Never owned paycoin, or had anything to do with any of GAW's products. I read the hashcoin whitepaper and thought it was just laughable. What was original in it was dumb, what wasn't dumb wasn't original. I've been watching the trainwreck ever since.

You quoted me and Jimmothy, but neither of us support GAW. I just think bitcoin will be displaced because it's first-generation technology in cryptocurrency, and it can't evolve as fast as alt coins can. That's just the normal course of things for first-generation technologies.

Just to be very clear, XPY is no threat to BTC whatsoever. Probably neither is any alt coin currently out there. It's just a matter of time though.

Well, this thread is about GAW/paybase/paycoin. And what is hurting paycoin isn't any of what you're suggesting. What's hurt paycoin is (a) a history of misleading claims and broken promises, and (b) the fact that what was actually delivered after all those glowing promises was just a hyper-inflationary peercoin clone. A hyper-inflating peercoin clone isn't worth a twelve million dollar market cap.  Think about that.

Based on what has actually been delivered so far XPY is massively overpriced at $0.90 per coin and a $12 million market cap.

The mystery isn't what has suppressed the price, the mystery is how they've managed to prop up the price this much for this long, without actually delivering anything that would come close to justifying the current price, and in spite of all the things that were said about Amazon and the CAF and so on that turned out not to be true.

So you think the problem isn't all of the broken promises and misleading claims and botched launches, and the fact that what was actually delivered was just a broken peercoin clone ... the problem is that people on this thread post about those things? 

So one of the benefits (from Josh's point of view) of blocking the paycoin pages on HT if you aren't logged in is that archive.today no longer works. Apologies if this was covered here already but it's truly Josh at peak megalomaniacal pumping strength.

Muuuhhhh
https://hashtalk.org/topic/32651/



"It's something that is going to change the industry as a whole."



"We still got another week or two out before the beta launches."

"I have had a separate team working on a secret project for a while."



"Anyhoo, I had it down all out of house, and split it up between teams all over the world, so it will stay secret"



"We gave an exclusive at a media outlet (no it does not have the word coin in it). And, I have already done the interview. So they will be launching it. But, it will be exciting"

Does anyone other than Vlad believe that gawceo had an idea that will revolutionize the industry, that he managed a multi-national team of software developers to make it a reality, and that a beta is going to launch in another week or two?

Shiny side out, Vlad.

Not offended in the slightest! Just amused at the militant ignorance.

So your theory is that the HT clowns aren't buying. It's Josh who is buying. Because he owns 99% of all the XPY. And he wants more than 99% of XPY, so he's going to buy more and use hyper-inflationary staking to gain XPY faster than the poor sods who bought into this. And when he's got 99+% of XPY he's going to pull some miraculous plan out of his ass and then sell it to the ignorant masses.

You're funny.

Here's an analogy to the world of video recording technology. Bitcoin is like VHS back some years back. Thoroughly entrenched, huge capital investments depending on it, but it's aging technology.

There are some better algorithms being developed in some of the alt coins. These are like prototypes for DVD recording, video streaming, etc. Next-generation technology, still being developed. It's coming along, though.

Paycoin is like one of those flip-books that some kid in the back row doodles on the pages of his math book.

You could count on one hand the number of people who are actually confused about whether or not paycoin is a threat to bitcoin. It's just too silly to take seriously.

Just pondering ... the "paycoin foundation" is run by someone who apparently lost a lot of money (personal money? his church's money?) on paycoin. If the same sort of claims were made to him that were made to the guy in Mumbai, fake "insider" information about deals with paypal and so on, then I wonder if this might have been a hostile takeover. Maybe he thinks he'll recover more of the money by trying to make a success of paycoin, than he would by legal recourse.

With control over the paycoin/paybase code they might try to turn it into a viable coin. Getting Josh out of the picture would be a positive step. Getting rid of the hyper-inflation and burning the excess coins would be a show of good faith that would be easy to do.

But then what? The problem is, without major funding what can they do that would even justify the current market cap of over ten million? Even if you had a significant development budget, which doesn't seem to be the case, what could they do?

Getting rid of the bad stuff in the code just takes you back to having a peercoin clone. Even if they could scrub the stench of scam from it there's nothing about it that would appeal to major retailers. The original whitepaper was junk. The zincsave browser plugin failed before they bought it, but it's probably the best thing they've got to work with.

As things stand it has less going for it than a lot of clone coins with market caps one tenth the size of xpy's market cap. For what it currently is, it's massively over priced.

https://chainz.cryptoid.info/xpy/#@inflation

Click on "all time" then go back one month. It's gone from 12.4 million coins to 13.6 million coins in one month. That's about 10% per month, or a little over 300% per year.  

It's actually more than that because the current amount of hyper-inflation kicked in a little less than a month ago, and they also destroyed a bunch of coins one day after they got caught moving them to an exchange. It's potentially a lot more than this because they haven't turned on all the hyper-inflating stakers yet.

Resigning?


It's sitting at a market cap of ten million dollars in spite of being nothing a broken peercoin clone with no active development.

What is it that you're imagining could boost it by 20-50x?

I suppose it's possible that gawneedstobestopped has some connection with this Devon O'Dell (http://9vx.org/~dho/) and put up a validator that validates DKIM emails properly (I tried a random email on it) **EXCEPT** when it gets one of a set of fake emails created by gntbs in which case it pretends to validate the fake email, but only if the fake email is unaltered. Not very likely, but not absolutely impossible.

Disclaimer: Everything I know about DKIM I learned within the last few days.

Essentially, you can establish a public cryptographic key on your DNS record (DNS is what maps a domain name to an IP address) so that anyone can look that up. You then use a private key and the public key, to "sign" the email. (In this case, I think google did that for them.) Anyone who wants to validate the email can use the public key (which they get from the DNS server) and the signature to check the signature. The message has to be exactly byte-for-byte identical to the one that was signed in order for the validation to pass.

Bottom line, it's a strong reason to think the emails are legit and untampered. The ones with DKIM signatures anyway, not all of them had that. I only validated a couple of them, and only at the validator that gntbs linked.

EDIT: I just tried a couple of the most recent ones and they didn't work. Here's one that does:
http://pastebin.com/RuK4AVhc
I don't know enough about it to figure out what's wrong with the ones that don't pass.

@gawneedstobestopped -- how about just making a zip file of all the emails you've got?

Notice how he's careful to say the promised deals were *verbal* agreements:


He can't claim to have had written contracts with the companies he claimed to be partnering with because then (a) those contracts would have still been binding, even if the companies got a little nervous, and (b) he could produce the written contracts and prove the naysayers wrong. So he claims that they were verbal agreements only, and the naysayers scared those companies away. All of them. As if Amazon and Target and so on would do business that way.

Not to mention that on the very day that paybase launched he was still promising merchant integration with Amazon and the ability to purchase directly from Amazon via paybase. Amazon didn't back out of a verbal agreement at the last minute, obviously. He promised this knowing that a few hours later the facts would prove him wrong in front of everyone.

The first results at the top of page 8 would be the case of an attacker having 10% of the total hashrate. The calculated result is that if you have four confirmations (z=4) then P=0.0035, i.e., the probability of a successful attack is 0.35%. With six confirmations the probability of a successful attack drops to 0.02%. With ten confirmations the probability of a successful attack is 0.0000012 or about one in a million.

Note that this is independent of the confirmation rate. You can make the confirmation time as short as you want, and the analysis is the same.

If I understand it correctly, this paper:
https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
on page 8 argues that the probability of an attacker generating an alternate chain depends on the number of confirmations (z), not on the time between confirmations. Is the analysis wrong?

In fact the limit on size of the IPV4 address space *is* the main reason for migrating to IPV6. That's not going to happen overnight but it's happening (contrary to what someone said yesterday) and will continue to happen.

In the analogy, the general categories being compared are cryptocurrencies and the internet. Bitcoin, litecoin, peercoin, ethereum, etc. are implementations of cryptocurrencies. NPC, IPV4, IPV6, etc., are implementations of internet protocols. So Bitcoin is like NPC in this analogy. IPV4 replaced NPC for good reasons, just as IPV6 will eventually overtake IPV4 for good reasons.

Bitcoin won't be that hard to replace when the time comes. It won't happen overnight, but the hard part is getting exchanges and payment processors and businesses set up to handle crypto. Most of that infrastructure already supports multiple cryptos, not just bitcoin.

A better analogy is to social networking sites. The infrastructure that allowed people to use social networking sites cost a lot of money to build, and it took time to grow the market to the point where the general public was aware of it and starting to use it. And changing wasn't easy. If you had a geocities page and wanted to move to friendster without losing your content, there was no easy way to do it. But then once all of that was in place and the market was big enough, competition exploded because the infrastructure and public awareness were ready. That's what the future of crypto will look like, IMO.

The internet is in the process of upgrading from IPV4 to IPV6, and will continue. There's not much choice, given the limit on the IPV4 address space.

Bitcoin isn't like IPV4, because IPV4 wasn't the first. Bitcoin is like NCP (if my quick dip into wikipedia came up with the right acronym). NCP lasted about twelve years, it looks like. It was mostly used by geeks. Mainstream acceptance wasn't achieved until NCP was phased out in favor of TCP/IP.

You're comparing a specific instance of technology (bitcoin) with broad categories (email, etc.).

Cryptocurrencies aren't going away. Neither is email.

But the first networked email wasn't the email you're using now. My first email address looked something like "utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhtsa!ihnss!ihuxp!grg" (called a "bang path"). The transport was UUCP, over dialup modems.

You're still using email, but you aren't using any of those technologies that got networked email off the ground. In the future you'll still be using cryptocurrency, but you won't be using bitcoin (and probably not anything that currently exists).

EDIT: the way bang paths evolved, with various things done to continue making use of the underlying technology and make it more convenient and add features, reminds me of all the side chain stuff. It's not a bad thing, it's a way of keeping an existing infrastructure useful. But eventually designing something from the ground up wins out over putting bandaids on top of an obsolescent foundation.