thanks. after reading anonymints back and forth with you guys i was under the impression that pruning the bc was questionable and he seems to think it can't be done. it way over my head but he does seem to know his stuff. to clarify he did say it's not possible right? i saw the bbr guy pruned or is pruning some stuff but anonymint claims it's not near enough, correct?

i've seen people talk about the transaction provability part several times but forget the specific phrase they used. i'll check into it and get back to you.

so if i send you some xmr for something and you say you did not get it is there a transaction hash on the bc i can point to and prove it?

thanks for your time.

Any other opinions on cryptonite?

Sure. It will be listed that you kept it all, for the purpose of donating it to Monero. (I have the feeling that I am a greater beneficiary of Monero's success than you, so I should not be entirely sad that the chain did not continue on your part..)

Everybody is free to form an opinion about what is untowardly or not.   

Are you kidding me? Ask eizh, tacotime and smooth to post here if they mined from launch or not.

You are nothing but a dumb cheerleader who has forced himself onto this coin as a "core" team member. You are not needed. This coin will be better off without dumb propagandists like you and it will really take off then.

You could do as I did and publish on the Cryptology ePrint Archive. That's good for exposure, but, lacking peer-review, not so good for academic merit:-(

You are misinformed. You and othe are not really "developers" anyways. You are more marketing and strategy and busy with propaganda. tacotime is the only real developer and quite frankly sad to see him now being involved with this.

Check in BitMonero launch thread. eizh, tacotime, smooth were all there since Block1. Smooth was selling BMR since the beginning and had immenese mining power at his disposal. (Not dissing smooth. You guys keep spreading false propaganda and nowadays outright lies, knowingly or otherwise and dragging some others down with your shit).

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563821.0

I'm starting to doubt there is really a good reason for this besides people wanting to pump and dump. The original is starting to get more and more traction in the community (beyond what may or may not exist on the darknet). It will be hard for a clone to overcome that lead.

If anything I'd propose a bitcoin spin-off clone instead. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0

I've been mining BCN and I'll support it just because I firmly believe in the need for anonymity, but there would be a tinge of regret that we could've had something better.

Brad!! No outgoing transactions in history! where can I find the ID,?
The money goes to your wallet!
You cheater!

Covers - testing!


To you coins, steel throat and you choked. asshole!
Fagot.

This release is experimental and should not be used in production, but for testing purposes only. It is meant to bring the core development team a bigger tester base for using the new daemon and rpcwallet

If it was there for the purpose of giving someone an advantage, it really isn't the same thing. Ideally, optimization would not be necessary, because a crippled hash wouldn't be used.

is there such thing as completely untraceable payments in the crypto currency world? I know bitcoin can be tracked through the blockchain- like when sheepsmarket was hacked and the guy followed him through hundreds of accounts and a tumbler. You would think for something as hardcore on anonymity as the crypto world there would be less transparency...

Is Monero more secure than CLOAK?

I have no complaints and no gripes with how the coin is being developed. I think it is the right way to develop a coin that is privacy and security orientated. I think my post might have had a bit of an anti-Monero tone to it and I didn't mean for it to - I think I was just launching off onto a mini rant about useability and not taking the wider context - but fundamentally, I think Monero is heading in the absolute right direction for what it was designed to achieve.

I feel Monero is rapidly heading into the "user-friendly" proportion of crypto users. Not everybody is comfortable with CLI wallets and we need to accept that. When a good 95% of other alts out there are Qt-based - with a nice shiny front-end GUI with logos and taskbar icons and cross-platform compatability for use on shiny MacBooks, Microsoft Surface tablets and desktop Windows units, which users know how to use and abuse - when these users are then confronted with Monero - a (at first glance) CLI-only wallet, I don't think anyone can blame them for being surprised. I was, when I first opened the wallet, and I use CLI every single day at work. I think the cries for an official GUI are warranted - those users who have no technical background and are only into cryptos for the trading aspect are not going to appreciate the CLI interface. The sad truth is there are a lot of users who come from this background. The high rollers with the huge BTC wallets are those users. Day traders and investors are often not technical - they come from banking, stocks and shares professions. They may not have the time nor the patience to get to grips with the CLI. They just want something that works and works well. Qt (for the most part) provides that and I think Monero is loosing out a bit in that regard.

This is my opinion, this isn't fact. Whilst we can say "learn to use the CLI" or "just go and get the unofficial .NET or Qt wallet" that won't stop people who don't have the time/don't want to use an unofficial client abandoning Monero. Usability is a huge factor in any product when it comes to uptake from the consumer. The wallet being CLI-only isn't a problem as such but it is something to discuss long-term. If we don't want to attract users that don't want to learn how to use the CLI then who do we want to attract? And does that then mean that Monero is only for a certain user group and not for everyone?

Points to mull over I suppose.

Checking Github is all fine and good, but we should also take into account that not everyone will be able to understand progress by checking a dev repository.

I set up some guidelines in the donation thread, one is the accountability and transparency in the use of donations:
- who decides how money is spent
- who spends it
- how is it accounted for and monitored.

I kindly ask the devteam to write a few lines about this, so I feel much better to donate and promote others to do so.

EDIT: I don't have any distrust towards Monero devs, but there's a certain Forum that calls me Donator for the reason that I donated 10 BTC to them and none of it has been used for anything useful, as far as I know.

what about the scalability problem from bloating and the mass adoption issue of non provable transactions. seems like those issues would prevent mass adoption.

so for example if you have voting and make it in CNY - anyone can transfer Crypto to a crypto listed there and then buy CNY to vote on a currency.

What just happened?

A - Well you know that the people that voted on the currency have an account because
B-  they had to log in and transferred a crypto to CNY  on your platform.
C- this means then that there was a cost and it doesn't discriminate The cost was in both Time and a small amount of CNY
D - so you make a vote work XXX CNY - a fairly low cost

but look what had to be done to achieve the vote THIS is the important part about voting.

If we allow user only have one vote, they can register more account to vote.
If we forbid new account, other would not visit our website.
It is a mind-bending problems

I'm long time lurker too, want to ask why is a new update taking so long, is there trouble in development? are more donations needed? other coins are getting ahead (CLOACK, BOLBERRY...)