But darkcoin's name has dark in it! Therefore anonymous!

Is Monero truly anonymous? I've been reading up on it and it seems to have some great features.

If this coin has truly solved the problem of anonymity then it's worth a gamble, imo.

the most current cryptonote protocols, like monero, are the best tech going for true anonymity. they have other issues, like being new, untested, less attacked, different mining algorithm, fast emission rate, huge and ever growing blockchain thats stuck in ram currently. so there's work to be done. but yes, anonymous as far as people can tell, to date.

Used to own 1BTC worth of DRK. Sold it with a loss. Value has

I could see the potential market for it, but the network grew to slowly and I have a hard time seeing a network comeback especially with the threat of Ethereum being able to implement most altcoins on ethers. For now I only believe in Bitcoin or altcoins that seems to have some chance of overtaking Ethererum or are not a subset of what you can do with Ethererum.

I can see arguments for Bitshare, MaidSafe etc, but not really for DRK.

Yeah, from what I can gather drk and monero are basically crap coins overall.

I think the anonymity feature could greatly increase demand under certain worst-case economic scenarios, but only if the coin is otherwise functional and trustworthy.

Even if they offered a superior anonymity feature, it would be pretty easy to just cycle coins into Monero as needed, then back out to Bitcoins, and you'd be in pretty good shape.

Anyone know or hear rumors on when Ethereum genesis block is happening?

i heard microsoft, bitlicense. how goes that bitcoin dream now? $336 today on stamp and dropping

Looking partner(s) with big volume bitcoins or who intrested bitcoin. We can talk, PM me

March 2015

Well what do ya know.. BTC has slid and the hashrate is set to go down for the 2nd straight time in 2 years. Tell me again how the network wouldn't massively shrink if it fell to $50?

Right now BTC only seems to go up in sharp little spikes when the buying for that day exceeds the oncoming of 3600 coins. It is short lived because it only happens for a brief time. Things are not looking up for the next few years at minimum. The reward needs to get to a much smaller amount or the price of BTC needs to fall sharply to change the downtrend.

Few years minimum? I doubt that.

i'm gonna HODL.

Time magazine now accepts bitcoin

microsoft accepting BTC couldn't even cause a rally for more then a couple hours.

A BTC ETF is about all that's left that would cause a massive spike. And even then, the same thing would happen as did with the last spike. The short term surge of buyers would dry up and coins would continue getting dumped on the market to buy miners and pay for electricity.

1) Who cares if it shrinks? Just because you declare it to be a catastrophe doesn't make it one.

2) Miners are getting more efficient with time, and there are sunk costs and variable costs.

Yes, we need the price to fall so it will rise.

ya my comment wasn't in relation to there likely to be a price surge. just noted another major corporation accepting it.

Why would anyone think merchant (fake) adoption would add value? It should naturally drop the value. No one is buying coins to spend on MS, and even if they did, it would be mostly neutral.

If you think ETF is the only thing left, lol.

1. Shrinking by a little is not a problem. But if it shrinks by 90% it is.

2. This is a good point. Trying to wrap me head around a few scenerios.

Electricity would be a variable cost. If miners didn't use any electricity, they wouldn't have those monthly expenses to cover. Thus they wouldn't necessarily need to dump the coins on the market to pay the bills. However, if this were the case, wouldn't the sunk costs just become larger as they would buy more miners?

I guess it would make sense that in a sideways or falling market, super efficient miners would make the hashrate decrease less. Because if they ran for free.. nobody would shut any off. So people would just stop buying miners and the hashrate would peak and stay.

Obv none are 100% efficient though and I'm wondering if the same type of miner war would just happen with the efficient ones when they reach a certain price point. Then there would be more miners thus increasing hashrate but also bringing the electricity usage back to what it was.

Like I said.. still kind of trying to wrap my head around the idea.

3. BTC needs to fall to stop falling!

Likelihood: low. Even if it does shrink 90% and fast (even less likely to happen very quickly), it's not really a big deal. Readjustment time is annoying with slow blocks, but whatever, it adjusts, and we are over it. A bunch of people are left with ineffective miners, but this isn't any different than the people who have GPUs or even CPUs now.


