Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 223. (Read 387493 times)
A-B-C corrective patterns can be very bullish
Monero is getting crushed right now, with gains switching to Voot,Cloak,Crypt,BRR.
At least it still has increasing diff/hashrates going for it. Hopefully due for a reversal soon. Not a lot of buys ATM around 0.0004 current (weak) support.
Could definitely use a nice 50 btc buy wall around 0.0003-0.0004 to change the trend.
At least it still has increasing diff/hashrates going for it. Hopefully due for a reversal soon. Not a lot of buys ATM around 0.0004 current (weak) support.
Could definitely use a nice 50 btc buy wall around 0.0003-0.0004 to change the trend.
i hardly think going from 1.75-6 mBTC in a week then stabilizing between 4-5 mBTC is "crushed".
this is just the beginning. monero is a coin with promise, not for those who can't hold more than two days without getting nervous.
I totally agree. Maybe you took my post as being more bearish/worried than I meant it to be.
Monero is getting crushed right now, with gains switching to Voot,Cloak,Crypt,BRR.
At least it still has increasing diff/hashrates going for it. Hopefully due for a reversal soon. Not a lot of buys ATM around 0.0004 current (weak) support.
Could definitely use a nice 50 btc buy wall around 0.0003-0.0004 to change the trend.
At least it still has increasing diff/hashrates going for it. Hopefully due for a reversal soon. Not a lot of buys ATM around 0.0004 current (weak) support.
Could definitely use a nice 50 btc buy wall around 0.0003-0.0004 to change the trend.
i hardly think going from 1.75-6 mBTC in a week then stabilizing between 4-5 mBTC is "crushed".
this is just the beginning. monero is a coin with promise, not for those who can't hold more than two days without getting nervous.
While this (and some other things you say) makes sense and sound solid, there is no guarantee that the future of altcoins will "make sense".
It will almost certainly make sense afterwards. Therefore it is possible in principle for it to make sense in advance.
Quote
There is no guarantee that it will, but if it does not, that is my own failiure, not a failure of the altcoins.
If you don't know the future and what unexpected things will influence the result that's hardly a "failure" on your part 
Elsewhere they say the difference in speed is 2.2 to 5 times as fast. That is far, far less then an order of magnitude.
CZ decided to launch a testnet, with links to the github weeks before the coin launched. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, to test his coin .. what he actually did was open it wide for people to prey on. I find it not only probable, but instead extremely likely, that there were GPU miners either at launch or within the week after it.
His unfamiliarity with the typical nature of this board left his coin extremely vulnerable and he is now left to contemplate a hard fork to stop the abuse. Please note that with this abuse he might not even have the ability to enforce a hardfork due to potential miner take over. Here is what I'm talking about, and this is half of the daily emission. Thus, 50% of mining is done by his software.
It does not matter if it's 2.2 to 5 times as fast, the time in which his coin has been exploited vs the time it has not been exploited is very large. Unfortunately, Claymore or another developer did not provide a GPU miner to act as a crutch until such time when an open source one was ready.
Fortunately, with the slower emission .. this has a chance to even out over time. I hope the best for him, but I do not believe he grasps the full nature of variables involved in what he's doing .. this is not knocking his ability to program.
Hmm, good points. However, he could enforce a hardfork even with a more powerful miner out there, as hardforking only requires that the people using the coin update their software. If for example the dev says, "This is the new version" a rogue miner doesn't need to accept it, true, but if all the services and majority of users stick with the 'official' chain, then the rogue miner would solving blocks that no one else accepts.
That sounds like a recipe for chaos, with some users on one chain and other users on the other. It is impossible to get all users to upgrade anything, it just doesn't happen.
That's the point. The pools are controlled by the miners. They won't fork against their interests.
He'd probably have to relaunch a new coin to do this.
Forgot to mention: Now #1 at Mintpal. Has anyone confirmed they will add it?
Monero is getting crushed right now, with gains switching to Voot,Cloak,Crypt,BRR.
At least it still has increasing diff/hashrates going for it. Hopefully due for a reversal soon. Not a lot of buys ATM around 0.0004 current (weak) support.
Could definitely use a nice 50 btc buy wall around 0.0003-0.0004 to change the trend.
At least it still has increasing diff/hashrates going for it. Hopefully due for a reversal soon. Not a lot of buys ATM around 0.0004 current (weak) support.
Could definitely use a nice 50 btc buy wall around 0.0003-0.0004 to change the trend.
While this (and some other things you say) makes sense and sound solid, there is no guarantee that the future of altcoins will "make sense".
It will almost certainly make sense afterwards. Therefore it is possible in principle for it to make sense in advance. There is no guarantee that it will, but if it does not, that is my own failiure, not a failure of the altcoins.
Elsewhere they say the difference in speed is 2.2 to 5 times as fast. That is far, far less then an order of magnitude.
It is an order of magnitude in the base 5 system.
Elsewhere they say the difference in speed is 2.2 to 5 times as fast. That is far, far less then an order of magnitude.
CZ decided to launch a testnet, with links to the github weeks before the coin launched. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, to test his coin .. what he actually did was open it wide for people to prey on. I find it not only probable, but instead extremely likely, that there were GPU miners either at launch or within the week after it.
