First, thanks for the additional information resources.

According to http://crypto-prices.com/CAP, Bottlecaps has traded today at under USD$0.006.  According to http://www.cryptocoinexplorer.com/, Its current block height is 443657.  At 10 coins per block, that's a market capitalization of $26619.  It's Alive!

According to http://crypto-prices.com/EZC, EZcoin has traded today at under USD$0.00113.  According to http://altexplorer.info/chains/EZC/block_crawler.php, its block height is currently 389905.  According to https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=220103.0, through that range it's creating 50 coins per block. That works out to a market cap of USD$21445, so it does NOT belong on the list.  So I'll go fix that.

That was kind of a pain in the butt to look up.  Hmm, if they're doing that well, I wonder why coinmarketcap dropped them?

okay, here's a list of coins generated via coingen, as maintained automatically by the coingen site.  I haven't listed all of these because with a lot of them there's no evidence that they even launched. 

http://coingen.bluematt.me/status.html

Gamecoin, Cloudcoin, Doubloon, Onecoin, and Americancoin have definitely  been generated by coingen.

If there've been multiple coins by those names, then certainly the fact that at least one of them was a coingen coin is an important part of the history, and may be one of the reasons why it's dead.  And honestly it doesn't matter which of them was the original; this thread is only about which one is dead.

Androidtokens, though was definitely my mistake; the coingen coin was 'androin' and I misread it.  Thanks for the info.

Regarding Bottlecaps and EZcoin, please provide a source for your information and I'll be happy to correct the list.  I observed that they've been delisted from coinmarketcap at http://coinmarketcap.com/all.html - where else should I be looking? 

If it's alive, who is tracking its market cap?

The author is wrong about the proposed timestamp solution, because we don't really have a practical distributed-timestamp scheme.  But there may be a simpler one (not requiring a distributed timestamp) that works.  I'll have to think about it, but it's certainly in the best interests of honest miners and honest transaction makers to provide accurate timestamps if it improves security against dishonest ones, so it isn't hopeless.

The author is right about increasing the security of mining by requiring miners to know both the hash of the current block and the hash of the previous block - the hashing operation they need to do is essentially the same, and making sure miners know what block they're building on would make certain classes of attack (diverting pool miners to another coin, using pool miners to build an unpublished blockchain, etc) which are currently easy to make undetectably, leave incontrovertible evidence.  That is a good idea and we should do it.

It's true that we don't know how to implement some of the author's proposed solutions, but he has a pretty good grasp of some very serious problems.

In particular, he has a good point about what happens when block rewards are multiplied by half.

There's an investment (in ASIC mining equipment) constantly seeking its most profitable allocation.  That allocation is an equilibrium in which each option pays identically.   

At the point where there's a block reward halving, one of the allocation options has its return cut in half, and the equilibrium has to find a new balance point.

If you're UNO, and you cut your block reward in half, the total rate of return is hardly affected at all because you represent such a tiny fraction of the total available income.  The allocation of that investment to mining your blockchain, though, gets cut approximately in half, because that's the point at which the return for mining it remains competitive.

If you're BTC, and you cut your block reward in half, the total rate of return is cut by almost half.  Suddenly, every *other* allocation opportunity is suddenly worth twice as much of the miner's remaining hash power investment as it was before, because that's the rate at which the return for mining it stays competitive with BTC.

Of course, the latter doesn't account for mining rigs that are no longer profitable to run at all.... 

The reason I'm focusing on Market cap is to try to avoid arguments.  If you make some sort of squishy judgement call that takes a dozen different things into account and values each one subjectively, then there's no end of arguments about whether something does or does not belong here and ultimately it just comes down to whether I personally like the innovations, the rhetoric, and PR literature that a coin's devs/promoters are spinning. 

Instead I wanted a simple, clear line that people can see for themselves rather than arguing about.  It's not about what anybody likes, it's about what is true and what is false and hopefully what everybody can see to be true or false.  Dead coins have zero market cap.  So, I picked some number arbitrarily close to zero but still big enough that coins which have reached it are still visible, and use that number as my cutoff point.

Skein had development in its favor, a good community, and made some contributions.  Part of what I hope to find out here is whether that's enough to help it escape death.  I hope that it is.  If not then it's an object lesson for everybody who'd like to launch an altcoin that these things are not a guarantee of success.

Apologies; I thought they were gone.  Coinmarketcap is not tracking Melange, nor Cthulhucoin.

Where are they trading and what is their current market cap?

Blackcoin and Fluttercoin, when first released, came out with wallets that contained malware. 

Later, non-malware versions of these wallets became popular. 

It is very hard to tell whether the malware was intentional or not.

Anyway, I went and had a look, and these do not in fact belong on the current list; their market cap is still way over the cutoff lines I'm using.  So I'll go delete them.

Added a bunch of scamcoins (found a list in an old post) today.  Since these vanish after the scammers get the money, they fade from knowledge.  The exchanges drop them like a hot rock, the threads about them get shoved down to page 34, etc.  Not much evidence is left of them relative to how common they actually are.

Also added a long writeup on aircoin - wow.  There were so many things wrong with that, from the outset, that I just don't know where to start.  'Aircoin' can talk a good game, but no matter how well-spoken somebody is, math either works or doesn't work.  And people were treating it as though it was serious.  In fact, people still are!

Since this coin hit exchanges while it still had no market capitalization, I had to add it to the 'dead coins list' (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=588413)- But honestly, it looks like you're doing a good launch and good promotion, so I sure as heck hope it isn't really dead.  Best of luck.

Nope.  Market cap is still over $3M. 

Ah.  Found "Protoshares" in an old list but not with a current market cap.  "Bitshares" with a market cap of a little over $5M now has the symbol PTS.  I've removed Protoshares for the time being, on the assumption that I just blew it on following a name change.


Fixed, thanks.


Ooooh, I didn't know about that one.  Thanks for the pointer.

I feel your pain, but SBC isn't quite dead yet; market cap is still at $15K.  But when it dies, we'll know why. 

Chaincoin is trading for one Litoshi and there aren't enough of it for market cap to rise above ground level.  So, yah, that's dead even though the blockchain is still running.  

Thanks for the pointer on Muniti.  

Today the market cap of skeincoin fell under $5000. 

I added it to the list of dead altcoins at
(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=588413)

Dudes, what happened?  Last time I looked this coin was doing okay. 

Today I added Skeincoin and Muniti.  I have no idea what Muniti is, but I remember thinking Skeincoin was okay.  I also added a scamcoin called "Thecoin", after reading about it in an old thread.  I don't know its history, but apparently its wallet included a password stealer.

"Winter is coming" - Ned Stark

I can picture it -- bagholder coin!  With an initial distribution corresponding to the final distribution of all of the above, and an announcement thread where exchanges, price, WTS/WTB, are strictly off topic and will be deleted by moderator!

 

90 days is, I hope, too long for pump-n-dumps to force daily amendments to the list.  If something is over the line for 7 days, or even 30 days, I expect someone is just doing a pump-n-dump.  If it's over the line for 90 days, it might actually be coming back.

I'd like to see some "standard" scripts integrated into the wallet, but that's not a hardfork issue. 

For a hardfork, I think there ought to be script instructions to load the current block height, some other basic statistical information about recent transactions, and the results of specific queries such as 'has txid XXXX been confirmed?'  into the top of the stack; it would drastically extend the capabilities of scripts.