|
The only rich man out of this is the lying scammer Ken.
To think this man has made off with most of my wealth, makes me sick thinking about it.
|
|
|
|
IMO, the whole "privacy" coin is premature. Its like one of the "Mac doesn't have virus" or "this a new algo which is GPU resistant" type of thing. Once the coin goes mainstream and toe to toe with bitcoin; it will be scrutinised in greater detail. For the most part, many of them will be found to be short on their "privacy" promises.
Interesting. The Monero team already have academics verifying the white paper and will soon move onto the code. Also many Bitcoin core developers have scrutinised Monero with no obvious flaw in the ring signature concept. |
|
|
|
IMO, the whole "privacy" coin is premature. Its like one of the "Mac doesn't have virus" or "this a new algo which is GPU resistant" type of thing. Once the coin goes mainstream and toe to toe with bitcoin; it will be scrutinised in greater detail. For the most part, many of them will be found to be short on their "privacy" promises.
Anything that can't be traced will likely never be accepted as a legitimate way to pay for things in the main stream market. It has a market base but it isn't within the main stream. It is called the Black market. smoothie, please note that for the past four years and even today many people are saying that Bitcoin will likely never be accepted as a legitimate way to pay for things in the mainstream market. Bitcoin has been proving these people wrong for a long time, and most of the media still reports Bitcoin as anonymous to the general public. So in the public eye and eye of the average Government official, a decentralized anonymous uncontrollable currency with no ability to stop accounts from moving money is now gaining mainstream adoption, that thing is Bitcoin. Bitcoin is paving the road for currencies like Monero. Everything you said could have been said about Bitcoin even as late as last year. |
|
|
|
Monero: CPU coins are a risk, because eventually they are discovered by botnet operators, and as they begin to take the lions share of mined coins, the network can suffer as a whole and prices can crash. This can also stifle the adoption of the coin. It's happened to countless "CPU" coins already.
(I've considered Monero a CPU coin, because of the 1:1 CPU:GPU performance ratio, and there are much more CPU in the world waiting to be exploited than GPU, and, exploiting CPU is easier, because they dont have the complexities of different card configurations as is the case for GPU.)
As the difficulty has risen 300% or more in the last 30 days, it is possible this is already happening. Of course, it is impossible to prove. But in any case I will be steering clear of this one in terms of both mining and investing/trading.
I thought that CPU:GPU was already 20 times... The only good news about botnets is that they will cause a depression in price whilst the inflation is in it's peak. Thankfully the inflation drops everyday. |
|
|
|
i jumped on the XMR party a few days ago. looks like i didnt time it too well  !! me too we should form a support group You could call it the BBC. Congratulations on your ground floor entry. No one buys at the bottom. Everyone has a drawdown at some point. Yours will be much less than most. Key is to keep averaging in. Never sell until the next ATH+20%. Then sell a smallish fraction to recover funds for the next dip, slowly. You probably know my opinion: whoever wins the monopoly leadership for dark liquidity worldwide will rival bitcoin in the long run. We may just be owners of a significant fraction of global liquidity ten years hence. Only time and hard work can prove it. Do your best to build this economy. Winning will make it worth the effort. I think people in this thread may be overcomplicating the issue a bit. The truth of the matter is that monero is sill just extraordinarily inflationary at this point. But yes. Its clear that an anonymous crypto is going to be a big contender in the future and ive looked at the alternatives. None stack up. If ring signatures actually work that is. I'm willing to take the gamble. im no economist but how do you cure inflation? With time... What are you really asking? |
|
|
|
In my opinion, CryptoNote is doing something much more important than trying to make a quick buck. It's a shame that XMR supporters are so obsessed with their coin and hash rate that they deny strategic development. Come on guys, you do have the highest hash rate, but it is 80% botnets. What's the point in trying to secure a rotten apple? CryptoNote is trying to change the world, while you are interested in your investment payoff. That's puny and unworthy.
I disagree with you. Hal Finney said that if a CryptoCoin that had no real advantage over Bitcoin and were to overtake the value of Bitcoin it would create a disastrous situation where all the CryptoCoins would lose their value. His reasoning was that if investors (1) saw that another coin can overtake Bitcoin, based on hype and manipulation alone it would call into question " can any type of faith based currency (2) actually be a store of value". This store of value is important because many projects die fast if people are not committed to their security, maintenance and continue research and development. If the "store of value" idea was to be undone via a clone without true merit and reason to exist, the investors would be unwilling to invest in the clone because the precedent has now been set that any clone on hype alone will eradicate their investment. As people stop investing their money into miners or buying the coin itself, people see their value fall and begin to stop investing the most important asset in the world, their time. Once time stops being invested into a project the project ceases to exist. This has nothing about making a quick buck. I don't invest in alternative coins often and only moved onto Monero because I saw merit. However if Monero were to fall due to clones that offer very small incremental changes to the code, then I would be a fool to invest my time, money and energy into that competitor because I know the precedent has been set, another coin will be along shortly to ruin that coin, with small incremental changes. This is the crux of Hal Finney's argument. Only coins that offer a massive advantage over the other market participants should be able to take value from a market leader, because that functionality is really adding a true addition to the marketplace. Obviously Bytecoin fills this role, however due to the 80% premine it was automatically unsuitable to be the market leader for a CryptoNote coin, Monero was born to be the restart of the unfair premine. Monero's first and vital innovation is one of the marketplace, Monero offered the first public release of a CryptoNote coin that was not premined. This is the crux of my argument; if there are thousands of CryptoNote clones all fighting each other for market share, with no clear leader, where does the investor park his energies and capital? Without a growing capital base the developers leave to better pastures. Under the current vision of the CryptoNote "team" they are in fact creating a rotten apple, a confused market with no clear leader. It's a mess. Up until Monero I saw a future of about three true market participants; Bitcoin, Ethereum and a Storage based coin. However it is entirely reasonable that Ethereum will also be that storage based coin. Monero adds onto that list as the fourth participant. (1) [Miners and people who buy the coin are both investors] (2) [All CryptoCoins are faith based, they rely on the will of the people to maintain value, rather than a Government taking control and manipulating the market to keep prices at a set standard] |
|
|
|
|
I cannot understand how the CryptoNote team are making such a bad decision whilst also being very intelligent (making CryptoNote in the first place)
The bad decision is this: More clones mean more hashrate spread about thus making all the CryptoNote coins weaker. This is why Satoshi would never advocate hundreds of Bitcoin clones because it harms the overall security of Bitcoin.
The market can support perhaps a handful of coins, but any more and the hashrate dilution starts to seem more like an attack.
I must conclude that the current CryptoNote team are not the original mathematicians and programmers that created CryptoNote and in fact a newer group of people that have inherited the project. This new team are now advocating hashrate dilution that will make each CryptoNote coin more venerable.
There's only one way this can be opposed, the community must vote via their miners a market leader, thankfully Monero now has more hashrate than all the other CryptoNote coins combined and thus a leader has been chosen.
Remember guys and girls, hashrate is very important and not just academic, if all the CryptoNote coins had similar hashrates there could be no market leader as people would be wary of an attack. At the moment it seems that Monero is far more secure than all the other CryptoNote coins.
We should be against hashrate dilution, not advocating it as these "CryptoNote developers" advise.
When this team advocates something that reads like an attack on the security of the CryptoNote ecosystem you have to ask yourself, do these people have our best interests at heart? I say they don't, this move is so immature and dangerous, the only conclusion is that they are not the original creators of CryptoNote but rather a later set of people that have inherited the project and are misinformed.
The monero team is the most active, and they have academics reviewing the code and white paper, they are being more responsible towards CryptoNote than this original team.
|
|
|
|
... What aboufor t blockchain bloating problem? Or how does Cryptonote protect againt double spend in case of 51% attack?
CryptoNote to my best understanding is a raw specification. Blockchain bloat is an issue of a specific implementation. It depends on how an implementation works. BoolBerry seems to have a solution to reduce the size of the blockchain already Will this reference implementation fix the scalability issues? They said it's pretty much the code base of bytecoin plus boolberry and monero code added in. So once Monero fixes the scalability issues then the reference will have them inside. |
|
|
|
Hi! We are the Hitbtc team. Hitbtc is the most advanced exchange. Now everyone can vote for their favorite currency to be added to Hitbtc. You can start voting here: https://hitbtc.com/voteAmong the latest currencies taking part in our vote is Boolberry. So we invite all of you to take part in voting to add it to Hitbtc. Votes from registered users will be multiplied x10!  Can you allow people to see the trading platform without signing in please? |
|
|
|
Is OP legit? I don't believe that the user cryptonote is someone in CryptoNote team. Maybe fake account
Unfortunately things are not so simple - see my posts above that user cryptonote did prove some PART of he is somewhat belongs to official Cryptonote team. May be internal team conflict? I think so too. I think the whole cryptonote team wants mass adoption at whatever costs. But I think there are some elements of that team that want to make profit through mass adoption. In theory, nothing wrong with that. In practice, if this is made through a proxy such as bytecoin, it's done at the expense of the community. One thing troubles me : they could make a lot of profit backing XMR as the market price is very small and the potential growth is enormous. Why dont they ? My hypothesis is that they want profit AND control over the coin they are backing. Anyway, it's all stupid because at the moment only XMR is advancing towards that goal of mass adoption whereas the one hurting that goal are the designers of the technology. It's already a politcal movement that looks a lot like bitcoin. It's a wonder such smart people can't see it - ah greed ! I agree. I fear that the move towards a thousand CryptoNote clones will simply dilute the market, a better idea would be to rally behind Monero and join the core team, in effect this creates a certain trajectory for CryptoNote and positions us for second place beside Bitcoin. I really think this latest move in the CryptoNote world only serves to create more fear, uncertainty and doubt among CryptoNote enthusiasts and weakens all the CryptoNote coins at once. |
|
|
|
It's even harder when you lose hundreds of btc to MtGox.
Just another reason why hoping those mining payouts were going to you guys is delusional. And remember, losing those coins on Gox was another sign of incompetence from Ken. There was no reason for the coins to be on Gox for as long as they were, especially when USD withdrawals were delayed to non-existant. I still maintain that Ken stole the 400 bitcoin and they were never on Gox. He never showed any proof at all. |
|
|
|
It's even harder when you lose hundreds of btc to MtGox.
There is no proof that he lost a single cent with MtGox. There is no proof he didn't nor is there any proof this is a scam, I am not delusional but do get off winding you fuckers up. I always have. HAHAHAHA! I lost 400 bitcoin to the scammer Ken, that is proof enough that this is a scam. The fact that Ken has no business skills and has a history of scamming businesses proves he is a scammer through and through. Ken took our money for the eASIC deal, once that fell through he should have closed up shop and returned as much as possible. Instead he wasted everything on several more projects. The investors never gave Ken bitcoin for " keeping on wasting money on project after project until it's all gone", we gave him money for eASIC. The fact that Ken failed and kept investor funds proves he is a scammer. |
|
|
|
Until and unless ZC can evolve so that it no longer requires a trusted mint, I do not think it can succeed. The overhanging risk of the mint defecting, and secretly issuing unlimited amounts of the currency, is just too great.
Assuming the value would be in moving in and out of ZC to clean bitcoins, why would it be a bad thing if the mint issued unlimited amounts of the currency? Wealth could be kept in BTC and ZC could be held for short amounts of time to clean the BTC. Because the last person holding the unlimited ZC loses once the last BTC is moved out. Or, on a shorter time frame, the value of ZC would decrease as the supply inflates towards infinity and holding ZC for any period of time becomes a risk. The situation will eventually deteriorate to the point that mixing your bitcoin ends up costing you 90%+ of their value. Why would I move my bitcoin into a currency with an infinitely growing supply? |
|
|
|
Price is "low" because of the inflation rate and we expect it to be that way for quite some time still, with a low rise, one feature at a time. The "low price" is more than three times what it was when it landed on Poloniex.
And before Poloniex, it was already regarded as "high" or "pump" in the trading thread by those who had no stake. XMR is still, even at these levels, not a "cheap" coin. It needs to deliver the implicit promises in a timely manner against the exponentially (would be more dramatic to say increasing but that is not correct  ) decreasing new mintage coming to the market. If you don't mind me asking, what implicit promises are being discussed here? The promise to make the CryptoNote software less of a mess and more up to the current standard the Bitcoin core client is in? |
|
|
|
|
Will you be updating the reference code to include changes from the Monero core team?
|
|
|
|
Wish I had never heard of bitcoin securities. Would be much, much, much wealthier with just my original bitcoins.
Same here. Even without my gains on earlier securities, I would still be much much more wealthy if I just held the Bitcoin I bought. Two keywords applied to me, greed and stupidity. I'm hoping I don't repeat the mistakes again in the future. |
|
|
|
Hi there, bit of a noob question.
can someone explain if the anon features of XMR are superior to the new stealth features of VTR...i just cannot get my head round it. I hold many XMR and am onboard for the long term - but just want to keep my eye on any possible competition. many thanks!
VTR? Link? |
|
|
|
|
So what is the deal for investors at this stage?
|
|
|
|
|
So same old same old here. Zumzero is still losing his mind and the investors spend more time fighting each other than doing their best to tear Ken's life apart.
If any of you have money. Go after Ken. If the MSD rules in your favor you will be able to take all his personal assets. I believe the family members to have benefitted from the scam so you might be able to take a few houses and cars.
|
|
|
|
Evan made a choice to devote time to DRK - 2 years - we only have about 1.4 years left folks - maybe he'll renew that contract :-P
Thing is - you'n's need to, as requested by others, to stop re-posting fudders and trolls - over look them - take a higher ground.
...
I'm sure that Satoshi Nakamoto had some issues in the beginning when he first came up with the idea of the block-chain.
But nobody was really watching.
Nobody noticed him.
Nobody cared....
He wrote the code and gave it a try......
I'm sure he failed a few times before figuring out how to make it work on a testnet.
Trail and error is all part of development.
People that think that DRK is suppose to work right out of the box like a new toy, has no clue what development means.
This isn't some kind of a movie where the alleged impossible just happens.
Harry Potter is not gonna wave a magic wand.....
Development takes time - not days or weeks - but months and sometimes years.
Satoshi started development of Bitcoin in 2007, two years in secret before first announcing the white paper and then the code afterwards on a widely watched forum (mailing list). Satoshi made sure Bitcoin worked very well before releasing it. In it's five years since there have only been a couple of major bugs. Darkcoin has had more bugs and errors in several months than Bitcoin had in five years, I find this outstanding considering most of Darkcoin's code is simply Bitcoin code. Satoshi was very responsible regarding Bitcoin's release and stability in the early days, something that Evan just doesn't care about at all. My problem with Darkcoin is that Evan is worshipped like a god here, even though he has made many major mistakes. The first mistake was the coin release in the beginning, he should have restarted the project at that point but he didn't care to. Satoshi probably ended up leaving the Bitcoin project because he released the danger of dev worship, the last thing Satoshi wanted was to turn Bitcoin into a cult with him as the leader. Thankfully we can see how it would have turned out, see Darkcoin. Evan is the Satoshi Jesus, half of the people in this thread think that Evan is going to "conclude" Satoshi's grand cryptocoin experiment. Needless to say the amount of "cult" in this thread is disturbing. Another issue many people have is that the coinjoin concept is deeply flawed and the inventor of coinjoin doesn't even like it anymore. (In comparison to more recent alternatives) I'm finding it very difficult not to unquote you with this follow-up.... BUT Basically - your trying to say that DRK is and would/could be the LARGEST Pump & Dump in Crypto History to date? Even tho you stated yourself as - "Satoshi probably ended up leaving"...... Which means that you really don't have any facts on why Satoshi stepped away. .......... if he every really did and could possible now be under a new Name - etc etc I'm sorry - gotta stop here..... Like I said before - maybe I'm an Idiot but my understanding is that CoinJoin and MasterNodes are not one in the same...... and yes I understand the CoinJoin guy not liking he's 1st thought.....etc etc - - - MN Source has not been released - so until the code is released - I really don't think you know what your talking about 1) I said nothing about pump and dumps... 2) Darksend uses coinjoin. Research coinjoin, coinjoin needs a trusted "trustless" mixer. The mixer is trustless because it can't steal coins, but it's trusted because they can record in and out. That is what a masternode is. 3) Satoshi could have had many reasons to leave, however it is possible that he saw weakness in being the figurehead for his creation, and felt it would fair better and be more decentralized if the community took up the reins. One thing is for sure, if Satoshi stayed it would have turned into a cult, much like Darkcoin has. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
