rpietila Altcoin Observer

[AnonyMint]

tax incentives and subsidies.

It is a calculated and intentional economic inefficiency, which is deemed worth the cost, in order that the CCP plenum may avoid getting their heads lopped by people with nothing to lose because all of their progeny died of autoimmune reaction to inhaling coal ash.
The poly solar business will die, but only when a sufficient amount of economically productive, greener generation cap is available to provide an reasonable level of insurance against such an outcome, or the reins of power are seized by a new dynasty with post-urban social engineering agenda.

Sorry to do this to you, but you didn't check your facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#Recent_history

Total installed capacity in 2013 was 1247 GW.

Solar power capacity was 18 GW.

Again I repeat, China's Solar Debacle.

[aminorex]

tax incentives and subsidies.

It is a calculated and intentional economic inefficiency, which is deemed worth the cost, in order that the CCP plenum may avoid getting their heads lopped by people with nothing to lose because all of their progeny died of autoimmune reaction to inhaling coal ash.
The poly solar business will die, but only when a sufficient amount of economically productive, greener generation cap is available to provide an reasonable level of insurance against such an outcome, or the reins of power are seized by a new dynasty with post-urban social engineering agenda.

Sorry to do this to you, but you didn't check your facts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_sector_in_China#Recent_history

Total installed capacity in 2013 was 1247 GW.

Solar power capacity was 18 GW.

Again I repeat, China's Solar Debacle.

Sorry if I wasn't clear.  It's not about generating power.  It's about keeping your head, literally, on your shoulders.

It started as a play on European subsidies.  When those were lost, it morphed into a pure political theatre.  Wind is not such a money sink.  Nuclear can actually produce useful power.  But they need every last drop of employment, and they need a greenwash.  Solar provides those.  Most importantly the last.

[NewLiberty]

AnonyMint you think there will be a one world government who is just dictating the supply of money of all other countries, now that is nuts and something for the tinfoil hat party.

You make insulting accusations while all the evidence points to it is happening at an accelerated pace.

IMF SDRs.
For when too big to fail, fails.
Then they get it all, the one world fiat.

[AnonyMint]

That their top-down organization requires it doesn't make it any less of a debacle.

China will be the center of the mainstream financial world according to Armstrong's model.

My model is that represents the dying mainstream NWO which will drag down hordes with it. Or the combination of both including what I write below.

I think there will be an alternative economy of crypto-currency and a fledging Knowledge Age.

I refuse to fall into the abyss of China's top-down model.

I see their top-down model might be cracking, e.g. manufacturers can sell direct to me via aliexpress.com, dhgate.com, etc.. Amazons of the east are rising.

"Decentralized transaction coins..."

[Eugen123]

...Chinese can invest...

If crypto-currencies will be for investment only, they are useless.

And you think 1.5 bln. people will just stand and watch in silence their savings in fiat fade away and at least some of those Chinese not try to do anything about it.

Why do you think there are ghost cities? They are dumping their money into all kinds of investments, not just Bitcoin.

And it doesn't have to function as currency at merchant level, peer-to-peer level is good enough.

For what reason? Taxes are low in China. Remittance is fast, cheap, and ubiquitous. Why avoid transacting in Yuan?

There is one reason. Games and social networking real-time person-to-person payments. And ditto in the lesser developing world.

But Bitcoin is traceable and it is illegal. Mainstream games and social networks will be pressured by the government to shut it down.

Monero is untraceable but can't handle micropayments volume.

See where I am headed with this... "Decentralized Transaction coins...".

I agree with decentralization and scaling concerns re BitCoin. "Decentralised transaction coins" strike me as similar to the ideal system proposed in the Money as Debt films..  Open Transactions aims to provide a fast platform for something like this.

[jwinterm]

Again I repeat, China's Solar Debacle.

It doesn't matter that solar is 0.1% of installed capacity. Their push for solar started only a few years ago, and they have 5 more years to reach their stated goal of 100 GW by 2020.

