Who is Risto ?
A guy who really really likes BTC.
Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1649. (Read 4670614 times)
Who is Risto ?
Gee, I wonder whos buy wall that is. 
me too, /me casino mode on I bet 1 XMR he has a castle lol
I bet his name rhymes with Risto.
So much for me buying ultra cheap coins
Gee, I wonder whos buy wall that is.
as usual: the only thing the devs can change is code. nothing else. they cant force you to take another bin. what they are planning is: create a new coin with the same name and add a premine which honors current holders.
miners can do more. and in this case miners are stake holder. given that the thief controls 33% he just needs 22% more to reverse himself
sorry, i just walked by and saw this topic... couldnt resist to make this comment also:
POS in generally is flawed.... did you now that its enough to hold 51% of all coins in the past to trick new clients in to another view of the network... you cant just secure something with itself (imagine a locked box, with the key inside).
the invention of satoshi is NOT blockchain technology (merkle trees and chained data structures exist for a while) his invention is Proof of Work - and to implement a key to the lock which is outside of the system itself (the key is time in this case; something a pc has not a real networkwide provable clue about)...
miners can do more. and in this case miners are stake holder. given that the thief controls 33% he just needs 22% more to reverse himself
sorry, i just walked by and saw this topic... couldnt resist to make this comment also:
POS in generally is flawed.... did you now that its enough to hold 51% of all coins in the past to trick new clients in to another view of the network... you cant just secure something with itself (imagine a locked box, with the key inside).
the invention of satoshi is NOT blockchain technology (merkle trees and chained data structures exist for a while) his invention is Proof of Work - and to implement a key to the lock which is outside of the system itself (the key is time in this case; something a pc has not a real networkwide provable clue about)...
Got it, i'd like to add that there's a serious flaw here with that in mind. With a large theft, the consensus mechanism will now be flawed in that there will be a majorly disproportionate number of people staking the new fork (Due to the theft itself) compared to those trying to stake the old fork (as anyone in favor of the new fork will now have zero coins). This seems to be a massive security flaw in using centralized exchanges. It's a consensus mechanism that encourages massive amounts of theft.
the best is this:
- buy 51%
- sell 51%
- change your client to not accept new blocks and only build your own chain beginning at the time where you had 51%
- wait...
obviously its simplyfied (also depends on the implementation)...but as always with basic logic flaws: you cant solve it buy building on top of it...
but i guess you get the point... need a beer now... germany WON!!!!
as usual: the only thing the devs can change is code. nothing else. they cant force you to take another bin. what they are planning is: create a new coin with the same name and add a premine which honors current holders.
miners can do more. and in this case miners are stake holder. given that the thief controls 33% he just needs 22% more to reverse himself
miners can do more. and in this case miners are stake holder. given that the thief controls 33% he just needs 22% more to reverse himself
Got it, i'd like to add that there's a serious flaw here with that in mind. With a large theft, the consensus mechanism will now be flawed in that there will be a majorly disproportionate number of people staking the old fork (Due to the theft itself) compared to those trying to stake the new fork (as anyone in favor of the new fork will now have zero coins). This seems to be a massive security flaw in using centralized exchanges, and is something that only effects PoS coins (on the topic of their consensus mechanism). It's a mechanism that encourages massive amounts of theft.
sorry, i just walked by and saw this topic... couldnt resist to make this comment also:
POS in generally is flawed.... did you now that its enough to hold 51% of all coins in the past to trick new clients in to another view of the network... you cant just secure something with itself (imagine a locked box, with the key inside).
the invention of satoshi is NOT blockchain technology (merkle trees and chained data structures exist for a while) his invention is Proof of Work - and to implement a key to the lock which is outside of the system itself (the key is time in this case; something a pc has not a real networkwide provable clue about)...
POS in generally is flawed.... did you now that its enough to hold 51% of all coins in the past to trick new clients in to another view of the network... you cant just secure something with itself (imagine a locked box, with the key inside).
the invention of satoshi is NOT blockchain technology (merkle trees and chained data structures exist for a while) his invention is Proof of Work - and to implement a key to the lock which is outside of the system itself (the key is time in this case; something a pc has not a real networkwide provable clue about)...
That's a good description of it, been trying to make an analogy for a while now and this goes toward that a little bit.
I would have to agree also. Despite the major loss to those using the exchange, there would have potentially been any number of completed transactions outside of the exchange. If people were using it to purchase goods/pay paychecks etc .. it would be brutal to just 'roll that back'. You can't expect people to unmail something, or just give back whatever now hasn't been paid for .. just not how things work. The rollback can't address that, so it's clearly a tough issue.
Bringing the issue to a larger picture, what if people were buying houses, cars, or other things of large value? The hardfork would put them in a precarious position that they didn't ask for. Do they give the money back, or keep both the money and the goods? It would make people face a very tough reality that they most likely wouldn't be ready to face.
I know there's more than one person here who lost money from gox, so I'm sorry if this topic strikes a nerve.
Bringing the issue to a larger picture, what if people were buying houses, cars, or other things of large value? The hardfork would put them in a precarious position that they didn't ask for. Do they give the money back, or keep both the money and the goods? It would make people face a very tough reality that they most likely wouldn't be ready to face.
I know there's more than one person here who lost money from gox, so I'm sorry if this topic strikes a nerve.
I thought some more on this. Vericoin is now PoS.
What kind of comparison to a PoW rollback can be made? Would it be easier to cause a hardfork in this type of situation with a PoW coin, or a PoS coin, to succeed? I really don't know about PoS, but at least for PoW I know a representative majority (>51%) of the miners would be required in order to enforce the hardfork. Does this same logic follow suit with those that stake their coins, where 51% of the stake will be required to consent in order to enforce the hark fork? Or can the developers just pick a point and roll it back, making the previous fork impossible to use without consensus?
as usual: the only thing the devs can change is code. nothing else. they cant force you to take another bin. what they are planning is: create a new coin with the same name and add a premine which honors current holders.
miners can do more. and in this case miners are stake holder. given that the thief controls 33% he just needs 22% more to reverse himself
sorry, i just walked by and saw this topic... couldnt resist to make this comment also:
POS in generally is flawed.... did you now that its enough to hold 51% of all coins in the past to trick new clients in to another view of the network... you cant just secure something with itself (imagine a locked box, with the key inside).
the invention of satoshi is NOT blockchain technology (merkle trees and chained data structures exist for a while) his invention is Proof of Work - and to implement a key to the lock which is outside of the system itself (the key is time in this case; something a pc has not a real networkwide provable clue about)...
Omg he is still there @ 0.00210000 50897.93224285XMR 106.88565771BTC
I would have to agree also. Despite the major loss to those using the exchange, there would have potentially been any number of completed transactions outside of the exchange. If people were using it to purchase goods/pay paychecks etc .. it would be brutal to just 'roll that back'. You can't expect people to unmail something, or just give back whatever now hasn't been paid for .. just not how things work. The rollback can't address that, so it's clearly a tough issue.
Bringing the issue to a larger picture, what if people were buying houses, cars, or other things of large value? The hardfork would put them in a precarious position that they didn't ask for. Do they give the money back, or keep both the money and the goods? It would make people face a very tough reality that they most likely wouldn't be ready to face.
I know there's more than one person here who lost money from gox, so I'm sorry if this topic strikes a nerve.
Bringing the issue to a larger picture, what if people were buying houses, cars, or other things of large value? The hardfork would put them in a precarious position that they didn't ask for. Do they give the money back, or keep both the money and the goods? It would make people face a very tough reality that they most likely wouldn't be ready to face.
I know there's more than one person here who lost money from gox, so I'm sorry if this topic strikes a nerve.
I thought some more on this. Vericoin is now PoS.
What kind of comparison to a PoW rollback can be made? Would it be easier to cause a hardfork in this type of situation with a PoW coin, or a PoS coin, to succeed? I really don't know about PoS, but at least for PoW I know a representative majority (>51%) of the miners would be required in order to enforce the hardfork. Does this same logic follow suit with those that stake their coins, where 51% of the stake will be required to consent in order to enforce the hark fork? Or can the developers just pick a point and roll it back, making the previous fork impossible to use without consensus?
XMR is the future.
Guys - I'm delaying publishing this week's Monero Missive as I'm just waiting on confirmation of two things, and I will only get confirmation tomorrow (especially since Germany won, which throws everything out of the loop;) Tomorrow's Missive will be backdated to today as it will be this past week's Monero Missive. Thank you for your patience with this!
happenings are happening at poloniex
On which exchange was that guy with 100BTC >?
>? it was poloniex.com, but it is now gone. er nvm, just moved up to 205, 102.5 btc buy lol
I wake up, there's 56 or so on the order books. now there's 180 something.
This looks like a rehash of a couple of days ago where in the window of a couple of hours there was a lot of large buys up (well into triple digits) from lower double digits
This market is interesting, if for no other reason than to watch it.
On which exchange was that guy with 100BTC >?
>? it was poloniex.com, but it is now gone. er nvm, just moved up to 205, 102.5 btc buy lol
On which exchange was that guy with 100BTC >?
it was poloniex.com, but it is now gone. er nvm, just moved up to 205, 102.5 btc buy lol >? He should not let the order and buy little by little. Big buy wall create panic buy.
On which exchange was that guy with 100BTC >?
>? it was poloniex.com, but it is now gone. er nvm, just moved up to 205, 102.5 btc buy lol
On which exchange was that guy with 100BTC >?
https://www.poloniex.com/exchange/btc_xmr >?
On which exchange was that guy with 100BTC >?
>? btw: i am strictly against any kind of rollback. this would open the doors for much more evil (eg police requests for rolling back fraud transactions - they dont care about volume lost)
Agreed.
I can't imagine a situation where we released, say, RC2 of a specific version of Monero and it caused a bunch of forks because it was poorly tested and we had to roll back. The consensus network is the consensus network, and we have to make changes that the consensus network agrees with or else they will reject it. We also have to be cautious and make changes in a way that will remain compatible with the majority of the network so that miners can choose whether to adopt the changes or not. 99.9% of the things we want to change can be done via a soft fork and not a hard fork, so that plays quite well into that approach. I'm a big fan of soft forking over hard forking, if that wasn't apparent.
I would have to agree also. Despite the major loss to those using the exchange, there would have potentially been any number of completed transactions outside of the exchange. If people were using it to purchase goods/pay paychecks etc .. it would be brutal to just 'roll that back'. You can't expect people to unmail something, or just give back whatever now hasn't been paid for .. just not how things work. The rollback can't address that, so it's clearly a tough issue.
Bringing the issue to a larger picture, what if people were buying houses, cars, or other things of large value? The hardfork would put them in a precarious position that they didn't ask for. Do they give the money back, or keep both the money and the goods? It would make people face a very tough reality that they most likely wouldn't be ready to face.
I know there's more than one person here who lost money from gox, so I'm sorry if this topic strikes a nerve.
it is possible to keep other transactions (to be precise: record them and just let them mine again automatically)
only coins which got sent from the transaction which got rolledbacked cant be sent of couse.
So many people (including bitcointalk hero members and btc whales) saying they are buyers at this price but not bid support on the exchanges. I find this curious.
also my own comment from June 27, 2014:
I lost about ~20 BTC here 
why XMR is down!!!!!!
There are not enough buyers to sustain a price of say 0.008 at the moment. 24k XMR is being mined every day, at 0.008 that's 192 btc. Surely it's not all dumped on the market but it's certainly contributing to downward pressure along with people who bought higher that are now selling in panic and also people who bought much lower who secures profit in btc. Nothing surprising about this, every large price increase tends to overshoot and come back down. Hopefully you still got a decent amount of BTC, buying range 0.002-0.004 is decent (buy more the lower it goes). In fact previous increase when XMR was added to poloniex took us to 0.008 and down to about 0.0017 before it turned up again. I think we're staying above 0.002 this time though. why XMR is down!!!!!!I've been buying all the way down, at 0.004, 0.003 and also placed order @ 0.002.
Jump to: