The only way it could get to $20+ this year is if Bitcoin is up at $20,000. It's possible but it's not going to happen unless a lot of liquidity pours in from Wall Street.
Dunno, maybe we should arrange some kind of an event on Wall Street or something... No need. Just make it easy to use, work on the wallets, make sure the technology remains superior to Bitcoin, and grow the userbase slowly. The community size supports the price through network effect. Think of Blackcoin like a video game console and figure out what exclusive titles you'll offer for Blackcoin. |
|
|
|
I am rebound some of my BLK now !  wrong guy on the wrong account right now or why are you speaking like a 3 year old suddenly? I do not understand what is the problem? People sell and people buy this is a free market. I'm really enjoying of to practice daytranding is very exciting to make money ... on P&D. Guy 90% of the people in Crypto are only daytrading... Like I said I'm already tired of being a good boy from now on I will not miss the chance to earn easy money, I am sorry if someone left burned with this pump, but all part of the game ... Someone win and someone lose, that's how world works. Because ppl have to start believing in good coins and holding or we all lose. Even you whales. BC should be $200.00 per coin by Dec. Won't happen with these massive dumps to jump coins for more pumps. "Good boy" you could 100x your btc, play along. There is no way it will be $200.00 by Dec. At least be realistic in your projections. $20? No. Maybe $2. The only way it could get to $20+ this year is if Bitcoin is up at $20,000. It's possible but it's not going to happen unless a lot of liquidity pours in from Wall Street. |
|
|
|
This is still going guys. let me know if the idea is on or off. I have to let my dealer know about colorscheme etc. in time
also follow me on twitter @jungleman_g
I'm all for advertising, but I have to vote this down for the simple reason that not enough people will see it. I would much rather take that same money to use in magazine advertisements where thousands could see them vs. a few hundred at some airport who might get close enough to actually see what is being advertised. You have my two cents.  Shouldn't there be a way to quantify the effectiveness of each campaign? Shouldn't you measure the impact of every $'s worth of funding on the price of BC? |
|
|
|
Comment from the Bitcoin-development email list . . . I look at this and agree of course that the nodes are decreasing, see, https://getaddr.bitnodes.io/ But when I see stuff in the white paper like "misbehaving nodes" in the context of an "audit agent," a "single non-forking blockchain," the notion of "Misbehaving nodes" that would be "banned from the network" so as to "motivat(e) honest behavior," ~ really, all of this does sound as though a sort of morality is being formulated rather than a mathematical solution. This is not to say that the white paper hasn't addressed a problem that needs to be addressed, namely... the problem of the nodes disappearing, and a few other things. But to take that and then layer onto that the issues associated with proof of stake... There does seem to be a simpler way to address this and I think first without suggesting the complex issue of some kind of thing that would involve dividends for those in a proof-of-stake system, consensus achieved by stake-weighted voting, and so forth, one would be better off removing all references to voting and stake, and determining ways simply to incentivize more substantively those who actually run a full node. Additionally I am hesitant to characterize behavior as has been described in the white paper, as it would seem that (in such a system) there would be an inclination or a tendency to exclude certain patterns or groups of participants rather than determine ways in which all participants or potential peers can serve the network. Morality is math. As long as it's equally applied throughout a system it's useful. So as long as everyone follows the same rules no matter how ridiculous it seems it still creates order. Call it morality or call it algorithm and there is no real difference between the two for a machine. It seems they are more critical of the framing and language you're using than the math behind it. Overall what you intend to do looks a lot like DPoS. We may know whether or not your CPoS scheme can work from a review of the functioning of DPoS on the Bitshares network. It works on very similar principles except with a different metaphor to explain it. The delegates or the trustee would be fired for misbehavior (which is the same as being banned). I also see some similarities between CPoS and NXT. Slight difference is that DPoS is deflationary from the beginning. Transaction fees are burned in DPoS, but there are some very good ideas in your whitepaper which it seems DPoS hasn't thought about so CPoS will be a very interesting experiment. CPoS in my opinion is the right direction to take Bitcoin so you have my vote. Proof of Work is dead and the core devs might be able to save if it they switch from SHA-256 but we all know they cannot for political reasons. The fact that they haven't switched for political reasons is all the proof I need that Bitcoin is centralized. You're attempting to redecentralize Bitcoin and I applaud your effort. |
|
|
|
ALWAYS BET ON BLACK - Update 31
WHAT GOES UP MUST COME DOWN AND VICE VERSA.The continued strong move by DRK has sucked the life out of many altcoins and BC has been significantly waken by all of the traders that did not want to miss the rocket to the dark moon.
DRK became very attractive and different from the rest with dark-send which allows anonymous transactions in the blockchain.
