The real reason your last 10ish posts have been so negative about BTSX... you already sold and want to buy back in for lower. Stop being so obvious..

I stand to gain very little from BTSX getting pumped, I just believe in it and hate FUDsters like you trying to create hysteria for you own financial benefit.

......

Trolls gonna troll.

Lol...

Anyways.. don't waste your time with this guy. He is obviously trolling.. Possibly the most blatant Bitshares FUDster yet considering the link in this post. He doesn't think Bitshares is a good idea, yet he supports and/or is involved with a clone of it called Botshares on Dogeparty. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=763383

I'll buy it for...

I understand what you are saying and I agree that it is not a decentralized exchange in the true sense of the term. I guess I am using that term loosely because it is the closest thing to a decentralized exchange that actually exists (to my knowledge.) It is not as good as a decentralized exchange in that you don't own the private keys to the crypto you are trading and there is added risk involved with that, but then it is also better in that it allows the trading of commodities like gold and oil.

I guess it depends on your risk tolerance at this point, and I agree BTSX is a risky investment (what Cryptocurrency isn't really.) I think if BitsharesX stands the test of time I think that will go a long ways towards instilling confidence in the market and bitassets. Thus increasing utility, liquidity, and the value of BTSX. Buying BTSX now is a play on all of that working itself out, and the developers/community figuring out how to ensure the market pegging mechanism is as accurate as possible.

There is a lot of discussion being had as to ways to improve accuracy of the market peg without putting too many restrictions on the market or centralizing it. I think if the market peg can be made as accurate as possible, the infrastructure surrounding bitassets will fill in and they will have just as much utility as Bitcoin through the use of multi coin payment processors and payment gateways. In that case, it will be similar to owning private keys except with a little added risk that would arguably be less than the risk of trading on a centralized exchange.

A decentralized exchange is worth much more than BTSX's current market cap, assuming all of the current issues are resolved.

Also, hype pretty much equals speculation. What cryptocurrency ISN'T supported by speculation?

Just in case you don't get that last statement... it was a rhetorical question because all cryptocurrency's values are upheld by speculation.. even Bitcoin. It is a speculators market as mass adoption has not been achieved by any of them.

I understand you need to up your post count for your signature campaign, but go spread FUD somewhere else.

A big dump already came and it didn't kill the value of bitUSD. BTSX went from 0.00009679 to 0.00005053 on the 25th through the 29th. It lost almost half of its value, but the market peg held right around where it has been. Admittedly, the market peg is not perfect, but everyone is brainstorming on how it can be made more correct. During the crash, the value of bitUSD never went below $0.86 USD, with it mostly being within the range of $1 to $0.90 USD. Additional restrictions on shorts were put into effect yesterday and it has been more accurate.. $1 to $0.91. You can see the Bitshares community is brainstorming ways to reach parity and instill confidence in bitassets ability to reach parity: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=7953.0

I think everyone in the Bitshares community knows how important it is for bitassets to resemble as closely as possible the value of their real life counterparts. Fwiw, bitBTC started trading last night and it has been tracking more accurately than bitUSD. I speculate this is because there is more demand for Bitcoins and less demand for FIAT... makes sense really. Everyone that owns BTSX seems to be pretty bullish on it, so the buy support for bitUSD is lacking. I think the Bitshares community are for the most part pretty bullish on Bitcoin too, so I expect this to be less of a problem for bitBTC.

I wanted to elaborate on the benefits of bitassets, as I'm not sure that everyone understands them thoroughly quite yet.

Along with being able to use them to hedge your investments, they can also be used as an alternative to centralized exchanges. Trading on the decentralized exchange in BTSX is safer because you can do so without going through a trusted third party (a centralized exchange), where you are instead exchanging btsxIOUs for xbtIOUs or xbtIOUs for usdIOUs, and your funds could theoretically be seized, stolen, or held until you comply with some sort of kyc (know your customer) procedure.

It is safer than trading on an exchange if you are trading just for the sake of trading. If you are trading to spend them then that is another story, but I have a feeling the bitasset infrastructure will fall into place to allow people to do that. With multi coin payment processors and gateways the ability to spend bitassets could be extended to anything you can buy with any other Cryptocurrency.

