Quote from: ArticMine on June 22, 2016, 05:54:11 PM

Quote from: iamnotback on June 22, 2016, 03:49:24 PM

Readers please note that I don't have anything against Monero as an open source experiment in crypto-currency. I support their experimentation. I don't like (bordering on hate although I don't allow myself be consumed by hate) the community of Monero. And I don't support when someone writes that Monero is the only altcoin that is serious or worthy. They have not yet earned that, and if ever they do earn that, they won't need to state it because such truths are self-evident.

There is something foul smell in the community of Monero. I'd rather not try to explain what that smell is, as others have already explored that. Ethereum has its idolizing fanboiz and Monero has its delusion-of-superiority, pack-dog-attacking bagboiz. Something like that.

...

I am quoting this post as insurance for the future. Why? Because, in the unlikely event that Monero becomes "the only altcoin that is serious or worthy" those who bought Monero early and held, could become very successful financially and human nature being what it is also become targets of hate on the grounds that "only a few benefited". This is the flip side to the "Monero has its delusion-of-superiority" comment.

I wish you the best luck on that.

If we all can just be more honest about the flaws and strengths of our projects, I will be copacetic. And that doesn't mean berating them, but more so it means not pumping claims that aren't true at the expense of all the other ongoing experiments in CC.

I want to see action, not words.

You are welcome to hold me to that same standard, as long as you are cordial and coherent when you come into my official project thread. Feel free to quote me in the future on this point.

But if you come into my thread doing political manipulation (and turning my thread into a noise box that no one can read), I'll censor you. You can make as many uncensored threads about my vaporware (or launched) project, as you wish. I won't fight back.

Our attitude+capabilities will carry us forward. The shit hits the fan on those realities. Talk is cheap. I am working on mine.

Quote from: DaveyJones on June 22, 2016, 06:24:24 PM

Quote from: natall.com on June 22, 2016, 12:53:39 PM

The problem with monero is that it is not used much as a currency https://getmonero.org/getting-started/merchants the same thing happened to peercoin, hardly used for anything besides speculation.

It is hardly profitable for me to mine it desipite having 2x r9 290 and it is likely to get even worse as the blockreward continues to decrease, i am afraid the coin will end up in the hands of botnets.

Not used much as a currency? Did you miss all the post where people are talking about buying things with xmr.to? To make it short in that sense every shop that accepts bitcoin also accepts monero.

That was the main marketing innovation I saw from Monero's ecosystem. Even someone used that once to fund me.

It is befitting that Shapeshift.io copied you, given one of the threats Monero used to make when ever I would explain I wanted to work on my own experiments, was they being open source could just copy any thing that was valuable.

Btw, I was pitching the conceptual idea of XMR.to back in 2013 on BCT. It was one of the rebuttals I had for the Bitcoin maximalists. And yet again one of my ideas becomes a blockbuster success. You think I don't have a lot more of those ideas in my back pocket.

Quote from: iamnotback on June 22, 2016, 08:20:37 PM

Quote from: funkenstein on June 22, 2016, 08:05:58 PM

Hmm, i guess I didn't make my point clear, sorry. My point was that your previously linked article (why there are no such thing as cryptocurrenciies) assumed that hashpower is fungible across altcoin networks when in fact it isn't. I only listed the coins as examples of coins secured with different hash functions, which are not mineable with SHA256 hardware.

I wasn't aware that the original source was making that presumption (well I vaguely remember an allusion to Bitcoin copy coins). It makes sense though, as it is a lot more practical to attack with ASICs you already have.

But the reason I don't think the original source means what you think it means, is because the author linked to that article again in the recent discussion of his DAO hack. So it seems he thinks it is still applicable to relevant altcoins (i.e. worth even attacking), of which none that I know of use SHA256.

Any way, it is sometimes difficult to know what that author thinks because he is cryptic.