Bitcoin Forum
November 21, 2017, 09:34:18 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.15.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: delete  (Read 27056 times)
Johnny Mnemonic
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 733



View Profile
September 18, 2014, 07:43:03 AM
 #101

Now that has been proven and I am waiting for something better.  I have been looking into PoS and maybe NEM PoI, but listening to AnonyMint's suggestion that also seems really interesting.  Basically, if lots and lots of uses were miners, that any time a wallet was open it was mining, then the network could be supported.  His solution makes a lot of sense.  

BTW, I posted this idea earlier than the post I saw from AM that described it the way JM did. I don't know if AM got it from me, in reality he and I probably just think in similar directions so I won't claim plagiarism or anything of the sort. In fact he might have posted something earlier than mine, but I never read a lot of his posts so I can't say.

The problem is, this tells you the goal but not how to get there, and even more importantly stay there. Remember, Bitcoin started with a miner in a wallet. Eventually mining become professionalized and the wallet miner was ripped out because no one used it. Although a wallet miner is pretty pointless with ASICs, the miner was ripped out earlier, during the GPU era. Another option could have been to add GPU support to it.

I wonder if possibly the fact that Satoshi expected mining to become professionalized helped push things in this direction, in a sort of self-fulfilling way. The fact that we have seen how Bitcoin has become not only professionalized but highly centralized might be enough to nudge successor projects in a different direction. Centralization is certainly one of the things (besides anonymity) that does interest the Monero developers.



I'd be interested in reading your explanation of the idea, as AM's posts are intentionally vague as to not give away the secret sauce.

I was also thinking another possible solution could be to somehow eliminate the need for pools altogether. This may be achievable with a multi-level GHOST PoW, where stale blocks could be mined at various difficulties with corresponding profitability.
1511300058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511300058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511300058
Reply with quote  #2

1511300058
Report to moderator
1511300058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511300058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511300058
Reply with quote  #2

1511300058
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1511300058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511300058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511300058
Reply with quote  #2

1511300058
Report to moderator
1511300058
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1511300058

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1511300058
Reply with quote  #2

1511300058
Report to moderator
tx42
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
September 18, 2014, 08:25:38 AM
 #102

Now that has been proven and I am waiting for something better.  I have been looking into PoS and maybe NEM PoI, but listening to AnonyMint's suggestion that also seems really interesting.  Basically, if lots and lots of uses were miners, that any time a wallet was open it was mining, then the network could be supported.  His solution makes a lot of sense.

And what would keep them from creating a wallet that saved electricity by not mining? And how do you prevent someone from writing a malicious wallet when all the others have adopted the cheaper non-miner that they can run on their phones?

People are stuck on the question of value, and come to the conclusion that value is derived from expenditure of resources. But that's simply not the case. Value is derived from utility. In other words, the question of value is related to usefulness, not expenditure.

Expenditure is required to help ensure honesty. If a reward requires resources, but cheating jeopardizes the reward, then the incentive is to be honest when expending those resources. That's the PoW model. This model has absolutely nothing to do with imparting value on a commodity. The utility of the commodity takes care of the value.

█    █     ██    ███     ███    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████     ███     ███    ██     █    █
..EARN FREE BREAKOUT COINS SIG CAMPAIGN LIVE !!
█    █     ██    ███     ███    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████     ███     ███    ██     █    █
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
September 18, 2014, 08:32:50 AM
 #103

People are stuck on the question of value, and come to the conclusion that value is derived from expenditure of resources. But that's simply not the case. Value is derived from utility. In other words, the question of value is related to usefulness, not expenditure.

Expenditure is required to help ensure honesty. If a reward requires resources, but cheating jeopardizes the reward, then the incentive is to be honest when expending those resources. That's the PoW model. This model has absolutely nothing to do with imparting value on a commodity. The utility of the commodity takes care of the value.

You've basically supported the argument you were attempting to refute. If expenditure is required to ensure honesty then the expenditure is required to derive the value, because otherwise it will be cheated out of existence. You can't wish away the honesty part. Cheaters exist.


CoinHoarder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274

In Cryptocoins I Trust


View Profile
September 18, 2014, 08:41:39 AM
 #104

It seems BCX mostly did 51% attacks, with only 1 time travel exploit which was found by Artforz. Allegedly BCX got someone to edit the code for him, as BCX apparently can't code (his words, not mine). Seeing as though BCX can't code.. unless he learned in the past few years, I doubt he fund an exploit. It seems the only code exploit he did was found by someone else and coded for him to use, and he mainly used a large hash rate to attack alt coins.

Admitting he can't code:


Actually it's not much work from what I understand and  YES I am asking, I do not know how to code.

I have no problem admitting it. The main reason I want to see SC forked is to put CH back in his corner.


Here is a summary of his early alleged attacks:

Quote from: coinhumper
Actually pretty much what he said he was going to do, he has. A lot of very knowledgeable forum members seems to consider him factual.

Geist Geld - Two successful attacks
Fairbrix -Reorged the chain and stole over 1700 blocks.
Namecoin - Rumored to have paid off by NMC Dev not to attack
Solidcoin 1 - Scared CH so bad he killed the chain as a precaution after seeing GG hit.
I0C and IXC - Numerous test for 51%, basically killed them
Bitparking - Number 1 suspect in DS attack has every trait of BCX

Coinotron - was working fine, BCX announces attack and three minutes later it shoots to 97% stales and stays there.

This guy has closed down every non BTC exchange at one point or another.

His weapons are mass resources and is apparently someone well connected in the computer industry.

He indicated what he was going to do to SC 20 and did it. He uses pure hashing power applied at the precise times. The only known code exploit was when he used ArtForz Time Travel and had some of his people modify it.

Made the statement last night right before it happened that he bump up SC 20 block generation to 4 per second, it did and stayed there.

Doesn't sound like BS to me.

Then he attacked Solidcoin2 with a ddos of its insecure "trusted node", possibly performed other attacks against solidcoin2.. there is too much to go over and I'm getting tired: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48975.msg582404#msg582404

Apparently he 51%ed Litecoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96186

Claimed he will 51% Digicoin, but didn't: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236630.msg2501414#msg2501414

Time travel exploit against Spots: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=259764.msg2772289#msg2772289

tx42
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 742



View Profile
September 18, 2014, 09:00:33 AM
 #105

People are stuck on the question of value, and come to the conclusion that value is derived from expenditure of resources. But that's simply not the case. Value is derived from utility. In other words, the question of value is related to usefulness, not expenditure.

Expenditure is required to help ensure honesty. If a reward requires resources, but cheating jeopardizes the reward, then the incentive is to be honest when expending those resources. That's the PoW model. This model has absolutely nothing to do with imparting value on a commodity. The utility of the commodity takes care of the value.

You've basically supported the argument you were attempting to refute. If expenditure is required to ensure honesty then the expenditure is required to derive the value, because otherwise it will be cheated out of existence. You can't wish away the honesty part. Cheaters exist.

I'm refuting the notion that there exists some causal relationship between expenditure and value. That relationship is correlation in some cases, but not causation. Plenty of coins have been mined with great expenditure of resources yet are worthless now. The inverse is also true. Some coins have been mined quickly and without much expenditure, but are highly valued.

█    █     ██    ███     ███    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████     ███     ███    ██     █    █
..EARN FREE BREAKOUT COINS SIG CAMPAIGN LIVE !!
█    █     ██    ███     ███    ████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████████     ███     ███    ██     █    █
Hunyadi
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1269


☑ ♟ ☐ ♚


View Profile
September 18, 2014, 09:09:59 AM
 #106

It seems lot of people have invested too much in XMR and are now scared.


