Topic: Anonymity hype Philosophy & Warning of the ongoing Monero pump (Read 2131 times)

Claim your XMC!

After Monero hard forked on April 6th, there are XMR (the new Monero chain) and XMC (original chain).

Pools mining XMC: Antpool, Poolin, Frogpool, 91pool, F2POOL
Exchange: CoinEx, Xstar, gate.io
Wallet: LoMoStar

Website: monero-classic.org
Telegram group: t.me/xmccurrency
Twitter：https://twitter.com/xmccurrency

XMC in Exchanges:
CoinEx: https://www.coinex.com/trading?currency=bch&dest=xmc&tab=limit
Gate.io: https://gateio.io/trade/XMC_BTC

Monero Classic team chose to maintain the original chain and did not follow the upgrade initiated by Monero team. We believe the emergence of specialized mining machines for a cryptocurrency is a normal market economy phenomenon and it could greatly improve network security. With specialized mining machines , the events like “Monero was attacked by more than 500,000 botnets” could be avoided. On the opposite, Monero developers' constant change of algorithm creates more centralization.

Automated machine consensus works as long as the protocol (and all underlying protocols) cover all possiblites well enough not to make intervention very necessary/collectively favorable. Yet machines are not able nor entitled to decide anything else.  Machines are for convenience/repetitive tasks only.

A working human consensus governance always is a required lower level.  People often collectively decide/vote to edit a running blockchain core software, not always excluding changes relevant to security or economic rules.  Fewer times it was necessary or was not dared, to edit a blockchain history, even tho that isnt necessarily security relevant by design. People also collectively decide to leave/turn off/retire blockchains, or dont even start them despite a potential billion market cap (BitcoinXT). Can you prove any blockchain is immutable?

What problems?

Define "properly scale"?

Dynamic block size feature is pretty handy for "scaling".

Please elaborate more.

Thanks

@thejaytiesto maybe the darknet should accept more coins to satisfy the demand? What do you think?

I think it would make sense to do it and maybe create an interledger for the darknet so that they can be exchanged from blockchain to blockchain. But is that even possible?

I agree, strong anonimity is probably better kept as a sidechain in Bitcoin. XMR has too many problems to properly scale, so I wonder how do they intend to ever manage the amount of volume Bitcoin moves now, let alone in the future.

This is pretty big news....looks like Bitcoin Jesus is for XMR!

ROGER VER ON XMR: ------->   MemoryDealers
VIP
Legendary  https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-rise-and-rise-of-monero-1595182  <---------------ROGER VER MADE COMMENT ON THIS THREAD LINK

I don't know much about XMR but this coin is overhyped and risen more than 100% in a week. This is the time for the coin to cool down and consolidate if this is not the end of the bull run. I feel this value of this coin will be in parity with ETH om the future. Many people have high expectation on this coin.

It seems they are working on making it possible.

From : https://github.com/monero-project/bitmonero/commit/ebf97d76f0020eb027175818ebbdafd6d578aa77

This is only for incoming txs. You cant see any spendings using viewkey.

I can only second to that.

Especially "consensus".   The technical "consensus" of a block chain is in fact the opposite of what socio-democrats think it is: it is not "a majority of feable-minded who can decide on anything", but rather the funny principle that the ONLY thing one is capable to find a majority agreement on, is the immutable protocol.
In other words, "block chain consensus" is the inverse of socio-democratic majority rule: it is the INABILITY to come to any other consensus than the original, immutable "white paper" protocol.

Any exceptional product will be by definition, elitist. If you want mediocre money, look no further, fiat is here. You want terrible money? Go to Zimbabwe. Paypal, creditcards, bank wires all work perfectly fine for almost anything in a mediocre society. Those living in those societies pay the price for embracing mediocrity through being strongarmed by goons and having their money constantly devalued by shallow moralists.
Now, I want my money to be 100% free from morals, except for those that promote its minimal requirements: freedom from the meddling of idiots who will squander it in their idiotic socialist projects, technological and financial soundness.
Open source is highly overrated, It took an exceptional thinker (or group) to create Bitcoin. Open source has as yet yielded a deluge of shitcoin copies. The only positive aspect is the source code being available so people can trust the protocol to work a certain way.
As an aside, I am annoyed as fuck at the constant misuse of the word consensus, which is turned into the socialistic notion of every idiot's opinion being worth as much as the next man's opinion. This was never true, and I want my money to be created by the brightest of the brightest minds, who disregard what the mediocre might or might not think about their work.

if it was going up, it was a pump.... i think you were trying to say "it's not a fake pump". and i agree with that but you need to understand that 100% in  ONE day isnt healthy and it was clear to any analist xmr were going back to 600~750 área.

i've lost the first pump but i bought at 750 today and im sure xmr will surpass 0.02 till december.

no need to polarize.  Most short time price spikes are obviously both, not sustainable and also waste of nerves or money to a majority of participants (besides maybe those who own enough to control/manipulate a market)   The events named triggers of pumps were often expectable and represent a many times smaller real effect/relevance sometimes even in opposite direction. So instead you could try to imagine, estimate, count together expectable real positive&negative effects on the price in x month through an event (example: Alphabay accepting Monero) and come up with a rational  estimate of +/-x $ % or million in market cap

Clearly it's not a pump but market adoption. And you're BTC butthurt doing some babbling here...

not a native speaker; yet written down in English only. Any correction appreciated

Am I the only one that feels like the original post was not written in English?

SmirkinPepe, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlphaBay
2.  Crypto is young. The most positive (biggest/most relevant) part yet may (hopefully) be (stay)
the open source development processes!  
(Dark use is a confirmation of use of a certain size just as much as it scares people away for good
- Bitcoin is in fact accepted by many big, transparent/legal services)

1. Its Sounds as if you'd want to relativize/justify all bad parts and disregard morality and social processes as well? Assuming "money/world is chaos(including evil) anyway" discourages those thinking about improvements, like finding a better combination of privacy and transparency/consensus aspects or anything.
Given the choice of a currency, with no other incentive, people do opt for the one with more fair and positive uses rather than the opposite, don't they?;

1. All those trying to insert (socialist) morality discussion into a financial value transfer/storage system should be disregarded immediately.
2. Dark market money is one of the only proven real world non-speculative use cases for bitcoin and other crypto.

That being said, does anyone have some numbers on Alphabay users / size of the markets? Thanks.

I found this as a good, critical view:
http://weuse.cash/2016/06/09/btc-xmr-zcash/

There are others.  I'm not totally out of it myself, but I also have my reserves for zcash, in the sense that I wonder what it brings in over monero.  I know what it brings: *total* mixing with the entire user base, instead of a randomly selected subset.  That, in itself, is good.  However, the price, cryptographically to pay, seems not in balance.  If it is really true that not every transaction is automatically anonymized (which I think is true, but I'm not sure yet) then I would say: forget about it immediately.  Anonymity must be automatic and passive, or you render those using it suspect.  If, on the other hand, there is automatic anonymity for every transaction, then one should look at the trade-off on one hand of this increased anonymity set with all the cryptographic problems that come with it, and the fact that the company is assigning itself 10% of the total amount of coins (how can the company do that ?).  The trusted setup is a risky affair, but it could be solved if they wouldn't just take a few 10 personalities, but rather a million people or so.

Has anybody seen a good, well-argued critique of Z-Cash that they can link to?
I like what  I have seen of Z-Cash so far, but want to be sure that i have also absorbed dissenting views