Can you use the save command? If so use that before force exiting.

I read it, but realized I needed to research and fully understand your teleports before making a comment, it's very interesting work you're are doing.

If you guys added a Turing complete smart contract system into XC to compete with Ethereum that would make this currency automatically worth 10 times more.

You're like the most defensive person ever.

I didn't say it was bad, I effectively said:

The alias system needs work, and instead of saying it is this way because of "vision" Zoidberg should instead work on making it better right now, especially because Zoidberg was earlier saying he wants all the tech in place asap because he is against hardforks.

So waiting for a while to fix the alias system is actually counter to Zoidberg's philosophy.

This is my first post that I actually tried to give some useful advice to Zoidberg, it's actually in my interest for Zoidberg to leave the alias system in the current state it is in.

What I am seeing is that a large proportion of well renowned experts in Crypto are starting to talk about PoW being a failure and that there must be another way. The Bitshares people, James from Nxt and BitcoinDark, Vitalik and even your idea suggests the future lay in PoS in some form.

The only people supporting PoW at the moment with large credibility are the Bitcoin core developers.

Anyone care to explain if things like dPoS are really the future, or is PoW still the most secure way to run a decentralized network?

If alias's are a good idea, then people should be able to register enough for everyone, like a domain name or an email address. In addition, like a domain name, an alias should perhaps cost a certain amount per year otherwise they get released and it would cost a lot to just sit on them.

Thing is, at the moment people might get into boolberries in five years as CryptoCoins are in their height, and someone is attracted to boolberry because of alias only to find out that less than 2 million alias exist and there are not enough for everyone, now alias is useless to the little guy, only the early adopter or rich gets an alias.

It's a poorly thought out idea and its shortcomings are "vision".

Zoidberg is a smart guy, even though I am anti-boolberries, I think that if he stopped being stubborn about this he could figure out a way to make it fair and useful making boolberries an even more attractive investment. I actually think Zoidberg could solve this and actually make it useful, perhaps even go a step further and compete with Namecoin?

For example, Nxt alias can be registered by anyone and is decentralized, perhaps use that as a starting point. The downside to the Nxt system is that there is no recurring fee, which I believe should be a thing.

Botnet

Bitcoin is the first true crypto currency and all the other projects inspired by it are alt coins.

Even Monero, which I support, is an alt coin, even though it is completely different from Bitcoin and shares no code at all.

Most alt coins are complete crap, however some alt coins are superior to Bitcoin in some ways, so don't take offense to these coins being called alt coins.

Being called an alt coin is not in any way derogatory.

Mix into Monero and then mix back out again a using a different exchange. Hopefully the liquidlty will keep increasing to make this viable for larger and larger amounts of Bitcoin.

This is actually a good area to discuss.

My personal view is that crypto coins are a social contract between the develelopers and the users. The main branch of the coin (that has the brand) is the initial social contract (expectations) between the developers and the users.

If the users do not like something, they can then split and follow a new brand.

Example. Monero team in one year changes x in the code and hardfork happens. This is ok in my view because by using monero I agree to use this coin that is being developed by these developers. Of course there is a level of trust, if too many people disagree with the change then the coin will most likely be destroyed.

Let's not be naive. If the social contract with Monero was "the coin will never have any major changes even though competitors will most likely emerge" then I would not invest, and this is one of the reasons I wanted to move some money out of Bitcoin, because they are not reacting to the world at becoming complacent.

These currencies are not 100% trust less. You need to trust the market, the miners and the developers.

That's already solved.

I think most of the shareholders have just given up and are trying to move on (which is what the scammer would want of course!) and no one seems serious about taking Ken and his scamming family down.

Most of the shareholders at most have talked to some Government entity, but it seems that very few people are actually engaging Ken directly in court. I assume the shareholders that have taken Ken to court are instead making out of court settlements, because court records are public and I am sure someone would have found a court case involving Ken and some shareholder.

Well I can't find the option anywhere...

That makes things more interesting!

Bitcoin requires about $1.8 million per day to sustain its price, If Monero attracted x% of that investment as being the only true alternative to Bitcoin because of its completely different purpose and design, then we could sustain a price of y.

x = 1%, y = 0.0021
x = 5%, y = 0.01

I might have messed up my math {
- sustain bitcoin @ $500 for a year = $650mil
- xmr coins now 2.9 mil - xmr coins in a year 9 mil = 6.1 mil xmr coins.
- get percent of bitcoin investment per year. so 5% = $32mil
- amount @ 5% = $32mil / price of bitcoin @ $500 / amount of XMR coins = y
}

But it seems to work out that if Monero captures 1% of Bitcoin investment, then we are looking at 0.002 which is a disaster, but 5% would be very high at 0.01

I honestly believe that capturing 3% - 5% of the money going into Bitcoin is certainly possible.

Litecoin will require at least $20,000,000 in the same time period to remain where it currently is, and that is after having a cap of over a hundred million $.

If Monero starts getting accepted by the community as the default anonymous coin and as second place to Bitcoin, $10,000,000 to sustain the current price is nothing.

Well to be honest I read your threads and the main Monero thread way more than this one, I wouldn't mind if a moderator closed it.



In addition, I think we really need a good official forum and move some of the heavier technical talk into our own community.

Also, the trolls are so stupid and their arguments so weak that they are in fact helping our cause, I think.

Perhaps, but then we might be accused of censorship. Also I believe you already have a dedicated and moderated Monero speculation economics thread (which currently serves a similar purpose), I guess the good thing about mine is that it draws in the low level troll talk and hopefully leaves yours to be the place for more serious talk.

How is being truly anonymous pointless?

Your first point is completely ridiculous, are you a fan of transparent transactions that make litecoin less private than a PayPal account?

The world is changing, slow movers get left behind.

But why would I want to use something that has a smaller anonymity set and is simply not as anonymous?

All these competitors to Monero really fall down hard, and I cannot understand why you're supporting such inferior ideas, perhaps you're a troll?