Why are traders forced to cash out of many altcoins to support the rise of another altcoin? This behavior shows we operate in relatively small market with limited capital as a result of the lack of acceptance of this market by the masses.
Here is the correlation between DRK rise and BC fall:
The euphoria of dark-send should be reaching its limit of capital sucking power which will put a brake on a run to the moon. Also we are dealing with open source, so dark-send can be added to other coins like Bitcoin and I suppose BlackCoin too. The me-too syndrome will also catch up with dark-send sobering up some of the traders and putting a cap on the rise of DRK.
I expect a strong rebound from BC anytime soon and we have seen some capital returning to BC to support the selling by the last minute traders who think they will reach their dark moon by tomorrow.
If we have further selling pressure BC could reach as low as 15K from Fibonacci Extensions but the recent activity shows that selling pressure is diminishing and sellers have not been able to take the price below 18K after 4 attempts.
Buy Buy Buy!
Buy-Black
P.S. If you want to read the other reports go here: http://www.dailyblackcoin.com/category/market-analysis-by-buy-black/ Bitcoin already supports CoinJoin. Why would you need Darkcoin when you can just use Blockchain.info? |
|
|
|
Not sure yet, but it'll be GPU mineable from the get go. I find it a big concern that a coin requires an expensive graphic card to be mined. Sorry, but "democracy" and "you need to have expensive hardware" don't mix well together. For me, everything that requires more than 25 dollars of hardware cannot be democratic. 25 dollars is the price of an Arduino, by the way. Time to break out the shoulder high boots to wade through the piles of shit from CPU only coin propagandists. If I want to mine at home, I can buy only 4-10 GPUs and compete relatively well since even *most* large miners will only have something like 100 on the outlier examples. If I want to compete on a CPU coin, spend similar or more money for 10 CPU packages, now I have to compete against a bunch of giant botnets of 50,000 CPUs. Do you need to break out the calculator to figure out which ratio is better? 10:100 or 10:50,000 Why make it mined at all? Why not go with Proof of Stake? Ultimately it is money which decides stake or hashing power. |
|
|
|
If you make a CPU only coin and assuming it remains so over time, you will have huge botnets controlling the coin. It doesn't make it any better.
Another form of centralization. Long ago I realized that botnets are a finite resource, especially with a cpu-only currency there is competition for the same resource, thus if you increase the demand for them, the price will rise eventually to the point where it costs the same as buying the hardware. Problem mitigated or solved with sufficient scale. ASICs and proof-of-stake are worse because there is no hope of keeping them decentralized. I am not only a programmer, I am ( perhaps a polymath) and above demonstrating I am an astute economist. The main problem is concentration of power. That is the whole reason for the decentralization movement. So the most important thing we can aim for is decentralization of knowledge. Centralization of knowledge is one of the main causes of centralization in a Proof of Stake network. Knowledge such as which blockchain to invest in. People who don't understand the difference between DPOS, POS and POW will be at a knowledge disadvantage. As a result they will lose out in the race for the limited token supply. Even if Proof of Stake is decentralized it will still favor those who have the most knowledge so there is always going to be a centralizing force. The question is whether or not it's the kind of knowledge that anyone can acquire and if it's the kind of knowledge anyone can acquire then at least you can say there is no barrier to entry. For example people who think Dogecoin is going to be a great Store of Value for their life savings should have done a bit more research. People who think Proof of Work is going to be as good as a Store of Value as Proof of Stake need to do more research. There will be a lot of centralization around the brightest minds and most knowledgeable persons in a Proof of Stake community while in a Proof of Work community the centralization is around whoever has the most expertise and best equipment. Money is central to both because usually if you want to invest it's going to cost money and if you want to mine it's going to cost money. Usually the more money you have the more you can make up for lack of knowledge or expertise. People who mine the right coin at the right time do so because they either have the knowledge/expertise or they just have a lot of money to buy whatever equipment they need to keep up with the race for tokens. Perfect equality is impossible. All brains do not have equal knowledge. All people aren't on the same place on the starting line. Some people have had years to study programming, to study economics, to study cryptography, and have been waiting for something like Bitcoin to come along so they could play with it. Those people are the majority of the early adopters who were paying attention to these subjects prior to Bitcoin even existing. Then you have people who started paying attention when Bitcoin went over $1, and these people are generally technologists, programmers, geeks, nerds, or whatever you like to call them. But the demographics who understand the technology the best are positioned to benefit from the technology the most and it's always that way even if you try to make it fair. DPOS in my opinion should be measured compared to what is currently out there and not some hypothetical or mythical Proof of Work which doesn't currently exist. CPU Proof of Work is not going to be decentralized unless everyone can 3d print the CPUs. Proof of Work is not even designed to be decentralized because if you wanted true decentralization you would go direct democracy by saying every registered human being gets to vote on every block rather than every CPU gets to vote. There will be way more CPUs than human beings. This favors CPU makers because CPU makers will always have the advantage from the start. It also favors the electric company because most people favoring Proof of Work don't have solar panels to generate their own electricity. You have to pay these third parties just to play the "serious game" we call Proof of Work mining. Proof of Stake is a "serious game" as well but it's simple. Anyone can play this game by simply buying tokens. These tokens act like lottery tickets and by owning them there is a chance that you'll mint new tokens. This could be done in proportion to how many tokens you own (proportional) or it can be randomly distributed such that someone wins a jackpot. In either case this is more decentralized because you remove the need to have expertise in chip making. You also flatten the hierarchy greatly by removing the need to pay an electric company a huge amount. This way the electric company doesn't decide who can and cannot mine profitably anymore (this limits participation). Bitcoin hasn't been fundamentally improved since Satoshi exited years ago.
Mining pools can be algorithmically decentralized, but you will never see this in Bitcoin.
Mining can be decentralized with cpu-only PoW, but you will never see this in Bitcoin. Scrypt is not cpu-only.
Checkpoints are a precaution while the network hashing rate is smaller than for example Google's server farms, but isn't needed after that.
Cpu-only will reach that point much faster than Bitcoin did.
Soon.
It's possible to decentralize POW more than it is. I had some discussions on the topic and the best idea I could come up with was to juggle the hashing algorithm and try to make it pseudo-random or even random. That is really the best you can do. You can make it so people will not know what to invest. Eventually people will start buying all the chips and investing in everything and once again it would centralize around whoever has the most money, but it's definitely better than what Bitcoin is doing. Bitcoin is not decentralized at all and isn't trying to be. This is why I don't understand why they cannot raise the Max_Block_Size because it's already centralized so what difference does it make? Bitcoin has major problems and it's not just ASICs. The Bitcoin community suffers from a concentration and centralization of knowledge. The core developers have so much power because there are so few of them and there are so few of them because Bitcoin code is esoteric for the average programmer to understand. As a result we have a lot of altcoins which exist to allow programmers to learn the code base but also to experiment. That is a good thing because it decentralizes the knowledge and expertise, but for some core devs it could be seen as a bad thing. |
|
|
|
It is time to squash Proof-of-Stake once and for all. It can NEVER remain decentralized. Satoshi's Proof-of-Work is the only known solution to the Byzantine General's Problem (was a known unsolved problem since at least the 1970s). Apologies I've been busy and hadn't had time to squash bytemaster's latest N.A.O.D. (nonsense algorithm of the day). First of all, he never was able to address the issues I raised about Transactions as Proof-of-Stake quoted as follows. This proposal appears to be flawed, unless I am missing something. I have only read the first 4 pages thus far. 1. You propose to decrease the coin rewards as coin-days-destroyed volume increases, so this makes it less costly for an attacker to obtain > 50% of the hash rate assuming the attacker includes all the transactions. You apparently are attempting to imply there is no useful attack to do if the attacker is including the most coin-days-destroyed? Please confirm or deny then I will dig into more analysis of this vector. 2. Also how do you choose between someone who generates a proof-of-work hash with lower coin-days-destroyed several times sooner than the network propagation delay versus another who generates it that much delayed with a higher coin-days-destroyed? If you choose the latter, then you've killed the proof-of-work incentive because it means it will always pay to be later and wait for more transactions to arrive. 3. You claim to defeat my Transactions Withholding Attack, by blacklisting those who send blocks with transactions that were not recently seen by all miners. I retorted against this recently. This centralizes the network (all for one and one for all outcome) by requiring every miner to be responsible for the incoming network connectivity of other miners. And it centralizes the network in other ways, such it can't tolerate a temporary partitioning of the network due to connectivity outages. P.S. By coin-days-destroyed, I assume you mean coin value x days, otherwise you would motivate proliferation of dust. The most significant flaw of any proof-of-stake system and any system that diminishes coin rewards, is it can't distribute currency from the hoarders to the users of the currency, thus it will end up with the hoarders (the banksters) accumulating all the coin and the currency usage dying.
This is because the wealthy spend a much lower % of their net worth than the masses do.
[snip]
Whereas those who actually mine are proactively using their time, ingenuity, initiative and capital to secure the network, thus it seems more capitalistic they should receive the redistribution from the hoarders. Besides it may beis the only viableplausible way to secure the public ledger.
The other attacks you describe all derive from the fundamental reason I declared all non-proof-of-work systems to be insecure back in April.
