Had adblocker on (video was totally absent) and unfortunately for you, i was incorrect.

I understand youtube is difficult for creators such as yourself to meet ends meet based on <100k views, and even more so for you since you're not a particularly a superstar on YT.

You're attempting to route of creating a crypto, where the lack of knowledge, experience and intuition to create something halfway decent, is in absence. It's very pronounced on this thread with the lack of details or any fundamental framework that's going to be built.

You're doing a dis-service to everything you've built on YT, as your reputation is going to get demolished by your meager attempt at creating a crypto. This is all in search for personal financial gains at the expense of your followers, just like the few before you who tried exploiting their base.

This coin has no purpose whatsoever, has no verification if that's indeed this guy. It's a scam, just avoid this shit.

What many of you fail to realize, that ANN threads are dominated by puppet shill accounts. They create the appearance of "being popular or safe" based on the volume of posts. Individuals then have fomo, and invest without research, this leads to probably the majority of scams that occur. Don't ever base your investments on appearances, always research what was stated above.

If you're still uncertain, there's a trick you can do that very few do, is contact the devs/creators, pretending you're investing large amounts of money. Get a feel for what they're like, often, it's very revealing.

This is due to the quality of coin launches, and nothing to determine quality other than your average investor (whom are less educated about crypto, trading, investing and having knowledge about businesses in general).

There is movement in a positive direction, investors and traders are getting smarter overall, but crypto is still new (relatively speaking). There are few rules & regulations for the average person to enter crypto and invest their savings, unlike, the real-world where traders/investors need to be qualified/licensed and have oversight. Now crypto will eventually have this (it's inevitable), but it will stifle innovation and the decentralized fundamentals of the blockchain, set before us by Satoshi, so this is a very tricky question in that sense at this current time. There will eventually be regulation, but there will never be true regulation in the common sense we know of Wall-street and etc, especially with anonymous coins.


In regards to the markets, as i discussed previously (2 posts above), there's a lot of manipulation and consolidation of power/wealth among the "whales" or individuals with large amounts of capital. Along with that, 100s of coins get launched on a monthly basis, and there's only so much wealth to go around (liquidity) in the markets. So when a coin is launched, it's at maximum hype and potential, people in crypto always determine that "this is the next big thing" "this will overthrow XX coin, This coin will be listed in the top 100" essentially, expectations for the coin to perform outweigh what has been really created, what the true reality is (again due to education and knowledge). I'm very outspoken in this regard, and you can immediately determine that 90% of coins launching are shitcoins, coins that have no fundamental insight or purpose other than being vehicles of profit for the creators and big whales.

This in turn creates a climate, where coins get listed to an exchange, the market is un-tapped/fresh and unknown (no-one knows the ceiling or potential ((energy)) behind the coin who has invested in it and etc), so the expectation that the coin will rise because of hype and positive sentiment from investors/community members. Then, because the markets are governed by 1 major force, sentiment, any decline whatsoever, or dump by maniuplative forces, creates a wave of negative sentiment, fear, doubt and uncertainty... causing a panic among invested income, then eventually a collapse of the market. When a decline occurs, there are many ready to profit from it, but it can create a cataclysmic spiral for the market, and it may never recover.

Also note, that all markets are pegged to Bitcoin or Ethereum, and almost all valuations are predicated on their performance. So when we are in a bear/bull-market (because of Bitcoin mainly) markets may behave in a different fashion.

This cycle has been completed so many times, that it has been ingrained in the fabric of crypto's (right now 2018), essentially individuals now are more prone to dumping than before (years ago, because of significantly less liquidity) because of how commonplace this effect is, creating a feedback wave and expectation that the coin is eventually going to decrease and that they will eventually lose on the markets if they don't sell.


To a lesser degree, this is also because of market liquidity, volume, and the particular exchange listing. There are more qualities and some left out details, that get attributed to this, but, this a generic overview of what occurs.


Of course there are nuances and exceptions, but the majority of coins behave in this fashion.

 


 

I thought Bitpay died out in 2015, haven't heard their name being relevant or alive for years now.

