Author

Topic: [XMR] Monero Speculation - page 1526. (Read 3313576 times)

donator
Activity: 1274
Merit: 1060
GetMonero.org / MyMonero.com
February 23, 2016, 12:35:19 PM
The concept of "colored coins" makes me think of coining the term "CRYPTO RACISM"....

"Don't hate me because I'm black!"

Monero does not crypto-racially discriminate. <----- could be a slogan for Monero lol

You're still my crypto, it don't matter if you're black or white

hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 504
February 23, 2016, 12:10:44 PM
Reads like an advertisement for Zcash, which isn't really surprising since I think I read Roger Ver is an investor.

It blows my mind that early Bitvoin visionaires like Ver and Voorhees will back silliness like this, but still haven't publicly discovered Monero.  I mean, ignoring the major three weaknesses of Z-cash: untested crypto, genesis keys, & too-opaque blockchain, this company is taking a premine of the coins for this chain! 
 
The last thing z-cash would need is to add on more unscrupulous behavior at this point, and a pre-mine says to everyone: we believe in our project so little we demand to get paid up front."
 
If your project legitimately is good enough, you should be able to buy the underlying tokens off the open market for a pittance (or mine them) and all of your work together will create something of incredible value.  That's how Bitcoin did it.  That's how Monero is doing it.  That's how it should be done.
hero member
Activity: 686
Merit: 500
February 23, 2016, 11:52:50 AM

Reads like an advertisement for Zcash, which isn't really surprising since I think I read Roger Ver is an investor.

Yes the bias is apparent. The article clearly avoided the biggest concerns about ZCash such as trusted setup parameters and developer mining share.
legendary
Activity: 3164
Merit: 1116
February 23, 2016, 11:36:26 AM

Reads like an advertisement for Zcash, which isn't really surprising since I think I read Roger Ver is an investor.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
February 22, 2016, 11:06:39 PM
Here is the big issue everyone is ignoring:  
  
If somehow mandatory ring signatures, and protocol level mixing, etc etc were all added to Bitcoin.... Then we would need a new Bitcoin.  
  
Why?  Because a public, non-fungible Blockchain enables applications and functions that can't mathematically and logically be done with a fungible and private Blockchain.  
  
So there is no point.  If you were born with a natural talent for coding or painting, don't try to be a football superstar.  Develop your natural talent - in the case of Bitcoin this is being a public and non-fungible Blockchain.  

There isn't really a thing a private, fungible Blockchain can't do which a public, non-fungible Blockchain can do.

Not true. You'd get a whole lot of things to require cooperation of the involved parties, that you at the moment get whether they like it or not. (detective work, tracing, proovable reserves...). Some others are technically not that clear, depending how private you go. The concept of colored coins is antagonist to perfect fungibility (if such thing exists) for instance.

The concept of "colored coins" makes me think of coining the term "CRYPTO RACISM"....

"Don't hate me because I'm black!"

Monero does not crypto-racially discriminate. <----- could be a slogan for Monero lol

We been troddin' through the Babylonian Empire of Banksters and Bitcoin for many long years...

Monero is the Promised Land.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBeHQhtU0VM

In Z10N, all coins are equal before The Creator.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
February 22, 2016, 08:09:59 PM
Any update on adding Monero? With the database implemented it won't take many resources to host it.

Thanks for the update. Glad to hear the improvement we waited for has been implemented.

I can't make any promises but we will look into it.

Perhaps soon(tm) :-P
legendary
Activity: 2492
Merit: 1491
LEALANA Bitcoin Grim Reaper
February 22, 2016, 08:04:46 PM
Here is the big issue everyone is ignoring:  
  
If somehow mandatory ring signatures, and protocol level mixing, etc etc were all added to Bitcoin.... Then we would need a new Bitcoin.  
  
Why?  Because a public, non-fungible Blockchain enables applications and functions that can't mathematically and logically be done with a fungible and private Blockchain.  
  
So there is no point.  If you were born with a natural talent for coding or painting, don't try to be a football superstar.  Develop your natural talent - in the case of Bitcoin this is being a public and non-fungible Blockchain.  

