I had heard that, but again there was an asset there with features that provided justification that along with the pump will bring in liquidity. I don't you think you can effectively pump some copycoin with nothing to get investors excited about other than the attempted pump? There has to be some illusion of legitimacy.
Yes there always is, thats what pnd groups use to justify a pump, be it some release eta of a new version etc. or just some good news.
For example there was last year ALWAYS a pump when a new coin got added to Mintpal (an exchange with the most volume back then), also for XMR.
Dogecoin block halving was another example, price just went down then, Bitshares 2.0 the same, price just crashed after it.
Thats why they say: "Buy on rumour, sell on news."
Maybe thats why we don´t give out ETAs.
Seems the ones that stayed in the Top 10 actually have some useful features (even if for example Dash's anonymity has the holes of swiss cheese and users don't comprehend nor care).
Is it evil to invest a lot of money in your own coin in order to drive up market interest?
Those coins have all stayed in the Top 10 of market caps and thus have been able to fund ongoing development.
Fair and homeostasis are the antithesis of the definition of openly traded exchange markets. That is one reason securities are regulated (because the government is always asked to fix nature, i.e. to fix what can't be fixed).
No it´s not; but Evan instamined it with Azure Cloud nodes, i know it, i tried to compile it and i watched all incoming connections after i finally fixed the crap, the code he uploaded to github didn´t even compile and it had this nice bug that produced 500 coins per block, then later when a lot of people mined the emission was changed and the amount per block has an algorithm that says -> the more hashrate the less coins per block. He took that from peercoin without thinking about the parameter, their algo was optimized for sha mining. Funny enough, the release of an open GPU miner meant a loss for all miners because the difficulty went so high that the reward per block went to the minimum amount. From 500 to 5 coins. I would call that evil or at least dishonest, i personally will not resort to those tactics to earn my money.
I wouldn't want to be Evan. I doubt he registered with the SEC, he is a USA citizen, and he apparently sold securities to non-accredited investors where he retained interest in the venture promoting himself as the lead dev of the controlling group hence. And there seems to be considerable evidence he was not truthful in the prospectus. Looks like the man could be in heaps of legal trouble in the future. I believe the powers-that-be are simply waiting for as much fraud as possible to pile up in crypto currency and then when they are ready, they will sweep down and wallop the industry in order to take control. They seem to be purposefully allowing a wild west to proliferate so that as many people as possible can incriminate themselves.
I would advise not resorting to illegal activity to earn money.
I think as long as you disclose what you are doing, then you are not culpable even if some people didn't grasp the ramifications. That is if you are not selling securities; otherwise the law requires more extensive disclosure. My interpretation of the USA securities law is if you remain as a controlling group of a product that has shares and thus you are essentially operating as an unregistered company entrusted to grow the value of investment securities.
Those coins have all stayed in the Top 10 of market caps and thus have been able to fund ongoing development.
I would like to pick that quote out, i don´t think they have written more lines of code than we did, especially not darkcoin. Nor did any of them produce any reasonable research like the stuff we discuss in this very same topic.
I haven't looked but Bitshares has produced a fair amount I bet.
Just because someone hasn't yet combined the best of honest investment pumping with the best of open source coding, doesn't mean Monero's performance is the optimum we can achieve.
Seems Daniel Latimer got closest to merging both strategies, but so far he has pursued some designs that could not work such as BitUSD and now the incomplete anonymity upgrade. And the DPOS also appears to be flawed (at least the last time I looked at it, but let's delay that technical discussion until I am ready to get into it).
Charles H. who was originally partnered with Daniel went on to help form Ethereum. Charles was talking to me, but I wanted to have a product already and not rush in with all my ideas still up in the air unsettled. It wasn't surprising to me that they went the bloated research direction. I could feel intuitively that was the leaning. So apparently there was some incompatibility between Daniel's direction and Charles. According to Charles, they created reasons to oust him. Maybe he stood in the way of the pump with the Chinese or was dispensable. Never a dull moment in crypto land.
So what is unsettled from my view is whether a methodical model such as Monero is superior to a model that raises a lot of capital and market awareness via enabling the speculation pathway of concentrating ownership and pumps to raise liquidity for the whales to cash out. Appears that Bitshares settled back down to its non-pumped value as the core users were still using it after the China pump. And Bitshares afaik just isn't really that great of tech but not the worst either. So what if that was excellent tech that was generally considered to be the best out there. Then those market pumps might be like staircases lifting the valuation and ecosystem network effects. I don't think this model has been tested yet, except maybe Bitcoin is that model.
Normally one would say open source methodical approach wins in the end, but we are talking about here is which code base gains the most momentum in the most effective areas. In my design, the anonymity can be added without a hard fork, so everything is much more plugin oriented. Monero will have to hard fork.
Writing a lot of code can be good or bad. Bad if you end up having to throw a lot of it away and start over. I am not saying that is the case for Monero. I haven't actually looked at the code that much or thought deeply about Monero's code structure and the future implications. I doubt I have time to go on that tangent unless I want to be a Monero developer.
Dogecoin for example doesn´t seem to have developers with much funding either, but they crowdfunded some crazy shit like a whole NASCAR racing car in Dogecoin optic, all paid by people in their community. I think Dogecoin is a good example of working crowdfunding without a premine or ico.
Yeah Dogecoin was able to get network efforts with pumping. So take the best of tech from Monero, best of merging production with pumping from Bitshares, and the best of marketing network effects with pumping from Dogecoin. And package it with a block chain scaling that threatens Bitcoin. Then maybe we see a unique result.
In the case of Cryptonote, knowing the IP address of sender is in theory enough to do holistic correlation chain analysis and break down the anonymity combinatorially.
It´s way harder then for stuff like DRK or BTC. But yes, we have to find a way to secure the networking, i2p will be the first attempt, it´s good enough for now, and good enough simply means there´s nothing better and theres also no way we would have the resources to create something better ourselves at the moment. TOR and I2P are both projects which many many man years of engineering and in case of TOR also with a lot of funding, hard to compete with.
Yup. That is why is I said it is difficult to hang the hat on anonymity as a coin's main purpose at this time. And how to gain size so that there is enough demand for securing the networking. I think anonymity is a longer range goal, although I wish we could accelerate it.
Those coins have all stayed in the Top 10 of market caps and thus have been able to fund ongoing development.
No, DRK and co where just one some of them, Vertcoin, Blackcoin etc all had high marketcaps, more than Monero and they are all pretty much dead. There was a so called pump of the month every month starting in january 2014 or so.
I meant of those coins still in the Top 10, most where pumped and did not fall out. The difference between those that fell away entirely appears to be they have no unique feature at all. Vertcoin has Scrypt and stealth addresses, but then along comes Dash and Cryptonote with far more anonymity features than stealth addresses.
Armstrong has a few words for people who say markets lie. I reduced it to one word: delusion.
I don´t say they lie, i say the current prices are irrelevant in 10 years.
I might be dead in 10 years.
Users need solutions in the next couple of years as we head into the sovereign debt crisis global collapse.
I care about the near-term as well willing to sustain for the long-term for as long as it is still the best opportunity.
We might look and them and scratch our heads or we will ask ourselves why someone even paid a few cents for certain coins or even bitcoin.
They all have too small marketcaps to matter at all, even bitcoin.
There are scenarios though where they fall away entirely but their example influenced the one that replaced Bitcoin. I am dreaming you know.
Something that works is to be criticized Huh
Robbing old people with a gun also works, i am still not a fan of that.
Old people are not typically investing in highly speculative altcoins.
I've tried to educate readers about economics and investing, but you know people will not listen. They have to learn for themselves the hard way. There is probably a reason that nature does what it does. I am not here to fight nature, but rather to find the most efficient opportunities and look for large markets that have an unmet need. Then find the most efficient way to meet that need.
Speculative investing is not holding a gun to anyone's head. Everyone is free to make their own decisions.
Fixing I2P and Tor is interrelating with making Bitmessage scale.
I said nothing about i2p or tor, even if we had a perfect anonymity network the bitmessage protocol would be the last thing i would use to produce an instant messaging application.
My meaning that once you have an anonymous networking then messaging on top of it is anonymous.
I also don´t see why Monero should spend resources on stuff like this.
They shouldn't perhaps and my point is the long wait ahead for anonymous messaging to be perfected by others or the demand to grow sufficiently.
I wasn't talking about the block chain. Anonymity of the on chain rings is unmasked in theory by an omnscient observer such as the NSA if the connection to the internet is not anonymous.
That wasn´t my context, i was pointing out that projects like BitMessage who use a blockchain are most of the time nonsense,
Bitmessage doesn't use a block chain. It uses only the idea of Proof-of-Work to make sure each sent message has some CPU power behind it. Because spam is very costly to the network performance of its "send every message to everyone in the same channel" design.
Poll
