rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 42.

AlexGR

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1049

Quote from: ?? on ??

I find scary someone invested on an instamined coin (DRK)

If I ask you, what was the cost of the entire DRK instamine at then-running prices, and what was the cost of the unfairly mined XMRs with >50% of the hashrate at then-running prices, do you know the answer?

Do you also know the answer which was the biggest "scam", in terms of BTCs?

Hint: The entire DRK instamine costed <50 BTC for the first 2 weeks of DRK's life as the prices were at 0.000025 btc per DRK / 0.25 BTC per 10k DRK / 2.5 BTC per 100k DRK.

Hint2: Read the post of the XMR miners on the 100x mining program on how much they were making.

Hint3: Don't throw stones while living in a glass house.

Hint4: Don't apply retroactive valuations to call "scam", because then it poisons the system with fallacies like "Satoshi is a 1bn-USD scammer for solomining Bitcoin" - like the 50BTC blocks he mined back then were worth anything. If they did, we wouldn't have 10.000 BTC Pizzas. Likewise instamined DRKs were traded for peanuts / they were considered nearly worthless and thus were sold in five-digit packages.

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: Jungian on September 05, 2014, 01:39:25 PM

Quote from: coins101 on September 05, 2014, 01:18:16 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I find scary someone invested on an instamined coin (DRK)

That's a bit uncalled for.

Many $millions have changed hands since January, what is left are people working hard to deliver a working privacy solution based on bitcoin codebase.

I'm sure BitFinex and many others would have done their homework before exposing their clients to DRK.

I don't know if that's uncalled for or not, but I'm pretty sure BitFinex care a lot more about getting money to themselves than the chance of exposing clients to risk. Why would they care about that?

First off, I invested in Darkcoin, then mined it for a while. So I'm one of the 'scary someone invested....' people, so I didn't take too kindly to that.

BitFinex took a lot of flack from its customers when they pre-announced the addition of DRK. They maybe in it for the money, but they also wouldn't want to lose existing trade. Unlike Mintpal and others who go for volume of coins, BitFinex don't, so they wouldn't walk into a project that had problems and didn't have prospects based on a dedicated team.

The same for vault of satoshi when they were first looking to integrate DRK <> USD. They had a good look around too.

rdnkjdi

legendary

Activity: 1256

Merit: 1009

Quote from: aminorex on September 05, 2014, 01:24:24 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

Did they personally invest or did they invest other people's money?

Only personal so far.

That's perfectly believable to me. Investing clients money seems a little bit more of a stretch if reputation is on the line.

There's enough volume over time to hide multiple (50 - 250K) gambles in there ... doubt any whale is going to be trying to move millions over to any anon coin until one pulls ahead as the winner

Which hasn't happened yet.

Jungian

legendary

Activity: 930

Merit: 1010

Quote from: coins101 on September 05, 2014, 01:18:16 PM

Quote from: ?? on ??

I find scary someone invested on an instamined coin (DRK)

That's a bit uncalled for.

Many $millions have changed hands since January, what is left are people working hard to deliver a working privacy solution based on bitcoin codebase.

I'm sure BitFinex and many others would have done their homework before exposing their clients to DRK.

I don't know if that's uncalled for or not, but I'm pretty sure BitFinex care a lot more about getting money to themselves than the chance of exposing clients to risk. Why would they care about that?

aminorex

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1030

Sine secretum non libertas

Quote from: ?? on ??

Did they personally invest or did they invest other people's money?

Only personal so far.

coins101

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

Quote from: ?? on ??

I find scary someone invested on an instamined coin (DRK)

That's a bit uncalled for.

Many $millions have changed hands since January, what is left are people working hard to deliver a working privacy solution based on bitcoin codebase.

I'm sure BitFinex and many others would have done their homework before exposing their clients to DRK.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: dga on September 05, 2014, 12:56:09 PM

I bet that the average hodlr would rationalize it as the behavior of a single bad actor not reflective of the behavior of the entire team.

Would you?

I would be concerned about the presence of a confirmed or even strongly suspected scammer in any core team. It raises questions about the others being involved, condoning improper actions, etc. Furthermore it raises questions about what even the one untrustworthy core team member may have done that could put my investment at risk. It does not produce answers, but it does raise questions. For investment that is often enough to be relevant.

SlipperySlope

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 501

Stephen Reed

Here are the current cyptocurrency market capitalizations are reported by coinmarketcap.com. Note that Monero has fallen a place from 11th to 12th. Some of these coins are quite unlike Satoshi's Bitcoin, having more or less anonymous cryptographic tokens as the common feature. Supply marked with an asterisk cannot be proof-of-work mined.

NewLiberty

legendary

Activity: 1204

Merit: 1002

Gresham's Lawyer

Quote from: SlipperySlope on September 05, 2014, 12:47:49 PM

Here is the three-day resolution chart for Dogecoin vs CNY on Bter as presented by BitcoinWisdom. Note what appears to be an upwards breakout of the resistance trendline that I drew from the early 2014 peak.

Breakout on no volume is not significant.
Breakouts happen with volume, at least average volume +50%
The declining volume trend will have to reverse before it will matter.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

Quote from: aminorex on September 05, 2014, 10:55:57 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 05, 2014, 10:39:03 AM

I have (no?) idea what if anything BBR has to do with the bytecoin scheme.

I would put it more strongly: Event though it seems probable that CZ involved in cryptonote development, and hence in bytecoin development, there is nothing to link him directly with the pre-mine scam. If CZ was involved early in development but not in the fraud, almost certainly he was at least aware of it, so perhaps the distinction is too fine. If he was involved late, he could have been aware of it, but have no culpability in it. The closeness of the association, however, still would damage the risk profile of BBR in the market's view.

Imagine for example that he wrote all of the code (all makes it simpler, we don't need to make fine distinctions about which code he wrote) but had nothing to do with premining or even launching or managing the coin at all. Just purely a programmer. There seems to be some evidence of a coin-mill at work where some or all of the various coins (BCN/BMR/FCN/QCN/XDN/etc.) being run by the same operation. Given that business structure it seems plausible that programming might be entirely separate from packaging, releasing, marketing, pumping-and-dumping, etc. and he could have nothing whatsoever to do with any of their actions (fraudulent premines, etc.).

Now the issue to me in this hypothetical scenario is that it sounds an awful lot like the established facts of the botnet case (write the code but not running it). If that happened twice with the same guy you have to either wonder if he has the worst possible luck in getting jobs, or perhaps is not that innocent. Twice should make us question luck, but certainly luck can't be ruled out.

We don't know if it is the same guy and if it is the same guy we don't know whether anything like I wrote above has actually happened.

dga

hero member

Activity: 737

Merit: 511

Quote from: rpietila on September 05, 2014, 12:49:09 PM

Quote from: surfer43 on September 05, 2014, 11:23:54 AM

Quote from: aminorex on September 05, 2014, 10:55:57 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 05, 2014, 10:39:03 AM

I have (no?) idea what if anything BBR has to do with the bytecoin scheme.

I would put it more strongly: Event though it seems probable that CZ involved in cryptonote development, and hence in bytecoin development, there is nothing to link him directly with the pre-mine scam. If CZ was involved early in development but not in the fraud, almost certainly he was at least aware of it, so perhaps the distinction is too fine. If he was involved late, he could have been aware of it, but have no culpability in it. The closeness of the association, however, still would damage the risk profile of BBR in the market's view.

Scenarios in order of increasing investor risk:

1) CZ had nothing to do with BCN, and is not AS.
2) CZ is AS but had nothing to do with BCN.
3) CZ was involved in BCN, but after the pre-mine.
4) CZ was involved in the fraud, but is reformed.
5) CZ was involved in the fraud, and plans to exploit the next suitable opportunity to take money from more honest people.

In the best of these scenarios, BBR still suffers from the risks inherent in centralization of governance. It just gets worse from there on.

Scenarios 2-4 cannot negatively affect Boolberry or its investors, so they have no investor risk. It is implausible that there is any way for CZ to take money from more honest people using Boolberry, so scenario 5 is extremely unlikely. Oligarchy is just as centralized as monarchy.

False. Take an example of XMR. If David Latapie, fluffypony or any of the others was exposed as a scammer, I would race to the exits, and so would everybody. Why? Because they knew I would, and wanted to exit first. The value of the coin would be destroyed.

If this would not happen with BBR, well, it talks more about the great divide concerning what kind of people invest in that vs. in Monero, and to each his own...

I bet that the average hodlr would rationalize it as the behavior of a single bad actor not reflective of the behavior of the entire team.

Would you?

And would you honor an options contract shorting xmr under those circumstances?

rpietila

donator

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1036

Quote from: surfer43 on September 05, 2014, 11:23:54 AM

Quote from: aminorex on September 05, 2014, 10:55:57 AM

Quote from: smooth on September 05, 2014, 10:39:03 AM

I have (no?) idea what if anything BBR has to do with the bytecoin scheme.

I would put it more strongly: Event though it seems probable that CZ involved in cryptonote development, and hence in bytecoin development, there is nothing to link him directly with the pre-mine scam. If CZ was involved early in development but not in the fraud, almost certainly he was at least aware of it, so perhaps the distinction is too fine. If he was involved late, he could have been aware of it, but have no culpability in it. The closeness of the association, however, still would damage the risk profile of BBR in the market's view.

Scenarios in order of increasing investor risk:

1) CZ had nothing to do with BCN, and is not AS.
2) CZ is AS but had nothing to do with BCN.
3) CZ was involved in BCN, but after the pre-mine.
4) CZ was involved in the fraud, but is reformed.
5) CZ was involved in the fraud, and plans to exploit the next suitable opportunity to take money from more honest people.

In the best of these scenarios, BBR still suffers from the risks inherent in centralization of governance. It just gets worse from there on.

Scenarios 2-4 cannot negatively affect Boolberry or its investors, so they have no investor risk. It is implausible that there is any way for CZ to take money from more honest people using Boolberry, so scenario 5 is extremely unlikely. Oligarchy is just as centralized as monarchy.

False. Take an example of XMR. If David Latapie, fluffypony or any of the others was exposed as a scammer, I would race to the exits, and so would everybody. Why? Because they knew I would, and wanted to exit first. The value of the coin would be destroyed.

If this would not happen with BBR, well, it talks more about the great divide concerning what kind of people invest in that vs. in Monero, and to each his own...

SlipperySlope

hero member

Activity: 686

Merit: 501

Stephen Reed

Here is the three-day resolution chart for Dogecoin vs CNY on Bter as presented by BitcoinWisdom. Note what appears to be an upwards breakout of the resistance trendline that I drew from the early 2014 peak.

kbm

member

Activity: 84

Merit: 10

Quote from: ?? on ??

James

I find it very convenient that both you and jl777 share the name James

Este Nuno

legendary

Activity: 826

Merit: 1002

amarha

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: drawingthemoon on September 05, 2014, 10:14:45 AM

Do we still have fund managers here managing XMR for their clients? Are you planning any exit strategy for them in the wake of consistent exploits/attacks on XMR mainnet? I know it is much easier to still speculate in XMR with own money, but is there any concern for other people's monies yet?

I find it almost impossible to believe fund managers are involved in any cryptocurrency < 100 mil. Can somebody point to a quote?

James

What's with the fake jl777 account?

I hope it's not for scamming purposes.

aminorex

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1030

Sine secretum non libertas

Quote from: ?? on ??

I find it almost impossible to believe fund managers are involved in any cryptocurrency < 100 mil. Can somebody point to a quote?

I personally know fund managers who have invested in XMR. At least one was formerly invested in DRK. And no, I can't point to quote. It was not a press release.

aminorex

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1030

Sine secretum non libertas

Quote from: dga on September 05, 2014, 11:57:55 AM

this entire discussion just *reeks* of confirmation bias with everybody trying to find evidence that their decision was correct

Personally, my greatest hope is that someone will prove my reasons incorrect, to my satisfaction. It would allow me to avoid the longer-term consequences of the error. There is a substantial difference between reasons and rationales.

My standards are fairly high, but not extreme. I'm happy with probabilistic arguments, if I have some epistemic color on the actual distributions involved.

devphp

sr. member

Activity: 336

Merit: 260

Quote from: drawingthesun on September 05, 2014, 12:24:16 PM

No one is investing in crypto today because it's safe and free of exploits.

Oh, we don't? j/k Cheesy

drawingthesun

legendary

Activity: 1176

Merit: 1015

Quote from: drawingthemoon on September 05, 2014, 10:14:45 AM

Do we still have fund managers here managing XMR for their clients? Are you planning any exit strategy for them in the wake of consistent exploits/attacks on XMR mainnet? I know it is much easier to still speculate in XMR with own money, but is there any concern for other people's monies yet?

You're a troll through and through.

The exploit could have affected all the CryptoNote coins.

What do you suggest, that we stop investing in new experimental currencies because of risk?

This whole game is risk, bitcoin, monero, boolberry, nxt, ethereum.

You're an idiot. No one is investing in crypto today because it's safe and free of exploits.

aminorex

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1030

Sine secretum non libertas

Quote from: Este Nuno on September 05, 2014, 11:41:13 AM

Quote from: aminorex on September 05, 2014, 10:27:37 AM

As a technical experiment, that's fine. For timing speculation, okay. In the competition for the natural monopoly of private liquidity, 0.00001% more risk on one side than on the other pre-determines the outcome.

When you put it in that context, doesn't the increasing uncertainty surrounding the code base and recent events pretty much disqualify both BBR and XMR from holding that title? At what point will you and other stakeholders decide your money is better spent recreating the technology from scratch?

Certainly that has been considered. But bootstrapping a competitor would destroy existing value. It's immoral, and it's a defection strategy. That makes it risky. If you just forked, it would probably take USD $30mm or more to compete with XMR. If you required a fresh codebase, it would take longer, and XMR value would grow in the meantime. You might require in excess of $200 mm by the time you were market-ready. It's a very expensive crap-shoot.

Quote

if for whatever reason he resisted that and wanted to stay in control alone, I believe that would be the end of BBR.

Right. So depending on the timing:

1) now - BBR achieves its best feasible growth with CZ the strong leader of a doxxed team with the ability to enforce open process
2) later - BBR is dragged down, but eventually gets a fair shake, after market position has deteriorated
3) never - BBR is dragged down forever

(1) seems unlikely.

Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 42. (Read 387556 times)