My logic was mathematically fundamental. The input entropy set is quite deterministic and well known and thus can be preimaged. For example, accumulating a lot of coin-days-destroyed and then targeting them in clever ways to subvert the security.
The randomness (entropy) of each proof-of-work is fundamental and mathematical and it can not be preimaged. It can only be surely defeated with > 50% of the network hash rate. Note I recently offered what I believe to a solution to the selfish-mining attack (the one at hackingdistributed.com that claims 25 - 35% attack).
I am skeptical that you can characterize all possible attack vectors of proof-of-stake in one coherent mathematical proof. Thus you will not know formally what the security is; instead a list of adhoc attacks and counter-measures.
[snip]
Edit: Perhaps coin-days-destroyed in some attack vectors motivates not transacting for long periods of time.
The bottom line is that no proof-of-stake system can ever remain decentralized. They all will require some sort of delegation of reputation to achieve consensus. I would have to go through a laundry list of examples to cover all the cases. For example, in Transactions as Proof-of-Stake it is required to delegate trust of propagation to the other nodes as I explained above. Thus there needs to be some reputation system to enforce this, e.g. blacklisting, whitelisting, etc.. All the other proof-of-stake systems have a requirement for some form of delegated reputation. I have many times explained to bytemaster and others the fundamental problem is that any system that attempts to replace proof-of-work will rely on some form of reputation, and reputation is centralization. And centralization is precisely what decentralized crypto-currency is not supposed to be because centralization will always end up control and manipulated (i.e. it is a fiat system). Trust is orthogonal to reputation and centralization. I can trust Proof-of-Work, which is decentralized trust without reputation. Reputation isn't needed in Proof-of-Work, because the input entropy is fresh (can't be preimaged) on every new TB.
You can 75% attack it if you like, but your nodes wont have any trust, so that block chain will just be ignored.
(In any non-Proof-of-Work design, ) It is mathematically impossible for there to be external consensus trust of the honest chain if the dishonest chain is controlled by more than 51% of the peers. We've covered some of the scenarios upthread, and it always boils down to that the external viewers can not know who to trust except by trusting the majority of peers. The only mathematical way around this is to centralize the network, by placing more trust in some peers than others over time. Indeed long-term reputation is a mathematically viable alternative to Proof-of-Work. This is centralization. There are tradeoffs. So this is not "7 billion individually watching the network", but rather a fewer # of peers with reputation being trusted. This is just the political power vacuum all over again with its contingent problems of vested interests Olsen power scramble: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=226033 ( No Money Exists Without the Majority) Notwithstanding the above, any non-Proof-of-Work system can be attacked with much less than 51% of the peers, due to the fact that the input entropy is preimageable, as I explained upthread. Again the only way to work around this is to trust some established peers to guard against this. Financial transactions must be recorded in a public or private ledger trusted by both the spender and the recipient, otherwise funds could be unspent or double-spent to a plurality of recipients. To provide a ledger that can't be captured, Satoshi described a proof-of-work (PoW) scheme where transaction peers communicating over the network compete to be the first to solve a computational puzzle which is unique for each block of transactions added to a public ledger. The security of this ledger against double-spends has three (3) essential requirements.
1. The computational puzzle can't be preimaged, i.e. nothing can be known about solving the puzzle until the prior block's puzzle is solved.
2. Without at least 50% of the aggregate computational power of all transaction peers, it is not possible to create a modified chain of blocks starting from any present or past block, which would contain more blocks than the block chain controlled by the remaining cooperating peers. Thus the longer chain is trusted.
3. The block chain is cryptographically linked in forward order, such that the historical proof-of-work and transactions can be independently verified at any time in the future. Thus the transaction peers may leave and rejoin the network at will without need for a trusted centralized storage.
Note security point #1 eliminates from consideration PoW schemes in which the puzzle is some real-world computational work because the puzzles are known a priori and are thus pre-imageable. Non-PoW voting and membership schemes disqualify because the ordering of designation of authority (to decide which transactions are in each block) to transaction peers is pre-imageable, or requires peers trusted by reputation which is centralizing on a slippery slope towards Olsen capture.
You must also consider the negative impacts of design features when you state the positive impacts.
Reputation has many downsides:
a. It can be stolen, e.g. threaten first to extort private key, then kill, and keep key.
b. Censorship based on metadata which doesn't always correlate rationally.
c. Discriminate against early adopters out of jealously, i.e. retribution for #b.
d. Regulatory authorities can require the BitName same as they now do Social Security # and Id. They can now establish the BitName is real, because it has (duration) reputation.
The high cost to transfer or revoke a name also has many downsides, e.g. see #d.
I thinking the pool operator (server) does so little relative to work of the pool miners that it doesn't need to charge a very high fee. Thus there isn't much ability (incentive for pool miners) to undercut competitors based on fee.
So there just needs to be a slightest incentive to encourage pool miners to seek out another pool as a pool grows large. This will encourage a poliferation of pools.
How do pool miners know that a pool server isn't cheating them by paying some of the earnings to themselves pretending to be a pool miner?
Go down that line of thought and you will discover what I am thinking.
The only way you can prove a pool isn't cheating is by estimating the hash rate of the pool and comparing it to the number of blocks found. Unfortunately, you could probably still skim a couple of a percent this way. Modern protocols (GBT & Stratum) both have the full coinbase transaction visible to the miners, meaning you can verify that the block being built will be paid to a certain address or has a certain message encoded in the block that identifies the pool. This allows you to audit if the pool is trying to skim blocks if certain users start seeing work without a coinbase message that identifies the pool. In the case of BTC Guild, it's both, they always pay to the same address and always include "Mined by BTC Guild" in the coinbase message. It's not no-trust, but all it would take is a few % of users monitoring this to determine if a pool was trying to skim blocks by sending a certain % of work that doesn't include identifying marks. How could anything less than 100% of the pool miners know if some of the coinbase transactions were to addresses not owned by pool miners who contributed shares? Since you can never know if you are the 100% (because mining pool shares* are not recorded in the block chain), thus seems to me there is no way to verify if there is skimming or not, as bytemaster and I wrote. *For those who don't know the terminology, a pool share is a proof-of-work hash below some threshold that is easier than the current network difficulty. It might also be a block solution. Why don't you just use P2Pool? Is there any reason?
I was waiting for bytemaster to answer because I wanted to know his thoughts. Seems to me that you have no way to stop the Share Withholding Attack since it is decentralized. And every peer has to run more of a full client if I am not mistake. And there is a lot more overhead I believe. And perhaps also much less resistance against denial-of-service flooding. Frankly I didn't analyze for long enough to be very sure of my initial intuition which is to stay away from it. I know it is generally impossible to enforce reputation on a 100% decentralized system. So I am intuitively skeptical of P2Pool. P.S. I won't have time to go back here and debate. I am technically qualified and I am 100% sure I am correct. Programming, AI, and related fields are about iterative improvement. The measure is whether DPOS is more decentralized than Proof of Work. Proof of Work or Proof of Stake centralizes around whoever has the most money and expertise/knowledge. The barrier to entry with Proof of Stake is money, while the barrier to entry with Proof of Work is also money but expertise as well. You can have the money to buy the latest chip but if you don't make chips then you're never going to be able to mine as efficiently as the chip designers, manufacturers, etc. I'll dive deeper into this at a later time. These are only my initial comments but as you can see I'm in favor of DPOS (and Proof of Stake in general) over Proof of Work. I think both can be centralized by design but Proof of Work is centralized currently and while Proof of Stake is an iterative improvement over Proof of Work. |
|
|
|
Basically they needed funds to set up their safecoin network so they made this IPO. Now the mastercoins they received are pretty useless as they can't make much selling them due to no market depth and they can't use them to buy equipment directly. But the BTC on the other hand is what they're using right now to set up safecoin. The issue is that they're using the BTC investor funds and not the msc to set up safecoin, but they've given those investors the least bang for their buck.
Why do you think maidsafe stopped accepting msc during their IPO? They told everyone that it was to give BTC investors an opportunity to buy, but the most obvious reason is that they needed BTC much more than mastercoin. MSC can't pay for the servers they say they need.
I'm starting to doubt the legitimacy of a big portion of the MSC investors too. If they were able to purchase a huge amount of msafe to 'save' some for the btc investors, who's to say that they didn't purchase a huge portion in small chunks as well? After all, the investments are going back into their pockets.
I wonder if there would be grounds for a lawsuit by BTC investors if safecoin does actually take off in the future?
Rofl have you actually read what you are saying? 1. There is zero grounds for any kind of lawsuit. Dodgy IPO's have led to people serving jail time. I guess you were one of the people who said pirate40 would never get in trouble for running a Bitcoin ponzi. "excuse me officer i would like to report a crime, i bought into an IPO and got exactly what was offered to me , my sending those bitcoin counted as a verbal contract that i would receive a certain amount of tokens, i received the exact amount of tokens stated in the agreement, which by my sending btc to the deposit address i was entered into said verbal contract. I wish to complain that some other people got it for a better price than me therefore getting more for a lower price" 1. There is zero grounds for any kind of lawsuit. Pirate40 created what was like a digital hedge fund offering huge profits to investors and ran off with the money Maidsafe held an IPO for interested parties to support a coin, their investment would be in exchange for tokens to later be traded into a currency. Some people were able to buy those tokens for less than others. No mention of Huge profits or gains for investors. if you want to carry on trying to connect 2 things that are completely unrelated and would be seen completely differently under law, especially since maidsafe has performed as advertised currently. Its not good how they have performed, i would say even i am a little pissed off at how they have handled it. But a more main concern of mine is the next 1-2 months of inactivity while they set everything up and test the testnet out and hope there isn't any problems delaying release even longer. That is more damaging to the currency considering its on an open exchange that cannot withdraw and has lots of impatient people waiting to escape with a quick buck or 2 profit as it begins to maybe rise on the news. It still doesn't change the fact : There is zero grounds for any kind of lawsuit (in this particular case and at this particular moment) I agree there are no grounds for a lawsuit and it would be counter productive for all sides and all communities. Lawsuits should be off the table. What they did was similar to a Kickstarter campaign where they had us donate Bitcoins or Mastercoins to receive Safecoins. They gave a discount to the Mastercoin holders. While they may have botched the campaign, they did the best they could. It's now over and we have to move on. If you feel the Bitcoin community was wronged then you can give a discount to Bitcoin when you launch your project. If you want you can even airdrop onto the addresses who donated to this campaign or say people who purchase your product from these addresses get a discount. In a free market anyone can give special deals to anyone else. This isn't anything like a scam, or fraud, because they announced the deal and followed through on it. |
|
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure that women in this space don't want to be treated as "props" and "dollfaces".
I don't think it's a good idea to have a Blackcoin cheerleader. If she actually thinks Blackcoin is cool then she might be valuable to the community but why pay an actress who doesn't want anything to do with the Blackcoin community?
Don't be surprised if this is used to smear the Blackcoin community and accusations of sexism appear in the media.
|
|
|
|
The coin is down because the pool is down... It's that simple, look at the past, each time the pool went down the coin went down quite a bit and once it came back up it went back up. It's time to buy.
I think this post is right. |
|
|
|
I'm definitely still trying to decide about this all too, but I think manipulation has been way too easy, and if implemented correctly, it would also, on the flip side, be easy to stop, at least for a bit, while at the same time, continuing to distribute coins in more hands. The simple threat of having an equal match for a whale trying to bring prices down so dramatically could at least make them pause to decide if it's worth losing coins for. I think the devs creating Black Shield gave the whole concept more credibility in my mind, and in a way, does add value to the coin (I can see it: Black Shield and Black Harpoon and whatever else comes, helping, even a little, in protecting your altcoin investment from some market manipulation). I know it's a part of every market, but I figure it's an innovative thought and new for a coin, which is right up BlackCoin's alley anyhow...maybe change the game a bit?  You have a warriors attitude about this. I rarely see communities with members this committed to making their product a financial success. If we all do everything we can do to keep adding value to Blackcoin then it's only a matter of time before we receive value from what we've given. Give to receive. |
|
|
|
The coolest thing about this system, and that for example:
Realise that has a sale wall 45000@50BTC if we take a good bite, about 10-15 BTC, the wall will disappear like magic, and if the sell wall keeps steady, the buyers will eat it until we see the bones whale. People need to lose their fear of buying into walls! If we do something like that we do not need spend all our ammunition in a single wall, we will give good bites and if the wall is false it will be removed.
Nothing there. All I see is 17 Sell Wall @ 42999 It's an example Perhaps the multipool should allow donations to both 'blackshield' and 'harpoon' funds. Agreed... if the multipool has a % go to the superbuy it can catch whales by surprise so when they try to sell it would have to be multiple people cashing out instead of just a couple. But I should warn the community that you need at least 300 btc to pull this off. People are saying less and thats just not the case. How do you know the pools aren't the ones dumping? Where are the whales spawning from? |
|
|
|
We also still need more sites, a lot of us developers are working on releasing projects but we still could use: multi-sig escrow site or software to make it easier for merchants to take BC.
Once I get my project rolling I will be using the profits to fund other BC related projects. So get started working on your ideas.
We need a mailing list then. Developers need to know each other. Also there are some really brilliant ideas floating around which I'm not going to discuss in public but developers may be needed in the near future. We have to think of Blackcoin as a decentralized autonomous corporation. It's a crypto-business, our faith in each other and hard work is what gives the black tokens value. blackcoin needs POS integration. no not proof-of-stake.. Point of Sale. so we can get blackcoin accepted at retail outlets. we also need to find a way to offer competitive prices for blackcoin buyers. maybe we can look also at merchants who are already into crypto. like tigerdirect and overstock.com. try to see if we can get them interested in also accepting blackcoin.
+1 |
|
|
|
|
Oh yeah and one more thing, don't dump your coins. If you have to take some profits off the table wait until the price is high enough where you keep 90% of your shares to get your initial investment.
If you sell most of your shares you're hurting your future self by removing opportunities you could have if the price does go up to $1, or $5. Think about this, if you have enough Blackcoins right now where you could pay yourself a years worth in salary then you should not dump.
If you can live off your Blackcoin holdings at $5, or at $1, then why dump for 25 cents? Don't be the guy who spent his Bitcoins on Pizza.
|
|
|
|
Howdy everyone! Please allow me to introduce myself: My name is Clay,and I am a graduating senior at the University of Texas. I must say, it is quite the pleasure to be part of such a large, active, and continually expanding community that is blackcoin, well hell crypto currencies in general. I personally own some BTC and BC holdings(in no way do I own an amount I wish I did lol). A little bit of thanks is in order for the wonderful devs and members of the community for working diligently to bring the rest of us an amazing and useful innovation. I hope that all of your efforts are rightfully respected and rewarded in the future;it takes a special type of person to look challenge, adversity, and possible failure in the eyes and give zero f***s, and go on anyway. What brings me on here tonight, is that I see people involved in this wonderful movement moving in many directions, some proceeding forward post-haste,not looking backwards, some running off with their money bags to the bank, and some(more like many of us), not sure where exactly we stand in this whole thing. Im addressing all of us inbetweeners, our numbers are growing by the day. Our numbers grow not because we don't believe in blackcoins potential, but rather because so far many of the things in our lives seem to follow the cardinal rule, "if it seems too good to be true, it is." I understand how easy it is to see something climb up and succeed; knowing in the back of our minds that this will probably be hit down soon,its only a matter of when. I joined this community during the height of the first large spike up, and pitfall down. I read all of my research, read all of the specs, read all of the hype and detraction, and like all of us everyday folks did, i bought in waaayyy late to my liking! Of course, overnight, I watched my 2000$ i scraped together to invest turn into about $200 in a matter of 2 hours. Id imagine all of you would be saying that i must have been out of my damn mind, why on earth did i hold on to what I had, let alone what kept me from going and playing in traffic? It took me a bit of some unwanted sobering up, but then hit occurred to me what exactly I was truly dealing with.I saw a beaten, but not broken community unfazed and undazed. Instead of closing shop, they opened more doors. Instead of going quiet, they went out louder, prouder, even more excited than before. It amazes me this level of partnership between thousands, perhaps hundred of thousands and more soon, of absolute strangers, coming together with ideas and tributes, and passion;something i unfortunately can not say that I can see around me in but my humble daily life. These folks are slowly but surely building something remarkable, and are not only letting us watch it transparently, but encouraging us to be a part of turning this dream into reality. This led me to realize that I did not just walk into an investment, but rather something more. It made me realize, that I walked into a shared destiny. If there is anything I have learned from just being a part of this for the few days I have, is that despite the uncertainty that surrounds us everyday in the cryptocurrency world, and the outside normal world, that for once a community can move past barriers, move past uncertainty, do the things "we can", when others say "you can not". Devs and active supporters, keep doing what youre doing and dont look back, it, at least to me, seems apparent that people appreciate and believe in your coins' philosophy and opportunity. Whales, thank you for allowing the rest of us to buy some of the coins at a nice discount. Im all for making money, and im sure you guys will continue to do so, but every coin you sell is another opportunity for someone new to get involved. Newbies and inbetweeners, its ok to panic, and im sure you will continue to do so. Just know that you have a community that understands this, and will continue to keep working on everything. IMO, if there is anything you can do help mitigate your losses and keep this coin strong, if you MUST PANIC, sell or buy HALF of what you originally set in your mind if you see rapid movement all of a sudden. There is a chance you wont kick yourself later either way, as you kept your mind and your options open. With this coin, as well as cryptocurrencies in general, we are given a rare opportunity that many things in this world, especially in the realm of investments, don't have, the chance for EVERYONE to be a part of it, to control this thing's destiny. We can all make this useful or useless. We can make us all together rich, or throw ALL our money in a ditch
Welcome to the Blackcoin community. This is a long term investment so please take a seat and enjoy the ride. I can say that there are plans in the works which could dramatically increase the long term value of Blackcoin, so I will not be selling my holdings. The advice I'll give to others is based on what I did myself. I bought Blackcoins when they were around 5000 satoshi or less. I bought a very small amount, and when the price rose to a point where for 10% of my shares I could take my initial investment off the table I did that. When it went to 10,000 and above I didn't have any risk of loss. I took my initial investment off the table and was able to enjoy the dramatic rise. When it reached 60,000 satoshi I bought some more with the intention of waiting until it's 100,000-200,000 satoshi and taking some profit again. People who invest should have patience, it's just as likely to reach 100,000 satoshi as it was to reach 10,000 satoshi from the 5000 satoshi I bought in at. You have to know when to take your profit off the table and once you do that then you can focus exclusively on doing the work necessary to bring Blackcoin to new heights and believe me it's going there. Since you came into it just recently my advice to you would be not to take your profit right now and just wait it out if you have faith that the community which includes you and others can bring the price and value of Blackcoin up to a point where you can cash out some of your shares and have $2000 while still keeping the majority of your holdings. Here is some advice though to maximize your investment, figure out what you can do to open more doors for Blackcoin so that it becomes more valuable. If you can accept it then accept it. If you can write code then go write useful apps. If you can make a website then make a website. If you don't have this kind of expertise then introduce people to each other. Something everyone here can do.
