Topic: delete - page 18. (Read 165547 times)

Again, that's all cool, but how do you pay for the project? Self funded? That means (somewhat) rich people. At least by my definition. Yours might be "not irresponsible" but either way few are included.

You can do what Monero is doing which is people working part time, voluntary funding through donations, etc. We get some work done certainly, but it isn't exactly turbocharged. If the tortoise indeed wins the race, we may well do fine. You seem a bit panicked about the world, so perhaps you want things to move faster. You better have a good team of rich/non-irresponsible people lined up to make a run for it.

Why does it matter what I say?

Especially if you are going to successfully attack XMR right?

You will have the last laugh if what you claim is true, no?

You will have proved all of us wrong who oppose you in your claims to "kill" XMR.

I see no problem here, as you will be viewed in a good light as keeping to your word should your claims actually come true to a 'T'.

As a publicly opposed party to your claims of "killing" XMR....please prove me wrong.

I will take a wild guess. I had pondered in the past that BM had made some ultimatum in a PM.

He mentioned in one post that the distribution of mining power looked concentrated to him.

Apparently some people might have heavily mined XMR than others. Perhaps he is asking for better disclosure on who basically got a "premine". I realize this was raised by AnonyMint in the past and refuted. Just saying.

Yeah Auroracoin which BCX identified as a clever scam (holding the 80% premine on behalf of the citizens of Iceland) and helped kill.


Unless of course your target market is not BTT, so you don't give a fuck what they think. Let the astute ones join the ride if they want. And your target market aren't investors, so they don't even think of that.

I don't define the savings to pay rudimentary living expenses for a year as rich. I define that as not irresponsible. The problem in the world today is everyone lives in debt.

Also young guys shouldn't be burdening themselves with a wife and kids too early if they want to change the world. Make your mark on the world first.

If my only responsibilities were myself and I didn't have symptoms of neurological decline, I'd be hunky-dory. But I do have those other two financial risks that can blow up in my face at any time.

Of course you will say that now. Even coblee has admitted publicly that he didn't know if you were serious or not. So hence his LTC checkpoints he put in place back then.

Try harder to justify your backpedaling. You almost forgot this:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/repost-a-message-to-the-litecoin-group-from-danny-maddox-in-san-francisco-96174

I encourage other to read it as this was BCX trying to get focus off of his failed "attack" on Litecoin.

It is all there for you to see. Shortly after that BCX deleted a bunch of topics including the original one linked and then went away from the forums for months.

I wonder why...lol

 

That's perfectly fine, I have no disagreement whatsoever. However, you are saying that only (at least relatively) rich people can develop coins, or they have to work for rich people who cover their living expenses. Because most non-rich people have to support themselves somehow.


Maybe. One part of industrializing the process means getting better at selling it (if only because competitive pressure means the better scammers survive, but also learning and economies of scale). This happens in every speculative market -- over time scams get more professional and harder to identify.

This only matters if you are trying to sell your coins early to pay for project and/or living expenses. If you try to do that, you look like a scam, and the market won't reward you (unless you can time machine yourself back to late 2013). If you don't, the you are stuck with the rich people problem.

If people can't see what's going on by now...

Disagree. You don't pay bounty coins to any developer who is valuing them at their exchange value (you could even have a feature to lock the coins for some months so they can't be spent), rather at their future value. Coins should be very unprofitable to mine (while driving the hashrate through the roof) and the liquidity on the exchanges should be insufficient to gain whale size (sorry risto). There is a designed way to prevent people from wanting to sell their coins at low prices. Thus the only way you get coins in size is via bounties. Also that should very quickly drive the price through the roof too so the coins will be highly valued based on the intense slope of the price chart and the insufficient volume on the exchanges to satisfy all the whales. Over time the volume on the exchanges will increase as the price also does.

When I wrote "holistic design", I really meant it.


It should be quite clear to astute observers which coins are on such a trajectory.


The developer isn't doing it for near-term income. Any developer with that mindset isn't going to accomplish anything. Which is why Zoid's post was so devastating to the BBR price. He showed lack of confidence in the future price of BBR and then talked about new investments which sounds like moving on to other things or not being firmly commitment. Of course the investments could mean new features for BBR but he didn't clarify.

I didn't attack Litecoin, never intended to.

It was a rouse to bring more hash into Litecoin which worked beautifully I might add.

Let's not forget Coblee the creator of Litecoin new in advance and played right along with his "check points".

Old news, really.


~BCX~

I'm not making a moral judgement just an observation of the pragmatics of it.

You simply can't extract enough money very quickly to cover the capital costs of a significant project. You can extract enough money to make a pump-and-dump worthwhile, especially if you streamline and industrialize the process to minimize costs, as some have done. Or at least you could six months ago. The market may be sorting that out, but not in a way that helps legitimate developers.

You can premine and hold with a low profile as you say, but that doesn't help support yourself during the development period. So if you aren't at least rich enough to support yourself, your team, and whatever other costs the project may incur, or you haven't raised capital from someone who is rich enough to sponsor it, you are pretty screwed.

But as you say, it is all relative. If you can live on 500 USD/month then Zoidberg's 750 USD/month is just fine (as long as other costs don't exceed 250 USD/month of course). That limits the potential participants though.

Ahhh the smoothie/bcx bromance.  You guys need to get a room and she'd this sexual tension

Oh you mean like how you "attacked" litecoin in 2012?

and even you said it clearly you would attack LTC just to ...not attack LTC because you couldn't. lol

Don't make us laugh buddy.  

There is a difference between financial duress and not being rich.

Some people can live off of $500 a month (e.g. I rent two houses $85 and $120 per month each).

Even I have still have on the order of $50,000 in savings from my original 18,000oz of silver in 2007.

Those under financial duress should not make coins.  If they plan on making money early off the project the will likely have to compromise their integrity to make the coin a net positive income stream.

If they cannot create the net positive income stream the project dies as the primary developer looks elsewhere for his bread.

That doesn't change the fact that he took a premine.

I understand your point is that BTC was not immediately exchangeable for value and there was no prior market indication that it would be in the future.

But any developer who doesn't believe in his project's value, wouldn't invest his life in his basement coding it in the first place.

The more salient issue is to fix Bitcoin's flaws requires more capital than Satoshi had, i.e. your project needs to be very refined early so you need to pay bounties to experts. A one man project isn't possible any more (Satoshi was one of two men on the project while he was premining). Thus the value of a premine is aligned with the increased requirements.

The danger of a premine is that it puts all the voting power for that capital in the hands of the founding developer (unless the private keys were given to a foundation). But I am of the very strong opinion that funding raised by consensus is groupthink! Most world changing open source projects were run by Benevolent Dictators. Perhaps Mozilla is a slight exception, but Chrome readily kicked its butt with innovation (Mozilla is catching up a bit lately).

All ye who want to wear J.E.W. titles and "design"wreck a coin by committee, please go far away from anything I do as you can. Don't walk away, please run or never come in proximity in the first place.


Which gave him time to develop it as basically one man and premine it. Now we don't have that luxury. Launch a half-assed coin and it could DDoSed or otherwise attacked, etc..


One solution to that is down play the announcement, even try to hide the announcement as best you can. But then people will accuse you of mining your own coin during that period.

Bottom line is if you are creating something of great value and that is very clear with your white papers and technical acumen, and you keep your mouth shut otherwise, then there are astute members of BTT who know what time it is. And they deserve the big prize because they won't let a measily 1% premine get in the way of making a fortune.


Exactly. If your coin doesn't go big, then the premine isn't that big of scam any way. And if it does go big, then it wasn't scam.

One can argue that a premine motivates the developer to pump it up, then cash out and run away. But this can clearly be ascertained by studying the project. It is quite clear which developers are dead serious about changing the world and who won't sell most of their coins until they are worth $10,000+.


Funding by consensus is utter shit in my opinion.

There is nothing wrong with a premine, it is only the intentions and qualities of the founding developer that make the difference.

Without a premine, only a rich developer can buy and mine his own coins. So only rich people should create coins?

 

A serious offer to buy a troll off with a woman?  Oh dear ..

Are you talking about the PM we shared? In that case, I'll refer you to a statement made by fluffy to me:

"also, how can we publicly admit something exists when we don’t have any details :-P"

What do you want, really, BCX? Is it love, a women? Perhaps social acceptance? Something is missing for you to continuously act in such a way. I am happy to help you if it is companionship, but it seems you are a lone wolf. What can we do to make you happy?

Your answer is non-responsive.  If you had made your request publicly, it would be trivial to find it.

But you referenced your purported PM publicly, and as I said, you failed to identify what the request was, who it was directed to, and who ignored it.

And you refuse to do so.  Why?