I guess Nxt does NOT deserve AT after all...  Qora deserves AT, go for it!  |
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin will be a heck of inflationary for the next 5 years as is.
it's interesting that many people think short-term (what the price in fiat USD will be next month, next year at most), but at the same time look many years ahead to a far-away cap of 21 million, forgetting that Bitcoin has a double-digit yearly inflation right now and will continue to have it for the next 5 years. The brain conveniently suggests ideas to believe that they can be most comfortable with.
|
|
|
|
If you do it faster, your inflation in the beginning is high and later it is slow, or the other way round.
Yes, that's what I meant - in the beginning, as everybody complains about short-term effects on the price of XMR. Long term most sensible CN (excluding Bytecoin and Duckcoin) coins will have the same total supply in circulation, but at the beginning it's different, hence it takes more buying orders to absorb the initially sold supply of XMR. |
|
|
|
|
XMR is supposed to be more inflationary than other CN coins by design, it doesn't matter if it's CPUs or GPUs mining it, miners will dump, it's a law. The more coins they have mined, they more the supply they have to dump.
|
|
|
|
Yes, I've seen it. This comparison makes many early assumption and should be taken with a grain of salt. First of all, the 15 seconds block time confirms it's a centralized system, as truely decentralized systems can't have that small of a block time and achieve decent reliability with that. The whitepaper says there will be 101 delegated nodes, which in theory should make it less centralized. But in practise it'll work out to 20 people managing all 101 nodes, which makes it more centralized than it should be by design, because running a ddos-protected fault-tolerant node would require quite a bit of skills. 20 people is a rough number, could be 30, you get the idea, but I don't believe it can be 101 different persons each running 1 node, not in the first year at least. By the time when there are 101 different persons each running 1 BitShares node only (if that is achievable at all, since some may not stop running more nodes than they should), NXT will have TF which will remove the requirement for 720 blocks blockchain reorganization + other features will be added like Dividends (planned for 1.3.xx), etc., hence that comparison table will change. NXT has been battle tested for 8 months now as a truely decentralized system. BitShares is only running on testnet without everybody and their mother attacking it on live net and has been planned as a centralized distributed system. Distributed != decentralized. Ripple can also achieve a few seconds block time, because it is also a centralized distributed system, but it has issues with distribution of shares. Bitshares improved on distribution of shares, but left the centralization issue a concern. Please don't get me wrong, I am not saying that people won't use BitShares. But the goals of BitShares and NXT are different, hence it's really hard to compare them. After all, many people use banks, and they are as centralized as can be. BitShares stands somewhere between banks and NXT in that aspect  |
|
|
|
|
Performing a 51% attack on an established PoS coin without Transparent Forging is at least 2 orders of magnitude more expensive than doing a 51% attack on Bitcoin ($50+ billion vs $500 million).
|
|
|
|
Cool, What would you say, in your opinion, is the best system in terms of decentralisation and performance out there at the moment?
My opinion would be called biased if I said it's NXT. I see BitShares has achieved a pretty good decentralization level compared to Bitcoin. Will it be good enough in the future? Only time can tell. Certainly, 101 delegated nodes are far more difficult to compromise than just 2 biggest Bitcoin pools. It's not 100% decentralization, but I guess many people will find it decent enough to use. |
|
|
|
It's a good question. I'm not technical, so I'd rather wait for someone like Clout to describe it better. Also feel free to go ask questions in the thread. Personally I'd like be interested in seeing more of the ways it could be compromised or attacked. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=4009.0As it stands at the moment, my understanding is - They call Bitcoin decentralised, and we pay at least $100 per $1000 of every Bitcoin we own to miners via inflation per year, for the security and advantages decentralisation is supposed to provide. Yet in Bitcoin you only have to get to two people to attack and significantly damage Bitcoin, (Pool owners of Ghash.io & Discus fish atm.) - I still keep 1/2 my crypto-equity in BTC, but it does seem like one of the most vulnerable systems possible. BitShares has 101 delegates voted for by users in paid roles, they are assigned blocks randomly and they only have the power to process and include/exclude transactions, the system automatically detects bad behaviour and fires them and they can also be easily voted off by users. So in BitShares you'd need to get to at least 51 elected delgates located all around the world on normal computers. This could be done by buying up 51% of the stake. This would make shareholders extremely wealthy. (It's hard to buy even a small stake, like 30K Bitcoins, 0.2% without moving the market.) This attack would also be pretty transparent, unlike acquiring ASICS which doesn't make Bitcoin holders richer and can be done discreetly. Also Bitcoin & all the stuff that will come on top of it is running on 1 Base blockchain. In BitShares there will be bespoke blockchains tweaked for different companies needs as well as variants of them. So as I understand it, it's a system that is much harder to attack/compromise than any existing system. At attack should be very transparent, even if you did gain control your options would be limited and you would only have 1 Blockchain out of hundreds that would just be forked. The advantages of the above system is that are transactions can be processed multiple times faster, for a fraction of the cost and at volumes that rival the biggest clearing houses in the world. Given the huge cost savings, privacy benefits, our banks based on blockchains should be able to overtake the exisiting status quo, and there's nothing they can do about it, besides make shareholders very wealthy. Again some of that may be incorrect. Just as non-technical investor that was my view, there is an intro to DPOS on their website. http://bitshares.org/intro-to-delegated-proof-of-stake/Bitcoin can no longer be considered decentralized, that has been proven, thus there is no need to compare with Bitcoin |
|
|
|
Only if merchants start adopting it and it develops an active economy. It can have as many shiny new features as you care to name, but if people aren't using it, it's never going to overtake BTC. Well, that's true. Features have to be useful to be used, thank you for posting the obvious Anyway, what is the most useful feature any coin could have to overtake Bitcoin, if that's possible at all, in your opinion? |
|
|
|
I wonder if there is a troll phobia disorder discovered yet, and if they haven't, they should look into this thread, we have a prominent case here |
|
|
|
I'm an average Joe, I hate the NXT wallet. I ain't the only one.
Alright, you don't have to use it then Maybe you'll come to like other clients later (I don't know if you tried Offspring or not), including mobile clients. I myself want an android client badly, fortunately, it's in the works now. |
|
|
|
NXT doesn't need a fatal bug to fail. It just needs a wallet that most people hate...oh too late.  Most people haven't tried NXT yet, so hard to say about their preferences But generally speaking, mobile wallets are the future if crypto currencies are to gain any wider adoption. |
|
|
|
Being a die hard anything usually proves a silly approach. In many aspects of life, including investments, diversification works better. Heck, even with women, you shouldn't be courting just one, have two or three candidates if you look for relationships, so you don't have to cry if it doesn't work out with one. Like I said above, in case NXT fails because of some fatal bug, there is Qora and NEM as backups. Perhaps something else will pop up. Besides, it's fun here at times, with smaragda making a clown of himself, etc. |
|
|
|
...you're still NOT going to hear the end of it...
Well, be my guest then, keep talking, as long as you find a sort of queer pleasure in this |
|
|
|
|
smaragda,
do you mind if I add you to my ignore list? Be sure I won't be taking any sneak peeks of your posts.
|
|
|
|
I knew you would stick your nose into this so I had to take a sneak peek as you're still on Ignore (will stay there for long time by the way)... why don't you make up your mind when it comes to Qora first before running your mouth???... do you think we're stupid or something?... do you actually believe that we can't see what you're doing with the back and forth posts between this thread and the Nxt Forum?... as I said before...
I noticed your favorite phrase is 'Welcome to my ignore list " You probably consider yourself a VIP and indeed believe anybody cares about your ignore list And who is 'we' in this "do you think we're stupid or something"? Do you belong to royal family or are you somehow authorized to speak on behalf of the entire Qora community? In other words, fuck off, dude, you're very boring |
|
|
|
|
I get it now, if you don't sing praises to Qora, it's automatically considered trolling.
|
|
|
|
Why you even care about marketcap and the trading volume...
Well, you know, it's legacy measurements of sorts, I guess we'll still have to use them for quite a while. |
|
|
|
having no hard cap and billions of coins guarantees a low price forever.
As if a hard cap is helping Litecoin that much Litecoin has a massive inflation now in double digits and will continue to for the next few years, Dogecoin's massive inflation is reduced each ~2 months with halvenings and by the end of 2014 will become manageable (less than Bitcoin's and Litecoin's for the next 5 years) to guarantee greater valuations of Dogecoin if the developers and community don't stop like Litecoin's devs. A switch to PoS or some PoW+PoS combo is great, because it takes away worries of the 51% attack. After that Dogecoin has a chance to become a currency of choice for micro and small transactions. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