Miners who made mistakes buying may still continue to operate even when they realize they made a mistake because the miner is a sunk costs. And yes, operations will go to where they can operate cheaper. There's no "correct" hashrate for the network.

Not really. Things are priced in. The coins coming onto the market aren't something unexpected. They should be priced in already.

Knowing what the correct current price now is quite presumptuous, though. $300 could be vastly overpriced or could be a bargain. But the same applies at $50. And it's entirely possible that the subsidy is much greater than it needs to be to have a secure network. Likely, it's erring on too high early in the project, which is a good place to be. But it should be priced in already. Anyone shocked by the coins shouldn't matter. You have two completely contradictory arguments - 1) too much money is being put into mining and 2) mining isn't profitable enough, therefore problem.

As I've said before, It's not the same thing though. Those GPU's are ineffective because they have essentially no hashing power. If the network shrank 90%, there would be a **** ton of miners with very powerful hashing powers that could be turned on to attack the network. They may be coming out with some more efficient asics, but it's no where near the gap that was between GPU's and asics.

As far as the miners with sunk cost, the fact the hashrate is starting to drop shows that even those with sunk costs are shutting down because it's not even covering the electricity.


As for things being priced in. How do you price in 3600 coins a day? The only way I would think is that you figure how much money you think will flow into BTC on avg per day on top of all the BTC that is sold/spent. So 3600x $335 = $1,200,000.

Those statements aren't contradictory.

Either there's too much, just enough, or too little going into mining. Which is it? You can't have it both ways.


And a drop in price would basically be the same effect of making a lot of GPUs ineffective, but for ASICs. There's a TON of CPU/GPU power out there that could be used to mine Bitcoin right now (and attack or whatever), but people don't, because it's not beneficial, and it would still be more profitable to mine for profit.

If they can be turned on, it would be at significant cost (and that could be used to actually mine and profit) rather than go into the unknown of "oh noes, random miners gonna attack because they be mad").

How do you price in 3600 coins a day? Well, you have a known inflation rate and you need growth to match that or else price would drop in the future . And if you know price is going to drop in the future, you sell now, which drops the price now instead of later. Which lowers the amount of inflation in raw dollars, and makes it easier to "grow" by that much in the future. Or you short. This isn't some random influx of a huge number of coins (say Satoshi came out and decided to sell all his coins, something no one would expect).

We just saw 100k coins come out and make virtually no dent, because everyone knew it was coming and it already was priced in.

If you can be pretty certain the price is going to drop in the future, you can make a killing betting on that. But you can't, because it's already priced in for the most part (obviously having money now is better than having money later!).

Yeah, Internet businesses accepting bitcoin takes money out of the system and depresses the price.

Due to bitcoin's huge flaws compared to other forms of payment/currency/wealth storage at this stage of its development (it really has nothing non-illegal going for until reliable providers exist), only three things will increase the price until Bitcoin mainstreams:

1. Bitcoin for illegal activities, the one thing for which it has utility (growing, but seemingly not fast enough to sustain this price level)
2. The small group hardcore techies buying into the ecosystem (largely finished)
3. Ponzi effects (this is why an ETF matters so much)

These things need to happen at a rate greater than the electricity/hardware cost of the network, and the rate of spending/cashouts. The balance has been entirely the other way (enough for a 65% depreciation in price) for over a year now. What's going to make bitcoin rise at this stage other than ponzi speculation? Knowledge of the protocol has skyrocketed in the last year and the price has declined. Illegal activity has increased and the price has declined. What now?

Saying things are "priced in" here because they're expected is noobish. The market isn't an omniscient beast. It's just a bunch of people making decisions each day to buy or sell, often unrelated to bitcoin in non-hyperactive periods. You can't price in inflation unless enough people are coming in and deliberately buying "because inflation". Which doesn't happen in the real world. Why would someone buy something that's just become less valuable, and will become less valuable in future? They don't. Inflation is a real time flow, not something that gets "priced in". Particularly in a market/ponzi scheme as green and wildly fluctuating as bitcoin.

All the GPU power isn't in the hands of a few select individuals like it is now with mining farms.

It will not be more profitable to mine for bitcoin if the price declines sharply then to attack the network and make money on the next thing.

Also, this isn't the stock market with earnings and such. Those are things that get "priced in".