Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 124 results by Denni
Volumes are always WAAY down on the weekend.
TIP - If you haven't noticed this yet, always BUY during the weekend and SELL midweek
TIP - If you haven't noticed this yet, always BUY during the weekend and SELL midweek
really good advice )
I can't even remember the weekend when there was a big pump.
hi i just want to know how could i check the actual price of world dollar? Because i tried to sell them and its worth were just .0001 per 1,000 WLD
I have the same question. Looks like the liquidity is too low and that's why the price has dropped to only 1 satoshi. that's sad
10,000 WLD has been trading today for .01 BTC, it has been .025 BTC. Do not confuse the "worth" of WLD with any given order at any time; on the other side, there is a ridiculous order of someone trying to sell 0.0001 WLD for 10,000 BTC, and clearly this is not the true "worth" of WLD.
Realistically, the liquidity will remain low until a wider audience has heard about World Dollar. This shouldn't particularly matter to anyone who is happy to claim their World dollars now and hold onto them. It's the first adopters, those who recognise the value of something before the masses do, that are so important to projects like this.
It's rather difficult to be that first adopters with strong belief in the coin. At the beginning when I've just came into crypto currency world I have justified belief in some coins but I was a lit bit disappointed. After such experiences I can't be sure in any coin.
hi i just want to know how could i check the actual price of world dollar? Because i tried to sell them and its worth were just .0001 per 1,000 WLD
I have the same question. Looks like the liquidity is too low and that's why the price has dropped to only 1 satoshi. that's sad
Has anyone tried this alfa version? Where is it possible to read reviews of the new wallet ?
A ponzi is where group A is paid % more from group B, and continues until you run out of investors or money. Coins aren't really ponzis in that sense. They're more like penny stocks.
hmmm pretty good explanation, I was thinking that any scheme is a ponzi scheme and haven't seen any difference btw them
Can it support any altcoin? or there is a list of the coin is can support??
The idea is great and nice to see you've got a license and there were a couple of such projects but I don't remember a successful ones. Maybe you project will succeed
The idea is great and nice to see you've got a license and there were a couple of such projects but I don't remember a successful ones. Maybe you project will succeed
I don't see any damages to BTC from DOGE.
You should try harder.
That's why I would appreciate if someone (maybe you or else) would write what damage does Doge bring
Dogecoin was just a joke when released and people have been laughing at it ever since.
Yes, doge is a joke coin without any innovative features, but this make it valid as it has not important mission here. So, people who liked that copy-past jpeg and a lot of noobs have seen something in it, IMO.
I don't know why people are so aggress to doge - I don't see any damages to BTC from DOGE. if anyone see something,please, tell me. I'd appreciate to listen to you point of view but only if you have any arguments. Yelling that DOGE is a ''shitty coin'' isn't an argument. Indeed, maybe it's shitty coin but than tell me WHY? as today I see in Doge only the opportunity to make good investment
Re: Genesis-mining.com || World's leading hosted Scrypt hashpower provider!
Huge price change is interesting. How much BTC are people getting per day per MH? Thanks!
I am going to be posting videos on Youtube this week which will cover my daily payments as time goes on.
Keep an eye out for that.
I have purchased a 10Gh/s contract and a 1 MH/s contract with GM and will compare it with a competitors product.
To try and keep it as fair as possible it will be a like for like comparison.
A 10 GH/s contract and a 1 MH/s contract with the 1 MH/s contract costing the same as the Genesis Mining one.
I also purchased a slightly more expensive 1 MH/s contract but that was more to compare with the different products from the competitor rather to compare it with GM's product.
Will start posting from tomorrow as going to wait till both are giving out full day payments.
Ian.
This will be useful, looking forward for those videos.
Thanks Ellen, I am looking forward to doing them also.
I think it's going to be very interesting experiment which will show is GM is so good as many people thinks so, or not.
IMO, GM has a low fee for such a good service but there might be some better h/p provider
Re: Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero)
Rethink-Your-Strategy Whitepaper is confirmed to be fake
I was impressed by the amount of work you've put to compile everything in one place. While checking your claims regarding CryptoNote whitepaper, I noticed the same XMP timestamps and other evidence that you posted.
However, there is one thing that you did not check-out when I tried to repeat your experiment. Van Saberhagen's public key on CryptoNote website cannot be used to validite the PDF. While checking, I got this message:
Some new surprising information was found on Bytecoin's website. It hosts a very similar whitepaper v.2, which turns out to be different if you study it carefully. What's more, van Saberhagen's public key matches on CryptoNote and Bytecoin websites. It seems that Bytecoin may hold a genuine Saberhagen whitepaper as it can be verified with the published public key - however since his identity remains unknown, we can only speculate.
I then decided to continue with experiment by comparing the paper found on Bytecoin with the one CryptoNote's website. For easier references I'll call them bcn-whitepaper and cn-whitepaper. The bcn-whitepaper will always goes first on the pictures unless explicitly stated otherwise.
When opening the bcn-whitepaper we can see the article structure.
Which is not the case for cn-whitepaper.
Opening the PDF we notice the valid signature inside:
The signature date on bcn-whitepaper is almost the same as on cn-whitepaper but slightly differs in size. This by itself, points that further discrepancies may exist between the two whitepapers. I decided to continue my investigation by studying the signature details (bcn - to the left, cn - to the right):
Everything looks quite the same with the exception of the SHA and MD5 fingerprints. Moving on to the XMP properties, we can see that they are also different.
Bcn-whitepaper holds perfectly clear signatures. The CreateDate is 2013 as it should be. The pdfTeX version x.x.13 also existed. There is totally nothing strange about these tags. Unlike the whitepaper from CryptoNote website that was studied before.
Apparently, Bytecoin's whitepaper is quite consistent in terms of timelines.
The remaining question is which whitepaper may have been the genuine one.
I would assume that having exactly the same van Saberhagen's public keys posted on both websites, it would not be unlikely that it really belongs to Saberhagen - particularly since both keys validate the bcn-whitepaper.
Also, upon a careful examination of Bytecoin's whitepaper I found a watermark, which is usually hard to identify. Here it is in the whitepaper (just after the Appendix):
Most may be unable to see it because it is non-selectable, can't be copied and is transparent. You might be able to see it as a small highlighted field (e.g. if you open it with Chrome).
It turns out that the watermark appears in the tooltip for that field. Here is the tooltip's content:
This is a PGP key perfectly matching public van Saberhagen's key published on both websites.
Hence, there is a PGP signature hidden in the Bytecoin's whitepaper, but there is no such watermark in the one found on CryptoNote's website.
Are these 2 documents anyhow different apart from that? I've checked with adobe document compare tools, and it seems that they're either complete copies, or have very minor indistinguishable differences like the following three. These formulas appear to be the same, but not to the compare tool:
My Conclusions
1. It is very likely the Bytecoin website hosts the genuine whitepaper.
2. The whitepaper published on CryptoNote's website may be a forgery. There is no PGP watermark and the author's PGP public key can't be used to validate the whitepaper.
3. Someone has duplicated the genuine whitepaper line by line for them to look the same - but failed at capturing some of its hidden elements.
4. Now let's move to whitepaper v.1 on CN website. As there is no signature to validate this whitepaper, the only relevant test is watermark. If it's inside, then the asumption on CryptoNote's conspiracy may hold. However, whitepaper v.1 doesn't have this watermark.
5. The problems with latex compilator problems, XMP meta tags, and invalid links may point to a forgery attempt, not van Saberhagen's actual activity.
Unclear questions for further research
1) What and why did we find two strange whitepapers on the CryptoNote website? A number of options may be valid. I assume it could be a mistake, a social engineering trap, hacked website or someone's attempt to discredit the technology? Who knows.
I'll point CryptoNote that they may have a wrong whitepaper. Maybe they will care to comment or take actions.
However, there is one thing that you did not check-out when I tried to repeat your experiment. Van Saberhagen's public key on CryptoNote website cannot be used to validite the PDF. While checking, I got this message:
Some new surprising information was found on Bytecoin's website. It hosts a very similar whitepaper v.2, which turns out to be different if you study it carefully. What's more, van Saberhagen's public key matches on CryptoNote and Bytecoin websites. It seems that Bytecoin may hold a genuine Saberhagen whitepaper as it can be verified with the published public key - however since his identity remains unknown, we can only speculate.
I then decided to continue with experiment by comparing the paper found on Bytecoin with the one CryptoNote's website. For easier references I'll call them bcn-whitepaper and cn-whitepaper. The bcn-whitepaper will always goes first on the pictures unless explicitly stated otherwise.
When opening the bcn-whitepaper we can see the article structure.
Which is not the case for cn-whitepaper.
Opening the PDF we notice the valid signature inside:
The signature date on bcn-whitepaper is almost the same as on cn-whitepaper but slightly differs in size. This by itself, points that further discrepancies may exist between the two whitepapers. I decided to continue my investigation by studying the signature details (bcn - to the left, cn - to the right):
Everything looks quite the same with the exception of the SHA and MD5 fingerprints. Moving on to the XMP properties, we can see that they are also different.
Bcn-whitepaper holds perfectly clear signatures. The CreateDate is 2013 as it should be. The pdfTeX version x.x.13 also existed. There is totally nothing strange about these tags. Unlike the whitepaper from CryptoNote website that was studied before.
Apparently, Bytecoin's whitepaper is quite consistent in terms of timelines.
The remaining question is which whitepaper may have been the genuine one.
I would assume that having exactly the same van Saberhagen's public keys posted on both websites, it would not be unlikely that it really belongs to Saberhagen - particularly since both keys validate the bcn-whitepaper.
Also, upon a careful examination of Bytecoin's whitepaper I found a watermark, which is usually hard to identify. Here it is in the whitepaper (just after the Appendix):
Most may be unable to see it because it is non-selectable, can't be copied and is transparent. You might be able to see it as a small highlighted field (e.g. if you open it with Chrome).
It turns out that the watermark appears in the tooltip for that field. Here is the tooltip's content:
This is a PGP key perfectly matching public van Saberhagen's key published on both websites.
Hence, there is a PGP signature hidden in the Bytecoin's whitepaper, but there is no such watermark in the one found on CryptoNote's website.
Are these 2 documents anyhow different apart from that? I've checked with adobe document compare tools, and it seems that they're either complete copies, or have very minor indistinguishable differences like the following three. These formulas appear to be the same, but not to the compare tool:
My Conclusions
1. It is very likely the Bytecoin website hosts the genuine whitepaper.
2. The whitepaper published on CryptoNote's website may be a forgery. There is no PGP watermark and the author's PGP public key can't be used to validate the whitepaper.
3. Someone has duplicated the genuine whitepaper line by line for them to look the same - but failed at capturing some of its hidden elements.
4. Now let's move to whitepaper v.1 on CN website. As there is no signature to validate this whitepaper, the only relevant test is watermark. If it's inside, then the asumption on CryptoNote's conspiracy may hold. However, whitepaper v.1 doesn't have this watermark.
5. The problems with latex compilator problems, XMP meta tags, and invalid links may point to a forgery attempt, not van Saberhagen's actual activity.
Unclear questions for further research
1) What and why did we find two strange whitepapers on the CryptoNote website? A number of options may be valid. I assume it could be a mistake, a social engineering trap, hacked website or someone's attempt to discredit the technology? Who knows.
I'll point CryptoNote that they may have a wrong whitepaper. Maybe they will care to comment or take actions.
Re: Blowing the lid off the CryptoNote/Bytecoin scam (with the exception of Monero)
I have carefully read this publication several times and, you know, Ive got the impression that someone is trying hard to impose upon us his point of view. Someone wants us to think in a certain way.
Ive tried to look at the whole situation as a bystander and posted below there are conclusions Ive come to:
1. It's obvious that someone is trying to discredit the CryptoNote technology along with all the CN-based coins.
CryptoNote team has published official statement yesterday https://cryptonote.org/news/archive
Do you see this bold text? Think about it.
2. Someone tries to cause distrust and enmity between Monero and other CN-coins. "Divide et impera" is an old maxim.
"with the exception of Monero" in the subject of this tread proves it better than everything else.
The question is: who is that "someone"? I have some thoughts on topic, but I don't want to publish them until I have enough evidence.
Ive tried to look at the whole situation as a bystander and posted below there are conclusions Ive come to:
1. It's obvious that someone is trying to discredit the CryptoNote technology along with all the CN-based coins.
CryptoNote team has published official statement yesterday https://cryptonote.org/news/archive
Quote
Greetings to all the members of the CryptoNote community and those who are interested in the technology. This message is our response to the recent developments and speculations within the CN community. Before we get to the point wed like to reassert our firm commitment to the long-standing philosophy behind CryptoNote. Everything we do is for the sake of technology, and we take great joy as we progress towards our goal.
The initial efforts at CryptoNote development go back as far as 4 years. Some great minds were involved in its creation. More than two years ago the first implementations of CN technology were unleashed on the world of cryptocurrencies and from that moment forward the community that was forged around our vision and values grew exponentially.
What is currently going on within the CN community hardly resembles the harmonious state of mutual respect and synergy that once ruled over the CN coins. Someone clearly is instigating hostility. Moreover, the CryptoNote website has recently been exposed to illegal access by malicious users, which is absolutely unacceptable. Some data stored on cryptonote.org have been vandalized and is now temporary unavailable until the internal investigation is completed.
Having thoroughly reviewed the situation around certain CN currencies, the CryptoNote team would like to issue the following statement:
It is the official position of CryptoNote that our technology has been created to bring positive changes into the current financial system by providing tools that have never existed before. The technology is what concerns us the most. We are not to be distracted or misled by the speculative rumors and strongly suggest you to follow suit.
CryptoNote is not a cryptocurrency and has not been designed to be one. The only CryptoNote currency that the CryptoNote team officially endorses is CryptoNoteCoin, which has zero commercial value and serves educational purposes only.
We consider all the name-calling and finger-pointing that has taken place on certain internet discussions as inappropriate and harmful to further development of the CryptoNote technology.
Over the years CryptoNote has had to overcome a great number of obstacles but those striving so desperately to deter the advance of new technologies are doomed to fail. We are strong believers in the power of innovation and there is no way to stop the CN development.
Discussion thread: https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=265&p=883#p883
The initial efforts at CryptoNote development go back as far as 4 years. Some great minds were involved in its creation. More than two years ago the first implementations of CN technology were unleashed on the world of cryptocurrencies and from that moment forward the community that was forged around our vision and values grew exponentially.
What is currently going on within the CN community hardly resembles the harmonious state of mutual respect and synergy that once ruled over the CN coins. Someone clearly is instigating hostility. Moreover, the CryptoNote website has recently been exposed to illegal access by malicious users, which is absolutely unacceptable. Some data stored on cryptonote.org have been vandalized and is now temporary unavailable until the internal investigation is completed.
Having thoroughly reviewed the situation around certain CN currencies, the CryptoNote team would like to issue the following statement:
It is the official position of CryptoNote that our technology has been created to bring positive changes into the current financial system by providing tools that have never existed before. The technology is what concerns us the most. We are not to be distracted or misled by the speculative rumors and strongly suggest you to follow suit.
CryptoNote is not a cryptocurrency and has not been designed to be one. The only CryptoNote currency that the CryptoNote team officially endorses is CryptoNoteCoin, which has zero commercial value and serves educational purposes only.
We consider all the name-calling and finger-pointing that has taken place on certain internet discussions as inappropriate and harmful to further development of the CryptoNote technology.
Over the years CryptoNote has had to overcome a great number of obstacles but those striving so desperately to deter the advance of new technologies are doomed to fail. We are strong believers in the power of innovation and there is no way to stop the CN development.
Discussion thread: https://forum.cryptonote.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=265&p=883#p883
Do you see this bold text? Think about it.
2. Someone tries to cause distrust and enmity between Monero and other CN-coins. "Divide et impera" is an old maxim.
"with the exception of Monero" in the subject of this tread proves it better than everything else.
The question is: who is that "someone"? I have some thoughts on topic, but I don't want to publish them until I have enough evidence.
Seems to me that someones blowing his gaskets trying to smear the CN tech up and down. Hexah deserves some credit on this one, even Monero has gotten its share of the shit pie here. Making it look like a pinnacle of the CN technology ready to take on Bitcoin is just outright ridiculous.
It all smells like the competition is playing out its tricky scheme on us. I dont want to engage in the finger-pointing here (enough has been done so far) but isnt it like Darkcoin hates us all. Those guys have never been particularly picky about their methods.
Shall we do some ass-kicking on their thread in retaliation?
Well, Darkcoin hasn't been feeling good lately indeed. We know those guys are annoying with all the FUD in their topics. They surely have the incentive to discredit CryptoNote platform. But I'm not sure that they were capable of falsifying whitepaper on CryptoNote website.
Thinking more about it, I'd say that the biggest CryptoNote enemy is the government. Their philosophy is against the status quo. CryptoNote and Bytecoin is the very anonymous cryptocurrency out there. Ok, this is a bit over the roof, but if the whitepaper is replaced NSA, then I'm not surprised that Bytecoin developers are so anynomous. You just don't know what to expect.
Maybe CryptoNote will reveal the results of their investigations soon.
Folks! As we all know its not enough to use copy and paste to develop good MCN pool. So... we all have the opportunity to check how smart and skillfull we are. Who is the Hero? Who will develop MCNs pool to our community? Let's make it work! And of course, we should do it faster than Fantomcoin guys... Just because we are the coolest 
Re: [ANN][MCN] Moneta Verde - CryptoNote coin with difficulty-BR (lnch at 15:00 GMT)
Folks! As we all know its not enough to use copy and paste to develop good MCN pool. So... we all have the opportunity to check how smart and skillfull we are. Who is the Hero? Who will develop MCNs pool to our community? Let's make it work! And of course, we should do it faster than Fantomcoin guys... Just because we are the coolest
Wow! Didnt pay much attention to the forum lately, as it turns out - I should have. Nice research. Going to look into it.
Thanks. I was really passionate about it. I wanted to check if BCN blockchain was formed as a result of people's interaction or just machinery falsification. Now I'm sure it was made by humans. I wonder why people preferred simply dumping the coins as opposed to holding on to them. Were these services or goods really that tempting to spend BCN on. Or perhaps they dumped them through exchanges Is there a chance some of these old-school exchanges are still functioning? Whats a BCN dark-web exchange rate? Maybe someone from the veterans will shade some light on this matter.
There are BCN bagholders/early miners who have tens of billions of Bytecoin...A few individuals own a combined 100billion Bytecoin..
and what about those 3 stages that coincided with new users arrival. Must have been some kind of major updates or sudden spike in prices or even a new miners team joined in. Keeping in mind that BCN might have been of academic origin, chances are that a new scholastic community had jumped in. New whitepaper could be the reason too. Is it possible to pinpoint these time periods or stages to figure out the actual events behind them?
I wish I knew the answers to these questions. IMHO the assumption that new users influxes were associated with new mining teams appearance is the most reasonable.
it makes sense now. the new mining teams theory seem plausible enough.
Wow! Didnt pay much attention to the forum lately, as it turns out - I should have. Nice research. Going to look into it.
Thanks. I was really passionate about it. I wanted to check if BCN blockchain was formed as a result of people's interaction or just machinery falsification. Now I'm sure it was made by humans. I wonder why people preferred simply dumping the coins as opposed to holding on to them. Were these services or goods really that tempting to spend BCN on. Or perhaps they dumped them through exchanges Is there a chance some of these old-school exchanges are still functioning? Whats a BCN dark-web exchange rate? Maybe someone from the veterans will shade some light on this matter.
There are BCN bagholders/early miners who have tens of billions of Bytecoin...A few individuals own a combined 100billion Bytecoin..
and what about those 3 stages that coincided with new users arrival. Must have been some kind of major updates or sudden spike in prices or even a new miners team joined in. Keeping in mind that BCN might have been of academic origin, chances are that a new scholastic community had jumped in. New whitepaper could be the reason too. Is it possible to pinpoint these time periods or stages to figure out the actual events behind them?
Should we call CN coins "altnotes", instead of "altcoins"?
To underline diffference from BTC code.
To underline diffference from BTC code.
I vote for altnotes!
Great! Thanks a lot!
Does anybody know what is the largest number we can use for ? 10? 100? 1000?