Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[justusranvier]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

[Bagatell]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

[justusranvier]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

[dEBRUYNE]

since noone mentioned it yet: https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/596622731711352832?s=09

Yes, an actually decent suggestion from Mark Frappacino.

This is already implemented in certain altcoins, for instance the CryptoNote family whereby Monero currently is the biggest (ignore Bytecoin, it had a 80% premine which actually is a danger to anonymity). I personally don't know the details of it, but this is what I could find:

I think Cryptonote (Monero) actually adjusts the miner's reward depending on the size of his block, and updates the block size limit like this:

(median of past n blocks, with constant lower-limit) * 2

if I'm reading this correctly:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/c41d14b2aa3fc883d45299add1cbb8ebbe6c9ed8/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain.cpp#L2230-L2244

Thats correct, our block size is dynamically scaled by the size of the previous blocks with no hard limit for the block size. Its been this way since the launch in early 2014. There is also a dynamic coinbase penalty above a size threshold to prevent people from making too large of blocks, too quickly. Gmaxwell and some of the other bitcore developers argued against such a design, saying that it gave too much power to miners to decide the size of the blocks.

source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35azxk/screw_the_hard_limit_lets_change_the_block_size/cr2phqd
note: Tacotime is one of the 7 core team members of Monero

[Bagatell]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

[justusranvier]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

Ah. That makes a lot more sense.

I completely understand Gavin's tweet the other day about losing sleep.

[cypherdoc]

since noone mentioned it yet: https://twitter.com/MagicalTux/status/596622731711352832?s=09

Yes, an actually decent suggestion from Mark Frappacino.

This is already implemented in certain altcoins, for instance the CryptoNote family whereby Monero currently is the biggest (ignore Bytecoin, it had a 80% premine which actually is a danger to anonymity). I personally don't know the details of it, but this is what I could find:

I think Cryptonote (Monero) actually adjusts the miner's reward depending on the size of his block, and updates the block size limit like this:

(median of past n blocks, with constant lower-limit) * 2

if I'm reading this correctly:

https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/blob/c41d14b2aa3fc883d45299add1cbb8ebbe6c9ed8/src/cryptonote_core/blockchain.cpp#L2230-L2244

Thats correct, our block size is dynamically scaled by the size of the previous blocks with no hard limit for the block size. Its been this way since the launch in early 2014. There is also a dynamic coinbase penalty above a size threshold to prevent people from making too large of blocks, too quickly. Gmaxwell and some of the other bitcore developers argued against such a design, saying that it gave too much power to miners to decide the size of the blocks.

source: http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/35azxk/screw_the_hard_limit_lets_change_the_block_size/cr2phqd
note: Tacotime is one of the 7 core team members of Monero

smooth, i didn't realize you were a Monero dev.

[cypherdoc]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

that was an interesting read.  BCX has a known rep for attacking altcoins over the years.

so he never successfully attacked Monero then?

[cypherdoc]

I have solved the design problem. I now know the Holy Grail design we need for crypto-currency.

sure you do.

[dEBRUYNE]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

that was an interesting read.  BCX has a known rep for attacking altcoins over the years.

so he never successfully attacked Monero then?

Nope, he didn't. He disappeared right after his own set deadline expired, so basically it was pure FUD. The reason(s) behind it is/are still not clear till this day.  

[cypherdoc]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

that was an interesting read.  BCX has a known rep for attacking altcoins over the years.

so he never successfully attacked Monero then?

Nope, he didn't. He disappeared right after his own set deadline expired, so basically it was pure FUD. The reason(s) behind it is/are still not clear till this day.  

for the most part, i've always thought of BCX as an asset to Bitcoin mainly as an enforcer to altcoins.  not that i condone him causing financial pain for altcoin participants but in the sense that he is enforcing Satoshi's principles on a raw economic level, ie, "expect to be attacked if you stray away from first principles".

you have to give him credit for at least warning the Monero community that he intended to attack.  it sounds like it gave them an opportunity to mitigate and/or tune their code to prevent such a thing.  maybe that's why it never transpired?

[dEBRUYNE]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

that was an interesting read.  BCX has a known rep for attacking altcoins over the years.

so he never successfully attacked Monero then?

Nope, he didn't. He disappeared right after his own set deadline expired, so basically it was pure FUD. The reason(s) behind it is/are still not clear till this day.  

for the most part, i've always thought of BCX as an asset to Bitcoin mainly as an enforcer to altcoins.  not that i condone him causing financial pain for altcoin participants but in the sense that he is enforcing Satoshi's principles on a raw economic level, ie, "expect to be attacked if you stray away from first principles".

you have to give him credit for at least warning the Monero community that he intended to attack.  it sounds like it gave them an opportunity to mitigate and/or tune their code to prevent such a thing.  maybe that's why it never transpired?

Could also be it, I don't know the details of it though. Also, there were doubts about the authenticity of the account, some people suspected the account was sold before the "threat".

[cypherdoc]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

that was an interesting read.  BCX has a known rep for attacking altcoins over the years.

so he never successfully attacked Monero then?

Nope, he didn't. He disappeared right after his own set deadline expired, so basically it was pure FUD. The reason(s) behind it is/are still not clear till this day.  

for the most part, i've always thought of BCX as an asset to Bitcoin mainly as an enforcer to altcoins.  not that i condone him causing financial pain for altcoin participants but in the sense that he is enforcing Satoshi's principles on a raw economic level, ie, "expect to be attacked if you stray away from first principles".

you have to give him credit for at least warning the Monero community that he intended to attack.  it sounds like it gave them an opportunity to mitigate and/or tune their code to prevent such a thing.  maybe that's why it never transpired?

Could also be it, I don't know the details of it though. Also, there were doubts about the authenticity of the account, some people suspected the account was sold before the "threat".

that Monero chart looks brutal:

[dEBRUYNE]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

that was an interesting read.  BCX has a known rep for attacking altcoins over the years.

so he never successfully attacked Monero then?

Nope, he didn't. He disappeared right after his own set deadline expired, so basically it was pure FUD. The reason(s) behind it is/are still not clear till this day.  

for the most part, i've always thought of BCX as an asset to Bitcoin mainly as an enforcer to altcoins.  not that i condone him causing financial pain for altcoin participants but in the sense that he is enforcing Satoshi's principles on a raw economic level, ie, "expect to be attacked if you stray away from first principles".

you have to give him credit for at least warning the Monero community that he intended to attack.  it sounds like it gave them an opportunity to mitigate and/or tune their code to prevent such a thing.  maybe that's why it never transpired?

Could also be it, I don't know the details of it though. Also, there were doubts about the authenticity of the account, some people suspected the account was sold before the "threat".

that Monero chart looks brutal:

--snip--

You are missing the end, I rather prefer this chart:



Btw, most altcoin charts look like this, when btc declines, most alts decline even worse. Also, the first top of 0.01 was during the crazy pre-mintpal pump. I wasn't around back then so I hope smooth can elaborate more on this matter, but for some reason it was insanely pumped by whales back then.

Furthermore, unlike most other altcoins, Monero was fairly launched (http://devtome.com./doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#monero). It has a relatively high inflation though, which could also be a reason for the "bearish/declining" chart.

PS: Remember that Monero was launched during a BTC bearmarket, chart would probably looked a whole lot different when launched during a bullmarket.

[Zangelbert Bingledack]

Has anyone reddited this yet? With the right title it should get 100 or more upvotes.

[TPTB_need_war]

You've always been the disingenuous debater in every discussion I've ever had with you.

Cypherdoc expresses the security model (economic incentives to ensure miner honesty) nearly word-for-word out of the Bitcoin whitepaper, you accuse him of violating the (incorrectly) cite the whitepaper to say that he's wrong, I quote the section in question, and then you accuse me of being disingenuous?

Just keep on doing what you're doing - your own dishonesty is making my case better than anything I could say.

Yeah just keep on doing what you're doing dickhead (do you expect me to be nice after you intentionally slander me twice and both times you are in error?).

There you are being either "not the sharpest tool in the shed" or intentionally disingenuous again. There is no correlation between what Cypherdoc wrote and the whitepaper....

2.  i think that the majority of ppl in this world want to be honest and wish to live in a society that has order.  no one wants to live in chaos.  everybody loses.  in order for society to continue to progress and evolve, order, dependability, and a semblance of honesty is needed.  thus, in a system with so much potential to do good, like Bitcoin, the overwhelming desire is for participants to want to do what makes the system thrive.  to the extent that cheating, dishonesty, and colluding erodes confidence and threatens that goal, most participants will avoid those activities.

That is the same faith we put into a top-down democracy. Fact is a power vacuum sucks in those who can maximize the exploitation of the power vacuum.

You are violating the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's white paper which is decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest.
...

[TPTB_need_war]

I have solved the design problem. I now know the Holy Grail design we need for crypto-currency.

sure you do.

Gloat while you can. You will eat those words.

[TPTB_need_war]

It's particularly rich coming from someone that changes their ID every 10 minutes.

Citation needed

https://bullbearanalytics.com/2014/09/23/whats-going-monero/

What does that have to do with me?

It's about TPTB_need_war, AKA AnonyMint, AKA TheFascistMind.

Character assassination attempt detected.

What the hell is wrong with not needing to rely on the crutch of my extensive reputation because I can intentionally close my Hero account (before the BCX incident!) and as a newbie be immediately respected as credible, accurate, logical, etc?

Any other dick envy you care to share today?

[justusranvier]

Yeah just keep on doing what you're doing dickhead (do you expect me to be nice after you intentionally slander me twice and both times you are in error?).

There you are being either "not the sharpest tool in the shed" or intentionally disingenuous again. There is no correlation between what Cypherdoc wrote and the whitepaper....

Let's put some context in those quotes:

2 things:

1.  i think ppl under-appreciate the extent to which all participants in Bitcoin, including miners, volunteer and want to be part of a system that has the potential to make themselves extraordinary profits if it works as intended that being in an open, honest manner.  there's a lot at stake in constructing a new financial system and those profits can only be made if it works properly as advertised in that open and honest manner that ordinary ppl can depend on.  this is what will result in the trust needed so that the vast majority of humanity can buy into such a reliable system.

2.  i think that the majority of ppl in this world want to be honest and wish to live in a society that has order.  no one wants to live in chaos.  everybody loses.  in order for society to continue to progress and evolve, order, dependability, and a semblance of honesty is needed.  thus, in a system with so much potential to do good, like Bitcoin, the overwhelming desire is for participants to want to do what makes the system thrive.  to the extent that cheating, dishonesty, and colluding erodes confidence and threatens that goal, most participants will avoid those activities.

I don't know about everyone else, but it looks to me like Cypherdoc's point #2 clearly follows from point #1.

Where else have I heard something like point #1 expressed before?

6. Incentive

By convention, the first transaction in a block is a special transaction that starts a new coin owned by the creator of the block. This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.

The incentive can also be funded with transaction fees. If the output value of a transaction is less than its input value, the difference is a transaction fee that is added to the incentive value of the block containing the transaction. Once a predetermined number of coins have entered circulation, the incentive can transition entirely to transaction fees and be completely inflation free.

The incentive may help encourage nodes to stay honest. If a greedy attacker is able to assemble more CPU power than all the honest nodes, he would have to choose between using it to defraud people by stealing back his payments, or using it to generate new coins. He ought to find it more profitable to play by the rules, such rules that favour him with more new coins than everyone else combined, than to undermine the system and the validity of his own wealth.

What was your specific accusation against Cypherdoc again?

2.  i think that the majority of ppl in this world want to be honest and wish to live in a society that has order.  no one wants to live in chaos.  everybody loses.  in order for society to continue to progress and evolve, order, dependability, and a semblance of honesty is needed.  thus, in a system with so much potential to do good, like Bitcoin, the overwhelming desire is for participants to want to do what makes the system thrive.  to the extent that cheating, dishonesty, and colluding erodes confidence and threatens that goal, most participants will avoid those activities.

That is the same faith we put into a top-down democracy. Fact is a power vacuum sucks in those who can maximize the exploitation of the power vacuum.

You are violating the fundamental tenet of Satoshi's white paper which is decentralized trust, meaning we don't have to trust that people are honest.

Maybe it would help your argument if you employed more insults, or maybe created a few new sockpuppet accounts.

Since logic, evidence, and rational discourse don't appear to be in your toolbox, just stick with the "shouting down your opponents" approach.

[TPTB_need_war]

justusranvier, keep trying to obfuscate your slander instead of apologizing for your mistake.