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.
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.
Or is it a shriveled, rotten grape, being picked over by the third wave of cryptocurrency noobs?
In Florida (in the United States), where I live, many of us are concerned about “Citrus Greening.”
It’s not what you think, however. It’s not when the leaves of the orange trees turn green, but when the fruit remains green and never ripens.
The diseased fruit, like a dead and dying cryptocurrency, sort of fools you. It says, “I’m almost ready. Gimme a few more days…” And then the darned orange or lemon drops off of the tree. A useless un-ripened thing.
Cryptocurrency pyramid schemes are the same. They drop from the web just as malformed.
The citrus greening is the result of a pest: the Citrus Psyllid. The insect that deposits bacteria “in” the trees. The cryptocurrency schemes are also pests, but they take your deposits.
It makes me wonder just what can kill the Bitcoin Tree? I mean, transactions are really slow now, right? If I can’t zip my Bitcoins across the internet in a few days, then what is the sense?
I know an entomologist who studies our citrus greening problem. He advised that the citrus trees, after infection, essentially get a fever from the bacteria. The trees get sick. They become clogged-up inside. The fluids that normally circulate within the trees slows down, as the bacteria does its work.
Think of Bitcoin today. The flow of Bitcoins in the “tree” or network, is slowing down as well. Bank transactions are now faster — and safer. Is this a sign of disease? Bad code? Poor planning? Growing pains? Does it matter if the network fails?
Citrus greening is here for the foreseeable future. So are slow Bitcoins. Antibiotics, genetic changes and insecticide are for citrus. Rewriting code is for crypto. In both cases, many of the “trees” die out.
In other words, with cryptocurrencies, we cut down the bad “crypto-trees.” If they no longer bear fruit we try to fix the code — the genetic structure of the coin. Or we try to increase the size of the transactions — grow stronger limbs and roots. Or give the cryptocurrencies oceans of water — ever-increasing amounts of electricity.
Buildings, warehouses, Bitcoin “factories” are fast becoming “monuments” to tokenism. It’s almost nuts. Why are we so wasteful when there are better options? How hard would it be for a third-rate dictator to walk in with his gang army and take over one of these Bitcoin Mines?
Which brings me back to Bytecoin. Still easy to grow. Still private. Still secure. Still working. No Bytecoin factories are required. Just your CPU and maybe a cup of coffee.
Bytecoin, for all its bad press, is a privacy original. The first mover in the CryptoNote — CryptoNight sphere. It is the rootstock — before the other subspecies thereof, forked from it.
And don’t let them fool you. Don’t let the forkers tell you: “Oh, but we have improved the code! It is almost unrecognizable as Bytecoin now.” Did you hear that? They said “Bytecoin.”
What are they really saying? Here’s is what they are saying: “We couldn’t do this on our own. So we copied. Tweaked. Sat back and waited.”
It was — it is the same with Bitcoin. It was a rootstock cryptocurrency, but now it is something different. Almost unrecognizable. Too many cooks (developers) have spoiled the stew. Too many forkers about.
There is no debate about Bytecoin rootstock. It’s called CryptoNote. It has similarities to Bitcoin, but it not a fork thereof. It stands on its own.
The primary debate about Bytecoin, however, is about the “tree.” When was it actually planted? It seems that the original growers cultivated the tree for a while, let it bear fruit, then allowed others (us) to assist with the cultivation.
Since the planting, Bytecoin Tree(s) have been growing in private orchards everywhere, far from the public eye. They are also relatively young trees. Only about four years old, but ancient in technological terms.
The main cultivator(s) of Bytecoins, like Satoshi Nakamoto of Bitcoin, remain(s) a mystery. We know the stewards of Bitcoin today, since the deed to the Bitcoin Orchard was handed over to a select group. We do not know the original creator(s) of Bitcoin, however.
Similarly, we still have no idea who runs Bytecoin. We can watch them work from afar. They have not disappeared like Satoshi Nakamoto. We can read short bios, but are they real people? We can see the results of their handiwork. We can also read the articles that accuse the Bytecoin developers of hoarding, but it seems nobody has been able to find the money.
Bitcoin, by comparison, was planted in 2009, in an orchard just off of Crypto-Main Street. Everyone can see the orchard, the pickers, the fruit market — every single piece of citrus. Even the large numbers of “oranges” just sitting in wallets, not moving, can be seen. What’s more, and this is troublesome, with Bitcoin, the biggest orchards are being “outsourced” to China.
This China angle has many worried. As some have stated: Bitcoin is a great token currency for Kings and Dictators, but not for freedom loving individuals. The Chinese government is not known for their forward thinking either. Rather, for tight monetary controls, to name a few problems associated with the ever-growing Chinese control of Bitcoin.
In any event, Bitcoin has an army of followers. Advocates in many countries. Users everywhere. But when does the other shoe drop? Shouldn’t you diversify? Why wait?
In comes the privacy-centric, Bytecoin. Cash is king.
Why do I say rootstock when talking about Bytecoin? Because Bytecoin, like citrus trees, has what are called forks — or grafted “friends.” It is a meaningful word. Other growers used the hardy rootstock of Bytecoin, grown from the original seed and attached a bud. Their bud. Their name.
Monero, Aeon, and DigitalNote are a few examples of the forkers. These few remaining Bytecoin grafts have yet to succumb to disease. They have edited the original Bytecoin code in order to exist. They are the “second-handers.” And they are very successful at it, so far.
Grafted orange trees produce sweeter fruit. They taste better. People buy taste, and they do not care about rootstock. The problem may come when the forked varieties of Bytecoin meet up with disease.
Naturally, the grafted “friends” blame the bad rootstock when a fork withers and dies. And yet, the original rootstock of Bytecoin has persisted. It’s almost an embarrassment. One wonders if a certain unnamed cryptocurrency exchange is/was being paid to refuse deposits and withdrawals of Bytecoin in order to stifle trade and kill the mother.
The lesson Florida Citrus Growers are learning now is about “sour.” According to my entomologist friend, the rootstock citrus trees — the trees grown from seed — seem to be more resistant to disease. But they are “sour-root” trees. Nobody wants sour orange juice from the “sour-root” trees, no matter how tough the tree.
The same can be said for Bytecoin today. It lingers at the periphery. Always there. Always waiting for the next cryptocurrency developer to take a swipe at it or maybe copy it again and ostensibly, make it better. But we all know what is under the hood. The engine of Bytecoin.
Have we been fooled?
In a sense, Bytecoin was never sour. It was the “Mandarin Orange” of the cryptosphere. As it turns out, the mandarin orange may just save the Citrus Industry. It is a sweet original orange and it is one of the more ancient species of the fruit. Best of all it is highly resistant to pests and disease, just like Bytecoin.
Who would have thought? A type of fruit — one of the originals — might save our juice? A rootstock, if you will.
Bytecoin is the rootstock of privacy and security. Maybe it’s one of the “core” cryptocurrencies still growing and still producing “low hanging” sweet fruit.
Sure, the original Bytecoin growers are keeping their distance, but you can see that their orchard is well-tended. The trees are all trimmed and a new batch of fertilizer has recently been applied.
Maybe our mysterious Bytecoin developers just need to say “Hello” more often. It’s amazing how far a little wave of the “digital” hand will get you.