His unfamiliarity with the typical nature of this board left his coin extremely vulnerable and he is now left to contemplate a hard fork to stop the abuse. Please note that with this abuse he might not even have the ability to enforce a hardfork due to potential miner take over. Here is what I'm talking about, and this is half of the daily emission. Thus, 50% of mining is done by his software.
It does not matter if it's 2.2 to 5 times as fast, the time in which his coin has been exploited vs the time it has not been exploited is very large. Unfortunately, Claymore or another developer did not provide a GPU miner to act as a crutch until such time when an open source one was ready.
Fortunately, with the slower emission .. this has a chance to even out over time. I hope the best for him, but I do not believe he grasps the full nature of variables involved in what he's doing .. this is not knocking his ability to program.
Hmm, good points. However, he could enforce a hardfork even with a more powerful miner out there, as hardforking only requires that the people using the coin update their software. If for example the dev says, "This is the new version" a rogue miner doesn't need to accept it, true, but if all the services and majority of users stick with the 'official' chain, then the rogue miner would solving blocks that no one else accepts.
That sounds like a recipe for chaos, with some users on one chain and other users on the other. It is impossible to get all users to upgrade anything, it just doesn't happen.
Elsewhere they say the difference in speed is 2.2 to 5 times as fast. That is far, far less then an order of magnitude.
CZ decided to launch a testnet, with links to the github weeks before the coin launched. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, to test his coin .. what he actually did was open it wide for people to prey on. I find it not only probable, but instead extremely likely, that there were GPU miners either at launch or within the week after it.
His unfamiliarity with the typical nature of this board left his coin extremely vulnerable and he is now left to contemplate a hard fork to stop the abuse. Please note that with this abuse he might not even have the ability to enforce a hardfork due to potential miner take over. Here is what I'm talking about, and this is half of the daily emission. Thus, 50% of mining is done by his software.
It does not matter if it's 2.2 to 5 times as fast, the time in which his coin has been exploited vs the time it has not been exploited is very large. Unfortunately, Claymore or another developer did not provide a GPU miner to act as a crutch until such time when an open source one was ready.
Fortunately, with the slower emission .. this has a chance to even out over time. I hope the best for him, but I do not believe he grasps the full nature of variables involved in what he's doing .. this is not knocking his ability to program.
Hmm, good points. However, he could enforce a hardfork even with a more powerful miner out there, as hardforking only requires that the people using the coin update their software. If for example the dev says, "This is the new version" a rogue miner doesn't need to accept it, true, but if all the services and majority of users stick with the 'official' chain, then the rogue miner would solving blocks that no one else accepts.
That sounds like a recipe for chaos, with some users on one chain and other users on the other. It is impossible to get all users to upgrade anything, it just doesn't happen.
Hmm, good points. However, he could enforce a hardfork even with a more powerful miner out there, as hardforking only requires that the people using the coin update their software. If for example the dev says, "This is the new version" a rogue miner doesn't need to accept it, true, but if all the services and majority of users stick with the 'official' chain, then the rogue miner would solving blocks that no one else accepts.
That's the catch, he can do the hardfork .. but it will be at extreme cost of risking whatever marketcap it has managed to accumulate. I'm sure cbuchner didn't spend an awful amount of time making the software. He is clearly profiting, but the hard fork will now be done only if he consents to it .. else he could simply sell his stash and crush the market .. destroying confidence in the coin. I'm sure he doesn't have much invested in this other than a few power bills. So either he works with CZ to try and create some kind of future prosperity, or he doesn't and it gets ugly very fast.
The parties involved have left the adopters of this coin with something that may very well be valuable, but will never be theirs. I cannot accept that, it's just way too dangerous.
Elsewhere they say the difference in speed is 2.2 to 5 times as fast. That is far, far less then an order of magnitude.
CZ decided to launch a testnet, with links to the github weeks before the coin launched. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, to test his coin .. what he actually did was open it wide for people to prey on. I find it not only probable, but instead extremely likely, that there were GPU miners either at launch or within the week after it.
His unfamiliarity with the typical nature of this board left his coin extremely vulnerable and he is now left to contemplate a hard fork to stop the abuse. Please note that with this abuse he might not even have the ability to enforce a hardfork due to potential miner take over. Here is what I'm talking about, and this is half of the daily emission. Thus, 50% of mining is done by his software.
It does not matter if it's 2.2 to 5 times as fast, the time in which his coin has been exploited vs the time it has not been exploited is very large. Unfortunately, Claymore or another developer did not provide a GPU miner to act as a crutch until such time when an open source one was ready.
Fortunately, with the slower emission .. this has a chance to even out over time. I hope the best for him, but I do not believe he grasps the full nature of variables involved in what he's doing .. this is not knocking his ability to program.
Hmm, good points. However, he could enforce a hardfork even with a more powerful miner out there, as hardforking only requires that the people using the coin update their software. If for example the dev says, "This is the new version" a rogue miner doesn't need to accept it, true, but if all the services and majority of users stick with the 'official' chain, then the rogue miner would solving blocks that no one else accepts.
Elsewhere they say the difference in speed is 2.2 to 5 times as fast. That is far, far less then an order of magnitude.
CZ decided to launch a testnet, with links to the github weeks before the coin launched. While it seemed like a good idea at the time, to test his coin .. what he actually did was open it wide for people to prey on. I find it not only probable, but instead extremely likely, that there were GPU miners either at launch or within the week after it.
His unfamiliarity with the typical nature of this board left his coin extremely vulnerable and he is now left to contemplate a hard fork to stop the abuse. Please note that with this abuse he might not even have the ability to enforce a hardfork due to potential miner take over. Here is what I'm talking about, and this is half of the daily emission. Thus, 50% of mining is done by his software.
It does not matter if it's 2.2 to 5 times as fast, the time in which his coin has been exploited vs the time it has not been exploited is very large. Unfortunately, Claymore or another developer did not provide a GPU miner to act as a crutch until such time when an open source one was ready.
Fortunately, with the slower emission .. this has a chance to even out over time. I hope the best for him, but I do not believe he grasps the full nature of variables involved in what he's doing .. this is not knocking his ability to program.
Of course, GPU miner was not ready on day 1. Brand new algo would take some R&D time. So far, we have an account of a single entity at a ~2x advantage (not exact figure: could be less, could be more). So essentially he has 2 CPU solo for every 1 CPU of joe public solo . And now the pools are gaining interest levelling the playing field.
I would not be surprised if a GPU miner was actually available on day one. Unfortunately (or possibly intentionally), the GPU implementation of Boolberry runs almost an order of magnitude faster on GPUs than CPUs on unoptimized code. Optimization was reportedly extremely easy for those who undertook it,
...Of course, the original CryptoNight implementation was crippled too without us realizing it, and we pushed the optimized code when it became available. But none of our core team had anything to do with that.
Elsewhere they say the difference in speed is 2.2 to 5 times as fast. That is far, far less then an order of magnitude.
The classical altcoins do not offer anything relative to Bitcoin, except maybe a different hashing algorithm. An important thing to remember is that there is no long-term market niche for two coins with the same algo. The hashing power of the larger coin is constantly threatening to destroy the smaller one. Even if that does not happen, there are network effects in play that favor the larger coin and suppress the smaller.
.
While this (and some other things you say) makes sense and sound solid, there is no guarantee that the future of altcoins will "make sense"..
I think we can only say one thing, the altcoin landscape will look very different in time, and no one knows what it will look like.
I think whatever it looks like will be a surprise, and is presently unpredictable.
Peace to all.
The problem with a lot of altcoins is that they are copying bitcoins emission curve. Ending up with an inflation <2% could be problematic. Partly because rewards for miners decline and in so the incentive to up keep the network at a high hash rate is in danger but also because with such low inflation could lead to deflationary pressure in the economy (assuming the crypto is widely used).
Of course, GPU miner was not ready on day 1. Brand new algo would take some R&D time. So far, we have an account of a single entity at a ~2x advantage (not exact figure: could be less, could be more). So essentially he has 2 CPU solo for every 1 CPU of joe public solo . And now the pools are gaining interest levelling the playing field.
I would not be surprised if a GPU miner was actually available on day one. Unfortunately (or possibly intentionally), the GPU implementation of Boolberry runs almost an order of magnitude faster on GPUs than CPUs on unoptimized code. Optimization was reportedly extremely easy for those who undertook it,
...Of course, the original CryptoNight implementation was crippled too without us realizing it, and we pushed the optimized code when it became available. But none of our core team had anything to do with that.
Quote
Based on current supply & last prices at poloniex:
BBR market cap BTC678
XMR (via coinmarketcap) BTC7,759
BBR market cap BTC678
XMR (via coinmarketcap) BTC7,759
Is there a tangible reason for such a disparity?
If every piece of paper was as valuable, you could print numbers on paper and pay your dinner with it.
If every coin was as valuable, copying Bitcoin 1:1 and mining it to yourself would make you immensely wealthy.
It is called "legitimacy" and it's hard to get. The U.S. barely manages to retain theirs by having a 51% attack on the world's military. With garagecoins, it is harder.
ADD: comparing market caps with current number of coins is misleading. The total number (or perhaps the number at the point when yearly inflation goes <2%) is more important.
Like I stated in IRC, I am not part of the "dev team", I never was.
Pardon my error. NoodleDoodle was only unofficial part of the dev team at the time, but is now official, as verified here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7098497
Quote
Boolberry certainly didn't copy this un-cripple 'fix' or optimization as you like to call it.
This issue did not apply to BBR at all.
Quote
It seems logical that another actor (perhaps relating to XMR team if you're a fan of conspiracy theories, or conceivably someone previously involved in bytecoin, -- who naturally would be aware, OR an entirely independent user who has basic coding knowledge and few minutes to spare glancing over the code) had realised this and was operating at a significant advantage for some time.
As I explained, the code was unchanged from the original bytecoin public release, whenever that was (some time before MRO that's for sure), until then-friend-of-monero-and-now-monero-developer NoodleDoodle fixed it.
Jump to: