I would love it if Monero wanted to innovate in other areas other than anonymity, but I don't see it happening. Most of the Monero supporters (which are mainly long time Bitcoin/Litecoin supporters whom mostly feel the same way) seem to think all innovation that doesn't include improving anonymity is a gimmick. Most of them don't realize PoW mining is hugely flawed and a better alternative needs to be conceived. There are many other issues with cryptocurrencies that the Monero community doesn't seem that bothered by as well that I think are problems affecting mass adoption, sustainability, and utility.

Although Monero is innovating (well... Copying) in terms of anonymity, I am not really interested in it as they aren't interested in fixing other problems with crypto coins. Later down the road if ring signatures ends up being the best solution to anonymity [I speculate it won't be and a better solution(s) will pop up], then there is nothing stopping other coins that are innovating in other areas from implementing ring signatures. I would be infinitely more interested and supportive of those cryptocoins over Monero.

Yea yea, very funny babyface.jpg  

I am just someone that believes in decentralized cryptocurrencies and wants to see them improved upon for the greater good of mankind. I am not here to get rich. All this propaganda and trolling is affecting the amount of decent conversations going on in this subforum. Anonymity is not the only flaw main stream cryptocurrencies have.

This really pisses me off as it affects all cryptocoin discussion, not just Monero, CN coins, or anon coins.

That is true, I would love to see the demise of Monero. You guys need to get your own forums and stop spamming this subforum, then I will play nice with you. I know someone's going to say.. But.. But.. That's not us, it's some meta reverse trolling, but IMO you guys started it by flooding the subforum with pro-Monero threads and the trolls decided they needed to counter them.

The only way I see it ending is if you guys move most Monero discussion to your own forums. Stop bringing up the only solution to be creating a Monero subforum here, because you and I both know that is never going to happen.

Until you do this I will be rooting for your demise because I am tired of the clusterfuck of Monero propaganda and trolling that has come of it. It is sad you guys make me feel this way, because I actually like Monero and its anon tech.. I just prefer this to subforum to be general discussion about all Alt coins not just Monero, as I am interested in improving crypto coins beyond simply making them more anonymous.

That being said, my post above was not meaning to "poke the dragon". It was my honest assessment of the situation.

Understood.

For the record, I have seen BCX make such claims about other cryptos before and never come forward with any information or attack the crypto. I wouldn't put much credence in his claim unless he provides proof. I have always been skeptical when he makes such claims, especially seeing as though nothing ever comes of them.

It is possible it is not a problem with RSA itself but in the way it was implemented in CN coins, no?

Only half of the BTSX tokens were distributed to AGS fund donators, although it is true that is how they are paying for development. Once the funds run out it will need to be more of a grassroots effort like Bitcoin, but I think the intention of the AGS fund was just to bring the idea to fruition and for it to function more like Bitcoin's development does in the future.

The other half of the tokens were distributed to Bitshares PTS holders via a "snapshot" (spin off) on February 28th. This is intended to further distribute the tokens evenly and provide a way for miners and/or people that didn't want to donate to AGS to get a stake in Bitshares DACs.

I guess distribution does matter some people.. I am not to worried about it though. I don't think Satoshi will ever spend or cash out a single Bitcoin out of his stash. Bitcoin was his soapbox to bring awareness to the corruptness of FIAT, and show that there is a solution. If he was interested in getting rich, he would of cashed out at $1000+ IMO. I'd like to think that he secured his private keys better than his email, or ideally he destroyed them.

I can agree that statement in its entirety is likely true.

I don't know of a distribution graph. I have never cared to do the research, as just with Bitcoin or any other currency I know there are many more rich people than me and I have come to terms with that... Life is not fair.

For the record, I was not a PTS or AGS investor, and thus did not receive BTSX in the genesis block. I bought the very small amount of BTSX I own on the free market after it's release. I am just someone that believes in the ideology, technology, and features of Bitshares.. specifically BitsharesX.

The distribution is contained within the genesis block though, so if someone wanted to make some sort of chart that would be cool. The only thing you can really calculate is initial distribution via the genesis block:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/dacsunlimited/bitsharesx/master/libraries/blockchain/genesis.json

There will never be any "BTSX Rich Lists" because BTSX forces everyone to use "Bitcoin's best practices" by using a variation of stealth addresses in conjunction with aliases. After the genesis block it is very challenging (nearly impossible?) to track what happens. http://wiki.bitshares.org/index.php/TITAN

I also don't want to make it seem as if I'm pushing Bitshares here. I would love nothing more if Bitcoin were to adopt some of what I perceive as advantages that Bitshares provides, as I think it would be a step forward for Bitcoin specifically. Ignoring Bitshares for a second.. I think it would benefit Bitcoin and the crypto ecosystem at large. I think that is kokojie's purpose of this thread as well, to improve Bitcoin.. not push an Alt coin.

