Topic: [XMR] Monero - A secure, private, untraceable cryptocurrency - page 1650. (Read 4670972 times)
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.
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.
I am of the opinion that the shape of the curve doesn't really matter, within reason (instamines and premines excluded). What matters more is the total supply.
The shape of the curve is what matters and the total supply is completely meaningless. If the devs moved the decimal place in everyones client one place to the left or one place to the right what would that change? of course it would cause some confusions but it wouldnt actually change anything. Total currency supply is purely aesthetic. It is completely meaningless. If the total currency supply was 0.9 coins for all of time than as long as there are enough decimal places it would work fine.
of course maybe i misunderstand your point.
Yes, I was not clear. What I mean is not the specific number (which as you say is arbitrarily scalable) but the fact that there is a fixed supply means that any curve with more issuance earlier means less issuance later and vice versa. These affect valuation in opposite directions, and I believe close to equally. While it may be harder to find investors to buy a coin with high immediate supply, at the same time, investors don't want to buy a coin that will be heavily diluted later. With any fixed supply the two must offset.
What you meant to say was infact insightful
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 think there are some cognitive biases that make certain numbers of coins somewhat preferable. It would not surprise me if these differed across cultures though, and perhaps dominate usage (large or small value transactions)
Hm that makes a good point. Cultures using high denominations (peso/yen) when compared to something like the USD would probably favor higher denominations in the high millions/billions. While USD/EUR may tend to favor ultimately amounts in the low millions. That's surely a possible cross-comparison to fiat, I wonder if the idea can be looked into further. Guess I'll look at typical volumes on exchanges based in certain countries (excluding BTC).
From a practical point of view, there is something to be said for the argument made by some in the Bitcoin proponents to move the decimal to 100 satoshis, so existing software that supports 2 decimal places can process satoshis natively.
That would be very confusing, probably temporarily .. but as Anon136 pointed out it wouldn't change anything .. unless the cultural comparisons play harder than anyone has yet considered.
There was an issue with VRC, apparently mintpal was hacked and now they are working with VRC developers to 'roll back the coin' through a hardfork.
This seems like a major precedent IMO, if it were to be completed. Gox went down and bitcoin wasn't rolled back.
Can this be done with Monero? What type of situation would this be considered necessary in?
Literally another example of a third party directing (in this case indirectly) actions of the core team.
I have to ask myself .. would I want a rollback if ever an exchange were to have all of its XMR stolen (some of mine included)? Or would I want a different means of being refunded?
I would have to think it would be based on the amount. Coins like VRC the amount can be known; however, with Monero this may not be the case.
Would this be a place where mining can be used to effectively 'vote' on a protocol change, despite developers?
This seems like a major precedent IMO, if it were to be completed. Gox went down and bitcoin wasn't rolled back.
Can this be done with Monero? What type of situation would this be considered necessary in?
Literally another example of a third party directing (in this case indirectly) actions of the core team.
I have to ask myself .. would I want a rollback if ever an exchange were to have all of its XMR stolen (some of mine included)? Or would I want a different means of being refunded?
I would have to think it would be based on the amount. Coins like VRC the amount can be known; however, with Monero this may not be the case.
Would this be a place where mining can be used to effectively 'vote' on a protocol change, despite developers?
only miners can decide a rollback; nobody else. this is true for any coin...
devs can only release a new client, but cant force anyone to use it. miners can force a rollback
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)
There was an issue with VRC, apparently mintpal was hacked and now they are working with VRC developers to 'roll back the coin' through a hardfork.
This seems like a major precedent IMO, if it were to be completed. Gox went down and bitcoin wasn't rolled back.
Can this be done with Monero? What type of situation would this be considered necessary in?
Literally another example of a third party directing (in this case indirectly) actions of the core team.
I have to ask myself .. would I want a rollback if ever an exchange were to have all of its XMR stolen (some of mine included)? Or would I want a different means of being refunded?
I would have to think it would be based on the amount. Coins like VRC the amount can be known; however, with Monero this may not be the case.
Would this be a place where mining can be used to effectively 'vote' on a protocol change, despite developers?
This seems like a major precedent IMO, if it were to be completed. Gox went down and bitcoin wasn't rolled back.
Can this be done with Monero? What type of situation would this be considered necessary in?
Literally another example of a third party directing (in this case indirectly) actions of the core team.
I have to ask myself .. would I want a rollback if ever an exchange were to have all of its XMR stolen (some of mine included)? Or would I want a different means of being refunded?
I would have to think it would be based on the amount. Coins like VRC the amount can be known; however, with Monero this may not be the case.
Would this be a place where mining can be used to effectively 'vote' on a protocol change, despite developers?
I am of the opinion that the shape of the curve doesn't really matter, within reason (instamines and premines excluded). What matters more is the total supply.
The shape of the curve is what matters and the total supply is completely meaningless. If the devs moved the decimal place in everyones client one place to the left or one place to the right what would that change? of course it would cause some confusions but it wouldnt actually change anything. Total currency supply is purely aesthetic. It is completely meaningless. If the total currency supply was 0.9 coins for all of time than as long as there are enough decimal places it would work fine.
of course maybe i misunderstand your point.
Yes, I was not clear. What I mean is not the specific number (which as you say is arbitrarily scalable) but the fact that there is a fixed supply means that any curve with more issuance earlier means less issuance later and vice versa. These affect valuation in opposite directions, and I believe close to equally. While it may be harder to find investors to buy a coin with high immediate supply, at the same time, investors don't want to buy a coin that will be heavily diluted later. With any fixed supply the two must offset.
Want your crypto represented in a line of physical proofs?
We have had inquiries from a few crypto development teams and/or supporters regarding having a line of proofs created for their crypto and are pleased to announce support of this concept going forward! The way this works is that prepayment for 30% of the inventory would be required and we will cover the remaining upfront investment of time and labor. Once the line is completed and assembled, your 30% of the inventory for which you prepaid will be shipped to you. Finite By Design, LLC will own, list and support the sale of the remaining 70% of the inventory to recoup our portion of the investment and profit.
Example (using made up "FiniteCoin"):
Members of the "FiniteCoin" community decide they want a physical representation of their crypto created and supported by Finite By Design, LLC. The "FiniteCoin" community decides on the quantity of proofs they desire (50) as well as the composition (1 troy ounce of .999 fine silver). Once this is determined, the payment for 30% of the inventory (15 proofs) or $1,500 is made and the production process begins. In about 8 weeks the new line of proofs is completed, the 15 proofs are mailed (to one centralized address for further redistribution) and Finite By Design, LLC lists, supports and advertises the remaining inventory of 35 proofs.
Variations are available depending on quantity of proofs and material of composition - please contact via email for discussion of alternative options.
We have had inquiries from a few crypto development teams and/or supporters regarding having a line of proofs created for their crypto and are pleased to announce support of this concept going forward! The way this works is that prepayment for 30% of the inventory would be required and we will cover the remaining upfront investment of time and labor. Once the line is completed and assembled, your 30% of the inventory for which you prepaid will be shipped to you. Finite By Design, LLC will own, list and support the sale of the remaining 70% of the inventory to recoup our portion of the investment and profit.
Example (using made up "FiniteCoin"):
Members of the "FiniteCoin" community decide they want a physical representation of their crypto created and supported by Finite By Design, LLC. The "FiniteCoin" community decides on the quantity of proofs they desire (50) as well as the composition (1 troy ounce of .999 fine silver). Once this is determined, the payment for 30% of the inventory (15 proofs) or $1,500 is made and the production process begins. In about 8 weeks the new line of proofs is completed, the 15 proofs are mailed (to one centralized address for further redistribution) and Finite By Design, LLC lists, supports and advertises the remaining inventory of 35 proofs.
Variations are available depending on quantity of proofs and material of composition - please contact via email for discussion of alternative options.
I am of the opinion that the shape of the curve doesn't really matter, within reason (instamines and premines excluded). What matters more is the total supply. More issuance earlier causes greater immediate dilution, but it also means you are buying into a coin with lower future issuance. Slower issuance earlier means more issuance later. These effects offset each other to a large extent, if not entirely.
What kind of opinions do you have of the 18.4 million targeted compared to any other power of ten number like 184 million/1.84 billion/18.4 billion etc .. ?
Do you think the 12 decimal place denomination would be taken into account when compared to the max coins, or would this just be a visual thing?
I think there are some cognitive biases that make certain numbers of coins somewhat preferable. It would not surprise me if these differed across cultures though, and perhaps dominate usage (large or small value transactions)
From a practical point of view, there is something to be said for the argument made by some in the Bitcoin proponents to move the decimal to 100 satoshis, so existing software that supports 2 decimal places can process satoshis natively.
I am of the opinion that the shape of the curve doesn't really matter, within reason (instamines and premines excluded). What matters more is the total supply.
The shape of the curve is what matters and the total supply is completely meaningless. If the devs moved the decimal place in everyones client one place to the left or one place to the right what would that change? of course it would cause some confusions but it wouldnt actually change anything. Total currency supply is purely aesthetic. It is completely meaningless. If the total currency supply was 0.9 coins for all of time than as long as there are enough decimal places it would work fine.
of course maybe i misunderstand your point.
In contrast, what happened with both XMR and BBR is closer to what happened to Bitcoin: The initial distribution of mining hashrate was uneven, and several individuals were able to mine at a cost advantage relative to others, when they used a technological advantage to do so. This happens to most coins, and evens out over time. Heck - for the first few weeks of XMR, almost nobody knew it existed, and all of those early adopters probably got in at a great price.
It doesn't really even out over time, unless you mean very long term. The first successful developers of Bitcoin ASICs had a huge advantage, years after the coin launch. Even today, a year or so later, those with access to large supplies of Bitcoin ASICs still have a large advantage.
Technological arms races are built into the premise of mining. All miners optimize, that is what they do. If you don't optimize your operation in some way, you aren't a serious miner. At various times and places, someone within a large population of miners trying to optimize will advance the technology in such a way that they can optimize better than everyone else and get a large advantage. There is no way for any one core developer team to prevent this (it would require that one team to always be better at optimizing than everyone else in the world, and that is simply going to fail).
Trying to assure some kind of "fair" enforced level playing field for mining beyond the fact that everyone has an equal opportunity to optimize is silly and futile. I do agree that deliberately releasing horribly unoptimized or deoptimized miners is a scammy practice though, so this is really a question of degree, not absolutes.
Jump to: