Toning down the megalomania a tad might go a long way.

The tone of the propaganda just makes it all sound like scamware, try being clearer about what it actually does rather than how obsolete it makes - or worse yet merely intends to make or to eventually make - sliced bread, transporters, faster than light travel or whatever it is supposedly intended to be better than.

-MarkM-

For the purported "security without work", yeah.

Simply making something innovative enough that merged mining pools will support it though will at least give you a predictable low tide mark for mining power thus let you set a starting difficulty high enough to minimise the chance of any "instamining" happening and if you convince the right pools your concept is good probably also enough to secure it against most "lets trash the newbie coin" attacks.

I0Coin and GRouPcoin are only on mmpool I think, yet even just mmpool gives them quite a hash rate compared to most non merged SHA256 coins.

Regarding specifically the modified time warp BCX mentions, (s)he admitted at least some, maybe most, of the merged mined SHA256 coins have enough hashing power to make them too powerful for hir to pull off the attack. I would expect that the exceptions include at least CoiLedCoin and GeistGeld, which are not on any public merged mining pools. Whether I0Coin and GRouPcoin, which are only on mmpool as far as I know, have enough hashing power did not seem totally clear to me. But in comparing their difficulties thus mining power bear in mind GRoupcoin's difficulty has to last 10 minutes on average between blocks whereas I0Coin's only has to target 1.5 minutes between blocks. I expect both CoiLedCoin and GeistGeld are trivially easy targets until they get on at least one public merged mining pool, as private merged miners are coasting along mining these at very very low difficulties thus evidently are not pouring much hashing power into them.

mmpool seems to be quite a low power pool though, as it goes hundreds of hours between findings of bitcoin blocks. Likely if there is any doubt whether just being on mmpool would suffice, I suspect there are far more powerful public merged mining pools that could instead or as well be approached.

I have noticed a lot of people creating hybrid PoS or pure PoS coins, have those been tested enough yet to determine whether they are actually secure? Especially the ones that do not rely upon a solidcoin system whereby one or more privileged nodes get to dictate checkpoints to the others? I do not know hence my personal lack of certainty so far as to which if any of the methods of securing a coin without relying upon proof of work actually are in fact secure.

Does anyone actually know or is everyone just blindly spamming out PPCoin clones / variants?

For something like Aurora, merged mining could be particularly suitable as giving 50% of the coins to miners might not be necessary; DeVCoin for example only gives 10% of the minted coins each block to the miners yet has quite high hashing power.

-MarkM-

The jump already happened. In other words buying now would be "buying high".

The people who stand to profit are those who already have sell orders in place.

Next time how about alerting people when it hits bottom so they can "buy low" ?

-MarkM-

Didn't it also try to pretend to have distributed marketplace "plans" or "intent", touting that "intent" as an excuse for some kind of IPO or donate money now stuff, possibly intending to look into cloning NXT or eMunie or mastercoin or gosh knows what if they made enough free money from such rhetoric that they thought it worth the LOLs to actually bother trying to clone some such thing instead of just running with the money?

Also a bunch of rhetoric about having or planning to have oodles of currencies also in the works to po[pulate exchanges with and so on?

Basically vast piles of vapourware and propaganda and little to no actual real apps, uses etc?

-MarkM-

No enough attackers with the know-how, not enough LOLs in it for them and so on.

But once bitcoin built its super hashpower and implemented merged mining new coins no longer need face that if they have even merely just enough of a good idea to get a merged mining pool set up ready to add them to its merge at launch.

Plus now, even better, supposedly proof of work is no longer even needed to secure a distributed p2p ledger so anyone can easily issue a new secure currency simply by cloning a secure no proof of work required system instead of the insanely expensive to secure, insanely hard to secure old proof of work concept. Maybe clone Ripple, or NXT, or whatever of those things does in fact work, if any of them do in fact work.

Either by merged mining or by some newfangled no proof of work needed system, launching a currency that is secure from the get-go is easily do-able nowadays.

-MarkM-

There is no reasonable basis for deliberately failing to secure it let alone to deliberately try to prevent its being secure.

Why the heck NOT secure it? How does leaving it insecure benefit anyone (and if it does, who and how)?

You are just repeating the same old "let the scam run, if it scams enough people to prove it is a scam then oh well it was a scam so what" and "if the scam scams enough out of enough people then in theory the scammers could turn over a new leaf and actually try to support the thing instead of just moving on to yet another scam".

-MarkM-

What market cap site(s) and where do they get the data they use to compute the caps and who controls that source or those sources?

Sounds like either a cheat along the lines of the not actually on the market pre-mine being counted toward market cap or pretend trades happening on the scammer's own tame "exchanges" or a combination of such things.

Marinecoin itself has so far always seemed such a blatantly obvious scam that wasting time delving into the details of its rhetoric / propaganda has so far always seemed a pointless waste of time, since the marketeering spamming verbiage they put out is so obviously that of scammers.

-MarkM-

Well I do actually have a bias, I trade coins that I want to try to ensure go up, and failing that want to raise the floor of over time.

Coins I hold lots of in my off the exchanges wallets and thus have a vested interest in trying to prevent from becoming value-less or of less value.

So my bias it toward filling the buy side of the order book, piling up more and more and more buys trying to eventualy have so many buy orders in place that if all the coins of that type that I do not own were sold to my buy orders I'd own them all, and maybe then some.

The and then some is that even if I manage to have enough offers to buy them all at one satoshi per coin, I would keep going, heading toward being able to buy some of them at more than one satoshi and still be able to buy the rest at one satoshi; and eventaully to be able to buy some at 50, more at 49, even more at 48 and so on all the way down and still buy them all before hitting one satoshi. Then onwards to being able to buy them all before hitting two satoshis, and so on onwards and upwards slowly raising the lowest price that coin can reach if sold to me.

I like DeVCoin for this not only because I helped develop DeVCoin but also because its price has tended to be a small enough number of satoshis that I can put an offer at each and every satoshi of price despite having to type in the offers manually due to the API not allowing me to have thousands upon thousands of offers (across all the coins I trade).

I don't like leaving gaps between offers because bots tend to fight over individual satoshi changes of price so simply flooding all possible prices leaves them less space to fiddle around with, to sneak in between my offers etc.

-MarkM-

In other words just keep churning out scams and whichever scam the public falls for will magically turn into a legitimate business enterprise, just like all those coke dealers who got rich selling cocaine to kids bought houses in nice neighborhoods had kids and now are legitimate businesspeople because they do not want cocaine being dealt to their kids in their neighborhoods.

A get rich quick scam is just the thing for launching legitimate enterprises...

Your argment is the same one the largest ponzi schemes use, they then blame the failure of their scheme on the interference by the police / law-enforcement / SEC, because the scheme would have worked fine if only it had been permitted to suck in enough money, because once enough money is sucked in any flaws in the scheme can easily be fixed by throwing money at them. Money is the "socioeconomic forces" you mention, that will magically make up for all the damage done by the broken scheme.

Even broken socioeconomic forces like the law, the law enforcement systems, the SEC and so on can be fixed if only they can be prevented from squashing the scheme before it is rich enough to "fix" such "problems" by buying lawmakers.

-MarkM-

Bullshit, the vast majority of the common people have no desire to screw around with weird techie stuff like mining, they just want their currency to be secure and to work. The very existence of miners may even be off-putting, leading to ideas that it is unfair that miners get coins cheap or that miners got rich quick or that the security of their currency depends upon pimply kids living in their mom's basements playing videogames and occassionally turning off the game to whip up some quick coin.

The vast majority of the masses do not mine, and certainly not with GPUs, plug and play blackbox units are more their speed but even those aren't really something the masses go for.

-MarkM-

Or at least maybe check whether something like bitshares or the like, which already claims to plan decentralised markets that do not rely upon outside "oracles", might be able to or would not suffice to provide the required information.

Nice to have an economist active around here again.

Or wait, does a macroeconomist count as an economist or are they rather distinct different disciplines?

-MarkM-

It is not just hackers. Plenty of coins have fallen apart into forks simply due to their hashing power being so tiny that one person or just a few people making some silly little mistake breaks the whole consensus.

Also there should be no need for the ignorant masses to mine. It is the even more ignorant quick buck scam crowd that insists not only on mining but upon having fresh new scams daily to mine. The masses should be able to just sit back and use the world's most secure blockchains without worrying themselves at all about how it is that those particular blockchains happen to be the only secure ones. That however is undermined by floods and floods of scammers promoting the most insecure garbage possible and mouthing off about how their scam is as good as or better than an, or maybe even any, actually secure currency.

The masses are maybe even left wondering what chains they should risk, whichever scam of the day is climbing fastest on the scam exchange that promotes the most new scams the fastest, or a carefully chosen one or few of the tiny selection of coins offered by an exchange that tries really hard to only offer secure/quality coins.

(Though even such an exchange kind of undermines itself when it turns out to not be throwing off the exchange blockchains that are no longer anywhere near secure, hence the part about choose carefully even among the ones on a careful exchange...)

-MarkM-

Fine, lets figure out a way to secure the blockchain or to get everyone out of it before it is PWNd, that would be constructive.

Unfortunately scamcoin devs seem chronically determined to prevent the blockchains from being able to be secured.

-MarkM-

So it is your desire and intent that the coins remain insecure? Or is it that you have already dumped them or plan to dump them so soon/fast that it is unlikely anyone will steal them before you dump them?

-MarkM-

Not sure about that because usually toddlers do not think that throwing away their toys/valuables or losing them is a good thing, so usually I don't think toddlers think letting any idiot who comes along cripple/break their toys, steal all their goodies and so on is a good idea, so I had the impression that even toddlers think that securing their stuff, as in trying to stop other toddlers or even non-toddlers from arbitrarily running off with it without recourse, is a good idea.

They might not like the chore of putting all their toys in their toybox but do seem to prefer that the toys still be there when they want them.

So this whole 'no one cares whether their stuff is thrown all over the street with "take this stuff" written all over it' spiel seems very disingenuous.

The masses might not realise that they care about whether their money/wealth is secure, but watch how they react when their determined refusal to secure it or even to allow it to be secured results in their losing it...

In fact I have seen claims posted in other sections of these forums - sections other than this "scamcoin section" - claiming that cryptocurrency is useless and un-useable for normal people precisely because it is not secure enough for normal people to use, they constantly keep losing coins due to their own carelessness, irresponsibility, ineptness, ignorance, laziness, inattention and so on. Demanding that blockchains themselves be insecure though seems a pinnacle of ineptness - well, more like idiocy really - not normally encountered outside this "scamcoin section" of the forums.

-MarkM-

Are bitshares on any exchanges yet? I have not noticed them listed on market cap sites yet...

-MarkM-

Oh its one of the solidcoin-style-privileged-nodes systems, is it, like many of the PoS coins? A centralised checkpointing node or group of such nodes?

-MarkM-

Well don't forget to snapshot the bitcoin blockchain too while you are at it and make a fork of that too using some new hashing method.

Why should only the litecoin users enjoy being able to spend their coins on a newfangled coin network as well as on the real network?

In fact lets spawn new snapshot forks regularly, a "social contract" like Protoshares, increasing the value of the real chains like was supposed to happen to protoshares.

(Do one's bitshares plus one's protoshares they were snapshotted from add up to more value than one's protoshares alone were once worth? I don't actually know yet...)

-MarkM-

Feathercoin is not a new innovation though is it? Deliberately avoiding securing it seems pathetically stupid. Let ASIC miners secure one's feathercoin wealth and move on to mine other things with one's GPUs seems a more sensible approach, glad that one's adaptable tools adaptable to new fresh coins are being freed up from the onerous task of securing the feathercoins one already mined...

-MarkM-

Oh gross, not even one gigahash, pathetic.

-MarkM-