[XMR] Monero Speculation

[Pline]

Pline it was around 2 weeks; not one - and not 3. Eizh was correct.

Here i exposed the copying of bitmessage:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700087.msg8156416#msg8156416

First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.

Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior.

shady as shit.

Indeed

I think the whitepapers were rushed out, so they could focus on coding.  The crypto space is a competitive race, and I suppose the code was more important than the whitepaper.

[smooth]

Pline it was around 2 weeks; not one - and not 3. Eizh was correct.

Here i exposed the copying of bitmessage:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700087.msg8156416#msg8156416

First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.

Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior.

shady as shit.

Indeed

I think the whitepapers were rushed out, so they could focus on coding.  The crypto space is a competitive race, and I suppose the code was more important than the whitepaper.

So the explanation is that they made the exact same accidental error twice, including a footnote for the thing they copied but not referencing it in the text, even after this was pointed out to them the first time?

While at the same time referencing things like zerocoin (somehow they didn't forget that one), which have minimal relation to the actual technology used, but a lot of value as something that can be hyped?

I'm not buying (coins or story).

shady as shit.

[Pline]

Pline it was around 2 weeks; not one - and not 3. Eizh was correct.

Here i exposed the copying of bitmessage:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700087.msg8156416#msg8156416

First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.

Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior.

shady as shit.

Indeed

I think the whitepapers were rushed out, so they could focus on coding.  The crypto space is a competitive race, and I suppose the code was more important than the whitepaper.

So the explanation is that they made the exact same accidental error twice, including a footnote for the thing they copied but not referencing it in the text?

While at the same time referencing things like zerocoin (somehow they didn't forget that one), which have minimal relation to the actual technology used, but a lot of value as something that can be hyped?

I'm not buying (coins or story).

shady as shit.

No the explanation is that they have better things to do than write perfect whitepapers.  The code speaks for itself.  The zerocoin reference is obvious to anyone reading the whitepapers on tokens. They are building towards a direction where they would like to go in the hopes of being able to slot in zkSNARKS. Funny how before you called me a dumb shit for saying that there are similarities between the minting of tokens in ShadowCash as well as Zerocoin.  Yet now you are admitting their is "minimal" relation. So which is it? No relation or minimal relation? You called me a liar before for saying there was relation.  So now you are saying you only disagreed on the amount of relation? Interesting.  Obviously you are a FUDDer trying to protect yourself from competition.  It doesn't make people want to buy your coin.

[smooth]

Pline it was around 2 weeks; not one - and not 3. Eizh was correct.

Here i exposed the copying of bitmessage:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700087.msg8156416#msg8156416

First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.

Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior.

shady as shit.

Indeed

I think the whitepapers were rushed out, so they could focus on coding.  The crypto space is a competitive race, and I suppose the code was more important than the whitepaper.

So the explanation is that they made the exact same accidental error twice, including a footnote for the thing they copied but not referencing it in the text?

While at the same time referencing things like zerocoin (somehow they didn't forget that one), which have minimal relation to the actual technology used, but a lot of value as something that can be hyped?

I'm not buying (coins or story).

shady as shit.

No the explanation is that they have better things to do than write perfect whitepapers.  The code speaks for itself.  The zerocoin reference is obvious to anyone reading the whitepapers on tokens. They are building towards a direction where they would like to go in the hopes of being able to slot in zkSNARKS. Funny how before you called me a dumb shit for saying that there are similarities between the minting of tokens in ShadowCash as well as Zerocoin.  Yet now you are admitting their is "minimal" relation. So which is it? No relation or minimal relation? You called me a liar before for saying there was relation.  So now you are saying you only disagreed on the amount of relation? Interesting.  Obviously you are a FUDDer trying to protect yourself from competition.  It doesn't make people want to buy your coin.

I'm commenting on the pattern of behavior with respect to the peculiar omission of a very interesting subset of footnotes not being referenced in the text, twice.

The "oops, sorry, mistake" defense is very popular in crypto circles. Sometimes it is perfectly honest. Sometimes it is not. People will have to make up their own minds.

As far as the technology, direction, etc. people can evaluate that best by looking at the actual project, not what you or I have to say about it.

As for calling you a dumb shit, here's the context:

As quoted by rynomster the lead SDC dev:
more pumping nonsense about "better anon" vaporware.

As implemented today there is no there there. All you have are outputs, which can be used in ring signatures. If and when they implement something different in the future such as zerocoin we can discuss that.

this is non-sequitur

For it to be a non-sequitur it would have to be incorrect. It is not.

whats the ref?

Try this, dumb shit:

[lyth0s]

Only 170 BTC to reach 0.004 on Poloneix. 360 BTC of sells to get to 0.002. Market depth for bids is pretty solid too, especially compared to ask depth. It's looking to continue its steady uptrend this week

[Pline]

Pline it was around 2 weeks; not one - and not 3. Eizh was correct.

Here i exposed the copying of bitmessage:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=700087.msg8156416#msg8156416

First of all, if you write a whitepaper and add footnotes, you have to reference them in the text...But of course you cant because you reworded the text too much.

Isn't this the exact same thing they did with the cryptonote white paper and ShadowSend? Seems to be a pattern of behavior.

shady as shit.

Indeed

I think the whitepapers were rushed out, so they could focus on coding.  The crypto space is a competitive race, and I suppose the code was more important than the whitepaper.

So the explanation is that they made the exact same accidental error twice, including a footnote for the thing they copied but not referencing it in the text?

While at the same time referencing things like zerocoin (somehow they didn't forget that one), which have minimal relation to the actual technology used, but a lot of value as something that can be hyped?

I'm not buying (coins or story).

shady as shit.

No the explanation is that they have better things to do than write perfect whitepapers.  The code speaks for itself.  The zerocoin reference is obvious to anyone reading the whitepapers on tokens. They are building towards a direction where they would like to go in the hopes of being able to slot in zkSNARKS. Funny how before you called me a dumb shit for saying that there are similarities between the minting of tokens in ShadowCash as well as Zerocoin.  Yet now you are admitting their is "minimal" relation. So which is it? No relation or minimal relation? You called me a liar before for saying there was relation.  So now you are saying you only disagreed on the amount of relation? Interesting.  Obviously you are a FUDDer trying to protect yourself from competition.  It doesn't make people want to buy your coin.

I'm commenting on the pattern of behavior with respect to the peculiar omission of a very interesting subset of footnotes not being referenced in the text, twice.

The "oops, sorry, mistake" defense is very popular in crypto circles. Sometimes it is perfectly honest. Sometimes it is not. People will have to make up their own minds.

As far as the technology, direction, etc. people can evaluate that best by looking at the actual project, not what you or I have to say about it.

As for calling you a dumb shit, here's the context:

As quoted by rynomster the lead SDC dev:
more pumping nonsense about "better anon" vaporware.

As implemented today there is no there there. All you have are outputs, which can be used in ring signatures. If and when they implement something different in the future such as zerocoin we can discuss that.

this is non-sequitur

For it to be a non-sequitur it would have to be incorrect. It is not.

whats the ref?

Try this, dumb shit:

No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit.  Here is when you called me a dumb shit.  I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster.  So you basically called him a dumb shit too:

More ignorant nonsense about SDC minting having anything to do with zerocoin, not copied from cryptonote, etc.

i.e. more or less exactly what I said SDC proponents constantly do.

Sigh.

I guess the new iteration of this nonsense is "anonymous tokens are not just anonymous outputs." Hey dumb shit, that's exactly what they are in SDC.

I was referring to ryno's own words:

The reason we opted for anonymous tokens, instead of direct anonymous outputs to ringsigs, is because we're building towards direction we're heading in. What we're striving for... Encrypted values, with perfect nizkps, proving all values of inputs are real, without revealing any information about where they come from.

We're looking at many things, like homomorphic encryption, snarks, etc...
http://eprint.iacr.org/2014/976
snarks are advancing, along with many other ideas... We are not for limiting ourselves, but for bettering our [collective] future

[smooth]

(context above, no need to quote on every single post).

No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit.  Here is when you called me a dumb shit.  I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster.  So you basically called him a dumb shit too:

I don't care who it is. Anyone who says that "tokens" in SDC are anything more than just outputs is either dumb or lying, as shown by the above excerpt from the SDC whitepaper.

Amusingly the response I got on the other thread for pointing that out was to be accused of faking the whitepaper LOL.

[Pline]

(context above, no need to quote on every single post).

No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit.  Here is when you called me a dumb shit.  I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster.  So you basically called him a dumb shit too:

I don't care who it is. Anyone who says that "tokens" in SDC are anything more than just outputs is either dumb or lying, as shown by the above excerpt from the SDC whitepaper.

Amusingly the response I got on the other thread for pointing that out was to be accused of faking the whitepaper LOL.

Well I think you misunderstood what I said smooth.  What I was simply trying to say was what ryno said.  That they chose anonymous tokens instead of "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" because they are building towards a certain direction. I accidentally left out the words "to ring sigs", when I mentioned it, which probably confused you.   SNARKS aren't fully ready and trustless yet from what they have said so they are waiting for the tech to advance.  They are striving for a goal of anonymity, and SNARKS look very promising, and could play a role in the future.  There could be other solutions instead as well, and ryno said they are not limiting themselves to ideas.  Hope that clears things up.  I will be exiting this thread now.  Please carry on, again we have same goal of anonymity and privacy.  Its better to work with each other than against each other.

[smooth]

(context above, no need to quote on every single post).

No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit.  Here is when you called me a dumb shit.  I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster.  So you basically called him a dumb shit too:

I don't care who it is. Anyone who says that "tokens" in SDC are anything more than just outputs is either dumb or lying, as shown by the above excerpt from the SDC whitepaper.

Amusingly the response I got on the other thread for pointing that out was to be accused of faking the whitepaper LOL.

Well I think you misunderstood what I said smooth.  What I was simply trying to say was what ryno said.  That they chose anonymous tokens instead of "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" because they are building towards a certain direction. I accidentally left out the words "to ring sigs", when I mentioned it, which probably confused you.

Except that the above quoted phrase "outputs on the ShadowCash chain" is exactly "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" (ShadowCash chain outputs are spent using ring sigs).

It's a bunch of double talk imo.

SNARKS aren't fully ready and trustless yet from what they have said so they are waiting for the tech to advance.  They are striving for a goal of anonymity, and SNARKS look very promising, and could play a role in the future.  There could be other solutions instead as well, and ryno said they are not limiting themselves to ideas.  Hope that clears things up.  I will be exiting this thread now.  Please carry on, again we have same goal of anonymity and privacy.  Its better to work with each other than against each other.

Thank you for the input here.

[Pline]

(context above, no need to quote on every single post).

No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit.  Here is when you called me a dumb shit.  I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster.  So you basically called him a dumb shit too:

I don't care who it is. Anyone who says that "tokens" in SDC are anything more than just outputs is either dumb or lying, as shown by the above excerpt from the SDC whitepaper.

Amusingly the response I got on the other thread for pointing that out was to be accused of faking the whitepaper LOL.

Well I think you misunderstood what I said smooth.  What I was simply trying to say was what ryno said.  That they chose anonymous tokens instead of "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" because they are building towards a certain direction. I accidentally left out the words "to ring sigs", when I mentioned it, which probably confused you.

Except that the above quoted phrase "outputs on the ShadowCash chain" is exactly "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" (ShadowCash chain outputs are spent using ring sigs).

It's a bunch of double talk imo.

Well I wanted to leave   But I'm a bit confused as to what you are getting at to be honest.  Ryno was not saying that Shadow>Shadow transfers are not direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs.  Of course they are.  They are basically the same as Monero from my understanding.  What I believe he meant was that instead of having ONLY Shadow>Shadow transfers like Monero, they introduced a 2-way pegged token. Then he explained the reason why they used a token instead of direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs like Monero.  He said its because of the direction they are striving and building towards. I could be wrong, but that was just my understanding of it.  Hope this helps clear it up.

[generalizethis]

(context above, no need to quote on every single post).

No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit.  Here is when you called me a dumb shit.  I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster.  So you basically called him a dumb shit too:

I don't care who it is. Anyone who says that "tokens" in SDC are anything more than just outputs is either dumb or lying, as shown by the above excerpt from the SDC whitepaper.

Amusingly the response I got on the other thread for pointing that out was to be accused of faking the whitepaper LOL.

Well I think you misunderstood what I said smooth.  What I was simply trying to say was what ryno said.  That they chose anonymous tokens instead of "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" because they are building towards a certain direction. I accidentally left out the words "to ring sigs", when I mentioned it, which probably confused you.

Except that the above quoted phrase "outputs on the ShadowCash chain" is exactly "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" (ShadowCash chain outputs are spent using ring sigs).

It's a bunch of double talk imo.

Well I wanted to leave  But I'm a bit confused as to what you are getting at to be honest.  Ryno was not saying that Shadow>Shadow transfers are not direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs.  Of course they are.  They are basically the same as Monero from my understanding.  What I believe he meant was that instead of having ONLY Shadow>Shadow transfers like Monero, they introduced a 2-way pegged token. Then he explained the reason why they used a token instead of direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs like Monero.  He said its because of the direction they are striving and building towards. I could be wrong, but that was just my understanding of it.  Hope this helps clear it up.

I admire your due diligence, Pline, but ask yourself, "Why am I not on the SDC thread asking these same questions?" I asked a bunch a noob questions on the Monero thread and always got honest answers with the necessary links to do my own groundwork. That's why i trust this coin more than any other--though i'm sure the thread was (and still is) dragged down  a bit by my steep learning curve.  

[Anon136]

(context above, no need to quote on every single post).

No actually that is when you called P3RS3US AKA child_harold a dumb shit.  Here is when you called me a dumb shit.  I was just quoting our lead dev rynomster.  So you basically called him a dumb shit too:

I don't care who it is. Anyone who says that "tokens" in SDC are anything more than just outputs is either dumb or lying, as shown by the above excerpt from the SDC whitepaper.

Amusingly the response I got on the other thread for pointing that out was to be accused of faking the whitepaper LOL.

Well I think you misunderstood what I said smooth.  What I was simply trying to say was what ryno said.  That they chose anonymous tokens instead of "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" because they are building towards a certain direction. I accidentally left out the words "to ring sigs", when I mentioned it, which probably confused you.

Except that the above quoted phrase "outputs on the ShadowCash chain" is exactly "direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs" (ShadowCash chain outputs are spent using ring sigs).

It's a bunch of double talk imo.

Well I wanted to leave  But I'm a bit confused as to what you are getting at to be honest.  Ryno was not saying that Shadow>Shadow transfers are not direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs.  Of course they are.  They are basically the same as Monero from my understanding.  What I believe he meant was that instead of having ONLY Shadow>Shadow transfers like Monero, they introduced a 2-way pegged token. Then he explained the reason why they used a token instead of direct anonymous outputs to ring sigs like Monero.  He said its because of the direction they are striving and building towards. I could be wrong, but that was just my understanding of it.  Hope this helps clear it up.

I admire your due diligence, Pline, but ask yourself, "Why am I not on the SDC thread asking these same questions?" I asked a bunch a noob questions on the Monero thread and always got honest answers with the necessary links to do my own groundwork. That's why i trust this coin more than any other--though i'm sure the thread was (and still is) dragged down  a bit by my steep learning curve.  

Yes there are so many accusations of censorship on the part of that community coming from so many different angles that i am quite inclined to believe it. That doesn't reflect well on the long term prospects of the project.

*edit* speak of the devil. i just had a post from this very thread deleted by a monerator which just so happened to have the word sha0wcash in it. (if i say the actual word it will show up in searches and this post will be deleted too)

[Quicken]

Only 170 BTC to reach 0.004 on Poloneix. 360 BTC of sells to get to 0.002. Market depth for bids is pretty solid too, especially compared to ask depth. It's looking to continue its steady uptrend this week

Battle Royale at Poloniex over the 0.003 border. Nearly 350 BTC of action in the last 24 hours, with little movement. Interesting.

[GingerAle]

Over 35 days since the Feb 18 low, XMR has been appreciating relatively stably at ~2.7% per diem.

Sweet. I have a post somewhere requesting that it have a 3% annual increase. Does daily % equal annual percent? Probably not because of compounding.

[smooth]

Over 35 days since the Feb 18 low, XMR has been appreciating relatively stably at ~2.7% per diem.

Sweet. I have a post somewhere requesting that it have a 3% annual increase. Does daily % equal annual percent? Probably not because of compounding.

Crypto kingdom years.

[TrueCryptonaire]

The buy support is building up nicely.
Also the growth rate is optimal considering the price point.
When/if Monero approaches the parity with bitcoin, the growth rate will decline massively since then there is no "easy growth" left.

[Hueristic]

...

I admire your due diligence, Pline, but ask yourself, "Why am I not on the SDC thread asking these same questions?" I asked a bunch a noob questions on the Monero thread and always got honest answers with the necessary links to do my own groundwork. That's why i trust this coin more than any other--though i'm sure the thread was (and still is) dragged down  a bit by my steep learning curve.  

Same here, I spent time in the SDC thread and came to my own conclusions. I gave them a chance to sell me on their vision. I left and wished them well but didn't share that vision. Now XMR is just the opposite. I see the Vision clearly laid, out the path to get there and the hard work being put forth to see that end. There really is no comparison in my mind.

I shot myself in the foot. I sold off thinking there should be a profit taking period and I could get back in lower.

Guess I'll just have to wait for the next whale dump to get back in.

[rpietila]

Guess I'll just have to wait for the next whale dump to get back in.

Whales are accumulating. The miners dump. I don't rule out a miner dump but in this environment with brisk demand that is pretty needless.

If I needed to sell 50k, it would not be hard to do. And if I needed to sell my produce, there would be no need to accumulate 50k before selling.

These are clearly evident in the recent days when lows have been rising quicker than the highs.

[fearcoka]

Monero is a good coin but its outdated imo. We are heading towards a path that requires much more than this project can offer.
best of luck

[rpietila]

Monero is a good coin but its outdated imo. We are heading towards a path that requires much more than this project can offer.
best of luck

Mods, please bear with me, but I would actually like to give fearcoka about 10 lines to tell about Shadowcash distribution. The subject fascinates me and doing it right is the most important thing I seek in a coin (team is second, tech is third and availability of a wallet is a bonus).