PTS was created and released by FreeTrade, who used the momentum algo used earlier in his own MemoryCoin. He was awarded a bounty by I3 to do that.


It was not a fork, it was a snapshot and a new genesis block was initialized from that. The problem arises, as I3 found out after the merger/inflation (or whatever term alphaBar prefers), that the chain lives on as long as there are miners.

In principle every coin can be converted, the trick lies in convincing the exchanges and merchants (if any) to switch over.


Mostly correct, the effort was put in by some of the big holders to squeeze out as much value as possible.
Having said that, I know at least one individual who was attracted to the deflationary aspect.

Certainly more difficult than one individual or group running several pools and getting control over 51% hashrate. Imagine having around 10 delegates, imagine that the delegates have power proportional to the votes, imagine that 2-3 of the top voted delegates have control due to the proportionality factor - well, you get Bitcoin.

DPoS concedes that some degree of gravitating towards a few concentrated points is always going to happen, as was clear in the Ghash success, and later seen in NXT forging pools too. It attempts to regulate this behaviour by making it inbuilt in the protocol itself and trying to make sure that there is no more centralization than is necessary.

There is no need to 'upgrade' Bitcoin now as such. A non-PoW complement to Bitcoin already exists in BitBTC, though granted at this particular moment the peg is not holding too well (it needs more volume). It can be used as BTC with bells and whistles and will also allow users to see how a non-PoW option works.

I eventually see Bitcoin moving on to a different scheme, whether its completely non-PoW or partly PoW. I expect Bitcoin holders to be not too happy in the future when they realize that they may not need to pay this much to secure the network thus reducing inflation.

It would need significantly more than 1% stake. Again, I am thinking in terms of DPoS, as I don't have a thorough knowledge of the alternatives.

Whether the security remains as robust with scaling remains to be seen, but that is only possible when it gets big. I haven't seen any good theoretical attack vectors which may compromise it on a bigger scale. In case it does, the developers have to look at improving the solution, like DPoS itself was an evolution through a series of steps.

People clutching at straws hoping Indians will buy up and increase prices. I remember when the Chinese bubble popped there were loads in the Speculation area who were convinced that the gullible Indians will buy up Bitcoin like crazy and make them rich. Somebody in particluar named Bitchick Husband (or something like that that) was absolutely convinced and put up bullet points explaining how India can not not buy up Bitcoins

AGS was never liquid, PTS was a PoW coin with momentum algo which favoured CPU mining. After BTS inflated and gave away 7% to PTS and announced that any commitment to PTS is over, the price and consequently the hashrate dropped and the coin was almost dead.

alphaBar with support of some PTS holders decided to release a DPoS version of PTS with a snapshot taken on 14th Dec. Some exchanges like Bter accepted this alphaBar PTS as the 'real' PTS and keeps trading it, others like Btc38 considered PTS as done and delisted it.

Just saw this, hope it will be considered.

Price: $314.2214
User: sumantso

Got paid for the campaign too, thanks

Yet another with no idea how it works. If it can be attacked for free how are those coins surviving? Take a look at Coinmarketcap, the top list is dominated by non-PoW coins. Surely, if its that easy they would've been attacked by now - the incentive is there.

In today's blog post titled BitShares Fee Schedule Explained, Bytemaster talks about the various fees in the system, ranging from transaction to registration. For anybody who has an interested in Bitshares I think its a must read.

India was not super against Bitcoin, just smart enough not to buy on a bubble and allow the Western geeks a chance to cash out, like the Chinese did.

I doubt thats what NXT is claiming, though I can't attest to that. I was thinking more is terms of the Bitshares model where new coins are generated by elected delegates and awarded to all those working to develop and improve the coin.

You can buy miners and spend electricity and earn coins.
You can go to an exchange, spend money and buy coins.

So which of the competition is better suited - the one which is spending resources to keep the network running, or the other which is using the same resources in improving itself?

Like it or not, some variation of PoS is going to dominate. The general opinion is slowly being aware that the money given over to the electricity and the hardware companies is better off being utilized to develop the coin itself.

The shares carry over, its to average out the luck.

Lets say there is a short round where you don't get much hashes, but a longer round where you get relatively more, then you're losing out. PPLNS aims to average this out and minimize variance.

Why would they pay off their debt? Its a pretty sweat deal they are having going on at the moment. They will simply keep printing more and more dollars and there are more suckers out there willing to give up their products and services produced with hard work for those Benjamins.

Really? I thought inspite of all the doom and gloom prediction, USD is still the currency of choice to flee into.
Currently Bitcoin doesn't really come across as a good place to store, considering it has been going down over the year.

It is if the market values it so. Now I don't know you personally and you may very well be a great painter, but its more likely they will be going for dime a dozen in which case your paintings will have a market cap of $4.

So why don't you go ahead and mine it? There are several valuable PoS coins, more valuable than PoW coins in fact if you discount Bitcoin.

You are stuck with common misunderstanding that mining increases the Bitcoin value. It goes the other way, difficulty, or rather the energy spent (difficulty also depends on the generation of hardware) increases or decrease with what the market speculates the value of the coin is. The value certainly doesn't depend upon the mining cost.

My guess is that the next gen ASICs are already starting to hash. Its the old ASIC manufacturer's trick - build the next gen ones with advance money, mine and increase the difficulty, and then give it to the customers when diff is already high.