Are you in a position to provide some actual evidence for this assertion?


Cheers

Graham

The total thus far for 2014 is 1572 (including parodies, failed launches etc. and not limited merely to btctalk ANNs) according to a count of the coins listed in the DOACC metadata collection and obtained via a SPARQL query posed of Minkiz' SPARQL endpoint, accessible on: https://minkiz.co/sparql


You'll probably want to update to the latest count prior to publishing your summary. For convenience, here's the query as a clickable URL


Cheers

Graham

I suggest you follow Bittrex' lead and use the term “crowdfunding campaign” unless you feel strongly (and can successfully demonstrate) that the documentary support for your offer meets the standards currently mandated for public offerings of stocks/shares.

Is this offer being made by an authorised employee or director of NewGamePlus Inc., the operators of qointum.com and owners of the QOIN trademark?

https://wiki.qointum.com/legal/terms/:

http://www.markhound.com/trademark/search/mv9DpinEu

The coin operators would appear to have the benefit of legally-limited liability (pace my very limited understanding of CA corporation law). Posting this offer from a pseudonymous a/c merely raises the obvious question - “why would a legally-constituted Canadian corporation post this offer under a pseudonym?”

Personally, I find the plausible answers less than reassuring, can you help?


Cheers

Graham

There are reasonably clear and identifiable factors at play: the alt world stage was warped at birth by the self-regarding, ludicrously anachronistic, quasi-mediaeval “guild of cryptocurrency alchemists” pose inherited from bitcoin and which still contaminates the whole cryptocurrency domain. The inevitable course from bogus secrecy to rampant charlatanism and outright deceit isn't exactly difficult to plot for anyone skilled in the soft arts.

They initiated the “if you don't know the secrets, you shouldn't be doing altcoins” mantra that so clearly favours the unscrupulous and they are primarily responsible for the current parlous state of affairs in the alt world. An open, supportive and transparent approach to the development of bitcoin alternatives would have set a completely different tone and would have led to a different set of expectations.

I guess the “up” side is that many in the altcoin community are now working actively and collectively to address this problem --- and they do seem to be having a positive effect. I find much encouragement in the recent, almost total rejection of Piratecoin. If this continues, in time the altcoin world will become a more trustworthy market than the bitcoin world.

Cheers

Graham

Absolutely not, I try and play a straight bat, keep the focus on verifiable facts & direct inferences.

I was simply responding to your post:


with some facts that I was able to marshal from my own work along with concise chapter and verse so that others can check the figures for themselves if they so wish.

That's a fair comment, I'll try to do better in future.

And I take your hint about arguing; I can assure you that it's an unnecessary caution.

Cheers

Graham

Ah, you've demonstrated that my post was incomplete. I omitted a step ...

livecoins = 1328
deadcoins = 507

1328 + 507 = 1835 total coins


This can be confirmed by the query:

yielding:


If you do, I'd be interested to compare methodological notes.

Cheers

Graham

I've recently added an "expiration" relation to the DOACC RDF graph but I've not had chance to update the ontology as yet and I'll probably change it to something less suggestive of a date --- because IRL, dates are hard to come by and the values turned out to be qualitative rather than calendarial. With that caveat in mind, we can get an answer to your question by phrasing it as a SPARQL query of the graph ...

yields

where "listed" means listed on an exchange and "extant" basically means "not known to be dead, presumably still active"

The above query can be pasted verbatim into the web form fronting Minkiz' SPARQL endpoint: https://minkiz.co/sparql

To toll the dead:

yielding:

Cheers

Graham

If you've simply multiplied the number of topic pages by 40 then you are risking some degree of overcounting ...

Such as the de facto one embodied in DOACC? https://github.com/DOACC/individuals <- RDF graph, serialized as ntriples.

Web page -> https://minkiz.co/coin/

Linked Open Data -> https://minkiz.co/lod

Perhaps you'd prefer something you could try at home?


random sample drawn from a sorted version of the /tmp/anns.json list:


By the time you've factored in the overcounting and all the [ANN]s for exchanges, pools, associated websites, pump schemes, dump schemes and anything else that the mods feel isn't too off-topic, you're down to around 1700-1800 or so.


like this? -> https://minkiz.co/coin/name/



hat hat, hat.


Cheers

Graham

I have an incomplete and informal list, I generally make an effort to record the halving scheme if it is concisely expressible and not just an idiosyncratic list of block heights and corresponding rewards. The coins listed are from the 'listed' and 'active' categories and are ordered by incept and name (seems appropriate to the question).

linked_name and trading_symbol	incept	total coins	halving scheme	tgt time	reward
Vertcoin - VTC	2013-01	84000000	('h', 4, 'y')	150	50
Bytecoin - BTE	2013-04	21000000000	('h', 3153600, 'b')	600	50
Luckycoin - LKY	2013-05	200000000	('h', 2, 'y')	60	88
Sexcoin - SXC	2013-05	250000000	('h', 600000, 'b')	60	100
WorldCoin - WDC	2013-05	265420800	('rp', 1, 'w', 20160, 'b')	30	64
FlorinCoin - FLO	2013-06	160000000	('h', 800000, 'b')	40	100
Infinitecoin - IFC	2013-06	90600000000	('h', 86400, 'b')	30	524288
Krugercoin - KGC	2013-06	265420800	('h', 2, 'y')	15	32
XenCoin - XNC	2013-06	2100000000	('h', 3, 'y', 4665600, 'b')	20	(200, (10000, 10000, 2000))
Cloudcoin - CDC	2013-07	100000000	('h', 1036800, 'b, 2, 'y')	60	50
Mastercoin - MSC	2013-07	180200000	('h', 3, 'y')	35	20
QuarkCoin - QRK	2013-07	247000000	('h', 60480, 'b', 3, 'w')	30	2048
GrowthCoin - GRW	2013-08	37368000	('h', 3, 'm')	45	100
Zetacoin - ZET	2013-08	160000000	('h', 80640, 'b', 1, 'm', (1))	30	1000
Cthulhu - OFF	2013-09		('h', 6, 'm')	60	5
ProtoShares - PTS	2013-11	2000000	('rp', 5, 'w')	300	50
Skeincoin - SKC	2013-11	17000000	('h')	120	32
EarthCoin - EAC	2013-12	13500000000	('h', 1, 'y')	60	10000
FedoraCoin - TIPS	2013-12	500000000000	('h', 100000, 'b', (50000))	60	5000000
Globe - GLB	2013-12		('ip', 4, 'y', 'd', 1, 'd', 1440, 'b', ('tax', 20))	60	((0, 2months, 10), 5)
Particle - PRT	2013-12	1000000000	('h', 2500, 'b', (1563))	15	50000
Chaincoin - CHC	2014-01	23000000	('h', 700000, 'b')	90	16
Ekrona - KRN	2014-01	40000000	('h', 3.3, 'y')	198	40
Grumpycoin - GRUMP	2014-01	50000000000	('h', 20000, 'b')	150	500000
Platinumcoin - PT	2014-01	195084000	('h', 259200, 'b')	120	78
TeslaCoin - TES	2014-01	299792458	('ip', 18.56, 30, 'd')	30	172
Continuumcoin - CTM	2014-02	90600000000	('h', 1, 'm', 86400, 'b')	30	524288
Riecoin - RIC	2014-02	84000000.0	('h', 840000, 'b')		50
Teacoin - TEA	2014-02	40000000	('h', 1, 'w')	30	1000
Zedcoin - ZED	2014-02	120000000	('h', 1, 'y', (1))	60	88
Zombiecoin - ZMB	2014-02	170000000	('h', 90, 'd')	150	102
Bitgold - GOLD	2014-03	501000	('h', 6, 'y')	300	0.5
Cannacoin - CCN	2014-03	13140000	('h', 1, 'y')	60	12.5
Carpediemcoin - DIEM	2014-03	21600000000	('h', 1, 'd')	8	1000000
Fuguecoin - FC	2014-03	84000000	('h', 840000, 'b')		50
Hempcoin - THC	2014-03	250000000	('h', 500000, 'b')	60	250
Legendary Coin - LGD	2014-03	10000000	('h', 64800, 'b')	120	7
Muniti - MUN	2014-03	72000000	('rp', 1, 'f', True)	90	39
Give Coin - GIVE	2014-04	500000000	('h', 250000, 'b', 6, 'm')	60	1000
Kumacoin - KUMA	2014-04	1000000	('h', 1, 'y')	90
Noirshares - NRS	2014-04	5000000	('r5%', 3000, 'b')	300	80
PaiMaiBi - PMB	2014-04	580000000	('r', 0.5, '30d')	30	32
Québecoin - QBC	2014-04	42000000	('h', 420480, 'b', 2, 'y')	150	26
Wearesatoshi - WAS	2014-04	40000000000	('r')		100000
Bumbacoin - CLOT	2014-05	201600000	('h', 10080, 'b')	60	10000
Distrocoin - DISTRO	2014-05	100000000	('h', 1000000, 'b')		50
duckNote - XDN	2014-05	8589869056	('h', 11000, 'b')	240	320000
Elira - ELIRA	2014-05	783562000	(61.8%, 118, 'd')	90	1029
Goalcoin - GOAL	2014-05	2300000	('r', 0.01, 'w')	60	2
Hongketocoin - HKC	2014-05	600000000	('h', 50000, 'b')	60
Huskycoin - HC	2014-05	10000000	('h')	30	15000
Latinumcoin - LTM	2014-05	21000000	('h', 210000, 'b')	600	50
Limecoin lite - LCL	2014-05	100000	('h', 1, 'w')	60	2.5
CoCoCoin - COCO	2014-06	22000000	('r', 0.07, 'y')	150	2222222/(((Difficulty+2600)/9)^2)
Kiwicoin - KIWI	2014-06	42000000	('h', 200000, 'b')	60	64
Quatloo - QTL	2014-06	100000000	('h', 934400, 'b')	135	17.01
Singularity - SING	2014-06	2944000	('h', 80000, 'b')	210	32
SSVcoin - SSV	2014-06	21000000	('h', 525600, 'b')	60	26
Startcoin - START	2014-06	8400000	('h', 12,'m')	60	40
Veilcoin - VEIL	2014-06	2400000	('h', 20000, 'b'))	240	60
BigBullioncoin - BIG	2014-07	10000000	('h', 147000, 'b', )	600	36
FVZcoincoin - FVZ	2014-07	434000	('r', 0.001, 'm')	60	varying
Instantcoin - BTI	2014-07	250000	('h', 100000, 'b')	60	1
Stealthcoin - XST	2014-07	23273860	('h', 1440, 'b')	60	8000
Vastcoin - VAST	2014-07	3937500	('h', 500, 'b')	30	4000
Neoscoin - NEOS	2014-08	21000000	('h', 105000, 'b')	300	50
Ripoffcoin - RIPO	2014-08	12000000	('h', 100000, 'b')	150
SocialxBot - XBOT	2014-08	2000000	('h', 30, 'd')	60
WeAreSatoshi - WSX	2014-08	22000000	('h', 200000, 'b')	60	25

To provide some context, I should 'fess up from the start that I am of the semantic web persuasion and have a long-standing interest in knowledge representation.

The changes in the “halving scheme” follow the changes in typical info contained in the ANN; the earlier, more ambitious, more detailed expression gradually reduces to the most common component along the lines of: ('h', 1, 'y') = halving each year, ('h', 216000, 'b') = halving every 216000 blocks, ('r', 0.01, 'w') = reducing by 1% per week, ('rp', 1, 'w', 20160, 'b') = reducing by 1% per week or 20169 blocks. Frankly, if it's anything more complex than the basic ('h', 66666, 'b') expression, you're best advised to consult the codebase for details ... so hurrah for Open Source.

Yes, the representation is basically unusable and therefore mostly useless but I first need a corpus of common expressions of the scope and range of this domain concept before I can even begin to think about expressing it more formally in OWL.

The hyperlink leads to a Minkiz web page offering a fancypants Linked Open Data presentation of the DOACC metadata for the coin.

The unvarnished metadata is available as an RDF graph of ntriples here -> https://github.com/DOACC/individuals and there are a couple of associated OWL ontologies: Melvin Carvalho's original “ccy” ontology which expresses tx and blockchain detail plus my broader “doacc” ontology which extends the representation to embrace bctthreads, protectionschemes, distributionschemes, etc. etc.


Cheers

Graham

Edit: added InfiniteCoin

Support for DYOR.


Cheers

Graham

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=588413.0;all

It's a chore to maintain the list and activity in the thread tailed off earlier this year as the number of altcoin launches spiralled.

“abandoned” is a tough call because it resists definition and is difficult to demonstrate canonically. “dead” is only a smidgin less challenging definition-wise, we've settled on ...

There's a list of “inactive coins” on Minkiz, very informal because it's rare that one can be completely confident that a given coin isn't being curated by a small functioning network somewhere in an obscure corner of the intertubes.

https://minkiz.co/coin/inactive/

Cheers

Graham

As a Brit, I am in essence making observations on a matter of internal affairs in a foreign culture and my observation should be interpreted in that light. However, one important practical difference is that the term “crowdfunding” is more accurate than “initial public offering”, the latter term having been chosen in order to exploit the more favourable connotations of a regulated commercial activity conducted under responsible industry sector / government oversight.

I'm strongly in favour of plain, unambiguous terminology where it's needed and describing financial instruments to non-specialists is exactly one of those places.


Cheers

Graham

Really nice overview. Thanks for putting in the effort, you've made my task (of constructing an ontologically useful characterisation of the 2gen cryptocurrencies) actually practical, thanks!

Cheers

Graham

Bittrex' lawyers lead the way:

https://bittrex.zendesk.com/hc/en-us/articles/203386364-GlowShare-Crowdfund-Campaign

“GlowShare Crowdfund Campaign”

“ ... cancel a CFC at any time ...“


As the man wrote: “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet” --- and, in this instance, has the benefit of being less likely to frighten the legislative horses.

Cheers

Graham

Thanks for responding, I get it now. The fact that voting in the real world is/isn't flawed at core is irrelevant, that sequence of statements is just an overblown version of CrownCannabis' summary plus the fact that a record of votes cast is to be preserved in the blockchain.

Cheers

Graham

I've separated out the key successive statements you make concerning the core feature. Unfortunately, each is loosely-phrased, is unsupported by facts or argument and thus fails to communicate much at all ...


I'll pick one (not entirely at random) and challenge you on it, just as a thought experiment ...

“Human nature is the weakest link, so we remove it from the equation”

Exactly how is “human nature” (whatever you think you mean by that term) the “weakest link” (whatever you think you mean by that term), and from which “equation” (whatever you think you mean by that term) is it to be removed?

The statement conveys no useful information about what you plan to do because it's constructed from undefined, informal terms which can mean whatever you want them to mean.

The same goes for the other three statements, they are all semantically vacuous.

I'm not questioning your integrity, I'm pointing out that you're not saying clearly whatever it is that you think you're saying.



It's difficult for me to see how it could be anything other than screamingly obvious to a businessperson such as yourself that you at least have to present a supporting case for your twin statements that i) voting in a real world scenario is “flawed to the core” and ii) that a blockchain-based implementation “fixes those fundamental flaws”.

As it stands...

The first claim can be trivially dismissed with: “Sez who? WTF do you know about it?” (hint, using the term “in a real world scenario” simply signposts the content as confected gibberish).

I can't in all conscience call the second statement a “claim” because, in the absence of support, it's simply a non-sequitur. There's a lot of work ahead of you in preparing an argument to support your claim that a blockchain-based solution actually does “fix” (whatever you think you mean by that term) the core flaws in real-world voting (whatever you think you mean by that term).

Cheers

Graham

It's there now, I believe (unless you have something different in mind):

https://github.com/EdgarSoares/ARCH.git


Cheers

Graham

<- me. 64.

I've seen things you people wouldn't believe, etc. etc. 


Cheers

Graham
 

As your project proceeds, you will likely need more support with your English: economic == the discipline, economical == thrifty. Fortunately, mangled syntax English robust against is. Except for 2. (below) where the tense makes a crucial difference in this particular context ...


That statement makes an implicit assumption that the task is always amenable to parallel processing. Have you examined the range and depth of that assumption in terms of how much of the anticipated business depends upon it? Is it intended that the solution space be limited to such tasks --- or at least those tasks which are amenable to a parallel solution and can be identified as such, characterised and quantified in some reliable and accurate fashion?

FWIW, you don't mean "~10". The most favourable statement that you can truthfully make is "up to 10 times" and I suspect that you'd be hard-pressed to provide solid support that ~10 is the general case and not, in fact, some difficult-to-quantify smaller subset.


Can I just check (in case it's not merely a trivial issue of EFL) --- this is actually a forward-looking statement, a prediction of a future state rather than a description of an existing state? Because if it is a forward-looking statement, I'd really like to know how you got to “usually”.


Cheers

Graham

It's a first cut, a work in progress. My main objective is to provoke thought and further questions (so, thank you); an aide-memoir presented with Minki's characteristic wry spin.

With respect to a big +10 for a premine: I'm attempting to acknowledge that IRL, ordinary, day-to-day coin logistics requires resourcing, somehow; DNS seed nodes don't pay for themselves per se, nor do nodes hosting block explorers.

The main issue with a premine is previous instances where an unscrupulous dev dumped the premine, trashing the price and effectively killing the coin. The risk of a repeat occurrence remains significant while devs are allowed to remain pseudonymous and I believe I can discern some small degree of hardening antipathy towards pseudonymity of devs.

As the consequences of this change of attitude begin to propagate across the domain, investors will gradually be able to regain some confidence that a specific premine will be responsibly curated because developers will be better able to demonstrate their integrity.

The recent “No, no I'm the EQX dev!" episode has nicely illustrated the profoundly human problem of verifying “personal identity” in the absence of (the usual) validating social context. It's an abstract concept, increasingly difficult to implement canonically IRL and impossible to achieve (with the same degree of confidence) in bitspace. Fortunately, with the intense interest in developing “trustless”  (a misnomer, I caution you) devices, we may be able to make some practical progress towards reducing the risks.

I'm not ignoring the other issue that seems to attend premines, the matter of the amount. Different brand development strategies have different costs, what might be seen as a ludicrously large premine for an unprepossessing “store of value” coin might be seriously underpowered for a coin with an ambition to grow a significant global reach. Assessment has to be performed on a case-by-case basis, hence a mild positive 10.

More generally, from an investor's perspective ...

At the moment, we (collectively) have no reliable means of decentralising control over the fin logistics resources necessary to maintain a coin and, until such a means appears, this de facto centralisation will continue to present practical problems.

The same is true for the management and control of nonfin central resources such as control over the website domain reg, possession of the coin-specific private keys and, importantly, the rights to the IP that emerge from the result of collective efforts of the dev(s) and the community of coin adopters.

These issues cannot safely be left just hanging in the wind - the Mooncoin dev has stopped responding and theymos' response to “can we take over the forum thread?” is that the thread ownership cannot be transferred, another thread must be started. Not a show-stopper admittedly (this time) but a change in URL will have a deleterious effect on communication between p2p participants and on previous promotional efforts after coin adoption that were rash enough to quote URLs for resources maintained by third parties.

The demands that arise from this militate the creation of a self-organised, community-based solution (such as a not-for-profit supporting “foundation”) to which can be ceded control of centralised issues that cannot yet be devolved to a decentralised, “trustless“ solution.

It's going to take time to achieve that transition and until then, I'm inviting assessors to challenge the “received wisdom” about premines and make their own informed assessment, taking into account the coin management's closely-argued, well-supported pitch.

Cheers

Graham