Topic: XMR the next bitcoin? - page 4. (Read 3798 times)

Shen found the bug in YOUR version of ringCT

Fixed the bug

Then wrote that public blog about shadow

The facts are clear.  This whole thing just proves how unprofessional you guys are.  And if i am coming across a bit angry well then maybe I am getting sick of all the crap that gets thrown at shadow from you morons.

I've already explained it. Feel free to sling personal attacks on myself, I don't really get offended easily.

But perhaps you could tone down the name calling of others and act like an adult? Thanks.

RingCT was on test net (or in pre-testnet phase) when "the bug" was "found". I'm not aware of any bug in RingCT...are you talking about Ring Signatures in monero?

SDC was on mainnet and in the public usage when the bug in SDC was discovered.

Kind of hard to compare the two.

Shen released his findings publicly. If he wanted he could have kept it to himself and probably wreaked havoc on SDC. Your viewpoint is that of a butthurt supporter. SDC should be thankful that Shen found the bug and did not keep it a secret and made it public knowledge so it could be addressed.


Monero didn't release broken shit, SDC did...are monero supporters still morons because of this?

Or are we all adults here and can drop the name calling like kids did back in grade school?  

Please explain what is not factual in the chart.

And if you want to bring up sdc be broken then great, this is a perfect example how amateurish your cryptographer is.  Can how explain how your leadership group are not a bunch of jerks.

Its funny that you morons are still pushing that we deanonymized shadow bullshit.

Your anonymous kid cryptographer found the bug in your own codebase.  This bug came from the same cryptonote whitepaper that both projects were working off.  A few days after he fixed the bug in Moneros code he wrote that public blog. 

Its all documented here: https://decentralize.today/monero-had-the-same-bug-as-shadow-33a86ddeac2e#.sjo6i1y7j


You morons are a bunch of dicks for how you handled that situation and it shows that the poisoned community is led from the top.

Yeah the large market caps are all driven by speculation but that seams to work, many coins with almost no adoption sustain large market caps in crypto the price of everything is measured in belief and confidence in it's future value or ability to hold it's value into the future, that applies to bitcoin, etherum USD or Gold

In fact, the use as a currency (and ONLY as a currency) has amazingly little effect on market cap.  Bitcoin is WAY WAY WAY too high to be driven by "currency demand".
When using Fisher's formula, you essentially have that the market cap of a currency equals the yearly value transacted as currency (the size of its market), divided by the number of times a currency unit changed hands during a year as a currency.

For instance, if on average, a currency unit is kept 2 weeks between obtaining it (in a trade) and spending it (in another trade: pure currency use, no hodling, no speculation, just an intermediate good between the first and the second trade), then this is a factor of 24.

So if the market cap of that currency is, say 100 million $, then it supported a 2.4 billion dollar per year market.

If the trades are much faster, say, 1 day between obtaining the currency (say, on an exchange against fiat) and buying something with it on DM, then this factor rises to 365.  That means that with a 100 million $ market cap of the currency, you can handle a 36.5 billion dollar per year market.

In the extreme limit, if you think of bitcoin and you wait only 6 blocks between getting it, and spending it, that amounts to 1 hour of "keeping the coin", then our factor in Fisher's formula becomes 8760.  A currency market cap of 100 million $ can then sustain a market of 876 billion dollars a year.   That is more than the GDP of some of the smaller European countries.

So depending on the "hold time" of a currency, you do not need huge market caps to sustain a large market.

In principle, with bitcoin's market cap, you could sustain a 87 trillion $ market, which is of the order of the world GDP.... except that bitcoin can't because of the block size limit.

Typical..

1. Make biased/unfounded claims
2. get called out on those claims
3. instead of addressing those claims directly, you run away or find a reason to run away

That's like saying you want to do a comparison of features but ignore the foundation of what you are selling stands on (proven, tested, vetted crypto).

Seems kind of pointless.

Sounds like a bribe i bought at 5k sat &  Welcome to Ignore

I'm a bitch so I have both of these coin so it doesn't matter to me now. I don't even know whether SDC says everything on their graphic illustration.
but since they're very much confident about what they've come up i guess they are telling the truth. Some day someone from the DM will prefer using SDC and will recommend it to the users there. that could be me maybe.

but then let me grab a bucket of popcorn for everyone.  

Can you tell us if you bought SDC at a very high price and want it to go back higher?

Neither of those things fit into this chart, This chart is clearly Available features of the nominated projects, neither a past patched bug, or Acceptance to a few centralized markets, count as features.

Neither of those things fit into this chart, This chart is clearly Available features of the nominated projects, neither a past patched bug, or Acceptance to a few centralized markets, count as features.

Your chart is a sales pitch and is not 100% factual nor transparent. Love how you conveniently leave out SDC being broken and likely de-anonymizing its users/txs in the process.

But keep selling us on SDC... 

Thats what peer review are for let it speak for it's self we are in the process of organising one with a credible peer reviewer it is expensive this is why it has taken longer then usual and these peer reviews will be ongoing as new features are added other wise what would be the point of one peer review when we will be constantly updating things as funding permits.

You forgot the following box:

- Crypto has been broken by another coin's developer (SDC check) ----> which implies your first item for SDC is false as it has been de-anonymized by Shen Noether.

- Accepted in DNMs (XMR check)

Who should trust a coin that did not do its crypthography right the first time... who says you don´t fuck up some critical stuff in the decentral market too? And also saying that Monero "had this bug" to is a comparison like in the kindergarten... you said it yourself NOT ON THE MAINNET! ... what you think a testnet is for?

I agree with all that +1 interesting and insightful points this is all just an experiment, i believe BTC is too big now and thats why it will take a back seat eventually as a reserve currency as more efficent tech arrises or it could die altogether because POW isn't viable longterm with the cost of mining IMO but it's still possible that a coin like Monero Or Shadowcash couldn't catch a Niche market and hold it even a small percentage of DM transactions going into  either coins instead of only Bitcoin could have dramatic effects on price.
That means there is plenty of room for more then one to be successful, but, i see the death of Centralised markets in the near future they are unsustainable, they can be dismantled internally or externally quickly, and people can lose money to easily or worse.
So i lean towards SDC grabbing a larger % quicker then XMR in the long run because decentralised markets will replace centralised and Shadow is building the best.

Monero is an experiment in anonymity transactions.  It is part of monero culture to have regular hard forks.  So monero is not a true "block chain" yet, but tries out anon technology.  As a currency, that's more than good enough, because currencies have only to keep value relatively short term.  
The nice thing about monero evolution is that it are hard forks, so if you want to, you can always keep the old chain alive if you want to.
But yes, if one day, the monero team decided to quit, at that point, monero would become a genuine block chain with an immutable protocol.  For the moment, I guess that improving anon tech is more important than immutability in the long run.  This is also why I wouldn't like the market cap of monero to go too high, and the recent rise can be problematic.  Hopefully, monero's market cap goes down somewhat, for it not to interfere with the development and evolution.
On the other hand, in order to really be used as a currency, it needs to have SOME appreciable market cap, in order to support sufficient transactions of value.
Crypto has to be tested real-world.  Hopefully the FBI tries to crack it.  If it survives, that's good news for crypto.  If it breaks, better find out now and mitigate (or give up).