dash, doge, and goldcoin...........sounds more like the holy trinity of shitcoins

so a huge advantage to the exchanges.

we can interact and boast out importance but all along the way getting fees for doing so, (and with my tests i'm easily paying more fees then getting mined).

exchanges well they use the users coins to stake, get plenty of artificial network participation, yet their uses pay their fees, so exchanges have the edge and in any such system any player who has an edge has potential to own the system.


exchanges WIN WIN, users some WIN LOSE others LOSE LOSE .

yet ironically you responded to this rather then a genuine question i posed 

yes rigel a proper usable functioning p2p exchange is the way forward and i'd go as far as saying is a crucial element in keeping cryptos on the decentralised path.

when pointing out some way of gaming the system or how someone could advantage themselves over the other players the debate centers on whether or not people will take advantage of, whether its ok for them too, whether or not other cryptos have the same flaw.......etc etc etc

however we should not be having this discussion because for a currency to be accepted and adopted as an alternative to fiat, then it should not have such an issue period.

a currency needs trust FULLSTOP, [i mean bitcoin suppose to be a trustless system, but thats just another way of wording you can trust it because you don't have to trust a person/company/gov etc etc trust in this opensource code (and the math behind it) {ok this in itself is a whole other debate}].

you have to design a alternative currency in a way that it can't be exploited by any party FULLSTOP or there is no point.

because not all of us are here for the fiat, some surprisingly enough want to advance/create a true decentralised p2p currency. funnily enough with that goal in mind why would i want to enhance centralisation in cryptos; eg start an exchange.


why reply only at schoolyard level rather then debating the real issue.

first mover advantage

and satoshi deserves his 1 million bitcoin stash (i mean seriously he taught us the evil fiat creators don't deserve their big cut.....so he deserves a big cut  )

again it doesn't matter what the exchanges chose or chose not to do, the big issue is and its not just FUD, is there is a huge flaw which exchanges could if they chose to exploit.

i believe if everyone new this you'd have less members.

i'm doing an experiment with a small amount of xem and I am certainly not winning and there is no way i can, which means someone else has the edge, and once someone has an edge eventually they own the market.....simple friggin math which is beyond most people here.

the only replies i'll get is stop spreading FUD FUD FUD, the current exchanges only tested the exploit and is not fully doing it 

lol goldcoins a copy paste coin from years back 

any questions your heart desires lol as long as they are not negative towards goldcoin or you'll get banned.

so POS encourages hoarding, and those who have the most get the most.

to get around this NEM powers to be have created a equation so network activity adjusts the amount a user can earn (awards an importance score) so its not just a simple larger hoarder with the biggest holding wins.

yes? no?

wtf delusion of grandeur have to do with it?

you're best reply is it isn't a big flaw because one particularly exchange at the point hasn't taken full advantage of the flaw, wow just wow  

there's very much a serious flaw in NEM if exchanges stake. also movements in and out of xchanges give them an unfair network advantage.

so what the net benifit, purpose to NEM? to replace the greedy fiat banks with greedy network participants?


ffs revise your math before going live  

its worse then that if exchanges stake, also you and i send coins we get fees, on the coins we stake we earn (at this point it seems no matter what I do my fees will always exceed my stake earnings, hold my network importance goes down, move or use i get fees).

now exchanges can use our coins to earn, but charge us the fees for moving, HUGE win win for them LOSE LOSE for genuine holders, all the while the increase their network importance, further more ripping the users off who's coins they are borrowing  

Seems exchanges will eventually OWN NEM 

no exchange should be gaining POS coins from users funds 

altcoins are a distraction 

depressing when your importance slides   do exchanges build up a bs level of importance on the NEM network?

yes and we already have it litecoin 

now actively harvesting with a small amount 75k all up 15k vested, 0.84% importance

looks (after reading the whitepaper) no matter what complications you add the savvy rich will get richer, while those with small holdings pay hugish (for crypto) fees...i've paid 58 in fees all up on just moving small amounts with little chance of recieving much from mining?

i sent all i've bought from bittrex to my wallet with no txt worked fine, i sent some to bittrex and without txt (the one they give you) it didn't arrive and had to submit a ticket.

think many have lost sight of this threads question is more about why bitcoin v other cryptos, not why cryptos.

1. litecoin (one of the very rare alts not to be created just for the dev to make fiat).
2. ? (still waiting and hoping)
3. ? (still waiting and hoping)