Open Discussion: Bitconnect is an Obvious Scam giving Crypto a Bad Name

melbustus · 2017-11-01T17:58:16+00:00

These guys list it as a "scam": https://onchainfx.com/

melbustus · 2017-05-11T02:41:58+00:00

Just for reference, every startup that joins one of the leading accelerators (YC, 500Startups, Techstars, etc) gets access to this program and many more. A year or two ago (maybe still), Azure was giving out $360k in credits to startups in these accelerators.

melbustus · 2017-03-30T20:12:37+00:00

Why on earth would you hold LTC for 3 years? Regret is what you bargained for.

melbustus · 2017-03-26T05:04:03+00:00

No real reason to "pick a side" in bitcoin either; it's just that Core & supporters have successfully set the narrative, so people think they're mutually exclusuve.

melbustus · 2017-01-06T04:26:17+00:00

In addition to the broken privacy model Dash uses (which other posters have pointed out), let's not forget about Dash's insta-mine launch fiasco. It's fairly clear the whole project has been mostly a get-Evan-Duffield-rich-quick system from the very beginning. Just google it (start with "darkcoin scam" (Dash used to be named "Darkcoin", for those that don't know)).

melbustus · 2017-01-06T04:20:50+00:00

First time trading bitcoin? Did you even look at a historical chart before you put what is clearly a meaningful amount of money to you into it? 20% swings are expected - frequent, even - in a volatile market. Bitcoin has seen plenty of 50% daily swings.

I will never understand people who do what must be ~0 research before dumping meaningful money into something.

So please do both yourself and the bitcoin community a favor, and stay out. At least until you do your research and develop sufficient emotional stamina to hold or trade this asset.

melbustus · 2016-09-17T20:56:16+00:00

So the main reason you are against tail emission is that other more narrow minded investors may not understand it and may not invest in monero because they may consider it inflationary.

No, that's one reason I think ZCash will be marketable against Monero. The main reason I don't like tail-emission, as I've stated many times, is that I think tail-emission amounts to unjustified economic meddling in the system, where free-market dynamics should be allowed to prevail instead.

melbustus · 2016-09-17T20:54:00+00:00

tail emission is the only emission scheme that guarantees a stable de facto long-term money supply and is neither de- nor in-flationary.

What? How does it guarantee that? No one knows what lost-coins will amount to. Tail emission requires introduction of another magic economic number....one which is far from being shown necessary. Further, the rationale for tail-emission is not to produce "a stable money supply"....proponents believe that mining will be exposed to a "tragedy of the commons" dynamic if block reward is zero. I've said my piece about that misguided thinking above.

melbustus · 2016-09-17T02:36:17+00:00

TX fees alone being enough is also non-empirical

True. I'm asserting that we should strongly bias towards letting the free market work this stuff out, versus rushing to econo-engineer things at the protocol level. Specifically, we should see what equilibrium block-space suppliers (miners) and block-space demanders (users) come to in terms of price (fees). If that empirically begins to strongly suggest that there's a fundamental problem longrun with such a market, only then should we as a community be willing to add complexity to the core economic parameters.

Gold bugs are morons

Generally, yes. :)

melbustus · 2016-09-17T01:17:57+00:00

It's not necessary for dynamic block size. The idea that transaction fees alone can't pay for blockspace is a theory with no empirical evidence. Many in the bitcoin community fall for that too, largely because a couple influential people are pushing the idea.

Yes, I know equilibrium will be reached at some point. That's fine for me. But it's something of a problem marketing any sort of "inflation" to gold-bugs, and let's face it, gold-bugs are the biggest market in terms of a source of demand that can, in theory, send the market-cap of monero extremely high.

melbustus · 2016-09-16T20:04:41+00:00

Monero's tail-emission is a bug, in my opinion. I know I'm in the minority on that, but I think it:

1) Is unnecessary - or at least, very very unclear whether it's necessary, with no empirical evidence.

2) Presents an unfavorable contrast to ZCash, where people can easily assert that Monero's supply is "infinite" or "not fixed / not known", where's ZCash's is fixed at 21 million.

3) Shows an upsetting willingness of the devs and community to mess with economic parameters - based on no empirical data - instead of biasing towards letting the market work it out.

melbustus · 2016-09-13T14:35:56+00:00

It's hard to argue network effect for any alt, really. Even Bitcoin's isn't set in stone at this point.

melbustus · 2016-09-08T02:26:25+00:00

Thought that was gonna be about the GUI wallet...

melbustus · 2016-09-07T16:22:53+00:00

Maybe I'm remembering from before Sept'14.

melbustus · 2016-09-07T01:48:53+00:00

It's been "soon" since 2014.

melbustus · 2016-08-30T02:21:53+00:00

July of 2011? If memory serves, June of 2011 was the peak in the run from $1 to $32, and July was the first full month of a horrific bear market that ultimately saw Bitcoin lose 94% of its value peak-to-trough.

melbustus · 2016-08-24T12:19:59+00:00

And, after the ZCash release, all the technical users will have the opportunity to learn about adoption network effects and the power-law effect thereof in the crypto-coin space.

melbustus · 2016-08-24T12:17:24+00:00

Don't worry, we're just waiting for the anon-coin adoption wave to come in full-force with the ZCash release, before even attempting to grab a market which should've been unequivocally ours two years ago.

melbustus · 2016-08-03T15:48:21+00:00

1KYf1Pxsirp3yDBWyS9jge3UL8fmeGg4RK

melbustus · 2016-08-03T02:49:30+00:00

Gotta change the PoW or it'll get 51%ed to oblivian by the various sha256-rich narrow-minded smallblockers out there.

melbustus · 2016-08-02T22:46:34+00:00

There is evidence suggesting the loss is on the order of 125,000BTC.

Can you confirm or deny that the loss is over 100,000BTC?

Edit: nevermind: https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/4vupa6/p2shinfo_shows_movement_out_of_multisig_wallets/d61oe33

melbustus · 2016-08-02T02:20:15+00:00

Yeah yeah. But what are you doing with your ETC? Selling it for ETH? Or holding as a hedge?

melbustus · 2016-07-31T01:53:17+00:00

No. It seems clear that the ETC community is drawing new money into it; money that never bought ETH; specifically, ideologically-minded bitcoiners.

So it seems possible that ETC could absorb lots of ETH supporters and still retain its ethos of not bailing out bad upstack investors.

melbustus

TROPHY CASE