Everytime i post in the main DO thread, i get moderated. For suggestions like rebranding and etc, it's such a shame that DO is running by control-freaks who censor EVERYTHING that's an expression not pertaining to their views and direction.

Such a fucking shame, and backwards. The idea of their entire coin is anonymity, which is freedom. The irony is there is no freedom behind DO's community and users whatsoever, it's the most restricted coin i've ever seen from every perspective (even markets), which is all a repercussion of a failed vision of censorship and their ability to adequately deal with their community, supporters and investors.




Someone should really fork DO at this point, and negate the founders wallets and recreate this coin how it was supposed to be. Imagine how many people would be interested in that, and how popular that coin would be. All we need is someone with a motivational factor to do it, and that's strong in this area.


I'd support that in a heartbeat, if under legitimate direction and the team was strong enough to overthrow the existing DO (which in essence, woulden't be difficult at all).

It's very difficult for a new investor to understand what to invest in. I highly suggest not investing, but trading coins on exchanges first. Get a feel for the markets, their behavior and you can research specific coins you're trading in.

Once you get a fundamental understanding of behavior of markets, you will get a clear understanding of what this space entails.

It hasn't had any impact on the cryptocurrency markets overall, if anything it reinforces the positions of the "good" coins from "bad" coins. Shitcoin launches should be neglected and not traded, enforcing the ideas that indviduals can create any coin to complement any industry, at any time, without repercussions for their investors.

Thank you for the compliment, but i will not discuss anything about investing in particular coins or my portfolio.

The longest coin i've held is NXT which in turn is ARDOR now. But, that's not a project i would invest in today; because, it's a coin i already have and also because i would not chose to (it's 50/50 for me and a very personal answer fyi). This answer is not intended to be specific in anyway.


But, i did basically answer your entire question. Please view here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4930584.msg44427470#msg44427470

It's artificial and not artificial at the same time. Crypto markets are governed by one MAJOR force only, sentiment, how people feel emotionally. To a lesser degree, crypto is governed by supply and demand; but, we are not quite here yet to discuss this topic.

The biggest definition i can give crypto, and the underlining tone to this space, is profits and making money... greed. This is the underlining tone, the devil in the details very few discuss and want to avoid completely. And it's very obvious, there are very few people who actually see blockchain as academic.

When there is money to be made, there will be maniuplation, corruption and greed. And that's why ALL markets are manipulated, and every crypto has corruptions or fundamental flaws, simply because you can't control the markets. This is all because the openness and ability for anyone to enter crypto at any point. Now the reason for all this, is because of regulation and anonymity within crypto, which is why i won't go too much further into this topic.

Some people enter crypto to invest for the future, and put money on tokens/coins they have faith in. That's totally fine, and that's ultimately what the majority of people are doing. But, these are not the 20% of individuals who own 80% of the total crypto-mcap.


So again, yes crypto markets are artificial, but at the same time, it obeys natural behaviors for becoming adopted (in a very broad sense). It's all supply, demand and sentiment. These are ultimately the 3 forces that crypto markets are governed by.


On a side note: I'm sure all of you have seen messages for pump and dump groups, heard of whales and all that. That's all manipulation of the markets. The guys with the most capital will always govern the markets, just like the real-world.

First, there will always be a bigger threat to cryptos than regulation, and that's quantum computing.


I can't get into major details in regards to this, so i'm only going to address regulation in the sense for coin launches.

There are 3 things to consider when ICO's get regulated: innovation, capital/investments/monetary gain for the country and competition. Competition in the sense of owning an industry (U.S. and silicon valley, China and manufacturing... etc). How many trillions of dollars has silicon valley brought to the U.S.? Could blockchain one day be on this scale, who knows. But regulation will ultimately dictate these factors.

Crypto will eventually be entirely regulated, but not in the common sense, because innovation is always occurring and there will be coins that launch that double down on the fundamentals of decentralization, anonymity and etc. In the truest sense, cryptos will never be regulated by their nature. And if people want to use crypto anonymous, there will be nothing governments can do. They can't ever control a blockchain and all that. It will require a whole special oversight and branches of government to oversee cryptos, so it's essentially a futile effort in that regard. Transactions can't be controlled, the system can't be controlled and the user's sending (anonymous coins) can't be idenitifed. These are major problems that will never be solved within the next decade.

The only way a government can fully control a "threat" or blockchain in general, is to ban it all-together or allocate enough resources to track down individuals through blockchain, which is very difficult/impossible, especially if someone intentionally hid their tracks or used anonymous coins, aka Monero.

On the flip side with ICOs

Governments have to be very very careful not to stifle this industry, because blockchain technology will create thousands of jobs and bring in significant capital, along with the prestige of being at the edge of technology (for the country). This is why i actually appreciate with how the U.S. is approaching this, small steps at a time, figuring out small ways to implement rules before they go big dick and issue big executive decisions. I don't agree with all their decisions though, and i think there will always be ignorance and resentment towards blockchain tech, this is another problem for another day though.

In regards to regulation for ICO's and coin launches, regulation will be good and bad. Again, it will stifle innovation and may chase the entire industry out of a country, so regulations have to accommodate competition among governments and "be friendly" to these operators, or else they'll completely lose the entire industry from their country. You can already see this occuring, how come ICO's don't get launched in the U.S. and how many innovators did they stifle by introducing the SEC into ICO's, regulating that. A fatal mistake for the U.S. and same goes with China.

Now ICO's are mainly getting launched from European/South American countries and Russia. Soon that will not be the case either. So, what i predict what will occur is the volume of ICO's will all be consolidated into a few countries who are ICO friendly, and thus the volume of coins launching will eventually be dramatically reduced. Now, there will always be coin launches and people who won't abide by these rules, but i'm disregarding them for this post.



This topic is very broad, and this is just a glimpse of what will occur and circumstances that could arise with coin launches only (obviously there are regulations for exchanges, traders, investors, illegal activity, taxes... list goes on). The entire debate will occur for a long time, and in the meantime, Blockchain tech and some crypto's will outlive governments and generations of people. This is the reality.

DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization) aka coin governance is a very tricky subject, and i believe is in its infancy. The overall idea of a DAO is a peak into the future and perception of a utopian society.

Due to the nature of this subject, i'm going to remain somewhat limited in my answer, because there are many implications that can be drawn from DAO and how ultimately it will impact the world. I'll strictly answer in terms of crypto.


In a short answer yes, i believe it's possible, because we already see examples of this occurred, namely with the most successful DAO, Dash. But even then, it becomes somewhat vague into the extent this has, and how actions from the blockchain votes are interpreted and acted apon by the humans who are physically working and hiring new indviduals.

The idea of DAO stems from the POW and POS debate, in which who ultimately has power over the network. Consolidation of the network's power in POW is determined by miners, and how large their server warehouse is for Bitcoin mining, and thus, 51% (if you control 51% of the network power, you basically make Bitcoin invalid and unstable, which is a highly talked about subject, but i don't hear about it much anymore.)

Within POS, your power is determined by the strength of your wallet, how many coins you hold. This system favors the 80/20% rule, where 20% of indviduals control 80% of the network (or 20% of the indviduals in POS chains, hold roughly 80% of the coins), which is a natural occurrence within the world. POS is basically the re-incarnation of this economic principal/theory, into the blockchain. Even though, it wasn't initially intended like this (i think), i don't know how Sunny King interperted POS initially (he was the founder of POS with peercoin), i believe he created this system to secure a network without the mass power consumption needed. That was a key feature.

There are 2 major examples of governance i'll look at, DASH and DAO. Basically, within DASH the system is not perfectly democratic, as you still need invested power (ghashes) or collateral for master nodes for the ability to vote. The network is controled by whales, and not your common man, again obeying the 80/20% rule, which is a common occurrence in the world (again not going to say if this is good or bad, because that's a whole different topic). Just know, this system works as the evolutionary traits of human, are always drawn to leadership and this rule.

Now with this system if functions based on the participation of the community and users to propose ideas, if there's no proposal of ideas, then there is no function of the DAO. You can see the failure with DAO in Bitshares, i believe for a while there were no proposals, thus the coin died/failed in that instant for all intensive purposes, because companies just don't ever "cease" when it's working as intended, companies consistently improve and better themselves.

