Low to no expense need not mean no value. What makes a currency valuable is backing. Reserves. If everyone who issued coins honoured them instead of just dumping them with no "money back guarantee" they would doubtless do much better. The big problem with "mined" coins is that miners refuse to honour the coins they themselves are minting. Even if they charged a 20% re-stocking fee when people "return" the coins they issued that would be better than the current total no-returns dumping. Open Transactions is not expensive to operate, but that has not stopped many of the "national" and "corporate" coins currently using that platform (due to not being able or willing to afford the insanely high expense of so called "miners") from long long ago becoming more valuable than bitcoin, see http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.htmlIt was expected that bitcoin would always be more valuable than e.g. CDN, UKB, MBC, GMC, GRF, UNS, and especially NKL (since NKL issued twenty times as many coins instead of the same old 21 million coins), but the failure of bitcoin minters to honour the coins they minted seems to have massively suppressed bitcoin's value. -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
Ripple is maybe ideal for this, actually.
Issue a new currency on Ripple, and hand it out to Icelanders.
Very cheap, no vast expense to pay miners who in any case aren't actually bothering to do their job, no need to give 50% of your currency to foreigners.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
How much will it cost someone to move enough coins to cause a reaction they for some reason choose to instigate?
Who gets that cost, is it destroyed thus everyone including the perpetrator gains from it or does it go to miners or something so that who it goes to is compensated somewhat for the cost of the moving?
Is the amount of coin created by a move less than or more than the amount moved, and by how much?
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
Agreed. It is better to be constructive than to start knocking holes in the boat we are all on. Bitcoin and cryptos are about psychology in terms of widespread public adoption. If people think their Bitcoin can be "killed" by some government, they won't trust it or invest in it. Almost nobody will care or get what machines or algorithms secure anything, nor understand it, just more ammo to use against Bitcoin and all Alts.
Ditto. Auroracoin has gained so much attention that it will be everyone's loss to see it fail by some attack. Every government will get ammo to be against crypros. And normal people, who have only heard of these from nerdy friends will simply reject it. Failing the entire crypto currency movement. Upholding scams, allowing scammers to profit by scams and so on is far far worse. That people fell for the scam is sad, they they will be hurt is good as it will hopefully help them learn that it is not good to fall for scams. Rewarding them for falling for scams and rewarding scammers for perpetuating scams will merely lead to more scams. Basically you are arguing that criminals should profit from crime so that they can afford to pay damages to offset slightly some of the harm they caused to their victims, or maybe even that criminals should be allowed to profit so that everyone who helped them popularise and perpetrate the crime can also profit. -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
These scams themselves are the evil that lowers confidence in cryptocurrencies.
The crap is crap because it is crap, not because people point out that it is crap nor demonstrate that it is crap.
Trying not to show people how much they have been scammed is not the answer to scams.
Avoid such scams in the first place.
If Icelanders like the chosen method of sharing out coins to them, great, create a secure ledger that does not require miners and go ahead and issue using that same method.
For example Icelanders could create a currency on Ripple and issue it to all Icelanders, and they will not need the insanely ridiculously crazy-huge expense of miners in order to secure their currency.
As it is not only do they now have an insanely insecure garbage crapcoin, they also have to pay 50% of it plus transaction fees to miners even though miners are not even actually securing the damn thing.
Use Ripple or a Ripple clone or a NXT clone or something.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Just pick the coin or coins to mine and mine them.
But take care not to waste your hash power on coins you do not have enough hash power to actually secure/defend.
Thus either design a specialised chip that will hash in a way that a few thousands or tens of thousands of people with a few hundreds or thousands of GPUs or CPUs or FPGAs each will not be able to out-hash your specialised chip or direct all your hashing to whichever coin has the most hash power and stick with it instead of changing your mind based on bribes.
That is, if some other coin tries to bribe you into abandoning your coin to go mine some other coin, by making it "more profitable" on some website or calculation, stick to your coin, because if you let yourself get bribed away from defending your coin you might as well never go back, since if you won't defend it don't bother expecting anyone else to defend it.
All you GPU and CPU miners are basically screwing yourselves by making all the GPU and CPU coins more and more worthless by constantly abandoning them.
As more and more potential investors realise that more and more GPU and CPU miners are committed to abandoning coins and coming up with more and more scams to abandon them for, the whole field of CPU and GPU coins will become worth less and less and less.
Every time you switch coin, you make it yet more obvious that both the coin you switched from and the coin you switched to are useless garbage, bait-and-switch scams, you bait people into one by mining it, then switch to another, and just keep doing that bait-and-switch over and over and over, even developing specialised pools that exist solely for the purpose of facilitating that whole bait-and-switch scam cycle.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
You need more than will, you need electricity.
Of course any blockchain is fixable given enough hashing power.
But even if the dev actually wanted to secure the chain the hashpower to do so is lacking.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Why, it would just be more that you don't bother to read.
The last few days of posts already tell you what you are asking someone to tell you.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Also bear in mind that what (s)he did to litecoin was simply pretend to plan a 51% attack, in order to rally the miners to defend it.
This coin not only did the miners not rally to defend it but it fell apart all by itself without even waiting for the purported planned attack.
Plus still no one has even bothered to fix the bug, have they?
Obviously it is a total scam, that is why they don't bother even trying to fix it: they don't care if it fails because they never intended it to last beyond their own quick-money cash-out.
How many other 50% pre-mine coins have they already moved on to?
Do they all have the same broken-ness?
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
When the automobile came along, the buggy whip makers were going to be put out of work. So a clever scam was created to make work for the buggy whip makers. That is basically the story of litecoin, except that actually tenebrix was the original makework for the buggy whip makers, then someone said it was not fair to have a pre-mine to use as virgin coins for a coin mixer to allow transactions to be anonymous, so faircoin was created that had no plan to have a mixer thus did not need a huge pile of virgin coins to enable the mixing. Then finally instead of updating either one to newer bitcoin code, someone decided to screw both of those by making yet another different one, called litecoin, from the latest bitcoin code. Then a while later more and more scammers made more and more scams based on the one called litecoin. And still it goes on. Yet buggy whip making is still not really all that awesome a thing, and certainly is not a great necessity of the modern world. Letting them be out of work is actually probably a much better idea than spamming more and more and more scams to try to scam money out of people to give as welfare to the poor old buggy-whip makers. Maybe ask your politicians to implement unemployment insurance and/or welfare or something instead of making yet another scam. Leave the scams to the politicians.  -MarkM- |
|
|
|
You juvenile pricks think this is funny? Every time you harm an alt coin you drive more people away from crypto. This is just another nail in the bitcoiner coffin ... RIP
agreed +1 anyone that doesnt realise how this hurts the crypto scene as a whole is either retarded or made their money on btc and no longer gives a fuck what happens to anyone else. Pathetic excuses for human beings. --Anyone remember egold? That's what the outsider's will come to think of crypto if faggots like bcx are allowed to run rampant. That is why so many people object to the creation of insanely scammy garbage blockchains whose developers have no intention of securing the chain and not enough hardware and electricity to secure it even if they did pretend to themselves that their pathetic number of hashes could come anywhere close to securing it. It is why so many people object to the deliberate scamming of investors by the creation of scrypt blockchains when scrypt has already been clearly shown to be garbage, a scammer's algorithm for scammers who plan to deliberately jump from chain to chain to chain, their only objective being to scam money from suckers; miners who have no intention to secure anything, just to scam money for themselves even if that means having other scammers keep making new scamcoins for these scam miners to mine. So yeah, it is not cool to create worthless garbage scamcoins that you cannot secure. It is perfectly cool to demonstrate that such scams are scams, because even despite such demonstrations (remember DOGE, which demonstrated that even litecoin was not secure because a stupid meme could conjure up enough hashing power to PWN it, for example) the scam miners keep co-operating with the scam coin-cloners to keep churning out more scams. Thus obviously not enough such demonstrations have been made, or they have not been made forcefully enough and publicly enough for "everyone" to clearly realise that it is not cool to create a blockchain you cannot secure. -MarkM- What you describe is the free market at work. Not doge's fault it had some killer advertising and got alot of new guys involved in crypto. While I do agree with you about fracturing the community and the hashrate making many coins insecure thats a far cry from what bcx and others like him are trying to do which is to flat out take money from investors and miners alike. Without a market like this innovation will not come. Sure the scene looks shitty now but over time more and more people will get into crypto and some of those will have the skills and motivation to help improve it...All shit like this does is ensure those people never enter the scene. Well if that is all it can do, rather than serving to help ensure they don't enter with garbage scams, maybe it is good to keep them out of the scene. If they imagine that churning out more and more scams/ponzis is "innovation" we are probably better off without them. New innovative scams, oh wow how awesome, not. DOGE served to show that if general purpose hardware can attack a coin that coin is not secure. You need to develop special purpose hardware, at minimum. Some claim even that will not work but failing to do it is even more certain not to work. -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
If the developer was serious about securing their blockchain they could at least have made it merged mined alongside bitcoin.
There would still be the problem of how to convince miners and pools to add it to their merge, but at least you would not be making the chain insanely expensive to secure not asking miners to abandon all their existing interests in cryptocurrency in order to undermine all their existing interests in cryptocurrency for the purpose of, what, exactly? What business plans that could work using digitalcoin could not work using bitcoin? Surely any business that could run a digitalcoin daemon on its back end could just as easily use a bitcoin daemon instead?
So why not make one's business plans able to use existing currencies instead of undermining the whole concept of cryptocurrencies by not only spanwning yet another coin but also ensuring that securing it would require undermining the security of other existing coins?
It seems hypocritical to complain about being undermined when your entire strategy is itself to undermine...
Basically the moron made the stupid idiot newbie mistake of using an untenable system from the start. The whole concept is broken from inception.
The very first consideration needs to be "how can I ensure my blockchain has more than half of the hashing power this planet is capable of generating".
Using scrypt is not the way to do that.
Proof of work is insanely insanely expensive.
It is insane that the world is blowing as much power as it is already just to secure the SHA256 merged mined family of chains, it is even more insane to propose starting a whole 'nother such expenditure, but that too was already done by tenebrix then fairbrix then litecoin and now, even despite those idiocies, also by digitalcoin.
Total moronic idiocy.
Or, much more believable: deliberate scam with malice aforethought.
(The forethought was long done by the time whatever moronic scammer came up with digitalcoin to make it dubious to claim they did not have the benefit of that forethought.)
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
Algorithms are predictable though so basically you seem to be arguing that you want some kind of central bank or central committee or something.
They have to be unpredictable so the manipulators cannot predict and thus incorporate into their attack/manipulation the actions of the magic fairy dust scatterers who are to scatter fairy dust to make it all magically act how you want it to?
Actually it kind of seems you ultimately are arguing that manipulation is needed thus you want to be the manipulator or to specify the manipulations that are to be done.
No. I'm not saying what you thought I was saying... Removing predictable components of prices has no effects on welfare. Removing unpredictable components has a beneficial effect. But the unpredictable components can be removed via a very simple, entirely deterministic algorithm. In fact the simpler, more transparent, and less random the algorithm is, the better it is for welfare. For example, in "traditional" economies, central banks can use the Taylor rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_rule to stabilise prices. That rule references target inflation rate without seeming to actually prescribe how that target should be calculated... -MarkM- |
|
|
|
You juvenile pricks think this is funny? Every time you harm an alt coin you drive more people away from crypto. This is just another nail in the bitcoiner coffin ... RIP
agreed +1 anyone that doesnt realise how this hurts the crypto scene as a whole is either retarded or made their money on btc and no longer gives a fuck what happens to anyone else. Pathetic excuses for human beings. --Anyone remember egold? That's what the outsider's will come to think of crypto if faggots like bcx are allowed to run rampant. That is why so many people object to the creation of insanely scammy garbage blockchains whose developers have no intention of securing the chain and not enough hardware and electricity to secure it even if they did pretend to themselves that their pathetic number of hashes could come anywhere close to securing it. It is why so many people object to the deliberate scamming of investors by the creation of scrypt blockchains when scrypt has already been clearly shown to be garbage, a scammer's algorithm for scammers who plan to deliberately jump from chain to chain to chain, their only objective being to scam money from suckers; miners who have no intention to secure anything, just to scam money for themselves even if that means having other scammers keep making new scamcoins for these scam miners to mine. So yeah, it is not cool to create worthless garbage scamcoins that you cannot secure. It is perfectly cool to demonstrate that such scams are scams, because even despite such demonstrations (remember DOGE, which demonstrated that even litecoin was not secure because a stupid meme could conjure up enough hashing power to PWN it, for example) the scam miners keep co-operating with the scam coin-cloners to keep churning out more scams. Thus obviously not enough such demonstrations have been made, or they have not been made forcefully enough and publicly enough for "everyone" to clearly realise that it is not cool to create a blockchain you cannot secure. -MarkM- |
|
|
|
|
I hope it was a lemon else the seller probably got screwed.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
A car would probably cost millions or billions of dollars by then...
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Algorithms are predictable though so basically you seem to be arguing that you want some kind of central bank or central committee or something.
They have to be unpredictable so the manipulators cannot predict and thus incorporate into their attack/manipulation the actions of the magic fairy dust scatterers who are to scatter fairy dust to make it all magically act how you want it to?
Actually it kind of seems you ultimately are arguing that manipulation is needed thus you want to be the manipulator or to specify the manipulations that are to be done.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Basically it seems that the majority of scrypt miners are scammers, they scam people into thinking a blockchain is viable by making it momentarily appear to have hash power securing it, but really the scamming miners actually plan to abandon the chain at any moment so really it is not actually secure at all, it is just a scam in which the miners are collaborating to try to create an illusionary security to lure people into putting money into it.
Fortunately they seldom put enough hash power into any one chain to make it look convincing, so most of the scrypt chains are clear at a glance obvious garbage/scams, with even litecoin and DOGE looking very borderline too after seeing how their hashing power changed since DOGE came along and showed us how useless the scrypt miners are as a way of securing a blockchain.
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Wasn't NXT the one that lied about how long one had to buy into the IPO, suddenly closing the IPO before its announced closure date, thus screwing maybe the vast majority of people who were considering buying it by closing the buying unexpectedly?
-MarkM-
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