The Bitshares community is brainstorming different market restrictions for shorts that could be done to make sure the market peg holds. It has been fairly accurate thus far, but it could be improved upon. It has worked pretty well though as a hedge against BTSX bubbles. For instance, in the recent mini bubble.. Those that bought bitUSD at the peak and sold it in the trough ended up with almost double the amount of BTSX than if they would of just held BTSX.

There are obviously some advantages to having physical cash compared to bitUSD (Bitshare's digital USD version), but there are also some disadvantages. I think it is silly to write off the whole idea of decentralized market pegged assets due to their real life counterparts being "safer." Do you also not have a bank account, not use debit or credit cards, and never buy gift cards as presents? I would argue all of those things are not as safe as "physical cash in your possession." Furthermore, you could make the argument that Bitcoin/Litecoin are not as safe as physical cash in your possession.. I just don't get your point.

The advantages of having physical cash in your possession are pretty obvious, so I will highlight some of the disadvantages. Physical cash can be:
- Easily confiscated by the government [bitUSD- (if you secure it properly) could not confiscated]
- Easily taxed (no one can force taxes on transactions with a decentralized block chain)
- Limited transactions (you can't send it anywhere in the world on a whim)
- Someone can easily short change you without you noticing (cannot happen with cryptocurrencies)
- Someone can give you fake dollar bills as change or payment (cannot happen with cryptocurrencies)
- You cannot easily speculate on the price of the dollar with cash (with bitUSD you can conveniently go long or short)
- Etc.

There are uses for decentralized digital forms of FIAT and commodities, and that is what makes Bitsharesx valuable (and me a fan boy of them.)  

I agree that is pretty slow, but if I was a criminal doing something I could go to jail for a long time for doing, I wouldn't mind waiting longer for a transaction to confirm. For real life transactions it may make it unusable, but for things like deep web marketplaces or anything where 5-10 minutes (even hours) isn't a huge deal, then something like Zerocoin may be desirable over Monero.

I think canth explained it better than I could, and honestly it is something I haven't thought of before, but Monero would still have its uses if something like Zerocoin came to exist. He made a lot of valid points in his post. I don't believe in the "one coin to rule them all" dogma, but the dynamics for anonymous centric coins are a bit different and it will be interesting to see how it plays out. I can see how some might be more desirable than others in certain situations and vice versa.

It seems that your analogy is broken if it is true that Zerocoin can generate the cryptographic accumulator in a trust-less manner using RSA UFOs. I am getting conflicting feedback on whether it is possible or not, but it does seem like to me that they have figured out a way to do it that doesn't require trust: https://wiki.anoncoin.net/RSA_UFO

I am about to do a write up on the remaining anonymous coins I have yet to review, so thank you all for the feedback. I have learned a couple things about Monero, and I do agree that it is probably the best anon solution that is currently in existence (although I need to look into what Darkcoin is doing though as well, because I have heard rumors that they are improving or have recently improved their anon tech. I agree ring signatures > coin join implementations though.)

Thank you, this is the type of reply I was hoping to receive.. something that compares the two technologies on a technical level which is what I am really interested in. You are referring to block chain bloat? I think that is a valid criticism, but maybe not the worst thing in the world (see Electrum client, etc.) I guess it depend on if you like to run a full node or not as to whether that would be a big deal.

I am also wondering if the use of zero knowledge proofs can considerably slow down transaction times and/or confirmations due to the heavier computational power required, as compared to Monero's ring signatures.

My original analysis done on Monero was done months ago when it was first released, at that time it could only be mined by CPUs. I did not realize GPU miners had been made, and as you say I retracted my statements which would of been applicable to a cryptocurrency that can currently only be mined by CPUs.

Minus the bot net stuff, I think I have some valid criticisms. To my credit, a lot of people ITT don't seem to be doing "credible research" on competing anonymous crypto currencies and what they are up to. They seem to think Zerocoin was abondened and/or that it requires to trust a third party. I admit I have been keeping up with their project better than Moner because I decided a long time ago it is the superior anonymous technology. Yeah, it may be vaporware right now but I have faith it will come to market sooner or later. If that happens I think Monero could be in trouble.

I've just been seeing a lot of posts about Monero the past months and wanted to know what all the fuss is about. I came here seeking enlightenment, and I have already learned one thing, so I guess my mission was successful. I also learned that Monero is planning on doing other features or improvements.. Although no one has enlightened me as to what. I guess I will need to dig that up on my own. I am mainly here speaking as to anonymity.

Discussing alternative technologies other cryptocurrencies are implementing is necessary to speculate properly and form an educated opinion. You can't just omit the from your thought process like they don't exist.

Furthermore, it seems a lot of people don't realize that Zerocoin can be implemented without the requirement of trusting third parties and/or don't realize people are working on implementing it. Zerocash =/= Zerocoin...

Only investing in one anon Cryptocurrency is like putting your eggs in one basket. I think Darkcoin is making strides towards better anonymity by improving their anon tech, and Anoncoin seems to be making strides in (and dedicated to) implementing Zerocoin. I guess that's the main point I'm trying to convey.

Am I not speculating about Monero here as well? I just have a different opinion than most of you guys I guess. Please explain it to me why I you guys are right and I am wrong. It's just odd that everyone seems so bullish on Monero and there is not one person here voicing bearish concerns...

I did not realize a GPU miner had been released. Othe told me that in his reply, and I retracted my statements regarding bot nets and CPU mining in the middle of my previous post.

My apologies- I think my other concerns are valid though.

Yes it is possible, but I don't think people will ever get over the fact they need to trust the mint and money can be printed anonymously without anyone ever knowing about it. I think Zerocoin is better at this point in time seeing as though it can be implemented without having to trust a third party.

You are confusing Zerocoin with Zerocash, Zerocoin and Zerocash are two completely different protocols. Zerocoin can be implemented without requiring the trust of a third party using RSA UFOs.

https://wiki.anoncoin.net/RSA_UFO
https://sigterm.no/media/without_trapdoor.pdf
https://github.com/Anoncoin/ufo_client


I see what you mean here, and I agree with you that existing technology > vaporware. However, in this case it is vaporware that people are working very hard to implement into a crypto currency. There is a lot of risk investing in Monero considering people are working on implementing a superior anonymous protocol. The Monero demand, and thus the liquidity it provides, will likely dry up if a more anonymous cryptocurrency comes to market.

Again, you are referring to Zerocash, I am referring to Zerocoin.


It is just a fact that CPU mined cryptocurrencys are more susceptible to being controlled and mined by bot nets. Bot nets are less profitable on ASIC and GPU mined coins, so it makes more sense for them to be mining CPU algorithms like CryptoNight due to the economics of mining.


Link?


I might and that is why I am posting here.. to seek enlightenment. You guys must know something I don't. I do a lot more research on cryptocurrencies than most people, and my research on anonymous cryptocurrencies has led me to these conclusions. Please enlighten me why I am wrong.


Yes, it can't be confirmed that is correct, but it is a fact that CPU PoW algorithms are more susceptible to bot net mining than GPU and ASIC mined cryptocurrencies. Monero seems like the most profitable choice for bot net operators at the present time due to its liquidity and market cap. I think it is foolish to assume that they would not choose the most profitable option.


Again, I have done a ton of research on the subject and it has led me to these conclusions. You might not know that although the people that wrote the Zerocoin white paper have moved onto Zerocash, there are still people working on implementing their original idea of Zerocoin. Zerocash and Zerocoin are two different protocols. Since the white paper and alpha library was released for Zerocoin, there is nothing stopping somebody else from implementing it even though the original developers moved onto Zerocash.


Yes, I know about this already. However, you guys seem to be ignoring the fact that Zerocoin and Zerocash are two different protocols. You can see I already know this as I have listed Zerocash as a bad investment and Zerocoin as a good investment on my Cryptocurrency analysis website:

http://www.cryptoreview.net/cryptocurrency/zerocoin/
http://www.cryptoreview.net/cryptocurrency/zerocash/


I seriously doubt anyone in the black market cares about being able to prove a transaction took place, in fact I think they would rather the opposite. You and I know the importance of financial privacy and the bad things that can happen by practicing bad financial privacy methods, but most people are oblivious to this. The sheeple of this world that are still using FIAT, and even a lot of Bitcoin users, are oblivious to the importance of financial privacy. Therefore, it narrows the population of possible Monero adopters to the small group of people that understand the value of financial privacy and the black market. The black market is a much bigger and valuable subgroup, and more people within it will be adopting an anonymous cryptocurrency rather than the general public.

I also think it's silly to think that Monero will be used in a large way by "legit companies/institutions." That space is reserved to Bitcoin for the time being. For that to change, Monero would have to achieve greater liquidity and popularity than Bitcoin. I just don't see that happening... ever... because Monero doesn't provide enough of a benefit over Bitcoin for everyone to switch over.

The same goes with Zerocoin, Anoncoin, or Darkcoin. Anonymous cryptocurrencys will not overtake Bitcoin for the simple fact they are more anonymous, it will take much more than that. I think it is possible that another cryptocurrency eventually surpasses Bitcoin, but Monero is not that cryptocurrency. Simply making transactions more anonymous is not a big enough innovation to overcome the infrastructure and network effect of a crypto currency like Bitcoin. It will require better anonymity couple with many other features and/or improvements to do this.

Again, Zerocash =/= Zerocoin

That is the biggest risk Darkcoin and Monero have at the moment I think. I think it is silly just to assume they will fail or never be released, especially when people are working hard to implement them. I think this is my biggest concern here.. it seems a lot of people are putting all their eggs in the Monero basket, when it is not the clear winner of the anonymity wars.

Again, Zerocash =/= Zerocoin

See my argument above.. that is not really the market that an anonymous cryptocurrency is really tailored for. People that understand the need for financial privacy are few and far between, and are vastly outnumbered by the number of people and the amount of money that flows through the black market... trillions of dollars.

I think it's pretty obvious that you guys assume I don't get it, when I have (maybe/likely) done more research on the subject than you have. I spend days researching cryptocurrencies and different innovative cryptocurrency technologies. This is what my research has led me to conclude. Again, if I am wrong then please point out how I am wrong- I am here seeking enlightenment.

73+ days of research on cryptocurrencies by my count: https://www.dropbox.com/s/u13y9iqssbd0zqf/Bitcointalk%20activity.png

I understand people prefer to use something that exists- because vaporware is unusable. However, you can't disregard that someone releasing a cryptocurrency is a large risk as to the success of Monero. I find it much more likely that a better solution as to anonymity is released than nothing better ever being released at all. Especially considering the hard work that is being done to implement Zerocoin.


Sure, ring signatures are less complicated than zero knowledge proofs, but it doesn't make them any more legitimate. People will have a hard time understanding how they work, but you know what this doesn't matter. Do most people know the details of how airplanes, credit cards, the internet, websites, programs, debit cards, money transmitters, and cell phones work? No, but they are still used on a massive scale because they work and they have been told that they are safe.

As long as a large group of smart people that are able to understand can vouch for the work, then I see no reason why the technology couldn't be adopted. It doesn't mean that everyone has to understand exactly how it works, just as long as it does work is sufficient. 98% of the people in the Bitcoin community have no idea how Bitcoin works on a fundamental level (IE. source code level.) Have you dug through every line of code of Bitcoin to make sure there are no backdoors? Probably not, but you take the word of others that have done so and can understand it.

I did not realize that a GPU miner had been released for the CryptoNight PoW algorithm, so that is one thing I have learned thus far since entering this thread. I am not a bad guy and not here to spread FUD, I am just here seeking enlightenment. I take everything I said about bot nets and CPU mining back if it is true that Monero can be GPU mined, as that pushes the bot nets out... not completely, but it makes them a lot less profitable and they'd probably rather mine CPU-only cryptocurrencies.

It seems like a lot of people are thinking they will win the lottery with Monero and I just dont get it. It seems like a pretty risky play.. much riskier than simply investing in Bitcoin.


That's cool, what else are they trying to accomplish?

---------------------------

Again, I'm not here to spread FUD, I am here to seek enlightenment. There must be something I am not understanding with all the craze behind Monero.. I just don't get it. A lot of you seem to be confusing Zerocash and Zerocoin, and/or thinking that Zerocoin has been completely abandoned. It has been abandoned by its original developers, but there are people still working on it separately.

I don't get why so many people are hopping on the Monero train. It is not even anonymous, just more anonymous than Bitcoin and arguably the best solution that exists right now, but that is subject to change. Zerocoin has shown it is possible to create a more anonymous Cryptocurrency than ring signature and coin join implementations, and it is just a matter of time before the first Zerocoin implementations are released into the wild. For instance, if Anoncoin successfully implements Zerocoin, then Monero is going to be somewhat pointless and a lot of people are going to lose a lot of money. It seems like a pretty risky play IMO.

Furthermore, I also don't like that it is mainly bot nets providing the majority of the processing power to support the Monero network. Why support these criminals? Do you think it was really any coincidence the CryptoNight PoW algorithm and Cryptonote were developed on the deep web?

I just don't get it...