Bitcoin Forum

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins (http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins)

How does your coin stack up when you look at their mining starts?

Coins discussed in this article...All the top alt coins except the second gen coins like Mastercoin, ripple, etc.


Bitcoin
Maxcoin
Namecoin
Blackcoin
Darkcoin
Mintcoin
Vertcoin
Peercoin
Primecoin
Litecoin
Infinitecoin
Megacoin
Worldcoin
Feathercoin
Bitbar
Goldcoin
Novacoin
Dogecoin
Quark
Zetacoin
ybcoin

basic mining data from the blockchain and from www.cryptometer.org were used to assess the fairness or scamminess of these coins. Obviously more information is needed to make a decision before investing, but this can be a big portion of your decision.


This needs to be spread around. Link to it if you like it!

Thanks looks good.


Globb0

Lots of good clear information there! Also, thank you for the little mention of the NobleCoin .pdf.

Oh look, it's the same guy who doesn't know anything about cryptocurrency history reposting his bogus analysis once again.  While some coins in the list are indeed flat out scams (goldcoin), the author fails to acknowledge that Kimoto Gravity Well is a fairly new addition to coins and wasn't a part of most coins at launch date.  Any coin that released without KGW will have a distribution curve that looks similar to the one from Litecoin, ie: frontloaded, which the author claims is a scam.

This is such a childish analysis that fails to take into account even Bitcoin itself still uses this difficulty adjustment mechanism, so if Bitcoin was to relaunch today, that's exactly what it's distribution would look like, front loaded.

The TLDR version of your post, is basically claiming if a coin didn't have KGW from day 1, then it's a scam.  Only problem is, any coin over a couple months old most likely didn't.  Original poster is completely clueless about crypto history.

Did you even read the article? I actually take down that false dichotomy and point out that the coins with accidental fastmines are less of a concern for an investor. They are still problematic, but I break down the concern of instamines into three choices; obviously dangerous investments, questionable investments, and okay investments based purely on how fast the coins were mined.

I realize you are a miner, so this may not reach you, but it's important to non mining investors that the coin isn't slanted too much towards the miners. Since you think my writing is childish, please comment on the following coins I discuss...


-Blackcoin's 40 million coin creation in 3 days (proved using their blockchain). Blackcoin has around 75 million coins in existence today, representing more than 50% coin generation in 3 days.

-Darkcoin splurge-spawned 1.6 million coins within 8 hours of its start (proved using their blockchain). There are 4.31 million DRK in existence today.

-Mintcoin's ridiculous 700 million coins for ONE BLOCK at its start (proved using their blockchain)


...Plus more funny business completely unrelated to whether or not a coin has KGW.


Your TL;DR is way off. But I realize why you are pissed; I am going after the miners who make money of poor chums that come to invest, only to hold the bag after. If you mine coins without regard to how the coin is structured and the MO, in my opinion you are not different than the chumps on Wall Street who use HFT algorithms to leech money out of the market. Crypto currencies should fend off the leeches, not make room for them. These coins deserved to be called out. If you don't want to address them point by point and just pull the "expert miner" card, so be it. I will continue to write and inform other investors of some basic information.

no problem, I thought it was a decent look into the mind of someone neck deep into cryptocurrencies...Anyone interested in cryptos would find a nice, well rounded perspective in there.

https://www.noblemovement.com/the-state-of-alternative-cryptocurrency-an-introduction-to-the-alternative-cryptocurrency-scene-its-inner-workings-noblecoin-moving-forward/ (https://www.noblemovement.com/the-state-of-alternative-cryptocurrency-an-introduction-to-the-alternative-cryptocurrency-scene-its-inner-workings-noblecoin-moving-forward/)

This article now added...

Ultracoin...Ultracoin had a first block that generated 2 million coins. There are 14 million UTC in existence.

whitecoin...Did you know whitecoin first had 30,000 WC blocks? Do you know what the block subsidy changed to? 10 WC. Not to mention a rather shady first block for whitecoin as well...


read more at the article. Use the menu on the left to scroll to your coin of choice.

 You have some errors with einsteinium. It was 1024 coins per block during the first two epochs before our recent halving, not 10747 you say in the wiki. You can do calculations based on our block halving schedule. Epochs happen every 25 days, every epoch is 36000 blocks. The wormhole amount is also wrong, it is 2973 coins per block for the 180 blocks that constitute a wormhole every epoch. We had a fair launch, no premine or limited instamining.  There are a few other errors as well, not necessary with the analysis, but technical errors. Overall, it is a good assessment. One of our team members can help you with any technical errors, but we do not want to alter your substance or analysis. The mechanics and coin amounts can be found on our bitcoin talk thread here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=494708.0

If you wish to PM me, I can help.

There is an aggressive halving schedule early on during the first 18 months, but you are correct, the wormhole mechanism is designed to mitigate that effect and reward later miners.

In terms of the science funding part...that much is true. We have funded two projects so far. We will continue to fund projects into the future.



 

I'm just about to head to bed, but I promise to look into these possible errors and adjust the post accordingly.

Thanks for the helpful information!

I took a quick look at it and the first block was in fact 10747.

http://chain.einsteinium.org/block/d1c175570320d4d6388a4525385b8f20460d340f621cfeebb9824712b9e593c5 (http://chain.einsteinium.org/block/d1c175570320d4d6388a4525385b8f20460d340f621cfeebb9824712b9e593c5)

The rest of the initial blocks are the number you quote. I probably looked at the first block and made an assumption. whoops!


I will post the einsteinium section as under construction until tomorrow.

We just found out about that amount ourselves, it is the genesis block which is a bit unique since it launched the coin and created the foundation wallet. I guess it was a very small instamine then (10,747 coins). We did hear from our dev the genesis block was a bit different from the others, and we will find out more later. It may have ended up with the foundation wallet, but we will have to ask our dev to know for sure. The amount is so small I am not sure it is a huge concern, even if the amount went to our coin dev.

wow bitcoin on the list too?
but i guess we can all forgive bitcoin?  ;D

Bitcoin wasn't instamined, fastmined or whatever.

As an investing non miner I really don't care the how when who of mining and neither will average joe when he gets into cryptos.

Really irrelevant now considering how many are 50%-100% premine.

Doesn't matter how they start, what matters is who holds them over time.

2 of your statements seem incongruent.

Nice article.  I'm doing what I can to share it. 

Good COINS without good popularization and application, there is no practical COINS either issue, in what way are meaningless

i saw the list from OP saw bitcoin, but i was wrong i should have read that link first.

now that you mentioned it, i went and read that weblink, very interesting read indeed.

every newbie should be pointed to read that article first before investing anything.

not at all, exchanges overtime is the real distribution method, no matter the how when why or who of mining.

Can only speak about mintcoin. As got into them a week back after doing a fair amount of research. If you look at their post here when they launched you will understand why the first block had 700 million mints. It's 1% of the total mints that will be. The developers state very clearly that the coins has 1% premine for development and giveaways etc. That's the first block. Sure enough you have done your research but what would be great is if you put everything down and not select the info that you feel is right. Maybe they are scam. But after reading your article and looking at how they made it clear before launching the coin. Your article looks biased and not well researched.

There is a lot of work you put into this , I must congratulate you for this.
Worth reading and comparing the coins when you're done with it and double check it.

Blackcoin: the first 5000 blocks were POW. After block 5000, POS kicked in. You will find about 7500 POW blocks and 2500 POS blocks in the first 10000. Hence the ~75 million coins.

That's why you dont find any POS blocks pre 5000.

Blackcoin was fully mined in ~7 days. Most miners dumped the coin (it went from 3000 satoshi to 500). At price 500, it stayed for ~2 weeks with low interest. Investors picked the coin up and took it to where it is now. Most people who have blackcoin bought it in when it was cheaper than to mine.

That's the blackcoin side of the story.

This is from the website...will have to compare the data to give a verdict on this one

Interesting article.

Proper analysis about exactly why an instamine is unfair would be good.

These two aren't major altcoins at all, but you can look at:
 - Limecoin (LC, the Scrypt one; not the X11 one). 75% of all coins ever were mined in 48 minutes. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=579604.msg6436534#msg6436534
 - Hashcoin. 3 million coin fast mine (compare with current reward of 37500 per day) . See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=568453.msg6371890#msg6371890

Plus, XXLCoin is currently fighting 1st/2nd place voting for Mintpal, and yet it has a huge premine (30% of current coins; 13% of all coins that will ever be mined). Mintpal doesn't even have DOGE/Altcoin markets so I don't know how that's going to work when there are 314 billion coins now and a 13%-30% premine. See: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=442107.msg6470346#msg6470346

Mention any of this in the thread and you just get flamed down by dev & chums & the lucky ones that benefitted from fastmine. I've given up. I think people don't care.

I mean you cant not care about the how and the when of mining and then say what matters is who holds them over time. Because in the case of the worst offenders, someone is holding a huge lump of coin and can destroy the market at any time they chose or when your innocent traders get the price to a certain point, dump dump dump.

That's all I meant, I know what you mean about traders wont care (or more accurately will probably never know and wouldn't necessarily see it as relevant to their day trading only looking for price trends)  the thing is those trends are potentially exposed to faking by the first part of the equation (prem/inst whales)  so unequivocally linked.

It's a horrible analysis because he tries to claim not having KGW in an era when little or no coins had KGW systems makes you a scamcoin.

He even lists Dogecoin up there.  I was one of the first 50 people on the planet to mine Dogecoin.  It had no exchange near launch, when an exchange did come online (Coinedup), it was worth absolutely nothing.  I could have mined something more profitable, but I mined Dogecoin anyway while looking at the screen and saying, WOW, I just made 2 cents.  Nobody knew it would be worth a damn thing.

I'll visit it once my VPN gets fixed. This way he can get my IP easily.
Anyhow: I'm not a newbie, nor do I use the altcoin section that often these days. After a while passes, you just know which coins to look at and which to avoid.

Well, Doge is in the "Acceptable Altcoins" category with a "paltry instamine"; he doesn't call it a scamcoin.

The KGW point on old coins is valid (although I'm personally more interested in evaluating new coins, not old/established ones).

By "Proper analysis about exactly why an instamine is unfair would be good" I mean the study should go into details of why instamine necessarily means that the dev, rather than random miners who are online at the time, gets the lion's share of the coins. Because those pulling off the instamines come up with countless excuses why it's still fair ("I only mined a few blocks myself, honest guv!").

On the stock market, major holders holding larger percentages is viewed as extremely positive :) its average joe mindless sheep that panic.

This makes Quark fair as fuck if you compare it to the first group of coins on that list.

Hi,
When i started mining XPM it was 2.5$, when it reached to 7$-8$ i was addicted to this, it was like a drug! But , o well, now one XPM is less then 50 cents..
BR,
Gondel

Juts like some people don't mind if their neighbor is a rapist , but they are scared as hell if he is a murderer. :)

He kind of refers to Vertcoin as a scamcoin as well, solely due to launching with regular Litecoin difficulty and not KGW.  Even though after it hit exchanges, it sold for less than 0.0001 for a week or more?  It doesn't really matter how many miners picked up, there was a ton for sale on the exchange for absolutely nothing.  Look at my quote below from January to prove it.  You would have been better off not mining Vertcoin AT ALL, mining Litecoin instead, then selling the Litecoin to purchase Vertcoin on an exchange.  There was basically no early miner reward.

His comparison proves you wrong and you agreed with him, now you are just nitpicking because you don't have anything to say, keep it real my man.

The expression you used proves that you don't believe that quark distribution was one to brag about on fairness. And let me guess... quak bagholder?

I've all kind of coins including quark dr.phil, thats why i said 'compared to the first group of coins' it's much more fair. If your job is to nitpick coins then you are at the wrong coin my friend since there are much worse ones to get you going. Also what coins were you holding again?

Thank you for this comprehensive article.


Could the author incorporate this information into the analysis on BlackCoin? I would greatly be interested in his/her opinion on that now since the assumption about missing PoS blocks during the hybrid PoW/PoS phase is invalid given the quote from maarx above.

I think the main point was that the distributions of these coins were so quick that few could take part means it could be considered premined (referred to as a soft premine/instamine, one of the two is used).

That was indeed the point.
If you start expanding the time frame... hell !!! even BTC will look premined to a guy born in 2545.

Very good ;D I agree. So how can any coin be truly 'fair'? There are billions of people who have never heard the phrase 'cryptocurrency', if any of them become mainstream then it would be incredibly unfair to billions who weren't there at the start.

But there is the unfairness above and the incredibly, grotesquely unfair. If there is only hours/days to get involved, what difference does it make if the distribution is POS/POW/POT/hybrid?

A truly fair coin can't be distributed by a non profit organisation or an anonymous dev without some kind of world government backing it up. (which would ruin the whole idea)
I wondered so many times how can you distribute a coin fair and square and with no doubts that the dev isn't holding the coin itself or giving it to fake accounts , a coin that would not be advantageous for the first that hold them... that can be distributed all over the world... but no

Haven't found a solution or an idea yet.

Well if the history of a coin is important for you which i believe it is than this list can be a good indicator to avoid some of them. Usually communities try to hide it or down vote it on Reddit, but this guy did a great job shining some truth.

If you look at the coins listed under 'Coins That Are Bad Ideas For Investment or Usage' there are some surprising coins which i personally didn't know about so.

Please do a thorough check on DigitalCoin :).

Not done a full check, but it seems the (very) fast blocks found in the first few hours were well handled by the (significantly) lower block rewards, leading to a fairly straight line on the chart.

I was planning to only do top coins, but i suppose after more thought it makes sense to get information up about smallish coins before they hit it big. Save people some time.

I'll look into these, thanks.

BTW, weren't there 2 limecoins?

Heh, I don't like Dogecoin but I make it plainly clear in the article that their mining process wasn't all that bad.

So many of the coins I discuss have funny business beyond the KGW question. Stop creating a strawman for your entire argument.

Let's face it. You're pissed at this post because you mine a number of these coins. My post threatens your bank account. I get it. We are fated to be against each other.

Please use clear information to explain your case against my coin analysis. Ad hominem's and other logical fallacies will be called out.

I agree that an intuition develops if you are around the scene long enough. However, I'm willing to guess that more than 95% of the intended users of these currencies will not be bitcointalk.org users. Thus, this information needs to make it to the public.

we should divide instamine made from a single person or a small group, and instamine made from everyone that was there, the latter is acceptable to me

bitcoin started with diff 1, so instamine was surely harder, but fastmine is possibile on btc, dunno if satoshi had spread his work around the world, or he have held it hidden and some random guys on the internet found it and disclosed it


what link?

That was a nice read. Thanks!

Surprising how many people say oh that's wrong or shit without actually reading it properly.

They know, but just denying because they 've a stake in it.

How can you differentiate them though? No effective way to tell whether the dev got the coins, or shared amongst a group.

Even when launch is announced in advance with a set time, dev can properly prepare his own mining setup for launch: lease a small mining farm for a few hours, get everything fully setup & synced, choose the difficulty to suit him, maybe run his own pool with nice latency to his rig, etc. Meanwhile everyone else has to scramble around with downloading & installing (or building on Linux, and hoping you're not missing an obscure library that the dev chose to require), syncing up, etc. And then with one block mined every second for the first half hour, dev gets all the good ones whilst everyone else's gets orphaned. Any QQ gets quickly dampened by dev's shills, and a few randoms who got lucky, who insist it was a fair launch because they got some coins and anyway it was announced a full 30 minutes before launch.

(Actually, for me, fairness isn't a factor, but having someone own 30% of coins is, especially if those coins were basically free)

No, it does not mean that "few" could take part.  It only means blocks passed by faster than normal.

The market already takes the flood of coins into account as well, and the coins are priced accordingly to that metric on the exchanges upon release.  This means in the majority of cases, it would have been more profitable to mine LTC, then sell it to purchase the other coin.  I know this holds true for Vertcoin & Dogecoin.  Where is the early miner advantage then?  There is none.  The early miner is not rewarded at all.  The smart exchange trader is the person rewarded.

You have to take into account average mining profit per megahash per day.  I mined Vertcoin at release.  Each day I was making less than mining Litecoin.  I, and the other thousands of miners didn't know if the coin would even live or die, of if we would make a cent from it.  Nobody knew if they should hold, or try and sell for less than Litecoin profit before it went down lower.  Miners in this regard are gamblers.  They're gambling with their time and money.  

Out of the available pools, every single one was being DOS'd for days as well.  You literally had to sit at your computer 24 hours a day configuring pools and miners, all the while being rewarded for less than Litecoin profit.

For this reason, coins like Dogecoin and Vertcoin don't belong in that list.  There are coins that exist where early miners were rewarded far higher than normal mining profits for the day though.  The ones I talked about just aren't one of them.  To make anything on Doge or VTC, you really had to make somewhat of a long term investment that was available to anyone.

Anyone could have bought VTC on exchange for .00005, held for a few weeks, then have it turn into .005

Look at my quote below and time stamp, that's about 10 days after the coin had already been released and the coin is worth absolutely nothing.

My comments were about distribution, relatively high proportions of a coin being concentrated in relatively few peoples hands. This is what the article is about, the speed of distribution and how fast those coins get concentrated into relatively few miners hands.

If a miner can get a high proportion of coins in a short period of time, the price during the mining is irrelevant. They can go from coin to coin, one day or so at each collecting 2-20% of the coins and sooner or later one will pop and they will dump.

It might work out ok for the instaminer but this is justification for the coin itself being a bad investment.

That's in the first few days. What about the first few hours when most of the instamine took place?

The first 4 hours mining in VTC produced about 304,000 coins, instead of the 4800 coins that should have been minted in that time, i.e. about 300,000 extra coins. If we make an assumption that the dev got 150,000 of those (just an example), then those were worth 7.5 BTC at your 0.00005 rate. Had the instamine not happened, and the dev (believing in his own coin) had bought 150,000 coins, then he would have had to pay maybe 30 BTC instead (without the huge extra supply in the early days, and with a 150,000 coin buy pressure, the price would have gone up). As it happened the coin took off and 150,000 VTC became worth more like 300 BTC.

you can tell it by the initial blocks numbers, after the coin has launched successfully

if the blocks count is around 50 or less, we are good to go

The DigitalCoin train has long passed.  8)

let me save the trouble..

Popular coins are instamined.

Yup.

that is all there is to it lol

so any coin that is popular is a huge instamine scam then lol

i've also had to say this dozens of times lately.. tiring bs.

ultracoin had a 2% pre-mine, there are a total of 100,000,000 coins to be created, 2% of 100,000,000 is 2mil.
Premine: 2% (1.6% IPO / 0.3% DEV / 0.1% REWARDS)
the IPO was shared so that not one person could buy all the coins.... seems pretty fair to me or am I missing something?

