Awesome analysis bro.

Really good technical explanation.

Any chance you can actually prove you're the same person this dumpster crypto hired to dump on them?

or, maybe you can actually explain some of these points you've made?

I mean, starting your first post containing the words "let's just say" hardly inspires confidence in you.

TY for the response.

I was using the same email address and pwd for all three, but not the same user (poem/wcg were the same but seti was different because i was playing with that around 2007 or so - started wcg because of ripple about jan 2 last year or so).

I switched all to have the same username and reinstalled boinc.

Gonna give it another day or so to see if it works!

Ironically, the exact opposite occurs as well, where: When something happens, the availability of cheap coins dries up faster than you can hit "sell".

Is this normal?


On almost 24 hours now. Should I wait longer?

Thanks for the response, it sounds like the withdrawn asset will be redeemable for whatever tokens I assume will be in use in the SuperNET?

Hoping for a smooth recovery for everyone else that didn't choose to withdraw then

Is unity withdrawn from bter into the nxt-looking downloadable at supernet.org the actual unity that will be available for use in the upcoming v1 release?

Time is a good one. Currently I'm trading not more than 1.67 years of continued debt slavery just to hold and own Monero. In all likelihood, it will be less time than that, but for now that's the number I'm personally coming up with. That is the price I've chosen to pay.

Money typically has a variable value when compared to one's income (which tends to go up and down, preferably up), and factoring in proper interest on outstanding debt in order to use money at one point in time rather than another will take the value of a dollar and change it to either a few cents, all the way up to an easy 40 dollars. Quite a large spread, depending on the person, so vastly speculative. But the good point to make here is - if for every dollar you spend, do you expect to make back more than 40 dollars, per dollar, within the timeframe you're operating on? My timeframe extends well past a decade, because my debt slavery is longer than that, so my answer is yes, has reasonable probability to be a 'yes' (because even if the price doesn't increase to, say, 40x what it is now, I still can theoretically take advantage of price volatility due to slippage and others' speculations and come up with a reasonable 40x in over a decade).

Emotional energy, yes I'd have to agree that the speculative value of money defined above combined with the additional speculative value of time would manifest in often complex emotions. Most often being shared as frustration, something which I'm admittedly very susceptible to.

I'll agree with you in that IMO it's mostly dissonance that we speculate on. My value of time changes, because some of the time I think I'll make more income and some of the time I think I'll make less income. My value of money changes because sometimes I think that my interest rates will go up and some times I think they will go down, if I'm in an agreed on variable interest loan.

I'd argue that emotions are inherently based on cognitive dissonance, so no real discussion there.

..Unless, we can find a way to have post quantum protection without further increasing key sizes to afford the security.

Even then, it's a big stretch unless a) everyone that uses this has access to many GB's of bandwidth or b) we find some way to keep consensus without using present fios/network infrastructure for io into the blockchain.

Perhaps, if quantum computing were achieved, then this would be a possibility. Where the problem we were to solve presents a solution that was previously unsolvable.

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/15/secure-quantum-internet-photons-computers

So, really all we gotta do is focus on quantum secure algorithms and the rest will take care of itself, space and network saturation be damned.

There's your niche.

Dream big or go home boys

But the size difference is what's tough to deal with.

DRK is using a protocol known to be prunable. Will there be a larger chain - yes. But it will still be smaller than the size due to creating ring signatures - the p2p network likely isn't going to get overloaded. Both CN and the bastardized version of it that is now in use in shadowcash are presumed to be prunable, but there are no public proofs of it to date.

The real question here is whether or not fancy mixing will be susceptible to quantum algorithms - in the sense that your transaction history can be traced from the blockchain. I have yet to see anyone claim that, and I believe it would be harder because the privacy is afforded much more from statistics than cryptography in DRK, where CN and SDC offer their privacy through mostly cryptography alone. But again, I'm just the guy's cousin - so all I can really say for sure is do I want 1 in 100,000 or so (meaning: number out of my ass, could be as low as 1 in 2, or even higher than 100k - i dunno) transactions traceable due to a statistical predictability, or do I want every transaction ever recorded on the blockchain to be susceptible to tracing. I'm concentrating on this, because I'm operating under the assumption that the PoW, DS protection, and even transaction creation can move toward a quantum-secure algorithm in the future - but fact is that it's just not there yet.

So, I'm left with the really tough decision - do I go with the two methods that currently have a legitimately scary flaw in their reason for existence, one of which has very little infrastructure and one a little bit more - or do I go with the method that has a statistical error that will ultimately lead me to a few, but not all, of my transactions being traceable. It's tough - but I gotta go with the car that's working for now, however few cylinders it's running on.

The second I see quantum secure transaction creation, PoW, and DS prevention, as well as pruning (as well as 100+GB bandwidth available to a cryptocurrency) on the CN blockchain is the second I hop back into buy mode. Probably even sooner than that because cryptographic protection > statistical protection IMO, but end of the day, if I actually need to use a private currency in Feb 2015 I'm gonna gave to give it to DRK. If I actually need to use a private currency in 2016, or 2017, after some changes been changed, I'm gonna have to go with CN.

Sorry if I didn't explain it better.

The privacy is at risk at some unknown, yet expected and agreed to definitely occur, future date, due to being part of the blockchain, due to quantum computing.

Not just the double spending.

Both the unlinkability and untraceability will be totally up for grabs.

Is that more correct?

Bitcoin went up and down and up and down, and up and down.

Seeing a cycle?

These things kinda do that. Giving me the upper and lower bounds is a nice gesture, but ultimately they're gonna tend to zero or infinity and there aint a single person on this planet that knows which one something like a darkcoin is gonna trend towards.

Interesting you picked drk though, fine i'll be a sounding board..

Why the drop? because it spiked in price so fast, yes because it was pumped and dumped.

Did I say that dark was the best solution?

Hell no. It's the one with the most people that have been looking for anonymity in bitcoin since the idea popped into existence that it's not really so anonymous. Most of them are idiots, to be blunt. So just as bluntly, there's just not one smart dude in the world, thats gonna be hired by some trailer trash excuse for a currency that will be able to convince these people, even amongst charts, graphs, and a divine blessing from god that will convince them otherwise.

Pretty much the only thing that's gonna convince them is regulation, taxes or death. Really out of bounds for a cryptographer, no?

As far as all are bullshit, just pick some random % you'd like to own out of just about all currencies.

Then, when one goes up, you just don't care that another didn't go up. And if one makes it to the top, then you have that much of a %.

Definitely helps to keep you from selling as well.

Hey I happen to totally be his cousin that knows just as much as he does.

I can tell you theres a lot of size, which will lead to overloaded p2p networks as well as hard drives unless pruning is a possibility (still inconsequential because of the massive size of the transactions overloading peoples internet connections - nodes will be permanently centralized), and also theres the lack of security against quantum computing which is the same damn reason cryptonote is seemingly shitting the bed. So, not only will there be the possibility to double spend, the entire transaction history will have a matching quantum algorithm.

Don't paint a bag of shit blue and tell me theres chocolates inside critter.

So, encrypted messaging and basically the opinion of some broke plebian discord result in the amount of $282,482.

ring signatures and basically some crazed bible thumpers brought together $1,415,675.

while fancy mixing, with basically the entire social capital that was originally interested in an anonymous bitcoin originally bring in $16,963,366

and you're telling me that the price rising to greater than 17 million dollar market cap hinges on the opinion of one broke absolutely unrelated to cryptocurrency motherfucker?

Please.

If that worked I'd be a fucking millionaire right now.    

How the FUCK is this a surprise?

I mean, it's a part of blocknet, practically buttraped by the prometheus/metcalf cartel and co. ....

Move on, this shits at least 3-4 months old news.

Something relevant, maybe?

Wat?


Did you even read what was said or did you just read that shadowshit was mentioned and spew your obligatory salute? Your response seems to be a reflex, with dick to add to this.

U make big yap yap for squeaky lil puppy.

So a growth of 2 mb/day is equivalent to 1579520 b/day in natural growth, or 1.580 mb/day in legit transactions, where we have about 1.580/.010 kb /tc so we have like 158 transactions per day, or the equivalent of .001828 transactions per second, or about .1828% of bitcoin daily transaction action daily?

Monero is worth, to me, whatever it is I can afford to pay. My hard drive space is nothing compared to the bandwidth it takes to both utilize my own hard-drive space as well as share the blockchain with as many people as possible, which may will be worth much more than $.18. Again, this is under the idea that the price of hard drive space will trend toward zero because legitimate pruning is a possibility and not just size reduction.

But, how much bandwidth does the daemon use a month?

Admittedly, it's not being shared across a 3g or 4g network, but if it's even more than 1gb a month, then it's likely more costly than $.18.

Actually, if my bandwidth was capped at 150 GB /month and I was paying the same $60 a month I do now, and you're saying  it will cost me between $.18 cents to $1.8 then I would expect to use anywhere from 450 mb to 4.5 gb a month from just running my daemon on a standard broadband connnection.

If this was a 3g or 4g network, I would expect 10x that, at $1.8 to $18 a month. This is still affordable, if necessary, if Monero were to require it for usage.

Is .45 to 4.5 gb a month an expected amount of usage of the monero daemon?

I guess that brings us a bit closer.

I think the pools have been stabilized with their payouts for, let's say half their lifetime now, so we're dealing with about a 75% of 50% of 97.6% of 90% of 10315, or about 1132 bytes, which is only about 51% larger than fluffypony explained.

My error was caused the the lack of want to incorporate almost double the amount of time necessary to estimate the size in the first place, resulting in a 10% error.

My second error was caused by apparent lack of incorporating that 1 kb is exactly 1024 bytes and not 1000 bytes, resulting in a ~3% error.

My third error was based on the assumption that the blocks were not based on a database, resulting in a 50% error.

My fourth error was based on that pool payouts were every block, instead of at a certain threshold, which is arguably speculative, resulting in a 75% error.

But the reality is, the acutal blockchain size on my computer right this second is still well over 10kb/tx, regardless of speculative changes or archetypal changes to block structure ........ since april 14 2014 until feb 8 2015, the average transaction size is, in real average reality over 10 kb per transaction.

I understand that a db will mitigate this, and pool payouts will change this, and bytes/kbytes across continents will change this, but the actual size of the file on my computer compared with the real number of people that has made a transaction on the monero network to date, is really 10kb per transaction.

I see that it's not getting bigger, but please, understand that this is a massive number.

it will take time for it to go down, time that I expect will be paid for in whale blood.

I am a holder, a gambler, but not a buyer.