tabnloz
Legendary
 Offline
Activity: 961
Merit: 1000
|
 |
January 18, 2016, 05:00:15 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 18, 2016, 07:20:33 AM |
|
Yes a close source blockchain, with bank nodes, and no mining. Like what blockchain is that. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 18, 2016, 10:09:04 PM |
|
Bumping up against the hard limit is probably wastefully expensive for this "attack"
What expense? You're suggesting mining is (or can be) free? That's absurd. Even if it were free, this attack still costs you the reward. I am suggesting the State (or those corrupt who control it) can charge the cost of mining to the collective (think the Three Gorges Dam that wrecked environmental devastation downstream, upstream and derivative effects all over China). I have made this point numerous times. And apparently (after everyone said I was crazy), it came true in China and if true was a factor that enabled China to capture an estimated 67% of the mining and 51% attack Bitcoin. Documentation of these statements is in my vaporcoin thread. If the profit from shorting is greater than the reward, then it doesn't cost you anything. The free mining cost just makes it more likely you can sustain it long enough to reap your reward. How do we know the Chinese won't milk the investors while the block reward is high (mining at near $0 cost charging it the cost to the collective) and then also profit by shorting it all the way down from $1000. We are bunch of naive geeks who are being reamed (mined) by savvy traders and strategists. These are no different conceptually than Rothschild's and Rockefeller's methods of yore. The players and technological field change, the game remains the same. (Yeah I am crazy conspiracy theorist whose analysis is always wrong) Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite. |
|
|
|
trollercoaster
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1001
|
|
January 18, 2016, 11:44:51 PM |
|
The Philippines is catching up to us with this crap, it started here as a voluntary thing, is now mandatory ofcourse. I did manage to get away without chipping my dog as I refused to identify myself as the owner, and told the council worker to sort out any issues they have to talk with the dog, she declined to talk with the dog.  |
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 19, 2016, 12:38:24 AM |
|
They really admire us and want to emulate. Except I doubt they will so clever as to tell the bitch to talk to the bitch. Lol. That made my day.  |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 19, 2016, 09:21:07 PM |
|
Anonymity is looking to me to be more and more unrealistic as something that everyone does: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1219023.msg13610150#msg13610150I still hold out hope for mixers that are optional (and based on Zerocash). But for that to be useful we need to make decentralized, permissionless crypto currency popular. Otherwise the mixers will be useless anyway. |
|
|
|
OROBTC (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1852
|
|
January 20, 2016, 03:46:37 AM |
|
...
Lurching into some new terrain here, I pass along the news that I am about halfway through G. Edward Griffin's The Creature from Jekyll Island. It took me long enough to get around to reading this book. It is a strongly worded and apparently well-documented book showing the Socialist (hence ultimately TOTALITARIAN) players before the founding of the Federal Reserve, during and afterwards to this day.
It is a tad conspiratorial, but I believe that much of Griffin's contentions could be verified, as I have seen many of them before. The Fabians (Socialists in the UK) did get money from Cecil Rhodes (and what famous (later on) American got a Rhodes Scholarship in the 1960s? - I'll leave that one as an exercise for the reader, LOL).
Many of the "usual suspects" are discussed, but there are more references in the book than anything I have read at Zero Hedge, for example.
If Griffin is even halfway correct, than Economic Totalitarianism has been, is, and will be with us (for a long long time). I will read the rest of the book before I review, perhaps at my blog, perhaps here.
