I thus suggest an idea for a new metric for ranking altcoins.
Sqrt(M x H)
M = Mean transactions fees paid per unit time to decentralized proof-of-work miners
H = hash rate (normalized in electricity cost per hash to SHA256).
Using M = Sent avg. per hour, H = Hashrate (normalized): | Coin | | Relative Adoption | | Ratio | | Adoption-adjusted Market Cap | | 1.Bitcoin | 6.5×10¹² | 1 | $6.4 billion | | 2.Namecoin | 8.6x10¹⁰ | 1/76 | $85 million | | 3.Ethereum | 6.6x10¹⁰ | 1/99 | $65 million | | 4.Litecoin | 1.3x10¹⁰ | 1/500 | $13 million | | 5.Dash | 9.8x10⁹ | 1/663 | $10 million | | 6.Blackcoin | 7.4x10⁸ | 1/8784 | $0.7 million | | 7.Dogecoin | 6.1x10⁸ | 1/10656 | $0.6 million | | 8.Auroracoin | 5.8x10⁶ | 1/1120690 | $5,931 | | | | |
One of the reasons that Bitcoin is 100X higher than the altcoins is because its "Sent avg. per hour" is so much higher than its Volume(24h)/24, which indicates that Bitcoin has a much higher level of transactions that aren't occurring on known exchanges that report volume. In other words, Bitcoin has more real adoption for use cases other than speculative trading, which is one of the attributes I wanted to capture with my proposed metric. What this seems to indicate is that altcoins are nothing compared to Bitcoin, which is what I expected but a 100X greater wow. Unfortunately I couldn't find the "Sent avg. per hour" data for the others altcoins. Note I am using transaction value as a proxy for transaction fees paid, which isn't entirely accurate. I believe for example that Monero has higher transactions fees to mitigate spam which could be used to reduce anonymity sets. |
|
|
|
As I warned you, the countries will be pushed towards cooperating against financial crime: http://www.theguardian.com/news/2016/apr/03/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-panama-papersThe globalists are destroying the nation-states on purpose and inciting the masses to clamor for a global discipline on malfeasance. I've known for a long time this would be coming. One thing you will learn about me by observing me over time is my ability to predict the future. For example was my 2011 prediction that the nations would not exit the EU and instead would double-down for more sloppy seconds. Its all common sense your nothing special. When I wrote that prediction in 2011, most of you and the MSM all were predicting a rapid exit of one or more of the PIIGS from the EU. |
|
|
|
|
And so as someone wrote upthread, when one of those firecrackers starts to pump, you are going to be sucked into supporting any scam it has become, even if you long since stopped believing the hype. And you can find yourself sucked into a fight with someone and taking the side of the scammers, because that person insulted you.
I mean all rationality can become mixed up due to the timing mismatches in the probabilistic nature of speculation.
Thus talking technological fundamentals on a speculation board is asking to be everyone's antagonist. Welcome to my dilemma.
|
|
|
|
|
Please don't stand in the way of Blockstream clusterfucking Bitcoin. It is a necessary stage of the evolution of crypto currency.
|
|
|
|
can u please let me know why and how u have both outstanding experience in almost any scientific discipline as well as staggering brain capabilities a priori?
I don't. Any such apparency is mostly an illusion. |
|
|
|
Don't you think zcash is a factor in this? Maybe I'm misreading the tea leaves but the ethereum market cap seems to indicate that people are more comfortable funding development via premine / taxed mining rewards than not having any subsidies and slower development. (XMR and Dash would be another comparison ... and those are two coins where the economic winner is clearly not the technical winner).
Is it because they think Ethereum is getting more development than it really is? Because it is seems reasonably clear from the technological facts in the Ethereum Paradox thread that Ethereum's development is mostly useless. Or am I hallucinating? I think many people are looking for the next huge adoption coin. So they are ripe for bullshit about smart contracts, etc..
I am going to guess that we have a confluence of: 1. N00bs who really can't understand the technology and only think in simple soundbite buzzword terms. 2. Growing impatience/frustration about reaching the Bitcoin promise of mass adoption. 3. The wet dream of acquiring the next Big Thang in its nascent stage. Disguising a guaranteed P&D and lying to oneself about how that prevents it from ever having the network effects to be the next Big Thing, seems to be the delusion du jour. Whereas, I think if there is any demand for parking capital in a decentralized, permissionless coin with the best open source development for minimizing risk, I am thinking Monero and Bitcoin are at the top of that list and what Bitcoin gains in terms of liquidity/widespread acceptance it gives up some to Monero in terms of its scalepocalypse. Also RingCT will add damn good privacy. But since all these user adoption markets (including Bitcoin) are really still tiny, I doubt we have significant non-tinfoil-hat demographic serious money investing in tokens and the serious venture capital was going into ecosystem startups. So it is here that I think Bitcoin is kicking ass on every altcoin that aren't even with an ear shot. Mention crypto currency and the mainstream investors probably roll their eyes and say "nefarious". When ever I write or think about this, I get frustrated and want to just go back to working on my project because I don't really have anything good to say. Let's see what others have to say and if they push their biases aside and comment rationally. I know smooth argued that over the long-term methodical open source wins, and I argued that over the short-term Monero's long-term could be disrupted. I don't want to start another flame war. I haven't delivered any usable crypto. Again this stuff frustrates me, so head down is my best response. |
|
|
|
There may also be an element of something like a selection bias. If you're currently holding a bag, it's easy to believe that it's about to turn around.
Most of bolded is explained by the dispostion effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposition_effectInteresting biases/theories that are related to this are the endownment effect and prospect theory. All boil down to behavioral finance, which is in my opinion an interesting subject. |
|
|
|
I like the logo and this is a cause I am comfortable supporting. Please let us know when you launch this. I will make an investment.
Thank you. There will be more details at the crowdfund page within a week or so. FYI, I started a topic to discuss about the true odds of speculating on startups. |
|
|
|
Speculation in startups is normally a very risky endeavor wherein you lose perhaps up to 9 times out of 10 (depending how selective you are, the quality of your due diligence research, probability math skills, and objectivity), and your winner is the one that makes it all worth it especially if you hit the jackpot with a 100X or 1000X gain. Or perhaps you primarily invest in ideologically appealing causes and accept any wins as frosting. But humans are prone to the Gambler's fallacy and the Hot-hand fallacy, so instead of learning to play these probabilities correctly, I think many of them instead prefer to become involved in a scam or deception to try to increase their surety, but the downside of this is to enter the dark side slippery slope which I bet normally leads to prison and a broken life down the line, because a fact of life is that those who can't stay grounded in reality of societal norms, fallacy of short-cuts[1], and objective ethics on increasing the size of the pie (a form of the non-agression principle), typically end up REKTED. [1] http://blogs.oii.ox.ac.uk/floridi/wp-content/uploads/sites/67/2014/05/lfais.pdf https://www.google.com/search?q=idea+that+there+are+no+short+cuts+to+success |
|
|
|
|
Seems I remember during the last downturn in this market, the threads such as "indications you might be a bagholder" ("you might be a bagholder if...") were more popular?
Was that guys venting their feelings about their own losses by being sarcastic about the losses of the other guy? A psychological defense mechanism.
|
|
|
|
This would be a great thread for the Alt Discussion board!
Done. |
|
|
|
Per vuduchyld's suggestion, I am starting a new unmoderated thread so everyone can discuss without bumping or spamming the Moderation Speculation thread wherein this discussion originated: If it weren't for a plethora of scam coins fooling newbies/newcomers and even guys with 2-3 year experience in cryptos, XMR would have had enjoyed lofty high valuations even now. It's a shame that money is always tied up chasing bad decisions and investments, crypto or otherwise.
What I don't understand is where are all the people who lost money on P&Ds? Why do we never hear from them? The problem right now is I only read in this Altcoin Discussion forum about how excited people are about having bought some altcoins low and selling them for multi-baggers. I don't ever hear from the people who lost money. Where are they? Where did they go? Without the sordid stories from the losers, everyone thinks it is silly to not try to get rich quick. Post of the Week right there. Fascinating topic. Some of it is due to the power of the anonymity of an internet forum. People simply don't interact here in the same way they would in a localized, less anonymous environment. Related to that, I suspect that people assume it negatively impacts their credibility when they admit to making mistakes about backing the wrong horse. There is no real incentive to admitting one made a mistake, especially if that makes other statements one makes (anonymously) less well-received. There may also be an element of something like a selection bias. If you're currently holding a bag, it's easy to believe that it's about to turn around. My guess, which is pure projection because I've done this, is that you keep holding some coin on which you're way underwater, not because you believe the hype you believed when you bought it, but because you HOPE for that hype to take hold again, if even for a day, so you can get out with less pain. If you haven't sold at a loss and realized those losses, again, there may be no self-admission that it's a bag you're holding. Finally, I think it's REALLY EASY to be infected by a common problem among gamblers and speculators. When you're successful, it's because you're smart. When you are not successful, it's because you were unlucky or it's due to manipulation. So our "winning" trades are due to our brilliance, which we will shout to the rooftops. Our "losing" trades are just bad luck and not worth mentioning. That totally happens IRL, as well. This would be a great thread for the Alt Discussion board! If it weren't for a plethora of scam coins fooling newbies/newcomers and even guys with 2-3 year experience in cryptos, XMR would have had enjoyed lofty high valuations even now. It's a shame that money is always tied up chasing bad decisions and investments, crypto or otherwise.
What I don't understand is where are all the people who lost money on P&Ds? Why do we never hear from them? The problem right now is I only read in this Altcoin Discussion forum about how excited people are about having bought some altcoins low and selling them for multi-baggers. I don't ever hear from the people who lost money. Where are they? Where did they go? Without the sordid stories from the losers, everyone thinks it is silly to not try to get rich quick. *raises hand* I think it is because it is a topic victims find embarrassing and would rather forget? We are males (mostly here) and I presume we don't like to be perceived as weak or having failures of judgement. Exactly my thoughts, it is mostly embarrassment and that male pride. No one is inclined to share their bad trades but tons of fake gloating goes about in the altcoin scene and crypto in general.
Without the sordid stories from the losers, everyone thinks it is silly to not try to get rich quick.
The fact that big losers often just quit and become invisible helps perpetuate the game. We're still here, and there are still plenty of P&D scams. But at the same time growth of the crypto community is limited. We chew up and spit out a lot of newcomers. Wish the CC news sites would put some effort into doing a study on this. To put some realistic sober data out there instead of the incessant prostituting of half-assed research in articles pumping shitcoins to newcomers. I made a lot (like $10k) buying Dogecoin from $300 per million all the way up to $1800 per million. Then as it fell I gave a lot of it back.
Then I moved half of that money into Nyancoin and let it sit.
Today those are both relatively worthless investments, so you could say I lost quite a bit.
Today I am happily and successfully 'bagholding' cryptonotes but I don't fault my losses from the animal-coin era. I learned a lot about crypto, and it only cost me a few thousand dollars. That's tuition well spent. Perhaps if cryptonotes take off we might even see a long awaited ROI from that tuition.
+1Well, i also thought i can stack up my stash with trading (nOOb trying to "read" the candels), lost a few €k on Monero and now i am getting back my losses by ASIC trading to make up these lost Moneroj. Time, a month or two, will tell if i succeed in doing so. I also learned it the hard way, like i always did, and i am glad to watch people sharing their knowledge and learning from them, like we all do   "Errors are there to be made, the main thing is to learn from these!"If it weren't for a plethora of scam coins fooling newbies/newcomers and even guys with 2-3 year experience in cryptos, XMR would have had enjoyed lofty high valuations even now. It's a shame that money is always tied up chasing bad decisions and investments, crypto or otherwise.
What I don't understand is where are all the people who lost money on P&Ds? Why do we never hear from them? The problem right now is I only read in this Altcoin Discussion forum about how excited people are about having bought some altcoins low and selling them for multi-baggers. I don't ever hear from the people who lost money. Where are they? Where did they go? To me this is easy to answer. They left the scene altogether. Probably, but I think it's easy to forget how few of us (real people) there are in a sea of scammers and shill accounts all trying to defraud one another. Additionally, there's a difference between people who are generally interested in cryptocurrency and its future and those who simply want to make money trading it. The latter tend to get bored and disappear after losing their shirt a couple times. If it weren't for a plethora of scam coins fooling newbies/newcomers and even guys with 2-3 year experience in cryptos, XMR would have had enjoyed lofty high valuations even now. It's a shame that money is always tied up chasing bad decisions and investments, crypto or otherwise.
What I don't understand is where are all the people who lost money on P&Ds? Why do we never hear from them? The problem right now is I only read in this Altcoin Discussion forum about how excited people are about having bought some altcoins low and selling them for multi-baggers. I don't ever hear from the people who lost money. Where are they? Where did they go? Without the sordid stories from the losers, everyone thinks it is silly to not try to get rich quick. *raises hand* I think it is because it is a topic victims find embarrassing and would rather forget? We are males (mostly here) and I presume we don't like to be perceived as weak or having failures of judgement. sometimes there are stories in other sections of btct (here too), but for the most part theres really no reward mechanism for coming here with a losing story. most people here come to make money. most people stay here to make money. i would imagine the reason that such stories are rarely heard is because typically sob stories wont make you richer here. what will provably make you more money is more money. you could try lobbying for legislation, enforcement or control if you dont have money. control is probably much easier had by scamming. and not much happens as far as enforcement unless its over a certain marketcap amount. legislation, you seem to have made the point that its on its way in two years, a while out apart from 'male ego', theres no real reason to share a sordid story. |
|
|
|
So to make it clear. The likelihood that the float of Dash is significantly owned by those in the instamine and who likely owned masternodes hence thus maintaining their share of the coin supply is what in your estimation?
Very low. In my estimation Evan should be from around 100k to 400k tops - as he was just one of the two "partners" and Hagan / internetape has already sold much or all of his stash in the lower price ranges. Please account for 1.9 million instamined. I know someone who attempted to mine during that sham and only was able to get 500 (i.e. 0.005 million) DRK. So you are claiming they did not sell into the pump, thus they could not have possibly offloaded 1.5 million DRK into the free market so I assume they could ONLY have sold them to other whales in bulk. Evan probably had to face some serious losses as well:
Wild speculation. Masternode rewards came online much later, when coin supply wasn't at 2mn, but more like 4.5mn+ and that was the low reward-scheme... like 10% or something because it was planned to gradually escalate in terms of pow/pos balance... I think the 50-50 reward was coded to be reached in small increments by q3 or q4 '15... yet by that time coins had reached 6mn. So from the instamine till then, another 4mn coins had been added to the supply, mainly by PoW....
What was the hash difficulty during this 2.5mm mined before masternodes were created? I would presume that insiders used the resources they gained from the instamine to rent massive cloud resources to mine out a majority of that 2.5mm. That isn't a wild speculation, because it is the rational thing for them to do so no one can compete with them when selling on a pump given they already control the coin and they have no intention of wide distribution and wide adoption, because for one thing they are not technically capable of it. So on one hand you have large scale redistribution of the first 2mn coins (I know of whales that bought large packages like 20-40-100k DRKs for peanuts, back in the 0.00002 - 0.0005 range, and were even buying the ccex hacked DRKs dumps over at poloniex, down at 0.0008 or something).
So we are confirming that insiders were hoarding DRK. The problem is there was never a wide interest in holding DRK and adopting it for use. That has always and will always be the problem. All these things reshuffled the distribution so much that most darkcoiners understood that the instamine is a non-issue
A redistribution to whales is not a non-issue. It is precisely the death of the free market for the float and the wide adoption needed to drive network effects. |
|
|
|
Days let's posit that your point about slow development of Monero had some validity (really I don't dig into Monero source code so I don't know), I have some reactions: 1. Could you please go post that in a thread about Monero, not in the Dash thread. Motivation/motive of Monero supporters (and myself who does not own a Moneroj) is not a factual answer to concerns about Dash. 2. The concern we've expressed about the Dash distribution is that it unfairly skews the control over the float and the profit from the coin to a smaller group. If you are implying this corrupt financial structure enables Dash to have more funds to develop their coin faster, my reaction is the technology of Dash isn't even at the level of a high school junior programmer. Don't forget I found a high school level probability math error in the InstantX white paper a year after it was released. Who the hell is doing your peer review? The anonymity is not end-to-end principled (a foundational principle of correct network protocol design), is horrendously slow, is not autonomous, and the masternodes could violate anonymity of users. |
|
|
|
Days let's posit that your point about slow development of Monero had some validity (really I don't dig into Monero source code so I don't know), I have some reactions: 1. Could you please go post that in a thread about Monero, not in the Dash thread. Motivation/motive of Monero supporters (and myself who does not own a Moneroj) is not a factual answer to concerns about Dash. 2. The concern we've expressed about the Dash distribution is that it unfairly skews the control over the float and the profit from the coin to a smaller group. If you are implying this corrupt financial structure enables Dash to have more funds to develop their coin faster, my reaction is the technology of Dash isn't even at the level of a high school junior programmer. Don't forget I found a high school level probability math error in the InstantX white paper a year after it was released. Who the hell is doing your peer review? The anonymity is not end-to-end principled (a foundational principle of correct network protocol design), is horrendously slow, is not autonomous, and the masternodes could violate anonymity of users.
So to make it clear. The likelihood that the float of Dash is significantly owned by those in the instamine and who likely owned masternodes hence thus maintaining their share of the coin supply is what in your estimation?
Very low. In my estimation Evan should be from around 100k to 400k tops - as he was just one of the two "partners" and Hagan / internetape has already sold much or all of his stash in the lower price ranges. Please account for 1.9 million instamined. I know someone who attempted to mine during that sham and only was able to get 500 (i.e. 0.005 million) DRK. So you are claiming they did not sell into the pump, thus they could not have possibly offloaded 1.5 million DRK into the free market so I assume they could ONLY have sold them to other whales in bulk. Evan probably had to face some serious losses as well:
Wild speculation. Masternode rewards came online much later, when coin supply wasn't at 2mn, but more like 4.5mn+ and that was the low reward-scheme... like 10% or something because it was planned to gradually escalate in terms of pow/pos balance... I think the 50-50 reward was coded to be reached in small increments by q3 or q4 '15... yet by that time coins had reached 6mn. So from the instamine till then, another 4mn coins had been added to the supply, mainly by PoW....
What was the hash difficulty during this 2.5mm mined before masternodes were created? I would presume that insiders used the resources they gained from the instamine to rent massive cloud resources to mine out a majority of that 2.5mm. That isn't a wild speculation, because it is the rational thing for them to do so no one can compete with them when selling on a pump given they already control the coin and they have no intention of wide distribution and wide adoption, because for one thing they are not technically capable of it. So on one hand you have large scale redistribution of the first 2mn coins (I know of whales that bought large packages like 20-40-100k DRKs for peanuts, back in the 0.00002 - 0.0005 range, and were even buying the ccex hacked DRKs dumps over at poloniex, down at 0.0008 or something).
So we are confirming that insiders were hoarding DRK. The problem is there was never a wide interest in holding DRK and adopting it for use. That has always and will always be the problem. All these things reshuffled the distribution so much that most darkcoiners understood that the instamine is a non-issue
A redistribution to whales is not a non-issue. It is precisely the death of the free market for the float and the wide adoption needed to drive network effects. |
|
|
|
Days let's posit that your point about slow development of Monero had some validity (really I don't dig into Monero source code so I don't know), I have some reactions: 1. Could you please go post that in a thread about Monero, not in the Dash thread. Motivation/motive of Monero supporters (and myself who does not own a Moneroj) is not a factual answer to concerns about Dash. 2. The concern we've expressed about the Dash distribution is that it unfairly skews the control over the float and the profit from the coin to a smaller group. If you are implying this corrupt financial structure enables Dash to have more funds to develop their coin faster, my reaction is the technology of Dash isn't even at the level of a high school junior programmer. Don't forget I found a high school level probability math error in the InstantX white paper a year after it was released. Who the hell is doing your peer review? The anonymity is not end-to-end principled (a foundational principle of correct network protocol design), is horrendously slow, is not autonomous, and the masternodes could violate anonymity of users. |
|
|
|
|
Random writes can wear out the SSD much more rapidly is because it causes entire sectors to have to be cleared and rewritten (potentially even moved) even if only one bit is changed in the sector. Sequential writes are much healthier for the SSD.
|
|
|
|
So the users have the ideological motivation, but when it comes down to it, they prioritize what is convenient, efficient, and serves real needs they have, such as contacting mom and cousins on Facebook. That is the hurdle the the irrelevant income offer doesn't solve.
This is where we differ. You think people will perceive the income as irrelevant where as I do not. Even if they earn enough money to purchase a few meals out a year, Seriously I've learned the hard way several times in my life with failed projects that humans prioritize their important desires and needs. That income is absolutely irrelevant and worse yet is an insult to many people (which is why ChangeTip must die). I think they will be motivated to join and retake control of their personal online presence. Most people do not solely rely on Facebook to keep in close contact with their family members. It is more of a causal liaison point for posting pictures and such. Imo, changing over to another social network isn't that big of a hurdle for most users, especially when they will be transferring their information not only to a social network, but a social sharing platform which will host not only Synereo, the social network, but also a plethora of other online social software.
Afaics, Facebook is for sharing/interaction/feed amongst strangers, friends and family, with more emphasis on the first two than family. If the "other online social software" has some compelling features, then they may adopt. I have not yet seen a list of these planned features and an ETA on their implementation. Users have a finite cognitive and time resource which they allocate to the highest priorities in their lives.
How do you explain MySpace losing market share to Facebook? MySpace was mired into a static page model and failed to innovate and most especially around the network effects of feeds, social updates, apps and games (which is precisely what I realized is the niche I need to go after to challenge Facebook in the long-term but the cases which require a decentralized protocol): http://techcrunch.com/2011/06/28/sean-parker-on-why-myspace-lost-to-facebook/https://www.quora.com/What-could-MySpace-have-done-differently-to-avoid-losing-to-Facebook/answer/Edward-King <--- read this http://www.forbes.com/sites/adamhartung/2011/01/14/why-facebook-beat-myspace/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