Beijing and Zurich, 23 January 2014 – China’s solar developers installed a record 12GW of photovoltaic projects in 2013, and a booming market at the very end of the year may even have pushed installations up to 14GW. No country has ever added more than 8GW of solar power in a single year prior to 2013, and China’s record outstripped even the most optimistic forecasts of 12 months ago.

http://about.bnef.com/press-releases/chinas-12gw-solar-market-outstripped-all-expectations-in-2013/

They're now targeting another 14 GW by end of this year, or 50% of all installed solar capacity in the world. More recent quote from today/yesterday:

J.P. Morgan is bullish on solar outlook, saying PV solar demand could grow more than 20% this year.
Demand in developing markets seems to be accelerating, according to analysts Paul Coster, Mark Strouse and Paul J Chung:
China is emerging as the leading end-market for PV solar owing to ongoing need for clean energy.

http://blogs.barrons.com/asiastocks/2014/09/04/china-solar-2h-should-be-strong-says-jpmorgan/

It's ok to admit you're wrong, and you don't even have to call people socialist, tree hugging malthusians when you do, just fyi.

[vuduchyld]

BBR was in a downtrend for so long it became far too undervalued relative to its twin XMR, and the market ran out of cheap berries.

The Supernet hype reversed that trend with a vengeance, although the steady release of improvements (miners, price chart in wallet, etc.) played a role as well.

Another factor was an uptick in XMR prices, to which BBR offers leverage as silver does to gold.

Go ahead and short BBR, you could possibly make some money in the short term.  But many of us are accumulating, and you might get your teeth broken instead.   

(BBR) was drifting down around .00015 for a looooong time.  All of a sudden, starting last week (August 28th), volume on Polo is wayyyyyy up and the price is up to .001.

What caused this?

edit: Supernet, maybe?  If so, where can I short the fucker?

My take:  Risk is poison.  BBR is controlled by a lone anonymous actor, possibly Andrey Sabelnikov, probably a member of the team that produced the bytecoin scam.  In contrast, the XMR team includes several well-known persons, some of whom identify by legal names openly.  BBR just has a lot more risk baked in.  The market priced the caps at a 32:1 ratio as a result (and ended up oversold due to momentum).  This made hedging XMR with BBR cheap.  That, and CZ's well-deserved reputation for development, kept attention on BBR.  (Also the bytecoin gang's sockpuppet theatre raging against XMR kept using it as a foil, which drew attention.)  SuperNET was all it needed to pump.  Regardless of James' intentions he certainly seems to be surrounded by a cloud of PnDers.  Now the hedge is no longer attractive, and only momentum and the pump keep price flying here.

I won't comment on how to short SuperNET.  Look at its components.  I have a lot of skepticism of SuperNET myself, but it's based on circumstantial factors rather than substantive ones.  I find it difficult to locate the substance.  Something about the copy always makes my mind rebel if I try to read it.  It's like trying to look into your foveal blind spot.  I probably have too much training in "legacy" finance to understand it properly.  I'm too old, and I'll die soon, so that innovators can sail smoothly over the rainbow to crypto-valhalla without my trollish philistinism to harsh their mellow.

To short BBR, you need to find someone who will loan it to you.  The interest rate will probably be exhorbitant.  When I shorted I did fairly well but paid out a large chunk as interest.  My short performance was degrading rapidly at the end, which means I was taking increasing risk, so I lost interest.  Also I think I was making volatility worse, rather than better, at the end, which is bad for BBR, so I knew it was time to stop.  Good mean-reversion strategy performance should result in lower volatility in the underlying.  If it is doing the opposite, you're doing it wrong - or you're trading momentum.  I may do again, but not until I have more clarity on the fundamental and technical situation in BBR - which may never happen since it is just not very interesting to me. I want to buy future reserve currency, stack it high, and hold it long.  Anything else is just a distraction.
 

Thanks, gentlemen.  That's helpful info.  Definitely not interested in fighting the tape or breaking my teeth!

For what it's worth, I agree about distractions.  I, too, want to buy and stack.  I'm not trying to buy and sell to a greater fool, sell short, or anything along those lines.

I don't own any BBR right now, but I was patiently considering a buy (as you said, a hedge to XMR) before the run up.

Back to waiting mode.

[Lohoris]

When the valuables (capital) are your Knowledge and digital assets, no one needs to know who or where they are.

[...]

Tangible things are like so totally yesterday. They are declining asymptotically to a cost of 0. Get with the paradigm.

Your Knowledge will not protect you from a club hitting your head.
Also it won't feed you.

Sure, if you have knowledge, maybe you are wise enough not to go to a rough neighbourhood, but brigands can still reach your home. You aren't safe.
Sure, if you have knowledge, maybe you can use it to garher food or get paid and use that money to buy food. But in-itself it isn't edible.

You are spreading nonsense.

[AnonyMint]

How much more obvious could it be that Bitcoin was planted in media to drive awareness of digital fiat currency, yet to see Bitcoin as unsafe and needing a government solution:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=400235.msg8684511#msg8684511

It's ok to admit you're wrong, and you don't even have to call people socialist, tree hugging malthusians when you do, just fyi.

bwahaha.

You've confirmed you are a card carrying "socialist, tree hugging malthusian" dolt.

Your Knowledge will not...

When you don't have any, the salient point flies over your head. It obviously wouldn't help you even if I clarified further.

1LohorisJi...

How cute (and anti-utilitarian vain). Did you buy a license plate with your name on it too?

[aminorex]

A truly precious gem from the Poloniex trollbox, regarding SuperNET:

"think it as part investment part donation"

I do, sir, I do.

[ShroomsKit_Disgrace]

A truly precious gem from the Poloniex trollbox, regarding SuperNET:

"think it as part investment part donation"

I do, sir, I do.

Donation? to who? 

[rdnkjdi]

How can we keep up w how many BTC's raised for supernetcoin?  I'm curious now ...

[Este Nuno]

(BBR) was drifting down around .00015 for a looooong time.  All of a sudden, starting last week (August 28th), volume on Polo is wayyyyyy up and the price is up to .001.

What caused this?

edit: Supernet, maybe?  If so, where can I short the fucker?

My take:  Risk is poison.  BBR is controlled by a lone anonymous actor, possibly Andrey Sabelnikov, probably a member of the team that produced the bytecoin scam.  In contrast, the XMR team includes several well-known persons, some of whom identify by legal names openly.  BBR just has a lot more risk baked in.  The market priced the caps at a 32:1 ratio as a result (and ended up oversold due to momentum).  This made hedging XMR with BBR cheap.  That, and CZ's well-deserved reputation for development, kept attention on BBR.  (Also the bytecoin gang's sockpuppet theatre raging against XMR kept using it as a foil, which drew attention.)  SuperNET was all it needed to pump.  Regardless of James' intentions he certainly seems to be surrounded by a cloud of PnDers.  Now the hedge is no longer attractive, and only momentum and the pump keep price flying here.

I won't comment on how to short SuperNET.  Look at its components.  I have a lot of skepticism of SuperNET myself, but it's based on circumstantial factors rather than substantive ones.  I find it difficult to locate the substance.  Something about the copy always makes my mind rebel if I try to read it.  It's like trying to look into your foveal blind spot.  I probably have too much training in "legacy" finance to understand it properly.  I'm too old, and I'll die soon, so that innovators can sail smoothly over the rainbow to crypto-valhalla without my trollish philistinism to harsh their mellow.

To short BBR, you need to find someone who will loan it to you.  The interest rate will probably be exhorbitant.  When I shorted I did fairly well but paid out a large chunk as interest.  My short performance was degrading rapidly at the end, which means I was taking increasing risk, so I lost interest.  Also I think I was making volatility worse, rather than better, at the end, which is bad for BBR, so I knew it was time to stop.  Good mean-reversion strategy performance should result in lower volatility in the underlying.  If it is doing the opposite, you're doing it wrong - or you're trading momentum.  I may do again, but not until I have more clarity on the fundamental and technical situation in BBR - which may never happen since it is just not very interesting to me. I want to buy future reserve currency, stack it high, and hold it long.  Anything else is just a distraction.
 

I think it's worth pointing out at least that 1) Sabelnikov was never found guilty of any wrong doing and Microsoft agreed that it was not him who ran the botnet. 2) Even if CZ was part of the original CryptoNote team, there's no indication that he was involved with Bytecoin at all. Not only that, but if he was involved with CryptoNote, the act of creating BBR(with the new PoW) alone by himself would be strong statement that he disagreed with what Bytecoin did and wanted no part in any sort of scam.

Personally, I don't think it's likely CZ is a bad actor. Whoever he is. At worst it appears he could be a famous hacker responsible for writing some code that other people used in a malicious way(the botnet). I'm not going to defend that if that happened. But we don't know anything about that what happened in that situation and there's a whole range of possibilities, including being coerced in to writing code. We will likely never have sufficient information to make any sort of judgment either way.

So there is some risk with an anonymous developer, that is a constant. On the other hand with BBR you also seem to get someone who is an expert at dealing with what is becoming apparent is a very shaky code base. So there is some trade off there. I'm not making the argument that BBR is less risky with a single developer than XMR is with 7 or 8. But I do hope that anyone considering the situation will at least take the time to make a fair evaluation of CZ on what he's done so far.

edit: and that's not meant as a reply to aminorex specially since I know he knows all of this already, but anyone who is just looking in to this crazy CN world in general.

[klee]

(BBR) was drifting down around .00015 for a looooong time.  All of a sudden, starting last week (August 28th), volume on Polo is wayyyyyy up and the price is up to .001.

What caused this?

edit: Supernet, maybe?  If so, where can I short the fucker?

My take:  Risk is poison.  BBR is controlled by a lone anonymous actor, possibly Andrey Sabelnikov, probably a member of the team that produced the bytecoin scam.  In contrast, the XMR team includes several well-known persons, some of whom identify by legal names openly.  BBR just has a lot more risk baked in.  The market priced the caps at a 32:1 ratio as a result (and ended up oversold due to momentum).  This made hedging XMR with BBR cheap.  That, and CZ's well-deserved reputation for development, kept attention on BBR.  (Also the bytecoin gang's sockpuppet theatre raging against XMR kept using it as a foil, which drew attention.)  SuperNET was all it needed to pump.  Regardless of James' intentions he certainly seems to be surrounded by a cloud of PnDers.  Now the hedge is no longer attractive, and only momentum and the pump keep price flying here.

I won't comment on how to short SuperNET.  Look at its components.  I have a lot of skepticism of SuperNET myself, but it's based on circumstantial factors rather than substantive ones.  I find it difficult to locate the substance.  Something about the copy always makes my mind rebel if I try to read it.  It's like trying to look into your foveal blind spot.  I probably have too much training in "legacy" finance to understand it properly.  I'm too old, and I'll die soon, so that innovators can sail smoothly over the rainbow to crypto-valhalla without my trollish philistinism to harsh their mellow.

To short BBR, you need to find someone who will loan it to you.  The interest rate will probably be exhorbitant.  When I shorted I did fairly well but paid out a large chunk as interest.  My short performance was degrading rapidly at the end, which means I was taking increasing risk, so I lost interest.  Also I think I was making volatility worse, rather than better, at the end, which is bad for BBR, so I knew it was time to stop.  Good mean-reversion strategy performance should result in lower volatility in the underlying.  If it is doing the opposite, you're doing it wrong - or you're trading momentum.  I may do again, but not until I have more clarity on the fundamental and technical situation in BBR - which may never happen since it is just not very interesting to me. I want to buy future reserve currency, stack it high, and hold it long.  Anything else is just a distraction.
 

I think it's worth pointing out at least that 1) Sabelnikov was never found guilty of any wrong doing and Microsoft agreed that it was not him who ran the botnet. 2) Even if CZ was part of the original CryptoNote team, there's no indication that he was involved with Bytecoin at all. Not only that, but if he was involved with CryptoNote, the act of creating BBR(with the new PoW) alone by himself would be strong statement that he disagreed with what Bytecoin did and wanted no part in any sort of scam.

Personally, I don't think it's likely CZ is a bad actor. Whoever he is. At worst it appears he could be a famous hacker responsible for writing some code that other people used in a malicious way(the botnet). I'm not going to defend that if that happened. But we don't know anything about that what happened in that situation and there's a whole range of possibilities, including being coerced in to writing code. We will likely never have sufficient information to make any sort of judgment either way.

