Coinbase has no sway in this, they don't even have much BTC volume.  Most US BTC volume was in places like Finex.  What Bologniex does is far more important than what Coinbase does at this point.

"Who feels fucked by greg simon and ribbitrewards?"

This may be the best title of any thread I've ever seen.  It could even be the name of a music album or song.

My commentary on Steem...someone had to say it lol:

https://steemit.com/money/@r0achtheunsavory/you-gotta-stop-upvoting-bimbos-if-you-want-this-site-to-work

The funny part is, Anonymint is worried about some parts of this thing being unworkable when Larimer broke literally every single social contract possible in Bitshares.  If you are required to slap yourself in the face 10 times to log in to make this thing functional and keep going, that is what Larimer is going to hard fork it to.  The entire thing could be completely different or wiped at any day.  It's possible Larimer himself taught Vitalik how to hard fork.

The quantity of delegates obviously has to be high enough to prevent ease of collusion.  When Larimer was originally trying to change this number to 20 in Bitshares, I was like..wtf?  Are you serious?  20 people can collude easily.  Nearly everyone thought it was a horrible idea, but he was hell bent on making the system a "profitable DAC" over anything else.  It is best not to consider Bitshares a decentralized system, but the first bucket shop without a single point of failure.  Steem is essentially the same thing except a non-single point of failure Reddit hybrid.  It's not a decentralized currency or anything.  

There would need to be something like the original 101 delegate number or more to be considered remotely decentralized.  I'm not exactly a Vitalik fanboy or anything (obviously), but I think he considers this number needed to be around 1001.

Translation:  It's just a greedy Chinese guy that bought 5 billion GPUs to mine with.  He really doesn't give a flying shit about anything cryptocurrency related and thinks if he can take down Eth Classic then it might increase his mining rewards if there's not 2 Eths.

Reading it right now.  Just made my first Steem post to test and see if only naked bimbos can be upvoted:

Long Analysis on Bitcoin vs Silver:

https://steemit.com/money/@r0achtheunsavory/the-r0ach-report-vol-1-it-s-time-to-back-up-the-truck-for-silver

It is interesting that normal users are now afraid to downvote obvious bot spam posts:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@winstonwolfe/so-downvoting-a-bot-gets-you-downvoted-wtf-is-that

@ Smooth:  When it says Steem is "invitation only" right now, does that mean someone like Anonymint can invite me, or is registration completely down?

Someone already stole my username o_O:

https://steemit.com/@r0ach

It seems pretty broken:

https://steemit.com/steemit/@mary777/wang-the-steemit-bot

The fact that there is no real Sybil prevention means it will be gamed to hell and back and will turn into a giant circle jerk of bots.  Delegates/curators/whatever you call them will probably be running the things on the down low.

I suspect the markets will be propped up for the jewish bankers to try and get their Hillary Clinton sockpuppet into office.  If the markets were tanking while she's running on Obama's legacy, it wouldn't look very good.  When/if Trump wins, I assume they will crash the market like 1 month after he steps into office and try to blame it on him.  Or maybe they will pull the plug and crash the stock market the second they see Hillary can't win.

Well, that escalated quickly.

Finally had a constructive criticism on Bitshares forum:


Yea, I thought about this problem already.  What I posted was a preliminary idea on how to get a system like this to work.  The base layer tokens would just follow the longest chain rule and probably need to have an expiration date after a certain number of blocks deep.  A reverse confirmation system if you will.

I haven't signed up for Steem so I guess someone has hijacked my name already....


That is one long link.  Will look at it in a sec.  These mysterious "Wanta fund" stories are always entertaining at least.

Well, I believe proof of burn is the most powerful underutilized tool in cryptocurrency.  If you use proof of burn with the actual currency itself, you usually destroy the economic system in some manner.  You either have to make the money supply more inflationary than what is burned just to be safe so the supply doesn't go to nothing, or implement an actual central bank in the coin that monitors the supply on the fly and alters it.  Both of those options are not good in my opinion.  However, if you split the protocol into two different coins, each with a different purpose, you can then burn the one that isn't used as a currency and solve some problems without affecting the economic system.

I've shown this system to a lot of people so far and nobody has been able to find any drawbacks to it over regular Bitcoin.  McElrath claimed it was prone to DOS attack, but I fail to see how this system has a larger attack surface than Bitcoin.  If you had 1001 block validators for instance and they're locked in for a 1 month time period, but the landscape of block validators changes a lot each month since you have to burn the mined coins to become one, how could that possibly be a bigger attack surface than Bitcoin where the amount of pools is very small, everyone knows who they are, and no coins are burned to become one so they change less.

I'm not trying to create the perfect system here, just one that improves on Bitcoin without having any serious drawbacks compared to the current one.  If you get much higher TPS and all the claimed negatives like McElrath's example are trivial at best, then that would be a victory to me.

And the dollar is weak compared to gold and silver.  There's no reason for the entire planet to go after the dollar over metals.

*Will read over the Steem stuff in a sec.  Anything Larimer related always has some type of crazy controversy to it.

Ok, for Steem, economics is basically the study of pump and dumps and rent seeking behavior, culminating in the end game of - if you aren't a slum lord, you aren't doing it right, and Dan likes to read economic-type books that spell out lessons such as this.  It's not surprising he tries to integrate tricks to fool the users since that's all economics is is fooling people into becoming your servants in rent seeking behavior.  It seems Larimer might be an evil genius.

I'm starting to become more Smooth-level bearish on the ability to create beneficial decentralized coins for a few reasons:

1)  The subject I was talking about where any succesful cryptocurrency will have standardized alias systems, and the government will create their own alias system scaffolding and force everyone to route transactions through it, making whatever you do in the base layer pointless because you will end up with governmentcoin no matter what.

2)  The re-realization about what Ted Kaczynski said about technology being a net negative for freedom and how that inevitably applies to cryptocurrency (see above example)

3)  The fact that any open loop system will always be bottlenecked by the centralized fabs such as TSMC, Global Foundries, Samsung, and Intel.  This means no matter what you do, you will always have the equivalent of four "pools".

4)  The problem that the inherent value of the blockchain is entirely derived from the ability of everyone who uses the currency being able to mine it, because the main purpose of PoW is to create a decentralized exchange.  You remove the decentralized exchange aspect and you have nothing.  This is why things like defeating ASICs is important, yet maybe impossible.

5)  The ability for people to do things like mine silver will always be far more accesible in the end game than any cryptocurrency, meaning the superior altcoin everyone is trying to create already exists in the real world and it's called silver.

6)  As I stated before, the best example of an optimal currency that isn't just an instrument of debt or IOU would be "energon" from the transformers cartoon - blocks of energy that can be redeemed at full face value at any time regardless of externalities.  This is why in lieu of such a system, the world converged on the oil dollar.  The ideal currency will always have metastability, the ability to do work.  Without such high metastibility, the world would converge on just blocks of scarce matter, since matter is also energy, and that's where you get gold and silver.

7)  Once you read the above statement, the fact that we are dumping energy into cryptocurrency instead of extracing it to do work really makes you scratch your head.

I rewrote the original post since it seemed to be confusing for some people.  Should be easier to figure out now.