Technically there's no such thing as death ... but that's a conversation for a different time I suppose...

Yeah, if only we had something like
BitMark
Thanks for joining, and pitching in.   

I probably should pitch in a little bit.

We take the view that multiple projects will develop anon systems, if our userbase demands some form of chain level anonymity, then in the future we will find the most proven mature implementation and add it to the core. That's if they demand it, we hope adoption will drive innovation rather than innovation driving adoption.

Further, we enable off chain pseudonymous instant transactions within every implementation of marking, and feel going off chain in such a manner can do much to make transactions harder to trace and piece together. Whilst also making them very usable by being instant, micro trust. Transparency can still be enabled by users simply saying I am 'address' and also domain/jim and otherdomain/bob and sms:0012348823838, but that's optional if they wish. Of course there is still a chain for larger transactions, cold storage, and fund management.

Regarding the current situation, I cannot yet tell if BCX's attack is social or technical, or both. I only hope that people do not lose their life savings, that is my only concern.

In my honest opinion, as a programmer, if somebody finds a bug in software they should report it, and offer a fix if they have one. More so when money is involved. To use it as an exploit for financial gain, or as a social weapon, or to gain some kind of short lived reputation, I feel is unethical. If I had knowledge of an exploit on any currency, I would personally not do this.

Perhaps brighter, is that many decent minds are coming together to share thoughts and have insightful conversation, without promoting single solutions to technical problems. It looks like the community is starting to change to be less money oriented and more interested in things that really matter. This is reassuring to see.

I'll continue to follow the discussion quietly as I have time.


There are some.

the release structure is why people don't spend it and it's used as a investment vehicle.  anytime you half rewards AND in addition to that make it harder to get coins as there are broader adoptions (mining hash power goes up WITH coin adoption) AND you have a cap on how many coins to release then u can forget about it being used as money.

controlling the supply from the very beginning - maybe releasing a million coins a year period.  would make it closer to a currency.  but even small amount in usage increase for monero with the current release curve in six months will make early adopters freakin rich and this is what ppl react to

people in crypto are not trying to get adoption they are trying to get rich even at the expense of usage/adoption.

this is why in the end.  bitcoin will fial.

crypto should be focused on getting rich with broad adoption then their descisions would follow more towards adoption rather than releasing tons of coins early.  in my opinion ethereum is the ONLY CRYPTO that has a release curve that makes sense for adoption to me.  

Every single one of these coins has an issue with low hash rate (or other issues if using PoS or merged mining) and can easily be attacked on that basis alone, plus the possibility of bugs or devastating attacks on major infrastructure components (exchanges, etc.), plus the very obvious and very real possibility that any particular coin simply goes out of favor and loses all or virtually all of its value.

In short no one should be putting their life savings in any of these coins, BCX or no BCX.

What can you do about it besides being concerned about it?

Personally I think the only solution is for more people to get burned, because that is really the only way people learn. Already things are much better than they were a year ago, and that is largely because people got burned.

BBR is #49 because of deliberate FUD too.

Here is a question for you, anyone in core or anyone for that matter.

We were there since BitMonero was launched by TFT and we all know how we didn't like the reticence, lack of commitment, suspicious association, or not listening to the community regarding name/parameters etc and so Monero was forked. Hypothetically if Boolberry and BitMonero were launched at the same time and we had seen developments in coins up until a certain point before forking, given the developments, updates ,the XMR/BBR arguments amongst a bunch of other things, which code base would the community fork?

You are confusing "backed by known members of community". That cannot be a selling point for a community that hasn't formed yet and are debating which one to fork based on technical differences alone. The community would have jumped on the basis of PoW and emission alone, let alone the other major advancements so far.

to me this is why monero wins.  i even see big names from litecoin over here (know lots of bitcoin people hate litecoin ...) - but i've seen smoothie and carnth.  i think the timeline issue as well as development by consensus of devs vs development by lone ranger is why you'll see monero win.  crowds follow a group of developers quicker than the lone ranger.

that said - own both bbr and xmr.  I see it as a bitcoin/litecoin ecosystem.  i'm actually fine with bbr passing xmr and taking the lead spot i just don't think it's going to happen.

one thing smooth didn't mention is that bbr's release curve is much less of a get rich for early adopters.

i also think in time jl777 and the supernet will be a pure pump and dump for jl's assets at BEST and possibly a scam at worst.  with bbr changing its gui for the jl777/supernet - jl is just using bbr to pump it's supernet.  bbr is the only really legit coin in that mess (imo).

i don't know how to explain it - winning coins don't join groups that include crapcoins and empty promises (btcd and half the coins in the supernet).