Ripple as the network and RTXP as a protocol both are incredible pieces of technology... definitely a LOT of value in there. I'm a Bitcoiner same as the rest of you but I don't know how you guys can look at this with blinders on. I've read the Ripple whitepapers, used the system and researched the valuation basis in depth. There is actually something credible here. It's not Bitcoin, it's a little different, but it will be of tremendous value to the financial system. I am sure it will beat Bitcoin toward the goal of networking the world's currencies for fast value transfer while still saving money for the little guy. Ripple has already pulled ahead of Bitcoin in terms of connecting with banks and such.
1) you are no bitcoiner 2) go connect with banks 3) you sound like a whiny bitch "buy ripple please" 4) prostitutes earn a lot of money too. Should everyone be a prostitute now? 5) ripple is BS to speculate on - if you can make use of its services, sweet for you. But buying more than what you personally need (more than 5$ worth) is a very moronic idea. 6) advertising to people to speculate on ripple is unethical bahaviour. Do you realize that Ripple and XRP are separate things? Please point to where I proposed to buy XRP, because it's clearly not even mentioned. If you want to talk about Bitcoin, it would be worth almost $0 without the banks. Libertarians could go back to trading amongst themselves off-market but it is otherwise doomed without exchanges and connections to banking infrastructure. Most of the world's population is not interested in their money value gyrating out of control. They prefer stability of their national currency and Ripple simply connects points together like Bank A -> Bank B very quickly for these currencies to work together. Bitcoin can be exchanged too. Several Bitcoin exchanges are already connected and act as trading gateways. Decentralized cryptocurrency are able to do "stable", for example Nubits or BitUSD (from Bitshares), they maintain a peg of 1:1 to USD. There's no need to go to a centralized private company like Ripple for "stable". |
|
|
|
https://web.archive.org/web/20141021165909/http://coinmarketcap.com/(1 billion Bitshares vs. 2.49 billion as per today) They increased their available supply by 1.5 billion BitShares, using the same trick Ripple did the other day. Gliss is really proving himself to be corrupt if he's manipulating the available supply to trigger pump and dumps. No, coin supply was increased by 0.5 billion from 2B to 2.5B, and this was due to merging PTS, AGS, KeyID and VOTE into Bitshares, so the holders of the above were given BTS in exchange for merging them into the Bitshares system. This is not Ripple where coin supply can just be made bigger by the company and only 25% supply is released to the public. |
|
|
|
I guess you didn't read the rest of the thread before replying to kokojie, since you missed the fact that kokojie's figure is off by an order of magnitude: Some of them are zero, and by the author's own numbers: There are 732,959 addresses with a 1 satoshi balance totaling 0.00732959 BTC Most of these "unique addresses" are like that, with balance below 0.001 btc So I guess I was inaccurate when saying "non-zero balance addresses", I should have said addresses with "meaningful" balance. |
|
|
|
It's very hard to say, but I think probably 2 to max 3 million users.
Wallets don't say anything as there are services and companies who have hundreds of wallets with a balance.
Wait, what? it's way less than that, total users should be less than 100k people. There are total of around 220k unique Bitcoin addresses with a non-zero balance, and I personally owns about 20 addresses with balance, the average user should own at least 2 or more addresses with balance. |
|
|
|
|
uh your 2FA is your email, which means anyone that hacks your email can defeat your 2FA, and also they could probably figure out your password since they already hacked your email.
|
|
|
|
Difference is Web has 300M users at 5 years mark, we have no more than 1M users at 5 years mark. At this rate, it'll be year 2150 when we reach 1% population Still very early adoption stage
Once Bitcoin is integrated to the masses through social media we will have growth
December, 1995 - internet users
16 millions
0.4 % of world population
December, 1996
36 millions
0.9 %
December, 1997
70 millions
1.7 %
December, 1998
147 millions
3.6 %
December, 1999
248 millions
4.1 %
March, 2000
304 millions
5.0 %
July, 2000
359 millions
5.9 %
March, 2001
458 millions
7.6 %
April, 2002
558 millions
8.6 %
March, 2003
608 millions
9.7 %
Dec, 2009
1,802 millions
26.6 %
Mar, 2014 (est.)
2,937 millions
40.9 %
|
|
|
|
This competition between cryptos and different Proof-of-... is exactly the game of skills, only the fittest will survive.
But it makes sense to review all options available on the market if you're an investor and a user.
If you're a miner, you have no choice but promote PoW to make your living.
I disagree. People who purchased miners are essentially investing in bitcoin via their miner. Additionally most miners have a short useful life span so anyone who has invested in a miner could simply decide to cease upgrading their mining farm if they decided to stop believing in PoW in favor of something else. Wrong, people who purchase miners are essentially investing in the hardware, which they could potentially use to extract value out of a PoW system, it might be Bitcoin, OR something else, maybe Peercoin for example. Miners only care about what's most profitable to mine at the moment, vast majority of miners have ZERO loyalty to any specific coin, this is a very clearly observed phenomenon in the scrypt mining scene. The biggest pools are the auto-switch pools. |
|
|
|
With PoW only those who explicitly fight for control (miners) get a share of it.
If control is given out for free to all the people who didn't ask for it, they will sell it for profit thus empowering tricksters and charlatans.
True. Why should early adopters relinquish control to Johnny come latelies??? They've had the vision, foresight and iron hard determination to bring it this far, so why let some ADD instant gratification whiner waltz in and reap the rewards when i) they did not assume the huge risks to get it this far and ii) they might waltz off next week for the next new shiny fad. iii) they can damn well roll up their sleeves and fight for position if they really want to, may take a couple of years and resources and risk, but guess what, that's what everyone else put in. It might be elitist, but elitism builds awesome shit, communism builds Trabants. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TrabantThings that are hard to come by, retain and gain value, things that are easy to get, become "as common as dirt", in massive quantities, certain types of dirt may have value, but unless it came from the moon, a handful of it will remain perennially worthless. That's not a problem with PoS, that's a problem with your imagined distribution scheme. Distribution doesn't have to be all at the start, nor does it have to be free. |
|
|
|
This thread is nothing but PoW miner shills trying to hold on to their waning power, as the crypto world is increasingly moving toward the superior PoS system.
POS can be superior however most of these alt POS are awful. Fortunately the very 1st one pee pee coin is the best so far. However it could have been made better with no inflation. POS means people want to protect their existing coins. The bitcoin network today is not really protected by miners, it is protected by the owners of the largest amounts of coins. POS rewards those who keep their client open.That's completely wrong. Satoshi has allegedly the largest amount of coins, but has zero control over transactions. He might decide to gain that control, but he would need to approach the hardware market and find lucrative deals or develop equipment himself, but so can do outside players with fiat. Even if he approaches the goal of total control over the network, his position will never be unchallenged. Holding coins in PoW doesn't automatically translate to control, and gaining that control might be challenging. I like the idea of reward for just using the client in PoS, but it is the control model, where an established inner circle of stakeholders will eventually maintain permanent hold on money flow, that bothers me. IMO, use POS if you want a private members club, not a currency. Use POI if you want to simulate the introduction of black holes into a stable planetary system.
True enough. So basically in your view, a bunch of profit crazy, no stake, PoW miners controlling the Bitcoin network is ok. But actual Bitcoin stakeholders controlling the Bitcoin networks is not ok? There is a slight difference, crazy miners don't control, they compete to control the network! Yes, I believe that those who feel enthusiastic and competitive, should be able to compete without permission. Bullshit, there isn't anyone controlling more than 10% of all Bitcoin. But there are private miner or cloud mining, that currently or used to control more than 20%, or even 30%, 40% of mining power. At some point, there WILL be a person secretly controlling more than 50% of mining power. The reason is PoW is cheap, it's easy to buy enough hardware to gain 50%+ control, it is especially easy to do this to control PoW altcoins, there are many PoW altcoin got 51% attacked. PoW is an extremely flawed system. |
|
|
|
This thread is nothing but PoW miner shills trying to hold on to their waning power, as the crypto world is increasingly moving toward the superior PoS system.
