delete

[TheFascistMind]

I think I know what that feature is and I've stated it (perhaps not explicitly enough for most, but a few readers seemed to get it) in the past more than once, so no need to repeat myself.

The best time to launch a counter trend asset, is during the counter trend market psychology.

Crypto-currencies up to this point have all been targeted to speculative investors.

[1715041423]

1715041423

[1715041423]

1715041423

[TheFascistMind]

Note that CryptoNote ring signatures (and probably Zerocash and Zerocoin also) breaks the type of unwinding in my proposal because derivative transactions are unlinkable.

Edit: similar functionality can be obtained in the current implementation of the longest chain rule, by waiting for 100 or so confirmations before accepting a payment as final (to extend out the duration cost for the extended time attacker has to keep his chain secret so your payment isn't orphaned by the attacker's chain). Thus unlinkable coins could still defeat ephemeral 50+% double-spending attacks, but with very slow payments.

Note the above is FUD in sense that I have not really formalized and verified merging instead of forking the block chain. I might still discover that merging is infeasible. But this is something to keep on your distant radar.

That is the qualitative difference I was arguing with smooth upthread.

The point is that between 25% and 50% of the network hashrate, the attacker can in theory win with selfish mining (and probably ramp up to 50% with it) and this is due to the fact that the chain is forked and not merged (I have a formal math proof of this). Also above 50%, the attacker gets winner-takes-all with short-term rented hardware, because the chain is forked and not merged.

I don't think gmaxell really understood me, yet I am not sure if I really understood all the variables yet. So this is a work in progress subject to failure.

The following also applies:

https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/07/11/toward-a-12-second-block-time/

I reloaded all those variables in my mind and worked through it finally. I confirm gmaxell is incorrect (but without peer review so caveat emptor). I can see now possibly a deeper reason why he thought I was incorrect, but afaics he apparently didn't see why that reason is irrelevant because it is sort of non-intuitive or not obvious. I'd rather not share my finding at this time, as I think it is very valuable. Appears to me Ethereum's proposal is not optimum.

[Come-In-Behind]

Usability and Security is all that's needed for cryptocurrencies. Make it simple to use and relatively safe, then you'll find a huge spike in people actually using the currency as a transfer of wealth instead of speculative investments.

[TheFascistMind]

Usability and Security is all that's needed for cryptocurrencies. Make it simple to use and relatively safe, then you'll find a huge spike in people actually using the currency as a transfer of wealthincome instead of speculative investments.

That is necessary but not sufficient by itself. Which comes first the egg or the chicken?

[smooth]

Crypto-currencies up to this point have all been targeted to speculative investors.

This is probably true of all altcoins. It is less true of Bitcoin. Although its usage came to be dominated by speculative investors, I don't think it was necessarily targeted to them.

We can learn from that experience though, and try to build something that appeals more broadly.

The DOGE experience suggest that usage and adoption is not particularly a function of technology, so technologists should be careful not to overly focus there, and even not to dismiss "failed" approaches that have already been tried. If one almost-exact clone of Bitcoin (via Litecoin) can have such a different result based on branding and marketing then the scope of possible outcomes for one particular technology is extremely large.

This also refutes the argument that clone coins are inherently useless or harmful.

[rangedriver]

Usability and Security is all that's needed for cryptocurrencies. Make it simple to use and relatively safe, then you'll find a huge spike in people actually using the currency as a transfer of wealthincome instead of speculative investments.

That is necessary but not sufficient by itself. Which comes first the egg or the chicken?

There is no "the egg" and there is no "the chicken".

There is an egg, and there is a chicken.

[TheFascistMind]

There is no "the egg" and there is no "the chicken".

There is an egg, and there is a chicken.

That was my point too. Great answer btw.

The DOGE experience suggest that usage and adoption is not particularly a function of technology, so technologists should be careful not to overly focus there

It was a function of there existing both an egg and a chicken in terms of usage as a currency. The problem was it didn't reproduce.

My theory is that failure to reproduce was as much a technical design error as it was the narrow market.

P.S. Good point that Bitcoin didn't start as a speculative investment, but my hypothesis it is dying (adoption slowing) as it becomes one.

[smooth]

It was a function of there existing both an egg and a chicken in terms of usage as a currency. The problem was it didn't reproduce.

My theory is that failure to reproduce was as much a technical design error as it was the narrow market.

It is growing again, and the growth in transaction volume proceeded the recent price increases.

