delete

[smooth]

I just did it because it was interesting

Bingo!

Litecoin was never interesting. It was an undifferentiated clone of Bitcoin, with the exception of CPU and later GPU mining. People may have liked that because they felt Bitcoin was heading in a bad direction, but even that certainly didn't make it interesting. It was just a throwback to what had already been done by Bitcoin at each stage (and still). Been there done that is never interesting.

If anything Bitcoin moving forward to GPU and ASIC mining was more interesting. Maybe interesting in a bad way (opinions differ of course), but still interesting.

[NewLiberty]

Oh, so you responded with a whitepaper. Really? Where is it?

I said I was writing one. I didn't say I completed it yet or that I have any reason to need to release it now.

Hey it is fine with me if you all don't take BCX seriously.

Apparently there have not been many confirmed TW attacks, and I don't know if any actually killed a coin. Apparently BCX stopped the Auroracoin threat. It will be interesting to see how he backpedals on this current threat.

I take BCX very seriously, and also with a grain silo of salt.
There are valid reasons for FUD.  There are also invalid reasons for FUD.
Some of the invalid reasons are almost comically funny, some are wry.
So there is misdirection, humor, ambiguity, and vicious predation in action, all part of the fog of war.

When I see invalid FUD, based on what I see as obviously wrong interpretations, it may be a market opportunity for those that see through the fog, but also begs to have that fog burned away by the light of truth.  In this way perception matters.  But, my efforts are less anti-FUD, than anti-falsity.  Knowledge assuages fear, and doubt.

TFM, You have given me reasonable fears and unreasonable ones too.  You also worry about my confirmation biases, as do I.  In the end I don't care so much whether I started out as right or wrong, so much as that together, we get to the right answer.  I "win" an argument, when it leads to the truth, especially when it is not where I started.

[rangedriver]

It would have overtaken Darkcoin by now on its own merit.

Probably not, given that there is still no working GUI, etc.

For the most part I think the cheerleaders, shills, manipulators, etc. (on all sides) are mostly wasting their time and the current result is about the same as it would be without them

we are all wasting our time, in the end there is only death.

Technically there's no such thing as death ... but that's a conversation for a different time I suppose...

[smooth]

I wrote that I think the majority of the community and world are not rushing to buy any of the anonymous coins yet.

That is certainly true. I don't think it is due to a massive number of choices though, just limited interest in the concept overall. Any deliberate waiting going on probably has more to do with Zerocash than any of the others. In some cases people are likely waiting to see XMR mature a bit with a GUI and such.

If you are interested in the concept, and look into it, you likely just buy DRK or maybe XMR, and never even find out that Cloak exists.

[NewLiberty]

That most us users don't even donate what might be a reasonable cost for software development is also shameful.

If only somebody would invent a way for users to crowd fund software with a single click, maybe whilst also giving reputation. That would help software development massively!

Yeah, if only we had something like
BitMark
Thanks for joining, and pitching in.   

[TheFascistMind]

I dream of a coin that people don't invest in, but use, don't talk about in forums, rather brag to their every day friends about.

Well DOGE was nearly that, but the bragging was limited mostly to online hangouts.

Maybe I should name it catO.

[coinsolidation]

pitching in.

I probably should pitch in a little bit.

We take the view that multiple projects will develop anon systems, if our userbase demands some form of chain level anonymity, then in the future we will find the most proven mature implementation and add it to the core. That's if they demand it, we hope adoption will drive innovation rather than innovation driving adoption.

Further, we enable off chain pseudonymous instant transactions within every implementation of marking, and feel going off chain in such a manner can do much to make transactions harder to trace and piece together. Whilst also making them very usable by being instant, micro trust. Transparency can still be enabled by users simply saying I am 'address' and also domain/jim and otherdomain/bob and sms:0012348823838, but that's optional if they wish. Of course there is still a chain for larger transactions, cold storage, and fund management.

Regarding the current situation, I cannot yet tell if BCX's attack is social or technical, or both. I only hope that people do not lose their life savings, that is my only concern.

In my honest opinion, as a programmer, if somebody finds a bug in software they should report it, and offer a fix if they have one. More so when money is involved. To use it as an exploit for financial gain, or as a social weapon, or to gain some kind of short lived reputation, I feel is unethical. If I had knowledge of an exploit on any currency, I would personally not do this.

Perhaps brighter, is that many decent minds are coming together to share thoughts and have insightful conversation, without promoting single solutions to technical problems. It looks like the community is starting to change to be less money oriented and more interested in things that really matter. This is reassuring to see.

I'll continue to follow the discussion quietly as I have time.

dream of a coin that people don't invest in, but use

There are some.

[TheFascistMind]

smooth, I think people are waiting for something BIG.

[robinwilliams]

I dream of a coin that people don't invest in, but use, don't talk about in forums, rather brag to their every day friends about.

Well DOGE was nearly that, but the bragging was limited mostly to online hangouts.

Maybe I should name it catO.

the release structure is why people don't spend it and it's used as a investment vehicle.  anytime you half rewards AND in addition to that make it harder to get coins as there are broader adoptions (mining hash power goes up WITH coin adoption) AND you have a cap on how many coins to release then u can forget about it being used as money.

controlling the supply from the very beginning - maybe releasing a million coins a year period.  would make it closer to a currency.  but even small amount in usage increase for monero with the current release curve in six months will make early adopters freakin rich and this is what ppl react to

people in crypto are not trying to get adoption they are trying to get rich even at the expense of usage/adoption.

this is why in the end.  bitcoin will fial.

crypto should be focused on getting rich with broad adoption then their descisions would follow more towards adoption rather than releasing tons of coins early.  in my opinion ethereum is the ONLY CRYPTO that has a release curve that makes sense for adoption to me.  

[coinsolidation]

people in crypto are not trying to get adoption they are trying to get rich even at the expense of usage/adoption.

Some are, I spend each day in a team environment with 80+ other people, from many communities, inside and outside crypto, the majority of whom are focused on adoption.

[smooth]

I only hope that people do not lose their life savings, that is my only concern.

Every single one of these coins has an issue with low hash rate (or other issues if using PoS or merged mining) and can easily be attacked on that basis alone, plus the possibility of bugs or devastating attacks on major infrastructure components (exchanges, etc.), plus the very obvious and very real possibility that any particular coin simply goes out of favor and loses all or virtually all of its value.

In short no one should be putting their life savings in any of these coins, BCX or no BCX.

[coinsolidation]

In short no one should be putting their life savings in any of these coins, BCX or no BCX.

I agree, but they do, and that must be factored in.

[smooth]

In short no one should be putting their life savings in any of these coins, BCX or no BCX.

I agree, but they do, and that must be factored in.

What can you do about it besides being concerned about it?

Personally I think the only solution is for more people to get burned, because that is really the only way people learn. Already things are much better than they were a year ago, and that is largely because people got burned.

[coinsolidation]

In short no one should be putting their life savings in any of these coins, BCX or no BCX.

I agree, but they do, and that must be factored in.

What can you do about it besides being concerned about it?

Personally I think the only solution is for more people to get burned, because that is really the only way people learn. Already things are much better than they were a year ago, and that is largely because people got burned.

I share this theory, scam coins also clean out greedy traders by taking their funds. The bad actors often remove each other from the environment.

[slapper]

And there are too many competing anonymous coins, so it is dilutive and confusing.

This almost seems like deliberate FUD

Right now DRK and XMR are the only ones getting any real attention. That is not a statement of merit about the others, just that they are so small and obscure, they can't really be confusing any noobs (BBR for example is #49 on coinmarketcap). Honestly even XMR is much less well known than DRK.

BBR is #49 because of deliberate FUD too.

Here is a question for you, anyone in core or anyone for that matter.

We were there since BitMonero was launched by TFT and we all know how we didn't like the reticence, lack of commitment, suspicious association, or not listening to the community regarding name/parameters etc and so Monero was forked. Hypothetically if Boolberry and BitMonero were launched at the same time and we had seen developments in coins up until a certain point before forking, given the developments, updates ,the XMR/BBR arguments amongst a bunch of other things, which code base would the community fork?

[smooth]

And there are too many competing anonymous coins, so it is dilutive and confusing.

This almost seems like deliberate FUD

Right now DRK and XMR are the only ones getting any real attention. That is not a statement of merit about the others, just that they are so small and obscure, they can't really be confusing any noobs (BBR for example is #49 on coinmarketcap). Honestly even XMR is much less well known than DRK.

BBR is #49 because of deliberate FUD too.

Here is a question for you, anyone in core or anyone for that matter.

We were there since BitMonero was launched by TFT and we all know how we didn't like the reticence, lack of commitment, suspicious association, or not listening to the community regarding name/parameters etc and so Monero was forked. Hypothetically if Boolberry and BitMonero were launched at the same time and we had seen developments in coins up until a certain point before forking, given the developments, updates ,the XMR/BBR arguments amongst a bunch of other things, which code base would the community fork?

Monero would, because it is backed by known members of the community who clearly have no ties to the scam that went before and pervades the cryptonote coin universe. Given the degree of scaminess of the altcoin community generally but especially of cryptonote, that is a huge deal.

I emphasize that does not say anything about technical merit, and in general BBR is technically okay. We could argue the advantages and disadvantages of those items you linked, but most of it has been covered already. But be assured they are not solely advantages as the BBR proponents often claim.

[slapper]

And there are too many competing anonymous coins, so it is dilutive and confusing.

This almost seems like deliberate FUD

Right now DRK and XMR are the only ones getting any real attention. That is not a statement of merit about the others, just that they are so small and obscure, they can't really be confusing any noobs (BBR for example is #49 on coinmarketcap). Honestly even XMR is much less well known than DRK.

BBR is #49 because of deliberate FUD too.

Here is a question for you, anyone in core or anyone for that matter.

We were there since BitMonero was launched by TFT and we all know how we didn't like the reticence, lack of commitment, suspicious association, or not listening to the community regarding name/parameters etc and so Monero was forked. Hypothetically if Boolberry and BitMonero were launched at the same time and we had seen developments in coins up until a certain point before forking, given the developments, updates ,the XMR/BBR arguments amongst a bunch of other things, which code base would the community fork?

Monero would, because it is backed by known members of the community who clearly have no ties to the scam that went before and pervades the cryptonote coin universe. Given the degree of scaminess of the altcoin community generally but especially of cryptonote, that is a huge deal.

I emphasize that does not say anything about technical merit, and in general BBR is technically okay. We could argue the advantages and disadvantages of those items you linked, but most of it has been covered already. But be assured they are not solely advantages as the BBR proponents often claim.

You are confusing "backed by known members of community". That cannot be a selling point for a community that hasn't formed yet and are debating which one to fork based on technical differences alone. The community would have jumped on the basis of PoW and emission alone, let alone the other major advancements so far.

[smooth]

You are confusing "backed by known members of community". That cannot be a selling point for a community that hasn't formed yet

Perhaps you misunderstand what I meant. Known members of community as in the cryptocoin/bitcoin/bitcointalk community.

and are debating which one to fork based on technical differences alone. The community would have jumped on the basis of PoW and emission alone, let alone the other major advancements so far.

Sorry but that is simply not clear at all.

Tacotime who is very experienced and respected in the community, has been involved with many coins, and is a very serious cryptocoin developer himself (MC2), is adamantly opposed to the ring signature trimming for example. The anonymity "improvements" have been strongly panned by the cryptonote developers. I don't think we have stated a position officially but we definitely have some issues with them as well, and definitely don't think they are the best way to "solve cryptonote flaws." The proof-of-work has plusses and minuses, but in reality both are somewhat questionable compared to something more of a hash-based standard. I happen to personally agree with you on emission curve, but others argue that it is better to reduce inflation a bit more quickly to achieve better store-of-value properties.

I'm giving you an honest assessment here purely on technical merit, without any advocacy. You may not believe that and I can't force you to, but it is the case.

What follows, by contrast, is definitely my opinion and perhaps can be reasonably taken as advocacy though I don't intend it that way.

You also can't roll back the clock. A month difference in launch time matters (especially when the later one shares 99% similarity and lacks clear and compelling advantages on the other 1%). The other issues of matter, and reality is not "based on technical differences alone." So this is basically an exercise in an implausible hypothetical.

You are fooling yourself with a victimization complex if you think "it is all FUD" though.

[robinwilliams]

You also can't roll back the clock. A month difference in launch time matters (especially when the later one shares 99% similarity and lacks clear and compelling advantages on the other 1%). The other issues matter, and reality is not "based on technical differences alone." So this is basically an exercise in an implausible hypothetical.

to me this is why monero wins.  i even see big names from litecoin over here (know lots of bitcoin people hate litecoin ...) - but i've seen smoothie and carnth.  i think the timeline issue as well as development by consensus of devs vs development by lone ranger is why you'll see monero win.  crowds follow a group of developers quicker than the lone ranger.

that said - own both bbr and xmr.  I see it as a bitcoin/litecoin ecosystem.  i'm actually fine with bbr passing xmr and taking the lead spot i just don't think it's going to happen.

one thing smooth didn't mention is that bbr's release curve is much less of a get rich for early adopters.

i also think in time jl777 and the supernet will be a pure pump and dump for jl's assets at BEST and possibly a scam at worst.  with bbr changing its gui for the jl777/supernet - jl is just using bbr to pump it's supernet.  bbr is the only really legit coin in that mess (imo).

i don't know how to explain it - winning coins don't join groups that include crapcoins and empty promises (btcd and half the coins in the supernet).

[smooth]

one thing smooth didn't mention is that bbr's release curve is much less of a get rich for early adopters.

I edited my post to address the emissions curve and a few other issues.