1. Come up with 1 good carefully thought up idea which can increase the value of Blackcoin long term. 2. Set a goal to introduce at least 1 new person a week to Blackcoin. 3. Set a goal to introduce at least one highly skilled, talented person to another highly skilled, talented person in the Blackcoin community. Keep figuring out how to market Blackcoin, keep coming up with new ideas, keep introducing people to each other, and keep pushing forward. |
|
|
|
What's the deal with this insane volume of whitecoin all of a sudden?
I've read a bit about it but can't figure out why there are so many investers
It's just another blackcoin copy right?
It's all about marketing. Blackcoin community, I highly suggest you do a better job marketing your coin. If your volume isn't high enough then do something which makes news, grabs attention, and makes people want to buy Blackcoin. marketing? Blackcoin have the best marketing next to bitcoin. go do some research before throwing in stupid arguments. I have done my research. I never said Blackcoin didn't have the best marketing. I said the Blackcoin community needs to do a better job. The competition is about who is better at marketing these coins and if Blackcoin cannot beat Whitecoin at marketing it will lose to Whitecoin. The Whitecoin fork was to divide and conquer the Blackcoin community. It was rising too fast and don't be surprised of the people who created Whitecoin are holding large amounts of Litecoins too. Push forward with your efforts. Don't let up on showing the world which coin is best. They can always to a better job. But whitecoin doesnt have any marketing at all. truth to be told. therefore, blackcoin already beated whitecoin at marketing. The only reason why whitecoin has its succes is because blackcoin has its succes and all the people that lost money on the pump try to get it back using the whitecoin train. I haven't lost any money. I sold at 10,000 sat. Honestly I should have waited until it was 90.000 sat but I didn't feel like I lost any money. I still kept some BC too which I made an agreement with myself not to sell until after BC surpasses $1 (and we all know it will). Why would any of you sell for less than $1 unless you have 100,000 BC or more? Don't sell any BC until you can pay for 1 year salary. |
|
|
|
What's the deal with this insane volume of whitecoin all of a sudden?
I've read a bit about it but can't figure out why there are so many investers
It's just another blackcoin copy right?
It's all about marketing. Blackcoin community, I highly suggest you do a better job marketing your coin. If your volume isn't high enough then do something which makes news, grabs attention, and makes people want to buy Blackcoin. marketing? Blackcoin have the best marketing next to bitcoin. go do some research before throwing in stupid arguments. I have done my research. I never said Blackcoin didn't have the best marketing. I said the Blackcoin community needs to do a better job. The competition is about who is better at marketing these coins and if Blackcoin cannot beat Whitecoin at marketing it will lose to Whitecoin. The Whitecoin fork was to divide and conquer the Blackcoin community. It was rising too fast and don't be surprised if the people who created Whitecoin are holding large amounts of Litecoins too. The market manipulators want to get you to sell your BC. Push forward with your efforts. Don't let up on showing the world which coin is best. |
|
|
|
What's the deal with this insane volume of whitecoin all of a sudden?
I've read a bit about it but can't figure out why there are so many investers
It's just another blackcoin copy right?
It's all about marketing. Blackcoin community, I highly suggest you do a better job marketing your coin. If your volume isn't high enough then do something which makes news, grabs attention, and makes people want to buy Blackcoin. |
|
|
|
This is huge. I am SO glad I decided to hold on to my lovely Blackcoins - Fuck the haters, BC was sold not because people didnt like it but because they were greedy and wanted to buy it back cheaper. The coin is back - the trend is up and will continue to go up until people run out of BTC - once more we shall suck all the BTC out of the shitcoins and into the blackhole - People can see the potential to triple their portfolio value at least - BUY baby BUY!
There is something far bigger in the works behind the scenes. I'm not going to discuss it or announce it but it's better than Blackdoge. I would recommend everyone to hold onto their Blackcoins because if the plan goes through Blackcoins could be worth a lot more. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