|
|
|
|
|
trollercoaster
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1050
Merit: 1001
|
|
January 21, 2016, 12:03:47 AM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 21, 2016, 02:56:57 AM |
|
I think I did correct my myopia in the subsequent reply to him. And I think the points reached sort of a stalemate. I don't dismiss his point, but if that white paper above is our concern, then none of the software we use is trustworthy. Okay I understand the point that doing something once and we all have to rely on that, is different than we all each download our software and run diverse hardware. But is it? Seems we all are running the hardware made by Intel and all the download links run through routers controlled by TPTB. So all-in-all, I accepted his point. I think anonymity is a clusterfuck. Given the way Zerocash's forum treated me (they removed all my posts after they realized I was explaining serious flaws and challenges), I don't expect any success from them either. I'd like to move on away from anonymity. Maybe one day in the future we could make some mixers based on Zerocash (long after their effort has faded into the dust) and maybe use it for some few esoteric uses for anonymity. But reliable anonymity on a widescale is unfortunately a delusion that even I had to finally come to grips with. Sad to say. As for unreliable anonymity, I can do that now with Bitcoin. I just go use an unregistered wireless network connection. Eventually that will be impossible, but for now it is available in some jurisdictions. If someone could identify a use for ring mixing that applied to businesses who don't mind if the NSA is tracking their privacy, then perhaps I could be convinced there is a market. But as I wrote before, the NSA has employees and those employees can't be trusted to not sell your privacy to your competitors. Corruption is the rule, not the exception. A mouse will always eat the cheese. I start to comprehend now how it might be true when Martin Armstrong says we might descend into a Dark Age. The only way I can think to fight back now is go for popularity and control in the hands of the people. Win the political war. |
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 21, 2016, 11:57:00 AM |
|
I am suggesting the State (or those corrupt who control it) can charge the cost of mining to the collective (think the Three Gorges Dam that wrecked environmental devastation downstream, upstream and derivative effects all over China). I have made this point numerous times. And apparently (after everyone said I was crazy), it came true in China and if true was a factor that enabled China to capture an estimated 67% of the mining and 51% attack Bitcoin. Documentation of these statements is in my vaporcoin thread.
If the profit from shorting is greater than the reward, then it doesn't cost you anything. The free mining cost just makes it more likely you can sustain it long enough to reap your reward. How do we know the Chinese won't milk the investors while the block reward is high (mining at near $0 cost charging it the cost to the collective) and then also profit by shorting it all the way down from $1000.
We are bunch of naive geeks who are being reamed (mined) by savvy traders and strategists. These are no different conceptually than Rothschild's and Rockefeller's methods of yore. The players and technological field change, the game remains the same. (Yeah I am crazy conspiracy theorist whose analysis is always wrong)
Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.
Thats not how governments work, for the moment at least. Governments could already just do a covert operation on any bank or financial institute and steal their money if they want. Or publiccly seize all their assets or nationalize it. They can already do that, on far bigger sums than bitcoin, so it doesnt even make sense. But they are not doing it, because it doesnt make sense, they just use the classical regulation and taxation tools. I dont think bitcoin will get on their radar while it's below 100 billion $, after it hits that threshhold, we could see some sort of taxation and regulation being pushed. |
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 21, 2016, 02:04:52 PM |
|
We are bunch of naive geeks who are being reamed (mined) by savvy traders and strategists. These are no different conceptually than Rothschild's and Rockefeller's methods of yore. The players and technological field change, the game remains the same. (Yeah I am crazy conspiracy theorist whose analysis is always wrong)
Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.
If the elite join bitcoin, then its a lot better. They need to hide their wealth too after Switzerland pulled off their bank secrecy with the Cayman Islands and other places. If they join bitcoin, then it will be better for all of us. |
|
|
|
|
MF Doom
|
|
January 21, 2016, 02:37:50 PM |
|
We are bunch of naive geeks who are being reamed (mined) by savvy traders and strategists. These are no different conceptually than Rothschild's and Rockefeller's methods of yore. The players and technological field change, the game remains the same. (Yeah I am crazy conspiracy theorist whose analysis is always wrong)
Edit: haven't you been slightly suspicious of why the MSM publicized Bitcoin so much. That doesn't happen without the approval the global elite.
If the elite join bitcoin, then its a lot better. They need to hide their wealth too after Switzerland pulled off their bank secrecy with the Cayman Islands and other places. If they join bitcoin, then it will be better for all of us. I seriously disagree, look at the growth of wealth inequality since 2009, "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer". If they "join bitcoin" I have no doubt they will pump/dump/manipulate the price to a point that they can accumulate enough bitcoin that they have total control over it. Then it would be like any other centralized/elite controlled currency. |
|
|
|
|
|
tolikkk
|
|
January 21, 2016, 02:54:48 PM |
|
when we speak, whether there is something already built or what is built does not suit us , whether those functions laid down in them all of us or meet us there hand on heart something removed or what we know and what we believe, giving us the right to change it; we talked about what we build and that opens new opportunities we have gained the right, giving us shape and the ability to change anything and that having learned the lessons we were breached, we were not satisfied and that we do not have the loss; now we are talking about is created by us and is entitled to decide whether us what we have; of course the form is built on the values ( although other forms are not coming to mind ) and this form as a global form and that somewhere is not ocluzie and which is cumbersome and that valid well to electronics set vector, direction, and although the right of disposition values is still owned by the state and laws, but the quality and the quantity and level values regulated banks and question banks this regulation should apply on the level and that people as potential values for delimited and with these values the right to dispose in full, and that getting this right, the person will not stop and will not give a shadow of a doubt and a reason to degrade, though ; the achieved level, of course, makes you wonder, but perfectly acceptable and pleasant although the full picture is not visible and that the digital list values are likely to bring our plans to mind and we will expect and the speed of processing and the pleasantness of the service, but still repeating shape has the appearance of what is, while the options and thoughts from different parties can be a lot and this is only a form for discussion, one reminder in this "project" to be calm and not to spend on pointless thoughts a lot of time though, lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
RealBitcoin
|
|
January 21, 2016, 03:00:51 PM |
|
I seriously disagree, look at the growth of wealth inequality since 2009, "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer".
If they "join bitcoin" I have no doubt they will pump/dump/manipulate the price to a point that they can accumulate enough bitcoin that they have total control over it. Then it would be like any other centralized/elite controlled currency.
Unlikely, they cannot get rich from pump & dump, the elite got rich from comissions rather than trading. All major banks are middleman, and hardly trade anything, that is to protect their wealth. Plus their main income source is derived from printed money, bitcoin is a closed system. That being said, by joinning bitcoin, they will pump up the price so much, that it will become a real safe haven, and they will have no choice but to stick with it, when the financial collapse comes. Bonds, stocks, estate, all of it will deflate in price, that is not a good way to make money, especially if the bank or broker you are with will just go bankrupt. In a systematic failure you cannot trade the classical way. Most rich people just buy up cheap land in poor countries to look for a safer haven, so they are desperate to save their wealth. Bitcoin would be the perfect safe haven for them, and they will eventually start using it. |
|
|
|
|
THX 1138
|
|
January 21, 2016, 11:05:21 PM |
|
"Goldman Sachs backs pro-EU campaign with 'six figure donation'"Just had a pro(paganda)-EU marketing newspaper stuffed through the letterbox full of scare tactics, just like with the referendum on Scottish independence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 24, 2016, 09:43:57 PM |
|
I think social media can possibly be taken over by cryptocurrency/decentralized/blockchain technology. Think about it... Facebook has a market capitalization of 266.3 billion. What if a portion of their net profit was distributed to its users instead? Which service would you use... one that makes money off of you providing you nothing in return, or one that pays you to use its service? There are likely a few projects attempting to capitalize on this space. The only one off the top of my head I can name is Synereo and I am on the fence as to whether it is is a legit project or a P&D... I am waiting on the sidelines for now. http://www.synereo.com/One of the foundational technical challenges is decentralized, permissionless file storage (and databases); otherwise if a corporation is providing centralized file storage then they control the content and can monopolize. Afaik, the current attempts such as Storj and Maidsafe have a fundamental economic flaw. That is they are selling for free that which is not free— the bandwidth (and most saliently the asymmetrically more expensive upload bandwidth) of the ISPs. I had warned Bittorrent about this flaw in their economic algorithm and had suggested a fix in 2008:
Did Bittorrent become popular without MSM coverage? I'm not really sure. Yes, it did. The Bittorrent whitepaper was a breakthrough in p2p not matched until Satoshi came along. All the cruft of Gnutella (anti-leech arms race kludges, supernodes, etc) was swept away by Bram's brilliantly elegant tit-for-tat algorithm. Well someone did come along before Satoshi in 2008 and that was me (Shelby), but I was apparently ignored. I basically predicted the Net Neutrality shit we have now and was trying to improve Bram's concept: https://web.archive.org/web/20130401040049/http://forum.bittorrent.org/viewtopic.php?pid=178#p178Did Bittorrent implement my proposal? I never followed up (my life went on a tangent). You can detect some more coherence in my writing back then because that was before I became so ill. I am amazed in hindsight that I understood the concepts of Bittorrent so well having absolutely no experience whatsoever as a developer in P2P.
Now what is really fucking amazing is that the link quoted above worked correctly a few days ago when I issued it. Apparently someone in the Monero thread communicated to Bittorrent folks and had the entire archive of the Bittorrent forum removed from the archive.org. I am not joking and I am not hallucinating. What I had written there in 2008 (which luckily I reread a few days ago so my memory is refreshed) was I explained to the Bittorrent developers that their tit-for-tat algorithm was orthogonal to their optimistic unchoking algorithm, and that they could improve the tit-for-tat algorithm by have the two peers that exchange a shard of data to encrypt those shards. Then after the shards had been received by both peers, the decryption keys could be exchanged. The economic benefit is that the bandwidth has already been exchanged before each peer can use the data. Thus neither peer has any bandwidth cost reason to cheat. The reason this was important is because typically download bandwidth is much greater than upload bandwidth, so by forcing all peers to trade equally, it would mean that peers could only download as much as they could upload. Bittorrent didn't like this suggestion because they preferred to leech the upload bandwidth of those who have higher allocations with their ISPs thus forcing those ISPs to pay for the upload bandwidth that the other peers at the ISPs with lower upload bandwidth allocations do not incur. I warned Bittorrent that without my suggested fix, then the ISPs would end up blocking and rate limiting Bittorrent, which is exactly what has happened as I predicted: http://www.pcworld.com/article/145786/isp.htmlhttp://guides.wmlcloud.com/windows/how-to-bypass-torrent-connection-blocking-by-your-isp.aspxhttps://www.quora.com/My-ISP-has-blocked-all-the-P2P-downloads-Is-there-any-way-I-can-bypass-themNote that any solutions to the problem of ISPs blocking P2P apps that involve a TURN (when STUN tunneling fails or is blocked), VPN, or other server in the middle, defeat the entire point of extracting the value of the bandwidth allocation of users provided by their ISPs, because then one is paying for the bandwidth of the server to relay the shards. If Storj and MaidSafe max out the consumption of each user's upload bandwidth (thus leeching off users with higher allocations charging the costs to those users' ISPs), they will also be blocked by ISPs. Additionally STUN tunnelling often fails and thus a TURN relay server has to be employed (or using the other peers as relays thus leeching the upload bandwidth of those ISPs who don't block tunneling). In short, P2P for bandwidth consumption between ISP hosted user accounts is not going to be reliable. Many users will have frustrations when trying to be a storage provider. It will not be the case that every user in the system can also be a storage provider. And it will probably end up being the case that the most efficient storage providers will be hosted on dedicated servers. In other words, it is a fantasy to think we can get decentralized file storage without paying for it. We can try to design decentralized, permissionless file systems that correctly incentivize the storage and bandwidth providers, and the users of the system need to pay for it somehow. Whether or not these can remain permissionless given the need to host these on servers is open to further contemplation and study. Most all hosting providers include in their Terms of Sevice a restriction on hosting illegal copyrighted content, so unless one can provide a mechanism for which illegal content is removed from the system, it seems to me that hosts will be forced to ban the protocol (system). So where I am headed with this line of thinking is that we ought to just give up on illegal content and illegal uses of anonymity. It isn't going to work. It is a fantasy. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 24, 2016, 10:35:14 PM
Last edit: January 24, 2016, 11:26:44 PM by TPTB_need_war |
|
Now what is really fucking amazing is that the link quoted above worked correctly a few days ago when I issued it. Apparently someone in the Monero thread communicated to Bittorrent folks and had the entire archive of the Bittorrent forum removed from the archive.org. I am not joking and I am not hallucinating.
What possible basis could do you have for such an accusation and how does the allegation relate to the topic of technology vs marketing? Because I viewed the linked archived content (and saw the existence of the Bittorrent forum archive going back many years even before 2008) when I made the post in the Monero Speculation thread, and now as you can see the entire archive is gone. And that was only a few days ago. So the probability that the sudden removal of that archive did not result from me pointing out that Bittorrent is in bed together with the corruption of the Net Neutrality movement is approximately Nil. I am not saying necessarily that any particular Monero community member was responsible for the removal of the archive. I am saying that someone who reads the Monero thread and/or who reads all my posts was responsible. And it is very likely that TPTB are watching very closely all my posts, because they understand (as do many astute readers) that I am one of the brighter minds on the forum who is very truly anarcho-Libertarian oriented and that I have the marketing skills to actually make something happen on a large scale. However, TPTB shouldn't fear me, because I am not going to do anything illegal. The most important point to take from the post I made is that Bittorrent is a political gimick used to fool the masses into submitting to taxation of the internet bandwidth via Net Neutrality. Bittorrent was never economic. It is a fraud and those who are stealing content deserve their fate by buying into an uneconomic lie. And this pertains to the Technology vs. Marketing thread in the context of we are discussing whether potential markets and technology are viable. It makes no sense to state marketing or technology are important, if we don't understand how delusions about each can be foisted upon us. Also I was responding to an upthread post claiming that we can replace centralized social media with decentralized variants. And to address that possibility, I must talk about the foundational issue of decentralized file storage. That should have been obvious from the post (and its context) that you are reacting to. Also for those who don't fully grasp my economics point, the point is that if we try to force ISPs to give away bandwidth for free, then we in effect socialize ISPs. And then the government can step in with Net Neutrality taxation to make it "fair" by compensating some ISPs for others or what (but in essence what we have done is attempted to steal and thus the government is called upon to take over and steal from all of us). We are fucking idiots! For those can't deduce the implications, without stealing bandwidth by doing file transfers P2P (taking the expensive upload bandwidth that ISPs have statistically allocated for client-server model paradigms) then we can't have file storage that is resistant to regulation and thus we can't steal copyrighted content (as I explained in my prior post that hosting content on servers will be regulated by the hosting provider's Terms of Service). Afaik, the reason upload bandwidth is expensive for ISPs, is because telcom "last mile" technology is focused on maximizing download bandwidth for the client-server model of HTTP. It is a natural law of physics that you would not run a main line water/gas pipe from the substation to each home, instead use multifurcation from the main to progressively smaller diameter pipes. P2P can not be a bandwidth driven paradigm! Fuhgeddaboudit. The problem for humanity is that ISPs are playing along with this Net Neutrality takeover (even while pretending not to), because of course it is a plan by which the internet can be monopolized and controlled by an oligarchy. So our problem is that paradigms such as Bittorrent which foster this theft, are less expensive to host content with. And thus this is why the new Bittorrent browser is receiving funding because TPTB have decided this a good direction to go and further their control of the internet. How can we can compete with the download costs of stealing it from the collective. We probably can't. So fucking clever how TPTB fooled us into thinking we had won (after they closed Napster and we thought we fought back), and yet we dug our own grave. Because stealing is evil. But the problem is that this lower bandwidth cost (by stealing it) paradigm can also be used for distributing legal content. However Bittorrent does have the weaknesses that files are slower to start loading (i.e. higher latency), it isn't interactive, and it only applies to files that many users are simultaneously downloading. So thus we still have a means to fight back if we are clever. When will fools learn that anything pumped up in the MSM is always a fraud to fool us. Kim Dotcom is being made into a martyr to fool us into believing that we must fight for Bittorrent every where and to give a boost to the launch of a Bittorrent web paradigm. We will be totally fucked with Net Neutrality.
He is talking about the specific link he quoted, that isn't working anymore. It is amazing what they have done in the past few days since I made my post. They have gone back and restructured the content in the archives before the one I linked to, so as to remove the section where I had posted my thread about the economic issue. This has occurred since I made my post. This is no accident. Also on the later dates they have removed the content and are instead pretending they were receiving an HTTP 302 error at that time. I should probably kiss my life goodbye. Nope. He is saying the entire bittorrent archive was removed due to some kind of collusion between people reading his posts because he is a world changing, brilliant cryptographer.  Now I know who is likely paying you to troll me. You are likely the mole in this forum. Your resume is a paid security consultant with some weak education credentials. You are here to make sure the readers are fooled. I see you took it up a notch yet again Shelby the third. Someone really needs to crowdfund some serious psychiatric help for you and I dont mean the outpatient kind.
Typical methods of a disinformation agent. The record of your obnoxious trolling is upthread for everyone to read. |
|
|
|
|
TPTB_need_war
|
|
January 25, 2016, 10:42:46 PM |
|
Please put a pause on all your well-intended but rather useless (never ending) noise (drivel) about derivatives, what the government should do, evil of central banks, evil of debt, etc and all these superfluous issues that you can neither change nor which will determine the direction global society is headed. Let me have your undivided attention please. (RealBitcoin et al just please STFU for a while please since you won't grasp the relevance of the following) Getting back to my writings (written in 2010 - 2012) which were the main theme of the OP of this thread back in 2013, and based on a recent paradigm-shift revelation on the markets for the crypto currency I am working on, I have now seen the light of how specifically the Knowledge Age I've been predicting will take form. And glorious it is our future. The key insight is that I now see how Knowledge Age producers (workers) will be paid digitally directly by Knowledge Age consumers, and the middle man can't exist (because the competition will be to remove him). I am not yet going to tell you exactly why this is so and all the mechanics because I need to retain this a secret for the time being while I am implementing this. So what this means is that anonymity was never the way we were going to restructure government and fix society. Instead it is the coming social media metaphorsis of commerce such that there can't be a middle man which the government can expropriate. This is a critical distinction from the game theory in which the world operates now, because when the government can take on debt, promise everything to the masses, and then charge the costs of the taxes and/or end game regulatory capture to the large corporations (rich and upper middle class), then the majority (masses) are in no way incentivized to resist. This game theory is summarized in Some Iron Laws of Political Economics. CoinCube has also discussed this game theory upthread and I have some where in AnonyMint's archives better summarized and justified the Iron Law of Political Economics (I think the Dark Enlightenment thread and/or possibly upthread in this Economic Devastation thread). So what happens when the majority earn their income and are paid directly by the consumers of the produced Knowledge Age work, is that the government can't charge the cost of the end game collapse of debt to any one! It is when the government can steal from the minority and buy off the majority with debt financed socialism, that the government power grows without bound until the minority is depleted and a Dark Age is entered. Luckily throughout history technology usually (but not always which is why there have been 600 year Dark Ages where only food was money) rescues society and the majority is able to recover its ability to earn income more directly. Examples of such past technological innovations would be soil management technology for agriculture, the spread of knowledge via the printing press, etc.. When the majority is directly earning the lion's share of the income in society, then the government will find it politically implausible to steal from the majority to redistribute, because the majority will refuse. It is only by appeasing the majority making them dependent on socialism and then stealing from those middle men who aggregate the capital, that the elite at the top are able to fool the majority into stealing from the minority and handing all the power to a super-minority elite. Without a minority to expropriate, the governments' debt collapses (this also includes the expectation that crypto currency can be redesigned to remain decentralized and thus the government won't be able to simply turn it into fiat again and print money out of thin air which steals from everyone and this also includes that even if they could, they will no longer be able to use that funny money to aggregate middle man controls... the entire paradigm of the Iron Law of Political Economics hinges on the existence of middle men extracting rents...this was a key epiphany) Anonymity is entirely unrealistic and doesn't address the political-economic structural issue (that is why I have recently admonished Monero to look at anonymity as a way to make public block chains RELIABLY private, End-to End principled, and efficient but not for the purpose of avoiding taxation and encouraged them to look at making simple scripting private not just currency and thus I assert they need Zerocash/zk-snarks and not Cryptonote nor RingCT). Whereas a new way of thinking about social media and microtransactions does. Stay tuned for the second coming of Satoshi has arrived. And this will be the real deal. |
|
|
|
OROBTC (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2912
Merit: 1852
|
|
January 25, 2016, 11:03:17 PM |
|
... TPTB and anyone else What are your takes on Dash? I was just at TNABC, and Dash had a booth. Very crowded when I was there. I picked up a flyer, but, IMO, it seems to be just another "alt-coin" that may or may not have any future. They claim over 10,000 active users. They claim speed (1 - 4 second confirmations AND 10,000 transactions / second) as well as privacy via a decentralized mixing service (DarkSend). Their website: www.dash.orgDiscussion welcome! |
|
|
|
|
|