There isn't really a thing a private, fungible Blockchain can't do which a public, non-fungible Blockchain can do.

Not true. You'd get a whole lot of things to require cooperation of the involved parties, that you at the moment get whether they like it or not. (detective work, tracing, proovable reserves...). Some others are technically not that clear, depending how private you go. The concept of colored coins is antagonist to perfect fungibility (if such thing exists) for instance.

The concept of "colored coins" makes me think of coining the term "CRYPTO RACISM"....

"Don't hate me because I'm black!"

Monero does not crypto-racially discriminate. <----- could be a slogan for Monero lol
legendary
Activity: 2968
Merit: 1198
February 22, 2016, 07:58:28 PM
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e#.966rqftgw

#2 is why a tail emission accompanying an adaptive blocksize limit is of utmost importance.

The tail emission by itself is largely sufficient to address the core of the "fee pressure/market" issue, but the adaptive blocksize is also useful to balance between increasing demand and the resource requirements of a growing blockchain.


legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
February 22, 2016, 07:51:21 PM
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e#.966rqftgw

#2 is why a tail emission accompanying an adaptive blocksize limit is of utmost importance.
legendary
Activity: 2156
Merit: 1072
Crypto is the separation of Power and State.
February 22, 2016, 05:58:17 PM
@Rpietila, both BTC-E and Bitstamp are close to the 5 year mark though.

AFAIK, MPEX is older than both of those.

We need an RPEX for securities (like dev bonds) and XMR-E (for fiat).
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
Still wild and free
February 22, 2016, 04:29:12 PM
Here is the big issue everyone is ignoring:  
  
If somehow mandatory ring signatures, and protocol level mixing, etc etc were all added to Bitcoin.... Then we would need a new Bitcoin.  
  
Why?  Because a public, non-fungible Blockchain enables applications and functions that can't mathematically and logically be done with a fungible and private Blockchain.  
  
So there is no point.  If you were born with a natural talent for coding or painting, don't try to be a football superstar.  Develop your natural talent - in the case of Bitcoin this is being a public and non-fungible Blockchain.  

There isn't really a thing a private, fungible Blockchain can't do which a public, non-fungible Blockchain can do.

Not true. You'd get a whole lot of things to require cooperation of the involved parties, that you at the moment get whether they like it or not. (detective work, tracing, proovable reserves...). Some others are technically not that clear, depending how private you go. The concept of colored coins is antagonist to perfect fungibility (if such thing exists) for instance.

Fluffypony and dnaleor's comments here suggest otherwise though:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/47288y/if_bitcoin_added_ring_signatures_mandatory_mixing/

They're saying you can have fungibility between the colored coins themselves. That assumes you reduce your degree on fungibility already (colored vs. not colored). Monero isn't perfectly fungible (though it's the best we know). I thought your remark was about an hypothetic "ideally" fungible and private Bitcoin, but I realize you probably meant "just as Monero".
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
February 22, 2016, 04:14:09 PM
Here is the big issue everyone is ignoring:  
  
If somehow mandatory ring signatures, and protocol level mixing, etc etc were all added to Bitcoin.... Then we would need a new Bitcoin.  
  
Why?  Because a public, non-fungible Blockchain enables applications and functions that can't mathematically and logically be done with a fungible and private Blockchain.  
  
So there is no point.  If you were born with a natural talent for coding or painting, don't try to be a football superstar.  Develop your natural talent - in the case of Bitcoin this is being a public and non-fungible Blockchain.  

There isn't really a thing a private, fungible Blockchain can't do which a public, non-fungible Blockchain can do.

Not true. You'd get a whole lot of things to require cooperation of the involved parties, that you at the moment get whether they like it or not. (detective work, tracing, proovable reserves...). Some others are technically not that clear, depending how private you go. The concept of colored coins is antagonist to perfect fungibility (if such thing exists) for instance.