▂▃▅▇█▓▒░BTC-Cultist░▒▓█▇▅▃▂
SomethingElse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 210

Looking for the next big thing


View Profile
September 18, 2014, 09:35:10 AM
 #107

It seems BCX mostly did 51% attacks, with only 1 time travel exploit which was found by Artforz. Allegedly BCX got someone to edit the code for him, as BCX apparently can't code (his words, not mine). Seeing as though BCX can't code.. unless he learned in the past few years, I doubt he fund an exploit. It seems the only code exploit he did was found by someone else and coded for him to use, and he mainly used a large hash rate to attack alt coins.

Admitting he can't code:


Actually it's not much work from what I understand and  YES I am asking, I do not know how to code.

I have no problem admitting it. The main reason I want to see SC forked is to put CH back in his corner.


Here is a summary of his early alleged attacks:

Quote from: coinhumper
Actually pretty much what he said he was going to do, he has. A lot of very knowledgeable forum members seems to consider him factual.

Geist Geld - Two successful attacks
Fairbrix -Reorged the chain and stole over 1700 blocks.
Namecoin - Rumored to have paid off by NMC Dev not to attack
Solidcoin 1 - Scared CH so bad he killed the chain as a precaution after seeing GG hit.
I0C and IXC - Numerous test for 51%, basically killed them
Bitparking - Number 1 suspect in DS attack has every trait of BCX

Coinotron - was working fine, BCX announces attack and three minutes later it shoots to 97% stales and stays there.

This guy has closed down every non BTC exchange at one point or another.

His weapons are mass resources and is apparently someone well connected in the computer industry.

He indicated what he was going to do to SC 20 and did it. He uses pure hashing power applied at the precise times. The only known code exploit was when he used ArtForz Time Travel and had some of his people modify it.

Made the statement last night right before it happened that he bump up SC 20 block generation to 4 per second, it did and stayed there.

Doesn't sound like BS to me.

Then he attacked Solidcoin2 with a ddos of its insecure "trusted node": https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48975.msg582404#msg582404

That was a lot of good information.  So basically this guy has basically been the reaper for many a coin, but usually via raw power.  He hasn't said he was going to attack XMR (the exact opposite).  The worrisome thing is that he said he found an exploit in CN.  I am wondering if what he really means is "somebody showed him a fatal flaw".  The XMR trolls have pissed a lot of people off.  I can imagine another developer knows about a flaw and just hasn't done much but is considering it now.  Also, if somebody knew about a flaw and wanted to kill a coin but didn't have the resources themselves, then BCX is hands down the most obvious choice to contact.  He has destroyed so many coins; he apparently kind of likes it.  Even if I am wrong about this theory, I think there is something to what he is saying about flaws in the code.  He has a pretty bad ass reputation and apparently a high ego.  I am sure he would hate to get shamed and be wrong.   


NEM
CoinHoarder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274

In Cryptocoins I Trust


View Profile
September 18, 2014, 09:41:52 AM
 #108

That was a lot of good information.  So basically this guy has basically been the reaper for many a coin, but usually via raw power.  He hasn't said he was going to attack XMR (the exact opposite).  The worrisome thing is that he said he found an exploit in CN.  I am wondering if what he really means is "somebody showed him a fatal flaw".  The XMR trolls have pissed a lot of people off.  I can imagine another developer knows about a flaw and just hasn't done much but is considering it now.  Also, if somebody knew about a flaw and wanted to kill a coin but didn't have the resources themselves, then BCX is hands down the most obvious choice to contact.  He has destroyed so many coins; he apparently kind of likes it.  Even if I am wrong about this theory, I think there is something to what he is saying about flaws in the code.  He has a pretty bad ass reputation and apparently a high ego.  I am sure he would hate to get shamed and be wrong.   

I'm still digging... there was a lot to go over and BCX has deleted a lot of his posts, most of which contain evidence I would assume.

Apparently he has also repeatedly used the time travel exploit. What kind of difficulty adjustment algo does Monero use??? As I think that is how the time travel exploit is utilized.

It is possible I guess someone tipped him off to an exploit in CN. It would be interesting checking other CN's Githubs for recent commits.. maybe in this case, the one that is in the know would have fixed the exploit recently.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
September 18, 2014, 09:47:21 AM
 #109

People are stuck on the question of value, and come to the conclusion that value is derived from expenditure of resources. But that's simply not the case. Value is derived from utility. In other words, the question of value is related to usefulness, not expenditure.

Expenditure is required to help ensure honesty. If a reward requires resources, but cheating jeopardizes the reward, then the incentive is to be honest when expending those resources. That's the PoW model. This model has absolutely nothing to do with imparting value on a commodity. The utility of the commodity takes care of the value.

You've basically supported the argument you were attempting to refute. If expenditure is required to ensure honesty then the expenditure is required to derive the value, because otherwise it will be cheated out of existence. You can't wish away the honesty part. Cheaters exist.

I'm refuting the notion that there exists some causal relationship between expenditure and value. That relationship is correlation in some cases, but not causation. Plenty of coins have been mined with great expenditure of resources yet are worthless now. The inverse is also true. Some coins have been mined quickly and without much expenditure, but are highly valued.

I agree it is certainly possible to spend resources and get nothing for it, but I doubt the reverse.

You point to coins that have no resources behind them, and as things stand today you are correct, but as you will know if you are reading this thread, I believe these are virtually all if not all scamcoins headed for zero (some faster than others), restoring the balance. Of course, I may be proven wrong.

CoinHoarder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274

In Cryptocoins I Trust


View Profile
September 18, 2014, 09:50:23 AM
 #110

I'm done researching BCX's exploits.. I am tired. If someone wants to pick up where I left off that would be cool, I am interested in what he has done.. or allegedly done. I pretty much checked his posting history from pages 115 to 170.

CoinHoarder
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1274

In Cryptocoins I Trust


View Profile
September 18, 2014, 09:56:29 AM
 #111

@Smooth and tx42

Not sure if you read my link up thread, but I was debating the same thing you guys are in the other thread I was referring to. This is my opinion:

It does not matter pow or pos, as long as the coin generation has no cost, the exchange rate will be close to zero. If you want to give a cryptocurrency some value, it must have a cost

It seems that fiat money does not have a cost but still have some value, but fiat money is forced by law into circulation thus backed by all the merchants' productivity in that country, thus the cost is the cost to make that law: A war or lots of political campaign could bring such a privilege, they cost a lot

But for a cryptocurrency, you can not force them into circulation, thus its value is closely decided by the manufacturing cost, just like gold. Of course the market demand will affect the exchange rate, but cost is always a baseline for deciding its value: If it cost nothing to make a $500 coin, everyone will immediately dump their coin into market, thus the coin becomes a pump and dump speculation

Suppose that 100 coins mined per day, there might be a shareholder using $50000 to buy up all the coins everyday to artificially maintain a market price of $500. Then its market capital will never grow big enough to take serious volume

However, if those 100 coins cost $5000 to mine, then the producer will refuse to sell under his cost thus automatically reduce the sell pressure on the market when exchange rate dip below $500

I would argue that purely PoS coins do cost something. The different ways of distribution for PoS/consensus I have seen all cost the person who originally received the coins something, except for one distribution model.. giveaways.

The 3 distribution methods where the coins cost money:
IPO - Definitely costs $$$
Proof of Burn - Definitely costs $$$
PoW period then switched to purely PoS - Costs money in the electricity used and time mining in which someone could of mined other cryptocurrencies

The only sketchy non-PoW distribution model that this argument could possibly be applied for:
Giveaways - I admit this is the only category thus far that could fall under your reasoning above, however giveaways have costs in that it takes the developers time, energy, and money, to program and market the cryptocurrency. However, is this perceived cost enough seeing as though the end users didn't pay for these costs themselves? Maybe, maybe not.

In the case of generic country coins that bring no innovation to the table, they have failed on a massive level. In the case of Ripple which bring an innovative approach, it has sustained and even grew in value. I think some cases are different than others, and cost is not an end all be all to a cryptocurrency having value. As long as the crypto provides some benefit, utility, or innovation, AND a larger cryptocurrency isn't already known for this innovation, then it is possible for it to survive and possibly even thrive due to the network effect.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's actually true or not. I agree my reasoning for giveaway coins having value is somewhat sketchy, so feel to prove me wrong. I have actually been using this as a reason as to why I think "spin offs" will not work, because I think Bitcoin holders will dump immediately for profit just like the country coin failures. So I guess I am contradicting myself here... I admit it is complicated.

Although to be fair to my reasoning as to spin offs, specifically the spin off I think is likely to fail is Aethereum. It is mostly due to your reasoning that there is no costs, combined with the network effect of Ethereum in which everyone pretty much sees as the decentralized programming project to beat. So in combination of no cost and the network effect, I think Aethereum will not do so well. If you replaced Aethereum with some innovation or improvement upon Bitcoin that has not already garnered a network effect, it may be possible for the spin off to be a success. I think Stellar will fail for the same reason, there is no cost and Ripple has already achieved a sufficient network effect.

So in summary I suppose I believe that my theory for other giveaways holds true with Spin Offs: As long as the crypto provides some benefit, utility, or innovation, AND a larger cryptocurrency isn't already known for this innovation, then it is possible for it to survive, and possibly even thrive due to the network effect.

smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
September 18, 2014, 10:09:23 AM
 #112

The XMR trolls have pissed a lot of people off.

You don't get it, and for a while BCX didn't get it, but eventually he figured it out.

There are no "XMR trolls."

Of course there are always a few unbalanced people who will act up on a forum at any opportunity (probably more than a few here), but I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about actual, active supporters of XMR. I know pretty much all of them. They are not going around trolling. We're too busy trying to develop a useful coin.

The people you are referring to are sock puppets who are being run by someone (we could get into who but that's a whole other discussion), using a variety of strategies to undermine Monero. One of those strategies is appearing to be pro-Monero, but doing it in such a loud, obnoxious and offensive way as to turn people against Monero.

This fake pro-Monero trolling started in June or July, and at the time it was new and obvious, but fairly limited and easy to identify. This has exploded in volume and scope. Probably this includes the trolls, copycats, and possibly other organized groups who now see Monero as a threat and see this reverse-psychology method as being effective.

It has nothing to do with the Monero project and there is nothing we can do to stop it except perhaps exactly what the trolls want, which is abandon the project. Though even then, if the current devs did abandon the project, and others took over, the trolls would likely continue their efforts.

So if anyone is being "pissed off" by the XMR trolls and takes action against Monero as a result, they are taking exactly the action these so-called Monero trolls are trying to encourage.

Ultros
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 469



View Profile
September 18, 2014, 10:21:24 AM
 #113

The XMR trolls have pissed a lot of people off.

You don't get it, and for a while BCX didn't get it, but eventually he figured it out.

There are no "XMR trolls."

Of course there are always a few unbalanced people who will act up on a forum at any opportunity (probably more than a few here), but I'm not talking about them, I'm talking about actual, active supporters of XMR. I know pretty much all of them. They are not going around trolling. We're too busy trying to develop a useful coin.

The people you are referring to are sock puppets who are being run by someone (we could get into who but that's a whole other discussion), using a variety of strategies to undermine Monero. One of those strategies is appearing to be pro-Monero, but doing it in such a loud, obnoxious and offensive way as to turn people against Monero.

This fake pro-Monero trolling started in June or July, and at the time it was new and obvious, but fairly limited and easy to identify. This has exploded in volume and scope. Probably this includes the trolls, copycats, and possibly other organized groups who now see Monero as a threat and see this reverse-psychology method as being effective.

It has nothing to do with the Monero project and there is nothing we can do to stop it except perhaps exactly what the trolls want, which is abandon the project. Though even then, if the current devs did abandon the project, and others took over, the trolls would likely continue their efforts.

So if anyone is being "pissed off" by the so-called XMR trolls and takes action against Monero as a result, they are taking exactly the action these so-called Monero trolls are trying to encourage.



That's what I've been trying to explain for days but I'm afraid it's too complicated for most people that got no time to read all over the threads to decide between trolling and not. I can't blame them really. All they see is a bunch of XMR threads all over the place with aggressive shilling and offensive behaviors. It's very difficult to convince them that these threads are actually made by people that want to provoke and tarnish with reverse-psychology. If only we could ask the moderation to forbid any new monero-themed thread on this board, but It's probably out of reach.
I guess we just have to accept all that hate as a proof of disruption and move on. People will figure it out eventually.
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
September 18, 2014, 10:33:53 AM
 #114

I guess we just have to accept all that hate as a proof of disruption and move on. People will figure it out eventually.

Summarizing my view in a nutshell.
Hotmetal
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


View Profile
September 18, 2014, 10:37:09 AM
 #115

That's what I've been trying to explain for days but I'm afraid it's too complicated for most people that got no time to read all over the threads to decide between trolling and not. I can't blame them really. All they see is a bunch of XMR threads all over the place with aggressive shilling and offensive behaviors. It's very difficult to convince them that these threads are actually made by people that want to provoke and tarnish with reverse-psychology.

You give people WAY too much credit. There is no pre-planned anti-monero campaign whose agenda is to disrupt its progress.
Hotmetal
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 308


View Profile
September 18, 2014, 10:38:48 AM
 #116

This fake pro-Monero trolling started in June or July

And it will continue. As the coin gains popularity, it will attract all types of characters that want to jump on the bandwagon.
Moneroman88
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile
September 18, 2014, 10:39:50 AM
 #117

That's what I've been trying to explain for days but I'm afraid it's too complicated for most people that got no time to read all over the threads to decide between trolling and not. I can't blame them really. All they see is a bunch of XMR threads all over the place with aggressive shilling and offensive behaviors. It's very difficult to convince them that these threads are actually made by people that want to provoke and tarnish with reverse-psychology.

You give people WAY too much credit. There is no pre-planned anti-monero campaign whose agenda is to disrupt its progress.


no, Ultros is right! I'm 99.99% certain that there's no exploit (it's only made up), BCX has planned this attack of lies and FUD to crash the price and buy a position as a whale in Monero. What a low attempt and all credibility of the guy is lost now
smooth
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1596



View Profile
September 18, 2014, 10:42:09 AM
 #118

That's what I've been trying to explain for days but I'm afraid it's too complicated for most people that got no time to read all over the threads to decide between trolling and not. I can't blame them really. All they see is a bunch of XMR threads all over the place with aggressive shilling and offensive behaviors. It's very difficult to convince them that these threads are actually made by people that want to provoke and tarnish with reverse-psychology.

You give people WAY too much credit. There is no pre-planned anti-monero campaign whose agenda is to disrupt its progress.

Actually there is. There may also be people who simply enjoy the attention or are otherwise unbalanced who do it without any coordination (or who jump on the bandwagon, as you say in your later post), and that is true for every coin, but there is at least one if not more organized planned, and consistent campaign against Monero intended to disrupt its progress.

illodin
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 966


View Profile
September 18, 2014, 10:44:24 AM
 #119

And what would keep them from creating a wallet that saved electricity by not mining?

If you want to send or receive, you'd have to mine a bit? Dunno if that would be enough to secure the network though. Maybe when everyone in the world would be using this coin it would.
Moneroman88
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 392



View Profile
September 18, 2014, 10:44:53 AM
 #120

Actually there is. There may also be people who simply enjoy the attention or are otherwise unbalanced who do it without any coordination (or who jump on the bandwagon, as you say in your later post), and that is true for every coin, but there is at least one if not more organized planned, and consistent campaign against Monero intended to disrupt its progress.

+1 FUCK all the anti-Monero scum animals and most of all FUCK BitcoinEXpress the liar
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 »  All
  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!