POS can be superior however most of these alt POS are awful. Fortunately the very 1st one pee pee coin is the best so far. However it could have been made better with no inflation. POS means people want to protect their existing coins. The bitcoin network today is not really protected by miners, it is protected by the owners of the largest amounts of coins. POS rewards those who keep their client open.That's completely wrong. Satoshi has allegedly the largest amount of coins, but has zero control over transactions. He might decide to gain that control, but he would need to approach the hardware market and find lucrative deals or develop equipment himself, but so can do outside players with fiat. Even if he approaches the goal of total control over the network, his position will never be unchallenged. Holding coins in PoW doesn't automatically translate to control, and gaining that control might be challenging. I like the idea of reward for just using the client in PoS, but it is the control model, where an established inner circle of stakeholders will eventually maintain permanent hold on money flow, that bothers me. IMO, use POS if you want a private members club, not a currency. Use POI if you want to simulate the introduction of black holes into a stable planetary system.
True enough. So basically in your view, a bunch of profit crazy, no stake, PoW miners controlling the Bitcoin network is ok. But actual Bitcoin stakeholders controlling the Bitcoin networks is not ok? |
|
|
|
This thread is nothing but PoW miner shills trying to hold on to their waning power, as the crypto world is increasingly moving toward the superior PoS system.
i totally agree, but in all honesty i think something further superior to PoS will surpass PoS as the alternative algo that will challenge PoW. its simple evolution. I don't think it's likely, since PoS has reached nearly perfect efficiency in terms of resources. The further variations are subsets of PoS, such as DPoS, TaPoS, they can improve upon PoS, but the core ideas of PoS is unlikely to change. you should take a look at proof of importance. Its founded on the concept of pos and is as efficeint but the method by which people are chosen to forge blocks is vastly different. Those who are most important to the network are the most likely to forge apposed to who has the most coins. So a merchant that does thousands of transactions but little balance could end up with higher weighting than a hoarder with loads of coins. Its not just how many transactions that are factored in to decide importance but who the transactions are with and their importance, much like a web of trust. That sounds like another subset of PoS, but with an added layer of determining which stakes are more important. I think that's still PoS at the core. This is another advantage of PoS, the specific implementation is very flexible, able to fit different needs and easily be improved upon. no its entirely written from scratch. according to the devs it wouldnt be possible for PoI to be migrated into existing pos algos due to the difference in architecture or something. The code is written from scratch, sure. But PoS is not a piece of code, it's a concept. If you are using stakes as the proof, then it's PoS. I think it should actually be called IBPoS (Importance Based Proof of Stake) instead of PoI, the "importance" is not the proof, the stake is the proof. The "importance" part is used to determine the weighting of each stake. Calling it PoI is inaccurate. |
|
|
|
This thread is nothing but PoW miner shills trying to hold on to their waning power, as the crypto world is increasingly moving toward the superior PoS system.
i totally agree, but in all honesty i think something further superior to PoS will surpass PoS as the alternative algo that will challenge PoW. its simple evolution. I don't think it's likely, since PoS has reached nearly perfect efficiency in terms of resources. The further variations are subsets of PoS, such as DPoS, TaPoS, they can improve upon PoS, but the core ideas of PoS is unlikely to change. you should take a look at proof of importance. Its founded on the concept of pos and is as efficeint but the method by which people are chosen to forge blocks is vastly different. Those who are most important to the network are the most likely to forge apposed to who has the most coins. So a merchant that does thousands of transactions but little balance could end up with higher weighting than a hoarder with loads of coins. Its not just how many transactions that are factored in to decide importance but who the transactions are with and their importance, much like a web of trust. That sounds like another subset of PoS, but with an added layer of determining which stakes are more important. I think that's still PoS at the core. This is another advantage of PoS, the specific implementation is very flexible, able to fit different needs and easily be improved upon. |
|
|
|
This thread is nothing but PoW miner shills trying to hold on to their waning power, as the crypto world is increasingly moving toward the superior PoS system.
i totally agree, but in all honesty i think something further superior to PoS will surpass PoS as the alternative algo that will challenge PoW. its simple evolution. I don't think it's likely, since PoS has reached nearly perfect efficiency in terms of resources. The further variations are subsets of PoS, such as DPoS, TaPoS, they can improve upon PoS, but the core ideas of PoS is unlikely to change. |
|
|
|
|
This thread is nothing but PoW miner shills trying to hold on to their waning power, as the crypto world is increasingly moving toward the superior PoS system.
|
|
|
|
I was under the impression that the fact that PoW is superior has long been the case and that anyone who thinks PoS is better either does not understand the economics behind mining and/or is trying to pump their piece of shit altcoin
I like how you think PoW = Bitcoin and PoS = altcoin, it really shows how much you know about this topic. |
|
|
|
I've signed it. We're over 5k now. Only 2.8k people left!
