Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 1,876 results by chennan
I find it's usually best to PM yahoo and I'm sure he'll contact the necessary people, though not sure if he's stepped down from the role of campaign manager on this one.
I actually messaged yahoo before about joining back in with the campaign after thinking that this campaign was deserted and he told me he was no longer associated with the coinroll campaign.
Not exactly sure what happened, but yeah. ...
Masari seems to be the only legit other cryptonote coin.
You're bordering on blatant promotion here. Come on.
MSR is ranked roughly #600 on coinmarketcap. It could have a great future and if so might become worthwhile to discuss as a direct competitive threat to Monero some day. but until then I have a hard time believing there aren't a good share of 600 others that are more relevant to this thread.
Smooth apologies. I hold the same legitimacy for Aeon as well. MSR appears interesting for the sharding, but haven't studied the design thoroughly yet. Not advertising the coin. I only meant to stimulate a discussion around the interaction of XMR with smaller, lighter coins, which could be the technical scheme required to face a large economy's volume of transactions; and its impact on the price, long-term.
Agreed as well, even though Smooth has never tried to stimulate conversation about his project over in this thread or other coin threads... so you have a good point about how they probably hold the same legitimacy trying to "tweak" some things to practically the same codebase as Monero to make them more "lightweight", he never goes around and tries to "preach the word" to other monero people here or anywhere else besides explaining his viewpoints on the Aeon rebase over at /r/Aeon or over at the other Aeon threads here on Bitcointalk.
Just for everyone who doesn't know what people are referring too with the Venus project/Zeitgeist... this is the relevant part of the documentary of what is being discussed:
https://youtu.be/dlPs10GSJjQ?t=1h30m7s
The only thing that worries me about this is I feel that in order for this to work at all on earth, we must be ready and capable to travel and develop cities on other planets as well. That's why I'm hoping this whole SpaceX thing pans out.
https://youtu.be/dlPs10GSJjQ?t=1h30m7s
In a Resource Based Economy all goods and services are available to all people without the need for means of exchange such as money, credits, barter or any other means. For this to be achieved all resources must be declared as the common heritage of all Earths inhabitants. Equipped with the latest scientific and technological marvels mankind could reach extremely high productivity levels and create abundance of resources.
The only thing that worries me about this is I feel that in order for this to work at all on earth, we must be ready and capable to travel and develop cities on other planets as well. That's why I'm hoping this whole SpaceX thing pans out.
I don't participate in any for of shady business with the use of bitcoin or any other crypto currency in general. The use of bitcoin and other crypto currency should be discourage in totality as it's negative on bitcoin and crypto currency is enormous.
So then what... just simply don't use Bitcoin? What you are proposing is for Bitcoin to be a speculative, profit generating, speculation ponzi scheme game; which sadly it already kinda is. What gives Bitcoin value is the fact that it can be used as a currency that doesn't require third parties to verify the legitimacy of those funds over the Internet.
To prove my point. Hey, hey hey.... would you want to convert any of your holdings into Bitconnect?
https://youtu.be/lCcwn6bGUtU
yeah probably not.
Why would anyone with sane mind would use Bitcoin for legal payments. Either use any other reasonably efficient currency like ETH or XRP. Effect of proof of Work on BTC is very hard . It may be usable when lightning network comes inaction
Wtf? Proof of Work enables the security of the network, this doesn't refer to the backlog of transactions on the network at all. I actually thought you were about to say just use Venmo, Paypal, Visa, Etc; which would make sense, but using Eth, which is a dApp token doesn't make any sense and still can't really understand why it is being used as a currency like Bitcoin.
Crap, I thought the signature pay period ended on Tuesdays... ehh, oh well. Just wanted to let you know that I'm going to go ahead and drop out of the campaign. Thanks for the add and the first week of pay 
Hope all goes well for the campaign.
Hope all goes well for the campaign.For 8 months the issue was 1100 coins. Max supply marked at 18,4 million coins. That is for 8 months 6% of volume was mined. Given a meager sales volumes, but a large drawdowns, I conclude that Aeon emission is too large and don't give the price to hold at high values.
For example, during the same period, less than 2% BTC was mined.
For example, during the same period, less than 2% BTC was mined.
Yes 1.1 million AEON was mined in last 8 months. What was not that huge, was way more in first 3 years. But emision is drastically slowing down. There will be way less mined in next 8 months. and then even less in additional 8 months.
Actually in last 8 months 750k BTC was mined. So is not that much off actually. Bitcoin emision increased 4.4% in last 8 months. AEON emision increased 7% in last 8 months. That is a difference but not drastic. And AEON will catch BTC before next BTC halving for sure.
Whats more intriguing is the fact that there is the 18.6(?) limit of coins plus tail emission to account for with both AEON and Monero. So you can compare the emissions with both BTC and AEON/XMR, but you must keep in mind that 18.6 mil cap.
What will happen to the coin when the supply reaches the limit?
Will the Aeon network able process transactions without miners?
I understand that this isn't the new question, and it's relevant for any POW-coin. Where I can read reflections on this?
Yeah thats what the tail emission is for. With Bitcoins supply limit, the theory is is that people will be able to compensate the miners enough through only fees to have their txs included in blocks they mine... for XMR/AEON they have a steady 3 (I think) tail emission that goes on forever after the hard limit of (I think) 18.6 million coins have been mined.
For 8 months the issue was 1100 coins. Max supply marked at 18,4 million coins. That is for 8 months 6% of volume was mined. Given a meager sales volumes, but a large drawdowns, I conclude that Aeon emission is too large and don't give the price to hold at high values.
For example, during the same period, less than 2% BTC was mined.
For example, during the same period, less than 2% BTC was mined.
Yes 1.1 million AEON was mined in last 8 months. What was not that huge, was way more in first 3 years. But emision is drastically slowing down. There will be way less mined in next 8 months. and then even less in additional 8 months.
Actually in last 8 months 750k BTC was mined. So is not that much off actually. Bitcoin emision increased 4.4% in last 8 months. AEON emision increased 7% in last 8 months. That is a difference but not drastic. And AEON will catch BTC before next BTC halving for sure.
Whats more intriguing is the fact that there is the 18.6(?) limit of coins plus tail emission to account for with both AEON and Monero. So you can compare the emissions with both BTC and AEON/XMR, but you must keep in mind that 18.6 mil cap.
The Central banks made a laughing stock of themselves post the 2008 meltdown. Revelations regarding the nexus between mortgage companies, insurers, investment banks and the regulator should be enough for anyone to never dare to trust them anymore.
What the article says may very well be true. Their is a resurgent China which is making things difficult for US and other Western countries. The US/ West cannot cut down on their expenses without risking the scenario of a Russia/ China dominance or being seen as weak in the wake of of Jihadist terrorism. This brings us to a situation where they need to print more and spend more. This is very similar to the examples given in the article.
If this does happen, it'll be a painful and long process. In today's connected world, we don't want this to happen. If a decision has to be taken on replacing the reserve currency, can it be taken without hurting world stability? I don't think it's possible for such a thing to happen in a non-violent, prudent decision kind of way.
What the article says may very well be true. Their is a resurgent China which is making things difficult for US and other Western countries. The US/ West cannot cut down on their expenses without risking the scenario of a Russia/ China dominance or being seen as weak in the wake of of Jihadist terrorism. This brings us to a situation where they need to print more and spend more. This is very similar to the examples given in the article.
If this does happen, it'll be a painful and long process. In today's connected world, we don't want this to happen. If a decision has to be taken on replacing the reserve currency, can it be taken without hurting world stability? I don't think it's possible for such a thing to happen in a non-violent, prudent decision kind of way.
The Central Banks never necessarily caused the housing market crisis, but rather it was the "too big to fail" banks that did. They lended out money like crazy in "subprime mortgages" that were pretty much guaranteed to fail, but the banks wanted to sell as many as they could and irresponsibly make people enclosed in debt with no end in sight.
Sure, Central Banks do other irresponsible stuff, but that has to do more with the money supply, not necessarily loans to everyday normal people.
What was the embarrassing part was the reaction the government had and bailed out the greedy CEO fucks at the "too big to fail" banks because they deemed them too crucial to the economy to let them fail... "free markets" my ass.
You're right about the "too big to fail" banks. I feel the central bank was complicit in this because they are supposed to be the regulator right?
The bubble that was forming due to all those mortgage derivative bonds couldn't have escaped the attention of the regulator/ watchdogs. They just chose to look the other way while credit rating agencies stamped them as AAA. Though most reports absolve them of all blame, pointing on the lack of focussed oversight, it still is hard/ naive to believe that the officials involved were completely clueless. There is a good documentary by Michael Moore on this.
And absolutely yes, the bail-outs for all these millionaire CEOs and the increase in their payouts was just a "Fuck You" to the common people I guess.
Oh yeah, I'm pretty sure there are ways you can pass the blame around to all banking and even governmental entities about what happened during 2008, but it just kills me that the actual people who decided to make those terrible business decisions, whether it was morally right or wrong, wasn't allowed to fail as a business due to those bad decisions. I can't stand when we boast that we are a free capitalistic society that allows freedom to achieve whatever we want when we don't allow businesses who bad deals are allowed to be saved and the same CEO's remain on top for the "good of the people".
It really depends on for what purpose do you need your tokens. Because with ethereum you have many people that have built the infrastructure with many smart contracts and dapps and it might be better in a sense that you can find a lot more information, ask many more people for help etc.Although ETH has it's own decentralized exchanges which other people have built such as EtherDelta.
On waves it is much easier to deploy your tokens as you can do it with simple GUI and thus it makes it faster to deploy tokens. On the other side Waves might be cheaper. Waves might be better in a sense of volume, because there is only one DEX where most of the people trade, where as within ethereum you have different exchanges with different volumes.
On waves it is much easier to deploy your tokens as you can do it with simple GUI and thus it makes it faster to deploy tokens. On the other side Waves might be cheaper. Waves might be better in a sense of volume, because there is only one DEX where most of the people trade, where as within ethereum you have different exchanges with different volumes.
I completely agree, it's funny how people get so tied up on the price of something thinking that only the price and market movements of a coin justify its usefulness. Have you ever tried to develop or use a dApp? If not I would research how too first before I would put any money into it so you could see the use case yourself. ... If you yourself can't justify using it, what makes you think it would have any value to anyone else you personally know?
Edit: I think this is more suitable for altcoin discussion sections
The article talks about "Deflation in the unit of account". The assumption is for a future world where bitcoin with a fixed and decreasing supply has replaced fiat and it, supposedly, results in lesser and lesser amount of currency being available to cater to wage requirements.
This also assumes that wages cannot be lowered as they are "sticky". That is, workers/ people want wages to increase, not decrease. (in absolute terms)
The way i am understanding this in very layman terms is that "There won't be enough BTC to distribute for everybody because it's supply is decreasing with time".
This looks like a compulsive argument. What if the majority holders just decide to HODL all of the BTC and never spend it?? What if they just decide to die fiat-less and leave their bitcoin stored on the blockchain with the private key destroyed.. Is it that kind of a scenario..??
What if BTC is the verifiable standard against which other currencies are pegged like they have always been against USD? It would be so much better if these economists were a little more open-minded and focused on informing public about how a publicly audit-able reserve currency would benefit the banking system. This would be a much better use of their time than trying to find such silly excuses against BTC.
This also assumes that wages cannot be lowered as they are "sticky". That is, workers/ people want wages to increase, not decrease. (in absolute terms)
The way i am understanding this in very layman terms is that "There won't be enough BTC to distribute for everybody because it's supply is decreasing with time".
This looks like a compulsive argument. What if the majority holders just decide to HODL all of the BTC and never spend it?? What if they just decide to die fiat-less and leave their bitcoin stored on the blockchain with the private key destroyed.. Is it that kind of a scenario..??
What if BTC is the verifiable standard against which other currencies are pegged like they have always been against USD? It would be so much better if these economists were a little more open-minded and focused on informing public about how a publicly audit-able reserve currency would benefit the banking system. This would be a much better use of their time than trying to find such silly excuses against BTC.
Great counter about the fact that we can't even audit the Federal Reserve and has been the soap box so many libertarians rightfully stand on all the time. It's funny how people always argue about how Bitcoin money is fake because they can't seem to understand how coins are "created" and just see it as numbers on a screen, when they fail to realize that their same worry is exactly what's happening to their precious fiat where the war on cash has already been commenced.
I still can't believe hundreds of millions of people trust 8-12 people or so to pull the strings to the national (and global) economy without being so much as watched in any way
Quote
The issue, as the piece explains, is that deflation in the unit of account leads to unemployment, thanks to the fact that wages generally don't adjust downward. Mr Hearn suggests that the idea that deflation might be costly is controversial among economists. I must disagree; it really isn't. Economists would love it if he were right that deflation didn't matterthat money, in economists' parlance, is neutral. If wages adjusted quickly and cleanly then they could go back to applying really straightforward classical economic models and everyone's life would be simpler. But the data are very clear on this point; wages are "sticky", and so deflation in the currency in which wages are set is costly.
What they could mean when they say that wages "don't adjust downward" is an employee who is paid 5 pieces of gold, can't be paid 4 pieces of gold later so that more gold can be paid to CEO's or one percenters. Deflationary money supplies do not inflate at a high rate which makes wealth redistribution more difficult.
The way things are now, an employee who is paid $15 an hour in 1980 is paid significantly more than an employee in 2018 who makes $15 an hour due to inflation. Numerically it may seem like the pay is the same, but the money supply is inflating which reduces the actual purchasing power over time. This could be what they mean when they say "wages adjust downward". Inflating the money supply in order to give the wealthy a pay raise, without it being transparent and obvious to everyone.
So, the question being debated here may be how to get away with paying employees less (wages adjusting downwards) with deflationary currencies in order to give one percenters a raise. Frameworks like trickle down economics have been devised to justify this precedent in the past. That could be the area where all of the money in economics is being thrown, and so like they say necessity is the mother of all invention
That's an interesting point, I never considered the wage increases also take into account CEO/one percenters getting basically the same, if not more percentage wage increases on top of all of that.
The bolded part is actually a pretty interesting question in itself. My personal opinion is that a coin that doesn't have a true hard cap but a very small tail emission is probably the best approach of something like this. hitting a limit and letting a small block reward go to miners to keep the supply somewhat level around the cap (due to loss of private keys, etc.) can help keep the coins not go hyperdeflationary (?)... idk.
Resource based economy with profit removed from the equation.
I'd like to see this happen. Anyone know of anything in the works that might make this possible?
Are you talking about a socialist economy? Where everything is focused on welfare Maximization of the citizens of the economy? Which also goes along side the laissez-faire economy? That sort of most likely never exists because if everything is done as per welfare motive, the economy won't survive. Give it a thought and you'll see. I'd like to see this happen. Anyone know of anything in the works that might make this possible?
I get what you are saying that a nation trying to become more communist in the way it does business doesn't go well with the global economy because of the fact everyone still adheres to the rules of capitalism... but I think what he is trying to say is what if there was some sort of resolution amongst the big impact nations/unions (US, Russia, China, EU, etc) that will adhere to a more communistic, or better yet, a governance system that hasn't been even tried before that is solely based on all humans trying to live prosperly without work and reliance on automation to solve problems, like what is proposed on the Zeitgeist documentaries. The question I think might be what type of governance system could make this at all possible.
I think you are overestimating the risks of hard forking in the first place. I mean, think about the time, money and effort that goes into companies, or other for profit small mining operations, to develop ASICs... To keep actively knocking them off the network, I think, will dissuade people from even attempting I would think.
Using hard forks as means to maintain the decentralized nature of the coin is far superior than letting more centralization to occur imo.
Using hard forks as means to maintain the decentralized nature of the coin is far superior than letting more centralization to occur imo.
Resource based economy with profit removed from the equation.
I'd like to see this happen. Anyone know of anything in the works that might make this possible?
While ideologically this sounds great, there is little incentive to participate in said economy. Profit drives EVERYTHING in this world, especially under corporate models. This scenario could be possible in an economy that includes a basic income.I'd like to see this happen. Anyone know of anything in the works that might make this possible?
Not really... I mean, case and point is the project/experiment of Bitcoin. It's an open sourced project where the community and devs participate in the code base/market/economy and created in a completely altruistic type of way. I think people will still do things and participate and provide goods and services that they enjoy doing which is a good thing. Why have jobs out there available for people to slave away at a cash register at McDonalds when there is no need and computers can act as the cash register? The fact is humans are becoming unemployable due to computers and autmoation making things easier... so why keep an economy intact where things absolutely needed to be done by humans?
I mean let's face it, it's easier to handle money electronically than with papers in the hand. And if we compare fiat on the bank account and the blockchain money guesses who have the advantage...well not quite yet, but the potential for the blockchain is huge.
The advantage of electronic money is the major reason that bitcoin and digital currency have not been dismissed or jettison. The usage of electronic money helps in the understanding, usage and near adoption of cryptocurrency. It would have been a total failure if there was nothing like electronic money in the first place. This is why we still hear of bitcoin and altcoins, otherwise, it would have been long forgotten to the anals of history.
You using your debit card and transferring money for beer to a friend using Venmo isn't the same the same as "digital cash" though.. For one thing you have to trust a third party to be able to verify your funds. Using cash you can verify someone paid you and that you have the money by looking down in your hand and seeing that you are physically holding cash.
The great part about Bitcoin is that it has both the benefits of being digital and also having no third party needed to verify that you are holding cash in your "wallet".
The Central banks made a laughing stock of themselves post the 2008 meltdown. Revelations regarding the nexus between mortgage companies, insurers, investment banks and the regulator should be enough for anyone to never dare to trust them anymore.
What the article says may very well be true. Their is a resurgent China which is making things difficult for US and other Western countries. The US/ West cannot cut down on their expenses without risking the scenario of a Russia/ China dominance or being seen as weak in the wake of of Jihadist terrorism. This brings us to a situation where they need to print more and spend more. This is very similar to the examples given in the article.
If this does happen, it'll be a painful and long process. In today's connected world, we don't want this to happen. If a decision has to be taken on replacing the reserve currency, can it be taken without hurting world stability? I don't think it's possible for such a thing to happen in a non-violent, prudent decision kind of way.
What the article says may very well be true. Their is a resurgent China which is making things difficult for US and other Western countries. The US/ West cannot cut down on their expenses without risking the scenario of a Russia/ China dominance or being seen as weak in the wake of of Jihadist terrorism. This brings us to a situation where they need to print more and spend more. This is very similar to the examples given in the article.
If this does happen, it'll be a painful and long process. In today's connected world, we don't want this to happen. If a decision has to be taken on replacing the reserve currency, can it be taken without hurting world stability? I don't think it's possible for such a thing to happen in a non-violent, prudent decision kind of way.
The Central Banks never necessarily caused the housing market crisis, but rather it was the "too big to fail" banks that did. They lended out money like crazy in "subprime mortgages" that were pretty much guaranteed to fail, but the banks wanted to sell as many as they could and irresponsibly make people enclosed in debt with no end in sight.
Sure, Central Banks do other irresponsible stuff, but that has to do more with the money supply, not necessarily loans to everyday normal people.
What was the embarrassing part was the reaction the government had and bailed out the greedy CEO fucks at the "too big to fail" banks because they deemed them too crucial to the economy to let them fail... "free markets" my ass.
If anyone was thinking that people in power weren't ever going to attempt to try regulate the markets as best as that can; I think you don't understand the full scope of what Bitcoin and other crypto currencies are trying to change. The fact that fiat is the fundamental thing that has been used in the corrupt times as of recent, doesn't surprise me that governments are trying to hone down on exchanges and other markets that deal in crypto.
Re: My $36,000 Invesment Turned Out Now $12,000 - Still Holding
Most of the holders have had the same experience and are like 80% down from the ATH. When I started in this space I would go mental in this kind o situation but now after surviving couple of dips of this nature I have a very phlegmatic mindset about it.
You can think of it as a sort of "good" introduction to Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies. I know for me I was introduced around the time when the first "major pump" to 1K started in 2013 after sort of hearing about it before through other forums. I freaked out at first when my investment at first started to dwindle and after doing more due diligence I started to realize and understand some of the fundamentals about Bitcoin and bockchain... hopefully other people who got brought in from the 2017 hype will start to do their due diligence now as well.