This list in the OP is the exact reason cryptocurrencies are currently going nowhere. If we define success as some case of mass adoption (in consumer or industrial markets), then we have to think about market applicability. The car doesn't need an extra wheel unless there's a demand for one in some segments. Similarly, focusing on purely technology features in cryptocurrencies is misguiding us. Crypto is a product, first of all.
So in order to be successful in 5 years time, a cc should have market focus as well as knowledge of its segments and potential users. Otherwise, it is still but a technological sandbox or a decentralized R&D center if you wish.
These are some excellent points. There are many successful niche products in the World that are completely sustainable businesses. I will add "have a target market (or fill a niche)" option. I agree this can be a good thing for a cryptocurrency to have. Kind of like GetGems (target market: messaging/mobile) or BitCrystals (target market: trade-able card game) or Dogecoin (target market: Doge community)... etc... I think having a target market is certainly a plus, but I do not think it is all that matters. |
|
|
|
Fast,secure,fair distribution, web wallet or lite wallet, strong community and buyers in the open market, and of course a good Dev
Oh yeah ? Seems that has been done already and it accomplished nothing soooo uuhhhhmmmm ? Is 5 years going to magically take those existing traits and magically convert it into adoption ? MAGIC !Play nice, there is no right or wrong answer to this question. No one knows "the secret sauce". Everyone thinks they do, and certainly some people probably do know it. However, we won't find out who those people are, or what the "ingredients" to the "secret sauce" are until 5 years from now.  Everyone seems to have at the very least a slightly different opinion. I am attempting to learn what the most important features are. |
|
|
|
Feel free to try and attack a PoS chain and let me know how successful you are.
That happens all the time. PoS coins have to use (increasingly convoluted) checkpoint schemes to fight 'nothing-at-stake' type attacks. NovaCoin, for example, just got #rekt by one. And Balthazar is 100 times smarter and better at coding than Dash's trash developer. It would be such a terrible tragedy if Dash suffered catastrophic consensus failure about an hour before Madoffield's Miami talk starts...  One instance in the history of PoS coins equals "happens all the time" ... lol I have already explained this several times ITT. One instance of a successful attack does not mean the protocol is insecure. I know of way more PoW coins that have been successfully attacked than PoS coins, does that mean PoW is insecure? No, as I've already explained... NVC has been on its death bed for a while now. It was an obvious scam coin from its inception and never really caught on. Both PoW and PoS coins are vulnerable when there is low participation in securing their blockchains. Attacking an alive and well cryptocurrency, whether it is PoW or PoS, is very hard and/or expensive to do. |
|
|
|
Your claim that attacking a PoS coin is a "fixed cost" and attacking a PoW coin is an "unbounded cost" is similarly ridiculous considering the costs of attacking both types are dynamic (PoS depending on the price of the coin and PoW depending on the hash power of the coin.)
It is absolutely correct. Once you control a PoS coin, you control it forever at no additional (significant) cost. How can anyone else ever take control away from you since you control staking and the only way anyone else can get stake is by buying it from you? No one can and you don't need to continue expending resources (mining) to retain control as you do with PoW. Wrong. If someone buys up 50%+ of the currency supply to attack it, the PoS coin's community thanks them for the donation, forks the coin, rolls back the blockchain, and continues business as usual. In that case, the system doesn't work at all, because it doesn't enforce consensus. You might as well have "the community" record everyone's holdings on a spreadsheet. Also, attacking via 50% doesn't necessarily require "buying up" anything. It could be (at least in part) having hacked an exchange or other large holder, or having accumulated stake through borrowing. The same with PoW (compromising a large pool for example), except that it isn't permanent. Obviously that is not an ideal solution, but a worst-case scenario solution. Feel free to try and attack a PoS chain and let me know how successful you are. |
|
|
|
"Proof-of-Stake Politics (non-decentralized governance)" - I guess you haven't been following Bitcoin lately? There are just as much politics involved with PoW as soon as a cryptocurrency is large enough. Google "Bitcoin block size limit controversy".
Perhaps you haven't noticed that changing Bitcoin's protocol is incredibly difficult because it requires convincing 50% of the mining hashrate to do so. In my design, it will require ~100%. That is zero effective politics. People can foam at the mouth but they can't actually change the protocol. That sounds like a horrible idea... you are banking on the fact you will release the cryptocurrency without any flaws. Furthermore, it will be hard to make changes if something desperately needs to be changed. One saboteur can ruin it for everybody. If Satoshi would have made Bitcoin that way, I'm sure Bitcoin would already be dead. Cryptocurrencies need to be able to evolve easily due to unknown issues that will certainly come up in the future. Whereas in Proof-of-Stake coins, the collectivized, centralized control is absolute.
Also I assume you are ignoring the radical distinction in the security model. I will link the chart to our recent epiphany on explaining that distinction.
As stated above, there is a reason why a "majority rules" system is best. And yes, I have no idea what you are referring to when you say "radical distinction", however I've probably read about it before as I have been in and/or read a lot of PoS v PoW debates before. I have a full time job, a life, etc.. I don't have all day to spend on the forums like some people... Bitshares R&D is average yet Monero (LOL) is above average and your vaporware is above average. Monero releases one whitepaper and all the sudden they are above average R&D... give me a break lol.
Monero cleaned up the rough edges of Cryptonote such as getting the wallets correct for the equal denominations for mixing. They were able to bring a polished CN implementation to the market. They focused on doing one thing well. Perhaps Boolberry also accomplished some of those too, but afaik zoid has become unresponsive. Although I say CN is unprovable anonymity, that is not saying it is not anonymous mixing. Tor is unprovable too, yet many people feel it aids their privacy. I saw that Dash is spyware because the anonymity is trusted to masternodes which are an obvious target for the NSA or anyone who can profit on breaking anonymity (e.g. those who want to blackmail you or whatever). Monero has invented RingCT. That is not trivial cryptography. Even Blockstream folks were involved and impressed. Two months before they completed theirs, I (claim to have) invented a similar system ZKT (Zero Knowledge Transactions) which is based on the theoretically more compact CCT instead of Blockstream's CT. I even claim to have improved CCT to eliminate its weaknesses (e.g. the requirement for the Proof-of-Square). Simultaneously I perfected Satohi's Proof-of-Work, and the details of that are in my thread. That is something that no one else has been able to do. So yeah, my R & D is above average, especially for only 1 dude. (and I am not even formally trained in the requisite math and cryptography, so I started with a handicap) Afaics, Dash has invented nothing original but Dunning-Kruger flaws. That's nice, but you're largely discrediting the R&D Bitshares and other cryptocurrencies have done. Afaics BitShares has introduced inferior systems such as DPOS which suffer from the flawed security model of Proof-of-Stake. They do some reasonably high-level tech (Daniel is smart dude) but afaics their focus has been incorrect. I remain somewhat opened-minded to BitShares, because at least Daniel is smart.
Crap like BitUSD failed afaik. As what I remember, many of Daniel's ideas have been not very well thought out. Nevertheless he is a smart dude, so I don't entirely ignore BitShares (unlike Dash which I totally ignored for the past year until they announced Evolution which purports to compete with my design, so then I had to investigate more closely).
You PoW zealots love to harp on PoS as being insecure, yet there has only ever been one successful attack on a PoS coin (and it was one that is dying with little community support- similar to how numerous PoW coins with low hash rate have been successfully attacked.) dPoS also allows for many great features.. it is the backbone for SmartAssets, Hire-able employees, high scalability, etc.. bitUSD has not failed- look at a historic graph and it has held its peg quite well. It did not work as it was originally designed, but it certainly works. You (wrongly) think you are omniscient and know what features are important for a cryptocurrency to succeed, and thus disregard all innovations Bitshares has invented/implemented as useless. At least I can admit when I am wrong or when I am speculating. You obviously have no idea how much R&D in many different decentralized technologies Bitshares has done in its forums as a community over the past couple years. They've done way more research and development than Monero and yourself combined.
They have done a lot of ideas that seem dubious to me. Agree they are very busy and have engineering talent. But they don't seem to have focused talent. They've accomplished somethings, but nothing stands out for me as a big win yet. If you can point out any feature that is a really a big innovation, I am interested to reconsider my thinking about BitShares? SmartCoins (bitAssets) ( https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/) Decentralized SmartCoin Exchange ( https://bitshares.org/technology/decentralized-asset-exchange/) Referral Program ( https://bitshares.org/technology/referral-rewards-program/) Bridges/Gateways (built-in to the wallet) Hire-able Employees (self-funding development, advertising, etc..) (due to dPoS) Fee-backed assets (in development/conceptual phase) The most scalable blockchain (that currently exists) ( https://bitshares.org/technology/industrial-performance-and-scalability/) An improved multi-signature transaction protocol ( https://bitshares.org/technology/dynamic-account-permissions/) Recurring and scheduled payments ( https://bitshares.org/technology/recurring-and-scheduled-payments/) Collateralized Bond Market ( https://bitshares.org/technology/collateralized-bond-market/) Stakeholder-Approved project funding ( https://bitshares.org/technology/transferable-named-accounts/) Transferable named accounts ( https://bitshares.org/technology/transferable-named-accounts/) Insurance (in a conceptual phase) Stealth addresses + Confidential Transactions (more as to the Developmental side of R&D as these ideas were not original) Etc.. This is all apparently useless according to you. You must not fully understand how everything works, that it exists, and/or the implications of all the features listed. |
|
|
|
Your claim that attacking a PoS coin is a "fixed cost" and attacking a PoW coin is an "unbounded cost" is similarly ridiculous considering the costs of attacking both types are dynamic (PoS depending on the price of the coin and PoW depending on the hash power of the coin.)
It is absolutely correct. Once you control a PoS coin, you control it forever at no additional (significant) cost. How can anyone else ever take control away from you since you control staking and the only way anyone else can get stake is by buying it from you? No one can and you don't need to continue expending resources (mining) to retain control as you do with PoW. Wrong. If someone buys up 50%+ of the currency supply to attack it, the PoS coin's community thanks them for the donation, forks the coin, rolls back the blockchain, and continues business as usual. |
|
|
|
.... AnonyMint pumping his vaporware as usual ...
How can I be pumping that which will not be mineable nor available in an IPO? Explain that genius.  So... it will not be trade-able on the open market either, genius? |
|
|
|
Thanks for the link, I was only aware of the Ring CT whitepaper. Still, he largely discredits all of the R&D that Bitshares has done which is rediculous and it is obvious he hasn't followed the Bitshares community closely (as it is obvious I haven't followed the Monero community closely.) Not only has Bitshares done a ton of research, but there are two words in R & D... Research and Development. Bitshares has done more development than both coins I mentioned (anonymint's vaporware and monero) combined. |
|
|
|
.... AnonyMint pumping his vaporware as usual ...
"Proof-of-Stake Politics (non-decentralized governance)" - I guess you haven't been following Bitcoin lately? There are just as much politics involved with PoW as soon as a cryptocurrency is large enough. Google "Bitcoin block size limit controversy". Bitshares R&D is average yet Monero (LOL) is above average and your vaporware is above average. Monero releases one whitepaper and all the sudden they are above average R&D... give me a break lol. You obviously have no idea how much R&D in many different decentralized technologies Bitshares has done in its forums as a community over the past couple years. They've done way more research and development than Monero and yourself combined. Bitshares browser/mobile wallet: https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/Your claim that your coin will be launched to millions of users is laughable. Please enlighten us how you plan to do that so we can pick holes at all of the issues with your "plan." Your claim that attacking a PoS coin is a "fixed cost" and attacking a PoW coin is an "unbounded cost" is similarly ridiculous considering the costs of attacking both types are dynamic (PoS depending on the price of the coin and PoW depending on the hash power of the coin.) |
|
|
|
See their tactics ?
No matter what happens they just roll on with their forum spamming & games.
Yes, they are pro spammers... 7 threads on the first page of this subforum. |
|
|
|
Have a good day. You are a fucking psycopath. So, in order to buy your "respect" I need to buy my old domain name back for $2,500 from the domain squatters, then spend $10,000 to make coins that (according to you) no one even trusts me to make. So, in other words I need to set $12,500 on fire, and even then I will still be scammer because it has taken me too long to deliver. Either way I am a scammer according to you, so you can just get bent Smoothie. All of the people "scammed" are happy of the outcome and have not left me negative trust feedback, anyone can feel free to check the thread that's linked in my trust themselves. Smoothie just likes attacking people/cryptocurrencies when it is in his best interest to do so. He will never admit it, but anyone can read in-between the lines that has been around for a while. With that, I refuse to get sucked into another Smoothie smear attack ever again so I'm going to utilize the ignore button. |
|
|
|
I'm not gonna lie, I've never come across anyone that sticks to their word as much as you do, online or irl. Much respect from me and many others here! I wish you all the best for your future Thanks for the kind words Miffman. On CH request posting my address here 1JBoV2VLJmaNKDhvqHod36frs4Ph5X9ck6
Thanks. Considering the situation I want this done publicly rather than in PMs. Sent- 9e03fb1380997bfbddd1bee22eeaeef3d1d963fe548d75660800a5b4919f94da Received, thanks and cya around!  Great! Sorry for the late response... I'll definitely see you around man. Cheers |
|
|
|
That attacks as to the centralization of masternodes are reminiscent of people harping on about possible attacks on PoS. Two (ish) years later no successful attacks have been documented. The attack methods, although they technically may be possible, are highly unlikely to ever occur.
You guys also ignore the centralization all PoW coins (which come into play here because the coins you are championing are PoW based) inherently succumb to when it comes to mining and pools.
It's nice you guys want to play crypto currency police, but I feel like it is up to each investor to do the research themselves. This is the internet, people will get scammed daily... it happens. If someone is stupid enough to invest in something without doing extensive research then that is their fault, and perhaps they will learn a good lesson from it that will save them more money in the future.
Cramming this information down people's throat looks like spam considering you guys are pushing a competing alternative cryptocurrency. There are plenty of other scam-like coins in existence, yet you guys focus most of your "policing" on a competing cryptocurrency. It looks more like propaganda considering the circumstances.
Thanks CoinHoarder. This forum still have intel ligent people. FTFY Oh rly? CH was just shown to have not done his research before speaking. Semantics.. not going to debate them. Ignorance (i.e. not doing your homework) is semantics? Uh no.. it stems from speaking before searching. OK let me rephrase that that since you want to debate semantics. I admit that was poorly worded and therefore made the statement wrong. No major PoS coins have been successfully attacked. NVC is a scam coin that no one cares about, it getting attacked due to a low amount of stakeholders staking is similar to all of the PoW coins that have been attacked because of a low amount of miners mining them. It does not mean anything as to the security of PoS coins, plus there are many variants that are more or less secure. I posit that the most secure PoS implementation is yet to come, even still none of the major PoS coins have been successfully attacked. |
|
|
|
That attacks as to the centralization of masternodes are reminiscent of people harping on about possible attacks on PoS. Two (ish) years later no successful attacks have been documented. The attack methods, although they technically may be possible, are highly unlikely to ever occur.
You guys also ignore the centralization all PoW coins (which come into play here because the coins you are championing are PoW based) inherently succumb to when it comes to mining and pools.
It's nice you guys want to play crypto currency police, but I feel like it is up to each investor to do the research themselves. This is the internet, people will get scammed daily... it happens. If someone is stupid enough to invest in something without doing extensive research then that is their fault, and perhaps they will learn a good lesson from it that will save them more money in the future.
Cramming this information down people's throat looks like spam considering you guys are pushing a competing alternative cryptocurrency. There are plenty of other scam-like coins in existence, yet you guys focus most of your "policing" on a competing cryptocurrency. It looks more like propaganda considering the circumstances.
Thanks CoinHoarder. This forum still have intel ligent people. FTFY Oh rly? CH was just shown to have not done his research before speaking. Semantics.. not going to debate them. |
|
|
|
That attacks as to the centralization of masternodes are reminiscent of people harping on about possible attacks on PoS. Two (ish) years later no successful attacks have been documented. The attack methods, although they technically may be possible, are highly unlikely to ever occur.
You seriously need to consider doing your research before speaking. This is the second time in a few months that you've done this. First time in the Monero thread...now here. Dear Novacoin users, I have to notify you that terrible thing happened. Unfortunately, the Proof-of-Stake difficulty has been dropped as the result of successful attack. In case if attacker would decide to continue generation, please make sure that you're not processing transaction until 8-9 confirmations were achieved. That will protect you against double spending attempts.
Hard fork is necessary to resolve this issue, updated client will be published in the next few days. Please stay tuned.
There are many Pow coins that have been attacked, it doesn't mean Pow is insecure. I was not aware of this instance, but NC is a long dying cryptocurrency's so I'm not suprised. |
|
|
|
Seems like you're willing to brush all this aside. Are you a scam sympathiser in general or do you just make an exception for Dash?
No, I just feel like if someone wants to invest in Dash considering everything you mention then they have a right to do that. Then on the other hand, if they are stupid enough to invest without doing the proper research to find all of that out then it is their fault for being stupid. I also find it funny that you guys seem obsessed with spreading the word that Dash is a scam considering your Monero allegiances. I don't see you guys policing other scams as religously. You play like white knights yet if you read in between the lines there seems to be at the very least a slight ulterior motive. When the information is being actively hidden through misinformation on their ANN page, their various instamine DUFFsplanation websites, and multiple name changes like with DASH where exactly do you expect they'll find it? You're also making wild generalizations about everyone that has a problem with DASH being involved with Monero. Smoothie has busted scams before DASH such as Solidcoin (before Monero ever existed) so once again your explanation falls flat on its face. Based on your continued sympathy for this high-profile scam one has to wonder if you're the one with the ulterior motives here. If the only place you look is an ANN thread and the cryptocurrency's Web site when researching a cryptocurrency's to invest in then you are doing it wrong and deserve to lose your money. This information is easily obtainable in just a few minutes on Google. You guys are simply a broken record repeating information about Dash that everyone knows repeatedly for what seems like eternity. Lol at Smoothies "scam buster" reputation. He has a history of attacking people when it is in his best interest to do so. See the link in my trust rating for an example, one that he refuses to remove even though it is clear I had no intentions of scamming anyone, and all parties involved were happy with the outcome.. My apologies if you're not a Monero cheerleader. Pretty much everyone else that is posting in this thread is, so I found you guilty by association. |
|
|
|
Seems like you're willing to brush all this aside. Are you a scam sympathiser in general or do you just make an exception for Dash?
No, I just feel like if someone wants to invest in Dash considering everything you mention then they have a right to do that. Then on the other hand, if they are stupid enough to invest without doing the proper research to find all of that out then it is their fault for being stupid. I also find it funny that you guys seem obsessed with spreading the word that Dash is a scam considering your Monero allegiances. I don't see you guys policing other scams as religously. You play like white knights yet if you read in between the lines there seems to be at the very least a slight ulterior motive. |
|
|
|
|
That attacks as to the centralization of masternodes are reminiscent of people harping on about possible attacks on PoS. Two (ish) years later no successful attacks have been documented. The attack methods, although they technically may be possible, are highly unlikely to ever occur.
You guys also ignore the centralization all PoW coins (which come into play here because the coins you are championing are PoW based) inherently succumb to when it comes to mining and pools.
It's nice you guys want to play crypto currency police, but I feel like it is up to each investor to do the research themselves. This is the internet, people will get scammed daily... it happens. If someone is stupid enough to invest in something without doing extensive research then that is their fault, and perhaps they will learn a good lesson from it that will save them more money in the future.
Cramming this information down people's throat looks like spam considering you guys are pushing a competing alternative cryptocurrency. There are plenty of other scam-like coins in existence, yet you guys focus most of your "policing" on a competing cryptocurrency. It looks more like propaganda considering the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
I am not talking about investing, and I didn't mean to say Dash/Monero is a good or bad investment... I am not getting into the middle of this fight. I am talking on more on an ideological level. I believe cryptocurrencies and blockchain technology are the future, and that they will improve and take over many different industries. Any innovative development is a good step in that direction, even if people get scammed along the way. As horrible as that sounds... Dashcoin is useful for the "greater good" of the future of cryptocurrencies because of the knowledge gained from the experiment. Two things I am learning from the Dashcoin experiment, although I admit it is still early in the experiment: A. Investors may be willing to look past premining if the technology is decent enough (as evidenced by ripple as well) B. Investors may also be willing to look past more centralized features as long as a cryptocurrency is still largely decentralized (masternodes, also evidenced by several other cryptocurrencies...) Most people said Darkcoin would fail because masternodes were too centralized when it came out. It is either a very long con pump and dump or those people have been proven wrong. Plus they have introduced some neat ideas and code. |
|
|
|
I'm not attacking him, DE did. Then I got some info on the way about Brian Kelly getting involved and a Lee character who allegedly had a history of scams. This fed my curiosity and I thought it would be good to know what went on and what's going on at present.
There's no crime in talking about it.
I was talking to the OP, sorry to confuse |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
So who has no Idea?
