know. I admit often there are times I am prone to thinking outside of the box. I just think adoption will come naturally if your crypto currency is a vast improvement over Bitcoin and/or the current financial system, and it is not something that needs to be forced down people's throats as it will be met with skepticism and reluctance if done this way. I believe this kind of promotion is stifling the adoption of Bitcoin itself. The way people talk about it and try to force adoption onto people, it does kind of sound like a scam of some sort until people actually learn what Bitcoin is and how it works.
You're right actually if you ask me. Bitcoin has pretty much established itself here, there is no need for something that features no or minor improvements over it. People tend to think different. There was no need for LTC and for this reason it shall not gain much traction. Even these so called 'crypto 2.0 coins' aren't enough. I do not see them being able to gain a wider adoption as they are mostly premined/used to get money out of your pockets. I think when Litecoin came out back in 2011 I think it was fair to say we needed a fair Bitcoin alternative on a different PoW algorithm in case something happened to Bitcoin. At the time we were plagued by scamcoins like Solidcoin and Tenebrix. There really was no alternative at that point. So Litecoin was lucky in the sense that it was in the right place at the right time. Overtime the Litecoin community degraded to the point that it's at today, but I think that three years ago it was reasonable to expect it to keep a marketshare of 2-5% of Bitcoin, just on the fact that there was no real alternative. |
|
|
|
Warning: TL;DR...
Hi Este,
I am glad that you started this conversation, as I feel it is an important one to be had. I believe that most people in the larger crypto currency community (Bitcoin/Litecoin/??) think like you do in regards to the importance of marketing to attract new users, and pushing for merchant adoption. While I do not disagree that those things help increase the utility of their respective crypto currencies, I see things differently.
This was one of the main reasons why I left the Litecoin community and no longer support it. The Litecoin community and I largely disagreed on this principle, as they mainly want to focus on marketing rather than innovation and improving crypto currencies on a developmental level and in an innovative manner. Basically, they are content blindly following anything that Bitcoin implements with the few developers they have, and the rest of the community is dead set on marketing and merchant adoption as the path to success for Litecoin. I think there are several problems with this line of thinking, and I will try to explain why.
Alternative crypto currencies are supposed to be the testing grounds for improvements upon existing crypto currencies and new features. If they are not doing either of these things, then I do not see the point of their existence and it screams of a get rich quick scheme. Any crypto currency that does neither of these things I consider to be a "pump and dump" and/or "scam coin."
Marketing and merchant adoption are important, but marketing and merchant adoption coupled with no innovation and development is akin to betting that people are sheeple. In Litecoin's case, they are betting that people will look past the lack of innovation and the fact it is pretty much a copy and paste coin. While I do not disagree that the vast majority of people in the world are sheeple in regards to problems with trusted third parties and FIAT, it is not these people that are adopting crypto currencies at this point in time. The sheeple are somewhat ignorant to the extreme need of crypto currencies and decentralized technologies. These people will come eventually when crypto currencies have already blown up, and are a vast improvement over the current financial system. It will happen naturally, not by some marketing scheme with an underlying code base that was copied off of some other crypto currency.
It is the free-thinkers (skeptics/non sheeple) that are in the process of adopting crypto currencies and decentralized technologies. These are the same people that will be doing the marketing and pushing merchant adoption. If the free-thinkers can look past your crypto currency’s marketing strategies and see that the underlying crypto currency is mainly a “pump and dump” and/or “scam coin” with no innovation or improvements over another larger already existing crypto currency, then how can they be expected to support it? How can they be expected to help with marketing and pushing merchant adoption, when they don’t believe in the underlying technology themselves?
I believe there are only two answers to that question in regards to alternative crypto currencies. The first being that the supporters of the alternative crypto currency are sheeple themselves, and the second being that the supporters of that crypto currency are only focused on one thing and that is making a profit by "pumping and dumping" at the expense of sheeple. Both answers to this question make me completely and utterly sick, and I do not think that Satoshi would approve either.