So there is some risk with an anonymous developer, that is a constant. On the other hand with BBR you also seem to get someone who is an expert at dealing with what is becoming apparent is a very shaky code base. So there is some trade off there. I'm not making the argument that BBR is less risky with a single developer than XMR is with 7 or 8. But I do hope that anyone considering the situation will at least take the time to make a fair evaluation of CZ on what he's done so far.

Sometimes more is worse...

[NewLiberty]

Sometimes more is worse...

Sometimes, just rarely.
One is a single point of failure though.

[drawingthemoon]

Do we still have fund managers here managing XMR for their clients? Are you planning any exit strategy for them in the wake of consistent exploits/attacks on XMR mainnet? I know it is much easier to still speculate in XMR with own money, but is there any concern for other people's monies yet?

[klee]

Sometimes more is worse...

hahaha man look at your post history, you are already balls deep on BBR that your comment just illustrate your hatred for XMR, how about you follow your own words and stops the FUD, you won't unpersuade anyone from their XMRs

Can everybody please stop trolling/promoting trolling?

The BBR threads should stay focused on BBR progress - the XMR on XMR!

We need to raise the level (bar? not sure for the term) here guys, else no one will take us seriously...

(I also own XMR but my help is not needed that much if at all there because very competent and serious people are actively involved).

Now can we discuss on how to develop some nice ecosystem around BBR?

BBR as coin is legit one thing that partially ruined it was the gpu dev that milked it for months and dumped almost everything at whatever the price was (his own words), but one thing I'm not doing is saying how good an anonymous dev is in this scammy environment, only because I have no idea WHO he is and what are his plans

You did not check my posts deep enough!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6444427#msg6444427

I have x10 XMR than I have BBR, you will never afford to buy so many idiot...

[aminorex]

I think it's worth pointing out at least that 1) Sabelnikov was never found guilty of any wrong doing and Microsoft agreed that it was not him who ran the botnet. 2) Even if CZ was part of the original CryptoNote team, there's no indication that he was involved with Bytecoin at all. Not only that, but if he was involved with CryptoNote, the act of creating BBR(with the new PoW) alone by himself would be strong statement that he disagreed with what Bytecoin did and wanted no part in any sort of scam.

All of which is missing the forest for the trees.  It's risk and uncertainty which is simply incompatible with the most ambitious goals of a private liquidity instrument.  I have nothing against Andrey Sabelnikov.  I admit that I do have something against the perpetrators of the bytecoin scheme, but I am in favor of a generous allowance of rehabilitation.  The market would not price a currency offered by a known fraudster at the same level as one offered by a supportive network of persons who generally lack this distinction.  That means that an adverse identity revelation would impoverish investors.  At the same time, a favorable identity revelation would be a boon to investors.  As a speculative instrument, that is an opportunity.  It's poison for a reserve currency.

Personally, I don't think it's likely CZ is a bad actor. Whoever he is. At worst it appears he could be a famous hacker responsible for writing some code that other people used in a malicious way(the botnet).

I consider the association with the botnet to be far less eggregious than association with the bytecoin pre-mine, personally.  That is the more likely of the two adverse identifications which have been hypothesized.

So there is some risk with an anonymous developer, that is a constant.

As a technical experiment, that's fine.  For timing speculation, okay.  In the competition for the natural monopoly of private liquidity, 0.00001% more risk on one side than on the other pre-determines the outcome.

[smooth]

2) Even if CZ was part of the original CryptoNote team, there's no indication that he was involved with Bytecoin at all.

There is no credible evidence (i.e.  evidence not coming from them) that cryptonote and bytecoin are actually separate. The evidence from rethink-your-strategy would suggest otherwise. That evidence might be not totally definitive but the preponderance of the evidence definitely points in that direction (since there is no contradictory evidence at all)

[klee]

You did not check my posts deep enough!
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=578192.msg6444427#msg6444427

I have x10 XMR than I have BBR, you will never afford to buy so many idiot...

and you should probably dump them all for BBR.

Only dumb dump you dumb!