Please, stop talking to yourself... it's scary  Yes, I am glad someone can see it. I spent some time about twoish years ago trying to tie sock puppet accounts together. FromAbove (then going by come-from-above) was pretty much THE main suspect. Ironically, I made the tie in between him and Moneroman88 specifically two years ago. I even caught him red handed signing a Moneroman88 post with his ~CfA~ signature. Here is the unedited post (which was instantly deleted by Moneroman88 in hopes no one saw it): I have tied you to at least a few of them, I am pretty sure you are Moneroman88 as well. You slipped up on a post and I was able to make a connection, along with the other data points I am comparing matching up.
ouch if u were data analyst in my company id fire u bro ~CfA~ He likes to deceive other people using sock puppets to fatten his wallet. He often talks to himself with many sock puppet accounts, trying to make the conversation appear as if it is happening in between multiple people. I am confident he has been involved in most of the big pump and dumps going on around here for the past couple years by using his sock puppets to create hype, then once he exits his position he will troll the coin in an attempt to sway public opinion from the coin he was hyping to the coin he intends to pump next. Ask him to provide proof that there is a Monero Darknet Market, and he will make up some BS excuse... BECAUSE IT DOESN'T EXIST. |
|
|
|
Electricity and equipment are real costs that need to be paid for. Unfortunately, those costs are often too high for transaction fees to be enough.
Given the obligation of the validators to do the unprofitable proof-of-work is vacated, the remaining electricity costs approach epsilon. CoinHoarder has written nonsense, but I will not waste my time rebuking him now. I will rebuke him in a comprehensive manner at the appropriate time in the future, although the main issue with DPoS was recently explained to him. I don't intend this to be a personal insult. I am just speaking factually. Nonsense is nonsense. Note I am not speaking to his legal point, because he knows damn well that I had a major epiphany in my legal interpretation since the time of the posts that he is quoting. I am sure everyone can decide for themselves what is nonsense and what is not. Unlike you, I am able to convey my thoughts in an easy to understand manner without linking to walls of text and hundred page threads. I am sure most people can easily understand my objections to your arguments. I still maintain that you are pumping your vaporware. I just retreated from that thread because you kindly asked me to. Also, just because you posted something does not mean I am aware that you did so. I don't have time to read all of your posts. You are still linking to the post that lists your qualms with PoS as if you still maintain those qualms, so excuse me if you have changed your mind. |
|
|
|
PoS usually pays dividends to stake holders (and even relays a percentage to the developers thus must register as a Money Transmitter with FinCEN) thus arguably creating investment securities under the Howey test and thus must be registered with the SEC or face possible jail time. I argue this impacts the resilience.
This might apply to most forms of PoS, but dPoS destroys transaction fees. I don't think that you can count that as having paid dividends to shareholders, as there are no transactions to each shareholder doing so. Yes, destroying transaction fees increases shareholder's percentage of the pie, but I think it is a bit of a stretch to claim it is the same as paying dividends to shareholders. The other flaw of PoS, and especially DPOS and Dash masternodes (as pointed out by smooth et al) is you are paying yourselves via the shares from an enterprise that issued unregistered investment securities and which also requires each stakeholder to register as a money transmitter with FinCIN. I can't fathom how you convinced yourself that you are not going to jail in the future or end having to lick the boots of the SEC as Erik Voorhees did to wiggle out of jail time.
1. Again, dPoS is not paying dividends. 2. This point is conjecture from "armchair forum lawyers" (read: not lawyers). Obviously, most cryptocurrencies operate in a grey area, but to claim it is black and white like that is stretching the truth. |
|
|
|
centralizes control according to stake, which is a finite resource
....
there is no way to distribute new coins (must distribute proportional to stake in order to be fair thus effectively no change in coin distribution)
You still are under the misconception that stake is a finite resource within PoS cryptocurrencies. By marrying PoS and PoW it is possible: A. Far advance warning of an cryptocurrencies' distribution/fundraising, with a clear objective and roadmap for the project and a set timeframe for the distribution/fundraising.
B. A working closed source beta, to be open-sourced after the original distribution period
C. PoW distribution (50% of the genesis stake)
Ca. Use several different mining algorithms, with each having an their own separate difficulty and the same chance to find the next block (implemented in several coins.. MyriadCoin was the first)
Cb. Use at least one algorithm per different types of mining hardware (one for Scrypt ASICs, one for SHA256 ASICs, one for CPUs, one for ATI GPUs, one for NVIDIA GPUs, etc..)