Fluffypony and dnaleor's comments here suggest otherwise though:

https://www.reddit.com/r/Monero/comments/47288y/if_bitcoin_added_ring_signatures_mandatory_mixing/
legendary
Activity: 1512
Merit: 1012
Still wild and free
February 22, 2016, 04:08:48 PM
Here is the big issue everyone is ignoring:  
  
If somehow mandatory ring signatures, and protocol level mixing, etc etc were all added to Bitcoin.... Then we would need a new Bitcoin.  
  
Why?  Because a public, non-fungible Blockchain enables applications and functions that can't mathematically and logically be done with a fungible and private Blockchain.  
  
So there is no point.  If you were born with a natural talent for coding or painting, don't try to be a football superstar.  Develop your natural talent - in the case of Bitcoin this is being a public and non-fungible Blockchain.  

There isn't really a thing a private, fungible Blockchain can't do which a public, non-fungible Blockchain can do.

Not true. You'd get a whole lot of things to require cooperation of the involved parties, that you at the moment get whether they like it or not. (detective work, tracing, proovable reserves...). Some others are technically not that clear, depending how private you go. The concept of colored coins is antagonist to perfect fungibility (if such thing exists) for instance.
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
February 22, 2016, 01:43:07 PM
Here is the big issue everyone is ignoring: 
 
If somehow mandatory ring signatures, and protocol level mixing, etc etc were all added to Bitcoin.... Then we would need a new Bitcoin. 
 
Why?  Because a public, non-fungible Blockchain enables applications and functions that can't mathematically and logically be done with a fungible and private Blockchain. 
 
So there is no point.  If you were born with a natural talent for coding or painting, don't try to be a football superstar.  Develop your natural talent - in the case of Bitcoin this is being a public and non-fungible Blockchain. 

There isn't really a thing a private, fungible Blockchain can't do which a public, non-fungible Blockchain can do.
hero member
Activity: 770
Merit: 504
February 22, 2016, 01:24:40 PM
Here is the big issue everyone is ignoring: 
 
If somehow mandatory ring signatures, and protocol level mixing, etc etc were all added to Bitcoin.... Then we would need a new Bitcoin. 
 
Why?  Because a public, non-fungible Blockchain enables applications and functions that can't mathematically and logically be done with a fungible and private Blockchain. 
 
So there is no point.  If you were born with a natural talent for coding or painting, don't try to be a football superstar.  Develop your natural talent - in the case of Bitcoin this is being a public and non-fungible Blockchain. 
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
February 22, 2016, 12:14:55 PM
Does anyone have a chart showing historical support and resistance and do you guys think it has any bearing going forward?

Bitcoinwisdom -> 3d (or 1w) -> see where we bottomed - support -  (0.001) and where we find tops (basically from 0.002 up to 0.0055, every 0.0005 satoshi, resistances).
legendary
Activity: 1105
Merit: 1000
February 22, 2016, 12:13:02 PM

Interestingly, adding ring sigs to Bitcoin is the only way I can think of that would allow Satoshi to spend his coins without anyone knowing (for sure). I believe most of his presumed holdings have their public keys exposed, so it could actually work.

CoinJoin, CT, all manner of sidechains, etc., cannot help Satoshi at all.

Mandatory Coinjoin + CT enforced on the protocol level would make BTC fungible though.

It would make new outputs pretty fungible, yes. I question that CoinJoin can actually be made mandatory (beyond the obvious political impossibility).
legendary
Activity: 2268
Merit: 1141
February 22, 2016, 11:58:35 AM

Interestingly, adding ring sigs to Bitcoin is the only way I can think of that would allow Satoshi to spend his coins without anyone knowing (for sure). I believe most of his presumed holdings have their public keys exposed, so it could actually work.

CoinJoin, CT, all manner of sidechains, etc., cannot help Satoshi at all.

Mandatory Coinjoin + CT enforced on the protocol level would make BTC fungible though.
legendary
Activity: 1105
Merit: 1000
February 22, 2016, 11:54:25 AM

Interestingly, adding ring sigs to Bitcoin is the only way I can think of that would allow Satoshi to spend his coins without anyone knowing (for sure). I believe most of his presumed holdings have their public keys exposed, so it could actually work.

CoinJoin, CT, all manner of sidechains, etc., cannot help Satoshi at all.
Jump to: