Bitcoin Forum
November 20, 2017, 06:09:20 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Poll
Question: Will you support Gavin's new block size limit hard fork of 8MB by January 1, 2016 then doubling every 2 years?
1.  yes
2.  no

Pages: « 1 ... 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 [1404] 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 ... 1558 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.  (Read 2010223 times)
hodlmybtc
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 616


BTC | XMR | XCN


View Profile WWW
July 03, 2015, 06:57:49 PM
 #28061

That guy is like a broken record (or at least turns v e r y slowly): he was instructing to buy silver 5 years in a row and now he's been bullish on BTC constantly since it was $3, and still is. Despite his incessant shilling of XMR, he does not even have such a high % of his wealth invested (way less than the castle he owns in Estonia anyway - at the current valuation, the castle is nearing XMR marketcap).

When you think about this it's pretty funny a lot of people (desperate bears) calling Monero overvalued at this moment in the speculation thread.

Absolutely no disrespect to your castle Risto but to me it definately looks like Monero is heavily undervalued as your castle is nearing the XMR marketcap Cool

1511201360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511201360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511201360
Reply with quote  #2

1511201360
Report to moderator
1511201360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511201360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511201360
Reply with quote  #2

1511201360
Report to moderator
1511201360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511201360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511201360
Reply with quote  #2

1511201360
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511201360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511201360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511201360
Reply with quote  #2

1511201360
Report to moderator
1511201360
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511201360

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511201360
Reply with quote  #2

1511201360
Report to moderator
kazuki49
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 350



View Profile
July 03, 2015, 07:14:29 PM
 #28062

That guy is like a broken record (or at least turns v e r y slowly): he was instructing to buy silver 5 years in a row and now he's been bullish on BTC constantly since it was $3, and still is. Despite his incessant shilling of XMR, he does not even have such a high % of his wealth invested (way less than the castle he owns in Estonia anyway - at the current valuation, the castle is nearing XMR marketcap).

When you think about this it's pretty funny a lot of people (desperate bears) calling Monero overvalued at this moment in the speculation thread.


They are all the same mostly, previous or current shitcoin owners that could get large % of a coin emission for almost nothing and then pump and dump forever extracting bitcoin from victims, they can't do that with Monero, never been easy really and it pisses them off even more when they see how much potential Monero has. Its like rpietila said, its a coin that only the very rich already can own near 100K and this is positive because few ppl can get burned and allow easy and fair accumulations. A slow and inevitable march to the moon is what I would call the XMR market.
Peter R
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1064



View Profile
July 03, 2015, 10:37:08 PM
 #28063

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…There's actually a euro banknote printing facility run by the Bank of Greece in Athens.  Is there any chance, given the political mess, that the Bank of Greece directly prints banknotes to meet withdrawal demands, thereby ending the bank runs?  I realize this would be a no-no according to rules for eurozone membership but I wouldn't be surprised if such an idea gained popular support.  

Run Bitcoin Unlimited (www.bitcoinunlimited.info)
rpietila
Donator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1666



View Profile
July 03, 2015, 11:17:59 PM
 #28064

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…

According to rules, terms & conditions, laws, and justice;

if a bank is in trouble,

- first you call in the loans
- then you pay out the depositors
- the rest (if any) goes to the bondholders

Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!

Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)


Mixles
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 63


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 12:07:09 AM
 #28065

Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!

<alcohol>

You didn't get the memo? For 7 years? Duude, are you for real?  Roll Eyes

</alcohol>


Donations to 1SumKArxoEJ1HoGibmj8ygw1DZWYBvjmM
Cconvert2G36
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 12:32:35 AM
 #28066

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…

According to rules, terms & conditions, laws, and justice;

if a bank is in trouble,

- first you call in the loans
- then you pay out the depositors
- the rest (if any) goes to the bondholders

Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!


Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)

First, gravity confounding levitation schemes on youtube, now, Lamb of God fueled anti-semitism? You know... at a certain point, you start working as an advocate against the positions you take, and the opinions you espouse.

A dash of poo always spoils a thoughtfully prepared meal.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:38:29 AM
 #28067

...shitcoin owners that could get large % of a coin emission for almost nothing and then pump and dump forever extracting bitcoin from victims, they can't do that with Monero, never been easy really and it pisses them off even more when they see how much potential Monero has. Its like rpietila said, its a coin that only the very rich already can own near 100K...

By arguing that XMR's mcap is miniscule, you are argue against your point. Your logical point can only be that it is relatively near to free to acquire some significant % of XMR's mcap, and afaics whether the proceeds of the wealth effect are distributed to the person who obtained coins cheaply via selling a premine or by selling coins bought or mined near to free, then what is the operative difference?

The one argument you can make is that everbody has an equal opportunity to obtain coins at the same very low price; whereas, in a premine only the controlling group can obtain them for very low cost (not free because you must factor in their costs of development, promotion, etc) while everbody else has to pay a market rate which may be higher or lower than the controlling group's initial cost.

I think really your only logical complaint is embodied by the term "shitcoin", which I assume you mean to infer that controlling group had nearly 0 development costs and I could suggest then that the more accurate term is "copycoin". But wasn't Monero a "copycoin" at the launch when the core devs mined the heavily front loaded debasement curve (with thus less competition and relative hashrate difficulty per block reward).

I don't see much merit in that line of argument. Rather I think it is more useful to point out that Monero has a claimed 80+% code rewritten, and it apparently refined Cryptonote implementation. Refinement btw, is precisely what I asserted that leaderless organization excels at. Yet you won't find leaderless organization doing radical innovation (because by definition there is no leader who can take the bull by the horns), thus Monero will probably forever be not much more than a "copycoin". That is in a nutshell why I am not working on Monero, because copying bores me to tears. It is not an attempt to diminish Monero's importance (it is what it is), rather just the point that I like to create new technology. And I will challenge you to call anything I do a "shitcoin" or a "copycoin".

Peace.

wpalczynski
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Spectiv VR Crowdsale: 12/08/17


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:43:03 AM
 #28068

...shitcoin owners that could get large % of a coin emission for almost nothing and then pump and dump forever extracting bitcoin from victims, they can't do that with Monero, never been easy really and it pisses them off even more when they see how much potential Monero has. Its like rpietila said, its a coin that only the very rich already can own near 100K...

By arguing that XMR's mcap is miniscule, you are argue against your point. Your logical point can only be that it is relatively near to free to acquire some significant % of XMR's mcap, and afaics whether the proceeds of the wealth effect are distributed to the person who obtained coins cheaply via selling a premine or by selling coins bought or mined near to free, then what is the operative difference?

The one argument you can make is that everbody has an equal opportunity to obtain coins at the same very low price; whereas, in a premine only the controlling group can obtain them for very low cost (not free because you must factor in their costs of development, promotion, etc) while everbody else has to pay a market rate which may be higher or lower than the controlling group's initial cost.

I think really your only logical complaint is embodied by the term "shitcoin", which I assume you mean to infer that controlling group had nearly 0 development costs and I could suggest then that the more accurate term is "copycoin". But wasn't Monero a "copycoin" at the launch when the core devs mined the heavily front loaded debasement curve (with thus less competition and relative hashrate difficulty per block reward).

I don't see much merit in that line of argument. Rather I think it is more useful to point out that Monero has a claimed 80+% code rewritten, and it apparently refined Cryptonote implementation. Refinement btw, is precisely what I asserted that leaderless organization excels at. Yet you won't find leaderless organization doing radical innovation (because by definition there is no leader who can take the bull by the horns), thus Monero will probably forever be not much more than a "copycoin". That is in a nutshell why I am not working on Monero, because copying bores me to tears. It is not a knock against Monero's importance, rather just the point that I like to create new technology. And I will challenge you to call anything I do a "shitcoin" or a "copycoin".

Peace.

How can anything be challenged when you haven't done anything other than talk about creating a coin?


              ▄▄████████████▄▄             
          ▄███▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀███▄▄         
       ▄██▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀██▄       
     ▄██▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀███     
   ▄██▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄█████████████▄   
  ▄██░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░▀█▌ 
 ▐██░░░░░░░░▄█████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀████▄░░░░░░░░▀█▌
▐██░░░░░░▄███▀▀███████████████▀▀██▄░░░░░░██▌
████▄░░▄██▀███████▄██████▄████████▀██▄░░░▐██
██░▀████▀██████████████████████████████▄░░██
██░░░▀██▄█████████████████████████▄██▀▀██▄██
██▌░░░░▀███▄████████▀▀▀▀███████▄██▀░░░░░▀███
▐██░░░░░░░▀███▄▄███████████▄▄██▀▀░░░░░░░░██▌
 ▐██░░░░░░░░░░▀▀████████████▀░░░░░░░░░░░▄█▌
  ▀██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█▌ 
   ▀███▀▀▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄██▀   
     ▀██▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄██▀     
       ▀███▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄██▀       
          ▀████▄▄░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄███▀         
              ▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀             

     
                         [ Website ]                     
     
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:43:52 AM
 #28069

A dash of poo always spoils a thoughtfully prepared meal.

Poo appears to be an excelsior.

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:44:15 AM
 #28070

I would afraid to have CT on main chain.
There may be bug (or luck to find some number) and then creating bitcoins out of nothing. And nobody can verify.
That is the risk - the scheme relies on the security of ECDSA to protect the currency supply.
We're already relying on ECDSA to protect our balances from overt theft, so I'm not sure how much it actually changes the security model to also rely on it to protect our balances from covert theft via counterfeiting.
The reason I'm interested in amount blinding is that my current project is working out a multi-step plan to kill graph analysis. With the right plan and without blinded amounts we can kill graph analysis, but with blinded amounts we can drive a stake through its heart to make sure it stays dead.
We are also using SHA-256 and RIPEMD-160 hashes to protect our balances. So even ECDSA is broken our balances can be safe and then ECDSA replaced.
Pray tell how you will replace ECDSA when the coins are already assigned to keys for it?  (and when everyone and their sister constantly reuses addresses). A compromise of CT would mean that it was feasible to find discrete logs in this group, with that, anyone who learned your public key could recover your private key.  There are scenarios where the hashing, absent any address reuse, helps  (e.g. say the discrete log finding takes weeks)-- but it's important to not exaggerate the gains.

But indeed it isn't the ~quite~ same.

So gmaxwell means that if discrete logarithm assumption is broken such that it can solved within minutes for a newly seen public key, then your transaction broadcasted on the P2P network could in theory be replaced by the winning block miner spending it to himself. Funny since I had argued this point to him in the past when he was defending the power of the hashes to protect in a worst case outcome. Funny he now uses my argument against you.  Cool

Although you still do need to rely on the integrity of Monero's key images to ensure coins can't be double spent.

Cryptonote's Appendix A says double-spending ("Linkability") depends on the random oracle model (i.e. the cryptographic hash function) which the same assumption that CCT has. CN also a discrete logarithm assumption in the random oracle model on theft, same as for Bitcoin.

And don't expect the double-spending to be recognizable in Monero. For as long as the attacker only double-spends from rings that are not yet saturated, then he can double-spend indefinitely without detection.

So really there is no pragmatic difference in the threat of hidden inflation in CN or CCT, except perhaps you can argue that the break only needs to occur once in CCT and multitude of instances in CN or Bitcoin.

You are assuming a cryptographic break, I'm not, which is why I mentioned the cryptographic issue with key images. There is also the case of an implementation flaw that would (or at least could) be more readily apparent in a system that maintains visibility on sum(in) <= sum(out). In practice failures of mature cryptographic assumptions occur much less frequently implementation flaws. Bitcoin has had the latter (overflow bug) but not the former. Likewise Zerocash (if it existed) would have recently failed due to the latter (libsnark bug).

Anyway, a few different approaches comparable to CT in effect and performance are being looked at for Monero. One I believe does not require any protocol changes.

Also, TPTB, I disagree with your assertion that some benefit was obtained from a "front loaded" curve in Monero. In practice what happened is that the difficulty simply skyrocketed as the coin became popular. There was still no real opportunity for developers or other early adopters to vacuum up cheap coins, after the first few weeks (or more like one week, during which it wasn't even clear there was going to be an organized and effective project) at least. If the rewards had been lower the difficulty would have just been lower too.

Also, with the perpetual debasement it is debatable whether you can call the curve front-loaded, at least compared to say Bitcoin, which starts off with slower reductions but continues those reductions until the effect is to reduce later supply more quickly relative to early adopters. It is impossible to say you are even a 1% holder of "all" of Monero's supply since the supply is infinite.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:46:18 AM
 #28071

How can anything be challenged when you haven't done anything other than talk about creating a coin?

"Will" is a future tense verb.

And the bulk of my post was about a general logic which doesn't hinge on what if anything I might do. And my post was not derogatory to Monero nor Cryptonote, rather just pointing out that if the best selling point you can muster is illogic, then you are doing yourself a disservice. Instead I suggest focus on the facts that are positive, such as the autonomy of one-time ring sigs and the massive amount of refinement effort that has been done. Or continue beating the "not a copycoin premine" drum and I will continue to refute it.

P.S. I didn't realize Monero had changed from 0% perpetual debasement to 0.9% (according to rpietila). Smooth (and I but not coordinated at all, no back dealings and no alignment, just I was aware of his stance) were for perpetual a couple of months after launch and he was apparently rebuffed by afair rpietila, aminorex, and others. Seems his (our) stance won over? At the time I was pushing for closer to 5% (my thinking may have changed hence) and I believe smooth was for any level 1% and above which could accepted by the consensus. And afair rpietila was slowing moving away from 0% to thoughts of a few tenths of a percent.

cypherdoc
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1764



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 01:46:51 AM
 #28072

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…

According to rules, terms & conditions, laws, and justice;

if a bank is in trouble,

- first you call in the loans
- then you pay out the depositors
- the rest (if any) goes to the bondholders

Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!

Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)




the entirety of the 2008 bailout here in the US was to make sure bondholders got bailed out.  in a system based off fractional reserve, that is how it has to be to continue the ponzi.  that's how it's always been; savings and loan crisis, Mexico, subprime, even the Euro situation.  if confidence in debt is ever shaken, the entire system blows up. 

this is the basis of my thinking that during the next crisis here in the US, which may have already arrived btw, the USD takes a beating while they bid the prices of UST's back up.  we'll see how it plays out.
generalizethis
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1176


Facts are more efficient than fud


View Profile WWW
July 04, 2015, 02:10:22 AM
 #28073

The banking crisis in Greece and the proposed 30% bail-in on balances of 8,000 euros got me thinking…

According to rules, terms & conditions, laws, and justice;

if a bank is in trouble,

- first you call in the loans
- then you pay out the depositors
- the rest (if any) goes to the bondholders

Why are bondholders made whole from the funds of the depositors? The rules are there to be followed!


Fucking bankster jews, your father is Satan, for you are liars, and he is the father of lies, and when you propose the depositors money to be cut and extracted to fill your pockets, you are truly speaking of your father. - Jesus (paraphrased)

First, gravity confounding levitation schemes on youtube, now, Lamb of God fueled anti-semitism? You know... at a certain point, you start working as an advocate against the positions you take, and the opinions you espouse.

A dash of poo always spoils a thoughtfully prepared meal.

Funny how I never read that in the Bible. Maybe it is the the lost Hitler Bible meant to replace the King James version after the Reich (successfully) goosestepped past the Volga-- But what book? The Gospel according to Himmler? The Gospel according to Goering? Maybe Eva Braun could play the part of Mary Magdalene and one of Goebel's experiments could have raised Lazarus from the dead. Because with National Socialism, we're all Jesus re-purposed as an Aryan descendant of the lost civilization of Atlantis and the line of David is replaced with Caesars and Pontiffs and Fuhers, Oh mY!

Risto, are you really citing a Jewish God/S.O.G./Prophet as the go-to critic of all things Hebrew, but failing to see most of the revisionism is Christians/TPTB/Romanized-slave-traditionalist trying to usurp (hardfork or c-section? Hmmmm) the Bible from its obvious pre-Nero birth--does every race need to have a persecution complex?

We can't become transhuman fast enough, because these old guard allegiances based on race make the best of us sound like a chimp in a tree throwing shit and trying to make us see the light of the you-wasp/me-wasp/we-good  brand of primal politics.

I'm gonna go meditate and forget how memes (especially horrible ones) sometimes make us more than we make them. Or i could go grab the biggest stick i can find and add to the shit-tossing madness....

TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:15:14 AM
 #28074

You are assuming a cryptographic break, I'm not, which is why I mentioned the cryptographic issue with key images.

Yes but my point was and is to compare relative risk of such in CN and CCT.

There is also the case of an implementation flaw that would (or at least could) be more readily apparent in a system that maintains visibility on sum(in) <= sum(out).

My point was and is that the failure would be no more apparent in CN than CCT. There is no way to distinguish in CN if a ring has been double-spent until the same set of addresses in the ring have been spent as many times are in the ring ("saturated"), but before then the double-spend was done and not seen. Thus the clever attacker could use large rings and only double-spend that particular ring once. For as long as Monero doesn't implement my suggestion to force ring groups, then not only it is (unquantified level of, perhaps unlikely) vulnerable to combinatorial unmasking of anonymity, it is also more vulnerable to double-spending being undetected in the unlikely event of a cryptographic break.

In practice failures of mature cryptographic assumptions occur much less frequently implementation flaws. Bitcoin has had the latter (overflow bug) but not the former. Likewise Zerocash (if it existed) would have recently failed due to the latter (libsnark bug).

I am not arguing against that, just whether the underlying cryptographic assumptions that protect against double-spending are not different in CN vs. CCT for example.

Anyway, a few different approaches comparable to CT in effect and performance are being looked at for Monero. One I believe does not require any protocol changes.

I am aware of the proposed one that mixes all the transactions in the block. But afaics, that violates the end-to-end principle (autonomy) of one-time ring sigs.

Also, TPTB, I disagree with your assertion that some benefit was obtained from a "front loaded" curve in Monero. In practice what happened is that the difficulty simply skyrocketed as the coin became popular. There was still no real opportunity for developers or other early adopters to vacuum up cheap coins, after the first few weeks (or more like one week, during which it wasn't even clear there was going to be an organized and effective project) at least. If the rewards had been lower the difficulty would have just been lower too.

I am not arguing "a benefit per se" (people invest hopefully to benefit themselves), rather just comparing how it is not much different than an ICO (disparagingly referred to as a "premine"), except for the differences and ramifications thereof I enumerated.

Also, with the perpetual debasement it is debatable whether you can call the curve front-loaded, at least compared to say Bitcoin

So does that mean you all won't disparage a coin launched with an ICO that also has perpetual debasement.

My point is I'd prefer we stay focused on the features and development effort on a coin.

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:24:15 AM
 #28075

So does that mean you all won't disparage a coin launched with an ICO that also has perpetual debasement.

I have no issue with ICOs in theory. In practice I don't believe anonymous coin ICOs can ever be done in a manner that avoids the appearance of potential manipulation (insiders buying the ICO, creating a false appearance of high investor demand, getting the purchase money back, and also getting some non-transparent share of the coins). In traditional finance, and possibly a tiny number of above-board coin ICOs, there is transparency as to the identity of the investors and disclosure of ownership on later rounds (of course there are exceptions and frauds), which prevents, or at least discourages, this type of self-dealing.

I'd rather see an actual premine at least honestly disclosed as such. I might not buy into such a coin, but I won't call it fraudulent at least, as I would and do various deceptive and/or fraudulent (or fraud-prone) schemes such as hidden premines and most or all altcoin ICOs in practice.

Quote
My point was and is that the failure would be no more apparent in CN than CCT.

You are still assuming that the failure is a cryptographic assumption and not an implementation flaw (cryptographic or otherwise). In the latter case the greater transparency of aggregate coin flows on the blockchain will prevent some failures from being undetectable.
smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:29:36 AM
 #28076

insiders buying the ICO, creating a false appearance of high investor demand, getting the purchase money back, and also getting some non-transparent share of the coins

There is a way to mathematically prove the controlling group can't have more than a % of the total coins even if they used this mechanism.

I doubt it. There can always be shill buyers.
TPTB_need_war
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:31:37 AM
 #28077

Quote
My point was and is that the failure would be no more apparent in CN than CCT.

You are still assuming that the failure is a cryptographic assumption and not an implementation flaw (cryptographic or otherwise). In the latter case the greater transparency of aggregate coin flows on the blockchain will prevent some failures from being undetectable.

How is greater aggregate value flow versus greater transactions flow going to impact that? Not likely.

Rather I will buy an argument that says Cryptonote implementations are more mature (and Monero apparently heavily refined with many eyeballs) than for example CT implementations which is only in alpha afaik. And the cryptographic code may be much less complex in CN than CT.

smooth
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1596



View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:33:49 AM
 #28078

insiders buying the ICO, creating a false appearance of high investor demand, getting the purchase money back, and also getting some non-transparent share of the coins

There is a way to mathematically prove the controlling group can't have more than a % of the total coins even if they used this mechanism.

I doubt it. There can always be shill buyers.

Not unless you assume the controlling group can print money out-of-thin air after the size of the premine has been locked into stone.

If you are saying the controlling group can't have more than 100% of the premine, sure I agree, but don't consider that very interesting.
wpalczynski
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1204


Spectiv VR Crowdsale: 12/08/17


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:40:27 AM
 #28079


No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual  Lips sealed  Embarrassed).

.

not this again...


              ▄▄████████████▄▄             
          ▄███▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░▀▀▀███▄▄         
       ▄██▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀██▄       
     ▄██▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▀███     
   ▄██▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄▄▄█████████████▄   
  ▄██░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄█████████░░░░░░░░░░░░▀█▌ 
 ▐██░░░░░░░░▄█████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀████▄░░░░░░░░▀█▌
▐██░░░░░░▄███▀▀███████████████▀▀██▄░░░░░░██▌
████▄░░▄██▀███████▄██████▄████████▀██▄░░░▐██
██░▀████▀██████████████████████████████▄░░██
██░░░▀██▄█████████████████████████▄██▀▀██▄██
██▌░░░░▀███▄████████▀▀▀▀███████▄██▀░░░░░▀███
▐██░░░░░░░▀███▄▄███████████▄▄██▀▀░░░░░░░░██▌
 ▐██░░░░░░░░░░▀▀████████████▀░░░░░░░░░░░▄█▌
  ▀██▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████████▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄█▌ 
   ▀███▀▀▀▀▀▀░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄██▀   
     ▀██▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄██▀     
       ▀███▄░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░▄▄██▀       
          ▀████▄▄░░░░░░░░░░▄▄▄███▀         
              ▀▀▀██████████▀▀▀             

     
                         [ Website ]                     
     
shmadz
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1498


@theshmadz


View Profile
July 04, 2015, 02:41:29 AM
 #28080


No I am saying it can be mathematically proven that the controlling group can't have more than X% of the premine after the ICO. There is something clever I haven't revealed (as usual  Lips sealed  Embarrassed).

.

not this again...
Is it possible to prove that someone is full of shit if he never reveals the secret of the shit he is full of?

"You have no moral right to rule us, nor do you possess any methods of enforcement that we have reason to fear." - John Perry Barlow, 1996
Pages: « 1 ... 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1360 1361 1362 1363 1364 1365 1366 1367 1368 1369 1370 1371 1372 1373 1374 1375 1376 1377 1378 1379 1380 1381 1382 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 [1404] 1405 1406 1407 1408 1409 1410 1411 1412 1413 1414 1415 1416 1417 1418 1419 1420 1421 1422 1423 1424 1425 1426 1427 1428 1429 1430 1431 1432 1433 1434 1435 1436 1437 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1453 1454 ... 1558 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!