Cc. The point of this is to allow people with all types of minin hardware to participate so it is inclusive of everyone.
D. A regular IPO distribution (50% of the genesis stake)
Da. This is to allow people to participate in the initial distribution that do not want to hassle with mining equipment.
E. Launch said closed source beta into the wild after the distribution/fund-raising has occurred and switch to PoS
F. To mitigate claims of having an unfair PoS distribution to early insiders...
Fa. Have an annual block-limited PoW period that issues more coins to PoW miners.
Fb. The amount of tokens mined in the annual PoW periods should be reduced each year until eventually there is only a small amount of coins issued annually in perpetuity (aka. a tail emission).
Fc. This is intended to mimic the block reduction scheme and distribution of most PoW currencies, but with an added tail emission.
I am less certain about this, but I think that if the parameters/economics of the above are designed sufficiently then it can even thwart this gripe as well: attacking the coin is a one-time cost of stake that sustains forever, whereas for Proof-of-Work the attacker must continue to expend resources on mining to maintain an attack
Since the attacker would have to compete during the annual PoW phases to retain control of the PoS cryptocurrency, it can no longer be considered a "one-time cost". |
|
|
|
|
I have realized that at the annual auctions the price will go at (or at least very near) to the current market value, so it is not the benefit to late adopters that I initially thought it may be. It does however solve at least one of Anonymint's gripes with PoS... that the coin supply is set at a finite amount, and there is no way to fairly issue more coins after the original IPO. Possibly also this gripe: "attacking the coin is a one-time cost of stake that sustains forever, whereas for Proof-of-Work the attacker must continue to expend resources on mining to maintain an attack[2]".
I have also recently been thinking that it may be better to have annual block-limited PoW phases to distribute the coins instead. The number of blocks should be lessened with each annual period until a small amount is reached and issued annually in perpetuity (a tail emission).
Equilibrium will be reached similar to the auction idea... if mining is too profitable, then more people will mine it which will raise the difficulty... and visa versa. It is the same way equilibrium is reached with other PoW coins.
So, the current idea is something along the lines of:
A. Far advance warning of an cryptocurrencies' distribution/fundraising, with a clear objective and roadmap for the project and a set timeframe for the distribution/fundraising.
B. A working closed source beta, to be open-sourced after the original distribution period
C. PoW distribution (50% of the genesis stake)
Ca. Use several different mining algorithms, with each having an their own separate difficulty and the same chance to find the next block (implemented in several coins.. MyriadCoin was the first)
Cb. Use at least one algorithm per different types of mining hardware (one for Scrypt ASICs, one for SHA256 ASICs, one for CPUs, one for ATI GPUs, one for NVIDIA GPUs, etc..)
Cc. The point of this is to allow people with all types of minin hardware to participate so it is inclusive of everyone.
D. A regular IPO distribution (50% of the genesis stake)
Da. This is to allow people to participate in the initial distribution that do not want to hassle with mining equipment.
E. Launch said closed source beta into the wild after the distribution/fund-raising has occurred and switch to PoS
F. To mitigate claims of having an unfair PoS distribution to early insiders...
Fa. Have an annual block-limited PoW period that issues more coins to PoW miners.
Fb. The amount of tokens mined in the annual PoW periods should be reduced each year until eventually there is only a small amount of coins issued annually in perpetuity (aka. a tail emission).
Fc. This is intended to mimic the block reduction scheme and distribution of most PoW currencies, but with an added tail emission.
|
|
|
|
| [1] | Another scenario is DDoS attack other stake holders when their turn to mine a block, then jack up your transaction fees sky high when its your turn to mine a block. Note this has many variants as follows:
I do not think the following is possible in dPoS (I'm not sure about other forms of PoS), because delegates cannot change or set transaction fees by themselves. Transaction fees can only be changed by committee members which are elected by stakeholder vote. Not including a transaction because it doesn't have a certain amount in transaction fees seems silly, because the next honest delegate will do so and the honest delegate will get whatever fees are associated with the transaction. They would basically be giving up free money, putting a big red flag on their witness campaign, and it would be very likely that would get them voted out. Part of the incentive for delegates to stay honest is the future income of blocks produced in the future, although as I stated earlier... even if they are dishonest there is not much they can do other than withhold transactions from blocks (and the transaction would be included in the next block produce by an honest delegate.) The way I understand it, DPoS' main weakness is that all consensus algorithms suffer from.. a 51% attack. [1] Another scenario is DDoS attack other stake holders when their turn to mine a block, then jack up your transaction fees sky high when its your turn to mine a block.
You forgot my point that the attacker can short the coin. And that delaying transactions is an attack that could cause the share price to crater. Or DDoS attack all the others and then force all transactions on to your block. This is the problem with PoS and DPOS, because the ordering of who will mine is known before the transactions are sent. That is a major flaw compared to PoW. |
I didn't forget anything. All I am saying is DPoS is not susceptible to this kind of attack. You state all forms of PoS can suffer from this type of attack: "Another scenario is DDoS attack other stakeholders when their turn to mine a block, then jack up your transaction fees sky high when its your turn to mine a block". All I said was that this is not possible with DPoS because the attacker cannot change transaction fees with DPoS unless he has a majority stake. The attacker shorting the coin then doing any random attack on a cryptocurrency is a different attack vector altogether (and there is no cryptocurrency invulnerable to these types of attacks.) The attack vectors should not be commingled. Just because it can be attacked another way doesn't mean that it can be attacked in the way you stated. I could go on to explain how this attack can be performed on PoW cryptocurrencies, but I am sure you can rationalize your own scenarios. I am sure your cryptocurrency will be susceptible to this type of attack (exploit while shorting) as well, but obviously I cannot prove or disprove that at this time as you still have not released any details. |
|
|
|
|
I see Decred as being one of the best "dark horse" cryptocurrencies that currently exists.
Regardless of the current lack of a GUI (of which there are two that are currently in development), the developers are top notch and there is a block subsidy earmarked for development purposes.
Good developers + funds to pay them + built in governance for shareholders to vote which developments are most important = it will eventually be a top notch cryptocurrency.
|
|
|
|
I don't think you need MPA's for every currency or commodity. In BitBay we have already had contracts where we have longed and shorted other currencies. It's safe for both parties because of the double deposit escrow (no third party). Soon anyone that knows python can write their own smart contracts in BitBay, allowing a whole new level of complexity.
I disagree on multiple levels. I am not saying BitBay is not a possible solution to issuing MPAs, or at the very least a part of the solution, but I am just stating that other solutions are still necessary. The most glaring issue is that there are hundreds of millions of dollars worth of cryptocurrencies traded every day. It is impossible to easily extrapolate what percentage of that is FIAT/MPA-based, but a quick glance at coinmarketcap will give the impression it is at least tens to hundreds of millions of dollars. Bitbay's 24 hour volume is $84 (that is not a typo... they did eighty four dollars in volume the past 24 hours.) There is not nearly enough liquidity in the Bitbay token to take on a sizeable portion of trading. So what if someone can enter a contract on Bitbay for any currency/commodity/etc if they cannot easily get into or out of the Bitbay ecosystem. Also, there needs to be multiple working solutions floating around. Some users will prefer some implementations more than others for various reasons (see nubits vs bitusd threads). Some implementations may fail (see Nubits... although I am still not convinced Nubits won't rebound and/or a more successful Nubits 2.0 rise to replace it which hopefully learns from Nubits 1.0's mistakes). Some implementations will have more volume than others (to small traders it won't matter, but to larger traders it will). In theory, the more implementations there are of MPAs, the more volume that will exist as a whole, as some users/traders will reject some implementations but embrace others. I am not familiar with Bitbay, but MPAs need to have the ability to be easily sent and received just like any other cryptocurrency, because this opens up many other applications other than simply trading. For instance, being able to transact in a FIAT-based MPA allows e-commerce sites (or decentralized markets, etc) to transact in a stable cryptocurrency. Some users may not want to be subject to the wild swings of regular non-market-pegged cryptocurrencies. Etc... Can these Bitbay contracts be easily transferred? I am not sure that a market place is the best way to sell and buy MPAs, as users then have to wade through the marketplace just to get to where they can trade the MPAs. A trading/exchange interface that exists solely for MPAs seems more convenient and ideal. Admittedly, I am not well versed in what is going on with Bitbay, but I refuse to agree with your simple statement that "Bitbay is the answer". You must understand that it is hard to believe that Bitbay (mainly intended to be a decentralized marketplace) is a better solution than all four of the projects (or sub-projects) listed in the OP whose only purpose is to facilitate the creation and trading of MPAs. As far as half of the projects listed in the OP... their entire existence has been pretty much dedicated to the creation of MPAs. Even if it were true that Bitbay is the best solution, I believe that the community/ecosystem will be better off if more solutions/implementations exist rather than only one or a couple.... for multiple reasons, some of which I listed above. |
|
|
|
|
I think both are innovative and useful in their own ways. I agree that intra-cryptocurrency trolling is counterproductive to the ideal end game.
|
|
|
|
In another thread, the Decentralized Exchange (DEX) thread, I outline the projects aiming to eliminate the need for trusted third parties from cryptocurrency exchange and why they are necessary. Consider that this thread's "sister thread" ( https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1338970). However, I think it is important to split up the topics. No matter what DEX solution ends up being most popular/ideal, it has no bearing on which Market-Pegged Asset (MPAs) solution is most popular/ideal. They should each be judged separately, and then combined to form the most ideal solution. Thus, two threads are needed so the judging is of each components is not commingled or tainted. Functional MPAs, or in other words derivatives, must exist in order to eliminate the need for trusted third parties in cryptocurrency commerce and trading. What exactly are market-pegged assets you say? The definition that will be used in this thread is any cryptocurrency-like token that closely resembles the value of its real-life counterpart (USD, EUR, Gold, Silver, GOOG, AAPL, NASDAQ, S&P 500, etc.) over an extended period of time in an autonomous, free market-based and decentralized manner. Why are MPAs necessary? The whole point of using a DEX is to rid ourselves of trusted third parties. Trusted third parties (centralized exchanges) inevitably result in the exchange being hacked or theft of the cryptocurrencies traded, and therefore end in insolvency. It is not a matter of if, but instead a matter of when. MPAs are necessary in order for market participants to have a similar trading experience as they are accustomed to today, and to allow them the flexibility of being able to diversify their wallet or investment portfolio. Ideally, someone should be able to store value in stable-value MPAs, commodity-based MPAs, stock-based MPAs, and index fund-based MPAs (among others.) MPAs also open the door to many different use cases and have essentially an unlimited amount of utility, bounded only by our imagination. For instance, being able to transact in a FIAT-based MPA allows e-commerce sites (or decentralized markets, etc,) to transact in a stable cryptocurrency. Some users may not want to be subject to the wild swings of regular non-market-pegged cryptocurrencies. There are many use cases for MPAs that have nothing to do with DEXs. This thread is intended to track the development and features of MPAs. Feel free to bump the thread with updates or new projects. I am not really sure which design is best at this point. This is intended to be a neutral thread, but feel free to discuss the pros and cons of each implementation. Which design is the best, or is the best solution yet to come? What ideas (if any) do you have to improve the MPAs' designs? Do you know of any other MPAs in existence/development? (in alphabetical order)Bitcoindark's PAX (Pegged Assets Exchange)Status: Vaporware FAQ: http://bitcoindark.com/pax-faq.htmlInfographic: http://bitcoindark.com/docs/pax-infographic.pngWebsite: http://bitcoindark.com/Synopsis to come as soon as I have time...Bitshares' SmartCoinsStatus: Released SmartCoin Overview: https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/Bitshares Whitepaper: http://docs.bitshares.eu/_downloads/bitshares-financial-platform.pdfWebsite: https://bitshares.org/Synopsis to come as soon as I have time...MakerDAO's DaiStatus: Vaporware Whitepaper: https://makerdao.github.io/docs/Website: https://makerdao.com/Synopsis to come as soon as I have time...Nushares' NubitsStatus: Released, but in dire straights as of recently Whitepaper: https://www.nubits.com/assets/nu-whitepaper-23_sept_2014-en.pdfFAQ: https://www.nubits.com/about/faqsWebsite: https://www.nubits.com/Synopsis to come as soon as I have time...Please reply with any other solutions, comments, concerns, or questions. |
|
|
|
I don't think so, or at least I can't conceptualize how it would work with different blockchains. |
|
|
|
Well here is the actual roadmap: https://litecoincore.org/They seem to have announced stuff that is in other coins (like super nodes), and they're supposed to be getting it all done by November... I'm not sure you understand what you are talking about. Litecoin has always had super nodes, it would be impossible not to have super nodes and run a p2p network. We've announced BIPs which allow us to implement an EVM-like system through something like Rootstock, which I have heard will also support Litecoin. We're working on block scaling solutions too, and doing simulations for flex cap development. I think maybe alyssa85 misunderstood that super nodes = Dash masternodes https://www.dash.org/masternodes2/A Litecoin "super node" is simply a full node which has downloaded the entire blockchain and is relaying transactions. Super nodes provide a starting point for nodes to connect to the Litecoin peer to peer network and download the Litecoin blockchain. All peer to peer networks need a starting point, or in other words... a node to initially connect to in able to join the peer to peer network (which then has a list of other nodes you can connect to and communicate with directly in peer to peer fashion.) Another purpose for them is to broadcast transactions across the entire network, so that miners are able to process transactions. Super nodes help keep the Litecoin network more decentralized. Dash's Masternodes are similar to Litecoin's super nodes, but they are at the same time different. They perform the same functions as Litecoin's super nodes, but to run a Masternode you must put up collateral. Also, Masternodes assist with Dash's coin join implementation that provides added privacy to transactions. Masternodes will eventually assist the Dash network with other features and have more responsibilities too. |
|
|
|
I added InstantDEX to the OP. Most of the information on this seems to be in Russian. As mentioned up-thread, it also seems kind of scammy. At this point, I am waiting for projects to be more "established" before adding them to the list. The only vaporware I have included is B&C Exchange, which already has an established community and development team with a history of successful releases (Nubits/Nushares). Admittedly, Nubits/Nushares is in dire straights right now and I am monitoring that situation. Here is another project Lykkewebsite: http://www.lykkex.comwhitepaper: https://wiki.lykkex.com/colored_coin_exchange_white_paperLykke is a more of a mix of decentral and central exchange targeting a large scale market and also institutions. The authors have significant expertise in the traditional financial markets and I think that is a valuable perspective. As outlined its not the same as the idea of decentral exchange in the Cryptocurrency sense. It is good to begin with the word exchange and think backwards from there. To physically exchange goods you need to be in the same location. To transport goods around the world one needs permission from those who control the flow of goods. Then one has the problem that one good might be legal in jurisdiction A and illegal in jurisdiction B. Part of a marketplace is also the definition and registration on what goods should be traded (markets where the cost of creating a digital asset is zero removes friction, but also leads to spam). If both sides of the trade are not in the same jurisdiction its not an exchange in any legal sense - no legal protection for the buyer and seller. There is no purchase contract underlying the transaction, and no legal recourse. Note that the way the economic system currently functions is that we have large institutions which determine the outcomes of these processes and provide the market infrastructure. If you for instance want to buy a stock certificate in a developed country you have many different institutions involved (stock exchange, market-makers, brokers, settlement). The simpler, but still non-trivial case is a warehouse receipt. If two parties exchange 1 bar of gold for instance usually one has some expert acknowledging the quality of the metal. There are only 20 or so commodities traded on the large markets. To exchange a good or service is far more complicated than it seems. If one is exchanging physical goods for instance there is the question of quality and location. Undeveloped countries often lack financial infrastructure and need to build this on their own. In the case where such countries build up a new exchange market one can see what is involved with developing a marketplace. And this doesn't touch even on the complexity of equity and bond markets. A lot more research could be done in this area to show what things are possible and how Crypto-economics could lead to new types of markets. Lykke seems like another iteration of Ripple/Stellar, seeing as though it is only IOUs that will be tradeable. Also, it seems that a corporation/private investors owns 80% of the tokens. IOUs are a big reason why we need to pivot from centralized exchanges to DEXs... to pivot away from IOUs and the risk of hacks/theft/insolvency. They only DEX in the OP that currently uses IOUs is InstantDEX, but the way I understand it, they are planning on implementing non-IOU trading in the form of PAX. PAX = BTCD yet-to-be-developed feature ( http://bitcoindark.com/pax-faq.html and http://bitcoindark.com/docs/pax-infographic.png) Don't forget Mintpal !
You are probably aware by now, but Mintpal ended up being a scam. You did post this in 2016 though and the scam has been well known since 2014.... http://siliconangle.com/blog/2015/02/23/mintpal-scammer-ryan-kennedy-arrested-in-u-k-over-theft-of-3700-bitcoins/ |
|
|
|
I think it means exactly that, it's a joke about the fact the Btcd is "dark" and not interested in compliance with regulatory frameworks. Me too when I read it the first time I didn't get it.
Oh... it is sarcasm. Very well, disregard my comment.  |
|
|
|
Hello BTCD peeps, Is my synopsis of InstantDEX mostly agreeable? InstantDEX- Website: http://www.instantdex.org/- BCT Thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=684090.0- Forum: http://forum.instantdex.org/- Communicates with other nodes on a peer-to-peer basis, agreeing trades in a fully decentralised manner. - Can access many different sources of liquidity, including: blockchain-based asset exchanges (such as the NXT AE, etc), centralized exchanges via API keys (such as Poloniex, Bittrex, etc), and the Nxt Multi-Gateway. - Each peer can provide their own API key information to connect to centralized exchanges to leverage any certain centralized exchange's liquidity - Connecting to centralized exchanges' APIs is optional. Some may want a fully peer to peer trading experience, and can thus choose not to utilize a centralized exchange's liquidity. Meanwhile, those that do want a fully peer to peer trading experience can choose not to add centralized exchanges' API keys. Weaknesses:- The purely peer to peer trades currently only exist in Nxt Asset/MultiGateway form. Therefore, you are still trading IOUs which are susceptible to hacks/theft/insolvency. - Integrates centralized exchanges. IMO, this goes against the whole point of DEXs. - You need to run NXT, BTCD, and a InstantDEX node at the same time for full functionality. |
|
|
|
There are a couple errors in the PAX FAQ on the BitcoinDark website. Is the BitcoinDark platform approved under my jurisdiction’s regulatory framework?
We hope not, but this cannot be guaranteed. Please do your own research as the developers cannot be held responsible for any consequences arising from your use of this software.
I think you guys meant to say "we hope so", or something along those lines. "We hope not" has the opposite meaning of what I think you were trying to convey. Also, there should be a comma in the following sentence after "Please do your own research". I won't "grammar nazi" the other questions, but I thought I'd point this one out since it is a glaring issue which conveys the opposite of what I think the intended statement is. |
|
|
|
|
I will back the sell side of the $20/coin offer. To anyone that wants to buy XPY... I will give you $20 coins all day long.
|
|
|
|
They should just go ahead and release the roadmap.
Why all this fuss?
Cause hype. Buy the rumor/hype, sell the news. I am intrigued by this roadmap. Essentially, Litecoin's roadmap has been "let's copy BTC" for the past few years. Admittedly, I was wrong and it has worked thus far, but are they now going to pivot? |
|
|
|
|
Hello all,
I am still catching some flak for being late on paying out this bounty. Even though I paid out more BTC than I said I would, and paid the losers of the competition even though I didn't have to. At today's market price, I paid out over $5696 US dollars for a graphic design (this contest)...
I apologize for taking so long to pay the bounty, but I feel like I have made good on my obligations, and do not think any actual participants of this contest still feel wronged.
I urge any PARTICIPANTS of this competition to come forward if you still feel like you have been wronged, and I will do my best to make good by you whenever and however I am able.
Thanks and take care,
William
|
|
|
|
15 RISE per block for 21477 blocks so far
For a total of 322155 RISE = ~$2547.60 USD = $25.22 per delegate since the first block on 5/24 = More than $25.22 per week per delegate
= More than $100.88 a month to maintain a delegate node
It's a sweet gig to be a RISE delegate at the moment, but I'd keep the block reward where it is now.
As soon as this coin is dumped, which pretty much happens with 98% of ICOs, the numbers will probably look a lot worse for the delegates.
Furthermore, you don't want to just change things on a whim. Everyone involved agreed to these numbers before hand. Changing the rules as you go is highly frowned upon in this community.
Make sure the delegates are giving some sort of value other than simply securing the network. Since they are making decent money at the moment, you ought to be able to get more value out of them. The lazy delegates should be replaced with delegates that are willing to work a little to justify the pay. That is how dPoS is supposed to work.
lol you are rly thinking that price will be 1000 sats? It is a possibility. RISE is just vaporware after all. RISE did an ICO with a lot of fancy graphics, a whitepaper, and a website... anyone can do that. The project is highly speculative at this point, and it could be a complete scam for all anyone knows. vote: Yes
EDIT: better to see 10 , 7 next, 5 next, 3 next, and zero the last year or may be just the half amount of forging..... anyway lisk and eth have less inflation rate.............................. with 5 lsk block reward and not starting forging....
Your wishes to change the amount of the block rewards after the ICO shows how little you understand the cryptocurrency community. Pro tip: People don't like it when the rules are changed after the fact. Keep changing things on the fly, and your coin will be on the fastrack to page 2+ of Coinmarketcap (aka. the point of no return). |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