+1 also 600,000 VTC were created in roughly 30 hours

Could you show me where that information is displayed on the www.ultracoin.net website? I couldn't find that.

Also, its "fair" when you allow the person benefitting the most to describe was it happening.


To the investor wanting to buy a coin RIGHT NOW, that 2 million premine represents nearly 15% of the current totals.

A big difference that they don't want the regular person to realize...

the information is found here https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=413978.0

...which is precisely my point, hidden in the bitcointalk.org forums.

Is this the thread where I can cry if I missed a lunch?

and Dark coin was way worse and they even admitted it and proposed ideas to fix it like giving coins away.
vs
Vertcoin where they admitted fuck all !

nice try spreading FUD on VTC lol

one is guilty and one is not.. fact.

have guess what... read ?

@illodin bingo ;)

no, but since you advertise darkcoin and blackcoin in your signature, would care to address the problems brought up in the article about these coins?

What makes you confident about Blackcoin's 50 million mined coins in 3 days?

What makes you confident about Darkcoin's 1.6 million instamine in its first 8 hours? there are about 4.2 million coins today.

Added...


Particle
Limecoin
XXL coin
Hobonickels
Myriadcoin
fluttercoin

Great article and data.  Keep up the work and thank you.

Are you like, deliberately excluding the worst distributed coin of all, NXT?
Theres no excuse pal, it is up there on the high market cap list.
Here you go: NXT coin-100 % insta pre mine shared by 70 early adopters.

Well, first line say "Second generation coins like Ripple, Mastercoin, Counterparty, etc are not incuded in this discussion.", so yes it seems it was deliberately excluded.

Like it or lump it (I'm in the latter camp btw), NXT's distribution model was as it was, and only time will tell how much that is holding it back. But everything about the initial distribution is out in the open; nothing is hidden. The coins discussed in this article have large premines / fastmines / instamines that are hidden from sight and denied by the coin's core team; and any talk of them in the coin's thread marks you as a whining ranter (so they go off and make a moderated thread instead).

Put aside the "NXT, fair or not?" debate (which everyone knows about), and let the scope of the study be what it is.

There were 6 weeks to join the IPO for Nxt and coins* were distributed on a proportion of how much BTC you gave. This was also capped at a maximum of 1 BTC. i.e. if you gave 0.1% of funds collected you got 0.1% of the coins, 5% of what was collected you get 5% of the coins.

Only 100 or so people came forward in 6 weeks and then only 73 of those claimed the coins that they were entitled to. They understood, as the first POS, that nobody would join them if they hoarded their coins so there was an orgy of bounties, selling and giveaways. When comparing POS coins, perhaps this period should be judged as the distribution phase? Which pure POS have the fastest dilution of the initial founders stakes? As the nature of pure POS requires all coins to be created at once. If there were only 73 holders now then Nxt wouldn't be valued at 10s of millions of dollars.

The tech was then released and this is what gave the coin its value when people understood what was being built. It also has provided the funds to build, arguably, the most advanced cryptographic platform devised so far (I won't go into details to avoid looking like advertising but start another thread and we can discuss it there).

Finally, the initial distribution is moot as the distribution between accounts now is better than bitcoin's and improving slowly all the time, all achieved in a few months. I can dig out the links if the auther would like to see them.


I for one would welcome the author's inclusion of Nxt for all to see, as I think wasamata would be surprised that it would come out the other side with a good overall report. Though comparison should be to Ripple, Counterparty and Mastercoin as you would comparing apples with oranges. These are also striving to beyond being solely a currency.


*(these are not generally referred to as coins as this limits what Nxt actually is peoples minds, they are more generally considered tokens for the Nxt Crypto Platform's features)

P.S. I wasn't one of the 73!  ;D

Dunno what's there to address. I saw the pre-announcements and specs for both those coins and immediately noticed the value in them. I was ready at the launch and started mining them. There were no problems for me.

What I have a problem with though, is people who are too lazy to do any research on what coins are being launched and what their potential is. So they just mine whatever they mine (doge or ltc probably) and when some other coin starts gaining value they become pissed they didn't mine at start. So basically they want to let everyone else take the risk on new coins and when on some rare occasion that risk pays off they become jealous.

Yeah, and because you've missed the launch, it is instamined.  ::)

What a shallow analysis.

I look forward to reading your improvements. Please post the link here when you have uploaded it.

This and your coming analysis is good for the crypto world as it is "cross-crypto" so bias will be minimised.

Honestly, when you don't even mention the fact that things like KGW came late to the crypto scene and most coins didn't launch with them, and then don't even mention NXT distribution once, this analysis could not be more bogus.

I'm too lazy to look at original poster's post history, but I think it will turn out he's trying to promote some ridiculous coin nobody has ever heard of that has a seemingly fair mine because 0 people mined it like the Cryptoshekel: 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=394123.0

That coin is just weird. From the name to the logo.

This article is pretty much useless as it provides a single one-dimensional view of each currency.

For example in the case of instamines, you provide no blockchain data, no distribution data (bounties, giveaways), etc., and fail to consider the entire history of the coin. I would love to know the motivation behind the spin.

The whole thread is just nonsense.

Yes; incomplete and therefore misleading.

I wasn't going to do any second or third gen coins, as per the second sentence in my article which a few of you glossed over. I was simply targeting around 15 of the most popular bitcoin clones. I have gotten a lot of requests for more coins...and since so many people want it...I don't see why not.

I will put up mastercoin, nxt, etc shortly.

feel free to post solid links about these coins with useful info if you want to help out.

Okay, this makes some sense to me...you have a stake in these coins.

Btw, I have never mined a coin and I am not a miner. I'm looking to invest in coins and when I look at a coin's history, certain things turn me off to to them; namely, coins that distribute or generate really fast.

If you want some of these coins that you mined like Blackcoin and Darkcoin to be used by regular people, you are going to need to address the crappy history sooner or later.

Dark coin dev said he thought about an air drop to give away coins to make up for the cheating instamine crap..

Vertcoin dev is actively looking out for Asic Resistance and denies any shady instamine crap..

which coin would you chose to invest in ? the one that admits a crime and the one that admits doing no wrong ?
i am not investing in admitted scammers screw that shit !

You continue to speak as though everyone were a miner. Most of the people using these coins in the future will not be miners.


Just because a coin didn't have KGW doesn't excuse the coin's poor start. Why would an investor look at a coin, see a large fastmine or instamine...and say "oh, well its not their fault, really, they didn't have kimoto's gravity well. I should use this coin anyway, they tried really hard."

Nope, that isn't going to happen.

KGW isn't apart of the analysis because to someone wanting to use the coin (not necessarily mine it), all they see is that the coin wasn't up to par at the beginning.


----


and also...great speculation there. you want to armchair criticize my post to hell and back...and you want to sling accusations while openly saying you are too lazy to find out if your accusation is true.


:hands clapping:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BwAGADgnQcrtM3g1cU1VSHZtTGM/edit

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgAGADgnQcrtdHRrV3V3Z1lzOXVEMWtqdElUaEtqV1E#gid=13

Assuming this is what you believe, then 99% of your article should have been discussing why you think NXT, or any IPO coin in general will never succeed, but neither subject is mentioned at all.

Going back and reading your article and all your replies in this thread, virtually everything you type is anti-miner in general.  It seems you believe "mining" is an invalid distribution method, and everyone should be forced to just buy all their coins in some kind of shady IPO where the user can't even verify if it's a scam or not and just has to throw money at the screen hoping for the best.

Perhaps you should read my post on why IPOs are generally a scam and don't belong on this site.  I'm not sure you really even understand exactly what Bitcoin is in the first place.  The mining distribution method is 100% mandatory for it's goals as summarized in my quote and article below:

"The normal Bitcoin protocol was not designed to be issued for profit, or to have a central issuing authority.  It was designed to be a trust free system where others work to acquire it through mining, and for any reward to be independent of the creator."

This goal is not accomplished without miners

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=443196.0

I am moving Vertcoin to the questionable category. Their very slow block halving or 4 years is commendable in comparison to some of these scam coins that cut down blocks every few weeks. If they didn't have the "unintended" fastmine, they could have qualified for the Acceptable status. They are essentially what Litecoin was when Litecoin was 5 months old; a rather hefty fastmine (Litecoin had 4.5 million coins by their 5th month with 450K Litecoins being slammed mined. Vertcoin will be 600k VTC to around 4.2 million. a little worse but comparable...).
 
I haven't come across any information that suggests foul play for Vertcoin. The evidence of their mine may have been purely unintentional but it doesn't encourage me as an investor. That is different than what many of the coins in the "bad" category do in terms of "encouragement", to say the least. Until I hear of evidence of foul play, I am leaving them in the questionable category.

I'll check out what you wrote. FYI, I am adding NXT and others. It was an easy way out for me to shorten my article. I wasn't planning on doing something so comprehensive. It looks like it may become that.

WRT the anti miner position....close, you are getting at something in my writing. I'm against miners who mine coins with the sole intention of trading it into BTC/fiat and aren't in it for the revolution sake. Particularly, I am against miners who mine scam coins and flood social media (and by extension regular internet media) with all this hype about complete crap.

...I am fed up with substandard Bitcoin alternatives. Correct me if I'm wrong, but many of these scam coins that come out are scams that benefit someone mining those coins. If a coin can demonstrate fair play in mining, I'm willing to use their coin. If they can't, I won't.

I see two main problems that are fueling this alt coin hydra; ignorant investors and unscrupulous miners. Hopefully, my articles will inform some investors and simultaneously put all those miners on ALERT who mine coins with questionable distribution practices.

Why do they mine them?

Not because it's going to be a revolutionary currency. Because it will make them money. I'm sick of hearing about all these people who mine coins to sell them into bitcoins. Great, we now have a subset of the cryptocurrency revolution who is leeching the new members of our group ("investors") with less than stellar coins in an attempt to get paid.

I don't know about you, but I want to see massive changes in how the world views money and what we call money. The explosion of alts makes it so that only a fraction of these coins will appreciate in value long term, let alone survive in 5-10 years. For every 10 new investors/regular people who also want to see currency change, how many do you think will be pleased with their results entering this game? I would suspect less than 3 of 10. The other 7 out of 10 will lose a significant portion of what they invest. That isn't going to produce a good growth curve for cryptocurrencies in general.

The solution, IMO, is to try and hold people (devs, miners, and investors/users) to very high standards when dealing with alt coins. Let the miners and developers know that the investment crowd isn't going to pony up unless you ACTUALLY HAVE SOMETHING better than bitcoin. The more miners call out and protect others from bad investments, the quicker we can clean up the garbage. Everyone wins if someone actually creates something better than bitcoin. That should be the goal.

funny article, clearly the author does not have enough time to do deep investigations. Infinitecoin, for example, has no premine/instamine, and its distribution model is a fast distribution model that halves each month (the first that define this model). Author has no idea and mixed many scamcoins with good ones, did not really tell people which are good ones.

I laugh at this when I hear KGW, do you know how peercoin does the retarget calculation? The KGW simply re-invented the wheel, and those who don't understand anything just know the name, and don't know what it is about.

Yes, I try to have a stake in coins that are easily and cheaply available, and will likely 100x my investment. I really recommend that approach to you too.  ;)



You don't have to be a miner to be there at launch. Every coin has multiple times the people selling them in these forums immediately after launch than buying. Again, if you're not willing to take the risk, don't complain if you're not getting the reward. You can't have it both ways.



What "regular people" will possibly start using in the future has nothing to do with the mining rate.

Lets make a list of top coins too :D

popularity is the context man you keep dodging it hard..

Re: inclusion of Nxt fao the author

Please see the following link for initial stakeholders and the initial bountiesfor development
http://wiki.nxtcrypto.org/wiki/FAQ#The_original_stakeholders_are_hoarding_their_coins

There is also this infographic re: current distribution, slightly out of date (Feb 2014) but a re newed analysis would almost certainly continue the trend to more distribution rather than a move the concentration. It shows nxt is less concentrated now than bitcoin is after 5 years.
http://nxtcoin.blogspot.ch/2014/01/nxt-distribution-infographics.html?m=1

Please ask if you have any queries

nxt infographic based on https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AgAGADgnQcrtdHRrV3V3Z1lzOXVEMWtqdElUaEtqV1E#gid=13

NXT: where .0101 BTC (around $7 at the time of investment) invested earned you about 500,000 NXT

THE LOWEST NXT has traded since being recorded on coinmarketcap.com is .00326 on Dec 11th, shortly after it was trading on exchanges.

At that lowest rate, 500,000 NXT x .00326 = $1,630

How can you invest 7 dollars and within a month expect people to trade it for 1600 dollars?

Pure insanity. absolutely no "risk" for the the ipo investors.

AT THAT LOWEST RATE, NXT investors were getting over 230 times their investment back in less than a month. 230 times!!! Not 2x, 3x, 5,x or 10x. 230x.  Don't even get me started on when the charts were topping out.

who cares?

http://allthingsd.com/20091005/new-yorker-bezos-initial-google-investment-was-250000-in-1998-because-i-just-fell-in-love-with-larry-and-sergey/

and people still use google

Not sure if you noticed...Google actually changed the world. There was actual risk involved.


What was the risk from the November IPO investment to the December sales in excess of 230x the investment price?

Nobody uses NXT

You can't hardly get anything for NXT

So why the ridiculous premium?

http://nxtcoin.blogspot.cz/2014/04/what-can-you-buy-with-nxt.html

http://www.singularityweblog.com/androklis-polymenis-donates-1-million-to-brain-preservation-foundation/

http://youtu.be/ehrIvLJXcsE?t=10s

It was more like they got it for free. BCNext just had to solve the problem with sockpuppet-multiaccounts somehow. Bitcoin, the max. bid for IPO, cost about 100 USD, when the rules of IPO were set in September. So there were no risks, IPO was 2 months long, anyone could invest in September-November

Added a few more...


Clean Water Coin
USDe
Ixcoin
Mooncoin
Karma
Bitcoin Plus
Zimstake
NXT
hobonickels

ohhhhh man. Just solved the Clean Water Coin dilemma.


After this post...they are sunk.

The Noblecoin founder Jason Curby was SO RIGHT about the likelihood of "charitable" and "good" coins coming around to supposedly counter the scam coins...when in fact it would just be a veneer to provide another scam.

How do you judge value? Why would Nxt price increase so much and why hasn't the debilitating dump occured after such a large percentage increase?

All POS are created at the beginning, how could it be any other way? And how is this reflected in your article? So you are to conclude that all POS are poor investments for all time and not to consider how they are distributed over time?

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins&#clear_water_coin (http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins&#clear_water_coin)

Clear water coin...call it an IPO, call it development, call it for the good of the currency...

We don't believe you.

i imagine they don't want to sell 1/10 of their stake and have the value crash the other 9/10th of their NXT wealth. THey are selling slowly, as judging by their smallish volume numbers.

And what effect does the selling slowly have to the distribution and price?

Because it is a highly illiquid market.  You won't find enough buyers at that price to "dump" the coins on.  These initial 70 are sitting on a mountain of coins that on paper, are worth a tremendous amount, but it's only on paper.  Try to flood the market with all those coins and lets see what price they actually get.

people should forbid him to check CommunityCoin, ShareCoin or Information or he would get heart-attack, just LOOK at those numbers:

I invested 0 Btc and I got:
more than
1.000.000.000 x investment in Communitycoin

more than
1.000.000.000.000.000 x investment in ShareCoin

more than
1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 x investment in InformationCoin


Just do the math:

0x1.000.000.000 BTC < 1 mil COMM

0x1.000.000.000.000.000 BTC < 65k SHARE

0x1.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000.000 BTC < 500k INF

And the same numbers apply in Nxt calculations. Nxt IPO was not investment, you cannot make any ROI calculations based on PoS. Devs just want to distribute the coins, fairly.

True. Large trades are done on trading threads with no effect on the price. Lophie moved most of his in this way over the past few months.

Wow. did you really just try and say you invested nothing, multiply nothing by a bagillion numbers, and use that as your argument?

 :o

it's the same as Nxt. People just invested almost nothing. Btc cost 100 USD, so just a little proof of "I am not a socketpuppet"

I don't think you answered these.

you ask why the price rose so much. It didn't. It started out obscenely high.

See here...post 568



as you can see in a post a little bit above that one...

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.msg3653432#msg3653432 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.msg3653432#msg3653432)

here is one investor who sent .01 BTC and received half a million NXT...
19xu8F5tqTwBFGC9SvdRcKmWvUXCxhtnK8; 66be9c7ceccd2d3508fddbb141b45a30a10a561b8e891b9c653ceebd38d087a9; 0,01; 300; 3; 498758

here is another one, sent .01 btc and got 480,000 NXT...

924ayrHexjvoFAtCXDQjHcrf5B3YDqYyM; ceac3ebd0c237349b7dabfa00eb8f2e9a1dcddb44acaef90a79321d92e44efe6; 0,01; 290,467937608319; 2,90467937608319; 482910

and another...

1C9p5AymSToqgTUTJ2vvpRumL3xEg78Kyg; e4b859a276a8f64b95c7df7e5967af4ef75f17375601856655489f5542d3b491; 0,0101; 300; 3,03; 503745

So i want you to think about that. When was the price really low?

They buy 500,000 NXT for around .01 BTC as an investment IPO. Then they want to sell 1,000,000 NXT for 1 BTC.

If the market wanted to give the coin full credit for what the investor's paid, 1,000,000 NXT would be .02 BTC. This seller in the thread...before NXT even launched...wanted to sell his NXT at fifty times the price he bought it!

I answered the dump question, as did someone else.


In regards to 100% PoS coins, that is the ultimate dilemma; how to do dispense your coins fairly if there is no slow mining of them? No one has solved that dilemma yet and NXT is a great example of what not to do. If a 100% from-the-beginning PoS coin comes along and does it right, they will get a much better rating in this wiki.


I am particularly harsh of PoW/PoS coins that rush to get out of PoW. So many of them flash mine 15,20,30,50% of the total coins.

May I ask you to do one for NobleCoin, and be as critical as you like of the 2% premine. I'm liking the info, but wouldn't want your page to seem too biased. :)

The word for that is called "price fixing" lol.

eeeew...just saw their blockchain...300 mill premine! pretty much guaranteed in the extreme caution section. Looking into it now.

This "information" reads more like the retarded edition of a random Columbo investigation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNGsTdX3aFU

says the goldcoin guy.

http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#goldcoin (http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#goldcoin)

I need to say nothing more.

Obviously, since you are apparently 'clueless' to the coin's comprehensive history.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231834.msg3289325#msg3289325

This is what the OP had to say about Worldcoin:


Which is reasonable, however it was mentioned earlier that all coins in that time period had very rapid coin production the first few days because developers hadn't figured out a good way to launch the coin and difficulty adjustments were inadequate.

Everyone likes Myriad, but nobody wants to invest in it because you're unable to form a cartel to choke off coin supply and artificially increase value.  It's greatest strength is it's greatest weakness!

Are you hoping people don't actually click your link or something?

Here is what is presented in your link as "proof" Goldcoin was not instamined.



the following are timestamps from the gld coin blockchain...

block 1   05-15 00:48:56

block 2200 05-15 10:54:43

block 11250 05-16 00:43:30

200 x 10,000 = 2,000,000 coins created

2000 ( 2200-200) blocks x 1,000 = 2,000,000 coins created...

9050 (11250-2200) blocks x 500 = 4,525,000 coins created...

that equals 8,525,000 GLD coins created in 24 hours. Exactly what my analysis showed. 8.5 million of 31 million available? instamine. major instamine.

THANKS FOR THE SUPPORTING INFORMATION.

This seems to be the problem with most legit coins. Those scheming to get rich in a week aren't interested because they can't manipulate the price as easily.

added a few more...

ECC
microcoin
Unobtanium
shibecoin
Potcoin
Noblecoin

Sad but true.

I have no idea why anyone would take this report seriously when it was written by an author with an extremely heavy bias and one that clearly did not have even the most basic understanding of his subject matter.

This guy basically took one narrow view (the book cover approach) and proceeded to write an entire book report without reading a single page beyond the cover.

You dont need to take hes words seriously. Just look at the simple facts and do your own research. You will see that majority of hes statements are correct.

You know the price of everything and the value of nothing. I asked about value and how you judge it. It seems you only use initial distribution and nothing else and speak as though your article carries academic rigour when it appears they are just assertions based on a narrow definition of what a good investment is.

How do you take account of inflation, utility and many other factors that influence value in your article?  

This is not an "investigation", it's a giant rant.

Clueless at best and positively malignant at worst, not to mention lazy.

Whatever the merits of the various currencies concerned, non of them are as much of a scam as calling this an "investor's guide" and dressing it up as a wiki.

It belongs in the dungeons of bitcointalk squabbler threads.

The issue is that the OP's "good/bad investment" is based off of a single variable - initial distribution. Obviously, this assumes that the coin is only ever used for a store of value and/or to trade, and never for any other purpose (ie. colored coins). The OP assumes that these coins have pretty much zero intrinsic value - because if they had some intrinsic value then initial distribution cannot be the sole determining factor in whether it is a good investment or not.

What is in common between all the people strongly against my wiki?

recent most vicious haters...

Microguy-100% goldcoin supporter. My article is not kind to gldcoin.

pandaisftw-past posts show...NXT investor from the beginning who has been giving away 100K NXT donations as people do good things for NXT. My article is not kind of NXT.

wallstreetcoiner-gold coin supporter. Recently said he/she projects the top four coins to be BTC, LTC, DOGE, and GLD (lol). My article is not kind to gldcoin.

toknormal-to quote from another thread... top 5 coins at the moment...


I put NXT, DRK, PPC, BC all in the extreme caution section. He admits being a holder of NXT. Also a massive supporter of Cinni, which my article is not kind to Cinni, either.


Of course all of these people are against my writing. It's worth it to them.

Its such a coincidence all the people who spout vitriol at this simple wiki are major supporters of coins with extremely suspect mining situations... :D

My analysis is simple and meant for the NON mining public. I urge them throughout the wiki to do more investigation than just my simple work. The amazing thing is that a number of regulars here (myself included) never really did a simple investigation into all of these coins. They came out so fast with so many "new" features... I bet a number of these in my wiki will surprise people.

Bump.

I am a Nxt investor. That is no defence in a logical debate about methodology. Why do you ignore me?

Of course I/we take issue with your "analysis" because we (mainly those involved with PoS projects) understand that not-instantmine/instantmine is too simplistic. I'm sure this works perfectly for copycat PoW coins, because all you can do on these coins is basically mine them, and that's it. What was the last "slow-mined" PoW coin that did something revolutionary Bitcoin has not done? Looking at the top 20 on CMK... that list is basically zero - maybe namecoin, but it's already outdated.

You're talking about "investments", which includes both minable and non-minable coins. If you're going to lump all PoS coins into the "instantmine" section (when in reality, there is no "mining" in PoS), you're doing everyone who follows your analysis a disservice. Understandably, this is what the topic is about, but IMO, it's flawed, and that will become apparent in the future. I would say that people are getting tired of buying coins whose only feature is that they can be slowly mined and do nothing else but generate profit for the miners. The market will be shifting to doing useful work (and already is, look at maidsafe) and more efficient work. Distribution is important, but it's no longer the sole determining factor in a coin's success.

Anyways, not hating on your analysis, but again, IMO it's too simplistic to take seriously.

Pandaisftw

The problem with your "analysis" is that it's inconsistent and superficial. Nor are you a recognised authority on the ethics of cryptocurrency launches, hence the criticism of your presenting it as a "Wiki" because it leads people to believe that you are. In fact you're a self appointed one.

The inconsistency arises from the comparisons made from one coin to another without placing these in the appropriate market context. The implicit scope of your 'market domain' is basically the current 'coin' community (bitcointalk readers) whereas all these assets would be more fairly compared against a common background of the global market at which they're targeted.

Take your criticisms about distribution for example. When one coin is compared with another then, yes there are measurable differences in the context of the current market. On the other hand if the scope of appraisal was a proper global market domain then these differences pale into insignificance. ALL initial stakeholders of ALL cryptocurrencies amount to less than 1 thousandth of 1 percent of potential market participants. The investors of any cryptocurrency that's successful in such a market stand to make many thousands of percent of a gain whether the primary stakeholders number in the 10's, 100's or 1000's.  So the comparison is one of degree, not of principle as your appraisal alludes. Nowhere in the report is this perspective considered or even acknowledged.

On top of that you go on to use highly emotive language in amongst the descriptive content without even stating that this is your opinion or presenting any balancing historical background as to the basis for the various coin policies which in many cases is absolutely viable.

You have implicitly maligned many hard working developers who act in good faith without even consulting them or presenting an alternative context to your own for their coin launch policies. The irony of this is that many of them have thought these issues through to a far greater extent than this analysis could even be bothered with.

Please take this piece of propaganda down. It's is a badly researched opinion piece disguised as a 'guide'. A disservice to investors and one that should be taken with a huge grain of salt by anyone having the misfortune to stumble upon this mis-labelled rant.

Who said we were debating my methodology? You can take umbridge all you want with my approach. It's already been stated, this article is not meant to be all inclusive. I don't take into account inflation (although I try to monitor that), utility and others because I am not trying to write that kind of article.


No, I will not conclude that all PoS investments are bad and a waste of time. Peercoin couldve been top notch if they didn't have the accidental PoW instamine. I still see them as better than 98% of the other PoW/PoS coins. As I said before, 100% pure PoS coins have a tricky thing to pull off; how to distribute their coins.

Daedulus, you haven't explained how how NXT analysis is incorrect other than to suggest I'm not considering more options.

I stated that .01 BTC bought ~500,000 NXT in the Octo-November investor prelaunch. I then stated that in mid December, the price of the coin reached .08 per NXT. .08 x 500,000 = $40,000.

.01 BTC between September to November varied from 100-1000 dollars, but most of that spike occured at the end of November.


At the low end (the early NXT investors) who sent .01 BTC and got 500,000 NXT...

if 1 BTC ~ $100, .01 BTC ~ $1, then this investor turned 1 dollar into 40,000 by December 26th. That a 40000x return on investment.

At the high end...investors who sent .01BTC and got 500,000 NXT

if 1 BTC ~$1000, then .01 BTC  ~$10, then this investor turned 10 dollars into 40,000 by December 26th. thats a 4000x return on investment.

I picked $7 dollars as the value of .01 BTC, actually giving the investors some benefit of the doubt.


What do you disagree with here?

Given the best possible scenario, someone's $10 investment earned them $40K in 1-3 months. Keep in mind...some people sent way more than .01 BTC. The person who sent $100 worth of Bitcoin earned $400,000 in NXT. That's unreal. Especially when you consider that NXT hadnt even done anything yet.

That is what i point out in the wiki. Talking about the utility of NXT as though it makes up for this gaff doesn't make sense to me.

 

if you want to sell at 500,000, you can start at 0.08, but price will go down and actually you will be selling at 0.06

+ Nxt IPO was not an investment. Only suckers would count it like that. It should be max. 100 USD, but unexpectly price of the Btc was rocketing and imagine - how would it be fair if someone invested 100 USD in September and 2000 USD in December and got the same stake because Bitcoin was unstoppable

copied from NXT original thread...

Address; Hash; BTC; Multiplier; Weight; Nxt

1Aq5XrMf7SQsVA3RsByvZiRnARSCoaenj; 0810dc38a2e6e956918f2057f06f02846dfcfc6bf8860d976e08dec7e5cbfe8d; 1; 300; 300; 49875768
168udnkT3BMgFkzXwzLGnEymJpXxrgEhxt; 0dff9e047bde2f3de9551ea9439190f62080b443060fd76f66f3b87af38c0b8a; 0,0105; 300; 3,15; 523696
1EujnSavF7qVg5ngrKpTLbD52aCvoyTPh; 0e1446244ca325c2dd0cd6a8c6a5d56733bcce315a5536b750a408092d0b48b5; 0,11; 300; 33; 5486334
1AN8bAhXrdnqHU8USe3rNqdcneWacxQUZu; 17596f1491007e17fc4fee55fe6cf43b99a42384b5fcd80e5269816152918230; 1; 300; 300; 49875768

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.540 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.540)

someone got 49,875768 NXT...for sending 1 BTC.

at today's price thats a cool $1.5 million.

at NXT's really quick peak (.08 a coin and higher), that was worth well over $3 million dollars.

quick peak was caused by Bter's manual deposits - people didn't deposit there Nxt coins fast because they were sleeping, while chinese guys wanted to buy all. If you wanted to sell 50m Nxt, you would get maybe 100k USD. Price would simply go down to 1 Satoshi. Those, who would have wanted to do this, could do this in past. They didn't or made it slowly = success.

But counting with peaking price with selling millions of Nxt? Really? This is the dumbest analysis I have ever seen on this forum

...i purposely didnt count from the peak.  Itgoes higher than 80 million market cap (or 8 cents per nxt). I believe it reached 100 mill.

And im not saying they sold it all. I highly doubt they could. Im saying that is the value. Do you disagree with the numbers?

I see, in addition to ignoring my previous post, your main motivation for "dislliking" PoS coins is because you missed the boat on all of them? (Or perhaps invested in the wrong ones?)

Otherwise, I can't see why you're bringing up the % the initial investors made... In fact, it's irrelevant now (if not, tell me how it's relevant, I'm interested in hearing your excuse).

Y U NO ADD FRK!!!!

FRK came out about the same time, but as ive been saying since the release, Fair coins were being swept under the rug.

This is one of the more interesting articles on altcoins I've seen.  Thanks to its authors and thanks for linking it!

I especially like the grudging nod towards dogecoin as annoying but not instamined.

Wrong. I don't have an instamine section. I have an Extreme caution section, a questionable section, and an okay section. The extreme caution section represents some instamines, yes, but also scam behavior or otherwise extreme tilting of benefit to first adopters. NXT is the most extreme benefit for first adopters, period. Thus, it Has to go in the extreme caution section.

I've stated repeatedly that this analysis is not a full analysis but only for mining/how the coins come into being. If your beef is that my analysis doesn't go into the areas it wasn't intended to go into, well, that isn't my concern.

No, I'm not a miner, just an investor.

It's completely relevant to show how overvalued the coin is right now. From investment in October/November to December, the initial investment went up anywhere from 4,000x to 40,000x in value.

When you are an investor, that amount of increase in value does not leave too much more room on the upside and plenty of room on the downside. Can i reasonably expect NXT to jump 10x in value from where it is today? It's already gone up some 20,000x (average). In healthy bull markets, you expect up to a 20-25% pull back before the next leg up. Cryptomarkets tend to be even wilder than that. The increase in value from OCtober/November to December (and today) makes me think it could go a heck of a lot down more so than up.

When the original investor was a long time ago, i could hear the argument it doesn't matter. But the original investor was not even 1/2 a year ago. So, yes, it's completely relevant.

No problem, I'm glad it's of use!

LOL, there have been a couple coins that my opinion on differs with what their mining data shows. I competely admit to being a Dogecoin hater...not against the people or anything. I just can't believe a meme would go so far...still makes me shake my head. Fourchan is going to rule the world some day. 


And for the others, I'll look into Franko now.

When you're an investor, you look at the utility and the future value based on that. When you're a speculator, you just look at price, and try to guess your gains based on that. You're clearly a speculator ("healthy bull markets... expect 20-25% pull back... " "Can you reasonably expect..." -- Who knows?) Again, your analysis too simple, and I'm afraid that actually a lot of people may think this way.

What correlation does any coin's value going up 10x have with it's value going up X% in the past? (Hint: Zero.) The current "market price" is exactly that, the balance between information, speculation and risk.

Also, I would like to point out that "a long time ago" is completely relative. If I were investing in the stock market, I'd say Bitcoin was a scam (according to your definition), because no way someone could make 500-5000x in 5 years. And if you're going to bring the distribution up...

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=295000

~2000 accounts hold 50% of all bitcoins (valued at ~$3bil USD). That's 0.1% of accounts (not counting <0.0001 balance) holding 50% of all bitcoins. So I don't think the distribution argument is particularly valid to begin with.

You are correct. They paid a very small amount of money and made a huge gain. That's the reason why people take risks, because there's potentially no limit to the return on speculative ventures.

What your job is (to support the emotive claims in your report) is to demonstrate where the ethical flaw is in this.

You haven't done that.

Nor have you made any material appraisal as to the commercial viability of the technology that NXT network currently represents. The reason you haven't done it is because:

a) your too lazy

b) being an opinion piece, it's not a priority of this report to do any balanced investigation of any of the content you cite

I again re-iterate my last request. Please take this nonsense down before you drown in criticism and become the subject matter of your own agenda.

No. What I take issue with is your statement that the coin was "not fairly distributed" when the facts indicate otherwise.

Also, with the coin now 12 months old and trading at less than 10% of its Dec 2013 high, your assertion that someone with a large amount of coins could "completely crash your investment" is less than genuine at best.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=231834.msg3289325#msg3289325

Try again, corrections happen all the time in healthy bull markets. That is investor lingo 101, not speculator lingo.

http://mutualfunds.about.com/od/activevspassivefunds/a/Market-Correction.htm (http://mutualfunds.about.com/od/activevspassivefunds/a/Market-Correction.htm)

In reference to the number of coins in BTC wallets...I wasn't making a distribution argument, but nice try.

In regards to your assertion that by my definition, Bitcoin is a scam, that is incorrect. A ton has happened from the inception of BTC to today, including dozens of governments adding it to their tax code (or making it tax free) because so many of their citizens intended to use the currency. While there is speculation in bitcoin, the price has normalized nicely.

Just to be clear, I'm extremely skeptical of an investment into a currency that hadnt been released yet to receive 5,000x increase in valuation in 1-2 months. Your apparently extremely skeptical of a coin that has been accepted and utilized by tens of millions of people around the world in 5 years, had government hearings, thousands of business owners (incuding a few big businesses) accept the currency, and a number of Wall St type big wigs enter the fray (wayyyy after the early adopter period, mind you). While the likelihood of a bitcoin-like 1000% value appreciation happening is still very very low, there was a ton of demonstrable things that led to its rise in price. NXT cannot say the same AT ALL.

We agree to disagree then. I read the post and I still reiterate that a coin generation scheme such as goldcoins, no matter if they announced it or otherwise, is a poor and unfair distribution plan. It's way worse than an accidental fastmine. You seem to think if you just reassert that it is fair (because you announced it) that people will believe it.

If I announce a coin that will mine 65% of their coins that they would mine in a year in the first day, that is still an instamine and an unfairly generated coin.

Your goldcoin is merely half of that.

It's not just that someone/some people could be holding massive amounts of goldcoin. You don't want to support that kind of coin if they are going to call that coin generation plan "fair".

The biggest problem I have with your article is that you don't present both sides of the argument and continue to omit facts that have now been brought to your attention. Yes, the original developer made some mistakes and has long ago left the project.

But I think we have a pretty good track record since I first became involved in June 2013. And I don't think you have presented any compelling evidence to support your claims that investors are at risk from early miners dumping. That time has long since passed.

I love this thread.

I made a quick live youtuber about premines and instamines Jul 28 2013 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmyIjyjQUmc&feature=share (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NmyIjyjQUmc&feature=share)

i show cryptometer.org and frk(great no premine),  bottleCAPs(great, HBN both same algo and no premine coins)..  then i show MinCoin( ::) )   This was made quite awhile ago, interesting to watch now in retrospect.

Hang on.

That wasn't the proposal that the investors in NXT were offered and it is disingenuous to suggest that it was.

A developer wanted to raise enough capital to complete an experimental project in cryptocurrencies, namely an evolution of the blockchain idea to support more complex transactions than simple currency transfers.

He decided what level of capital he needed (as it happens quite a small amount) to complete the project and made a public offering in exchange for said investment.

The project could have been a flop and gone nowhere. It could have been a scam and the "developer' could simply have run off with the money. It might have turned out to be work in progress that didn't get completed till 2015. It could have been successful in technological terms but garnered no market interest. Any of these things could have occurred.

As it happens, the developer honoured the agreement and also made good on the timescales for implementing early feature sets which were part of the original plan, not an easy thing to do.

It's not his fault that the rest of the world became interested to the extent they did and placed a high valuation on the asset. He had no responsibility to anyone but the original investors with whom he entered into an agreement. Nor can it be the fault of the original investors who took the risk of capitalising the development effort at the time, not knowing how it was going to turn out and simply responded to the offer.

So who do you want to blame now for the "scam" ? The rest of the market that gave it a valuation ? The current developers ?

This idiocy about "distribution" is nothing more than a desperate scramble to rationalise lost opportunities when in fact no such rationalisation is needed. Everything about the original launch of NXT was conducted with complete integrity and in good faith by all parties concerned. I am not a primary stakeholder. I bought some next on the open market after reading about it's technology specifications which I found intriguing.

The same opportunity is still available to anyone right now. It's only 6 months old which basically makes anyone investing at the moment an "early bird" relatively speaking.

Yes, they do happen, but you cannot predict them. At least, TA (which is what you're doing) is used to analyze what happened after, any other claim is really trying to read a crystal ball. So it's nonsense when you say "I expect a pullback", because it really may or may not happen. What time scale is "too long" or "too short" in the cryptoworld? These are subjective arguments that anyone can make, and are equally as meaningless. Look at the rise of Bitcoin's value in November - do you see all of those sell orders? Why would *anyone* sell during that period at 300, 400, 500, 600, 700... crazy, right? Oh, wait, it's because they expected a "pullback", which really did not happen until the coin went up all the way over $1000.

Isn't this whole topic about distribution? "Instantmines" and "fastmines" are direct complaints of perceived "unfairness", because "early adopters" get too much "advantage". When you used words like "absurd profit margin" in your wiki, it's clear as day you're letting your emotions argue for you. There really is no factual basis behind your argument.

Also, I hope you can see the irony of this particular statement (in relation to your arguments) in particular:


Yes, so you're saying Bitcoin has intrinsic value (because it has other uses than just speculative value), and it would be silly to apply this simple analysis to it. I really do hope you know a lot is going on these days, and there will be a paradigm shift from shit-coins to actually-useful coins within the next few years - that's just the trend lately. Thus, yes, as I stated in an earliest post, this analysis probably applies to copycat shit-coins, but does not apply to any coin that has any particular intrinsic value. Just like Bitcoin.

As I said, you ignoring this intrinsic value in every single coin (except Bitcoin, apparently) is doing everyone a disservice. A more solid "analysis", IMO, would be to determine whether or not a particular coin has any intrinsic value, and whether or not that coin is undervalued or overvalued based on that. Statements like "it rose X, so it can't possibly rise Y" are meaningless. Statements like "it will rise X, because of Y" actually provide some insight.

For some reason, you're focusing very heavily on NXT, as if that is all I am talking about. NXT is not my only investment, but I digress. What Bitcoin is doing now is paving the way for other coins, you don't actually think alt-coins will have to go through the same process as Bitcoin did, right? (Besides adoption) Once the legal framework is in place, more people are familiar with crypto, etc. - that does not need to be done again. I believe in cryptocurrency in general, but this "analysis" is clearly an agenda to promote certain coins because you refuse to take into account of all the factors even when it's shown that your model is too simple.

But just to scratch an itch - have you seen the recent developments of NXT at all? Or are you just using what you've heard or perceived from other people? I encourage everyone to actually take a close look at what NXT is doing and not believe what FUD-sters promote, because all of these arguments ("instantmine", "distribution", etc.) are really distractions from the real point - what the ecosystem can actually do (and is doing).

Pandaisftw

-LOL at the "same opportunity" being avaible right now. 5000x increase in valuation would put NXT in the range of 150 billion market cap.

-The launch of NXT was Conducted with complete intregity? Like ending the IPO option more than a month early?  

-take a look at before the coins hit ANY exchange....an original investor asking for a MASSIVE premium.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.560 (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303898.560)


...to which the first sane responder says...


It's hard to get into specifics here because btc was about to jump a few hundred percent around November 20th. We also don't know when this person posting sent their bitcoins.

But assuming THE BEST for the investor (and the worst for my argument), let's ignore the rapid valuation in btc. let's say the the btc they invested was rougly the same as the moment this pre-exchange offering occurred.

Remember...IPO ended early...NXT was barely launched...nothing had really happened...

and the logically deduced price would be .02 btc for around 1,000,000 NXT. Obviously they would want a mark up to make a little money... And this investor asked for 1 BTC when nothing had happened yet. That's a massive mark up.

Does that prove a conspiracy? of course not. It does suggest the going rate for getting NXT was SEVERELY undervalued. how can an investor receive his coins and then turn around and try to sell it for 50x? insanity. That's what I argue is not good about the coin.

we have been experiencing the pullback for the last few months. And just because you know a correction is coming soon doesn't mean you sell (for the reasons you alluded to...you can guess wrong). Traders study the technicals and try to figure that out. Investors spend more time on the fundamentals. They like to buy and hold. They buy on the dips of the corrections way more than they play the day trader game.

WRT your idea of a better analysis; great, why dont you do that analysis then.

I don't focus on the intrinsic value of bitcoin in my article. AT ALL. this conversation with you has been a rather pointless endeavor. Like it has been said ad nauseum, the article focuses on mining data/coin generation only. Bitcoin's mining data checks out. No mention of btc atms, nada.

I hear you that you want a less emotional post about NXT. I can see how that needs to change. It still will be in the extreme caution category the reasons stated (that we seem to disagree on).

nice vid! If I knew what I was doing with video editing I probably would've thrown together a few. www.cryptometer.org makes it quite easy to do a voice over analysis.

Thank you very much for sharing, I agree with you, now altcoin is short-term development.

Why are you obsessed with this point ? A month earlier than what ?

I can understand people being disappointed not getting in at the time (I didn't get in). I can even understand them getting angry. But what's it got to do with its market valuation or potential today ? Absolutely nothing as far as I can see.

Are you saying the market is overvaluing the currency or what ? This is not clear from your commentary when in fact it's the presumably the one thing that your readers would want to know. Nobody buying today gives 2 sods about how it was launched. They want to know if they have an investment that's going to give returns or not.

Are you saying there's an ethical problem with it ? I asked you this earlier but the most articulate response you're capable of amounts to nothing more than a load of toys being thrown of the pram.


Why is it "insanity" ?

Is this the whole basis for your appraisal ? That you feel the initial stakeholders made too much money ?

It looks like it to me. Even so, you don't take into account that 'market cap' is a theoretical number. None of the stakeholders can actually realise their holdings. They can only realise a tiny portion of it and by the time their full remaining holdings are realisable, the currency will be substantially distributed anyway.

So your whole line of reasoning looks like a mish mash of straw man arguments and making mountains out of molehills mixed in with a bit of jealousy. I don't think you're even clear yourself why you hold these views.

If I put my house up for auction for $1 and it sold $100,000, is this mark up 'insanity'? Or do people use things other than the initial price to determine value?

You have shown repeatedly that you don't understand value, only price. And you use it in your guide arbitrarily (this is your methodology everyone is talking about that you have admitted excludes important factors in determining long term value) to decide whether something is a 'good investment'. Your methodology is bad which creates bad conclusions. 

From what I can remember, the new team (including Microguy) was working to get the coin fixed. Instead of releasing a new coin completely, they have just redesigned it and fixed those flaws. I don't consider goldcoin an instamine.

no. the better analogy is that you bought your house for 100 dollars in october, and sold it for 100,000+ in December.

What's wrong with that picture? Do i think its more likely that your house will be valued at 500K or 20k in the near future with a ridiculously fast appreicate like that? Unless you have the philospher's stone hidden in the basement, its closer to 20k.

there is no proof of this being planned, so there is no big ethical qualm against NXT. the unannounced cutting off of the ipo during btc zoom upward is certainly, suggestive, but doesn't proof anything.

it appreciated wayyy to much in value, too fast, $7 --->$40,000 in two months... for it to be a good invesment now for somebody jumping in. Nobody wants to get into an investment at the top.

Nothing, as it was sold to me for much less than people value it for. The same is true for Nxt. People see what Nxt can do and what is planned and the price rises as they think it will have more value in the future than it does today.

well we agree to disagree here.

If i buy a house for 100 (waaay undervalued) and then begin selling it at 100,000, those people buying on the other end are suckers.

"When what is planned" actually happens with nxt, then it can validate the price. its def not there yet.

You might try to agree to disagree but anyone with any understanding of what creates value and how to judge it will see the glaring errors in your piece.

If you want to label anyone a sucker, it would be Bcnext for giving away ideas and software worth millions of dollars for a few thousand bucks.

Yup I remember that video.

Well that's progress. Perhaps you should tone down the emotive language in your commentary to reflect that fact.


Suggestive of what ? That the developer colluded with the initial stakeholders and they were all secretly part of the same group ? If that's what your suggesting then I think you should spell it out in the commentary so it's unambiguous, along with the basis for suspecting this. There would be nothing wrong with doing that and presenting it as something to be taken into account when making investment decisions since none of us can know one way or another. There does not appear to be any material evidence of such collusion but it could still be possible.

Where I take issue with your report is the wholesale slamming of a perfectly good project that has a massive community of constructive members - both developers and investors - based on this one issue that's fading into historical irrelevance anyway.


So you do think it's overvalued. At last a clear and simple market appraisal free of antagonistic jingoisms (almost).

Why don't you just state that then along with your reasons ? I happen to think it's undervalued since we are about to see a new phase of growth in 3rd party commercial ventures engaging with the NXT asset feature about to be launched. But that's just my opinion and you'd be entitled to take a different view of the situation. Would be a refreshing break from all the mumbo jumbo about distributions and what is and isn't 'insanity'.

this is the dumbest crypto analysis I have ever seen (with wrong methodology)

how can anyone write these bullshits?
- you cannot sell all, if you have 50 mega Nxt, it is as same as having 1 mega Nxt in terms of valuation.

Today if you sell 550.000 Nxt on Bter and Cryptsy, 1 nxt would cost 1 Satoshi.

Only the dumbest sucker could believe to these calculations:

when in fact it is $25,000 dollars, because if anyone would start selling, he could sell only $25,000 to get to zero in exchanges, not more.

Nobody in the right mind is going to believe that NXT has so many people in it. Nobody is selling, and the buy walls are thin just as you've said it. I actually think that it wouldn't even be $25,000, because people would lower the walls (unless it was instantly sold, which would crash the market).

XBC(Bitcoin Plus) number one scam i've found recently we need to get the dev to give back the 50+BTC he stole from the community. Then throw him in prison. Who is with me? :-)

This doesn't come as a surprise. There might be a handful of developers that keep releasing coins to earn/scam people for money.
I don't think that you can get him into a prison. How would you even find him?

P.S. Never touch coins that have 'bitcoin' in their name, except the original one of course.

yes hold tight, the more cryptos get accepted in the Wall Street circles the more you will see this kind of thing. you remember that guy in Texas? pirate...yes i have no problem with people who follow their dreams whatever if its premined/instamined if they stick around and use the bread for building their dream!
Bitcoin sCrypt(BTCS) is one i'm actually holding a few thousand long term because they have a tight community and devs who are on the ball and want to take it back to the roots!

*good to see you are still around LaudaM ~it's been a trying season! =\

Which guy, I can't seem to remember?
Well good luck with your investment, I'm only into a very few altcoins. Yeah this season hasn't been that great, but I'll be here for another year or so if all goes well.

Well, I bring up intrinsic value because I believe that that needs to be accounted for when you make investment analysis. If anything, the initial distribution is just one factor in the outcome (X + Y = Z) - basing any conclusions purely off of this one variable *might* give you the right answer (Y happens to = Z), but more than not, it'll be wrong because you didn't account for the other known variables.

So there's nothing wrong with providing this "data", but, as I said, making investment conclusions based off incomplete data is more often wrong than not.

Perhaps I should do an analysis, but I feel that it would be redundant (well, at least to me) because the cryptos on the top of my analysis would basically be all the 2nd gen coins (Ethereum, NXT, maidsafe, etc.) Are there people who don't actually believe these types of crypto are the future? 

Pandaisftw

pirateat40 ?  :D ~i'm new to this lol

How is LTC not an instamine? Honestly?

lurking in the bushes are weeee haha ;-)

Exactly.

What we have here is an opinion piece disguised as an objective report. The author (in the report comments) is attempting to make a complete argument by blatantly "spinning" incomplete data.

Law enforcement does this all the time by using convenient evidence to make their case while ignoring facts that might exonerate their suspect.

A lot of hard work you’ve put into this, and I too must congratulate you. I am a miner AND investor and, in this crypto space that’s filled with con-artists and their all too often willingly ignorant victims, I wholeheartedly welcome your contributions. It’s work like this that will someday be seen as part of the beginning of the emergence of serious bona fide cryptocurrencies.

I’ve got to commend you on your courage as well - got to stand up to them face to face and give them hell like you did here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=587086.msg6635563#msg6635563 (When you can anyway . . . the army of sock puppets are a little bit more difficult to address . . .)

If you are still adding coins, perhaps you might find interesting adding the following to your wiki:
SRC, EXE, HIRO, DGB, DMD, GRS

And maybe the best take away from this analysis to date might be Myriad.


Might that be yet another very compelling reason why MYR is quite possibly one of the best long term investment prospects out there right now? ;)



BTW, @r0ach, how do you explain DGC’s distribution curve (a coin that has prided itself on fairness from day one and released in a pre-KGW World)?

 ;D

Glad I can be of service!

Sure I can check out those coins. Might take a few days before they show up...

i'm hoping the alt coin ecosystem evolves so that we can move beyond the money making schemes and get our hands and feet dirty with changing the economic system for the better, not just to make a buck.

I am somewhat surprised by the nearly complete absence of intellectual integrity on the part of the critics of this research and the insistence on defending the indefensible by means of innuendo and unfounded attacks. NOT!

The first line of the Wiki goes like this:

"Note: The following attempts to approach 90% of the top ranking coins on www.coinmarketcap.com in terms of their rudimentary mining data."

What is it that is so hard to understand about that statement? Are you all really that mentally challenged?

“ . . . in terms of their rudimentary data.”

Now, if you’d like to criticize the fact that there isn’t better data to work with (instead of trying to blame that shortcoming on the author), that’d be another thing (where, by definition, you’d actually end up finding yourselves more closely aligned with the author and probably not too happy doing so).

There are other metrics, like being able to tell the difference between which dev is a scam-man, and which is simply incompetent (two very important metrics for making long term investment decisions BTW, both equally disastrous, but with the latter always having the remote possibility of ‘making good’), but those are very subjective metrics ATM (not to be ignored, to be sure, just because of that however, when we see very clear signs that someone is either killing the code or intentionally manipulating).

On the other hand, this research is attempting to be as objective as possible. What problem does anyone possibly have with that? Other than not wanting what little objective data there is to become better known?

Why would someone suggest that this research is invalid due to the limited (by nature) data it is based on? And how infantile to think that you might be able to discredit the author based on such a childish attack!

Is there somehow, somewhere, more objective data on real, verifiable, historical coin behavior that could be included?

How can you blame the author for the shortcomings of the subject under study?

Objectivity depends in large part on objective data. The only reason why I think someone would try to put down with irrationally aggressive attacks an objective report based on the scant objective data available would be that they don’t want any objective analysis to begin with of whatever little objective data that there may be – they'd prefer to keep the ‘suckers’ in the dark (much can be said about someone by their reaction and attitude towards any given stimulus . . .).

Now, the next logical step would be to start comparing what different devs say with what they do/have done, coin specs and objectives with real life expectations, transparency with the lack of, etc., but those are, as I’ve said, much more subjective and open to debate, and, as such, well beyond the scope of this current work (so if you want to be critical of the limitations of this wiki, you know what to do and can start rolling up your sleeves).

And if anyone is honestly struggling with the conceptual premise of this current work in progress, think about it this way: if past performance (i.e. track record) is any indication . . . ;)

Nice updating of your wiki. The graphs are an especially helpful addition - a picture's worth a thousand words!

You must be joking. I've never seen a single author with this many axes to grind.

Thanks for doing your part to help keep this at the top!

found an error :

from http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#terracoin :


Terracoin (TRC) is not scrypt.

Bump

According to the latest news, everything is a instamine.

thanks,

updated to SHA256.

Yeah graphs are great, although I've gotten a few messages from people that too many images slows down their page dramatically. I'm slowing down the images for now, kinda hoping they just get new tech eventually haha.

I know you like goldcoin.

I don't like goldcoin. However, I didn't have an opinion of goldcoin until I looked at their basic blockchain data.

The fact is, coins like goldcoin were designed to do one main thing; make their developers and first few adopters wealthy. Look at the data, they practically admit openly that the coin was meant to enrich early adopters (although they don't tell latecomers that...hmm).

You can call it an axe to grind all you want. I give every coin a chance to SHOW ME empirically something worth smiling about. Goldcoin has nothing of the sort to offer me. Now that I have seen what I shouldn't have seen, I don't like goldcoin. The same is true for all the coins.

In fact, I had to do some soul searching before I posted about Peercoin and Primecoin. I still support PPC, although not nearly to the extent I used to.

I imagine you're busy and haven't been able to give SRC, EXE, HIRO, DGB, DMD, GRS, and MYR the attention they deserve (or perhaps the attention they don't deserve, since, in the main, my quick glance analysis using your criteria puts these coins in pretty favorable light).

That being said, my positive "quick glance analysis" is by no means an endorsement however. There's much more to be looked at beyond a coin's inception.

Here's a good exercise for anyone wishing to look at these 7 coins more in-depth.


Can you match each coin with the following descriptions?

• Slick hucksters with a very polished spiel who are only interested in getting rich themselves
• Kids who really are convinced that they know what they're doing
• Adults who are in way over their heads and risking total coin inoperability at every turn
• Seasoned experts who will survive
• The man who someday will be called the Steve Jobs of cryptocurrencies is a member here
• Kids who are smart enough to know their days are numbered and are bailing
• More kids who still think they just might get lucky and pull it off

As you might imagine, 2 of the seven are on my aggressive accumulation list (along with one other not included in this list - in a portfolio that also has a smattering of "long shots"). ;)

Oh my!

A very possible big winner here that was on my short list!

It's very difficult (to not say practically impossible) to find anything against this one at all.

Nothing but positive here. Unless you can uncover something I have no clue about.  ;)

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=408268.msg10892349#msg10892349

The bias in this resource is so overwhelming it's absurd.


"Remember that these alternative currencies should be trying to be better than government fiat currencies"

Really? If that is the basis for comparison then I think the point of cryptocurrencies is being missed completely. Good luck to those who think any of this is a basis for judging where to put their money.

Yes. This was ax-grinding taken to a level never before seen in the modern world.

I respect the work put into this but..

It is like a reporter in front of a blue screen...


He was never there to actually report what really happened.


I strongly disagree with a some of his assessments.



Update: Nice necro

absolutely every coin to come out of this forum (especially bitcoin) has been massively instamined in terms of the wider international community acceptance most hope to eventually gain.

For what it's worth, I agree with him.

The more of something is in a very few hands, and the more of a disadvantage latecomers are at, the more unstable it is as an investment. 

When I see something where there's good reason to believe that one or a few 'whales' can utterly destroy the market and will have a motive to, I tend to step very cautiously.

That's why I didn't make more money than I made in Bitcoin.  I was worried that Satoshi had too many coins in too few hands, so I stayed out until I was pretty sure it was well past the point where a pump&dumper would have struck.

FWIW, I don't even particularly like the reward halving in Bitcoin.  Leave the block subsidy constant, and money supply inflation will still approach zero percent annually in the long run.

Rather than spending all that time creating the Complete Guide for ICO Complainers he should have spent that time rethinking his approach to buying coins.

If he had spent half that time trying to learn instead of complaining he would have a lot less to complain about. Either that or he should go back and look at his record of terrible losses and reconsider how he spends his time overall. Although maybe that's his thing: Losing in altcoins and then reporting it for others to share.

I know this is a late comment, but the overall approach and use of mining data by the OP was simply awesome and a real eye opener.  Truly shows that due diligence is the key here when choosing a coin to invest in.

I wonder if the OP would do a sequel report with new coins this last year...