|
OPTiK
|
 |
February 21, 2014, 03:16:04 PM |
|
I see some valid reasons brought up about zerocash. The fact of the matter is if you want the widest amount of acceptance from both a miner/investor level all the way up to the government you're going to need transparency. I agree with the decision that was made by the devs. Do you really think the government will let a coin run rampant if they can't ensure that it's not being used for illegal activity and/or the government isn't getting its cut? Or do you think they would be more accepting if there was transparency? I think the choice is clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
TenaciousC
|
|
February 21, 2014, 03:34:29 PM |
|
Preparing for da pump? ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
deky_
|
|
February 21, 2014, 03:53:26 PM |
|
|
VTC Donations : VmdSExjrX9wxVt3mSq2mGXd4bLtNrpyGhJ
|
|
|
|
bengx
|
|
February 21, 2014, 04:53:57 PM |
|
I don't know if there are any Singaporean miners here, but feel free to connect to my P2pool node at http://bengx.dlinkddns.com:9171/ ! Low low fee of only 1%! |
|
|
|
|
spikers
Member
 Offline
Activity: 79
Merit: 10
|
|
February 21, 2014, 05:17:16 PM |
|
MINING POOL VTCWEB.POOLZ.NET HAS MOVED TO A DDoS PROTECTED DATACENTER!!!Powerful 16-core 32 Gb physical (not virtual) servers
Gigabit Connection and SSD drives
High Efficiency
STABLE AND DDoS PROTECTED
MONTREAL DDOS PROTECTED DATACENTER
|
|
|
|
|
svojoe
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 968
Merit: 1000
einc.io
|
|
February 21, 2014, 06:01:51 PM |
|
I think this is a mistake but it's not my career and money on the line. If anonymity is provided, I think this would clearly differentiate Vtc versus Btc, Ltc and Doge. As the overall adoption of crypto itself is less than 0.02% of population, I don't think one can conclusively say that Vtc adoption will not increase significantly if anonymity is provided.
I think many people either refuse or otherwise fail to admit to themselves that the health of digital currency as a whole is dictated by and will be dictated by (in the long run) by bitcoin. The adoption level is so far in that I've seen bitcoin references in some of the monday night tv shows that come on (like the show "Almost Human") and before any altcoin will ever be successful (and they are ALT coins) we will need to see the overall acceptance and MASS adoption of bitcoin. If the health of digital currency as a whole is actually depicted by the health of Bitcoin, we can then make the obvious conclusion that whatever is considered a downside to bitcoin (when it comes to society accepting bitcoin on a massive scale) will also be considered a downside to any other altcoin that tries to take the scene after bitcoin. Right now the biggest downside to bitcoins mass adoption is the anonymity, yes the philosophy behind bitcoin is almost anarchistic...but things will have to change a little before bitcoin becomes truly massively adopted. Authorities are already prepared to make some serious regulations and enforcements if bitcoin turns out to be something too easily used by criminals, look at the hearing in New York, the goal organizations like the Bitcoin foundation are to help show that bitcoin is not necessarily something meant for criminals....In other words if an altcoin were to show itself to be BETTER at being used by criminals (like by implementing in it's code some form of function that made it's use even MORE anonymous than bitcoin) there would be some huge issues with adoption. Regardless of how many people want to be anonymous, do you think the world will accept Vertcoin if for example every government in the world came out and announced something like "Don't trust vertcoin, it is truly a currency for criminals, anyone we see dealing vertcoin will be seen as suspicious for criminal activity". This is what the devs at vertcoin mean by saying governments will not stand by while we sit here and produce a coin ideal for criminal use. The goal here is to create a coin that is a competitor to Bitcoin, not the anti