delete

[Johnny Mnemonic]

Word! What has me concerned is the lack of any response from any the xmr team refuting this. Seems to me if not true they would debunk this asap.

Everytime BCX makes a post like this, the coin has huge troubles.  Just read his history.  It is funny that people with only a few posts "aren't scared" of him.  

There have been several responses from the XMR team, all of them effectively saying, "show us a bug/exploit, and we'll address it." So far BCX has made claims but provided no helpful information whatsoever. This leaves two possibilities:

1) He's full of shit and shouldn't be trusted.
2) He's telling the truth but refusing to help the community in any way, and therefore shouldn't be trusted.

I'm leaning towards #1, but either way he shouldn't be trusted and doesn't have an ounce of credibility left in him. Just to be clear, he's claiming to have an exploit that can kill the coin, but he's not going to use it, nor will he show it to anyone to help fix it. Sounds legit.

[1713541666]

1713541666

[1713541666]

1713541666

[Johnny Mnemonic]

To create something out of nothing would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Johnny Mnemonic, meet the U.S. Treasury, a place where the laws of physics do not apply.

Read my post again. Notice I said "decentralized free market". Fiat money is given value by force. That doesn't work in a decentralized market.

[beitris.dwlul]

BCX could kill monero imo, good fight is over

[rdnkjdi]

 

Fiat money is given value by force.

Sanest thing I've seen around bitcointalk in a looong time

[Zer0Sum]

* After conversing with rpietilla I do not think he hired any trolls or is a scammer per say. I do think he has gotten himself into something he didn't expect and is simply trying to build a coin.

I confirm that I haven't (ever) hired trolls, am not a scammer, did not expect these developments and am simply trying to build a coin.

[vuduchyld]

LOL please CH bless us more with your wants and needs of what this forum should look like.  

Do you not understand how big of a clusterfuck this subforum would be if every ALT coin used this subforum as their main forums?  

If Monero solved all current problems with cryptocoins, was the most innovative alt coin, made everyone millionaires, achieved world peace, and could shoot gold bullion out of its ass, I would still feel the same way.

C'mon, man, gold bullion is old-style money!  Nobody wants that shit!

[CoinHoarder]

Man get over yourself.. If you don't like a topic no one is forcing you to click and participate

This is not about me, the only one trying to make it about me is you.

how big of a clusterfuck this subforum would be

It's somehow not

You cut off the important part of the quote which made my point...  if every ALT coin used this subforum as their main forums. Do I really need to explain this to you guys? wtf.. I estimate there are over 500 Alt coins. If every one of them had only 1 thread and made 1 post per day, each day's posts would go all the way to page 13. That sounds like a clusterfuck to me. If Monero is successful, you can be sure coins in the future will be replicating its marketing techniques a la spamming this subforum.

So the whole point of the fud post is to get back at people making hype posts?

What a fucking waste of time.

Not necessarily.. I derailed the thread. BCX may very well have found a vulnerability.. I have no clue.

Most of them don't realize PoW mining is hugely flawed and a better alternative needs to be conceived.

I agree, except that all the proposed alternatives so far have been worse.

My position is that some sort of Satoshi-level breakthrough is needed to move things forward, not yet another attempt to beat on the PoS or Ripple dead horses with minor tweaks. You have 1000 PoS scam coins in the ANN section if that's what you want.

The Monero project is not opposed to pursuing that, but we don't have any such ideas at the present time. We do have ideas to improve other things, such as some aspects of mining (i.e. tweaks on PoW). We certainly don't think that anonymity is the only way we should innovate.

Worse is a strong statement. PoS and its variants have weaknesses, just like PoW has its weaknesses. However, both are secure enough to have survived this long without any major attacks. Most of the PoS vulnerabilities people harp on it for are just as unlikely as a 51% attack on a well secured PoW network. Both PoW and PoS have their weaknesses, but I just can't get past the amount of energy that is wasted with PoW and see PoS and its variants as better solutions. Whereas some see the PoS variant cup half empty, I see it half full. Imagine if all of the money spent on securing PoW cryptos was spent on improving the infrastructure or investing in the coins themselves.

I am not interested in PoS scam coins, there are just as many PoS scam coins as there are PoW scam coins. I am however interested in coins that tweak and improve upon PoS in some way, as a more secure version of PoS can pop up from all of these different iterations. I am confident it is not "a dead horse", and I have been told by people much smarter than I that there are ways to fix the problems with PoS as it exists today- which as they exist they are still pretty damn secure seeing as though they are still around and thriving today.

I see... so you think Monero should die because it isn't incorporating every gimmick feature you think is important.

Thanks for proving my point about Monero supporters claiming all innovation is gimmicks.

Careful, you're starting to sound like a BCN troll. How many of those "innovative" alts you support happen to be BTC forks? Oh that's right... all of them.

The only two coins I support now are not BTC forks.. BitsharesX and Nxt.. and they are both innovating in more ways than one. Furthermore, they are focused on innovating and improving upon their original innovations. Whereas most mainstream coins consider all innovations as gimmicks, they embrace innovation. It is the innovators that will push cryptocurrencies to the next level, not the naysayers that are fine with cryptocoins just the way they are. Some people might not want more (or improved) features, but on the other hand a lot of people do, otherwise the more innovative coins wouldn't have been able to achieve the market cap and community that they have. It is silly to only cater to one half of the population when you can cater to both and the ones that don't want or need those features/improvements don't have to use them.

Most of them don't realize PoW mining is hugely flawed and a better alternative needs to be conceived.

To create something out of nothing would violate the first law of thermodynamics. PoW is the only solution because creating value in a decentralized free market depends on the expense of resources.

Please describe how PoW is "flawed" and how an alternative is even possible (hint: it isn't).

You need to be more open minded and hopeful that there is a solution. If everyone thought this way then Satoshi would of never made the huge innovation that was Bitcoin. Everyone thought a trustless decentralized currency was impossible until he came along and did it.

First, there is no reason that consensus has to be reached by mass extreme consumption of electricity and a large waste of processing power, which is one of the major flaws of PoW.

Second, Most PoW zealots can't seem to see into the future like I (and a lot of other people.. the PoS crowd) can in regards to the inevitable centralization of PoW mining. No PoW algorithm can be ASIC proof.. it is not possible. Due to this and economies of scale, all forms of PoW mining will slowly go from decentralized to centralized as large mining conglomerates take over the block chain. The people with the most money to spend and the cheapest power will make all mom and pop miners unprofitable, and at that point they will stop investing/buying ASICs. Over time the block chain will become more and more centralized until it is so centralized that they can do many nefarious things, such as raise transaction fees on a whim by only including transactions into blocks that have X amount of fees, because they decide they are not making enough profit.

Third, once a PoW cryptocurrency exits its inflationary stage of the money supply distribution, it is possible that the transaction fees are not enough to compensate the miners and keep the blockchain secure. We recently saw this with Dogecoin which was one of the first ones in which their emission curve has dramatically stabilized, and they were forced to choose in between death or merge mining with a larger chain. They are still inflationary and can't afford to pay miners enough to secure their chain, imagine how hard of a task that will be for some coins that at some point no more coins will ever be minted. The market caps of PoW currencies and the adoption in the form of every day use will be mandatory for these cryptocurrencies to survive. No one really knows is mass adoption is likely or possible as it is all speculation at this point, but if they don't achieve that then PoW cryptos will be in trouble at some point down the road. Even if they achieve mass adoption, it is still speculation whether or not that will be enough to pay miners to secure the block chains. PoW cryptos may one day be much more expensive to used than PoS cryptos for this reason.

The resources and processing power wasted, the inevitable centralization, and the sustainability are three of the largest issues I see with PoW in the future. I am sure I am forgetting one or two glaring issues as well, but I will leave it here for now.

If Monero solved all current problems with cryptocoins, was the most innovative alt coin, made everyone millionaires, achieved world peace, and could shoot gold bullion out of its ass, I would still feel the same way.

Be honest with yourself. You'd feel differently if it could shoot gold bullion out of its ass. We all would.

Lol, OK... I admit that would be pretty damn cool.

[tx42]

Not quite true, proof of work exists in the electricity and mechanics of printing paper money. Come on man, you should know the earth is a closed system and energy is neither lost or created.......just transferred. This is called proof of work.

"Electricity and mechanics of printing paper money." 

What, are you living in the 1870s?

Today they "print money" by adding ledger entries.

[tx42]

To create something out of nothing would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Johnny Mnemonic, meet the U.S. Treasury, a place where the laws of physics do not apply.

Read my post again. Notice I said "decentralized free market". Fiat money is given value by force. That doesn't work in a decentralized market.

You say smart things, but you don't recognize humor.

[smooth]

there are just as many PoS scam coins as there are PoW scam coins

It is my observation that there are far more PoS scam coins. Just look, almost every single altcoin being launched now is PoS (I include in that the ones described as PoW+PoS because that now almost always means a very short PoS phase): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=159.0

and I have been told by people much smarter than I that there are ways to fix the problems with PoS as it exists today- which as they exist they are still pretty damn secure seeing as though they are still around and thriving today.

You have also been told by people likely smarter than you are that the problems can't be solved, of if not you shut out those opinions, because they certainly are out there, and not hard to find.

I don't think this is really the right thread to have the debate though.

No one involved with Monero is interested in turning it into PoS but that doesn't mean we only want to work on anonymity and that's it. So if you are saying that because we don't believe in PoS we aren't interested in innovating you are right but wrong. We definitely are interested in what we see are other shortcomings with Bitcoin (using that as an example simply because it is the biggest).

[Johnny Mnemonic]

I agree with you that mining centralization is a problem that needs fixing. But PoW cannot be abandoned, because the only way to create value as a measure of GDP must come at the expense of GDP. This truth has been reinforced for thousands of years and I'm doubtful that some clever programming will ever change it. Satoshi's solutions were innovative, but they also didn't violate any rules of the universe.

BTW: AnonyMint hinted that a solution to centralized mining could be to somehow make mining always unprofitable, that way all mining comes from individual nodes contributing miniscule amounts of hashpower while their wallets are open.

I also agree with you 100% that tx fees will not sustain miners when block rewards vanish. I have talked about this a lot in other threads. Again, this is not a problem with PoW, only with bitcoin's implementation of it. It is the myth of the finite money supply. Block rewards don't have to vanish as new coins can be minted on demand as long as GDP is expended in the process. But this is a discussion for another thread.

Regarding innovation: The point I was trying to make was that one coin that devotes all it's resources to perfecting one innovation (i.e. XMR with anonymity) isn't necessarily worse than another coin that tries to tackle several. You and I obviously disagree on what we consider to be "important innovations". However, there's a huge demand for anonymous tech right now, and it's pretty clear that the XMR team wants to get it's flagship feature right before worrying about other bells and whistles.

Perhaps monero seems to be taking over the alt forums because it's been a very hot topic lately. Even if an XMR-specific forum were announced, I doubt XMR related threads and discussion would suddenly go away.

[smooth]

Perhaps monero seems to be taking over the alt forums because it's been a very hot topic lately. Even if an XMR-specific forum were announced, I doubt XMR related threads and discussion would suddenly go away.

This is basically it. The set of interesting non-scam cryptocoin projects is very small right now. Monero and just a few others pretty much, so the well-deserved attention Monero gets leads to a crowding-out effect. People who are attached to some particular scamcoin or enjoy the scamcoin-of-the-day scene are put off by the reality that a coin that is actually being developed and gaining a following as a genuine open source project gets more lasting attention and discussion than any one particular scam. This makes them resentful and hateful, but nothing we can do about that.  

I think they don't understand that with or without Monero, the scamcoin game is about up and their beloved altcoin community of scammers and willing victims is in the process of destroying itself anyway. We'll just continue pushing forward.

[CoinHoarder]

there are just as many PoS scam coins as there are PoW scam coins

It is my observation that there are far more PoS scam coins. Just look, almost every single altcoin being launched now is PoS (I include in that the ones described as PoW+PoS because that now almost always means a very short PoS phase): https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?board=159.0

I guess you are right, it is the new fad for scam coins, but I think it says something that they think their scam will be more successful by choosing PoS over PoW. They must think there is more demand for PoS coins than PoW coins.. that goes to show how little people in general really care about the "insecurities" of PoS coins. Honestly it is mostly long time Bitcoin/crypto people that are really against PoS.. I'm not sure what to make of that or if there is some underlying reason other than the insecurities.

Also, I was referring to about a year ago when all the scam coins were PoW clone coins. There was something like one a day being released for a long time!

and I have been told by people much smarter than I that there are ways to fix the problems with PoS as it exists today- which as they exist they are still pretty damn secure seeing as though they are still around and thriving today.

You have also been told by people likely smarter than you are that the problems can't be solved, of if not you shut out those opinions, because they certainly are out there, and not hard to find.

You are right, there are a lot of people smarter than me saying that PoS is broken and a dead end too. I'm not honestly sure what or who to believe. However, the ones that aren't saying that give me hope that there is an answer to the solution. I don't even see the modern PoS variants as being too bad or insecure. Like I said, both PoW and PoS have their pros and cons, but I think PoS will continue to be improved upon.

I don't think this is really the right thread to have the debate though.

I agree, feel free to join us in the main PoW/PoS debate thread here!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770591.0

No one involved with Monero is interested in turning it into PoS but that doesn't mean we only want to work on anonymity and that's it. So if you are saying that because we don't believe in PoS we aren't interested in innovating you are right but wrong. We definitely are interested in what we see are other shortcomings with Bitcoin (using that as an example simply because it is the biggest).

That's good to know, I am looking forward to whatever you guys may come up with. My understanding was that you guys were focused on only anonymity. I know from debating some of your "hero" member supporters in the past they really hate innovation and call any improvements or added features gimmicks.. so I guess I assumed you guys weren't planning on doing much else since they were supporting Monero (not going to name names.) Anyways.. I will take your word that Monero has other plans and leave it at that.

[CoinHoarder]

I agree with you that mining centralization is a problem that needs fixing. But PoW cannot be abandoned, because the only way to create value as a measure of GDP must come at the expense of GDP. This truth has been reinforced for thousands of years and I'm doubtful that some clever programming will ever change it. Satoshi's solutions were innovative, but they also didn't violate any rules of the universe.

I also invite you to our PoW vs PoS/alternate consensus thread. It is ironic that my last post addressed exactly this. I believe PoS coins to come at the expense of GDP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770591.msg8869805#msg8869805

BTW: AnonyMint hinted that a solution to centralized mining could be to somehow make mining always unprofitable, that way all mining comes from individual nodes contributing miniscule amounts of hashpower while their wallets are open.

This sounds like a clever idea, and I think it could work if the logistics were figured out.

I also agree with you 100% that tx fees will not sustain miners when block rewards vanish. I have talked about this a lot in other threads. Again, this is not a problem with PoW, only with bitcoin's implementation of it. It is the myth of the finite money supply. Block rewards don't have to vanish as new coins can be minted on demand as long as GDP is expended in the process. But this is a discussion for another thread.

Good point that this is not an issue with PoW, but the implementation. Sadly though many PoW Alt cryptocurrencies have followed a similar path of implementation when it comes to emission curves. It is odd that this issue hasn't been thoroughly addressed in the Alt coin subforum and new coins haven't adopted their implementation. I guess everyone just hates inflation, which I can't really blame them.

Regarding innovation: The point I was trying to make was that one coin that devotes all it's resources to perfecting one innovation (i.e. XMR with anonymity) isn't necessarily worse than another coin that tries to tackle several. You and I obviously disagree on what we consider to be "important innovations". However, there's a huge demand for anonymous tech right now, and it's pretty clear that the XMR team wants to get it's flagship feature right before worrying about other bells and whistles.

Perhaps monero seems to be taking over the alt forums because it's been a very hot topic lately. Even if an XMR-specific forum were announced, I doubt XMR related threads and discussion would suddenly go away.

That is all understandable, everyone has their own opinion on what innovations are more or less important. I try to look at all innovation as being equally important in the long run. Maybe this or that innovation may be somewhat gimmicky, but it can give someone a good idea for a future innovation that is not gimmicky, and give them a head start on the coding of it. I see any changes/experiments/innovation as being for the greater good of the future of cryptocurrencies. I know not everyone agrees on that, so we will agree to disagree.

I'm not budging on my point that you guys have caused some of the backlash yourselves though by creating so many Monero threads. I really do feel that is the reason the trolls decided to start their FUD campaign and reverse trolling against you guys. You were getting too much good press and exposure for their liking. Maybe tone it down a bit, or consolidate your threads into only a few. It will afterall give you more time to pick up more cheap Monero if you truly believe in its future.

[smooth]

I guess you are right, it is the new fad for scam coins, but I think it says something that they think their scam will be more successful by choosing PoS over PoW. They must think there is more demand for PoS coins than PoW coins.. that goes to show how little people in general really care about the "insecurities" of PoS coins.

I'm pretty sure the reason most alts launch as PoS (including PoW->PoS in that) is simply that it is much easier to monopolize more of the supply which means your return on investment of doing a pump-and-dump is much higher. With mined coins you can't really monopolize the mining and even when you do monopolize the early mining in some sort of instamine to get a lot of coins, it becomes much harder to pump the coin later because you have the natural sellers (miners) brining new coins onto the maket.

That itself says nothing about the merits of PoS though, and I won't engage in proof by association (i.e. it doesn't prove that PoS is bad just because many scam coins use PoS), it is just a comment about the state of the altcoin market.

Also, I was referring to about a year ago when all the scam coins were PoW clone coins. There was something like one a day being released for a long time!

One-a-day would likely be a vast reduction of the current rate of scamcoin production.

[CoinHoarder]

Also, I was referring to about a year ago when all the scam coins were PoW clone coins. There was something like one a day being released for a long time!

One-a-day would likely be a vast reduction of the current rate of scamcoin production.

Lol, since they moved them to the announcement subforum I can kind of block them out. I don't research coins anymore unless someone brings it to my attention or I see someone mention it being the new best thing. Even then half the time they are still scam coins haha!

Anyways.. I am glad we were able to come to somewhat of an understanding. You see, I am not such a bad guy.. I just care very deeply about this stuff and get worked up easily. I often speak/type without thinking and that leads to me saying things I probably shouldn't say.. but all of it is honest for the most part... as honest as humanly possible considering personal bias. Again I don't care about this stuff for monetary reasons, but for political reasons, the well being of humanity's financial future, and privacy etc.... I basically want to decentralize everything.

I guess we've derailed this thread enough.. I'll let BCX get back to his soap opera.

Cheers

[SomethingElse]

BTW: AnonyMint hinted that a solution to centralized mining could be to somehow make mining always unprofitable, that way all mining comes from individual nodes contributing miniscule amounts of hashpower while their wallets are open.

I had always thought that there was an inherent flaw in PoW mining as it is in Bitcion and that Satoshi knew it from the get go, but buy making mining profitable the network would be sustained and the blockchain would live on and prove in theory that this whole blockchain decentralization thing is real and can solve a lot of problems.  I think he built a faulty system from the start knowing it was faulty but also knowing it would be a good test case and proof that it could work. 

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. 

I always considered Anonymint kind of like a mad genius.  He is very rough with social skills but very tight with in depth and detailed knowledge.  I wanted to find more about this theory and I checked into it but couldn't find anything and apparently he has checked out and no longer logs in. 

[SomethingElse]

@Coinhoarder.  You are apparently the voice of reason and common sense in this thread so I will direct this question at you.  You have been around longer than me so I figure you might know.   BCX apparently comes out with these statements against coins every so often and as you mentioned earlier in the thread sometimes backs it up with real facts, but sometimes seemingly keeps everything secret leaving people to doubt him.  But ultimately, has any coin ever been slandered by BCX and gone on to eventually be successful?  

Edit: I already know the Litecoin story and how things exploded there but eventually turned out for the good. 

[CoinHoarder]

BTW: AnonyMint hinted that a solution to centralized mining could be to somehow make mining always unprofitable, that way all mining comes from individual nodes contributing miniscule amounts of hashpower while their wallets are open.

I had always thought that there was an inherent flaw in PoW mining as it is in Bitcion and that Satoshi knew it from the get go, but buy making mining profitable the network would be sustained and the blockchain would live on and prove in theory that this whole blockchain decentralization thing is real and can solve a lot of problems.  I think he built a faulty system from the start knowing it was faulty but also knowing it would be a good test case and proof that it could work. 

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. 

I always considered Anonymint kind of like a mad genius.  He is very rough with social skills but very tight with in depth and detailed knowledge.  I wanted to find more about this theory and I checked into it but couldn't find anything and apparently he has checked out and no longer logs in. 

Interesting thoughts, I like your theory regarding Satoshi and it seems plausible. Anonymint is still around, although he may of dropped that idea.. I don't know. I do agree that is a good idea that needs more attention.. I haven't heard it before. I'm guessing it is hard to implement fairly and securely though, which would be the only thing holding it back. Yet, it could possibly be made to work.

@Coinhoarder.  You are apparently the voice of reason and common sense in this thread so I will direct this question at you.

I wouldn't go that far... but thanks.

You have been around longer than me so I figure you might know.   BCX apparently comes out with these statements against coins every so often and as you mentioned earlier in the thread sometimes backs it up with real facts, but sometimes seemingly keeps everything secret leaving people to doubt him.  But ultimately, has any coin ever been slandered by BCX and gone on to eventually be successful?

Edit: I already know the Litecoin story and how things exploded there but eventually turned out for the good. 

I know BCX is rumored to have killed several coins before, but most of the ones he has killed were before my time and I'm not sure of the details. I think at least one of them was just a plain 51% attack, and not through a vulnerability.. possibly more. On the other hand, I am fairly certain he has made claims that coins are vulnerable before and nothing ever happened.

I'm going to do some digging around now and I'll get back to you, as I am interested in that myself.

[smooth]

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.