Hacking all delegates is more unlikely than hacking discus fish and ghash mining pools. All delegate identities and IPs are not known, making this even harder.. Not to mention having to hack 51 servers compared to 2.
Yes, hacking 51 delegates and hacking discus fish and ghash mining pools is possible but both are unlikely to happen

I don't hear this brought up very often, but Bitcoin could be attacked much cheaper and easier than building a farm or hacking the large mining pools. All it would take is two computer savvy gunmen. Send them to the discus fish and ghash servers, force them at gunpoint to log into the servers, and bam.. 51% attack successful at the cost of only 2 guns and life in prison (IF they are caught.) With DPoS you would need 51 gunmen. I'm sure there are plenty of computer savvy (savvy enough to run a script) poor people in the world that would do this on the promise of someone taking good care of their family and kids.

I know this looks bad to keep brining up Bitshares, but it is the truth. Bitshares is one of the only (if not the only...) cryptos that is truly deflationary. Transaction and market fees are destroyed and no more BTSX will ever be printed apart from what was printed in the genesis block.

I noticed kokojie was getting ganged up on ITT, and since I share similar thoughts about PoW I thought I would help him out. So it is known, we are both Bitshares fanboys.. because it solves some of the glaring problems with the mainstream cryptos and the issues with PoW.

The comparison is even more flawed than that, as cryptos can be secured with much cheaper and less hardware than PoW by using a PoS variant. Whereas when mining gold, it is necessary to purchase expensive equipment to mine it in any sizable amount. PoS can secure alternative blockchains much cheaper than Bitcoin can at a similar security efficiency. It is like producing the same amount of gold as all the biggest Gold mines put together by using gold panning techniques (which is impossible.)

Very well. Sure, Bitcoin compared to the inflation of the dollar (including shadow banking) may look like a saint. However, ~10% inflation is a lot when compared to cryptos that are truly deflationary. The comparison is comparing the lesser of two evils, and I personally would prefer to put money in a long term investment that is truly deflationary, rather than one that is less inflationary than the dollar yet still inflationary.

This is the kind of group think that is so common in Bitcoinland that has attracted me to Alt cryptos, and made me a Bitcoin bear despite years of being a Bitcoin bull.

No, it isn't "perfectly fine as is."

This is my opinion on that: http://www.cryptoreview.net/blog/

Anywhere I reference Litecoin, substitute it for Bitcoin as my opinion is the same with both.

He referenced specifically the US dollar, and that is what my answer was tailored towards.

Your statement is an inaccurate comparison of inflation, because the market cap of Bitcoin is not nearly the size of the market cap of all FIATs combined plus shadow banking. To make an accurate comparison you would need to set Bitcoin's market cap to that of the current market cap of FIAT, or compare the two based on a percentage. Even then you are combining all FIAT currencies and shadow banking, if you are doing that to make the comparison then you should also combine the inflation rate of all PoW cryptos to arrive at an accurate conclusion.

The joke is on you guys. Block rewards = inflation, and Bitcoin will be in its inflation stage for quite some time.. Our entire lives. At the current price, Bitcoin needs $597,187,500 USD to come into the market yearly to retain its buying power and current evaluation. That is an inflation rate of about 9.8%, as to the bolded... the USD is currently inflating by 2%. 

Maybe the Bytecoin Devs will find it and kill Monero, then maybe we can return to a normal Alt coin subforum!!!

+ a million

I've been warning people about Cloudhashing since April 2013. I have 2 posts on the first page of their thread claiming scam, and spent my time posting many posts in the first few pages of their thread trying to make my point. This was my 3rd post in their thread:

Stop feeding these trolls please.

Furthermore, if he can't pull it off then I think the Anon community will have no problem finding someone that can.

This is one thigh that annoys me about the PoW vs PoS debate. People saying PoW is so much more secure than PoS, because it is not entirely true as both have their strengths and weaknesses. People have been claiming PoS is insecure for years, yet no one has been able to successfully attack it. A lot of people don't realize that there are many different versions of PoS also, some more secure or better than others. There have been something like 10 PoS algos released (or in development) this year alone. Older versions were less secure than newer versions, but that is just natural as people improve and expand upon the original PoS innovation.

You are right that people investing in mining hardware are unlikely to attack PoW. I think that is an unlikely attack vector. A more likely scenario would be a government or large global bank pay for someone to root the discus fish and/or bitfury mining pools, or build a large farm themselves. Due to economies of scale that ASICs provide, it is economically feasible that over 100 countries in the world could attack Bitcoin with no support from any other country. Furthermore, it is mathematically likely to be able to attack the Bitcoin network with as little as 30% of the hashing power with a reasonable success rate. I think most people read 51% attack and assume because of the name that someone would need 51% of the network, but mathematics and probability will show that is untrue. A prolonged double spend attack would crush the confidence in Bitcoin, brining it to its knees.