Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 73. (Read 387552 times)

It's reasonable to consider my comment accusatory.  But it was a justifiable comment on appearances.  Appearances can be deceiving.  
How can I comment on the appearance without giving rising to an accusatory inference?  I mean that question honestly.  
I have no desire to make any erroneous accusation, or allow one to be inferred.  But I won't allow political correctness to restrain me
from observing what seems prominent, and perhaps important.

On reflection I think your darkpaper is more like a business process document, describing a workflow, than it is like a cryptographic protocol.
Judging it by the criteria of the latter may be a mistake.  Its language is confusing, in that way.

You might find it helpful to edit the darkpaper a bit.  Begin with an explanation of what you are going to say.  Say it.  Then tell the reader what they just read.

 

I was discussing the btsx system with some of their people when they started a thread in the NXT forum. From what I could tell, there is NOTHING that maintains the peg. It is a holographic peg. It is there, but only because both buyers and sellers agree that it is there. Also, a critical factor is that there is a 2:1 collateral, which might be ok outside of crypto, but how often do we see a crypto go below 50% of its ATH?

Yes, always! This always happens. Which means btsx is a timebomb. As soon as any meaningful percentage of the market believes the pegs created at the highest price points are about to be liquidated (~40% price drop?), then selling start, liquidations start and this creates a downward pressure on price. This in turn makes the  next tier of pegs liquidated, which lowers the price more, etc. So the higher btsx goes, the bigger the disaster. This is my assessment.

However, I also predicted that at first btsx will be an amazing success. this is because the IPO funds are used to prop up the price. And sure enough when it was about 30% below the ATH, it magically started going up again. This is not sustainable as the more popular it gets, the more money comes in and the IPO funds (not sure how much they have) will at some point not be able to reverse a downtrend at the -30% mark.

Just my unscientific intuitive view of the situation

James

P.S. the btsx guys answer was that this was an experiment to see if their pegging system works! An experiment with other people's million's of dollars. seems a bit irresponsible to me, especially the way they market it as being so solid.

The legal risk is the part I am most worried about. Just the fact that a asset that is pegged to the usd even though it is called bitUSD makes me slightly nervous. The team behind the project has been very active and seems to be bright. They are like proud parents waiting for a child to take it's first steps but because of market forces it is going from walking to jogging very quickly. It is both exciting and scary that the market cap has grown at such a pace but if their tech is sound(I believe it is) litecoin's market cap will be passed in one months time....

just my .000002 btsx.

You clearly dont know me very well to suspect that I would use a sockpuppet. For you to apply generalized forum behavior to me indicates lack of time to research what I have done and how I have done it, so I wont take offense. I waited patiently for there to be any comment on my initial post. kennyP just happed to be the first one to post anything.

Now I did not invent any new crypto algo, I made a system that provides a LOT more privacy than any other system that I know of. I am asking for help, I am not trying to sell anything. I do not know how to make a fancy whitepaper, that is why it is called darkpaper and has pirates. I am a simple C programmer. I try to use common sense. If I did not invent a new crypto algo and instead came up with a system, then please educate me on how to apply rigorous methodology to this. I have tried to come up with a mathematical model, but other than the anon set being the N clonings during the clonesmear period for the receiver and N*T clonings where T is the time elapsed since cloning for the sender, I am not smart enough to make such a model. Without a mathematical model I dont think it is possible to apply rigorous analysis. I am working with an ivy league math professor to create such a model, it is clearly beyond me to make a math equation(s) for the system I made.

When you have a specific issue about teleport that I can actually address, then I will respond. But for you to be just using generalities is a bit disappointing. Your statements look like FUD. This is a suspicion, not an accusation.  It is a suspicion based primarily on typical forum activity, not on your specific character or behaviour.

You are saying that having a single "thing" is the best approach in crypto because it has the smallest surface. Do you have any proof about this that it is always the case? Is there any chance at all that in some cases having two "things" is not better? If not, I need to go tell everybody to immediately disable all 2FA as it has twice the attack surface and is not the best approach to securing their accounts.

You see? The danger with generalities is that they are always counterexamples that disprove it. [I know, that was a generality too] So, one he one hand you dont like what I have done because I have no rigorous proof, but you use generalities as the main reason.

Again, please take no offense at my words, I am just responding to you based on typical forum behavior

James

The legal risk applies indirectly to users. If developers are prevented by legal action from continuing their work, while the coin itself being somewhat decentralized might in some sense survive, it is very unlikely it can retain its value at this level of maturity without the developers behind it.

I did not join the coin until a week after it was launched, it was almost to the end of the PoW phase. The technical design decisions were made by the creators of the coin and they forked blackcoin.

Now whatever vulnerability blackcoin algo has, bitcoindark currently has, but the BTCD blockchain will only be used to validate BTCD teleports. BTC or XMR teleports will use their respective blockchains and the BTCD blockchain is not involved in it at all.

I am not taking it personal, at least you are not accusing me of using a sockpuppet! that is personal

What is the legal risk for users?  Invictus only coded the software, a company in Hong Kong actually launched it until enough delegates around the world came online.

I will let others elaborate. If it hasn't been explained I will write it up at some point but I don't have time right now.

Can you be more specific than "extremely unsound"?  The legal risk I understand.

thanks!
I didnt realize the title of this thread should be "XMR Observer"
Even if it was teleport will work in conjunction with ringsignatures, so hopefully people wont be dismissing me due to it not being XMR

alt coins are annoying but a lot of money can be made

Because i believe their pegged assets feature is extremely unsound, and will very likely lead to a massive implosion. The bigger the capitalization involved the worse the damage will be, and it seems to be getting quite large.

EDIT: That plus the legal risk already mentioned, although either could make the other more likely. Again, a very dangerous situation.



 

Key reason for coming disaster?

Can you explain the reasons why you think so?

On its way to becoming possibly the biggest disaster in crypto history.

Keep clear of the damage when the time comes.

BitsharesX is going nuts by the way, almost over 100 mil marketcap at the moment.. http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares-x/

Strange thing is that they are only traded at chinese exchanges (Poloniex was added few days ago I think).

As of 20 minutes ago...

Index 1: 87.13
Index 2: 97.53 (remember, this index includes neither BTC or LTC, but might skew high)
Index 3: 92.93 (also includes neither BTC or LTC and I would claim this is the most pure-play, cap-weight alt index...contains a basket of 31 alts that are tops in combined volume/market cap.  If I re-balanced every WEEK, I think the number would be closer to Index 2)
Index 4: 84.24 (includes LTC, which is still down from the start of this index in early August.)
Index 5: 89.81
Index 6: 85.73 (indexes 5 and 6 are price-weighted, and the relative underperformance of BTC over the time period is actually baked into the weighted prices.  Honestly, I'm considering using BTC-denominated price starting with the next re-balance)
meta: 89.56

In the last four days, the biggest movements have come from Index 2 and Index 3.  Everything else is up around 5% or less since last update, but these indexes representing purest-play alts are up 10% or more in 4 days.

Since the beginning of the indexes on 8/4, BTC has gone from $590 and change to a shade over $500.  It looks as though alts plunged farther faster, but have been outperforming BTC in their recent recovery.

jl777's darkpaper may be concealing a wonderful innovation in privacy.  I haven't read it well enough to discard it out of hand.  But it if it is in there, it is well hidden.  I am not the dimmest bulb in the pack, but my cursory reading didn't identify anything useful.  It's always possible that garden-path phenomena cause me to mis-classify innovations which don't conform to conventional models, but usually the lack of a rigorous framework spells disaster for crypto.  There's a lot of crack-pot and snake-oil crypto which has floated out to sea, and differentiating yourself from it to the expert community requires communicating to them in a language they understand, and can reason about clearly.


"kennyP" looks like a sock puppet.  Stylometrics read "jl777".  James, you may believe strongly in your ideas, but if you are resorting to deceptions to promote them, you're undermining yourself.  This is a suspicion, not an accusation.  It is a suspicion based primarily on typical forum activity, not on your specific character or behaviour.

The Altcoin Observer thread is considerably above most altcoin threads, in its median talent, but very few of the participants are skilled in information theory or cryptography.  Skills are not cheap to command.  If you want someone to donate their valuable time to you, try to condense the case that your material has substance to it into a compact form.  You might do better to approach community members who have demonstrated specifically technical skills and a willingness and ability to contribute critical analysis of crypto protocols to anonymity projects.


99% of all altcoin development is scamming.  It takes strong evidence to overcome those priors.  The characteristics of BTCD are typical of scams.  You can expect that it will be difficult to overcome this situation.  Paying more attention to scams just feeds the scammers, so until you differentiate yourself from scams, expect to be deprived of attention.


Putting in lots of things is not generally a sound approach in cryptography.  The attack surface becomes quite large.

I stopped reading the "Whitepaper" after the word PIRATE occured, make it more technical and serious if u want serious feedback.

And i also consider all PoW -> PoS coins which are mined after 1 week or so and then PoS only as attempts to concentrate the biggest share of coins into the hands of the developers. Especially when coins are launched without features that get magically added after the PoW phase is over.

Thats my humble opinion, and i wonder why you don´t develop it for Bitcoin directly.


However, i have a technical question for you.
In peercoin sunny king uses the PoW blocks to make stake modifiers. He does this to secure certain code in the the staking kernel: https://github.com/ppcoin/ppcoin/blob/master/src/kernel.cpp#L337

The PPC PoS/PoW system if PoW isn´t active and has a reasonable high hashrate (which peercoin does) is vulnerable to the stake burn-through vulnerability: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ppcoin-stake-burn-through-vulnerability-131901

Care to explain the technical design decision in bitcoin dark?




PS: Post may sound harsh but is in no way meant personal.

Market cap between PoW coins and fully-mined (or non-mined) PoS coins is not comparable.

XMR is roughly 16% mined and the market consensus price indicates that buyers are expected to be found at the same price for the rest of the coins, resulting in an eventual market cap roughly 6x higher.

This does not apply to PoS coins because the value of future stake payments is already incorporated into current market consensus price. When you buy one PoS coin you are buying not only that coin but also the future coins you can get by staking. When you buy one PoW coin, all you get is one coin.