Bitcoin Forum

Ive listed the main ones i can think of, if there is anything else you would like added, post it below and i will add it :)

Few nextgen coins:

Crypti
Skycoin
Bitshares 2.0

OK, ill add those, although i cant even see skycoin listed on CMC.

I dont know much about bitshares 2.0, is this going to replace the old bitshares that used the Bitcoin blockchain, or work alongside it?

None of them.

NXT , in it's current phase it's definitely going to be an interesting playout, if not a winner. But if you look for innovative hard-disk mining, then check BURST.

Ethereum doesn't have a valid consensus mechanism yet, so nobody can even guess as to it's future.  Before even addressing the other coins, you have to first acknowledge that scaling is important.  A cryptocurrency is basically useless if it requires off-chain transactions to function, especially a 2.0 platform that's supposed to do much more than Bitcoin like operate exchanges.

Out of that list, Bitshares has the best scaling due to DPoS.  NXT, if it ever gets transparent forging working, would have less TPS and slower block times, but better than other coins except Bitshares.  Transparent forging is kind of like recreating DPoS in a more Rube Goldberg approach:


Due to this, I would say Bitshares has highest chance of success, followed by NXT out of the list.

Hard to say without being biased.

I am biased because I see real work going on daily behind the scenes with amazing devs and real connections being made outside of the cryptosphere.  NEM

Exactly.

DPoS is just a centralized version of NXT's PoS which was implemented so the Larimers and a select group of manipulators (aka the Communist Chinese Gov) can effectively rig the delegate elections through "approval voting" and control the platform.  Also, Bitshares ridiculous claim of 100k tps requires hardware with 1TB of ram.

NXT didn't invent PoS, so you should probably stop lying about that.  NXT will also not be worth buying until someone can demonstrate they can even get transparent forging working on the platform.  I honestly can't believe you're dumb enough to claim Bitshares can't do 100k TPS.  NXT, which would be using an inferior method of deterministic block validation claims similar numbers.  That was also Dan Hughes of Emunie claiming it requires 1TB of RAM, a guy who doesn't even know how Bitshares works.  Tendermint claims 40,000 TPS functionality as well.  You think Tendermint is lying too?  Bitshares can do whatever Tendermint can do or more.  NXT will likely do less than Bitshares while also having slower block times due to the way it's structured.

Bitshares is beating NXT to the market with both high scaling and stable market pegged assets, the two things actually required for crypto to go mainstream.  Nobody wants to hold crypto until it has stability like the dollar.

What is the difference between Qora and Qora 2.0 ? Are those 2 distinct projects ? If yes, they chould get their own poll option. If not then there is really no reason to mention both of them. Why mention versions especially if one is obsolete ?

On topic: Didn't vote cuz biased. I do wanna point out that success will not only be determined by technology though. Look at bitcoin. By now vastly inferior technology yet still the main actor in the main stream (if crypto has even penetrated mainstream yet).

NXT was first to implement PoS as it's accepted today.  If you were involved in crypto when Bitshares was first being concieved, you'll remember that it was originally going to be PoW.  Only after the Larimers and their backers (aka the Chicom gov) saw the success of NXT did they change Bitshares over to their highly centralized, rigable version of PoS which they termed DPoS.  "Stable market pegged assets"?  Really?  You should stop lying about that.  None of these so called "assets" are stable because they aren't one-hundred percent backed by their physical counterparts.  Anybody with any sense knows that without full covertability you cannot have parity.

Yes, I'm extremely doubtful that Bitshares will be able to get anywhere close to 100ktps without having it centralized on a very small amount of very powerful servers which will of course be beyond the means of affordability for the average person.

I guess I'll post my quote again below since you don't understand how standard PoS works.  It's the same thing as DPoS, just less efficient, lower performance, more Rube Goldberg approach in implementation.  PoW, PoS, and DPoS all use delegation and the act of voting for a delegate.  Anyone who claims otherwise is flat out lying. If you don’t believe me or don’t get it, I don’t have time to try to convince you, sorry:

With all my respect to you as Nxt supporter, PoS was developed by SunnyKing in Peercoin, please don't try to mix everything into one big Nxt heap.
Nxt, BitShares and many others has different PoS implementation but all of them based at "Proof of Stake" idea.

Crypti! :) Open beta of its decentralized application platform starts today!

Crypti, clearly.

Stake leasing (centralization) isn't required in NXT's PoS.  Delegation (centralization) is required in Bitshares DPoS.  The centralization imposed upon Bitshares' users is deemed "necessary" and "an end game scenario" because of the flawed notion that you espouse that the cost of running a node is unaffordable to the masses.  The reality of the situation is that the costs of running a PoS node is negligible and even more so if you are running a business that utilizes the platform.  Being able to process 100ktps or even 1ktps on any crypto platform is total overkill at this stage in time.  Bitshares is spinning this "DPoS centralization is necessary to increase tx speed" as an excuse to centralize forging away from the home user and into their grasp.  At the time 1ktps or 100ktps is necessary, which will be years and years in the future, consumer grade, retail hardware will most likely be able to handle the load anyway, which will render their "DPoS centralization is necessary" mantra as null and void.


Obviously, PoS started with Peercoin.  There was a reason I ended the sentence with "as it's accepted today".  You should and I know that Peercoin's PoS is inferior to NXT's PoS implementation.

the most successful?
depends on definition of successful

if ya ask which one will increase its value at most because of real world service adaption

the answer is clear NEM / XEM

crazy how undervalued and still a insider hint this coin is

i want next to but have a feeling that bitshares 2.0 will probably be the 2.0 most successful currency. of course assuming that there isnt another 2.0 coin come out in the near future which it no doubt will.

Inferior in which area? As I know Peercoin has less theoretical PoS security problems because it's using PoS and PoW simultaneously.

AFAIK Peercoin uses centralized checkpoints and opens up the possibility of stake grinding. But I'm not 100% certain. :) In the end DPoS is probably one of the best PoS integrations, as it scales wonderful and allows the blocktime to be very fast/constant.

I dislike DPOS because of the necessity for people to vote on delegates. Now this may work perfectly fine in such an enclosed envirement that we're in right now where the userbase is very small but I doubt it'll work very well if any DPOS ever hit's mainstream. No normal user wants to be bothered with stuff like that. They want stuff to just work so the majority of users prob wont vote which kinda defeats the point of the excercise. As always - maybe I'm missing something :)

AFAIK Peercoin has centralized checkpoints during growing period and they will be removed at version 0.5, more info in SunnyKing updates:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114994.msg12442500#msg12442500

This.

I don't see any altcoin come as far as bitcoin. They already missed the boat before they even were made.

You should be familiar with Bitcoin block size fighting, so in DPOS you can control something but for this you should vote, in Bitcoin you can't control anything, big pool owners will think about anything for you and you can only post your personal opinion in the forums and try to protect your investments in Bitcoin.

of cause Crypti.

You seem to be a serious and intelligent person. I wonder why you never looked deeper into NEM. You should...

From what im aware, basically its their next generation platform, i believe new devs have taken over and are rewriting the code with a new blockchain to replace the old. They will require everyone to switch over.

Of course it's required.  That's like claiming pool mining in Bitcoin isn't required.  It's only not required when the coin price is low per unit and it's being used for virtually nothing, with no widespread distribution or demand (i.e. now).  Hey guys!  I'm not centralized because it's possible to solo mine Bitcoin if I spend $10 million dollars!  

With widespread adoption, you would need tons of cash to solo stake.  Due to the way transparent forging would work, you would most likely not be able to allow hundreds of thousands of people to stake either.  You would probably need to set a minimum stake amount required to be allowed in at all, while culling off all the others.  In this manner you've recreated DPoS except with no sybil protection.  With transparent forging, the need to pool your stake (delegated voting) increases even more as well.

Virtually everything that you complain about for Bitshares claiming it's centralized also applies to NXT and Bitcoin.  They are far more similar than not.  The main difference is, DPoS starts off with the acknowledgement that PoW and PoS both use delegation and engineers the voting process to do so in the protocol itself.  The other two are using a more Rube Goldberg approach to reach the same destination of delegation.

Here's your own hero, "come-from-beyond", telling you NXT isn't going to fit your definition of "decentralized" so you better sell off your NXT now:



See also:

The Bitcoin consensus mechanism is incorrectly labeled Proof of Work

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1176835.0

Satoshi didn't solve the Byzantine generals problem

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1183043.0



DPoS actually scales to world reserve currency better than any other consensus mechanism.  The first transition for DPoS voting would be people like exchange owners and businesses that utilize the platform would run as delegates to make sure the network they depend on is secure.  From there, the actors would just keep scaling larger until you had every nation state as a delegate.  Some people would think this sounds like a bad thing, but unless every nation was colluding with each other, it would get rid of fractional reserve banking at the very least, which is the real root of all problems.

This ignorance is the reason why bitcoin is failing to adapt.

Bitcoin is a great POC which currently has the best adoption, but it has flaws ( mostly mining ). Now bitcoin is like a big ship heading in the wrong direction. While the altcoins may have missed your big ship, some of them are now smaller boats that are still looking for the right direction. Let's talk again in 10 years and see if there is still no altcoin that has surpassed BTC.

I doubt it , but don't understand me wrong, I love BTC. It just wasn't designed to be a blockchain platform.

BitShares 2.0

Crypti of course

bitcoin will always survive as a name
any kind of crypto payment and crypto business will be called bitcoin

same is we talk now about bitcoin 2.0 abilities

but bitcoin dont haven them........


bitcoins fate is a dinosaur not able to adapt stick on old codebase because different powers cant agree on code changes
and deepend on extenal companies to have something like bitcoin 2.0

but example counterparty or any coloured coin solotion could easy switch to another more advanced blockchain without any impact for its userbase

the only area where i can see hope for bitcoin is to be the crypto gold

basical somthing noone move around or utilize but use as a storage of value

in that area bitcoin is now still great because it have the highest liquidity and marketcap

in every other area bitcoin already lost the crown and its ignorrance to not see the facts

I also think - none of them  ;) 2.0 Currency is in fact the future question of many factors, first of all - popularity  ;D

Well seeing as Larimer himself said the solution is to "...keep everything in RAM..."  how much RAM to do think is required to keep up with a sustained 100,000 tps if it is indeed true?

You don't need to know anything about how that system works when these statements have been, 120 bytes per transaction * 100,000 transactions per second * 86400 seconds in a day = 1,036,800,000,000 bytes (almost 1TB) per day of data.  However you cut it that is a lot of data to manage efficiently in a vertically scaled system (which Bitshares is).  

If you have to go to disc even the fastest PCI SSDs will struggle to do 100,000 random reads per second after some moderate use, unless you are doing very aggressive and efficient disc management at a low level to ensure they are stored sequentially.  Even without considering transactions arriving out of order from the network, that in itself is no trivial task.  

Even batch writing large blocks of transactions to reduce the required IOPs might not cut it, as you have no guarantee that the SSD controller is going to (or even can) write them in one consecutive chunk.  If the controller wants to move data around so it can do this, that is additional overhead and your max IOPs will drop anyway.

If the RAM requirements are low, then you will be swapping out those transactions in RAM constantly, so then you are asking an already utilized IO stream to do 100,000 reads AND 100,000 writes each second on top of processing.

My issue isn't that 100,000 transactions can not be processed per second, my issue is that sustaining that processing capability with RAM and IO limitations is not as trivial as is being made out, and anyone with even a basic understanding of IO systems should be able to see it.

I believe this 100,000 tps relates to the systems ability to order match as he mentioned that specifically in the videos relating to this topic, and NOT a sustained network load of new transaction processing capability.

Also this little snippet

 

found here https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/measuring-performance/

Also makes me question this 100,000 tps in the real world, as their OWN benchmarks could only achieve 2000+   Its still a lot sure, but its not 100,000 tps is it?  So what is going on?  

The real world benchmarks can not have produced much more performance than 2000 tps, because if it had they would say.   For example, if it produced 20,000 tps why claim it only resulted in 2000?  So I conclude from that also, that the 100,000 is either wrong/false or presented in a confusing context.

Cause what could go wrong with nations and/or corporations being in controll of the network ;D
I'd like to see consensus being reached like it is in most "fast confirmation" implementations right now (i.e. a set of accounts votes and everyone else accepts that) but I'd like the validating parties to be chosen in some way that doesn't require people having to or even being able to interfere. Pretty much what VNL claims to be doing just maybe backed by a proper whitepaper and not by one of the most shady projects out there right now.

@nzminer

With all due respect - you probably can't enter eMunie in that poll list for 2 reasons:

• It has only been tested in the founder group, and older obsolete versions with a few beta-testers also.
• It is not just a 'coin' - it is a complete, comprehensive package, which you will experience after it goes live, and expanding in the future.

I am no seer into the future, but I would not be surprised if your poll list will become obsolete.
Once eMunie launches it will probably rank more as a 3.0 compared to the rest being 2.0 ;)
Again - let's see what the future holds - noone knows yet.

Satoshi, that you?  :P

None of the above

The biggest issue with Emunie is most people stopped following it (myself included) after repeatedly missing deadlines. Literally every single deadline has been pushed back months to years.

maidsafe

Good things come to those who wait.

i dont think any of these will be a year later.

Well, lets take a look at reality at the moment shall we? First of all, Ethereum would be one of the most successful 2.0 currencies out there because it had a great ICO (if I'm not wrong) and good features such as a decentralized platform for applications. And second, Bitshares might be a good player here considering that fact that it has smartchain technology and the ability to own assets pegged to real world values such as Gold, Silver, etc They're all great but still who will be the winner is a matter of time whenever one of these fail or not. So my vote goes to Ethereum and Bitshares.  ;D

When you are shooting for scaling ability to 150+ tps, which is Paypal levels currently, and  to have the capability of being an actual currency that is used by Joe Public and not just crypto fans, designs will get trashed.  eMunie has morphed design concepts from a block-chain, to a block-tree and finally to a full parallel partitioned transactional database.  Also, all of the coding has been done by a single person, Dan Hughes.  

The eMunie project has also been self funded by Dan, even though a closed fund raiser occurred, most if not all of those funds have either been refunded do to the delays, to those who have requested there return, or remain untouched from 2.5 years of development costs.

I wont be adding it to the poll, is someone suggesting i should?
Anyway, technically all 1.0 coins are basically BTC clones, and NXT was considered the first 2.0 along with other platforms that have popped up, but if you want to get real technical, you could argue that only NXT clones are 2.0 currencies and something like NEM, Qora and Ethereum that are even newer could be classed as 3.0.

NXT, BURST, MONERO, CLAM, DASH, NAMECOIN

Any of them can be the next winner. But to not gamble, I own a few of all of them to be prepared.

For the sake of listing could have put maidsafe and mastercoin as well but I wouldn't have voted for them lol

HaH!. NEMM wIl $Ho ItselF 2 B da biggesT $cAmm yet. Ah Hv $een Daaa ReELL whItepApUH. Nwt DAA PHONayyy DeaYyy PosTEd. Nem IZ brOKen.    ... Peace.

You forgot to add Counterparty XCP ;)
This is and will likely continue to be the most successful Crypto/Bitcoin 2.0 project,  it main advantage over rivals is that its secured by Bitcoin blockchain and its miners.  
No messing about, no hardforks, seperate blockchains, restarts or multimillion dollar icos involved, it works and it here. 
http://counterparty.io/ (http://counterparty.io/)

Mijin (built on the nem platform) is also looking to compete in this area and will be out before Emunie.

http://www.coindesk.com/press-releases/mijin-permissioned-blockchain-platform/

Perhaps 3.0 currencies should not be discussed here, but the best one that I have found, has a device that outperforms all promises has instant transfers, and many other features is VNL.

Mijin?  
Good Lord that video looks it was developed by the old Mortal Combat game company.
I can't imagine Jamie Dimon opening that link in any way imaginable.  ;)

It sounded exactly like this:  https://youtu.be/Yy1flK6V50E?t=80

Since it uses the Bitcoin blockchain, I classed it as a 1.0 project.
When i refer to 2.0 i mean new blockchain and platform seperate from BTC 100%

You either don't know what your talking about or you're lying.  Stake leasing isn't required in NXT and the cost of running a node is minuscule.  How much does it cost to run a 30W computer 24/7 year round?  At $0.1 USD / kWh it costs $26.28 USD not "$10 million dollars!"  If you have 10k NXT, you'll generate ~3.15 blocks a year or a block every four months if all the stake is forging.  10k NXT costs $80 USD.  Even if TF would require a minimum stake amount of 100k NXT, you would still have a potential of 10,000 forgers and it would only cost each forger $800 USD to acquire such a stake.

DPoS is the mechanism that doesn't have any Sybil protection not NXT.  With NXT, you actually have to pay for your stake.  With DPoS, you only have to convince others to vote you in.  There is no guarantee that the delegates are actually independent and nobody has any idea what type of deals are going on behind the scenes between delegates (aka collusion).  DPoS is actually implemented with "approval voting" which is known to be unworkable in contested elections (http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/why-approval-voting-is-unworkable-in-contested-elections/) because it allows strategic voting.


Wrong.  NXT doesn't artificially cap the amount of forgers to an arbitrary number that is easily controllable by a very small amount of stakeholders.  Why would Bitshares choose approval voting for their delegate selection mechanism when it is susceptible to this manipulation if this was not their intent?


He's not my hero because he's not BCNext.


First off let's clarify that Bitshares is in fact a fractionally reserved system because the bit"assets" are not fully, 100% reserved and thus there is a lack of convertibility.  Regardless of how many "gateways" are brought online, it will always be fractionally reserved because of the way bit"assets" are created.  "Gateways" in Bitshares are entirely different than "gateways" in Ripple.  All assets in Ripple are brought onto the network through the gateways and therefore the gateways should, in theory, have 100% reserves unless they are corrupt.  Assets in Bitshares are merely created and the gateways serve only as a means of allowing a limited amount of bit"assets" to be redeemed for their physical counterparts for a fee.  Since bit"assets" are fractionally reserved by the gateways, this allows a situation to develop where a lack of confidence in your prediction market will lead to a total collapse of the asset.  This is why it is so irresponsible and in my opinion fraudulent, to describe bitshares as:


Furthermore, your insistence that PoS must accept arbitrary centralization to scale is absurd.  No platform is even close to reaching 100 tps let alone 1ktps or 100ktps.  The necessity of such tps throughputs are so far in the future that it borders on lunacy to state we must relinquish our decentralization today in preparation for this future event.  There's a good chance that 100ktps will never be required by any of these platforms and if it is most likely consumer grade hardware at that point will be able to handle it.

I find it much more likely that your insistence on forcing centralization on your userbase today is an attempt to establish a stranglehold of control around your network which is impossible to break.  You can say all day that the delegate numbers can change from 101 to 1001, but who controls this change is the delegates and when the delegate elections can be controlled by a limited amount of shareholders (because of approval voting), it's those limited shareholders who set the rules now and in the future.

You state you want to "rid the world of fractional reserve banking", but what you really want to do is "rid the world of fractional reserve banking" only to resurrect it via DPoS which is in fact its "second coming".  Self admittedly, you refer to this as "corporate fascism" which it is, but it's also communism.  There is no greater centralization than that which merges the bureaucracy of state and capital.

I vote that we stomp out this r0ach!

hmmmmmmmmmm

Personally, I think that it's branding that is moving the cryptocurrency market. That, after the coin shows that it actually works and has a strong dev team behind it. I don't think there will ever be a project that is perfect, every single new coin that comes out will have issues. There will always be problems.
Once the initial problems are out of the way, I think the marketing involved is very important. Getting merchants to accept it is also very important. As of right now, the only one of these that I've had personal experience with is NXT, so I chose that one.

All it takes is for anyone to look at your post history to tell you're a serial liar and your entire purpose on this forum is to shill for NXT.  You picked the wrong person to shill against who can easily demonstrate how NXT really functions:

Pooled staking is required in NXT for the exact same reason pooled mining is required in Bitcoin PoW.  Everything you claim, in reality, is already shown to be false because Bitcoin shows us the reasons.

You claim "anyone" can stake, yet that's like saying "anyone" can solo mine Bitcoin using a $5 USB miner.  Yes, you are technically "mining", but if you never validate any blocks, or one block a century, that does nothing to help the security model and you may as well not exist.  All that matters is how often the top block producers are validating blocks in relation to each other.

Due to the fact that it's already a given other people are going to be pooling stake for frequency of payouts in the endgame of standard PoS, the act of them doing so makes it even harder for you to solo stake (more like impossible), thus forcing you into pooling stake as well.  It's a textbook case of snowballing feedback loop.  It eventually turns into the exact same thing as Bitcoin PoW pool mining centralization.



I'm not sure if the problem is you don't understand how PoW, PoS, and DPoS work, or if you're lying on purpose.  All three of those consensus mechanisms use delegation.  DPoS is the only consensus mechanism with Sybil protection built into the protocol because it forces you to manually audit each block validator and vote for them.  For example, when you use a mining pool in PoW, or lease your stake in standard PoS to a pool (which is required as it scales as shown above), if three big pools own all of the hashrate (or leased stake power), the protocol is only telling you to send your vote power to the smallest one to avoid 51% attack.  There is nothing in the protocol of PoS or PoW forcing you to audit all three pools to make sure they aren't owned or run by the same person, which they easily can be.

You then have no other option but to vote for one of the three pools (delegation) even though it's all the same guy because solo mining is useless.  Your other option is to create your own pool and run a political campaign to try and attract transient miners (or leased stake).  In doing so, you've just recreated a more inefficient version of DPoS with less block validators and 5 tps vs real DPoS with 100,000 TPS and 3s blocks.




There is no "arbitrary" centralization.  DPoS is engineered knowing what the end game of all these consensus mechanisms turn into, and forces a mandatory number of block validators instead of letting it dwindle down to 3 like in pooled mining or pooled staking.  Deterministic block validation is also required to run a 2.0 platform.  Any system without it shouldn't even be considered one.  You can't run things like exchanges and all this other stuff with 10 minute or even 1 minute blocks.

Once again "pooled staking" isn't "required in NXT".  The rational for actors in PoW vs PoS is entirely different.  There is no depreciating assets that must ROI by a set date in PoS.  You are assuming a lot of false conditions in an attempt to rationalize your desire to force centralization on PoS.  If you have 10k NXT forging, you will always produce ~3.15 blocks per year assuming all stake is forging regardless of other actors.  You cannot compare PoW to PoS because they are entirely different systems.


You cannot "audit" private businesses who are delegates.  You cannot "audit" under the table dealings and secret arrangements between delegates.  It's been proven that a very small amount of the Bitshares' shareholders can effectively control the entire delegate selection process through strategic voting.  The problem with DPoS and the reason it's susceptible to sybil attacks is because you withdrew the requirement for owning stake and replaced with a political election with an unworkable ballot system (http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/why-approval-voting-is-unworkable-in-contested-elections/).  Even if you made every single delegate submit ID, you still would be susceptible to political and business cronyism which would remain undetectable.  Collusion between delegates is also a form of sybil attack.


Yes, there is "arbitrary" centralization in DPoS.  You arbitrarily capped the max amount of forgers at 101.  You are again assuming PoS forgers will centralize in a similar manner to PoW miners, but the fact is that there are currently 216 forgers independently operating on the NXT network (https://nxtportal.org/monitor/).  Your hypothesis isn't backed up by facts.

That right there is a blatant manipulation of the truth.  Bit"assets" aren't 300% reserved.  Bit"assets" are in fact a derivative of bitshares.  Claiming that this derivative is 300% secured is absurd.  Let me quote Preston Byrne as he explained it with such finesse (http://prestonbyrne.com/2014/08/17/dont-walk-away-run/).


Btw, 3/1 isn't a fraction.  It's a whole number.

You may have "freewill" to join in or abstain from the delegate election process, but you can't claim that it's fair (http://www.fairvote.org/research-and-analysis/blog/why-approval-voting-is-unworkable-in-contested-elections/).

It is and I already explained why.  Claiming pooled staking isn't required in NXT is like claiming pooled mining isn't required in Bitcoin.  You can only claim it's not required while the coin is in it's infancy, not the endgame.



That's called collusion and affects all three systems:  PoW, PoS, and DPoS.  Claiming collusion can only happen in DPoS is borderline comedy. Here's some differences for PoW vs DPoS collusion, which also affect PoS:





Your ridiculous link is entirely based on examples of a single winner election, not several people.  It also goes onto state that all voting systems are flawed.  Try harder attempting to turn opinion into facts next time.



Lol, what a distortion of reality.  You have the equivalent of a DPoS network of 20 people in that, while the rest are people who get blocks so infrequently they don't even matter because like I said earlier:  All that matters is how often the top block producers are validating blocks in relation to each other.

The further time goes by, the more that mining pool chart will look like the current Bitcoin pool chart as well.

But let's get to the real point of why you do so much NXT shilling:

https://i.imgur.com/qBwNCn0.png

Not too sure what you are trying to say, but there is only one "whitepaper" for NEM. Actually it is more a technical reference: http://nem.io/NEM_techRef.pdf

please add Gulden

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=554412

Bitshares 2.0

NEM is a cheap copycat of NXT, i just find NXT to be the solely 2.0 currency out there. Nothing else comes close.

Ethereum fanboys will be butthurt but sorry. NXT is the big deal here only

"Pooled staking" isn't required now in NXT nor will it be required in the future.  Running a node will only cost ~$30 a year regardless of your stake.  There is no mining hardware that must ROI in a set amount of time that would force people into pools to ensure they can pay off their investment.  What don't you get about this?


Collusion doesn't affect PoW or PoS like it effects DPoS.  By removing the requirement that miners/forgers purchase hardware/stake and replacing it with a corrupt voting mechanism, you have made it much easier for a small group of manipulators to control the entire network by effectively rigging the delegate elections through strategic voting.


Approval voting is still flawed for multiple winner elections too.  I've conclusively shown how a small amount of stakeholders can determine the outcome of the majority of the delegate elections.  Everybody should ask themselves why wasn't a fair voting system implemented which only allowed one vote per stake instead of "approval" voting which allows one vote per stake for each and every delegate election?


The whole reason approval voting was chosen was so that Stan, Dan, and a select group of manipulators could effectively rig all the delegate elections so they can control the entire network.  I highly suspect that almost all of the delegates are under the influence of these said manipulators.  DPoS has the equivalent of one PoW pool.  NXT will get more and more block producers as time goes on and the percentage of blocks produced by each individual will diminish the more the currency is distributed.


I'm not any of those people on NXT's forums.  TF is already implemented except for economic clustering.  Economic clustering isn't needed now because the network tps isn't high enough.  Just like DPoS isn't needed because your network tps isn't high enough but you insist on implementing it anyway and the only rational conclusion one can draw is that it was implemented to centralize PoS.

None of this really matters anyway.  Nobody with any common sense will use bitshares because it requires 300% collateral and as Preston Byrne puts it: "These transactions make no commercial sense."


Like anybody really believes that.  You just don't want to come on this forum and be confronted with questions you don't want to answer.

You can stop repeating the same lie over and over NXT shill.  Since other people are going to be pooling stake for frequency of payouts in the endgame of standard PoS, the act of them doing so makes it harder for you to solo stake (more like impossible), thus forcing you into pooling stake as well.  The general public is not going to stake with frequency of payouts set to like once every 10 years.  In that situation, either everyone will pool stake, or very few people will stake at all except for the largest holders (banks).



PoW, PoS, and DPoS are all more similar than they are different.  You're trying to twist things around while shilling for NXT and pretending that only DPoS is an aristocracy when both PoS and PoW are as well.  Anything where you derive power by how much stake you hold is an aristocracy.  PoW is an aristocracy because nothing else matters besides what the richest pool operators do that hold most the hash power.  Standard proof of stake gets hit with a double penalty of aristocracy by giving power to stake, then by having centralized mining pools on top of that.  It's easy to see that standard proof of stake has the negatives of PoW plus more new negatives at the same time.




This is the first time I've ever seen someone try to turn a product deficiency into a feature.  Nobody will use a decentralized exchange with 1 minute block times when there's one with 3 second block times out.  The real reason transparent forging isn't working in NXT is because they're unsure how to implement it properly.

earth is a disc

I wonder if there's anyone who believes this poll wasn't rigged so far.  The only options in the list anyone has ever heard of are Ethereum, Bitshares, and NXT, yet the one nobody has heard of, NEM, somehow got to #1.  Can you say rigging the ballots?

YoyO  HAH! Dereee IZZ AA HonesT TEcHnIcaL papuh. DoNE Biii HOneStt IntEllIGnt Folkks. Nawt Da PhOnAyy paCK o''' LIes Yn DAt Link Chuu poSted.   

NEM is ahead of the poll.  That might count for something...

r0ach and DE are more interesting than some stupid poll that means nothing. My money is on r0ach... I mean BTS. Imo, DE is taking some hits right now. If he starts to throw a bunch of "isms"... it's over.

What about BURST?

It is similar to NXT, yet totally different and with different features such as automatic transaction, escrow (smart contract), and HDD mining. It is worth a try, I think it can become big in the next months.

Lots of people have heard of nem.

+1

Ignore the trolls!  ;D

Polls on BTT are completely useless but I wouldn't call them rigged. Like how is this one rigged ? It's useless as - as always - it's a popularity and sockpuppet contest but does that really qualify as rigged ?
Also stating that nobody has ever heared of NEM is imho quite ignorant. YOU haven't heared of NEM (or not much, seeing as you described it as a mere clone in the polo trollbox unless the r0ach there isn't you) but that doesn't mean noone else has.

lets say it this way

talking about NEM
and be listed on exchanges as XEM

isnt really helping

but that this gem of crypto is hard to discover
was the reason it is still a insider hint for early adopter

what ETH was hyped to much NEM/XEM was to less

in potential they both can compete easy

talking about Bitcoin
and be listed on exchanges as XBC

isnt really helping

 8)

you just have to understand that NEM is the project name and XEM is the coin that it created. XEM is not the only product NEM stands for. NEM is a blockchain platform, not just a coin.

Arent all altcoins just some copycats of Bitcoin?

The majority of alt coins are copies of the Bitcoin source code, but there's been an alt coin around called Ethereum which I think it has it's own source code and not based on Bitcoin itself. Etherem's technology is very interesting (platform for decentralized applications) but the lack of a GUI wallet makes it very hard to use (especially for newbies)  :)

Crypti, Nxt, Ethereum, BitShares, Qora are all based on an entirely new code base. It's nothing extra ordinary anymore. :)

http://mapofcoins.com (http://mapofcoins.com)

i've heard of NEM more then all the others combined  ???

NEM and NXT have active online communities and that is why they win online polls.  Ethereum and Bitshares are worth more because they have institutional Bitcoin whales and networked with capital giants.   Bitshares early on attracted investments from Chinese funds and Ethereum just got the support of some automobile group which pledged $50 million to 2.0 currencies.   Networking is something NXT and NEM has not had any major success with yet.  I think NEM and NXT just started doing stuff in Japan and Greece.

The one that gets a signifacant network effect which i haven't seen any of them succeeding in.

I'm not sure about other communities, but BitShares has dedicated forum https://bitsharestalk.org and many users even don't have account in BTT.  :)

You can check this forum activity and compare BitShares community with other coins communities:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?action=stats

I heard of NEM, and once I bothered to install the client, but it was just very hard to grasp even the installed. Now they mgiht have made it easier since but back then it was stupid.

It offers nothing new of NXT, and its is a clinging parasite on the fame of NXT. I`d rather prefer NXT, even if it has a shitty marketing team now, than NEM, so sorry.

I'm assuming you haven't heard of mijin, dragonfly pay or the vc funding (that's prob connceted to one of these projects, I'm just mentioning it) for/with NEM ?
That's what I mean when I say that success will not only be determined by technology. You need a lot of effort in the real world to go anywhere with your porject no matter how superior you tech may or may not be.

Why no one here has posted about Monero? I think this would be a good candidate for discussion, because a lot of people sure do like talking about it and has always had a consistent following over the past year.

Other than that NXT might be a good choice as well... Another coin I just was looking into was eMunie (which hasn't been released yet) that shows a real potential of being, literally, the fastest coin to be put on the market.

The thread for that is here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1191535.0

Not fastest, but probably eMunie will be good technology after it's will be finally released https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1191535.msg12550689#msg12550689
PS: Unfortunately I lost patience of eMunue one year ago after waiting public beta release for 3-4 months

We'll see! I still think there are a lot of misconceptions/issues about Bitshares speed (even disregarding the crazy power box you need to sustain it) and that when it comes to the crunch, it won't perform anywhere near what is claimed.

As soon as we have enough testers available to push a few 100,000k tx/s I'll be sure to update everyone here.  Problem is, we need about 500 nodes online to do that on a fully partitioned network (assuming each node can generate ~300-400 tx/s) and we don't have a pool of testers which is that large.  Maybe I should start recruiting again soon :)

I get the patience thing, but would you rather a sloppy, cut corner, pile of shit but out the door quick product?  Or a good quality, performs as claimed, solid product with real innovation?   So much stuff is released here with issues, silly mistakes, and other shoddy implementations of ideas just to make a quick buck.

Hit me up if you need testers. I'm always up for testing new stuff.

NXT and NEM are both good choices.
My vote is for the NEM blockchain platform with Proof-of-Importance, EigenTrust++, delegated harvesting and m-of-n multisig.

You could put it that way, being the polite dude that you are  8)
What BTS are promising is a VISA level of tx speed in a decentralised peer-to-peer network.
This is like saying that you can make a Land Rover as fast as a Bugatti Veyron: maybe you can, but you may have to sacrifice a few safety features.

Still, it's going to be fun to watch, as long as you stand well back.

I agree with you. It’s about time that crypto shows its true potential to Banks and the government by proving to be a fast and efficient system to handle transactions similar or greater than Visa. When Bitshares 2.0 comes out, it could totally rival Visa with its TPS. This is something that Bitcoin should’ve improved in the beginning, but it seems that after all there is going to be a next “Bitcoin 2.0” and that would be Bitshares 2.0 Just my opinion  ;D

Gridcoin is the most undervalued next-generation blockchain out there...

Radical Innovation - Sustainable Cryptocurrency for Scientific Progress
http://imgur.com/12gxxps

Absolutely... for one thing, I think there should always be a gold standard that currencies can judge their price on (Bitcoin). But along with that, there needs to be a coin that boast increased security features (Monero) and a coin that will literally put Visa out of business (Possibly eMunie?)... There can't be one coin that could "do it all", I think that would be impossible... but if those two entities were to work together, and allow more of a choice on which coin they want to get, based on what kind of transactions they want to do (fast or private) then cryptos could potentially have a chance to be reached by the masses.

I'm really going to have to start using the [sarcasm] and [/sarcasm] switches.......

 

It's starting to see like a race to the bottom for most projects :p

I dont get why is that so sophisticated to have that algorithm.

It may prove to be useful later, but at the moment they dont have lightweight client, which is a big down for me.

I like Supernet for NXT they made it very elegantly and it is really for small users.

NEM !!!

VC
INCUBATOR
MAKOTO!!!!
PhD Devs

the real deal!!!

editable m of n multisigs

Their marketing head is also a professor in Korea.  NEM could very well be the most academic and credentialed team in crypto.

Didn't the network die after only a few peaks of ~1000 tps?  That is not very encouraging for a platform that is purported to support 100,000 tps and is being launched in a week!

Spam testing is something we've been doing since the start, not a week before launch...pushing the boundaries of where it breaks, making the network resilient to bursts and as such we can handle massive spikes (5k tps+ per channel) and continue on happily.

Where I can buy eMunie?  :)

Yes, BitShares test network has a problems but as I know it's not connected to the peaks of transactions, it's more connected to transactions itselfs, if you interesting about what happened, you can check here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18717.0.html

If not, just read BitShares thread here and you will be updated about all fails and successes of BitShares  :)

BitShares will launch on schedule with enough throughput to support all current needs plus all of Bitcoin and most altcoins combined (if they wanted to move onto our platform for some fiendishly wise reason).

We are still optimizing the network code, which is not part of the blockchain itself, so that in coming months we can continue to scale up to full design specs of 100,000 TPS without even a hard fork.

The test net is where we are doing this optimization, so when you hear about a test "fail" is has nothing to do with what is launching on October 13.  We will have many more such fails on the test net side as we tune up to light speed, but the production blockchain where everybody's funds reside will hum along without breaking a sweat.

From what I read on the blog the benches were done without signature verification. Why would you bench without verification of signatures ?
The actuall speeds will prob be much less impressive unless I missed something (just skimmed the post) or all delegates have an absurd hardware requirements. Even then you'll have a great time putten all those data onto the wire. I'll believe those 100k TPS when I see them. Luckily we probably won't see them anytime soon since there isn't really a need for it.  

Signature verification is parallelizable.  The benchmark is for the One Thread that must remain serial.  With that thread running at warp speed as demonstrated, we can add parallel feeders as the network scales and generates the revenues needed to pay for it.

I'll remind you of the quote often attributed to Bill Gates that, "640 kB ought to be enough for anybody".  :)

You still could have benched it with signature verification (done in parallel) to give people an idea of the hardware requirements for such speeds. Now we know that you can process it on a mediocre CPU with signature verification disabled which really doesn't say anything about the real world and is imho mildly interesting at best.

That's the process we are going through on the test net as we develop the network feeders (transaction stream aggregation processors) for increasing levels of performance.  The hard part is done and ready for October 13.  The other benchmarks you suggest will occur on our test network in the coming months and are only necessary for applications we have yet to announce.

The initial benchmark you made that led to the claims of 100,000 tps was suspect at best.

Now, after your testing over the weekend where the test net died at a mere 1-2% of that claim (as I expected), and resulted in Dan posting a statement detailing that the platform will be limited to just 100 tps, that claim of 100,000 tps is now completely irrelevant.

A lot of your "hype" about BTS2.0 has been based around this 100,000 tps, but its now clear the claim can not be achieved, or anywhere close.  

It should be retracted until you have solved some of the issues with networking, and performed open load testing where those claims are at least viable.  Continuing to "sell" the platform from this point and stating that claim as fact is immoral IMO.

There is no shame in stating you over estimated the capabilities, in fact it deserves respect if anything.

Perhaps you published this non-sequitur while I was posting the above?

Everything is as it has always been claimed at bitshares.org since the original announcement (https://bitshares.org/technology/industrial-performance-and-scalability/).


We will continue to publish the two benchmarks (BitShares vs. Graphene) for all to track progress.  Meanwhile, the BitShareholders will vote for how much throughput they want to pay for in the active network which can grow to keep ahead of demand for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, Graphene has other application chains beyond BitShares that will also scale at different rates.  

You can't buy eMunie yet, they haven't released it and it's still in beta... If everything goes as planned and what transaction times they are boasting are actually true that has some privacy to it, then it will be the most revolutionary new crypto out there besides Monero IMO.

+1 to Fuserleer.....what BTS are doing is what is known in the car trade as  a 'bait and switch' :
You promise absolutely everything to the customer until they until come to the sales lot, then you suddenly 'discover' that the DeLorean you promised them has just been sold/evaporated/stolen by aliens................... and then pressure them to take a nice shiny Toyota instead.
It's a lot easier to sell crap to people when they've already walked in the door. 

Not when your original announcement (https://bitshares.org/technology/industrial-performance-and-scalability/) clearly explains
exactly what you have invented (including its limitations)
and what that implies for the future product line specs
and your testing program is an open book for all to observe progress toward that spec.

:)

What your original announcement clearly explains is that you took one important component of the system, tested it in isolation, then applied the result of that test to the system as a whole with a disregard for all other components and parameters.

Our balance calculation code can easily do what it needs to do in a couple of micro-seconds or less, its an important piece of the code and also runs in a single thread.  So taking your lead I can go around stating that eMunie can process up to 1M tps and plaster it all over our blurb....problem is, eMunie cant process 1M tps at a single node, and never will.

To put it in a differently, what you are doing is taking a 1litre 4 cylinder car, putting it on axle stands with the wheels in the air, planting the gas and telling everyone its capable of 150mph because the speedometer said so.

Have you lost common sense?

It does not matter how much you have "explained" and "think you have invented" - what matters is that you could not live up to that fine document you linked, and now you refuse to admit your were wrong. You must be the only one who can't see that.
Pathetic!

Suit yourselves.

 8)

My think NXT, Qora and NEM are the best three crypto 2.0 coins out there at the moment. Offering the best tech.

this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBlAVeVFWFM implies very clearly that Bitshares can do 100K TPS "conservatively" in the real world right away.  Now Bitshares is saying 100 TPS is the max it can handle in the real world....hoping for soft fork improvements later.

Let's take a step back and focus on the big picture.

We really need a crypto that meets these general conditions:

• 100% decentralized: can not be controlled except by the majority of the public.
• Has a stable price.
• Is secure (supports 2FA), easy (like a credit card) and cheap (nearly free).
• Does not waste energy or resources.
• Is as private as a user wants.
• Fair distribution opportunities - no insider advantage before nor after launch. Everyone is rewarded in proportion for the work performed and the money risked.
• Will have capacity to replace all fiat transactions (sustain 100K TPS) whenever needed.
• Has strong evidence of the above via long-running global test, whitepapers, and code reviews.

Please don't launch a Crypto until you've met these conditions.

Oh please, where does it say 100kTPS on a 1 core CPU?  They mentioned it would need something like 32 cores to do that.  Some guy named "clayop" in Korea ran a test while Larimers weren't even around that peaked at 3k TPS and some of the delegates running were single core VPS I believe.  It's a dumb test because he doesn't even list hardware used or what the bottleneck seen was, etc.  They need to make sure nobody is running some gimpy single core VPS before doing any more tests.

100k / 32 = 3.125k tps on a 1 core....it should be attainable using that math, yet it died.

Anyway the issue I believe wasn't CPU but networking, which I've pointed out time and time again either that or disc IO would be a problem....and it is.

Doesn't matter if the Larimers were around or not, its not a dumb test.  If you are continuously claiming that your network can support 100k tps sustained "conservatively", it should be able to handle a few 1000 tps peaks without issue regardless of hardware in use, whether the overlords are present or not etc etc

What happens in the future if some delegates are voted in that have "gimpy hardware".....it croaks and falls flat on its back? :|

Then only that specific delegate dies.  Probably get voted out fast having 0 uptime.

That's a strawman that can't happen with the system we will launch next week as explained in the ongoing lab reports at bitsharestalk.org.  The network software ensures that "gimpy hardware" is not overtasked until such time as the community votes to turn up the throttle as the load on the network grows and produces the funding needed to pay all delegates to upgrade to the next level of hardware.

The October 13 system runs fast enough to host the total number of transactions needed by all 600+ coinmarketcap blockchains combined. Which is pretty amazing, don't you think? 

You're quibbling about how long it will take to iron out the bugs in something we won't need till next year and whether the initial announcement could be misinterpreted in some creative way as a hopeful controversy while ignoring a clear home run effort by the BitShares community. 

Fact is, current performance is impressive and we are on a clear path to achieve real time blockchain operation when we need it with no remaining breakthroughs required - only the normal debug activities that all developers encounter in wringing out load balancing issues.  

Next year's network software is expected to be buggy at this point it time,
because we've been focusing on the product we want to launch now.

Voting, Delegating, Witnessing... uggh.. I'm tired already.  

Sorry, I just like my money boring and predictable, but I'm (maybe) in the minority as I'm usually too busy with other tasks and don't want to have to keep monitoring my wallet hour-by-hour to be sure my dollar is still worth a dollar.

Why can't all of this be automated?  Do we really need all these 'people' involved?

Also seems like only those with beefy hardware will get earnings and fees.  What about those with lower end equipment (including smartphones)?  Even if they only confirm 1 txn they should get something for contributing work towards securing the ecosystem.

Why isn't Mintcoin on the list? I vote MINT :)

Get elected and get paid by the system to upgrade your rig to the size nodes required at any point in time.
There is no such thing as people who can't participate.  They just have to be trusted by the stakeholders.
BitShares is the system that pays everybody, rich or poor, who is trusted enough to sign our blocks to get the equipment they need.

Read up on the two years of BitShares theory about how to manage decentralization and overcome the natural tendency of all systems to centralize on a few rich miners.  Graphene is an industrial grade blockchain and signing blocks on cell phones is not needed for any conceivable reason. It doesn't make system engineering sense.  (You still will be able to have a cell phone wallet, but that's a different system function.)
 
We are making an upgrade to all our incredible new features available for any developer who want's to upgrade her coin to a new platform for essentially free.  Hundreds of coins currently listen on coinmarketcap could become state of the art overnight, if we didn't have such sad "not invented here" attitudes.

What happened to the cooperative attitude the crypto community used to have?  

These days we seem awfully eager to throw stones through other people's front windows.

This IS all automated.  Shareholders are voting for which computers (operated by somebody) will make up the massively redundant distributed processor at any point in time.

Please show me a computer running anywhere in the world that doesn't have somebody somewhere who's responsible to keep it running with up to date software and a paid up power bill.

Not trying to be anti-cooperative, but it just seems very bureaucratic and thus I see it (opinion) as an incremental improvement from Bitcoin, but (more opinion) not really in the direction I'd feel proud to say I'm a part of.

Good luck with your project, but I'll wait for something easier to use that's fair for everyone. 

Re: smartphones - So I guess the poor guys in Africa can only spend the funds and not ever hope to earn any funds.

I know Dan is proud of his African heritage and all, but can we go one day without a coffee cup or Africa reference in crypto.  I will even promise to unban him from paypal.

No, if you get elected you get paid a standard witness salary which covers your costs plus pay.  Doesn't matter where you are.

You should try out the new 2.0 - we've had a lot of guys working hard to make it sleek and fun to use.
(And it's not a coin, its a platform for all kinds of financial transactions and services.  Doesn't mean that there won't be wallets that hide all that for people who only want to use it to pay for stuff.  Check out nanocard at openledger.info - a debit card that spends crypto anywhere.  Doesn't get much easier than that!  Check out blocktrades.com.  Heck there's all sorts of easy interfaces with more coming every day.)

:)

This was the reason (DPOS) I lost interest in August 2014 after you confirmed this is how the system worked via email to me. At the time the network had just launched and established itself with the 101 nodes. I have 0 faith in a system where I have to try to run a campaign for votes or get people to like me and vote for me. The task of running a node should not matter as long as the task at hand is performed properly by the hardware there should be no need for human interaction in the process or chances for delegates to collude on voting. I can see being voted out if you cannot meet certain levels of performance but they should be given a timeframe or deadline to upgrade as needed. (why not other nodes are there to fallback on).

The human aspect should not have anything to do with being selected as a delegate in my opinion. Why can't that process be automated or the system automatically kicking out delegates that do not meet performance levels and selecting new random nodes without voting?  If you have a standby list of delegates that you need to climb up to reach the 101 would some not wait years?

A random selection of new delegates would solve the problem of fairness for all and give new users an opportunity to participate without voting. Let the nodes perform a task and take the human element out of it. Even if a delegate is doing their job properly a rotation should exist where they can only be in the 101 for so long.

I guess the bottom line is that this system is centralized and not much focus is put on fairness for all.  With eMunie any user who chooses to run services and perform work in the network will be rewarded accordingly regardless of when they start, 1 day or 3yrs down the road. Decentralized........Fast.......Fair.

You do know this is exactly how Bitcoin works right?  Since solo mining is somewhere between impossible and unfeasible, you're required to delegate your vote to a pool owner, and you only get the choice of a couple to choose from.  Same thing in the end game of PoS where it's already guaranteed others will be pooling stake for faster payouts, thus forcing you into doing so as well.  Otherwise you would get like 1 block per decade, which does nothing to help security, and nobody participate in that payout model in the first place.

PoW, PoS, and DPoS all use delegation, and thus reputation.  Emunie appears to be using reputation as well.  They're all more similar than different.  On the other hand, PoW and DPoS have fault correction systems where you can just change your vote by changing pool or delegates if something bad happens.  If something bad happens in Emunie, there's probably no manual fault correction tool like this available to users to fix the network again.  Then what happens?  It's also a partitioned network, so the simple act of updating it can also blow it up.

Due to the simple fact that you can't upload these monetary systems to the internet and have them function like a virus where they run forever with no human intervention, it might be a huge design error not building manual correction tools into the system.

Well Chairman Stanlin, when the corporate fascists / communists started their invasion of the cryptosphere and started promoting derivatives as assets, cronyism as fair elections, centralization as inevitable, and asked us to hand over our private keys some of us got angry.

Probable, but i`m more disapointed at the mining mechanism.

Difficulty of mining should never increase. If it does, then centralization is inevitable, and bitcoin will be under corporate rule in no-time.

It is already happening, so better keep an eye on this. I`m not a fan of the POW vs POS debate, but if this is so then POS looks to be superior.

The BITCOIN 2.0 is either full POS or it's POW where the difficulty doesn't increase

Can't think of anything more fair than the guys who have earned the trust of the most people being the ones to sign blocks.  Its not like its a lucrative position or anything.  People get paid for their expenses and time.  So BitShares folks don't really care all that much who signs it.  The guys who get the most votes are as good as any to do that thankless job.  The jobs generally go to active community members who get fired if they stop being reliable - something that is immediately obvious so nobody worries about it much.  

The new 2.0 version adds the capability for you to vote like someone else you trust to pay attention and choose wisely.  Just tell the system to vote like Bart Simpson and forget about it.  If you don't like his slate, you can change to someone else's slate or roll your own any time you want.

So the system is totally decentralized down to a vote for every single satoshi in circulation.  There are many ways to focus your votes to select the hardware configuration that does the fault-tolerant processing.  That is perfectly decentralized control.  You are looking in the wrong place to get your decentralization if you're trying to count nodes in the globally distributed network.  

Anyway, there are many ways to skin the cat.  I guess its ok to base which system you use on what's under the hood instead of what it does for you.  My roommate really liked his Hurst 4-speed competition shifter and Holly four barrel carburetor for some reason even though his Chevelle Supersport wasn't nearly as good looking as my '68 Mustang.  But both got us up and down the strip every Friday night.

The question is, can we offer a product that enough people will find useful to earn us a return on the man years we spent building it?

If you prefer blue instead of red, we understand.

:)

Oh yea you speak from my heart, BLUE NXT coin is much better than RED communist centrally planned fiat garbage :D

………..
……………….__
…………./´¯/‘…’/´¯¯`·¸
………./‘/…/…./……./¨¯\
……..(’(…´…´…. ¯~/‘…’)
………\……………..‘…../
……….’’…\………. _.·´
…………\…………..(
BRO FIST

And the fact that you've have been claiming 100,000 TPS 'out of the box' for Graphene consistently over the last 3 months..... ;D
A claim that turns out to be based on a very dubious set of benchmarks......Volkswagen springs to mind: you mislead (putting it mildly) the community as to what you were going to deliver.
Now that it is completely obvious that you can only deliver 1/1000th of what you promised, you attempt to spin the discussion into 'Aren't all the BTS critics horrible ?'

Any comments on Banx, btw ?

On to r0ach:


Nope, this whole 32 cores thing is new to me.
See above, BTS have been shilling 100k TPS for months, with no mention of needing enterprise level hardware.
I even pointed out that the hardware requirements for 100k TPS would be huge, but as usual I just got stonewalled back.

There was this https://beyondbitcoin.org/bitshares-dev-hangout-bytemaster-bitshares-2-release-date/

TLDR (at least what I've taken from it): The system could reach 100k TPS under lab conditions that aren't going to happen in the real world. Of course that doesn't sounds as good as just reaching 100k TPS period :).

Done.

And yet Cryptonomex, the Stan 'n' Dan company that effectively controls BTS core development:
https://cryptonomex.com/
Leads off with, and I quote:

http://i62.tinypic.com/ja89ib.jpg

No mention of "only under lab conditions if we fudge the benchmark a bit"  ;D

I can see a lot of scared people, the past few weeks we had a massive rally of Trolls, nxt fanboys and people that generally feel threatened by bitshares, the 30 day anouncement scared a lot of people.

The smell of fear is in the air... in this thread and in others.


Tick tock... tick tock...
you are running out of time dear trolls....

https://i.imgur.com/JbnlNpH.jpg

The whole Crypti team wishes BitShares good luck with 2.0. We DPoS systems need to stick together. :)

Fear ?

ROFLMAO......Graphene simply doesn't work as promised, mate.
BTS is big on the hype, but not so good on the delivery.
 

no, that's the smell of bullshit ... fear's a bit more 'nutty'

Yeah, I could do with changing these socks.....but Graphene still won't work as advertised, even with clean socks on. ;D

It will work. In a world where delegates have over 30 cores and a 30MB/s (yes, that's a capital B) connection.

Thanks :)

You are welcome. :)

You guys shouldn't feel threatened.
We designed it so that everybody could upgrade with us.

Dogecoin could upgrade and immediately be collateral for its own stable market pegged assets!

Peercoin could do counterparty free atomic trades with Dash.

Everybody could get transferrable named multi-signature accounts with private blinded transactions between them.

You can borrow Marscoin to buy Quark and set up auto-payments of Bitcoin to fund a debit card that also takes Qora.

And nobody ever gets Goxed any more because they hold all the keys to their own funds while they are simultaneously available to trade on every member exchange.

It reminds me of how ridiculous our great grandfathers looked when, seeing the first transcontinental railroad, they jeered, "Get a horse!".

And yes, it will take us a few more months to tune things up for our planned bullet train.

:)

I'm still bothered by the misleading marketing.  As such, it's just another reason to be skeptical of any other claims purported. ("Fool me once, shame on you....")

I've spent the last 15 years working for the largest networking company in the world and we are supremely careful in how we word our product datasheets such that anything we sell has been verified because our customers expect the same results after purchase.

Saying it 'can' do 100,000 txs as a selling point would be akin to me selling an ISP a home wireless router that is 'capable' of being a CRS-3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Routing_System (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_Routing_System)).   It better perform that way out of the box today and not at some future date when internet bandwidth is limited.

Shill, Shill, Shill!

200-ish crypto addicts, non-stop circle-jerking themselves...

bah, just shill it


thank you for this BtS sponsored thread

We were very careful in our formal announcement to lay out the basis of our claims.

(Things get a little loose in wording when people wax enthusiastic in the heat of forum discussions.)  :)

Here's the formal wording from an upcoming article that went through our more careful PR process...


What it takes to scale is no different than how amazon and any other such web sites scale up to handle their global transaction load, and in fact, could be accomplished using leftover scaling power we can rent from Amazon when the time comes.  Obviously, there's no need to pay that rent now, but its good to know what's coming because developers (our real customers) need to plan for what kind of platform technology will be available for their wicked cool applications next year.  

Not very careful in your homepage. 

http://imgur.com/2aD8MQS (http://imgur.com/2aD8MQS)

How about an asterisk for that claim?

Good point.  I'll get that done! 

How did you solve micropayments problem?

While most other blockchains are settlement systems, bitshares also has capabilities of a processing system competing with nasdaq/visa without the need for microtx technologies which may help bitcoin to achieve these capabilities but aren't here yet without issues which I am sure you know of. So while bitshares gets network affect bitcoin will still be used as a settlement system until it catches up with new technology. DPOS seems to let you become a processor, albeit at first glance it seems like a tradeoff  has been taken between security/performance (satoshi chose the far end of the spectrum of security to be safe) however if you study the fact that DPOS isn't more centralized than mining pools today then we can conclude that bitshares safely acts as a settlement and processing system.

The premise of bitshares to be a DEX meant it had to act as a processor from the beginning because noone would accept 2 min delays to clear trades. This necessitated the need for some consensus like DPOS which allowed it to happen. As long as delegates can remain anonymous and latency is not an issue, transfer tx's are 300 bytes on avg (far smaller than bitcoins) then you can judge if its a technical innovation in blockchain technology or just vapourware yourself. If delegates can remain anon, then forceful regulation is avoided and keeps the dream of a decentralized settlement system alive, with the processing capabilities of visa/nasdaq to boot!

Even if regulation is a concern to authorities, bts has been designed to comply with laws so the corrupt regulators who want to shut down the system really have no choice and no angle to try to convince the public that regulation is required by forcefully targeting miners (delegates). This helps to remove the incentives for regulators and increases incentives to use a decentralized system as satoshi's dreamed for society (us) to do.

It might make sense for someone to port DPOS/bitshares to bitcoin network rules and see if it solves the block size limit debate by testing large TPS in a real world scenario. If its just a settlement system at the core we are after I think that this port would overtake bitcoin on a better technical implementation.

Because delegates are chosen to create blocks randomely the mining pool collusion is not applicable to bitshares where pools share headers to get a head start on the next block (centralization). Block propogation is less of an issue if you have 10 min blocks, so you can load them up with 10k TPS on a standard network and probably be stable.

I'm not sure I got you. I was talking about the problem of sending very small amounts (fractions of US cent). Your post make me think that BTS doesn't support micropayments.

Ahh, i was thinking more like processing transactions and having them settle without the nuisance of waiting an hour. I've sent 0.01 bitUSD before no problems, im not sure how many decimal places it lets me use, if you ask on bitshares talk im sure someone can give you some bitusd to try it out.

The success of any coins will depend on if they can get bootstrapped in a certain time window (maybe 1-3 years), namely, making profit, having steady revenue and cash flow.

That couldn't be less true.
In fact, every NEM client is a lightweight client, because you can hook it up to ANY node.
See this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eW4ftmOzfPk

Quite true!  :D

I think ethereum will still be successfull and then bitshares will follow next.

Hmm i didnt know you can do that.
 
But still it doesnt come close to NXT in terms of features and usefullness.

Features - yes. Usefullness - debatable. 

Adoption is the key.
Once bitcoin's flaws become apparent, people will be flocking over to NXT or NEM.

Bitcoin was just a beta project essentially a proof of concept piece of software that took off with no future proofing in mind.
Its worse than the problem we have with running out of ipv4 addresses.

I agree about adoption being key. That means that tech is less important though which also means that BTC - a mere proof of concept indeed - is still very much in the race. There are so many bagholders now that are pushing it despite all flaws that in the end it doesn't really matter how flawed it is or isn't. All that matters will be what crypto has the backing of people that can actually push it into mainstream and right now BTC still seems to have the best chances there.

Well i`ll be following both NEM, and ETH alongside with NXT to have a comparison as they are both similar genre.

I am even thiking about investing in NEM, but i`m still not convinced about it, i`ll have to do more research.

The thing i like with NXT is that it has a big and userfriendly forum, I dont like the shiny NEM forum format.

I prefer the SMF forum theme :D

NXT is my top pick.
But there are some interesting things i do really like about NEM

Are you talking about a crypto-currency or a corporate start-up ?
Admittedly, most of the current gen 2.0 currencies are being run as centralised corporations, but you cannot measure the success of a crypto-currency on those criteria.
Adoption may be the most important measure of success.....but even that could be up for debate,

You mean the authenticaton system based on nodes, and trust. Thati s innovative in NEM, but i dont know how practically useful that is.

The old POS systems are good too, and we shall see which one tends to be better in reality, not just in theory.

I also prefer NXT as the best altcoin now.

Thank you for this gem. I requested password recovery on BTS forum but hasn't received the letter even after 10 hours of waiting. Now I don't need to post my question regarding micropayments on their forum, the answer is pretty clear.

I guess this brilliant system was also devised with constant 100k TPS in mind? Otherwise you're not gonna get enough fees to pay everyone and their uncle.
Also saying BTS is the frist to pay miners solely from the tx fees is just so utterly wrong. Is that another lie the bts marketing has been telling you ?

What system?

the "system" of paying that many people from tx fees.

Could you explain "and users (through burning coins daily)"? Users burn coins but somehow get paid?

Your other post made it sound like it was doing something else. No, noone is doing that. We'll see how profitable it's going to be though.

can you define too large ? Is that also something the users vote for ?

Are those votes a one time thing or are they going to be happening regularly ?

I don't have a coin so I'm really not trying to hate.

For me, they are same thing. The business success on a platform means the success of the platform becasue there will be steady revenue to support the platform and vise versa.

Here is what bytemaster says...


link https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,18717.msg241280.html#msg241280

Your using miner(s) alot is this the same as delegate, or the 101.  If it is then they are the only one who will be paid via the fees, correct?

How will they vote, one coin one vote or one account one vote?

Btw, what is the current fee per transaction?

Crypti is now Open Source! (https://blog.crypti.me/crypti-is-now-open-source/)

Congratulations!!!

Thanks. :) Now everyone who didn't believe us can look for himself. ;)

100% own Node.js code.

If you promote Crypti as 100% own code then you should emphasize that cryptographic algorithms implementation was extensively reviewed or you use popular cryptolibraries.

Of course it uses popular crypto libraries. :) It's the same as Nxt promoted with the slogan "100% from scratch". ;)

I know that it uses cryptolibs, but "100%" raises questions regarding security of cryptoalgorithms. It may be fine for ordinary users, but it will catch an eye of a serious company that may be thinking about using Crypti.

PS: I faced this very problem in my current project. We use a novel signing algorithm.

Thanks for the hint. Good luck with your project. :)

Will third party security auditing solve this problem? I think Ethereum is also facing the same issue and tried to do some intensive third party auditing to solve it.

Yes, more peer reviews = better.

Ethereum eventually but not yet.

I've created a bake-off contest thread here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1203228.0 due to the difficulty of knowing how fast cryptos can go in an apples-to-apples comparison...though it won't be perfect, it may help.  Does anyone want to challenge eMunie's claim in this bake-off?  BitShares' Stan/Dan?  Come-from-Beyond?

Buterin senior will be happy.

Your test is a failed concept from the start for the reason I posted in that thread.  You cannot compare Emunie with coins that use a blockchain:

Why?

Surely the comparison will illuminate the better technology, which the test is about.

Its an apples - apples comparison because the same task is being performed, just in a different manner.  The end result is transactions.

The same way testing petrol and electric powered cars to see which is the most efficient or whatever, same task, different manner, end result = transport

My post from the other thread:


I don't think you can really argue it that way.  The blockchain system objectively has more redundancy.

A non blockchain concept is purely for trash.

Thanks for your in-depth technical analysis :)

You said all i need to know

Quoted from another thread as it wasn't relevant to post a reply there.

Please explain your definition of redundancy for clarity, so I can be sure to rebut it in the correct context.

One of the most dogmatic and short-sighted comments ever  ;)

Just the way you like it

I need numbers for payments-only performance of eMunie then.

Sorry but its true, the blockchain is not efficient, but it's transparent and free.

Sorry when it comes to money, i`d rather have a transparent , non counterfeitable system, that is free of control, than a 1 server database that is efficient, but ultra corruptable.

non blockchain != 1 server database

blockchainless + the points you mention are not necessarily contradictory.

I'm not sure what you mean by payments-only, isn't that all this test is going to do?  We cant turn off all the additional transactional features in order to achieve higher throughput, nor would I want to.  Other projects may wish to do that, but I want to have a near as possible production eMunie configuration so that its a truer test of what real world performance can be.

Anyway, for this "bake-off" eMunie will most likely run in a single partition configuration as there is still some final work and testing to do in order to operate a multi-partition network.  If the bake-off date is indeed moved though, we should be at a point where a multi-partition network could be configured.

With the machine specs outlined in the OP, and a single partition config, eMunie should be able to easily sustain 200-300 tx/s across 20 nodes for 100 minutes.  Taking the average of 250 tx/s, our test result should be somewhere around 1.5M transactions after 100 minutes.  If the OP wants decides to do peak testing too, 3-5k tx/s should be possible over a short duration, but this bake-off really needs sustained load capability, as the final transaction count is what matter.

If we are at a stage where we can operate a multi-partition network, then that throughput greatly increases up to an order of 10x for 20 partitions!

Setting the playing field is going to be tricky.......some systems are going to be much happier running on high end hardware.

Just to rig the entire game in Nxts favour: can we run the bake-off on RaspPi2 or CubieTrucks?   ;D

Sure :)  We run pretty well on that kinda hardware too, obviously no 1000s of tx/peaks, but it functions no less :)

I have a 64MB RAM (+64MB swap) node which runs Crypti. On another node of myself which has 128MB RAM I currently even run a Crypti delegate.

Live example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XA5o-V1Q0ak

I guess this is how the non blcokchain looks like - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1177633.msg12627626#msg12627626

If I am correct it is like a transaction-chain or one block has one transaction and there are still chains.

Heh it is kind of blockchain concept so I will read more into it, thanks :)

Even though I like Bitshares more than NXT, I'll trade anything if it's profitable.  I noticed NXT is currently at it's all time low of price, so was looking over the charts and market depth seeing if there would be some kind of bounce.  Right now it only takes 17btc to send NXT to 0.  Is this coin about to die or what?  It doesn't look like there are any whales interested in keeping it alive.

Isnt comefrombeyond the main dev? hes focusing on other projects now it seems

I saw him post he was 80% done creating a new coin.  Hopefully it will not be IPO'd to 11 people.

How true was it that NXT IPO/ICO/Presale (or whatever) was sold mostly to their insiders?  There was always this assumption hanging around.

yup maybe he will create a new anon alias like daglord make the initial git push and claim hes satoshi

Total bogus.  CFB isn't BCNext anyway.

Keep thinking that

I knew all the Bitshares commies would object to a free market endeavour.  Keep telling yourself that Stan, Dan and the Chicom gov doesn't rig all the delegate elections and control everything in Bitshares.

They could but thats besides the point :)

This is exactly the reason why we will never agree.  It is in fact the whole point.

With enough money it will become as decentralized as you once dreamed of.

"In the future I see a public blockchain - whether that's Bitcoin or some other open one in the future, which is a way of registering ownership of all sorts of assets and it's a way of transferring ownership of those assets in a single system that can be read by all of the right people and none of the wrong people. So it becomes very simple for me to swap my dollars for your IBM shares, or your pounds for my house. Any asset that we assign a value to and want to be sure about who owns it can be registered using this technology.”

 - James Smith, CEO of Elliptic

Does this not sound like Bitshares with registered and pegged assets/hierchical account control to you?

No, and never was.

Nope, CFB has been out of Nxt for well over a year. Jean-Luc is our current lead dev, and has been for a long time:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=166843

On the price, meh. Could be better, but them's the breaks. Nxt has more than enough solid working tech to justify a much higher market cap, all it needs is some proper marketing.
And what's this :
 The Tennessee Project  (https://nxtforum.org/general-discussion/%28marketing-business-and-development%29-the-tennessee-project-fundraiser/)

Looks like someones coming up with a professional marketing plan for Nxt...... ;D

Why ? No-one at the time expected Nxt to be anything special, so there was zero incentive to rig the distro.
The distro was open to all, and you can still see the entire process here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=345619.0

It's only after Nxt became a mega-success that people started to whine about distribution being unfair (ie they didn't get any) and started spinning up conspiracy theories.
Nxt was open to all for 2 months, 73 people signed up, with around 11 people putting in big amounts (ie up to one BTC).
I've spoken to/communicated with most of those 11, and a lot of the others over the last 2 years.
I reckon the distro was pretty fair, and as I said, only became a problem afterwards.

NXT and Crypti

You did everything in your power to avert people from "investing", that's why you had 100% incentive to rig the distro! You wanted only a few insiders to hold the coins so you could control the price to pump and dump it easy, and that's exactly what you did!

With those two first posts BCNext is trying to keep any sane person away from nxt as possible, Im sure there is a lot more material to dig up but I don't want to spent all my free time with your scam.(Actually I believe it's the most succesfull scam in the history of bitcointalk! well done!)

The whole method of distribution is a joke, the whole point was to keep the average Joe out too, and this 1btc cap is ridiculous, I could use as many computers and btc wallets I wanted and I could send as many btc I wanted, multiple times, I'm sure that's what the few nxt "developers" did, and then they claimed that a total of 73 people signed up! LOL

No wonder that nxt marketcap is in deep s#!t I think that even now it's way too overvalued, but soon it will find it's rightfull place at the bottom of coinmarketcap with the rest of scamcoins.


Images below...
===============================================================
https://i.imgur.com/1HjtrtQ.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/q8QdqCx.jpg
===============================================================
 

Are you implying that EvilDave is BCNext  :o

So I've been looking around in the crypto world again..  Doing my rounds, reading blogs from the different projects and platforms, lurking their forums and what not.

I love all of it.  I just wish 'The Great Crypto Run Up' comes sooner rather than later.  I'm itching for a good trade.

3 people knew bcnext's phone number -> proves that only 3 people invested in Nxt. Seems legit.

But you have a point: Getting into Nxt requires too many skills. Following a step by step guide and transferring some btc requires a min IQ of 80. That's unfair for the less intelligent.

Anyone want to check out my l33t Java coding skillz ?  :o

Chryspano is just making up a little fantasy, let him roll with it.
None of what he's saying actually makes any sense, so......meh.

You could be though, whos to say that you aren't?

Just like anyone on this forum could be Satoshi, he did say he was going to work on something else...chances are he's been greeted with major trolling about his new project.

I do wonder sometimes, Satoshi is around and posting as someone else with a new project and the trolls are disrespecting him, if one day he might just go "Right, screw all of you!" *dumps 1M BTC*

Isn't it why you hired me to do most of coding stuff?  ;D

Himself, his mom and his dog.

I knew it. So it was the dog who ate his rabbit cunicula.

Alright, I give up. It's a fair cop,guv.....
I am BCNext....... ;D
Curse you meddling kids..!

@Dan: I'm basing my Chryspano fantasy remark on what I personally know to be true.
But, yeah, that's still no reason to actually believe me over Chryspano.
The only way out is to due some research/due diligence and try to figure out what happened based on the evidence available.
I read through the entire Nxt origin thread (all 95 pages of it) almost 2 years ago,
came to the conclusion that Nxt was a straight (and f***ing briliiant) project, so I got involved.

Chryspano draws a different conclusion, based on the first page of the thread.
But, I can't get excited about the distro issue anymore, and C is free to believe whatever he/she likes.

MIND....BLOWN!

Yeah, it's a scary thought. 8)

OMG can the 80 IQ people read, i cant understand how a 80 IQ person can put the worlds together in their brains and abstract the concepts and objects from them. How does the logic work for them?

Must be a very dizzy state of being, and a very blurred mental capacity.

But yea the sheeple hardly has higher IQ than that, we need a cryptocoin designed for total morons, probably a wallet that has only 2 buttons to simplify it.

My last IQ test score was 47, so, as you see, they can read.



Do you mean formal logic? I use fuzzy logic and it works pretty good.

Idk what IQ test you took, but it was probably a crappy mobile phone version (like those shitty ones they advertize).

A real IQ score ranges from roughly 60-250, and I expect everybody on this forum to have an IQ above 110.

You better retake that test, and try a normal one, most likely your test was a fake one.

try this:
http://www.free-iqtest.net/

I got this (looks like I also have bad memory, it's 74, not 47):

http://s4.postimg.org/7hx6wrzzx/image.png

Yea but IQ tests on the internet are not standardized, i mean do a real one to measure it correctly.

Dont bust yourself down like this, the mean fact that you are in bitcoin proves that you have atleast 100 IQ, and possibly more.

I'm not sure if you're serious?
CFB is getting ready to release a coin from scratch to support his JINN  hardware project for a decentralized IOTs. Not to mention his bizarre and twisted heavy involvement in nxt and before that, developing (not sure if finished) another innovative coin- qubits on the Quorum platform.

His IQ is well above 74/47. Everything he says has to be questioned. I don't know what he is trying to accomplish but half of his posts are riddles and have hidden messages.

CFB is trolling you OR
You are trolling each other AND THEREFORE
You're both trolling me?

No I just exposed some irony how the sheeple cant understand cryptocurrencies and they always need something simple to use.

Most people are dumb enough to barely use a PC, yet they can use a smartphone, because its designed for dumb people, just as Steve Jobs said , all Apple products are oriented towards simplicity, thats what made its success, why: because the sheeple is dumb, and you will only achieve success with something that is easy to use.

So I guess the cryptocurrency that is the most "dumb" and "easy to use" will win the crypto race.

IQ is a useless indicator, I don't use conscience when solve hard engineering problems. I "load" the problem description into my mind and focus on completely different tasks, several days later I get a ready solution.

Can you post your pic?  I wanna see what a smart person looks like.  ;D

In case if he is too shy, here is how a person with IQ=140 looks like:

http://www.lionesswomansclub.com/dat/content/image/natalie%20portman%20(Small).jpg

Here:

http://cdns2.freepik.com/free-photo/bitcoin-symbol-inside-head_318-53490.jpg

This is what a smart person looks like :D

You can find his picture and his IQ info (168 if I remember correctly) at Nxtforum.org. I am not kidding. CfB is not anonymous- https://nxtforum.org/news-and-announcements/(ann)-jinn/msg107880/#msg107880 and the Jinn is a real venture.

Sounds great if IoT wasn't a code word for giant surveillance grid of doom.  Yes, this is the type of structure things like unmanned cars will be built around.  People will be required to carry devices to travel on public infrastructre, maybe a cell phone type device that acts as a transponder.  In addition to their sensors simulating sight, unmanned cars will detect the RF from the device and act as a collision avoidance plus navigation system.  Your wallet and identity will then be connected to the same transponder.  Everyone will be tracked like cattle.  

Manual driving will then be banned, cash ban, then increased negative interest rates.  At this point, they're just getting started because the world needs to be reduced to pre-industrial revolution population.  Best case scenario, the west will resemble China, but probably far worse.  Even if you agree that humans are some type of disease that needs to be contained, most people of European and Asian descent are basically at negative birth rate already.  You can either create a world-wide prison grid system for everyone that utilizes socialism to supplement people who are simultaneously pushed out by technological unemployment and still over-reproducing at the same time, or you can just address the main offenders of high, out of control birth rates.

So yea, there is really no such thing as a "decentralized IoT".  All it is, is a system to broadcast as much personal information as possible to be centrally administratively controlled.

Sounds as SkyNet+Matrix combo.

camp XEM .... what assets have you got and where do i buy them?
camp BTS .... ditto ... and what the hell are protoshares again?


camps
CP
NXT
crypti
Master .... you all at least have some assets i've heard of.

camp ETH .... ? got any assets ? a trade platform ? market data website ?

camp BTC .... yo! MergeMined coins are side chain coins are your assets ... embrace that idea
camp LTC ... ditto
camp DASH ... you guys have enough market cap. to find a crypto20 niche

QORA
EXPanse

nice neat but will they live ?

Yes, and it'll all be your fault, you naughty boy. >:(

I can bear that, humankind deserves to be replaced by better beings, even if they are based on Si instead of C.

most successful = most useful
https://i.imgur.com/Uzmtyab.png
http://pigrid.com/kickstarter

^ Not 2.0. 

Ya but where does it end?
Next will be a topic asking what 3.0 coin..
Created by bag holders,  pumpers,  advertisers (playing naive noob)
Notice the missing piece to the puzzle yet guys?
You spend years loitering around here preaching to the choir
In some giant circle jerk facade.. Making this forum and the scene as a whole
Look more and more like a predatory trap.

Tell me what good does it do making coin no. 8,000 +1
It's like packing another pebble on a guys back until it crush him..
While chanting my intentions are better than the next guys
While focusing all your energy on market values, pumping, trades etc
While ignoring the obvious.. This scene is a ghost town.
And you need your head checked if there is going to be a second wave like a couple years ago.
Part of the problem is the explosion happened for Bitcoin.. Not altcoins!
Then with your cloning support you ruined all potential for every altcoin
and in the process damaged Bitcoin's potential etc.
Yet you all just sit around here doing the same dumb self destructive crap.
Debating on what wave of new coins that come out will be successful is dumb..
When you should be out pounding the pavement attracting new support & real users (not market milkers looking to squeeze fiat from others) .. For FIRST wave coins.

Time to grow up kids and get real.

Am I right to assume that you feel bad about bitcoin loosing steam and you blame all "altcoins" for this? If bitcoin is loosing steam then there must be something wrong with it, don't you think? 

The bitcoin mining cartel needs your money to survive! dump your alts! buy btc! LOL  ;D

Most people I talked to on the street young and old a like said the same thing..
They would say yeah I heard of that.. Isn't that some Internet thing for buying Crack and ak47's on the Web?
None had a clue what it was..
I told a guy I met who liked to play PC games prob mid 30's that I made over 10k with bitcoin
.. He looked at me with disgust!
He said isn't that some thing for buying drugs?
So he thought I made 10k selling Crack or something..
Luckily I had the time to explain things to him or he would have walked away thinking I was an Internet Crack dealer LOL

You guys think when people Google search Bitcoin then come hear to the forum are going to be impressed?
You guys think creating thousands of different little digital ponzi tokens to artificially pump and dump is HELPING things?

You're asking this rhetorical question while at the same time having a Cryptsy logo in your avatar. What is Cryptsy if not an outlet to pump and dump little digital ponzi tokens? They're (allegedly) currently under investigation for a variety of infractions, including some related to Paycoin (XPY), which is probably the most obvious (non-explicit) crypto ponzi.

No, of course it doesn't help, but we can't "ban" or accuse as scams all altcoins because 600 out of 636 are worthless copy paste clones or pure scams. This doesn't mean that btc is the only "true" crypto out there and that we should flock around it no matter what. 

FYP

http://ct-static.com/labels/184273.jpg

Obviously this thread is derailing, as expected. ;D

Anyway, does anyone still believe Bitcoin will last forever??

Yes, after 2.0 will come 3.0 and so on. That's called evolution  ;)

It's only a disadvantage for people that are only interested in get rich quick schemes...

Yes it will, tradition is more powerful than technology.

Why do english guards wear funny hats?

Why do scottish males wear skirts?

Why do people dress into santa at christmas?


Its all unnecessary, but its tradition, and people will do that many more years. The same with bitcoin, even if bitcoin 10.0 comes out that will be superior in any aspect, I believe the bitcoin community is so strong now that it will always exist.

Just to use an analogy -> Nokia  ;)
Comparing software to your examples really amused me  ;D

Ok let me give you another example if you are amused.

People in Luxembourg do this:

http://cdn3.vtourist.com/19/1618328-greeners_Luxembourg.jpg

For hundreds of years probably. And Luxembourg has only a population of 500,000 people.

Bitcoin already has ~5 million members, don't you think our traditions won't live a few hundred years?

Don't worry folks, bitcoin will stay here for good :D

nothing else to say about my avatar ?

and by the way i would have voted but there was no NONE option..

So are you saying we have to stick with crappy 1.0 coins then?
Ive added none just for you, but i think only a minority will vote!  :D

voted none and thanks for the option  8)

'2.0 ponzi coin'   :D

Cool, I can see Spoetnik is getting back into his game.

None doesn't make sense though :)
The question is which one will be most successfull. Even if something isn't really successfull it can still be more successfull than the others.

Ethereum. You can produce smart contract with Ethereum. It is a built-in function. It has good future.

edit: wrong thread

Voted NEM for its unique features and continuous development.
It looks like digital assets are up next. http://blog.nem.io/mosaic-and-namespace-public-testnet-release/

NXT is back in the game:
http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/

It is the 10th biggest crypto, and boy with all the new developments it will likely become soon the 2nd.

Here is the roadmap:
http://www.nxttechnologytree.com/

It all depends whenever the crypto will have mainstream adoption and promising technology. Currently, there have been many interesting cryptos out there like Ethereum, Bitshares, NXT and Maidsafe. Especially Ethereum and NXT, which I think would be successful due to their innovative technologies. Smartchains and decentralized apps would be the next big thing. Just my opinion.  ::)

1.0 coin can evolve into 2.0. Bitcoin can use mixing to make it anonymous. The best anonymous coin is Monero so far.

I dont think bitcoin will add huge protocol changes.

I find it very unlikely, and I would not encourage it. Why? Because any change creates a division. Any division halts the progress.

Just look how bad the block debate is. We dont need another debate like that.

Use Monero for that.

The way I see it, I think that Ethereum would be the most successful 2.0 currency. The fact that Microsoft and IBM has entered the Ethereum scene, this would make big changes in the crypto industry. Just my opinion.  :)