again as long as mining remains decentralized (and if it isn't then all bets are off)
That was my point.
Topic: Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP. - page 281. (Read 2032286 times)
That was my point.
That and ordering.
I did expect smooth would identify the key word. 
There exists plenty of evidence people will hold XMR; where is the evidence supporting your assertion they will not?
Don't make me google "evidence vs analysis" for you...
Don't make me google "evidence vs analysis" for you...
Better pay attention to those angels from the realm of theory; they can save you a lot of pain.
If you want "hard empirical on-point evidence", I'm afraid you will have to wait.
We already have 1 year of data in the form of volume/price on XMR emission (IE supply) vs demand.
It indicates XMR is not economical to mine (or short) because most miners are mining with the intention of holding, not dumping.
What are you waiting for? In any case, enjoy your ethereal analysis paralysis while we in the real world get things done and make stuff happen.
God bless my analysis paralysis; if it were not for it, I would have fallen into the altcoin trap many times in the past.
An observation about the blockchain, that I have not seen commented elsewhere.
You are getting too close to my idea.
That is good. If someone launches, it will not be certain it is me.
P.S. I planted this epiphany in your subconscious. Just as smooth planted the End-to-End principle in my subconscious when he told me a pigeon could carry a Monero transaction to the network.
allegations of a "better way" have a decidedly hollow ring to them.
Of course when details have been purposely withheld. I tried to give enough of a taste so I could judge the rationality of the community. This was an important marketing test for me to do, which impacts my decision process. I also tried to be vague enough that I could retain plausibly deniability.
To assert that most everything being done in Bitcoin is unnecessary is going to have a hollow ring to it, absent any details. I will just add that Bitcoin is trying to do too much. Too much power was given to the mining. This appears to have been designed with forethought. There was this elaborate strawman built about the tech envy of the formerly unresolved Byzantine General's problem (which I assert Bitcoin does not solve in the context of being resistant to monopolization).
There exists plenty of evidence people will hold XMR; where is the evidence supporting your assertion they will not?
Don't make me google "evidence vs analysis" for you...
Don't make me google "evidence vs analysis" for you...
Better pay attention to those angels from the realm of theory; they can save you a lot of pain.
If you want "hard empirical on-point evidence", I'm afraid you will have to wait.
We already have 1 year of data in the form of volume/price on XMR emission (IE supply) vs demand.
It indicates XMR is not economical to mine (or short) because most miners are mining with the intention of holding, not dumping.
What are you waiting for? In any case, enjoy your ethereal analysis paralysis while we in the real world get things done and make stuff happen.
I don't agree with your apathy on whether cryptographers who invent anything that truly threatens TPTB will be made into examples.
Smooth I also don't think it is viable to murder dozens of open source programmers because it would be difficult to obscure on that scale and thus the hacker community would likely rise up and retaliate (and win!). But in terms of stopping an immediate threat or making an example out of a serious threat which can be done in an obfuscated manner so as to not wake up the entire community, I think it is a realistic consideration. Perhaps avoiding outcomes below is contingent on carefully accessing the situation the potential victim has placed himself into. For example, attack the Russian oligarchs and you will be overtly assassinated. Attack the CIA or NSA and they will weigh the cost of murdering versus the risk of waking up the sheeople.
Yeah its posible that one or two people could be taken out in a "suspicious" manner. So as I said earlier, open the project. Get others to participate (even if that includes giving up some measure of your anonymity to do it, and I think it does). Otherwise, as long as you remain critical to the effort, you are betting solely on your ability to actually remain anonymous for your safety. That is difficult and may even be impossible. It certainly didn't work out too well for Ross.
For all we know satoshi's identity is well known to the NSA, etc. (I consider that quite likely). Likewise the developers of cryptonote are probably identifiable by the NSA too. But what difference does either really make at this point? The code is out there. Interest has been established, so the projects will continue.
Agreed all.
Opening a project too soon or launching with a non-anonymous dev has trade-offs:
* loosing first mover advantage
* regulatory threats against an ICO
* no ICO then no $ to pay for development
* no money to pay for development to race ahead, then another effort can leech and create an ICO to steal the work
* radical design by consensus is sub-optimal. Refinement by consensus is optimal.
I don't know how high to weigh your argument that an anonymous launch will cause other developers and investors to be disinterested. I find that hard to believe. An anonymous launch with all the correct attributes is not different than one with a named dev, because by your own logic, the coin should be judged on its open source merits if it is to be truly decentralized. The main killer of an altcoin is a huge premine that doesn't allow the coin to be fairly distributed or any scheme which allows a disproportionate amount of the coins to be controlled by one person or group. Ideally some percent (in the typical power law distribution) of the coins should be distributed to the users of the currency (who don't just HODL and never sell for fiat).
fiat 2.0, SDR's come on.
Hehe. Bitcoin is centralized, you are only obfuscating to yourself if you claim that it isn't.
The centralization was put in the wrong place in Bitcoin's design. Move it, then the decentralization can control the centralization.
do you care to explain how it's centralized again.
if the idea you have is correct then it needs to spread, it wont spread if it cant be understood.
can you ELI5.
Because the center (the group acting in lock step) has the power to include or not include transactions (and set transaction fees).
That alone is already centralization.
And worse is that power (lack of autonomy of the ends of the network) can be monopolized, e.g. Larry Summer's 21 Inc economics that mine for free for the cartel, Sybil attack on pools, economies-of-scale (and fiat subsidy via the usury backstop) with ASICs, electricity costs charged to the society, Transactions Withholding Attack, etc, etc, etc. Do I need to enumerate every monopolization vector in detail again (each was already debated upthread)?
The only retort is that the society will rebel against any monopoly, which is complete nonsense because we have innumerable examples in history and society never does. At least two others made a similar comment upthread.
I have given my support to spreading Bitcoin knowing with complete certainty (based on my detailed posts about human nature, Logic of Collective Action, and historical evidence) that it will end up being used by the State to oppress us (and cypherdoc's Africans too), because it also has seepage and helps to grow the capital base (network effects) for crypto-currency, which can aid the process of making an ideal crypto-currency.
cypherdoc is so excited to enslave the world in a fully tracked money that never existed before in history. Cash was always anonymous. He is ostensibly oblivious to the blood that is going to be on his hands. He is excited about what in effect will a euthanization of the world in the NWO global Technocracy where everything will be controlled and tracked by the State.
Ok, seepage, yes I get that, and yes, it's nice to have bitcoin as a reserve currency against which all other digital currencies are priced. Alt coins that have true innovation or advantage should appreciate in value vs bitcoin over time.
I would very much like it if you could come up with a superior alternative, but your hints and allegations of a "better way" have a decidedly hollow ring to them.
Time to put up or shut up dude, seriously, crackpot schemes like 21 can raise more than a hundred million, and your idea can't raise ten grand?
Best of luck, I hope you save us all with your super crypto and I hope you monetize your way to a private island and a personal yacht, but please do it soon, we're running out of time here.
fiat 2.0, SDR's come on.
Hehe. Bitcoin is centralized, you are only obfuscating to yourself if you claim that it isn't.
The centralization was put in the wrong place in Bitcoin's design. Move it, then the decentralization can control the centralization.
do you care to explain how it's centralized again.
if the idea you have is correct then it needs to spread, it wont spread if it cant be understood.
can you ELI5.
Because the center (the group acting in lock step) has the power to include or not include transactions (and set transaction fees).
That alone is already centralization.
And worse is that power (lack of autonomy of the ends of the network) can be monopolized, e.g. State regulation of mining, Larry Summer's 21 Inc economics that mine for free for the cartel, Sybil attack on pools, economies-of-scale (and fiat subsidy via the usury backstop) with ASICs, electricity costs charged to the society, Transactions Withholding Attack, etc, etc, etc. Do I need to enumerate every monopolization vector in detail again (each was already debated upthread)?
The only retort is that the society will rebel against any monopoly, which is complete nonsense because we have innumerable examples in history and society never does. At least two others made a similar comment upthread.
I have given my support to spreading Bitcoin knowing with complete certainty (based on my detailed posts about human nature, Logic of Collective Action, and historical evidence) that it will end up being used by the State to oppress us (and cypherdoc's Africans too), because it also has seepage and helps to grow the capital base (network effects) for crypto-currency, which can aid the process of making an ideal crypto-currency.
cypherdoc is so excited to enslave the world in a fully tracked money that never existed before in history. Cash was always anonymous. He is ostensibly oblivious to the blood that is going to be on his hands. He is excited about what in effect will a euthanization of the world in the NWO global Technocracy where everything will be controlled and tracked by the State.
How do you create a network topology that is decentralized at any scale?
With a design that enables the ends of the network to be autonomous (e.g. the internet), i.e. the End-to-End principle. Ideally the power (autonomy) of the ends over the center (or the group) should get stronger the more it is Sybil attacked (i.e. the attack doesn't exist).
Abstractly not erroneously redefining decentralization to be centralization-by-free-will-but-no-other-choice (aka "one for all, and all for one" collectivism) as Bitcoin did:
Marching in lockstep doesn't mean centralized (of course; that's the whole idea of Bitcoin in a way).
Anyone guessed my paradigm shift yet?
The goal is clear enough, and laudable. It is the path to that goal that remains occluded.
Appreciated.
It is time to either move forward, quit, or shut up (or both).
XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper. 
If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.
It might survive as a sidechain though.
Where is the evidence for these naked assertions?
When money is forced to compete, Thiers' law takes effect.
"in the absence of effective legal tender laws, Gresham's Law works in reverse. If given the choice of what money to accept, people will transact with money they believe to be of highest long-term value. However, if not given the choice, and required to accept all money, good and bad, they will tend to keep the money of greater perceived value in their possession, and pass on the bad money to someone else. In short, in the absence of legal tender laws, the seller will not accept anything but money of certain value (good money), while the existence of legal tender laws will cause the buyer to offer only money with the lowest commodity value (bad money) as the creditor must accept such money at face value."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law#Reverse_of_Gresham.27s_Law_.28Thiers.27_Law.29
Your response doesn't even mention XMR!
I asked for hard empirical on-point evidence, not general navel-gazing hypothetical analysis of angels on pinheads.
There exists plenty of evidence people will hold XMR; where is the evidence supporting your assertion they will not?
Don't make me google "evidence vs analysis" for you...
Better pay attention to those angels from the realm of theory; they can save you a lot of pain.
If you want "hard empirical on-point evidence" in cryptoland, I'm afraid you will have to wait.
XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper.
If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.
It might survive as a sidechain though.
Where is the evidence for these naked assertions?
When money is forced to compete, Thiers' law takes effect.
"in the absence of effective legal tender laws, Gresham's Law works in reverse. If given the choice of what money to accept, people will transact with money they believe to be of highest long-term value. However, if not given the choice, and required to accept all money, good and bad, they will tend to keep the money of greater perceived value in their possession, and pass on the bad money to someone else. In short, in the absence of legal tender laws, the seller will not accept anything but money of certain value (good money), while the existence of legal tender laws will cause the buyer to offer only money with the lowest commodity value (bad money) as the creditor must accept such money at face value."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law#Reverse_of_Gresham.27s_Law_.28Thiers.27_Law.29
Your response doesn't even mention XMR!
I asked for hard empirical on-point evidence, not general navel-gazing hypothetical analysis of angels on pinheads.
There exists plenty of evidence people will hold XMR; where is the evidence supporting your assertion they will not?
Don't make me google "evidence vs analysis" for you...
...
You fixed it until it broke, just like 20MB blocks would have done to BTC if Evil Blockstream Conspirator Peter Todd hadn't checked Gavin's shitmath and noticed the correct most optimistic answer was actually 8MB.
You fixed it until it broke, just like 20MB blocks would have done to BTC if Evil Blockstream Conspirator Peter Todd hadn't checked Gavin's shitmath and noticed the correct most optimistic answer was actually 8MB.
I don't believe it was Todd himself who bothered to check the 'chief scientist's arithmetic. But anyway, what's the big deal with a 100% error (give or take) on something as minor and trivial as the blocksize which obviously nobody cares about? It's just a monetary solution which some people might dump their PM stash to go all in on.
XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper.
If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.
It might survive as a sidechain though.
Where is the evidence for these naked assertions? (InVisible) market volume vs emission indicates most XMR miners are accumulating.
Why would the mutually-reinforcing perfect complement to BTC be "doomed?" Let's wait until sidechains exist before drawing conclusions.
Another part of XMR's attraction is its property of being a hedge against BTC implemented with a completely different dev team, codebase, and PoW.
If forced to choose between them, I'd rather hold perfectly fungible XMR than possibly tainted, potentially white/black/red/grey-listed BTC.
ftfy
Oh, silly old Frap.doc!
You fixed it until it broke, just like 20MB blocks would have done to BTC if Evil Blockstream Conspirator Peter Todd hadn't checked Gavin's shitmath and noticed the correct most optimistic answer was actually 8MB.
We of course don't know about "invisible" (IE off-market and/or non-public) XMR volume, but what we do see is dumping insufficient to erode the price, indicating miners are either accumulating or selling new coins somewhere besides Polo.
that's a stunning 21BTC daily 24 h volume you got there iCELatte! i shit that amt every mornin'!
XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper.
If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.
It might survive as a sidechain though.
Where is the evidence for these naked assertions? (InVisible) market volume vs emission indicates most XMR miners are accumulating.
Why would the mutually-reinforcing perfect complement to BTC be "doomed?" Let's wait until sidechains exist before drawing conclusions.
Another part of XMR's attraction is its property of being a hedge against BTC implemented with a completely different dev team, codebase, and PoW.
If forced to choose between them, I'd rather hold perfectly fungible XMR than possibly tainted, potentially white/black/red/grey-listed BTC.
ftfy
Oh, silly old Frap.doc!
You fixed it until it broke, just like 20MB blocks would have done to BTC if Evil Blockstream Conspirator Peter Todd hadn't checked Gavin's shitmath and noticed the correct most optimistic answer was actually 8MB.
We of course don't know about "invisible" (IE off-market and/or non-public) XMR volume, but what we do see is dumping insufficient to erode the price, indicating miners are either accumulating or selling new coins somewhere besides Polo.
XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper.
If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.
It might survive as a sidechain though.
Where is the evidence for these naked assertions?
When money is forced to compete, Thiers' law takes effect.
"in the absence of effective legal tender laws, Gresham's Law works in reverse. If given the choice of what money to accept, people will transact with money they believe to be of highest long-term value. However, if not given the choice, and required to accept all money, good and bad, they will tend to keep the money of greater perceived value in their possession, and pass on the bad money to someone else. In short, in the absence of legal tender laws, the seller will not accept anything but money of certain value (good money), while the existence of legal tender laws will cause the buyer to offer only money with the lowest commodity value (bad money) as the creditor must accept such money at face value."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gresham%27s_law#Reverse_of_Gresham.27s_Law_.28Thiers.27_Law.29
XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper.
If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.
It might survive as a sidechain though.
I don't have any Monero and don't know jack shit about it. Or any alt. It's one of those "Why go out for hamburger when one has steak at home?" type of deals to me.
Now, if Monero or pretty much any total shitcoin was a sidechain and I could have the proper level of confidence that I could, autonomously, shift my holdings back to BTC, I'd be all over it. If XMR is as great for privacy as iCEBREAKER claims (again and again and again), fantastic! I'd happily use it whenever I have that need.
In some back-of-my-mind sort of way I sense that somehow privacy and use as a reserve currency are not very compatible. I cannot put my finger on it and have not spent the time to think up a theory, but it's just a sense. Perhaps it is a sense that without understanding with some precision the backing store, the system built on top of it is suspect. Anyway, I personally don't sweat the rather severe privacy deficiencies Bitcoin has in my particular use-case.
XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper.
If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.
It might survive as a sidechain though.
Where is the evidence for these naked assertions? (InVisible) market volume vs emission indicates most XMR miners are accumulating.
Why would the mutually-reinforcing perfect complement to BTC be "doomed?" Let's wait until sidechains exist before drawing conclusions.
Another part of XMR's attraction is its property of being a hedge against BTC implemented with a completely different dev team, codebase, and PoW.
If forced to choose between them, I'd rather hold perfectly fungible XMR than possibly tainted, potentially white/black/red/grey-listed BTC.
ftfy
XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper.
If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.
It might survive as a sidechain though.
Where is the evidence for these naked assertions? (Visible) market volume vs emission indicates most XMR miners are accumulating.
Why would the mutually-reinforcing perfect complement to BTC be "doomed?" Let's wait until sidechains exist before drawing conclusions.
Another part of XMR's attraction is its property of being a hedge against BTC implemented with a completely different dev team, codebase, and PoW.
If forced to choose between them, I'd rather hold perfectly fungible XMR than possibly tainted, potentially white/black/red/grey-listed BTC.
XMR is a complement, not competition, for BTC. One provides transparency, the other opacity. Salt & Pepper.
If it is competition at least there's a remote chance for xmr, otherwise it is doomed -- people that need it will not hold the units; they will make use and those units will be exchanged for btc units ASAP in the other end.
It might survive as a sidechain though.
Jump to: