Aeon (Cash) — A “Smooth-Short” Comedy

Seriously folks, I created a short radio-like comedy about the creator of Aeon Coin — a cryptocurrency that has surged in recent weeks.

I never thought it would.

So, I need to take Smooth down a notch.

Sincerely,

You Pal…

Jack Shorebird.


The Comedy Audio Short: Interview with Smooth.

(I think he’s dangerous!)

Advertisements

Zcash v. Monero: The Friday Night Fights

Hello Crypto Dudes and Dudettes,

This is just a nightcap, a final bit of juice for the day.

Recent internet chatter pits Zcash against Monero. It seems that some Zcash supporters are citing or linking to an older evaluation of Monero. One that is not so glowing. Hints that Monero is/was traceable.

Is it? The question seems to hang like bad meat in a broken freezer – in South Africa.

Other allegations imply that Monero is Mickey Mouse, essentially.

Apparently, Edward Snowden has weighed in. Zcash it is.

The peanut gallery is crying foul. Snowden is a shill, a paid endorser…really?

But shouldn’t you at least consider a private cryptocurrency? Bitcoin is traceable. Why wait?

So, what’s in your wallet? Governments already know. And some hackers.

Choose wisely.

And if top academics did help to develop Zcash, who cares if they did not “implement” the actual coin?

That’s one lame argument.

If a rocket scientist shows you how it’s done and you build a brand new shiny rocket, it’s still a rocket. Even if you used old Nazi science – old V2 methods – for some of your “code.” (I’m hinting at the use of bitcoin code within Zcash.)

We know that bitcoin works. We have never seen Bytecoin take off like that. (Note : the Bytecoin link may not work.)

Monero has moved onto higher ground – as – I might say – it’s a “people’s coin.” Grass roots.

Zcash is beholden to their sponsors, right?

But that does not mean we cannot or should not profit from those who back Zcash and therefore “pump” the coin.

The continued success of Zcash – a very volatile coin – is still in the weeds. But judging by bitcoin’s success, is Zcash the best of both worlds? Private or public? You can show and tell or…not, right?

To defend Monero – that it too is based on the works of academia – is disingenuous.

We know those who developed the Zcash/Zerocash process. We cannot verify the existence of a single coder or developer of CryptoNote/CryptoNight – Bytecoin – not one.

And yes, I realize that we do not know Satoshi Nakamoto or his counterpart in the CryptoNote universe – Nicolas van Saberhagen.

That’s not my point.

This article helps to clear the air a bit.

Monero/Aeon, remain the underdog(s) – for now – as far as I’m concerned. And lately Aeon has spiked. We’ll see if it holds.

Certainly, Monero and Aeon are better at holding the line than Zcash. That’s a tell.

Apparently, Edward Snowden doesn’t have time to check the crypto-markets to verify this fact.

That’s all for now.

The Ugly Truth About Bytecoin

 


Why do they hide?

In my recent audio blog, I review some important aspects of Bytecoin. Things they — the Teto-Team and Jenny — don’t seem to want to talk about.

Audio blog: The Ugly Truth about Bytecoin

 

Bitcoin: “Attack of the Blockchain Clones”


Dear Cryptocurrency Enthusiast:

Do you ever feel that some people need a good kick in the brain can?

Recently, I came upon a political night-rider imparting an alleged moral foundation. An alleged gem upon the cryptocurrency seashore. Only, it was a sharp stone.

I had discovered his name before, but until recently, never endeavored to explore the influential nature of his words. Never, do I hope he will be more than a crab upon the shore of true freedom. An insect at the beach.

But just in case…

I think now is a good time to mention him. Before your children say his name. Before you feel ignorant, and just in case he makes a name for himself. Which, he won’t.

Before all of that, you can say, “Yep, I have heard of him and Karl Marx. Do you remember the Jews that the Nazi’s killed? Great, I’m glad that the government schools still teach that. Well, anyway, same idea…”

***

His name is Amir Taaki, but he is not the real issue. It’s his personal software that is questionable — the programming in his brain.

Taaki is a coder of some repute, as well as an anarchist of vague degree. Meaning, as far as I can judge, a person who does not understand that an objective form of government is required to maintain individual freedoms. Therefore, Taaki is a liability upon the world stage. A regurgitation of the past.

Taaki is involved with bitcoin, having worked on Dark Wallet, a precursor to OpenBazaar and other projects, but that does not concern me as much as one of his potential teachers. The person or people who have coded him.

Taaki appears to “lack philosophy” as he implied when he was in Syria. What does that say about the man? It says the name of another man, actually. An American hero some might have called him. Others refer to him as a philosophical villain.

His name is Murray Bookchin. He was mentioned by Taaki, when he (Taaki) was fighting in Syria with the Kurds, against ISIS. Supposedly he had just come to lend support, but not to fight. A self-imposed duty called. He took up arms.

There is a warning here. Historians already know of its potential significance. It is not about what Lenin did to Russia in this case, but what America (via Bookchin) is doing to Syria. Invading Syria through what is called Communalism. Not communism exactly, but a shade of it, certainly.

Bookchin was an American anarchist, libertarian socialist and political theorist. He often reflected upon class struggle, was an avowed anti-capitalist, meaning that he was essentially against free and fair trade. He appears to have influenced Taaki and some factions fighting in Syria, for the greater glory, naturally. But it is not the glory these factions are after, as much — and more probably — a sort of militaristic socialism.

Anarchism, is of course, gang rule, with no objective laws, where the most ruthless criminal can rule just as easily as a moral king. One cannot conveniently redefine it, but Bookchin tried. Taaki is trying.

The US, as of yet, is not ruled by anarchist fiefdoms. We are not yet at the stage of full revolt. We are not ready to substitute one form of tyranny for a Bookchin Communalistic Paradise. Nor should Syria be led down the Bookchin road.

Bookchin’s revamping of communism is a claxon. Know that the bells have sounded. Long before Syria, Turkey, Iran and others – fell. If that will happen. If it does, and I hope it won’t, fingers will point. They will point at Bookchin.

The disease is spreading.

And please tell me that Bookchin and Blockchain are unrelated.

Bookchin wanted majority vote, but not majority rule and he tried to explain that one for years. He also wanted assembly-led enterprises. In other words, no free enterprise at all. A type of social dictatorship, but not quite of the communist model. It is often referred to as a “communalist” type of organization. Community led — scratch that — community ordered, comrade.

Looking through the Murray Bookchin filter, as some are want to do, lends lethality to the drumbeat call for decentralization. Not for the blockchains, but for humans. The only difference is that humans are not chained in the first place. We are not part of some giant cloned ledger.

There is no comparison between the technology of bitcoin and individuals.

Anarchy, as espoused by the Bookchin-ites, is not decentralization as some might ask you to believe. It is disorganization. It is decentralization of organization. Divide and conquer. Disintegration. A rapid breakdown of morally based laws (we can argue about that) in favor of range of the moment substitution. Pragmatism v. reason. Honesty v. “get it done.”

And here is the social mirror some are suggesting we hold up to the blockchain ledger. If bitcoin or better yet, if some private cryptocurrency ledger can organize an accounting method, where everyone’s currency is safe and secure, why can’t humans be like blockchain ledgers? Hold the power to self-manage? A type of self-organized dialectic.

Dear readers, we are not Blockchain Clones. We are individual people, all with different abilities and desires. Our intellectual savings differ. Our ability to mine knowledge, to produce information, to educate, are all different. We are not cryptocurrency clones. We were never social “smart contracts.” We are different. Blockchains are identical.

The ideas of cryptocurrency decentralization are not transferable to the human context. Blockchains are not anarchistic representations of social structures, but orderly algorithms without emotions or desires. They are arbitrary and robotic rules of math, editable by humans. Controlled by a few humans.

Pause here. We own the process of blockchains. Not the opposite.

If we transfer the decentralization aspect of blockchains to society, we become numbers on the social ledger. And some few “developers” will control the technology of the social blockchain. A small core group. Hence, the idea — the false flag — that blockchains are decentralized only refers to the nature of the ledger. In fact, the technology is highly centralized.

To gift humanity with the ability to transact, without the necessity of an intermediary? Without humanity? A digital promissory note to ensure that contractual transactions are completed? That is the promise, right?

Where is the human watchdog? Answer? Blank out. Who is watching the developers? All of us? Can we influence their process? Maybe. If they refuse to give us what we want? We can use Litecoin, right? We can try some of that dark net stuff — Monero.

But where are we then? Back to yet another centralized blockchain. A programmed ledger we can clone and use. We only hope the developers stay on the job. Hope they don’t act in a way that will destroy the value in our chosen coin.

This being the case, to engender trust, the math of cryptocurrency should be provable, verifiable, and secure. It should be objective and not subject to the whims of cryptocurrency developers.

This is a tall order. It requires human cooperation. It requires auditors. It needs checks and balances. Some type of transparency.

The people who control the math should have watchdogs at their heels. Inspectors, not beholden to the math-makers in any way, should have complete viewing access to the code. If something is amiss, they should report it to the public or be jailed for complicity.

It is called the “human element.” Imperfect, for sure. But why it is required? Obvious, is it not? Some humans steal. And, what does absolute “monetary” power do to humans? What does any kind of communal power do? It corrupts them.

Bitcoin can be audited. Anyone can access the code and audit the system. Anyone can trace any transaction, which, unfortunately, is unfavorable to human privacy. The other problem is, as I have mentioned, bitcoin is centrally controlled by a handful of developers.

Machines are oblivious. Algorithms have no feelings. They are not concerned about where you buy your booze, that you have a health problem or if you like romance fiction — with photos.

Maybe the auditors cannot read a name, find a home address without a court order, in some cases, but much can be inferred from the transaction records of bitcoin and clan. Much privacy is lost.

Could this have been the noob “selling point?” We are all one? Your money is mine, sayeth the dev? Bitcoin or Nirvana? Decentralization at all costs? Why Taaki might support the idea for human consumption? Developers are our new rulers?

To ensure confidentiality, bitcoins are sometimes transferred via mixers to stop the auditors in their tracks. But there are other problems.

Suffice it to say, bitcoin coders are still working on Dandelion. A way to secure transactions — to obfuscate IP addresses and so on. And there are arguments about the process as well.

Privacy is a difficult maneuver in the cryptocurrency realm. Many projects exist. Dash, Monero, CloakCoin, NavCoin, Aeon, and even ZCash. The idea is to obfuscate the transactions in such a way as to keep everything as private as possible.

The problem then becomes one of trust. How do we trust a cryptocurrency that cannot be audited in certain ways? Shall we watch the “old guard?” The bankers?

Answer? Yep. Profit from their “transition.” Why not? Profit as JP Morgan Chase adopts Zacash software. Why not?

Let’s consider a real-world comparison example. I mean, even if privacy based blockchains might fail in the wild, as it were, it does not mean that governments won’t take up the mantle of public (transparent) bitcoin.

Cash is an anathema, to highly centralized governments.

If I go to the store and use cash to buy a soda, the clerk takes my money, gives me my change and I walk away with my drink. There’s no record of me personally buying that soda, in most cases. My cash was private. I stored it in my wallet, walked into a strange store, didn’t care to know the address and exited with a cool drink.

If I’m a bad guy, I can use my cash to buy a Russian Suitcase Nuke, but it’s risky. Complicated. I can do a dead drop, place my cash in a bag and hope the suitcase is left at an agreed upon location.

As a terrorist, I could exchange cash for plastic explosives in Syria, say near the Iranian border, but I should probably have a bunch of soldiers with big Kalashnikov rifles to protect me.

If I’m a cocaine dealer, I can stand on a curb, risk being arrested or robbed and shot at any second, and accumulate cash.

How can criminals magnify cash (currency) using a private cryptocurrency, however?

Nearly instant international payments — until they are stopped.

A security nightmare, but freedom and security have been at odds for a long time. A balance most difficult to find. Betwixt and between centralization and personal security. The desire to be free and desire to be safe. Power and irrelevance. Privacy and publicity.

Cash can’t fly, but banks can — even unwittingly — assist with international criminal remittances. But why pay the bank fees and risk investigations by Interpol?

Hidden internet markets where Zcash, Bytecoin or Monero can be used to purchase stolen credit card numbers with no risk to the seller. This is a real problem. Try to buy a list of stolen identities with bitcoin or cash. Much more complicated. Increasingly more problematic as governments tighten money transmission rules, ostensibly to catch the criminals – oh, and the tax savers.

To state that private or “mixed” cryptocurrencies do not or cannot assist criminals by asserting that cash is king, is not giving the “international picture.” Sure, private cash is a double edged sword. It gives the power to individuals, but it also magnifies the powers of groups — and criminals.

The decentralization of the network is, in this sense, misleading. It is simply a method of financial attack.  It’s called overwhelming force, by swarming. The use of a decentralized force against an opponent, in a manner that emphasizes mobility, communication, unit autonomy and coordination and/or synchronization – from Wikipedia. Create an army of like ledgers, cloned nodes and depend upon the masses to keep the fires burning – keep updating their ledgers.

Alas, however, this is a hushed and feeble war.

Do you see it? It’s one ledger, with a cloned horde that can attack day and night anywhere there is a piece of tech, an internet connection and voltage. But who controls the tech-gear, internet and the electricity?

And in real war, real change, the armaments are diverse. The attack vectors erratic. The volume of force, unknown, until it is too late. Currency is one vector, but it is a main one.

Time to rouse from the daydream, crypto-noobs. For now, crypto is dependent upon the old substructure. That is where it rests. That is where it should gather its trust and strength, but not form its misplaced revolution.

This is not the anarchist core. Blockchain is not anarchy. It is not order from decentralization. It is the clone army. Hit the command center — the developers (core team) — and it folds like a cheap suit. The clones will become weak — unless someone creates another cloning machine — feeds them “updates” — debugs them regularly.

And this dreamed of moment of truth is crucial. It can be subverted. Others can subsume its power to encapsulate the population(s). We must have watchers in place. No Taaki’s should subvert the message, without a fight.

I have no desire to be a part of a crypto-horde and, await the day when this old-fashioned ledger technology is jettisoned in favor of an atomic cryptocurrency, without one. To me, that would be the Holy Grail. A true cryptocurrency. The evolution. (An idea not so well received by the Murray Bookchins of the world.)

Individualism is not reliance upon yourself. It is voluntary cooperation with others. It is the very essence of freedom. Blockchains — if transposed to governing — is slavery. What did Bookchin want? What does Taaki, and admitted drifter and squatter, want?

But I’m just a voice in the wilderness, far from the Murray Bookchins, communists, socialists, Leninists, Trotskyists and Communalists of yester-death. Many sounded the  alarm before me — about Murray Bookchin and Occupy Wall Street.

Until then, the blockchain-clones are the best thing going in finance, if only because they usurp the power of central banks in some small way.

And if the “old guard” finance houses have judged Zcash as great tech, we can profit from their interest, me thinks.

And it concerns me that more and more big guns are coming out of the closet to “protest” the bubble of bitcoin – but not Zcash? Not Bytecoin or Monero. Why now?

What else do these big guns know? Do they have insider information or do they want to quash cryptocurrency altogether via regulation?

And a final thought…

Are Satoshi Nakamoto’s original coins really sitting dormant? Would it not be masterful, if they weren’t really there?


For those of you who understood my blog yesterday and profited – bully to you. Occasionally, I get them right.

For now, Zcash.

Next week?

 

 

Bitcoin: Behind Enemy Lines

Is it possible…to invest in a cryptocurrency that is acceptable to governments, banks, investment houses and privacy seeking individuals? Not necessarily for the “purity” of the coin, but its potential to grow and thereby earn a profit for the average investor?

What I mean by “purity” is the desire by many for a cryptocurrency to be decentralized, subvert all government controls, be public (or private), and have nothing to do with banking. The farther the crypto is from what is seen by many as corporate corruption, the better.

But can we meet them halfway — and profit? Isn’t that the game plan? Or is this a “take-over-the-world plot?”

Let’s face it, decentralization and the acceptance of that philosophy are two different worlds. We should live in the real one, not the fantasy digital matrix.

So, what is the reality? Is it: “join them, then beat them?”

Let’s judge by the current lay of the land. There are enemies at the gates. One cannot ignore this fact.

No doubt many have read and continue to read about cryptocurrencies. Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum and clan. Good news and bad. Bubbles and troubles.

Here’s the recent news…

There are reports that China will essentially make all cryptocurrencies illegal by October of 2017. Large Cryptocurrency exchanges are reportedly reaching out to non-Chinese based businesses to circumvent these new capital controls. There is uncertainty in the crypto-markets as to how bitcoin will ride this out.

India may adopt a national cryptocurrency called ‘Lakshmi.’ The implication here is that the government there does not trust bitcoin. The tax authorities are concerned about money laundering, according to reports. This should also be a warning to Bytecoin users in India.

If you can’t beat them, copy the tech and take it over?

The European Commission is concerned about cybercrimes and cryptocurrencies. Regulation is sought. This implies, not a rejection of such currencies, but their tacit adoption or at least it’s a delaying tactic.

Russia – Leningrad Region – cryptocurrency ‘miners’ are being invited to the Leningrad region to create large industrial scale facilities. Cheap power is a selling point. The effort seems to have long legs, reaching to Moscow. Do you think they want a piece of the action?

On the downside, Bloomberg reports that Bitcoin might split again because the developers are in disagreement. Added risk for investors. More uncertainty.

John MacAfee announced that Pandora’s box has been opened. Government control over money is eroding. The reaction has been one of regulation in the US and in China, reportedly, Cryptocurrency executives have not been allowed to leave the country.

Ray Dalio, Hedge Fund Manager, has voiced his opinion: Bitcoin is a bubble.

Rainer Michael Preiss (Wealth Advisor) indicated that banks are likely afraid of bitcoin.

Is there a double-standard, however? As this article reports, the recent outspoken critics of bitcoin may in fact work for companies that actually invest in it.

Okay. So, what does all this mean?

Certainly, one cannot predict the future; however, behind the battle lines one can make some critical observations and ask the hard questions.

First, we must ask ourselves why are the most powerful financial houses on earth just now beginning to draw a line in the proverbial sand? Is it the pressure from the banking industry in general, as they watch the outflow of monies into crypto? Fear of losing profits?

Second, is it the threat to the social order via the potential bankruptcy of governments, by way of a dying banking empire? In other words, why do we need a banking empire at all if governments could essentially finance the economies of the world with a blockchain, directly? Surely, if this occurred, the governments would appoint large dominant information tech industries to head the effort. Can you think of a few?

Third, efforts are being made by the old guard (banks and investment houses) to both invest in cryptocurrencies and educate themselves in their use. These old guard types do not apparently like the fact that bitcoin is so public and many privacy-seeking individuals feel the same way.

Profit from their Greed?

Based upon these observations, we may be able to judge where the old guard might go. Where they might pour billions of dollars, making the rise of bitcoin appear as a blip on the screen of crypto.

If we could figure that out, determine where the vast sums of money sitting in retirement accounts and hedge funds might flow, could we then profit from them?

Or are we off the mark again? Will the banking industry utilize inhouse blockchains or will they contract out? My bet? They will contract out.

For some of us it will be difficult to let go of bitcoin. It has a cult-like following. Many will retain a few BTC’s even after a crash, on the outside chance of a resurgence. There is always a chance it can be fixed. After all, it has staying power.

So, what do privacy-seeking individuals and banks require when using money? Let’s just suppose for a moment, that the money is a cryptocurrency?

Well, individuals don’t want their account balances made public. They don’t necessarily want you to know where they spend and how much. So, let’s make privacy optional.

Banks are the same way. They wish to keep your balances between you and them – and regulatory agencies.

What’s the problem? Few if any cryptocurrencies are geared this way. They are most often, completely open to public inspection. Anyone, including criminals, could potentially find your money.

How about customer service? Name one cryptocurrency that you can call 24/7 and discuss a funds transfer or a lost deposit. If you have named one, congratulations.

Now, can you name a private/public blockchain with world class developers, a business plan, open source software, that is liked by the old guard and crypto-fans alike? An actual regulated and above-board company?

If you said Ripple, that’s not on the mark.

I want to profit from a crypto-coin that has few coins, relatively speaking, when compared to bitcoin, and good volume. Over 10 million dollars a day.

I would like a cryptocurrency that the old guard – remember them – is curious about.

I don’t want an ICO coin and I am not thrilled about pre-mines, but a shared tax to help support the coin would not put me off.

The newest and best tech is a must. A step ahead of bitcoin with the ability to add fast updates, if needed.

A staff of developers who are motivated by rewards, i.e., money, to continue to support the coin for as long as it remains successful.

Can you name this coin?

I think I might have a clue.

And it’s not Monero, Aeon or Bytecoin either.

Not NavCoin or Dash.

But it is listed in the top twenty here.

No, not NEM or Iota.


Please leave any comments below.

Note: this should not be considered investment advise.


Did you like this post?

Click here to donate CPU cycles for a moment that will mine a small amount cryptocurrency, to help support this blog.

A painless way to show your support.

Bitcoin Bears Spotted


As if you didn’t already know that the bears were eating bitcoin’s lunch, right?

But is this a deeper downtrend? Is bitcoin a bubble or not? How long will it last? And finally, will bitcoin crash?

Can we trust the big banks and Jamie Dimon to give us the straight dope? That bitcoin is a fraud? No, we can’t. Why? Because so is the fiat dollar and every bank that uses them — all “legal” frauds.

There is no real money to be had, save gold or silver (maybe copper). On the other hand, at least some of the coinage used by nations remains real and retains actual value. I mean, at least the nickels and quarters in the US. The pennies are now copper coated zinc. But the paper fiats? The electronic representations thereof, sitting in our digital bank accounts?

But just maybe we can trust one voice out there. A lone voice of reason in an otherwise crazy crypto-world. Someone beyond the control of anyone.

Why am I telling you this?

Maybe I can save you some money and if so, just maybe you’ll read more of my blog. And then the little money fairies will come and dust me with ad sharing revenue and I can quit my day job.

Fat chance.

In the world of cryptocurrency one character seems to stand out: Smooth. If you don’t know about him, you probably should.

I scan his comments a lot. Get a feel of the crypto-verse, if you will. The only thing is, he comments on several threads and you need to pick them out. Little gems in the digital ether spread out like crumbs.

I have blogged about Smooth before and won’t bore you with details of his/her/their exploits. Instead, I’m here to display a bit if news. What Smooth says, since he often responds to questions on Reddit and bitcointalk.org.

I’m not after the technical stuff, but the layman stuff. Stuff better than Jamie Dimon, since Smooth lives in coding world. Dimon lives in the government fiat world.

Will the crypto-market nosedive soon? And for how long? That kind of stuff.

As many of us know, Smooth is a developer at Monero and works on Aeon. He’s the lead dev at Aeon, not to be confused with Aeternity, a newcomer. Here’s a bit about Aeon, if you want a rundown.

Still, this is all conjecture. Smooth’s persona could be a well-constructed piece of disinformation. Not that his comments are misleading, but his identity is well camouflaged, as it should be in today’s monetary culture.

For the sake of argument, I’ll say that Smooth is a guy, middle aged, who works near a Silicon Valley-like hub and codes. He could be American or maybe even a Romanian immigrant. He may have a French sidekick and several Monero devs to keep him in line.

More conjecture. Smooth is none other than fluffypony’s alter ego. Fluffy being the face of Monero, Riccardo Spagni.

In short, we don’t know Smooth. I’m sure someone does, but the anonymous handle and picture of The Big Lebowski may not really give us the entire story.

Nonetheless, Smooth does leave a lot of commentary, which I hope he will continue to do, even at the risk of being discovered by the governments with their ability to ferret out writing patterns with super, but not-so-secret software. A forensic examination of style and so on, used to compare against known samples.

Smooth must know about this. Maybe he’s not as paranoid as he should be.

Aeon could be Monero’s test bed, as well. And a backup plan if Monero should crash. Hence the recent remarks by Smooth wanting to clarify that Aeon is not a fork of Monero?

At any rate, here are some recent ‘out of context’ tidbits from Smooth. They can serve as very educational – enlightening. Maybe they are also good to use as sort of a touchstone.


A refresher on Bytecoin. Here’s what Smooth says…

His responses on Bitcointalk.org:

Regarding Bytecoin and the ongoing shady dealings therein:

Their intentions were to launch the coin as a premine scam and take a lot of money out of the coin and put it into their own pockets. That of necessity requires inducing other people to put a lot of money into the coin. Which they are still trying to do at some level with the continued (if laughable) shenanigans with “Jenny” and other shills.

This was for those of you who still think Bytecoin has a chance.


Now onto the bear problem. More Smooth goodies.

Monero Speculation:

To clarify I’m not pointing to a bearish sentiment (though one could point not only to the China news but to the increased regulatory pressure from the SEC in the US, Canada, Singapore, and others as potentially bearish) as much as to increased downside risk and decreased short term upside.

Personally, I am acting on this belief by reducing my risk profile in crypto positions to those I’m more comfortable holding through a possible correction or even bear market, but that doesn’t mean selling all or going short.

Monero…I haven’t yet sold any at all (in a long time), but I’m considering lightening up on that too here. >100 USD/XMR and >1 billion USD cap is great, but again, short- to mid-term, relatively reduced upside and increased risk.

And a follow up…

…I see a good possibility this current bull run in crypto may be close to running out of steem [sic]. That doesn’t mean crypto doesn’t have a bigger future but it requires both internal and external changes, which may come more slowly…

Monero Speculation (and crypto-speculation in general).

Have we reached a sort of crypto-market saturation? Are the bears about to come out?

…when considering exponential growth of viral ideas. Compare…with 2014 when no one gave a…about crypto and you would literally have to poll hundreds or thousands of Average Joes…to find someone interested in it much less owning it.

This does not mean there is literally no one left who could buy who hasn’t bought yet. Most likely, by the time we realize that has happened it will be too late and the price will already be crashing, unless you are able to call the exact top (unlikely). It means we are getting close. The balance of risks has become more symmetric. The remaining upside is quite comparable to the plausible downside.

Note, I’m talking about short to mid-term upside without [a] major change to conditions…not  about [a] plausible…scenario where crypto replaces gold or the dollar as a global reserve currency…I’m making a short- to mid-term trading observation based on current market psychology and demographics. If you think that outcome is likely (enough) and are comfortable with large drawdowns while waiting for it then by all means buy/hold/increase your long-term holdings.

And…

I had that happen…right around the time of the market top in 2013.

It is a bearish indicator. It means that the wave of FOMO [Fear of Missing Out] has reached the masses. The only difference at that point is how many decide to buy and how much, but the important fact is that there are really no more big [sic] wave of people to reach (at least not ones with money). When Mayweather and Paris Hilton are promoting ICOs, when it is being covered on CNBC, Bloomberg, etc. every day, who is left? Price gains are certainly still possible, but the risks have become a lot more symmetric.

There is one more wave to reach and that is conservative institutional money that will allocate to crypto as an asset class given ETFs (or similar vehicles) but not before. That’s potentially a big wave ($1 T or more). It may or may not happen this cycle.

What Smooth meant by “this cycle” is a bit ambiguous. What’s more, the ETF issue may never work at all.


The point of all of this? Pull in your crypto-horns or wait this out.

For those of you wondering about Steem.

Regarding Steem, Smooth indicated:

You can look at economic reality here…the mining was not competitive. It was at near-zero cost, based on asymmetric and privileged information, and therefore very much unlike competitive mining that takes place over a significant period when there is ample opportunity for information to disseminate (and the developers are not admittedly and deliberately exploiting their exclusive access to that information to gain a very large non-competitive advantage).

So the outcome is effectively (about) the same as a premine, regardless of how they got there. (And conversely such an outcome would most assuredly not be achieved with competitive mining over an extended period as with Bitcoin or Litecoin.) Achieving the equivalent outcome of token distribution and investor funding of developer efforts via a different mechanism is effectively synonymous with looking past form to function (i.e. “economic reality”) to me, but I’m neither a prosecutor, nor a judge, nor a jury. There is a small caveat here but I don’t think it ultimately changes the conclusion so I will omit for brevity (and economy of my writing effort).

Lately, scam accusations have plagued Steem.io.


And again in the Monero Speculation thread, but more about bitcoin, Smooth advises:

BTC is being priced more as a risky speculative asset at this point than as a safe haven.

From Reddit:

Regarding Bitcoin (Redditor: smooth_xmr):

Bitcoin can’t be described as secure under the model in the white paper.


Regarding the forking of Cryptocurrencies.

A recent goodie:

Literally anyone can hard fork any (open source) cryptocurrency. It can’t be prevented.

The only thing that matters is whether a community (of any significance) supports the fork, and likewise whether a community (of any significance) continues to support that original. End of story.


Based on Smooth’s comments over the past several weeks and the actual cryptocurrency bear market occurring, we might want to heed his advice. Set aside some of your profits if and until the dust settles.

Smooth does not exactly specify how to do this, but Tether might be an option for some.

In any case, as we are often reminded by Smooth, critical thinking is a requirement in the crypto-world.

Bytecoin: The Cryptopia Delist

Why did the Cryptopia cryptocurrency exchange choose to delist Bytecoin (BCN), even after it surged in recent weeks? Don’t let the above picture give you any ideas. I am not saying that Cryptopia has a large stash of BCN and they are making off with it — since they can’t find the rightful owners. After all, abandoned property means “finders keepers” in the crypto-world, right?

The official explanation is:

Delist Notice – BCN

Due to an on-going issue of deposits being sent to Cryptopia without payment id, resulting in long delays for users or loss of coins, BCN is being delisted. Please withdrawal your BCN before 20/09/17

Published by: DaRoll @ 8/20/2017 11:30:01 AM

Okay, but that doesn’t seem rational. Many other CryptoNote based coins use the same method of depositing. They require a payment “ID” in addition to an address.

Boolberry (another CryptoNote derivative) is also being delisted at Cryptopia.

But what about Monero (XMR)? Will they be next on the chopping block? If Bytecoin deposits were creating a problem, would not Monero deposits create similar issues? Are Monero users savvier or is it simply a more trusted coin? I don’t think so. Even the Cryptopia blog/forum has threads from people having similar problems.

According to Cryptopia’s own policy, coins can be relisted, after having been delisted,

…provided the issue that was the reason for delisting has been addressed and the network can be synced.

The policy also states that “coins may face delisting” for several reasons:

  • Sufficient nodes are not maintained to keep the network synced and moving
  • A coinswap
  • Any network issues or bugs that could result in loss of user funds
  • Statements made by a coin or coin community that could bring the reputation of Cryptoipa [sic] into disrepute.

And there is a primary reason cryptocurrency exchanges are in business: money. If they cannot earn enough money, they shut down. If Bytecoin is a problem coin, it becomes a money drain. Based upon the official Cryptopia forum statement (above) Bytecoin is problematic for them.

Could the Cryptopia folks design their systems to assist BCN customers? Maybe. But why should they, if other coins are more profitable, more in demand, long term, and easier to deal with?

Will Cryptopia anger the BCN customer base by their actions, like Poloniex did? We know, after some months, Poloniex finally relisted BCN. So, why then, did Cryptopia delist now?

Clearly, there is something, besides the payment “ID” issue that is bothering Cryptopia. That is my opinion, but I’d sure like to have a fly on the wall at Cryptopia, after the recent Poloniex debacle.

There are the “sour grapes” folks as well. From Reddit:

BYTEcoin being Delisted on Cryptopia (self.BytecoinBCN)

submitted 12 hours ago by RightwayNZ: As of now you can no longer buy and sell BCN on www.cryptopia.co.nz; Not sure why because they stock a lot [sic] of sh*tcoins and I wouldn’t classify BCN as a “Sh*t coin”

[–]JR_216 3 points 11 hours ago: Old news. Cryptopia is kind of a sh*tty exchange as well. The community didn’t seem to care much when this was announced a couple weeks ago.

[–]Franzferdinan51 2 points 11 hours ago: Sh*t dumb move on their part

[–]propagandapalace 1 point 9 hours ago: Cryptopia has more currency and crypto pairings than any other exchange I can think of, but low volume, crappy customer service, and “dumb decisions” like this one, are why most people steer clear of it… They will come to regret letting BCN go…

Not all is well at Cryptopia, it seems. Bitcointalk.org has had a fair share of complaints from folks indicating that responses from the staff at Cryptopia were taking over a month. This does not bode well from a rather small exchange (by comparison) in New Zealand. Perhaps the best way to rid themselves of this negative community press, was to delist and seek the easy-to-use coins. Too much business too fast.

Is this what prompted the delistings of late?

Our team is proud to announce that we have launched full support for Cryptopia on Coinigy. While Cryptopia’s charts were already available on the platform, users can now attach API keys to track portfolio balances and trade through Coinigy.

The above is from here. Information that, as of August 12, 2017, Cryptopia was getting a new pal from America. Three days later Boolberry is delisted. Eight days later the announcement that BCN was out.

What does Coinigy do? It allows trading by customers over multiple exchanges at once. Great idea, right? So, what is the drawback? What problems might a New Zealand exchange have with an American company?

For one, compliance. All American companies must comply with related regulations from multiple agencies requiring the identification of coin holders.  Bytecoin’s main purpose is privacy. It is probably impossible to trace Bytecoin deposits and transfers, unless the coin holders supply that information.

If this is correct and Cryptopia is trying to put on a better face, they might soon abandon any coin allowing the level of security and privacy Bytecoin affords. Meaning Monero might be next. Coinigy could then be relied upon to handle the phone calls, texts, emails and complaints? Is Cryptopia hiring a well polished front man? You know, so they can concentrate on their main business.

If we can extrapolate from here, the movement from public coins, like bitcoin, to private coins with anonymous developers, like Bytecoin and Monero, answerable to no one – the centralized exchanges might need to comply with the ever-increasing pressure from the authorities to know their customers. We live in a “terrorist world,” after all and everyone is a suspect.

One option, if the private and secure cryptocurrencies are shunted off to the less trustworthy decentralized exchanges or the “wild west” of crypto-land, would be the adoption, by some country with strict privacy laws, of a cryptocurrency freedom code.

Although, there have been several attempts to utilize a cryptocurrency as money (currency) in various countries, these monies are tracked and regulated. China, that bastion of freedom, is allegedly preparing to launch a national cryptocurrency. This is just one example, but suffice to say, governments want to track your money and with public cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, it’s not a problem.

If regulators push the secure and private cryptos (Bytecoin, Monero, Aeon, Nav Coin etc.) into the black markets, they may be surprised when their values begin to soar. Not only might they create a wealthy criminal class, but solidify a crypto-substrate that will undoubtedly be used against them. Such a class of people the world might be better off without, if only the regulators allow us the freedom to manage and create our own currencies with no interference or spying on the innocents.

But this is a dream from a future century.


Note: There is more information about the Cryptopia BCN delist in my blog titled “Poloniex v. Cryptopia.”

Bytecoin: Don’t Mess with India


Playing With Fire

For those who follow the day-to-day docudrama that is Bytecoin, a CryptoNote derived cryptocurrency, it’s always great when the promoters get a little rankled around the collar. They play the victim even if many of us may refer to the “Bytecoin Scam.” Often becoming upset when the crypto-public asks a few relevant questions, like who they are or if they know anything about Bytecoin’s checkered past.

Let us focus on Bytecoin for a moment here. It’s the cryptocurrency of choice in India’s Temples these days, if we can believe the hype. And if this is true, it is probably an attempt by citizens in that country to retain their wealth. Recently their government announced that certain paper fiat currency bills were now worthless. But they gave the citizens plenty of time to convert larger denominations to lower ones. They gave them several hours. Thank you, Narendra Modi, you Grand Poobah Socialist, you.

Do you really think the average citizen in India is ready to get screwed by a bunch of crypto-jerks at Bytecoin.org after Modi bent them over?

Answer? Heck yes! Just go to Bytecoin.org.in and prepare to invest! And don’t worry about the Bytecoin delists. If Poloniex disables it again, I’m sure all will be well. And Cryptopia would never delist it. Just go to to the nearest empty Bytecoin faucet, read the boring entries in the Bytecoin Forum and feel good inside about your Bytecoin future. Bytecoin GPU or Bytecoin CPU miners welcome. Make sure to watch your graphs.

Forget Bytecoin history, just focus on the hashrate. Learn how to buy Bytecoins at your earliest opportunity. Make your Bytecoin investment today. Buy those Bytecoin logo T-Shirts and be the first on your street or in your tent, to hold Bytecoin long term.

Is Bytecoin legit you ask? Absolutely and not a soul in India would ever confuse it with bitcoin. No way. Just get your trusty Bytecoin mining calculators out. Look up the best Bytecoin mining pools. Buy the best Bytecoin mining hardware you can find. Keep up with all of the Bytecoin news and run your Bytecoin nodes. Set up your Bytecoin online wallet immediately. Keep an eye on those Bytecoin price predictions. Read your daily Bytecoin reviews. Know about Bytecoin solo mining. Burn that Bytecoin symbol into your skull. Make sure you do your Bytecoin Tweets. Make sure to check for Bytecoin updates and know about all the Bytecoin uses. Are there uses?

And always know in your heart, the Bytecoin value, even as it drops to zero. Even as the Bytecoin YouTube channel chats it up — pumps it madly.

Now back to the real world…

Community Manager Promo’s

The latest bitcointalk.org information from the purported Community Manager of Bytecoin or more specifically, from BCN_Official gives us some rather vague information:

Messages about a dev team require some clarification. Previously, it was reported that there were…4 full-time developers, freelance devs, cryptography expert a and a community manager.

Here, the sentence sort of dies. Given that statement, a reasonable person would ask if the original statement was false or unclear. If unclear, are we now receiving the clarification? So, there weren’t four full-timers etc.? Let’s move on. Surely, it becomes clearer.

There’s no “old” or “new” team at all, it’s not a relationships [sic] where you can have a lot of “ex” and “present”.

Do you understand now? There are no old or new team members, because there is/are no relationship(s). No relationships between members where you can even have “ex” and “present.” This is meaningless or lost in translation.

Bytecoin has a straight vector of development and none of those “old” and “new” once [sic] can change it.

Now we find that the old team and new team cannot change the “straight vector of development.” Why not? Isn’t there someone in charge of development? A vector can be a quantity having direction and magnitude. That is, if we are trying to determine a position of one point in space in relation to another point in space. It sounds fancy, but it’s pure snake oil.

To calm those of you who are still wondering about the team: we do cooperate with all of the previous devs and the main ones of them are still with us at a main cast.

Wait a minute. Why do we need to be calm? Have you ever told an irate person to calm down? What happens? They often become more belligerent. Implying that investors should calm down is ludicrous and unprofessional; and the Community Manager is a hack for stating it. It’s a way of belittling those who dare to ask questions and seek answers. “Just calm down, Chuck. Relax. Let us take care of your money…”

You just stated there are no old and new teams. You’re just one happy family now? If you, BCN_Official, still cooperate with them – the “previous devs and the main ones,” then who or whom is controlling what? How is this cooperation managed?

There’s nothing to worry about.

Spoken like a true charlatan. When anyone tells you there’s nothing to worry about, worry a lot. This kind of psychology may work for the masses, but not on anyone with their eyes open and their wallets closed.

Speaking about today’s temps of developing. Are those regular updates, releases and total quality of the project don’t prove the professional skills we have?

If there are such skills, where are the disinterested party code reviews? Releases of updates and such do not sit well when a project is founded in the way it was. In the manner, where all requests for clarity have been summarily ignored for years. Why would anyone buy a product developed in secret, released in an unverified manner and given a false mystery (Cicada 3301), which I believe Smooth has implied. Are we to ignore the past?

Please, don’t spread the panic, we’re working every damn day to make BCN better than yesterday. And the results of the last two months are reflecting our efforts.

No rational person ought to beg. Why on earth should we not spread the truth?

The Problem:

  • We don’t even know the truth
  • We don’t know when Bytecoin (BCN) was invented
  • We don’t know why the white papers were purposely pre-dated
  • We are concerned that a few big bag holders have about 80% of BCN
  • We wonder why Bytecoin has adopted Monero upgrades
  • We are worried when and if BCN becomes valuable that the newest team won’t retire to the beach and let the coin die — again
  • We don’t know how long this latest BCN revival will last

Another Word from Our Sponsor:

Then there is this part of BCN_Official’s blurb that is most troubling:

I think there’s no need to continue this discussion – there’ll always be some guys who wanna hate. We’ve got no time to pay attention on ‘em, we have to focus on the further development.

It tells me that we don’t matter. It also tells me that “Jenny” is scared. That she or they are now milking India and will soon disappear. I hope not. I sincerely hope Bytecoin.org does not have the gall to once again flake out.

Don’t Mess With India

Those guys and gals from from India are pretty sharp. Last I checked, they were not as enslaved as the Chinese and there are over 1.3 billion citizens of India. I’ll wager that there are more Indians with computer skills than the rest of the world combined. I wouldn’t screw with them. You will be found if you dare unload on a nation of computer nerds.

Now we play the waiting game. See if “Jenny” – BCN_Official or one of the other sock-puppets has the desire to continue the charade. A dangerous game now — IMO.

P.S. If you need a secure private crypto I suggest Monero or Aeon. Zcash and Nav Coin both have “developer” weakness. Meaning, the .govs can squeeze the human devs for info. Monero only has one known public person who can essentially be untied from the coin as necessary. Aeon has no public “weakness.”

Update:

Some have questioned where I obtained the news that temples in India now accept Bytecoin. Well, here are a few sources:

 


 

Cryptocurrency Predictions From Experts?

Ball


Expertise

Is anyone really — I mean really, really, really — an expert when it comes to cryptocurrency? Even the experts don’t agree what cryptocurrency means. Is it a tool? A convenient form of functional money — like a check with drawing rights. But rights to what?

This aside, what are the latest prognostications from experts? Try these:

  • Balaji Srinivasan, CEO of 21.co
  • Peter Smith, CEO of Blockchain
  • Kathleen Breitman, CEO of Tezos

Bitcoin, the Master

Like all “experts” in this relatively new field, the implication is that bitcoin and Ethereum have staying power is common-speak. A five to ten year future window of opportunity seems to be the consensus — even given the current problems associated with bitcoin. That belief — almost a religion — is nothing new. It is going to make these experts look like digital noobs, if on July 31, 2017 or even down the road a piece,  bitcoin forks anyway. By then I’m sure they will have edited their theories.

There can be only one — or something like that…

New cryptocurrencies will come along and become successful. Some currently unheard of technology could dominate the market. Again, this seems obvious. That’s why we have a thing called progress. Can we be less obtuse here and stop pandering to noob-ville.

Rich Man, Poor Man, Fraud Man?

People will become rich and poor as new cryptocurrencies enter this space. As a result of the people who lose money due to fraudulent enterprises, more regulation seems to be in the offing.

No kidding?

In fact, Ripple may be implying that markets are heavily regulated for a reason. This is yet another eyebrow raiser. Ripple went to the dark side early in the game and is no doubt leveraging its position against the “free” cryptocurrencies as they themselves struggle to become a meaningful player in the cryptosphere. One wonders if they will soon apply for monopolistic benefits. Perhaps become one with “Fedcoin,” in the United States of America.

The Cashless Prison

Cryptocurrency must not be private? Regulation will eventually take over.

The critical component required by governments is ultimately, a cashless system whereby — allegedly — everyone can be more secure. The problem is, one has no privacy in this scenario, no right to life, liberty and, in the end, no private property — even digital property. How can one be even remotely free if every personal transaction is cataloged by the state, controlled by bureaucrats and dictated by the political wind?

Benevolent Big Brothers

Speculation in cryptocurrencies will lessen as certain altcoins become more stable. That bitcoins are not just for drugs.

Right. Got it.

This bit of speculation is a bit disingenuous. In fact, it’s just a set up. Stated to entice the under-educated. The noobs. To hint again, that appropriate rules to unmask the users of cryptocurrencies will magically enable a virtual world-utilization of cryptocurrencies, especially when new “killer apps” come online. All will be well, so long as we obey.

Conversely, it can be argued that the instability of cryptocurrencies are in part, caused by the states themselves. Take China for example. That bastion of corruption on one hand implies that bitcoin miners will be heavily regulated and on the other, they are allowed to profit. Do you hear “payoff?”

Since China purportedly manages most of the bitcoin blockchain, is it any wonder that it bitcoin is inherently unstable? And we all see what happens when bitcoin catches a cold — almost all other relevant cryptocurrencies nosedive.

In support of the move away from state controlled cryptocurrency, things like Bytecoin, Monero and Aeon were born — and many others — in an ongoing attempt to remind the minders that well, all of the people have not rolled over and played dead — just yet.

The Silly Con

Silicon Valley will become a direct competitor to Wall Street. This seems straightforward. As computer technology advances, its underlying information infrastructure will continue lubricate the wheels of finance. All of the major trading floors, worldwide are already supported by the latest Fintech. But the assumption here is much deeper. That the technology itself will make Wall Street, for all practical purposes, passé.

Imagine that for a moment. Not that all the brokers and lawyers would be replaced by smart contracts, but that the wheels of finance themselves are replaced with cryptocurrency. Where paper money, fiat currency, the Federal Reserve, are at once, relics of a bygone age.

Do you take VISA?

Competition will force the old guard — say MasterCard and Visa — to step up. In other words, if bitcoin or any cryptocurrency, can one day compete with the current regulated entities then and only then, would the need arise for the old guard to “improve.” That or be ushered out.

The only problem is, bitcoin is currently too slow to compete with the current credit based entities, except where it comes to moving large amounts of money across borders cheaply. A point that is often ignored. They don’t want to remind anyone that there are inexpensive ways to do big business.

Micro-transactions are all the rage today — supposedly — but when it comes down to the “golden” tacks, if one can move 200,000,000 dollars in ten minutes or less, across 50 borders, without taxes or banking fees, well, who needs bitcoin “micro?” We have Iota for that anyway and they are cheaper — better at the small stuff. Maybe better at all the crypto stuff.

Quantum Query

One should remember that technology is advancing. Governments worldwide are working on systems — quantum computers — which, if true, can crack cryptocurrency addresses — take your funds — in about a minute. It might therefore behoove one, if cryptocurrency seems a lucrative investment, to study the next generation of altcoins which are resistant or even immune to the quantum “state” hackers. Maybe Iota, but there are others.

This being said, if governments cannot get what they want, if they cannot control the newest generations of non-state currencies, they would need to make them irrelevant by installing a better form of money, perhaps by privatizing the banking industry altogether or by controlling the internet, radio waves, WiFi etc. At last resort, Big Brother would require draconian laws, like those in North Korea, and the dismantling of technology altogether.

Absent a total crackdown against cryptocurrency, there are other more curious ways to thwart the ever growing popularity of the expanding cryptosphere: government sponsored hacks, thefts, 51% attacks and so on.

It is interesting of late, how many cryptocurrency exchanges, wallets, etc., are being hacked. The newest one today? Veritaseum, to the tune of eight million dollars.