bitcoin...The moment Vertcoin becomes looked at as something bad or something that attracts "bad people", the coin will fail... Bitcoin started out as the drug coin. It still IS the drug coin. And it's doing fine by the public. There are too many coins competing with bitcoin's niche - if vertcoin doesn't innovate it will die just like the hundreds of other altcoins. Anonymity is DESIRED. And just like someone else said above me - tumbling services will be provided for any mainstream coin anyway. Why not have that service on your own blockchain? There is no reason a third party mixer, or anonymizer can't be whipped up ontop of VTC. I think we should not be too quick to jump to the conclusion that it won't happen for VTC. The dev's caught a tremendous amount of criticism for reaching out to the community a month ago asking about how best to implement the KGW, and change N-factor schedule. Look back in this thread! The request for community input was met with "Don't put up a poll, Do your job and make DEV decision" All that is really happening, is the DEVs have spent weeks working through zerocash questions. And it seems to me that they are thinking it best to adopt a friendly position towards wide-spread adoption. Thats it, Anyone can do anything they want after that. The dev's have no control of third party developers. I view it as the best of both worlds. We have a friendly face to the coin, that is not actively working to make the coin impossible to adopt. Yet we can have all sorts of other tools to do whatever we wish after the fact. |
|
|
|
SpaceRaccoon
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 7
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2014, 06:17:34 PM |
|
If there are external services that can take care of anonymity, then why the need for it in the base protocol? As much as I wanted zerocash, now I realize that it could be dangerous for VTC. Would governments tolerate it?
But then again, what could governments do? And if VTC did implement zerocash, you can expect a huge surge of users coming from BTC- particularly those who use it for transactions on TOR, and transactions of that nature. Furthermore, would it really affect public perception, particularly in a negative way? I wouldn't think so. VTC would just become the "BTC how it was meant to be"- decentralized, fair, and especially, inherently anonymous. Anonymity, after all, is usually mentioned as one of the great supposed benefits of crypto-currency.
To elaborate on the effect on public perception: I don't think it would really matter. Piles of dollar bills conjure the notion of drugs and drug dealers, arms trades and so on, yet this does not stop people from using dollars. Why should it stop people from using VTC? People will use VTC if it has strong support, and it would get strong support from the community of investors and miners who are interested in cryptocurrencies because they are anonymous.
I am split.
There is a saying "security is not a product, but a process." Depending on a protocol -security through a product- to be anonymous is dangerous. Usually there is a way to exploit any technology. However, if one is to use lots of different addresses, not associate them with their real identities, use coin mixers, and so on -security through process- then VTC could just as well be anonymous.
Update
Apparently fedoracoin has already implemented coin mixing, and yet this has not done much for the coin's success. Maybe implementing zerocash won't do much for VTC either, except for the things the devs fear.
|
|
|
|
|
M-S-K
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 46
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2014, 06:19:08 PM |
|
I think this is a mistake but it's not my career and money on the line. If anonymity is provided, I think this would clearly differentiate Vtc versus Btc, Ltc and Doge. As the overall adoption of crypto itself is less than 0.02% of population, I don't think one can conclusively say that Vtc adoption will not increase significantly if anonymity is provided.
I think many people either refuse or otherwise fail to admit to themselves that the health of digital currency as a whole is dictated by and will be dictated by (in the long run) by bitcoin. The adoption level is so far in that I've seen bitcoin references in some of the monday night tv shows that come on (like the show "Almost Human") and before any altcoin will ever be successful (and they are ALT coins) we will need to see the overall acceptance and MASS adoption of bitcoin. If the health of digital currency as a whole is actually depicted by the health of Bitcoin, we can then make the obvious conclusion that whatever is considered a downside to bitcoin (when it comes to society accepting bitcoin on a massive scale) will also be considered a downside to any other altcoin that tries to take the scene after bitcoin. Right now the biggest downside to bitcoins mass adoption is the anonymity, yes the philosophy behind bitcoin is almost anarchistic...but things will have to change a little before bitcoin becomes truly massively adopted. Authorities are already prepared to make some serious regulations and enforcements if bitcoin turns out to be something too easily used by criminals, look at the hearing in New York, the goal organizations like the Bitcoin foundation are to help show that bitcoin is not necessarily something meant for criminals....In other words if an altcoin were to show itself to be BETTER at being used by criminals (like by implementing in it's code some form of function that made it's use even MORE anonymous than bitcoin) there would be some huge issues with adoption. Regardless of how many people want to be anonymous, do you think the world will accept Vertcoin if for example every government in the world came out and announced something like "Don't trust vertcoin, it is truly a currency for criminals, anyone we see dealing vertcoin will be seen as suspicious for criminal activity". This is what the devs at vertcoin mean by saying governments will not stand by while we sit here and produce a coin ideal for criminal use. The goal here is to create a coin that is a competitor to Bitcoin, not the anti bitcoin...The moment Vertcoin becomes looked at as something bad or something that attracts "bad people", the coin will fail... Bitcoin started out as the drug coin. It still IS the drug coin. And it's doing fine by the public. There are too many coins competing with bitcoin's niche - if vertcoin doesn't innovate it will die just like the hundreds of other altcoins. Anonymity is DESIRED. And just like someone else said above me - tumbling services will be provided for any mainstream coin anyway. Why not have that service on your own blockchain?
All that is really happening, is the DEVs have spent weeks working through zerocash questions. And it seems to me that they are thinking it best to adopt a friendly position towards wide-spread adoption. Thats it, Anyone can do anything they want after that. The dev's have no control of third party developers. I view it as the best of both worlds. We have a friendly face to the coin, that is not actively working to make the coin impossible to adopt. Yet we can have all sorts of other tools to do whatever we wish after the fact.Well Said! |
|
|
|
|
svojoe
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 968
Merit: 1000
einc.io
|
|
February 21, 2014, 06:24:06 PM |
|
If there are external services that can take care of anonymity, then why the need for it in the base protocol? As much as I wanted zerocash, now I realize that it could be dangerous for VTC. Would governments tolerate it?
But then again, what could governments do? And if VTC did implement zerocash, you can expect a huge surge of users coming from BTC- particularly those who use it for transactions on TOR, and transactions of that nature. Furthermore, would it really affect public perception, particularly in a negative way? I wouldn't think so. VTC would just become the "BTC how it was meant to be"- decentralized, fair, and especially, inherently anonymous. Anonymity, after all, is usually mentioned as one of the great supposed benefits of crypto-currency.
To elaborate on the effect on public perception: I don't think it would really matter. Piles of dollar bills conjure the notion of drugs and drug dealers, arms trades and so on, yet this does not stop people from using dollars. Why should it stop people from using VTC? People will use VTC if it has strong support, and it would get strong support from the community of investors and miners who are interested in cryptocurrencies because they are anonymous.
I am split.
There is a saying "security is not a product, but a process." Depending on a protocol -security through a product- to be anonymous is dangerous. Usually there is a way to exploit any technology. However, if one is to use lots of different addresses, not associate them with their real identities, use coin mixers, and so on -security through process- then VTC could just as well be anonymous.
I think you are right, The DEVs are trying to do what they feel is the best for the longterm health of the coin. The base protocol is the dev's only real priority. They know full well any functionality could be built later. They are merely steering the official direction the coin. And the coins public image. |
|
|
|
M-S-K
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 46
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2014, 06:27:27 PM |
|
If there are external services that can take care of anonymity, then why the need for it in the base protocol? As much as I wanted zerocash, now I realize that it could be dangerous for VTC. Would governments tolerate it?
But then again, what could governments do? And if VTC did implement zerocash, you can expect a huge surge of users coming from BTC- particularly those who use it for transactions on TOR, and transactions of that nature. Furthermore, would it really affect public perception, particularly in a negative way? I wouldn't think so. VTC would just become the "BTC how it was meant to be"- decentralized, fair, and especially, inherently anonymous. Anonymity, after all, is usually mentioned as one of the great supposed benefits of crypto-currency.
To elaborate on the effect on public perception: I don't think it would really matter. Piles of dollar bills conjure the notion of drugs and drug dealers, arms trades and so on, yet this does not stop people from using dollars. Why should it stop people from using VTC? People will use VTC if it has strong support, and it would get strong support from the community of investors and miners who are interested in cryptocurrencies because they are anonymous.
I am split.
There is a saying "security is not a product, but a process." Depending on a protocol -security through a product- to be anonymous is dangerous. Usually there is a way to exploit any technology. However, if one is to use lots of different addresses, not associate them with their real identities, use coin mixers, and so on -security through process- then VTC could just as well be anonymous.
The easy answer is: Government would not tolerate it. Precisely why we should all wait and see what the particular privacy features the devs have mentioned they are working on. So far DEVs of this coin have done a terrific job guys, just take a look at some other coins and what goes on in their threads - complete mess. We are focused group here, let's keep this a positive community and calculated steps. ZeroCash is a big step plus even bigger risk because it may isolate us completely. Is this a completely must-have right now? No, it is not. Our goal is mass adoption and to do what Bitcoin did but in quarter of the time. In business, you must know how to manage and navigate risk. At the present time this isn't risk worth taking because it will lead us in wrong direction. Additionally, I think the devs got some cool tricks up their sleeves with security features they said they are already working on that will surely be innovative. Let's let them do what they do best  And we keep spreading good word around community about Vertcoin and keep pushing it forward! |
|
|
|
|
M-S-K
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 46
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2014, 06:37:50 PM |
|
If there are external services that can take care of anonymity, then why the need for it in the base protocol? As much as I wanted zerocash, now I realize that it could be dangerous for VTC. Would governments tolerate it?
But then again, what could governments do? And if VTC did implement zerocash, you can expect a huge surge of users coming from BTC- particularly those who use it for transactions on TOR, and transactions of that nature. Furthermore, would it really affect public perception, particularly in a negative way? I wouldn't think so. VTC would just become the "BTC how it was meant to be"- decentralized, fair, and especially, inherently anonymous. Anonymity, after all, is usually mentioned as one of the great supposed benefits of crypto-currency.
To elaborate on the effect on public perception: I don't think it would really matter. Piles of dollar bills conjure the notion of drugs and drug dealers, arms trades and so on, yet this does not stop people from using dollars. Why should it stop people from using VTC? People will use VTC if it has strong support, and it would get strong support from the community of investors and miners who are interested in cryptocurrencies because they are anonymous.
I am split.
There is a saying "security is not a product, but a process." Depending on a protocol -security through a product- to be anonymous is dangerous. Usually there is a way to exploit any technology. However, if one is to use lots of different addresses, not associate them with their real identities, use coin mixers, and so on -security through process- then VTC could just as well be anonymous.
I think you are right, The DEVs are trying to do what they feel is the best for the longterm health of the coin. The base protocol is the dev's only real priority. They know full well any functionality could be built later. They are merely steering the official direction the coin. And the coins public image.+1 |
|
|
|
|
|
Lloydie
|
|
February 21, 2014, 07:00:03 PM |
|
I see some valid reasons brought up about zerocash. The fact of the matter is if you want the widest amount of acceptance from both a miner/investor level all the way up to the government you're going to need transparency. I agree with the decision that was made by the devs. Do you really think the government will let a coin run rampant if they can't ensure that it's not being used for illegal activity and/or the government isn't getting its cut? Or do you think they would be more accepting if there was transparency? I think the choice is clear.
I believe the assertion that "acceptance of government is required" to be false. Bitcoin will fulfil that role. The reality is that vertcoin cannot displace bitcoin in that role. If vertcoin does not take this initiative of privacy then another coin will. The assumption of miner acceptance and government acceptance being required at the same time will be tested sooner or later. I think it would be advantageous for vertcoin to be the first in this space. If not, it will be a missed opportunity in my view. |
|
|
|
|
|
Lloydie
|
|
February 21, 2014, 07:13:06 PM |
|
The easy answer is: Government would not tolerate it. Precisely why we should all wait and see what the particular privacy features the devs have mentioned they are working on. So far DEVs of this coin have done a terrific job guys, just take a look at some other coins and what goes on in their threads - complete mess. We are focused group here, let's keep this a positive community and calculated steps. ZeroCash is a big step plus even bigger risk because it may isolate us completely. Is this a completely must-have right now? No, it is not. Our goal is mass adoption and to do what Bitcoin did but in quarter of the time. In business, you must know how to manage and navigate risk. At the present time this isn't risk worth taking because it will lead us in wrong direction. Additionally, I think the devs got some cool tricks up their sleeves with security features they said they are already working on that will surely be innovative. Let's let them do what they do best And we keep spreading good word around community about Vertcoin and keep pushing it forward! This is the same line of reasoning used by the bitcoin devs. As a result bitcoin is missing the important privacy layer (and the internet also fell into the same mistake). Mass adoption of cryptos is an eventuality not a maybe. From that perspective, it would be better to build the ideal coin rather than a conforming coin. Sure, I understand that another coin could do this anonymity thing rather than vertcoin but i think it would be a mistake when we take a look back five years from now and wonder whatever happened to that green coin with a funny French name. |
|
|
|
|
|
BorisTheSpider
|
|
February 21, 2014, 07:22:05 PM |
|
I think it would be nice to see a poll about zerocash. What do you guys say? Would be fair. We, the community, should also have a word to say.
I thought I had better address this, because it'll come across rude if I don't say something, although I don't particularly want to because it's tough to say anything without coming across a little bit brusque. There's 2 reasons a poll is not necessary, or useful - first, why on earth would the people who develop this associate themselves with things that could land them on watch-lists or with legal difficulties simply because a majority of people on an internet forum said so! Secondly, even if most people on Bitcointalk wanted anonymity features in VTC (which I don't believe by the way) Bitcointalk is a tiny niche of hardcore crypto-heads and what they like might be the death of Vertcoin! |
|
|
|
|
|
mikeymillie
|
|
February 21, 2014, 07:26:37 PM |
|
Go after LTC miners and believers first. LTC value is really on the ropes right now, as it is tied to BTC's fortunes more than any other alt. Litecoin people are similar minded to Vertcoin people IMHO, they offer a good and more ready adoption possibility short term, there are a *lot* of them, and to grow Vertcoin needs to take and hold the biggest neighboring hills before taking on the mountain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lloydie
|
|
February 21, 2014, 07:27:48 PM |
|
I think it would be nice to see a poll about zerocash. What do you guys say? Would be fair. We, the community, should also have a word to say.
I thought I had better address this, because it'll come across rude if I don't say something, although I don't particularly want to because it's tough to say anything without coming across a little bit brusque. There's 2 reasons a poll is not necessary, or useful - first, why on earth would the people who develop this associate themselves with things that could land them on watch-lists or with legal difficulties simply because a majority of people on an internet forum said so! Secondly, even if most people on Bitcointalk wanted anonymity features in VTC (which I don't believe by the way) Bitcointalk is a tiny niche of hardcore crypto-heads and what they like might be the death of Vertcoin! I fully understand and respect this decision from the outset. There will be heat for sure, which is why satoshi himself remains anonymous and why bushido has not publicly revealed himself. Whether vertcoin dies or not depends on itself, not government. |
|
|
|
|
M-S-K
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 46
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2014, 07:38:48 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
socialmaker
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 40
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2014, 07:46:51 PM |
|
Heya mining at vert.bitcrush.info for the last couple of days 1.1 MHash - pool says I should get roughly 8 per day but I have been receiving ~6-6.5 per day tops. Ideas ?
|
|
|
|
|
M-S-K
Newbie
Offline
Activity: 46
Merit: 0
|
|
February 21, 2014, 07:49:47 PM |
|
Heya mining at vert.bitcrush.info for the last couple of days 1.1 MHash - pool says I should get roughly 8 per day but I have been receiving ~6-6.5 per day tops. Ideas ?
Its normal |
|
|
|
|
|
