Seems as plausible as any other possibility. 2BTC buy wall at 25,000 Sats now. And I was griping about buying at 6,000 Sats late last week.

Perhaps news got out that it's now possible to withdraw them more than 20 at a time if you buy a bunch LOL. I'm assuming it's part Atlantis, part Alts in general doing well, and part GPU / CPU miners essentially being shut out from mining and dumping. Though it does seem odd that ASIC miners who are, presumably, desperate to cover the cost of their purchases aren't dumping into the strength.

Correct. PoS in my opinion encourages hoarding of the coins rather than distribution, whether by outright sale on an exchange or in transactions for goods. It's part of the reason that raising interest rates generally cools down inflation (or at least so the Fed thinks). It encourages saving rather than spending.

The bolded part of your post does seem to be the point of contention. Where we disagree is the extent to which the stress test is known to have been passed. The developers (via Serena) keep alluding to security issues as part of the reason for a delay in switching PoW algo, and I have no real reason to doubt them. They're privy to data which you and I may not possess, or more correctly have neither the time nor inclination to extract from second-by-second network activity. We both have real world occupations that keep us from doing so even if we did have the inclination and skills necessary. That work, and the implementation of changes based on the data, is something I'm happy to leave to the devs.

Once a PoW change is made via hard fork, there's no going back. I'm entirely happy for them to glean every last little bit of knowledge possible from the current perfect storm of circumstances, and then they can go on to learn every lesson available from the PoW switch too. Best of both worlds.

We're not always rational as human beings though, that much is certainly true. My hope is that the critics will come around to the viewpoint that sacrificing a couple of months worth of easy (or marginally easier) mining is well worth it to end up with a more secure and robust network that can handle the volume which might one day come its way. That, I think, will ultimately generate more good will than a faster PoW change.

I think that you and I are generally of a like mind, not just where DERO is concerned but also regarding other projects in which we have a mutual interest, but I don't agree with you 100% on this one.

In real life, something that I'm regularly faced with is stress testing applications, the web server stacks that serve them, and the hardware that it all runs on. One of the most difficult things to come up with is "actual usage" tests (rather than something as simplistic as ApacheBench or similar) that simulate real world usage patterns. Part of the reason that it's so difficult is because there's nothing even close to a standard usage pattern when hosting mixed-application websites belonging to hundreds of different people and with wildly varying traffic patterns, application configurations, resource requirements etc.

One can easily see where the emergence of ASICs and the sudden surge in attacks and the network hash rate has dropped a rather useful "real world" stress test right into the DERO developers' laps. Consider what other projects have done. ITNS was attacked and essentially went offline while a hardfork was implemented and the chain rolled back. XVG was attacked and basically exposed the absolute incompetence of the developers who had no idea how to respond. There are other examples I'm sure, but those are the two that I'm most familiar with.

Imagine that ITNS was more mature and in heavy worldwide usage. Can you picture the sheer chaos caused by a hardfork and roll back of the chain? Even if the usage was related to its primary function (a mechanism for VPN services) and not more widespread commerce, that would mean that payments to providers would essentially be undone for the entire duration of the roll back, and that the VPN services that people had come to rely on were not available to them. Would ITNS be trusted again in such a scenario, even after the fix had been implemented? Maybe. Maybe not. There would be an awful lot of VPN service providers who would be mightily pissed, and rightly so.

DERO, as you rightly said, doesn't currently have an actual use case. There are no end-users to inconvenience, no commercial transactions to be interrupted or rolled back. It's a new blockchain technology in its infancy, and the only people being inconvenienced are GPU and CPU miners. Does the current surge in the network hash rate suck for them in the short term? Sure. Though it's really not that hard to mine something else and exchange it for DERO at a rate far higher than can be obtained by just mining DERO. Example: I can mine less than 3 DERO per day with my measly 10KH/s, but I can mine XMR and buy more than 20 DERO per day. That's not far off what I was mining before the ASIC invasion.

The DERO developers however are getting that real life stress test that I talked about earlier, and they're getting it for free. The network has been attacked, the attacks have failed. The hash rate is 10x what it was pre-ASICs and yet everything continues to run smoothly. Heck, just look at the number of Alpha releases that came one after the other in response to the attacks and network surge. The devs were clearly learning, and learning fast, not just from what was happening to DERO but to other projects too. You simply cannot buy that kind of data about how a blockchain will respond to suddenly changing conditions and / or attacks of various amplitudes.

With that in mind, I'm not at all convinced that an immediate hard fork to ward off the evil ASICs is (or was) necessarily in the best long term interests of the DERO project, its supporters, and its investors. Nothing is learned that way. And when new ASICs come out that can mine v7, Lite, Heavy etc the projects that swept network / security issues under the rug with a simple algo change will find themselves in the same situation again.

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that the DERO devs should be applauded, not castigated, for taking this free-of-charge real world stress test, patiently learning lessons from it and applying them to the underlying blockchain technology, and THEN eventually making a switch to a different algo once they've learned all that they can. In doing so, they're showing the kind of foresight and discipline that we should all want in the devs of a project that we hope will flourish into something massive.

Short term pain for long term gains. I can live with that.

P.S. Wanted to add some quick math since I know you love it as much as I do. Pre-ASICs my 10KH/s was mining ~25-30 DERO per day, and by mining XMR then exchanging it for DERO I can currently buy ~20 DERO per day. Worst case scenario, it's costing me 10 DERO per day. Let's say that DERO doesn't implement a new algo for 2 months - 60 days. The total cost to me is 600 DERO, or at the current price about $540. Will I trade that for all of the lessons that are being learned and put into practice by the devs? Every day, and twice on Sundays. If DERO takes off as we all hope it will, it's well worth that to me to avoid the pains that the ETH network experienced.

I'll second this. TradeOgre has been very smooth for me when trading other coins. Instant order execution, no lags in deposits appearing, and zero withdrawal problems.

All very true. I'm actually an example of the rare second approach and have a plan to get to N number of coins before Smart Contracts are ready. Viewed through that prism, and when I fully expect DERO to be well into the hundreds of dollars in the long term, the difference between $0.35 and $0.50 is indeed trivial.

You are absolutely correct that the percentage difference is quite large though, and that I'm probably one of very few investing and mining with that particular approach.

It's a little bit of a catch-22 I think - with higher volume the price would be less volatile, however I suspect that by the time DERO hits one or more of the big exchanges it will be far too late to buy at a price measured in cents.

The whole exchange is, as we like to say back in the Motherland, "as useful as a chocolate teapot". Too bad as it's currently far better to mine XMR and buy DERO. My poor old HD7950s with a combined ~10KH/s would currently get 5.5 DERO per day, or I can mine XMR and buy 7x that many. Easy math.

I tried to take advantage too, but the ever reliable Stocks.Exchange managed to lose two XMR deposits for almost a week. They got it sorted out this morning about half a day too late to pick up some cheap DERO. Sigh.

Having said that, if you take the long term view that DERO is headed to a price in the triple digits (USD) then the difference between $0.35 and $0.50 is trivial.

Looking forward to the announcement. Hopefully it's an ASIC killer and we can get back to mining.

You'll find life much more pleasant if you use the ignore button for him/her/it. Same behavior in other threads, never reads anything and appears to have the IQ of a houseplant.

Good, that simplifies it even more then.

Do you ever read anything, or are you just waiting for even the slightest excuse to whine like a toddler who didn't get his favorite apple sauce?

You can't open the old wallet file in the new wallet-cli directly. You can either:

1) Restore your old wallet from the 25 word seed in the new wallet-cli.

2) Create a brand new wallet in the new wallet-cli and send all your coins from old to new.

Of course this has only been explained multiple times in the last few pages as well as on Slack, so how could you be expected to know.

Excellent, happy it helped! Even happier not to be on the receiving end of a snappy response 

I don't have a Win 10 box to check this on, but a couple of suggestions:

1) When you right click the title bar of the command prompt window, do you have an "Edit" sub-menu? Win 7 does, and it has a "Paste" option.

2) Also in Win 7 you can left click the icon that looks like a C:\ DOS window (upper left corner of the command prompt window) and choose "Edit" -> "Paste".

Maybe a tad dramatic. It's trading at roughly double the levels of a week ago, and in the upper 1/3rd of its range. There's also a greater volume of buy orders stacked up than there has been since the first day or two of trading.

You also have to give credence to the extremely strong probability that these ASICs have already been mining for quite some time before release. Unlikely that Baikal haven't been squeezing all that they could out of them before releasing them to the public. Therefore in the short term it's not clear how much, if any, hash power will be added to the totality of CN coins once they ship.

Dodgedicer and cleder: If I send you both 1,000 ITNS each, will you both leave this thread and not return? That way we can get back to important things like the product instead of endless carping about $10 worth of free stuff.

Anybody using these 6 nodes in their config should remove them ASAP please. I was not made aware of the fix, nor the recommendation to use other nodes exclusively, until I read it in the forum post just now. For the sake of stability they have been permanently removed.

Nevermind. At least 4 competing chains now.

Current market cap is approximately $10.9m

Ask yourself this: how many coins on CoinMarketCap have market caps 4-5x that (and more) with nothing to offer but an idea or a roadmap? This project already has a fully functional platform, with an updated interface due shortly, almost 150 BTC in trading volume in just the last 24 hours, and an upcoming interview with Tech Crunch. That's just the short term.