So in essence, if there is no community, there is no proposals, there is no DAO. And if that were to ever occur with DASH (unlikey), it would die utterly. My point being is the function of governance in crypto is as good as the community, and with proposed ideas the system continues to better itself. It still requires human input, and a real-physical work to be done by indviduals. This leads to the dash organization, and how they implement their ideas and how they express the decisions of the community.

Dash is currently undergoing a lot of internal issues, namely with their 10% Expenditure (10% of the supply held by the devs/executives) to execute ideas, and continue to fund the project, but they are going bankrupt essentially, and how DASH will operate with this real company structure years from now, remains unknown. DASH will ultimately fail entirely, if they can't fund their own workforce, then who will enforce the proposals propsed? Who knows. In this sense, DAO is a failed system. But, DASH is inherently a crypto, so don't take what i'm saying as DASH is eventually going to 0 or the market is going to crash, that's not the case at all.

In the sense that DAO is an input from investors/holders of a coin to have voting power to determine the direction of a coin, essentially "shareholders of blockchains" then yes it succeeded. But, this overly complicates matters, and as seen time and time again, power is abused.




In regards to Airdrops, and POS. There are very rudimentary systems in place to completely neglect centralization of power when distributing the coin, but all are flawed (because of manipulation and accountability). The only way a pure POS coin will ever work, is if an AI (high (self-sufficient), not the propaganda marketed of Software AI) itself conducted one (as far-out this idea sounds), without bias and without flaws in the distribution, without any human intervention. This is impossible now, so the entire system for POS in this respect has failed.

There will never be a perfectly distributed coin and never be a perfectly governed coin, because we are human. For reasons i listed above with DAO, POS suffers the same faults.

Do these systems work? Yeah, to a degree. But blockchain is in its infancy. We didn't have much innovation in 2018, and this problem of DAO, POS and distribution is still a long way off to being solved. Solutions to these fundamental problems, will create new billion-dollar blockchains.





There's a lot more to say about DAO, POS and Distribution coins, and in no way is this a complete answer, this is just a brief-touch-up. My ideas/thoughts are fragmented here because this topic is so large, and there's a lot to discuss for each paragraph i've written. If you have one specific questions, then please let me know, it'll be much easier for me to discuss 1 specific topic, instead of a huge one. My answer is not perfect, was a bit reluctant to answer this questions because of that.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=4930584.msg45500452#msg45500452

Why he's only partially right, mostly incorrect.

Because this is ANN Announcements Crypto section, not discuss some bullshit propaganda to promote a new shitcoin that probably already has been created 10 times over.

And no i didn't read it, because again, you're in ANN section. Hench my remarks, clickbait spam. "Leaked research" What is this a joke?


By trying to promote your new coin you're doing a diservice to your coin entirely. This isn't a new tactic, and it's very hard for me to believe you aren't: emotionally, physically or monetarily invested in this project, to be refuting my remarks. I've been in crypto for so long, i've seen every tactic attempted to try to create "hype," or gain attention, standing out.

And i know i'm bumping this post, giving it more light than it ever deserved.

 

Privacy based coin's have mostly died out with new wave of investors. As you are aware, back in 2014-2015, this was a major major trend. In the current climate, more investors are being drawn away from the initial ideals that you and I are aware of, decentralization, anonymity and etc. And that's one of the most disappointing things for me, and i'm sure many others who adore cryptos. I want it to be clear, there is a lot of manipulation and advertisements for "decentralized anonymous coins," kinda like coins want to have EVERYTHING in their blockchains, but i do not consider those privacy coins at all.

The flood of shitcoins (ICO's pertaining to industries) have ultimately drowned out any innovation in these areas. Most privacy coins (ICO's) pertain to DASH forks, MN coins, and have ultimately flooded the market, where these coins have no value whatsoever, just like the majority of ERC20 tokens. The projects that are seeking to innovate, are few and are COMPLETELY drowned out by the mass flood of shitcoins, i see these coins and i feel bad, because 3 years ago, their coins would of been within the top 100 today. The barrier for entry of coins has grown and will keep growing, more and more capital will increase proportional to time.
 
In regards to Monero, I don't expect any privacy coin to contend with Monero in the future, it's amazing because there was so much fud behind Monero in the early days and yet it succeeded above all other priv coins, especially over it's father, Bytecoin (the original coin that incorporated cryptoknight on the darkweb). There's a lot of history and reasons why Monero ultimately succeeded above and bytecoin, and i won't go through and give a history lesson here.

There will always be a small niche within crypto for anonymous based coins, but unfortunately, (again) the need/want for privacy coins has become much much less significant. There's also a huge negative connotation against these types of coins (propaganda mostly), and many feel these types of coins are too closely associated with illicit acts. They are very easy to manipulate, and often those creating these types of coins are creating them to serve one selfish-purpose or need, coins like DASH and Monero are successful because they were pretty transparent, in the early days, with what they wanted to achieve.

Monero is the king of anonymous coins and share somewhat of a throne with Dash, again i don't really see that changing ever. Monero is the Ethereum of privacy, and until the technology and development significantly increases over the next few years, or there's suddenly critical vulnerabilities with the protocols that handle the blockchain obfuscation (the way Monero is private for those who don't know), then there will be a need for a new contenders, and new contenders will fill these voids.

I'll be honest here, i know little about Zcash, i never have taken my time to really understand the underlining Zerocoin tech, and why it's more significant (or contends with) than cryptonight. My weakest understanding resides with technical blockchains, and i hope someone out there will eventually give you a better understanding of these chains. But, the option to become private or not, is a gimmick to a certain extent, if that's how Zcash works. You either are going to buy a coin for 100% anonymity or safety, and for prooven tech, or you're going to invest in something else. There's not really a desire for a coin to handle both your private transactions, and public transactions. I think XSPEC is a fork from Zcash, in which i have had some experiences with the wallet and etc, it's just not a nice feature to have, or very essential. If i personally wanted to be private, i would always go with Monero or Dash, it's just much more practical. That's purely opinion btw, i actually have no real use for anoncoins, but they are some of my favorite coins to trade/invest with.



In regards to the markets: If you calculate the top 100 coins, and how many of those are strictly privacy-based coins, it's very small <10%. Even though, privacy coins are the truest crypto-currencies and the truest successors to Bitcoin, in the sense the reincarnation of Satoshi's vision for decentralization and anonymity, unfortunately, most ideologies are lost or manipulated for profit with newer investors.

One thing i'm pretty certain of, is bear markets in crypto won't last forever, there are forces that will always try to manipulate the markets into bulls, causing FOMO panick like 2017. And trust me, big whales seen this fomo and will utilize it again. And yeah it is scary, a nice sum of your money is invested.

1) Dump when you think the market has peaked (sometimes you can get caught in bear trap, and coin will go higher).

2) On very very rare occasions, you'll sell and the market will hold somewhat steady near its peak. Holding airdropped coins and gaining value over years is so rare, that you'll be looking for this unicorn all your life. Don't wait, unless you have undying faith in your coin. One recent (somewhat of an) example of this rare occurrence, is with Hydro (airdropped coin). https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/hydrogen/#charts even though it held somewhat steady, it still pumped and dumped heavily.

3) If you absolutely have faith in the coin, sell high (on pumps) and buy back at about 35-70% discount (depends how near the peak you sold), good rule of thumb. There will always be a chance, no market climbs forever.

4) With any airdrop coin, the price will peak (talking about like 100-200% increases here btw), at one point or another, then the price will fall heavily. My advice to you, is gather every airdrop coin's market history and compare their pumps and dumps. (aside from NEM, which was a unicorn and a crypto bounty/airdrop hunter's dream)

5) I always tell myself this 1 rule "What goes up must come down," and it has always been true, law of gravity applied to crypto markets (what i say to myself). The trick is how far up, how far down and how long; That's a millionaires secret.


Warning: This is just my experiences and what i've learned. Always DYOR and invest/trade carefully.

Thanks for your questions thus far, hope they help you a bit.

If my posts are too long, just let me know, i want to give you in-depth insight and answers to really make this thread worthwhile.

Clickbait spam

Even the best minds in crypto can't say with 100% certainty the direction of crypto. I generally agree with what he has stated, but there's one fundamental flaw, and that's where big money resides.

Most are certain that Bitcoin and cryptos in general will experience explosive growth at least once more, when the average institutional investor enters crypto (wall-street in general). Most are waiting for a final legitimization and recognition form the U.S. and around the world.

Along with this prospect, there's a lot more to consider in the broader context of the worlds monetary systems, and potential failures in the future (collapse of USD and other currencies could occur, unlikely, but could). Vitalik was reluctant to mention the growth of Bitcoin initially in 2013, and the "doom and gloom" many had in their minds during 2014-2017, people still predicted Bitcoin could reach 10k USD, but the vast majority (even myself) never believed it would occur within a few years.

Crypto will recover, while we may not experience substantial growth (everything has an upper limit), the general market capitalization is often estimated to be a 2 trillion dollar market (every time i calculate earnings it's based on a 2 trillion mcap, 1 day to 100 years from now, who knows), about 1000% increase from what it is now.

Vitalik's logic is this: the jump from 10 Million mcap, to 200 billion is ENORMOUS, but, the jump from 200 billion to 2 trillion is even more grand (not by %, but by sheer money involved), thus making the later growth even more substantial. I acknowledge what he was trying to say with 10k+ % increases, which will become more of a rarity, but the end of major explosions of growth will not end, but slow down forsure. The top 50 crypto, will hold their positions, unlike what we've seen in the past. There will always be flukes, and new technology that overthrows existing, and that's one reason i will always be hesitant on accepting Ethereum as the standard or etc.

On the flip side, in this current market, coins have shrunk quite a bit (in some cases by 90%), what would happen if bitcoin suddenly went back to 20k in the next 2-3 years? Guess what, the same gains will be made again on those coins, only this time, some may even go even higher because of their current valuations against BTC. There are many many perspectives to look at. Just because Vitalik is founder of Ethereum, doesn't mean he suddenly knows everything about crypto. He's a very intelligent guy, do not get me wrong, but, I don't fully believe he understands what he's talking about sometimes, and i've been reading and hearing his words for the past few years now.

Is Vitalik overall right? Yes in the context of what i written above, but mostly no imo. I firmly believe he's talking only in the perspective of ERC20 token launches, and is neglecting any new and upcoming tech that will overthrow Ethereum's monopoly hold on the smart contract system or even Bitcoin itself, years from now.


As with everything anyone says, there are nuances. Vitalik is in a position of power, and he can dictate what the markets will do (especially with ETH) to a minor extent. His words are valued because he built the second biggest (mcap wise) and largest blockchain (factoring in all contracts), but everything he says is just an opinion, just like with any person. It's easy to be negative in a negative environment, and for that judgement to be accepted. Just like how everyone thought they'd be a millionaire in a positive environment. No one can predict the future, we can only base our current knowledge on all past knowledge and experiences. This is how we draw conclusions for the future.

In my personal opinion, crypto is a long-way from mainstream adoption. Until you sit down one day and your accountant and says "Disney is doing well and we have great forecasts in the next year, but Bitcoin is expected to outperform Disney within the next 10 years..." then you truly know mainstream adoption has occurred, when institutions/businesses and etc recognize the legitimacy of crypto and blockchain.

Most people don't even know the function and still do not recognize the legitimacy of the blockchain. I don't call that mainstream adoption, I call that mainstream awareness. Bitcoin had mainstream awareness in 2009-2010 btw, i remember walking down my highschool hallway and seeing a picture "Who is Satoshi Nakamoto." This was a big thing on the internet, and did catch mainstream news i believe also. People were aware of Bitcoin that far back, but had no clue what it was or what it even meant. I guarantee this is how some of the oldest guys here on BCT found about Bitcoin.



EDIT: In case you are curious, this is what vitalik was ultimately talking about, summed up in 1 graphic. No one knows where we are on this graph, you can only speculate. Most would say "The Chasm" right now, but guess what, "The Chasm" happened in 2014 aswell. And that's what my entire post above is about: