IOTA is the fvckin Future

The spammer found a way (a bug, most likely) around to having to verify 2 transactions for every one he was sending. If he hadn't, he'd have been way slower and the network hashrate would actually just have increased.

>around to having to verify 2 transactions for every one he was sending. I

You know he can just generate two transactions? If it wasn't possible the network would always collapse on itself.

>he'd have been way slower

Why? The pow is trivial.

>the network hashrate would actually just have increased.

Which doesn't matter because it's easy to only confirm your own transactions.

>You know he can just generate two transactions?
Yes and then he'd have to verify 4, einstein. The total number of transactions being confirmed would increase. The network didn't get slower with regular users, why would spamming be different?

I'm not saying I can't be proven wrong since I don't know everything about the workings of it, but at least have some basic insight before making those retarded arguments.

It's also coming to the Ledger nano!

>Yes and then he'd have to verify 4, einstein

No, he generates two which confirm whatever. Then he generates two which confirm his past two transactions.

Any other algorithm would mean that the network would inevitably come to a total halt due to lack of transactions as each subsequent level could only server 1/2 of transactions in the previous level.

>The network didn't get slower with regular users, why would spamming be different?

Because he would only confirm his own transactions and his graph (called 'tangle' for hype by iota) would have the heaviest cumulative proof of work. Other transactions would never get confirmed.

>I'm not saying I can't be proven wrong since I don't know everything about the workings of it

That much is clear

> only thing I admitted is a problem currently

kek about 1000 transactions per minute causes a complete DoS on the network? Basically one person can take it down whenever they want...

I hate you fucking normies who invest in bloated tech reeeee

He generates one, he has to verify two. He generates another, and verifies his previous transaction with it. He's still left with 3 transactions to verify, and the number won't get any smaller with more transactions. Also, are you sure you can really verify you own transactions? I'd like some source on that.

And BTC is fucked currently, and ETH is clogged because of kitties. I'm not convinced this is an unsolvable problem.

You fucktard, it's not how tangle works, it's not a fucking blockchain.
The more transactions you have, the faster the network gets.
Shoo shoo

This sort of thing hasn't happened in BTC or Ethereum blockchain, only some badly written smart contracts

>Any other algorithm would mean that the network would inevitably come to a total halt due to lack of transactions as each subsequent level could only server 1/2 of transactions in the previous level.
This was a good point though. I might be the brainlet here.

Pump discord group
discord.gg/m7jSJUm

do you realize how fucking retarded you sound right now?

> PUTTING MORE LOAD ON THE NETWORK WILL MAKE IT FASTER.

we aren't in the year fucking 5000 yet with alien tech k u mong.

>Also, are you sure you can really verify you own transactions? I'd like some source on that.

I already explained that anything else leads to the inevitable collapse of the network.
Imagine you have two initial transactions. Now you make one transaction to your address that confirms them. Then what? Either you confirm two of the past three transactions or it's impossible to make any transaction.

Even if they changed the number to anything else it doesn't change anything.
You can _always_ create a set of transactions that increases at the speed of your upload bandwidth and ignores everything else.

on paper he's right you know

every *VALID* transaction also puts in the PoW to confirm 2 other transactions

only problem is someone figured out how to spam invalid transactions that don't do anything

@ziKzuya
That is just plain bullshit. FUD.
IOTA and Cisco are both founding members of TIOT.
The 0 balance thing is a bug in the beta, a display error. The funds are still there, but can't be properly displayed sometimes.

say it with me: DRIVEWAY LIGHTS

Yes and that deal about them both being unable to fill their promises about working as a currency or working as a "world computer". The only difference is that these problems turned up only later on. ETH at least has several promising scalability solutions planned, BTC is completely fucked. The difference is that if DAG cryptos are fundamentally unworkable, we'll see it sooner rather than later.

Yes I gotta agree that you have a point, only allowing to verify other transactions wouldn't work and yeah it would cause exponential growth in delays. I've been lazy and still haven't read the goddamn whitepaper through so I dunno. But wouldn't this be solved by not allowing you to verify your own transactions if there's other unverified transactions pending?

>@ziKzuya

...

>The 0 balance thing is a bug in the beta, a display error.

"In order to completely finalize the Curl to Kerl upgrade, we are going to transfer the funds which were not transitioned yet, to an IOTA Foundation controlled multi-signature wallet. This includes a total of 301620340961913 tokens."

forum.iota.org/t/snapshot-public-validation-22-09-2017/4256

>But wouldn't this be solved by not allowing you to verify your own transactions if there's other unverified transactions pending?

It's impossible to identify the owner of past transactions - it's just an address.

It's impossible to base decisions on external data, as doing that would mean that a node that was online eg. an hour ago would consider a different graph valid than the one that joined just now.
The graph consensus algorithm can only decide based on data in the past graph, just as the blockchain consensus algorithm can only decide based on past blocks.

>pay 0.00001 IOTA for green light
FUUGG

You might be more knowledgeable than I am, or you're making it up.

>It's impossible to identify the owner of past transactions - it's just an address.
What's keeping them from storing the owner in the DAG as well?
>It's impossible to base decisions on external data, as doing that would mean that a node that was online eg. an hour ago would consider a different graph valid than the one that joined just now.
Why would using past transaction data be feasible to maintain consensus, but using past transaction ownership data wouldn't?
>The graph consensus algorithm can only decide based on data in the past graph, just as the blockchain consensus algorithm can only decide based on past blocks.
Yeah obviously.

The Curl/ Kurl thing was a hardfork.
The did notifiy the users several time to move the funds. Ultimately the took it because every hacker could just take them when the update is done.
It is FUD you spreading

It's not even a blockchain user.

Also it's not like the ownership is important. You can just look at the local state of the DAG - if there's unverified transactions, you could be forced to verify them instead of something else to get your own transaction verified.

>What's keeping them from storing the owner in the DAG as well?

What does that even mean? You want every iota user to register and verify their identity? That's called paypal

>You can just look at the local state of the DAG - if there's unverified transactions, you could be forced to verify them

What does 'forced to verify them' means. All you can do is reject them on your node. But then a new node comes and it has to choose one graph as the valid one. It doesn't know the past state of the network outside of competing graphs.

They still didn't give it back.

> archive.is/0wpYY
> December 6:
> "Your balance will remain 0 until the IOTA Foundation begins processing reclaims. Follow their progress via the pinned Reclaim Status thread in the General forum "

>The Curl/ Kurl thing was a hardfork.

Yes, due to an INTENTIONAL bug.

>Ultimately the took it because every hacker could just take them when the update is done.

No shit. What a great bug to intentionally leave in.

You can be forced to verify by other nodes that are doing transactions later. They notice you haven't verified the transactions you were supposed to, and thus all of them reject you.

>They notice you haven't verified the transactions you were supposed to, and thus all of them reject you.

>But then a new node comes and it has to choose one graph as the valid one. It doesn't know the past state of the network outside of competing graphs.

So you are saying you can just not verify anything at all, and the new nodes wouldn't be able to tell the invalid graph from the valid graph? That goes so blatantly against the whole concept of DAGs as ledgers that somebody would have pointed this out months ago if it was a possibility.

Both graphs are correct, the one just has more transactions which makes it the valid one - which means the one with spam transactions.

The differences between graphs and blockchains are trivial really, it's 99% hype.

I'm still suspicious about what you're saying, as this would be a blatant and glaring fundamental issue with the protocol that somebody would have to had noticed earlier. There's some believable problems being pointed out such as transaction weights getting rigged, but I've just never heard anyone saying this would be a problem. If you're not talking out your ass, go write a blog post about it or something.

>that somebody would have to had noticed earlier

That's the reason why so many people are screaming that iota is a total shit and to stay away.
They are usually shouted down by iota fanatics screaming 'fud'.

>If you're not talking out your ass, go write a blog post about it or something

The same information gets repeated every time iota is discussed on reddit or elsewhere. It was pointed back when iota was created.

And honestly it's so self-evident after reading the whitepaper that most people that read it and didn't think of it are just incapable of understanding the issue.

Fortunately spamming iota is simpler than trying to have rational arguments online, so eventually this shit is going to crumble just from that.

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to be one of those retards, and I'm currently not sufficiently educated on the tech to defend it either. I'm still somewhat optimistic about it working, and I literally never have seen anybody make the specific argument you make, most of the time it's just cries about the coordinator (so far it seems like IOTA would be miles ahead of BTC even if the coordinator was left in there permanently).

>and I literally never have seen anybody make the specific argument you make

When people say that 'pow is too weak' or that iota is vulnerable to the '51% attack' they mean the same thing. You may have a point it's too technical for people to understand.

>(so far it seems like IOTA would be miles ahead of BTC even if the coordinator was left in there permanently).

That's called paypal/etc... there's literally zero need for a blockchain, a graph or whatever if you have a server you trust.

Yes, I get the POW-issue for sure. But that's just a problem for the removal of the coordinator. What you were describing is something worse, you're saying the network is completely helpless agains spam DOS, which I haven't seen mentioned elsewhere. I would love if you could post some external sources on that, the recent DOS has left me very uncertain as well.

Paypal's not a competitor in the feeless transactions business though. IOTA has the potential capacity to transfer unbounded amounts of data and transactions for no or very low fees. Paypal would take profit and thus never work, plus it's obviously way more centralized than IOTA. XLM and XRP are the Paypal competitors IMO.

> I would love if you could post some external sources on that

The source is iota whitepaper and logic

>Paypal would take profit and thus never work, plus it's obviously way more centralized than IOTA

Is it? How is a coordinator less centralized?
What prevents the iota coordinator from demanding fees in the future? Either it's necessary or not. If it's necessary it can demand fees.

It's completely helpless right now but they are already working on a fix for it. No need to worry about it in the long run.

>The source is iota whitepaper and logic
In that case, I'm pretty sure you don't get the full picture either. The problem you're suggesting is so basic that it never would have gone unnoticed up until now, so my logical conclusion is that you're missing something and there's no problem here. Go write one of those fancy blog posts if you think you have it right though, maybe you are smarter than anybody else involved with IOTA.

>Is it? How is a coordinator less centralized?
Well for one it doesn't do the work involved in the transactions, it can't allow double-spends, and it cannot manipulate the existing DAG state at will. All those traits of centralization, none present in IOTA.

The coordinator obviously won't demand fees because that would make IOTA worthless. There's no need, since it has no scaling problems like blockchain.

then why is the network clogged if what you say should work ?
fucking hell

nvm read that one wrong
but the invalid transaction thing is even more hillarious

Assuming this is caused by invalid transactions being wrongfully accepted, it should be fixable and nothing but a minor bug. Have the devs even addressed this yet?

>so my logical conclusion is that you're missing something and there's no problem here

That's called 'argument from authority' and it's a logical fallacy. You're an interesting case because you're capable of engaging in argument, yet you constantly retreat to that.

>maybe you are smarter than anybody else involved with IOTA.

They are not smart, they are just good at convincing people they are. Con men. *Lots* of them in crypto.

>and it cannot manipulate the existing DAG state at will.

They literally reset the network and just confiscated 10% of all funds.

Tech does not matter. BTC, ETH, LTC, all have shitty tech. Crypto is shitty. But people want to buy it now, they want to buy into a DREAM. That dream is to sell it for a lot of money to somebody else. Get on some crypto early, with some hype, then you're good. IOTA has mainstream hype now, thats all you need to know.

On the other hand, if you want to hold for years, go ahead and pick the tech winner, you have about a 1000 coins to chose from.

shit forgot to link you, image is for that other guy

>But people want to buy it now, they want to buy into a DREAM.

Hype creates variance, fundamentals create the mean.
Playing on something with zero mean is literally gambling. Eventually you are left with bags.
BTC had fundamentals even if current price is way too high. That's the only reason it didn't die after the bubble in Nov 2013.

>They are not smart, they are just good at convincing people they are. Con men. *Lots* of them in crypto.
Yeah, I know appeal to authority is a fallacy, but it's sometimes more valid than other times. I think it's pretty valid here now, since there's some really fucking smart people looking into IOTA right now, the companies that made partnerships with them most likely did their due diligence as well, and even people like Vitalik haven't made a solid argument for the complete impossibility of the DAG, just doubts. That's why I'm doubtful about the whole DAG premise being fundamentally broken.

>They literally reset the network and just confiscated 10% of all funds.
Ah, I see that this is related to the link you posted earlier. Skimmed it, and it really does seem bad. It looks like they might have complete power over the network after all. I'm not sure what the true implications of that incident are though.

Anyway, personally I'm keeping a close eye on the project and intend to educate myself on the tech more. You're totally right that the situation is unstable as hell right now. Either it's revealed that it's fundamentally broken, or it moons like we've never seen before.

The DAG premise isn't broken. IOTA is. You can't have very low fees/no inflation, pow and a secure network.

In pow security is due to resources spent on mining. In iota they are supposed to be very small. Which also means security is worthless.

Wow.

>since there's some really fucking smart people looking into IOTA right now

-biggest cryptography experts agree its unsafe and there is no way to make it safe, IOTA team uses argument "safe enough" ..wonder how that ends...

-blockchain experts who builded up porojects from ground up, and usually are supportive (Vitalik for start) raises doubts over many tech issues

But hey since there's some really fucking smart people looking into IOTA right now I GUESS WE ARE FINE.

Yes, although those are only problems for the coordinator being removed. What you pointed out about the coordinator being able to reorganize the ledger sounds very bad though, and it's gone completely unnoticed by the redditors.

But I guess I'll still choose to keep being optimistic about the safety of the ledger itself and its spam-tolerance for now. Like I said you haven't pointed out compelling evidence that these two are fundamentally broken. Just the coordinator might be, and on that I agree. I'm doubtful they can get it removed, but a bit unsure if that means they'll keep having full control over the whole ledger. At least they're distributing the coordinator at some point, that makes it a bit better.

Basically I'm betting the coordinator issue alone is not enough to invalidate the whole concept of IOTA, at least in the near future. So I'm keeping my holdings for now, personally.

What are your thoughts on XRB and BYTE? They tackle the same problem, but without POW.

>-biggest cryptography experts agree its unsafe and there is no way to make it safe, IOTA team uses argument "safe enough" ..wonder how that ends...
Source?

Vitalik's concern is bad, but he hasn't dropped any fatal blows yet, basically nobody I've heard of has yet.

Your whole post is more akin to FUD than arguments, at least exWs8apC is making some well-founded points here

Yeah Gayota is way overhyped and has a shitload of technical flaws if you look closer. Its only two years old, and aside from hype and some big names handing their logo out there‘s zero to none substance or applied use cases. Thats all factors that are turning big money like me totally off of it.

Rate my shit senpai

>Gayota
Wow.

>Like I said you haven't pointed out compelling evidence that these two are fundamentally broken.

>You can't have very low fees/no inflation, pow and a secure network.
>In pow security is due to resources spent on mining. In iota they are supposed to be very small. Which also means security is worthless.

Think about it and you will realize iota is broken on a fundamental level.

>What are your thoughts on XRB and BYTE?

Raiblocks relies on DPoS. It works in principle but I don't really see any advantages over a blockchain. DPoS itself has a severe problem because it relies on social identities which makes it a political system really, susceptible to influence from outside world and entrenching.

Byteball is similar, just instead of voting on representatives everyone chooses them as they wish, possibly leading to divergence.

you're gonna get burned, enjoy your "tangle" centralized node coin.

Lol. What does it say about you that you are unable to opine without calling names and shitting on others? Let me tell you cuz you wont be able to identify it.

It says that you hold such a low opinion of yourself that you feel compelled to shit on others so there might be a chance people wont notice the shitstain that you actually are. And that you come from a very hostile household where you were not given any due respect and had to fight others just to maintain the minimal respect.

And because of that, the person you are now does not deserve any level of respect. I would suggest taking a break from Veeky Forums, take a step back and rethink your life. You dont want to continue to develop like this.

They wrote their own hash algorithm. Now let me explain this as a tech guy: You can do this with medium effort.

The hard part is that you want a reliable one that doesn‘t fuck up regarding collisions or safety if you do trillions of hashes. Thats why they had an official competition on the SHA-2 successor. They had 20 entry teams and like 15 got already wiped out in the first round cause the criteria is incredibly hard. It‘s massivly hard to code a hashing algo that is collision safe AND performant (even harder if it has to be both hardware AND software performant). I studied this stuff and i can tell you the likelyhood that their homebrew hashing algo is total garbage is close to a 100% and that will lead to a shitton of problems once iota grows to a at least medium size.

i bought at 0.30...fucking pajeet

>Think about it and you will realize iota is broken on a fundamental level.
But not with the coordinator in place. It can still deliver potentially feeless and fast payments and scale like nothing else out there. It just means the system won't remain trustless like blockchains. But, with the coordinator being distributed, and also controlled by benevolent entities governed by law, I don't see this as a completely breaking problem. You have to consider that BTC in its current state is extremely centralized as well. IOTA's model would still be way less centralized and capable than paypal, and depending on the eventual role of the coordinator, it might even be fairly decentralized. But this is just my speculation. IMO the most important thing is that it can work WITH the coordinator, and that alone gives it a lot potential. I'm not hoping for a definitive silver bullet here.

>Raiblocks relies on DPoS. It works in principle but I don't really see any advantages over a blockchain. DPoS itself has a severe problem because it relies on social identities which makes it a political system really, susceptible to influence from outside world and entrenching.
>Byteball is similar, just instead of voting on representatives everyone chooses them as they wish, possibly leading to divergence.
Ok, thanks a lot on the assesment.

Man google it I'm not serving you information an linking stuff we all researched for months , you just typing "Source?" and getting spoonfed by nice Anons here.....

Please, I threw a regular insult at someone who doesn't follow the universal protocols of debate, and you post a useless 3-chapter ad hominem

Yes, I'm a tech guy, and I know the rule 1 of crypto and the difficulty of rolling your own. One of the devs thinking too highly of himself isn't an argument against the entire protocol, however.

You don't need to spoon feed me because currently IOTA is doing fine and I'll have time to react if it dips or catastrophic news come out. The fact that this info is not widely known facts makes it obvious that your "source" is just you spewing bullshit out your ass

Thoughts on skycoin?

The fact that you focus about how iota is doing atm and can' use your head is telling.

The fact that you can go over its not as trustless or secure or decentralised as blockchain and stil think there is point in holding iota tokens makes me want to kys myself.

Anyway gl.

Honestly do you think BTC is decentralized? Can you honestly say that? A power outage at one of the big farms might give the remainder over 51%, and total control over BTC. One of them might have over 50% already. You're practically just trusting them right now. It's fucking pathetic that you're sitting there on your high horse and claiming a coin becomes worthless even with the slightest bit of centralization. The reality might be that eventually some degree of centralization is unavoidable. I'm just hoping they can minimize IOTA's centralization at the very least.

>Can you honestly say that?
You are comparing one thing to another that is really not related, in order to make one thing look more or less desirable than it really is.

If you don't understand why trustles or decentralisation are fuel behind crypto, how can chandge world, how can fix real problems or how it makes holding crypto tokens valuable i have nothing to ad.

You seem like one of those BTC-holding brainlets throwing their idealistic speeches about BTC while all they want is to make a quick buck with speculation. In practice, BTC remains extremely centralized. I'm interested in cryptos that actually have a shot at _working_ as currency while being relatively decentralized and not just as bubbles.

don't know what's that
too many altcoins to research everything

I usually stay out of these SJW wars, but reading the first paragraph of the algo seems more like empowerment than an actual scientific pursuit.
>Additionally, a leader is potentially a single point of failure, as she can be coerced by a
malicious entity to act against the interests of the society she was elected to represent
>she
It kinda makes you wonder where the team's priorities lie, not promising. At least use "they" or "he/she" if you wanna be all neutral.

I take that back - it looks pretty promising actually, at least on a quick look
blog.skycoin.net/statement/why-we-built-skycoin/

Alright fags. The article about partnerships being fake is by some wannabe journalist hack who has a pea for a brain. "Hurr durr Cisco said they don't have a partnership with IOTA therefore IOTA are completely and utterly lying about every single partnership they claim to have."

- The Cisco "partnership" was an incorrect claim by Reuters, based on a misunderstanding around the fact that IOTA and Cisco helped found the TIOTA (prnewswire.com/news-releases/newly-launched-trusted-iot-alliance-unites-the-industry-to-further-a-blockchain-based-internet-of-things-300521935.html), which the NYT also printed. They have since retracted that. IOTA have no fucking control over what some dipshit journalist decides to write. And for this squawker guy to then take that as meaning that IOTA are scam artists with not a single partnership is just mind boggling retarded. He even admits it in his article that Cisco are the only company who replied to him, and yet he still alleges that every partnership is fake?

- The non-peer reviewed cryptography they were using has been changed to an accepted standard.

- Yes, there are teething issues with lost balances and wallet problems and what not. This is a fucking massive project they are undertaking. It's not just another bitcoin fork, it's completely uncharted waters in a revolutionary tech.

- Come-from-beyond, aka BCNext, aka creator of NXT, aka the fucking inventor of proof of stake is the lead developer.

Keep hating money guys.

You gotta admit it's actually fucking trash and the devs are fucking obnoxious, not even referring to muh rapefugee cities
But it's something you can make quick money on if you hold throughout December. But be sure to sell it by the end and put it into something more attractive like ADA

>- Come-from-beyond, aka BCNext, aka creator of NXT, aka the fucking inventor of proof of stake is the lead developer.

That's a red flag retard.
Firstly, he's no the inventor of proof of stake, that's a much older idea.
Secondly, he created a new account called 'bcnext' with no posts and made an ico with some bs about 'bitcoin 2.0' and whatever.
It looked like an obvious scam.
Cfb claimed he was a dev hired to do it.

It got nearly no interest, yet the ico total turned out to be a relatively high amount of 21BTC (~$10k total). Why a 'round' (1/1M of all bitcoins) number? Because CfB invested lots of his bitcoins, he publicly admitted to it.

Pre-release he was buying people's ico stakes.

As a result, he owned 90%+ of all NXT which allowed him to pump it easily.

He repeated a similar scheme with iota, only this time he had enough bitcoins to bring the total to 1337 BTC. LOL.

His code is horrible and full of bugs, nxt had to be rewritten from the ground up to work at all. He's only good at pump and dump schemes, I'll give him that.

...unless the devs get their shit together and bring the stuff they promise. Then it's actually fairly decent

>Yeah Gayota is way overhyped and has a shitload of technical flaws if you look closer. Its only two years old, and aside from hype and some big names handing their logo out there‘s zero to none substance or applied use cases. Thats all factors that are turning big money like me totally off of it.
>big money like me

>he fell for the libertarian meme

Do you understand how the node system works? Obviously not

If they werent such utter shit no one would have to be digging through forums to reclaim their iota in the first place

SMART
REFUGEE
CITIES

Don't forget about the 'smart refugee cities' they want to build all over europe

Fucking jew faggots

He could have 500 btc for all you know gayboy

Are here any ICO investors?
I got really mad. I researched some IOTA projects last night, cause i couldnt sleep.
Then i found a guy invested 7k at the ICO.
He hodled till know. He got around 1 Tiota, which mean around 4million of dollars for just hodling one year. But he doesn't look smart or anything else. He made a video on youtube (he's german) and if you listen to him he talks braindead and stoned. And he isn't so old either. How can it come that somebody is so stupid or "intelligent" to buy some shitcoin at ico with fucking 7k and hodl it. I mean 3-4 months ago it was at 400k he made an update. Why the fuck you dont sell it. I can't believe it, but he has twitter and his posts look alike that he still hodl much of it. It makes me so sad, i invested 3 months ago in IOTA, but towars my rich management, im not broke and for my older i would say middle wealth, but normally his investment strategy was total dump, except he got 7k as playmoney, which means if it just was 1 Percent of his fortune. But i dont think that. I observe this trend crypto but how come so many youth putting the most of their earning in crypto. Crypto is interesting, but dunno, where are the losers, for real?. If he bought 1 Miota for 1ct and 1 year later i have to pay 4 dollar.
Another question, anybody knows which stakes the devs hold? If not what are your estimations which amount they are holding 1 Tiota? 10 Tiota?

Is there any chance this is hitting 10 by Christmas?

Link to the video? I speak German and interested, even willing to translate for fellow anons

Where is your proof?

There is nothing special about his videos.
I think it was pure luck with little lucky choice. I mean for real most people would sell. And furthermore. The average fortune of 20-25 is i think around 5-20k, why somebody would invest more then half to it, at ICO. I mean at ICO IOTA wasn't even better like another shitcoins. Look 1st ICO they hyped it what is know, or just look another coins. I mean the risk management is spread and invest in good icos and then make on average some solid profit with risk management, but he just went allin.
The only reason for hodling in Germany, would be the 1 year tayx free, btw srs. If you invest 7k and it goes up to 400k many would have weak hands, even many would sell earlier, me either, because it is normal risk management.
I saw another video of sombody who invested at 0,50 in Iota for 25k, even very young guy. Why so many young guys 15-25 fell for this crypto and invest so much money? I already said interesting field but it is still a think bubble, with no real usage, except for XMR (darknet).
I dont get really this hodl till end perhaps i think just to rational, thats why i make safe winnings. I came from conservative stock trading.
youtube.com/watch?v=gTLqILt-jK0
Here is when he bought, there 3 other videos, he also has twitter where he spread his hodl iota meme too.
I just want to understand this mindset. Hurr durr 25 years old, well lets invest 7k and will be multimillionaire in one year. I'm pretty sure many did this for shitcoins and lost much, but why even so many fell for that, why ICOs are sell off in such short time. There are 20 liner ICOs and they got full investment. Perhaps im with 27 too old to understand this.

its 4.40 again

Dude its jumping from 3.9 to 4.4 all day

Hello felllow ByteBall patrician. I'm getting the feeling the next wave of hype is going to be all about RaiBlocks, why does everyone ignore this beautiful piece of fully functioning tech that is my BB?