Cryptonote people have been denying that they were responsible for the Bytecoin scam for as long as I remember. We'll probably never know for sure what the details are behind that, who's who, how many people were involved ect. But the Cryptonote developers knew enough that in order to save any shred of credibility they had to publicly distance themselves from the Bytecoin scam.

That post is so cringeworthy...

Especially the parts about Come-from-Above.

If I were to guess I'd say they disabled them so that everyone who's entitled to pangea dividends gets them. Not sure though.

Wow, what a surprise. "Ryan Pumper" is a scammer. Shocking...

They claimed that Bytecoin was being mined for two years and used by people on the 'darknet'. Which has been shown to be complete bullshit.

Do you realize what you're saying here?

You go out of your way to expose villains that lie about a premine in their altcoin. Yet you claim that the Bytecoin developers are not villians despite lying about an 82% premine.

Anonymint? I don't think he has much interest in shit like that.

Nah, he's always had that opinion more or less. It's just that as time passes some things he says look more likely than they did before. One example that I can think of that I dismissed was his view on tor being compromised. He gets some things right for sure, but there are a lot of other predictions that he makes that I consider unlikely but we'll have to wait and see. He seems to have a decent track record so far though so I guess it will be interesting to see how things work out. I highly doubt the whole 2015.75 thing but I think a lot of his general ideas wrt to government controlled digital money and what would happen to Bitcoin with all this regulation aren't too far off the mark at all.

Interesting way to put it. And I see Bitcoin becoming more of a collector's item as you say as time goes on and cryptocurrency technology advances while Bitcoin stagnates for the most part. I'm sure it will have a solid place for a long time and always have it's name to back it up.

Superresistant is a big SuperNET supporter as well as a big Monero supporter. I believe he runs his own Monero mining pool as well.

I expect the initial revenue generated to come mainly from the SuperNET related services that are being worked on right now like all the assets under the Privatebet banner: NeoDICE, Pangea Poker, Omnigames ect. In these cases the money certainly won't be coming from nowhere, as each asset has it's own clear path to profitability once things get on track.

Oh, sorry about that.

Well, long story short there were a few logos and then this one was liked: https://i.imgur.com/1DACbnc.png

And then there was a vote on it with different colour schemes and such and the one we have now won the vote. So there certainly wasn't any specific effort on the part of the designer to make it similar in anyway to the Monero logo. Perhaps the people who voted had some bias towards those similar colours though.

Working a presume. I highly, highly doubt CZ would abandon BBR. Especially considering there's so much coming up with SuperNET getting closer to a v1 release. And BBR is pretty key to the privacy formula there.

Awesome

Great to see reputable people opening fiat gateways.

I can't believe this thread was moved to the alt section. This forum is unbelieveable.

https://forum.thesupernet.org/index.php?topic=15.0

Here you can see the evolution of the SuperNET logo. That particular one and those colours were voted on.

While there are some similarities, personally I don't think they're too significant. The colours are similar but not the same. The shape and curvature is completely different. Fonts are different. The letters separating the two colours is a similar concept but the overall feel of the two logos is quite different imo.

Could have been some subconscious influence or something but from the way it worked out in that thread it just seems like the colours that got voted on happened to be similar.

High difficulty and low profitability, so very few miners. So production is slowed. It's not too much of an issue yet as we haven't rolled out any of our services yet so demand for Bitmark is low right now. And the benefit is that production of BTM is very low, which is helping to restrict supply.

I don't understand how derivatives apply in a PoS system. Having 'control' of paper money in a closed system like a brokerage is not the same as actually having that cryptographic currency to stake.

Individuals 'leasing' stake to other individuals though sounds like a big problem to me. And any community that allows such a market to develop is probably making a big mistake since it could greatly lower the cost of an attack.

Great idea. We can make a new thread soon focusing on the tech with a nicely formatted OP giving a good explanation.

They do but if they lease their stakes to an attacker then the attacker has a chance to mount their attack at a much lower cost.

Sometimes people choose short term gains over long term gains because they don't fully realize the consequence of their actions. Like Bitcoin miners mining of Ghash during the period where they went over the 50% threshold.

So what I'm saying is that people need to fully acknowledge the dangers of leasing stake and have at least some sort of social system that demonstrates a commitment to securing the network.

I don't even really understand why leasing stake exists in the first place. I guess the only reason someone would lease their stake is to reduce their variance in staking rewards? And what does the person renting this stake gain? I assume they're paying less than the expected value of what the stake would generate else it wouldn't be profitable. Also it makes it more complicated that there's no block rewards so the expected value would have to be estimated on some sort of average transaction fees over time I guess.

So it's basically this?: The only reason leasing exists is because it would exist regardless, someone would build such a system to allow stake leasing whether it was "officially" sanctioned or not?