After much analysis and reading user’s opinions and thoughts in such crypto currency communities over the years, I have come to the conclusion that most of their community at this point in time falls under the latter answer to that question, which makes me even sicker when thinking about it. Crypto currencies are still in the early adopter phase. As I said earlier, it is mostly the free-thinkers that are adopting crypto currencies and decentralized technologies at this point in time, and I find it highly unlikely that the majority of these early adopters are sheeple. It is utterly shameful people are praying on sheeple for their own financial gain, and relying on “the greater fool theory” to fatten their wallets.
Again, this is why I left the Litecoin community. I realized that it is an either/or situation, and I was completely disgusted by it. Either I was surrounded by sheeple, or I was surrounded by cut throat free-thinkers preying on sheeple by the use of the “greater fool theory,” and either way I decided I wanted no part in it. There was an “ah ha” moment in which I decided Litecoin needed to be innovative and really focus on improving crypto currencies on a technical and developmental level, or the sad reality is that's just how it’s going to be and how it will always be as long as they continue down the same path.
I am a big believer in an altered quote from a corny 90s movie named “The Field of Dreams” in regards to crypto currency adoption, “if you build it they will come.” If you stop and think about it for a second, this is exactly what Satoshi did with Bitcoin, and look at how far Bitcoin has come today. If a crypto currency is innovative enough and a vast improvement over prior crypto currencies, the users and merchants will come eventually. Now and in the near term future, as a crypto currency community… the free-thinkers and early adopters… we should mostly focus on improving crypto currencies the best way possible through innovation and development.
Sadly, I think Bitcoin and Litecoin have mainly gotten off the path that Satoshi paved which was focused on innovation and development, and adoption happening naturally instead of forced upon people. A large part of their community has trouble seeing that both of these crypto currencies are not perfect and have flaws. Try bringing up the flaws of Bitcoin in the General Discussion sub forum and see the kind of hostility and ignorance you are met with. This kind of group think is poison, and it affects the improvement of crypto currencies on an innovative and developmental level, and will only slow down the improvement of crypto currencies. They are not in a large way focusing on implementing new features, improving existing features, and openly talking about flaws of their respective crypto currency.
Doubly sadly, I think most of this group thinking stems from greed. They do not want to talk about the flaws of Bitcoin/Litecoin, and they brush everything off as FUD or “scam coins gonna scam coin.” When in reality they are the ones that are doing the scamming, as they are so worried about fattening their pockets, that they stifle innovation and development. In general, they are so worried that if someone reads a genuine concern about a flaw or short coming about Bitcoin/Litecoin and believes it, that that someone will not invest in the crypto currency they have invested in. This affects the size to which their pockets can fatten, they do not like this one bit, and they make every attempt to shut it down and label it as FUD.
In summary, marketing and pushing for merchant adoption is important, but it is equally important to not succumb to greed and ignorance and to push the crypto currency and/or decentralized technology movement forward through innovation and development. Don’t take this as an attack against Bitmark. I have read what you guys are doing and I realize that you guys are being innovative, and truly making an effort to improve crypto currencies as they are today. I applaud crypto currencies like this for paving the path to the future of crypto currencies, a path that Satoshi started and a path that the larger crypto currency community seems to be wandering off of. Once that path is filled with great new useful features and vast improvements over old crypto currency features, the general public will flock to that path once they realize it is so much better than the government built overgrown bumpy pebble path they have been travelling down their entire lives.
Yes, I agree with you about Litecoin. Very few people in Litecoin seem to want to progress and integrate things that will improve usage. Even now Litecoin is still on Bitcoin's 0.8.x version, and has been for a long time with no signs of any desire to upgrade it. I have no idea why there is such little enthusiasm in that community for improvement. I don't think marketing itself is a good path to adoption. I think coming up with new and innovative ways to make crypto easier to use and more convenient is what matters most for average people. The main goal of Bitmark is to provide innovations and improvements on how people can use crypto in their lives as a daily use currency. In a lot of cases it's not very convenient, or it's hard to use. Instead of marketing things that already exist in a new package(Bitcoin, Litecoin) I think it's better to take them and improve upon then and provide new value on top of what they already are by developing new ways they can be used. The biggest question is what innovations actually provide value, and to whom? Anonymity definitely provides value to a certain part of the population who demands anonymous transactions. Bitshares is aiming at providing value to business. Lots of different currencies are innovating in many different ways, and that's great. For us we want to see which innovations will provide value in a daily use currency, and once they are proven stable and useful, integrate them in to Bitmark. Right now there are many implementations of PoS and anonymity, but which one is going to turn out to be the best? And which one will go through rigorous testing? Bitcoin development is deadlocked, and Litecoin seemingly has no desire to ever change anything. So surprisingly there are very few actual alternative currencies that are attempting to improve on the traditional formula of creating an actual currency that people can use on a daily basis. People are developing all kinds of new and exciting technologies, and they get rewarded for it through people speculating on their currency. But in the long term without adoption it's likely their market share will erode. Especially considering the open source nature of all these technologies and the fact that other forward thinking projects can implement technology that they feel will benefit them. Imagine if there was a schism in Bitcoin and new a development team took over that was free of petty politics and had a clear agenda of improving Bitcoin. A year from now they could implement all of these innovations and drastically improve Bitcoin, but as we know, that's almost certainly not going to happen. Thus we are left with a big hole in the market for someone to come along and take the best of both worlds, focus on adoption and adopting proven innovations. The general crypto scene is disgusting, I agree. How many projects actually focus on building something that intends to be a long term project that provides real value? Not many. Some definitely, but only a handful out of hundreds, if not thousands. I think in the short term innovators are rewarded for their innovations by the market, but in the long term I suspect it will take more than that to sustain a market cap. The demand has to be there to keep up with the inflation. Something like a good anonymous currency might have enough utility in itself to sustain demand for a long time. There is lots of utility to anonymous transactions. But one example of an impressive innovation that I feel has little chance of growing is the miniblockchain tech from Cryptonite(XCN). Unless they either continue to innovate, or focus on creating new ways for people to use the currency(like Marking or something similar) I doubt they will see sustained growth even though they've developed novel tech. |
|
|
|
It seems likely that at least one member of the original CN group split off and started the Bytecoin scam. Likely someone on the autistic spectrum with some loose morals and a superiority complex. And the other member(s) of CN essentially are tied in to corroborating the Bytecoin story at this point since they originally defended it. We'll probably never know the truth since there is too much to lose for anyone connected to this mess. There are probably some good people involved that never wanted any of this to happen. |
|
|
|
Why are you guys using signatures ripped off of another campaign. Doesnt look very professional.
I figured this was going to come up. It's pretty sketchy to take another campaigns sig design and pass it off as your own. and on a separate and unrelated topic: marcotheminer, Why would report someone's PM with information related to a loan application as spam and get them banned when you have "Need a loan?" under your avatar? You got a very important person temp banned for no reason.  I'd just PM the above issue to you directly but I don't want to get banned as well! |
|
|
|
Please help me: how have the coins changed?
I didn't mean that the coins have changed themselves in regards to their block rewards and similar things. What I meant was feature wise, some have new features that should be commented on and mentioned. Don't you think so? Well, I cannot reasonably support more than 2 coins without losing credibility. So the others don't interest me until either BTC or XMR bites the dust. If you want to educate others, please make an educated post! Why do you think supporting more than two coins is less credible? Isn't it rational to assume different probabilities for different coins growing in market share over time? And that some of them might easily be a profitable investment over time? That seems to me like someone saying I'm only going to hold GOOG and APPL and nothing else. Even if you believe that the probability of BTC and XMR reaching sky high market caps is extremely high, and much higher than any other currency, what makes you think it's an all or nothing situation? Right now we can see an extremely varied market with all sorts of new technologies covering different niches and different markets. Storj wants to replace Dropbox, Bitshares wants to service the business sector, and many more. I'm not saying that any of these new currencies are necessarily going to succeed and gain 100mm+ market caps, but it's certainly possible and the probability is more than 0% I would think. All I'm saying is that as an investor why limit your portfolio? |
|
|
|
coinsolidation via twitter pms: "I haven't abandoned the thread, rather I was banned for 2 days as I had a PM reported as spam!" Clearly an unfortunate misunderstanding. Sometimes people are quick to judge something without looking at the situation. (It wasn't a spam pm of course ) |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
