Cute mascot, it is the next Doggiecoin. As we can see with the trend in disregarding the fact that these things are supposed to be a currency, everyone wants to be the next Dogecoin. |
|
|
|
Of course it is the same code. The IPO was not to buy a clone, it was for getting money to build clearinghouse.
Everythings fine so far.
Any updates on the hard fork? |
|
|
|
|
It's interesting how little attention this got given what has happened today!
610 BTC IPO is a lot of money.
I sincerely hope they put that money to good use by hiring some experienced devs.
|
|
|
|
The other killer flaw of Monero is non-zero transaction fees. A coin with zero-transaction fees can surpass it quickly.
The other killer flaw of Monero is it inherits Bitcoin's centralization of mining.
I edited my prior post to make that point.
I'm surprised at how many people in the Bitcoin community are fine with the way transaction fees are headed to be honest. I was really surprised too when I downloaded NXT to see that the fee was 1 whole NXT per transaction for a currency just a few months old. I guess they depend on that fee to support the network or something? |
|
|
|
|
Thank you AnonyMint, dga, and smooth for your answers. All very interesting perspectives.
|
|
|
|
I don't get this obsession with bloat. No one in their right mind is going to download the full Bitcoin blockchain so they can spend $10 buying bread at their local shop. So why the hell are people complaining about Monero blockhain bloat? The vast majority of people are not going to be using the full client running a full node. That's just crazy to expect that. Even Bitcoin development is going in this general direction, by getting rid of the QT client and moving to a Core client because in the future, the Core program will be running the full node and third parties will develop the wallet program.
100 Petabytes scaling and thus can't scale without centralization of mining. See upthread details. So we have people on one hand saying 1TB or some more, and then on the other end you're saying 100PB(?!). Whose estimate is closer to reality? If it actually is in the 1-2TB range I think that's pretty manageable to be honest. Most people want to use thin clients anyway. |
|
|
|
August yeah. It's not June is it.  So, I made a mistake. What's my status? edit: Sorted. I was afraid I might have just instantly cost myself 0.006 BTC for nothing . Thanks. |
|
|
|
Received and quoted for confirmation. |
|
|
|
Requesting a 0.12 BTC loan paid back 0.126 when Stunna makes payments for this months Primedice campaign(August 17-19?). Proof of enrollment: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=291387.msg7421598#msg7421598I've become heavily involved with a new alt currency project and I need a bit of extra BTC for costs related to it. 1GJY7FvUXKcSVQL9NQzxHubhCWRaoVYVr4 Thanks. |
|
|
|
And why the name calling? I noticed the Dark guys don't come around anymore for many reasons (e.g. dropping volume, weaknesses brought to light, etc.)
but I don't mind debate. I am not tied to a coin, though it would be nice to make another few nice calls on successful coins in the future. I was in Dark, XC
and some others and exited them when more evidence of their weaknesses came to light. But I am no necessarily looking for "the best" coin. Rather something
that appears to be near the top at this time and one that will adapt and change as need be. (Why I got out of Litecoin, at least for now.)
IAS
What are the weaknesses with XC that have been brought to light? Last we discussed this all I took from it is that their anon implementation is closed source for the time being. I know that's more than enough for many people to dismiss it until everything is opened up, but other than that, was there some other major issue that I missed? |
|
|
|
|
To be honest, the fact that XMR can just pretty much insta-implement any improvements BBR develops is a major downer for my BBR support. It's not like Bitcoin where the chance of any modern innovation being implemented is close to zero.
What can you do though? In an open economy such as this when two or more currencies are on the same base technology the leader is always going to have the advantage up until the point where they become too big to risk any major changes(ie Bitcoin). And XMR is in such an early stage that they'll have no problems implementing any sort of improvements made by anyone to CryptoNote.
It sucks for any CN project other than XMR, but what can they do?
For the record I like BBR and think crypto_zoidberg is doing a great job, I just think they're in a bad position that will be hard to get out of.
|
|
|
|
|
So is the future of Bitcoin either stagnation or civil war? There seem to be quite a few issues that appear to completely divide people. I'm not trying to be hyperbolic here, but I can't imagine anything but a 'war' resulting from any major change to Bitcoin that would require a hard fork. Minor issues get blown out of proportion already.
|
|
|
|
In this instance we were just talking about a superior anon technology. Not a perfect currency. Just that one aspect.
Anyone speculating in anything fundamentally has to consider hypothetical situations and their associated probabilities.
My original question of whether or not being ready to hard fork XMR was the general consensus among the community still stands. I've found it incredibly rare for any community or dev team to ever be willing to change. Litecoin, Dogecoin, Bitcoin being the three largest examples. If Monero development is taking a more agile approach I would find that interesting.
Right now XMR is a bleeding edge crypto. Is the plan for it to constantly retain that position? There are big rewards for staying on top off all the latest trends and technologies, but that also comes with larger risk of course.
There are two problems. The first is that new technology (and I'm not talking about altcoin gimmicks, I mean ZeroCoin specifically) may introduce brand new, untested cryptography. What happens when you have millions of users and huge merchant adoption uptick? You can't play with people's money by opening them up to risk, so you stick with what is tried and tested. The other problem is that it's not us who makes that decision. We may have some degree of swing now, but even right now - if we suddenly decided to introduce something stupid like doubling the block time without doubling the block reward, what would happen? Miners would ignore our changes, someone would fork the repo, and they'd continue development without us. None of this means that Monero will eventually reach a point where change is impossible, it's just that some changes will be ill-advised until another cryptocurrency has demonstrated its value and cryptographic soundness over many years, and other changes may never live to see the light of day because miners will refuse to accept it. The upshot of this is that even if something like ZeroCoin is the holy grail and they've solved the obvious trust issue and they are absolutely certain no other exploits in the software exist (which will take years) it will still be a struggle for them to have any sort of adoption based on technology alone. There are WAY too many other variables at play.
if this community was presented with a superior technology to ring signatures, I am certain that a hard fork would be made and we would continue to be the dominant community built up around the idea of an anonymous CryptoCurrency.
drawingthesun, do you still feel that way after reading Fluffypony's responce? He's not saying that they'll never change technology of course, but I gather that the focus at this point is working toward stability with the current CryptoNote technology. Not staying on the bleeding edge of anonymity technology. |
|
|
|
|
There have probably been hundreds of 'local' cryptocurrencies developed already based on Bitcoin.
I feel they really defeat the purpose of Bitcoin. Probably why you haven't heard of them before.
|
|
|
|
Wouldn't be easier for people to just start over with a new currency than deal with a hard fork?
Exactly. The confidence in Monero after the hard fork will be shuttered. It's much better to admit it and try again with new coin than to let the whole concept limp in the future because of the initial design problems. If this hypothetical "perfect" cryptocurrency is ever designed, we can cross that bridge then. Hypothetically telling everyone how the hypothetical users of a cryptocurrency would react to a hypothetical hard fork brought on by the introduction of a hypothetical perfect cryptocurrency is...well...nothing more than your hypothesis. In this instance we were just talking about a superior anon technology. Not a perfect currency. Just that one aspect. Anyone speculating in anything fundamentally has to consider hypothetical situations and their associated probabilities. My original question of whether or not being ready to hard fork XMR was the general consensus among the community still stands. I've found it incredibly rare for any community or dev team to ever be willing to change. Litecoin, Dogecoin, Bitcoin being the three largest examples. If Monero development is taking a more agile approach I would find that interesting. Right now XMR is a bleeding edge crypto. Is the plan for it to constantly retain that position? There are big rewards for staying on top off all the latest trends and technologies, but that also comes with larger risk of course. |
|
|
|
if this community was presented with a superior technology to ring signatures, I am certain that a hard fork would be made and we would continue to be the dominant community built up around the idea of an anonymous CryptoCurrency.
Is this the general consensus? Just how deeply ingrained to the CryptoNote technology are ring signatures? What would a hard fork be like? Wouldn't be easier for people to just start over with a new currency than deal with a hard fork? |
|
|
|
In fact I'm so keen to establish a starting price I'll sell up to 5000 BTM at 20,000 sat each. 1 BTC buys the lot. I'm probably taking a long term loss doing that but someone needs to be the crash test dummy  If you could hold them for me for two weeks, I will gladly commit to buying the lot. Regarding miners, we have already solved the situation for some miners, the IPM Pool requires a lot of hashrate, the deal is that we will pay you a fixed rate to hash for 24 hours, which covers all of your rig costs for 36 hours, so long as you take that profit in BTM by mining for yourself for the extra 8 hours. That way miners support the network, have all their bills paid, and get to take out BTM as a reward. Already 180MH/s has been committed, others are welcome to join. If there is this kind of solution, I d like to know more. I rented a rig for two days and I m mining. I can t keep this rig for a long time if I don t realize at least the money to cover the costs. But if the solution above really exists, I can keep renting, just let me know how to do. A question: I discovered this community three days ago and yet I m missing to understand how this coin will give us a profit. I agree about to don't go immediatly in the exchanges, but if we don t go there, how exactly investors and miners will have a gain? Selling mark when the infrastructure will be ready? I think you may have misunderstood coinsolidation's post. The IPM pool( https://github.com/project-bitmark/bitmark/wiki/IPM-Pool) is making arrangements with people who own physical mining equipment and renting it from them directly. Not people like us who are renting mining rigs online. As far as profit goes, you'll likely be able to sell for a profit at any point in the near future. But keep in mind that this is a long term project and the intentions are much greater than simply mining a few coins and flipping them for a profit on an exchange. Of course you're free to do as you wish and no one is going to have a problem if you choose to do that. But personally I would recommend holding and possibly participating in the development of Bitmark in anyway you think you can. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