That wasn't so much my point though, as it was that DOGE was technically almost identical to BTC and LTC yet its reception and trajectory has been very, very different. It is impossible to separate the effect of technical differences from marketing and even just timing, serendipity, etc. 

[TheFascistMind]

Having any sizable holdings of crypto-currency means either you are giddy or depressed and never leveled, hunky-dory.

Thus the size of holdings impacts how fun a crypto-currency is. As the size of holdings falls below a week's income, the currency becomes quite trouble-free and an interesting enjoyable outlet.

I disagreed strongly with rpietila trying to convert non-professional speculators into speculators. He will pay dearly for that mistake. I tried to warn him, but he wouldn't listen.

[TheFascistMind]

It was a function of there existing both an egg and a chicken in terms of usage as a currency. The problem was it didn't reproduce.

My theory is that failure to reproduce was as much a technical design error as it was the narrow market.

It is growing again, and the growth in transaction volume proceeded the recent price increases.

That wasn't so much my point though, as it was that DOGE was technically almost identical to BTC and LTC yet its reception and trajectory has been very, very different. It is impossible to separate the effect of technical differences from marketing and even just timing, serendipity, etc.  

The growth was probably because the large holdings had diminished so the usage as a currency could begin to dominate the value again. But then the speculative investors will come back in and try to ruin it again.

Thus it has the same technical design error as BTC and LTC, in that it doesn't dilute those large holdings that don't move. There must be a symbiotic balance. If you let speculative investors design your coin, you will never get a balance.

And it's difference was it put the currency in small amounts in many users hands. It wasn't just marketing, but rather the network effects of the marketing which created technically both the egg and the chicken.

It has always been about distribution. Always. No coin has done it correctly yet.

[smooth]

It wasn't just marketing, but rather the network effects of the marketing

That is exactly marketing. If you are relying on network effects then your marketing better reach a large enough network, either directly or indirectly through viral or some similar technique. Otherwise you fail.

EDIT: BTC and LTC are still enormously dilutive. They might not be in the future, but that can't be the present problem. The problem lies elsewhere, mostly just lack of any compelling reason to care transactional use when fiat works perfectly well for most people I think. The only exception to that I can identify was Silk Road, and maybe Wikileaks.

[TheFascistMind]

I disagreed strongly with rpietila trying to convert non-professional speculators into speculators. He will pay dearly for that mistake. I tried to warn him, but he wouldn't listen.

Most people should work for an income. Only a small fraction of the population is well suited to the stress of speculation.

Edit: I am not well suited to be a short-term speculator. I am well suited being a long-term value investor a la Warren Buffet, and remember he invests for income not for stock appreciation.

[TheFascistMind]

It wasn't just marketing, but rather the network effects of the marketing

That is exactly marketing. If you are relying on network effects then your marketing better target a large enough network, either directly or through viral or some similar technique. Otherwise you fail.

Marketing can also be accomplished technologically. The internet is adopted not because someone advertised it, but because users need the technology. The first time you tried the internet, you couldn't pull yourself away. It is a technological magnet.

[smooth]

It wasn't just marketing, but rather the network effects of the marketing

That is exactly marketing. If you are relying on network effects then your marketing better target a large enough network, either directly or through viral or some similar technique. Otherwise you fail.

Marketing can also be accomplished technically. The internet is adopted not because someone advertised it

Marketing is not the same as advertising. Advertising can be a component of marketing but it certainly need not be. DOGE wasn't particularly advertised although some money has been spent on things like race cars.

[TheFascistMind]

It wasn't just marketing, but rather the network effects of the marketing

That is exactly marketing. If you are relying on network effects then your marketing better target a large enough network, either directly or through viral or some similar technique. Otherwise you fail.

Marketing can also be accomplished technically. The internet is adopted not because someone advertised it

Marketing is not the same as advertising. Advertising can be a component of marketing but it certainly need not be. DOGE wasn't particularly advertised although some money has been spent on things like race cars.

Never said it was. But seemed you were excluding technological design as a component of marketing.

[smooth]

It wasn't just marketing, but rather the network effects of the marketing

That is exactly marketing. If you are relying on network effects then your marketing better target a large enough network, either directly or through viral or some similar technique. Otherwise you fail.

Marketing can also be accomplished technically. The internet is adopted not because someone advertised it

Marketing is not the same as advertising. Advertising can be a component of marketing but it certainly need not be. DOGE wasn't particularly advertised although some money has been spent on things like race cars.

Never said it was. But seemed you were excluding technological design as a component of marketing.

Certainly not.

I just cautioned technologists not to excessively focus on technology, because it is extremely apparent (from the controlled experiment of essentially identical technologies having enormously different outcomes) that other factors are also having a huge impact. Likely in my opinon huge enough to drive success of inferior technologies and doom better ones to failure. Even if in this case "inferior" and "better" refer to networking/viral effects. A cute dog picture and seeding in the right demographic can be tremendously important (with corresponding mistakes being equally important negatively), and these are just examples of a theme, not at all an exhaustive list.

[TheFascistMind]

EDIT: BTC and LTC are still enormously dilutive. They might not be in the future, but that can't be the present problem. The problem lies elsewhere, mostly just lack of any compelling reason to care transactional use when fiat works perfectly well for most people I think. The only exception to that I can identify was Silk Road, and maybe Wikileaks.

That dilution is ignored, because investors think the supply is limited and they are rushing to get their percent of the future global economy pie. Remember the $1 million expectations for BTC.

Markets act on expectations.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/01/28/turkey-rates-rates-to-12/

Markets and economies never peak at the same level of interest rates because the real answer is the rate minus expectations. In other words, if you think whatever the investment is will double by next year, you will pay even 50% interest rates.

http://armstrongeconomics.com/2014/09/03/the-september-start-of-war/

This is not a flat model – it is dynamic. This is why fundamental analysis fails.Far too many people think that such facts move markets. They cannot comprehend that people act in anticipation – never factual trends. If you are standing in front of me and I say see my fist, I am going to count to 10 and then punch you in the face. Will you do nothing until I actually punch you or act before I throw that punch? This is how markets moves – ANTICIPATION.

The 1987 Crash unfolded because of ANTICIPATION that the dollar would fall ANOTHER 40%, which of course never took place. The dollar had already fallen sharply after the formation of the G5 in 1985 by 40%.  Nonetheless, foreign investors sold and the Japanese took their money home and began to invest domestically.

That shift in capital flows back to Japan attracted worldwide capital. This set in motion the Japanese Bubble. This is the reality of the market movements. Capital buys the high because people ANTICIPATE the market will move higher. I have stated that once interest rates ticked up, people would rush out and buy real estate. The majority will not buy anything that continues to fall in price. Once the general public saw an uptick they then ANTICIPATE that rates will then start to rise.

Government does not understand how the economy moves. This is why FDR confiscated gold because he listened to George Warren who understood that only devaluing the dollar would change the trend and then people would rush out to buy BEFORE the price would rise. We saw that same reaction in Japan in anticipation of the rise in sales taxes. We see the same with all the children being sent to America from Mexico in anticipation of amnesty. People act in ANTICIPATION in absolutely everything!

[TheFascistMind]

It wasn't just marketing, but rather the network effects of the marketing

That is exactly marketing. If you are relying on network effects then your marketing better target a large enough network, either directly or through viral or some similar technique. Otherwise you fail.

Marketing can also be accomplished technically. The internet is adopted not because someone advertised it

Marketing is not the same as advertising. Advertising can be a component of marketing but it certainly need not be. DOGE wasn't particularly advertised although some money has been spent on things like race cars.

Never said it was. But seemed you were excluding technological design as a component of marketing.

Certainly not.

I just cautioned technologists not to excessively focus on technology, because it is extremely apparent (from the controlled experiment of essentially identical technologies having enormously different outcomes) that other factors are also having a huge impact. Likely in my opinon huge enough to drive success of inferior technologies and doom better ones to failure. Even if in this case "inferior" and "better" refer to networking/viral effects. A cute dog picture and seeding in the right demographic can be tremendously important (with corresponding mistakes being equally important negatively), and these are just examples of a theme, not at all an exhaustive list.

Afaik the distribution difference of DOGE was not technological, but that doesn't mean a distribution difference can't be technologically driven.

And I agree seeding in the desired demographic is critically important.

[smooth]

It wasn't just marketing, but rather the network effects of the marketing

That is exactly marketing. If you are relying on network effects then your marketing better target a large enough network, either directly or through viral or some similar technique. Otherwise you fail.

Marketing can also be accomplished technically. The internet is adopted not because someone advertised it

Marketing is not the same as advertising. Advertising can be a component of marketing but it certainly need not be. DOGE wasn't particularly advertised although some money has been spent on things like race cars.

Never said it was. But seemed you were excluding technological design as a component of marketing.

Certainly not.

I just cautioned technologists not to excessively focus on technology, because it is extremely apparent (from the controlled experiment of essentially identical technologies having enormously different outcomes) that other factors are also having a huge impact. Likely in my opinon huge enough to drive success of inferior technologies and doom better ones to failure. Even if in this case "inferior" and "better" refer to networking/viral effects. A cute dog picture and seeding in the right demographic can be tremendously important (with corresponding mistakes being equally important negatively), and these are just examples of a theme, not at all an exhaustive list.

Afaik the distribution difference of DOGE was not technological, but that doesn't mean a distribution difference can't be technologically driven.

And I agree seeding in the desired demographic is critically important.

Cryptonerds and ACs and LIBs have been shown to be a questionable demographic to start with, but even that is not proven. That plus a cute cat pic or hot girls could possibly work.

I'm sure you know this, just commenting for others. If someone else creates a great cryptocoin that changes the world for the better, I consider that a success.

[Liquid71]

and.. you couldn't have just contributed to the Cryptonote project itself ?

Certainly not, since the Cryptonote project is and was a premine scam, complete with a fake blockchain, made up "deep web" backstory, forged document signatures, and both overt and covert coin mills pumping out clones to flood the market and try to crowd out any independent competitors (Monero is the only one I can definitively say is in that category, though there could be others), etc. The primary and original purpose of Monero was to take what valid technology Cryptonote had developed (though in many ways unfinished, since they rushed it to market as they saw the window for altcoin premine scams closing) and extract it from the premine scammers who were using it to rip people off (and in the process either inadvertently or deliberately broke their own anonymity tech, as our research showed) as well as continuing development on it with a somewhat less rushed "money grab" schedule.

so you built your beloved Monero clone coin (minor fork) from one of the scammiest coins of all time ?

wow.. YOU said it not me buddy LOL

ROFL

Agree. We have always said that the cryptonote tech is interesting and the original reason for Monero was to take that interesting tech and exercise good custody and ongoing development of it in a non-scam way.

But if you would prefer the "original" (not a clone!) version complete with an 82% fraudulent premine and one of, if not the, shadiest developer in the entire history of altcoins, or one of the many clones created by the exact same developer, be my guest.

Not arguing in favor of byteshitcoin, but if they built the protocol with the sole intention of a premine dump...well then the code must be shit. Monero being built on a code that was developed for no other reason than for a scam premine dump must make Monero based on complete garbage code.

Saying every coin based on CN is a scam , by developers who are only out to scam, makes it stupid to invest in Monero which is based on bullshit scam code whose original authors intended to use it for nothing other than a scam, not a serious coin.
Bytecoin and cryptonote's stories have huge holes in them, some of the clone coins may also be related to them. No need to expend so much energy pointing that out, and proclaim XMR is the ONLY legit coin based on CN. Anyone even half serious will want to invest in a newer coin with a higher market cap, more profitable mining and active transparent community. Why run around like a cult trying to brainwash the community when you can just let them discover the benefits of XMR on their own. You seem like scared bagholders trying to pull off a pump and dump. First the big scare was BCN, now the XMR cult is scared of BBR and rather than build XMR your focus is to tear down BBR.

Honestly I think you are a giant bagholder, who used the datacenter at work to mine a shit ton of XMR and is hyper defensive trying to protect XMR even if it is a clone, released by who knows, raped by those with mining software magnitudes better than the public. If your intent was to build on the CN protocal and make a legit coin with a future, why not start over. One minute blocks are something the XMR community was against..why did you stick with XMR and not release a new coin that adopted the ring sig anon rather then take over a coin based on code written to scam that was released by a dev related to the initial scam who named it a shitty name and ignored the community and used one min blocks...could it be you were already a bagholder and wanted to make the illusion of a shitcoin clone into something valuable so you could dump it? I don't know, but it's why I mine and dump rather than invest and support the community and the devs. If you are sincere (which I doubt) forget everything about CN and focus on XMR. Forget bashing all other coins, and focus on the benefits of XMR and the personal privacy and freedom it provides it's users. Enough with the negativity, build something instead of tearing everything else down!
For what it's worth, I'm just some dumb fuck who wanted to invest in XMR, but the community leaders and cult folowers act so much like all the other shitcoin coordinated pump and dumps I can't. Being a strong libertarian, and not dumb enough to buy into the DRK get rich scam I'm left with CN..which would make XMR the go to coin, if it didn't have a cult like community acting like a pump and dump with more fear of other coins than belief in it's own.