? OP was aiming for 5000... Re: PETITION AMAZON: 4,979 have signed, only 21 more to make 5000! Once it reach one goal , it make another goal  That's ridiculous. So it'll never end then. What's the point then? I guess the maximum is 10k , not sure really  uh why would there be a maximum? the petition can be signed by as many people was you want. Some petition on change.org were signed by 2M+ people. It's a show of will and force, there is no final target. Change.org is just a media platform for collecting signatures, kinda like ebay is a platform for selling your stuff. You receive some free publicity thru the platform. |
|
|
|
Where did I saw Nxt was more successful?
If Bitshares is successful (2-10 years?) and the world is using it, 99.9% of the population of the world will look to you, a billionaire early adopter, and ask "Why wasn't there a fair distribution?" "Why were a few thousand people, the 0.1 %, allowed to get so wealthy?"
If you did managed to give to all 7 billion people on the planet, you would then have to overcome the pareto principle to stop the above scenario happening.
This is why 'fair distribution' debates are so tiresome. They are (d)illusionary on any sensible time scale.
I don't claim Bitshares to be of perfect fairness, but there's a difference between initial distribution of 76 people versus tens of thousands, plus Bitshares still have ongoing distribution for the next 30 years. I am saying the distribution of Bitshares is more fair than NxT. NxT distribution can nearly be called a scam. That's all. |
|
|
|
I believe this is the main reason NxT is often called a scam/unfair. You could look to Bitshare's distribution model for a fair distribution, the distribution was done over the period of several months, with half PoW distribution, half donation based. Also it now has an inflation schedule toward a final cap.
You got nearly 7 billion unique initial stakeholders? Impressive. If no one is calling Bitshares distribution unfair, it is because: you haven't had enough success, haven't been around long enough to have multiple waves or users or there isn't much interest. Or some combination. You are still in a honeymoon period. Nope, just tens of thousands more than NxT, and Bitshares is still currently being distributed by planned inflation, just like Bitcoin. Bitshares marketcap is nearly 2X NxT, forum activity is roughly 2X too, so are you really calling NxT more successful? Also 2X more mechanical problems. I've been lurking in BitsharesX forum for ages now and I always see so many problems, it's why BitSharesX is dropping in capitalization more & more and I also think it doesn't really appeal as much as a conventional coin. Software has bugs, news at 11 So are you saying NxT has zero problems? |
|
|
|
Bitshares will soon enough hurt the investors just like PTS (Protoshares) did.
If you knew only little about this group is that they take the investors money to pay for the work is being done on the coin. This means, they have the same model as Ripple.
I already replied to your ridiculous claim that PTS investors lost money here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=850913.msg9504277#msg9504277Are you ready to make a response, or are you just going to ignore the truth and keep spreading lies? "Taking donation money and pay for work being done on the coin", how is this a bad thing? I don't get it, isn't that precisely what's expected? Bitcoin Foundation pay the Bitcoin core dev a salary too, Gavin Andressen was paid $200k in 2013. |
|
|
|
I believe this is the main reason NxT is often called a scam/unfair. You could look to Bitshare's distribution model for a fair distribution, the distribution was done over the period of several months, with half PoW distribution, half donation based. Also it now has an inflation schedule toward a final cap.
You got nearly 7 billion unique initial stakeholders? Impressive. If no one is calling Bitshares distribution unfair, it is because: you haven't had enough success, haven't been around long enough to have multiple waves or users or there isn't much interest. Or some combination. You are still in a honeymoon period. Nope, just tens of thousands more than NxT, and Bitshares is still currently being distributed by planned inflation, just like Bitcoin. Bitshares marketcap is nearly 2X NxT, forum activity is roughly 2X too, so are you really calling NxT more successful? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
