I love the concept of cryptocurrency and was a long time Bitcoin supporter. I have sense moved on to ALT coins as they are the only ones pushing the limits so to speak. Bitcoin development is pretty stagnate due to so many opposing opinions and the worry that if anything is changed something will go wrong.

Alt coins are busy innovating and creating the future of Cryptocurrency, and Bitcoin development is moving at such a slow pace I don't think they will ever catch up. The market is showing that people realize Bitcoin is not as safe as a bet as Bitcoiners make it out to be, and people are diversifying their investment into different ALT coins like any sane non-subjective person would do.

You guys are stuck on the same old anti-PoS arguments. There are newer and better solutions, DPoS for example. Most of the arguments you use against PoS don't even apply with the newer and better variants of PoS.

Again, lol at saying PoW distributes currency so evenly. Bitcoin is less evenly distributed than FIAT.

Pretty much all of your arguments are invalid with DPoS.

Ya cause Bitcoin is distributed so evenly....

Now because I am on an iPad all my statements are invalid? Lol.. If you must know, my laptop recently died, either way that is a weak argument. A lot of people like Apple products.

My reason for bringing up Litecoin is because they share the mindset of most Bitcoiners.. all innovations are unneeded gimmicks, PoW is the only answer, their coin is fine just the way it is, etc.

Was your goal to add so many quotes it makes it take me too long to reply, so maybe I won't? If so, you succeeded (I am on iPad.) Congrats. That is the literal definition of nitpicking. Most of your arguments are weak at best, and you certainly do see things through rose tinted glasses. I will leave it at that because I know you will sit here and argue with me all day even if I am right.

Rose tinted glasses...

Real innovation is coins like Bitshares, Nxt, Zerocoin, etc.. too many to list.

3 years? I said it still has a few pums in it. Which could take longer than 3 years, especially considering there may not even be a pump this year seeing as I though the market is so bearish.

Yea.. They are careful, too careful. These newer alt coins don't need to be as careful as Bitcoin. That is going to hold it back from improving upon itself. This is the same excuse (lol) Litecoin uses regarding making changes and they are worth a fraction of your market cap. It is not the extreme want to protect funds, but it is a mindset that nothing needs to be changed and everything is a gimmick or scam coin no matter how innovative.

Re 100x... Have you ever heard of an exaggeration? There are a lot of coins that are better though... More features, block times in the seconds, a snazzier wallet, doesn't waste a ton of electricity and processing power like Bitcoin, more anonymous, etc.... Bitcoin looks like a fossil when you take that all into account. Again, the network effect and infrastructure is the only thing propping Bitcoin up.

I agree coinz's statement was comical regarding giving Bitcoin a few more months, but I agree with the rest of his statement.

Also, Denny... you are looking at Alt coins with rose shaded glasses if you don't see any innovation. Either that or you aren't looking at all. I bet you're going to say it's all gimmicks huh? Lol

That being said, I think Bitcoin is dying a slow death. The development is too stagnate and some alt coins are 100x better than Bitcoin. The network effect and infrastructure are the only thing keeping Bitcoin ahead, and that advantage will wear off soon. Bitcoiners and Bitcoin developers are too scared of change... they are set in their ways and many Alt coins are better already on a technical and feature set level. It will have several pumps before it kicks the can though.

A Smartian looks like a catedoge: http://youtu.be/CTG6lbkEP_k

How can you not include Bitshares and Nxt in a "best PoS coin" poll.  

Crypti and NEM should be in there too, since they have different and innovative PoS algos.

@Smooth and tx42

Not sure if you read my link up thread, but I was debating the same thing you guys are in the other thread I was referring to. This is my opinion:

I'm done researching BCX's exploits.. I am tired. If someone wants to pick up where I left off that would be cool, I am interested in what he has done.. or allegedly done. I pretty much checked his posting history from pages 115 to 170.

I'm still digging... there was a lot to go over and BCX has deleted a lot of his posts, most of which contain evidence I would assume.

Apparently he has also repeatedly used the time travel exploit. What kind of difficulty adjustment algo does Monero use??? As I think that is how the time travel exploit is utilized.

It is possible I guess someone tipped him off to an exploit in CN. It would be interesting checking other CN's Githubs for recent commits.. maybe in this case, the one that is in the know would have fixed the exploit recently.

It seems BCX mostly did 51% attacks, with only 1 time travel exploit which was found by Artforz. Allegedly BCX got someone to edit the code for him, as BCX apparently can't code (his words, not mine). Seeing as though BCX can't code.. unless he learned in the past few years, I doubt he fund an exploit. It seems the only code exploit he did was found by someone else and coded for him to use, and he mainly used a large hash rate to attack alt coins.

Admitting he can't code:


Here is a summary of his early alleged attacks:


Then he attacked Solidcoin2 with a ddos of its insecure "trusted node", possibly performed other attacks against solidcoin2.. there is too much to go over and I'm getting tired: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=48975.msg582404#msg582404

Apparently he 51%ed Litecoin: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=96186

Claimed he will 51% Digicoin, but didn't: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=236630.msg2501414#msg2501414

Time travel exploit against Spots: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=259764.msg2772289#msg2772289

Interesting thoughts, I like your theory regarding Satoshi and it seems plausible. Anonymint is still around, although he may of dropped that idea.. I don't know. I do agree that is a good idea that needs more attention.. I haven't heard it before. I'm guessing it is hard to implement fairly and securely though, which would be the only thing holding it back. Yet, it could possibly be made to work.


I wouldn't go that far... but thanks.


I know BCX is rumored to have killed several coins before, but most of the ones he has killed were before my time and I'm not sure of the details. I think at least one of them was just a plain 51% attack, and not through a vulnerability.. possibly more. On the other hand, I am fairly certain he has made claims that coins are vulnerable before and nothing ever happened.

I'm going to do some digging around now and I'll get back to you, as I am interested in that myself.

Lol, since they moved them to the announcement subforum I can kind of block them out. I don't research coins anymore unless someone brings it to my attention or I see someone mention it being the new best thing. Even then half the time they are still scam coins haha!

Anyways.. I am glad we were able to come to somewhat of an understanding. You see, I am not such a bad guy.. I just care very deeply about this stuff and get worked up easily. I often speak/type without thinking and that leads to me saying things I probably shouldn't say.. but all of it is honest for the most part... as honest as humanly possible considering personal bias. Again I don't care about this stuff for monetary reasons, but for political reasons, the well being of humanity's financial future, and privacy etc.... I basically want to decentralize everything.

I guess we've derailed this thread enough.. I'll let BCX get back to his soap opera.

Cheers

I also invite you to our PoW vs PoS/alternate consensus thread. It is ironic that my last post addressed exactly this. I believe PoS coins to come at the expense of GDP: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770591.msg8869805#msg8869805

This sounds like a clever idea, and I think it could work if the logistics were figured out.

Good point that this is not an issue with PoW, but the implementation. Sadly though many PoW Alt cryptocurrencies have followed a similar path of implementation when it comes to emission curves. It is odd that this issue hasn't been thoroughly addressed in the Alt coin subforum and new coins haven't adopted their implementation. I guess everyone just hates inflation, which I can't really blame them.

That is all understandable, everyone has their own opinion on what innovations are more or less important. I try to look at all innovation as being equally important in the long run. Maybe this or that innovation may be somewhat gimmicky, but it can give someone a good idea for a future innovation that is not gimmicky, and give them a head start on the coding of it. I see any changes/experiments/innovation as being for the greater good of the future of cryptocurrencies. I know not everyone agrees on that, so we will agree to disagree.

I'm not budging on my point that you guys have caused some of the backlash yourselves though by creating so many Monero threads. I really do feel that is the reason the trolls decided to start their FUD campaign and reverse trolling against you guys. You were getting too much good press and exposure for their liking. Maybe tone it down a bit, or consolidate your threads into only a few. It will afterall give you more time to pick up more cheap Monero if you truly believe in its future.

I guess you are right, it is the new fad for scam coins, but I think it says something that they think their scam will be more successful by choosing PoS over PoW. They must think there is more demand for PoS coins than PoW coins.. that goes to show how little people in general really care about the "insecurities" of PoS coins. Honestly it is mostly long time Bitcoin/crypto people that are really against PoS.. I'm not sure what to make of that or if there is some underlying reason other than the insecurities.

Also, I was referring to about a year ago when all the scam coins were PoW clone coins. There was something like one a day being released for a long time!


You are right, there are a lot of people smarter than me saying that PoS is broken and a dead end too. I'm not honestly sure what or who to believe. However, the ones that aren't saying that give me hope that there is an answer to the solution. I don't even see the modern PoS variants as being too bad or insecure. Like I said, both PoW and PoS have their pros and cons, but I think PoS will continue to be improved upon.


I agree, feel free to join us in the main PoW/PoS debate thread here!

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=770591.0


That's good to know, I am looking forward to whatever you guys may come up with. My understanding was that you guys were focused on only anonymity. I know from debating some of your "hero" member supporters in the past they really hate innovation and call any improvements or added features gimmicks.. so I guess I assumed you guys weren't planning on doing much else since they were supporting Monero (not going to name names.) Anyways.. I will take your word that Monero has other plans and leave it at that.

I would argue that purely PoS coins do cost something. The different ways of distribution for PoS/consensus I have seen all cost the person who originally received the coins something, except for one distribution model.. giveaways.

The 3 distribution methods where the coins cost money:
IPO - Definitely costs $$$
Proof of Burn - Definitely costs $$$
PoW period then switched to purely PoS - Costs money in the electricity used and time mining in which someone could of mined other cryptocurrencies

The only sketchy non-PoW distribution model that this argument could possibly be applied for:
Giveaways - I admit this is the only category thus far that could fall under your reasoning above, however giveaways have costs in that it takes the developers time, energy, and money, to program and market the cryptocurrency. However, is this perceived cost enough seeing as though the end users didn't pay for these costs themselves? Maybe, maybe not.

In the case of generic country coins that bring no innovation to the table, they have failed on a massive level. In the case of Ripple which bring an innovative approach, it has sustained and even grew in value. I think some cases are different than others, and cost is not an end all be all to a cryptocurrency having value. As long as the crypto provides some benefit, utility, or innovation, AND a larger cryptocurrency isn't already known for this innovation, then it is possible for it to survive and possibly even thrive due to the network effect.

I get what you're saying, but I'm not sure it's actually true or not. I agree my reasoning for giveaway coins having value is somewhat sketchy, so feel to prove me wrong. I have actually been using this as a reason as to why I think "spin offs" will not work, because I think Bitcoin holders will dump immediately for profit just like the country coin failures. So I guess I am contradicting myself here... I admit it is complicated.

Although to be fair to my reasoning as to spin offs, specifically the spin off I think is likely to fail is Aethereum. It is mostly due to your reasoning that there is no costs, combined with the network effect of Ethereum in which everyone pretty much sees as the decentralized programming project to beat. So in combination of no cost and the network effect, I think Aethereum will not do so well. If you replaced Aethereum with some innovation or improvement upon Bitcoin that has not already garnered a network effect, it may be possible for the spin off to be a success. I think Stellar will fail for the same reason, there is no cost and Ripple has already achieved a sufficient network effect.

So in summary I suppose I believe that my theory for other giveaways holds true with Spin Offs: As long as the crypto provides some benefit, utility, or innovation, AND a larger cryptocurrency isn't already known for this innovation, then it is possible for it to survive, and possibly even thrive due to the network effect.

This is not about me, the only one trying to make it about me is you.


You cut off the important part of the quote which made my point...  if every ALT coin used this subforum as their main forums. Do I really need to explain this to you guys? wtf.. I estimate there are over 500 Alt coins. If every one of them had only 1 thread and made 1 post per day, each day's posts would go all the way to page 13. That sounds like a clusterfuck to me. If Monero is successful, you can be sure coins in the future will be replicating its marketing techniques a la spamming this subforum.


Not necessarily.. I derailed the thread. BCX may very well have found a vulnerability.. I have no clue.


Worse is a strong statement. PoS and its variants have weaknesses, just like PoW has its weaknesses. However, both are secure enough to have survived this long without any major attacks. Most of the PoS vulnerabilities people harp on it for are just as unlikely as a 51% attack on a well secured PoW network. Both PoW and PoS have their weaknesses, but I just can't get past the amount of energy that is wasted with PoW and see PoS and its variants as better solutions. Whereas some see the PoS variant cup half empty, I see it half full. Imagine if all of the money spent on securing PoW cryptos was spent on improving the infrastructure or investing in the coins themselves.

I am not interested in PoS scam coins, there are just as many PoS scam coins as there are PoW scam coins. I am however interested in coins that tweak and improve upon PoS in some way, as a more secure version of PoS can pop up from all of these different iterations. I am confident it is not "a dead horse", and I have been told by people much smarter than I that there are ways to fix the problems with PoS as it exists today- which as they exist they are still pretty damn secure seeing as though they are still around and thriving today.

Thanks for proving my point about Monero supporters claiming all innovation is gimmicks.

The only two coins I support now are not BTC forks.. BitsharesX and Nxt.. and they are both innovating in more ways than one. Furthermore, they are focused on innovating and improving upon their original innovations. Whereas most mainstream coins consider all innovations as gimmicks, they embrace innovation. It is the innovators that will push cryptocurrencies to the next level, not the naysayers that are fine with cryptocoins just the way they are. Some people might not want more (or improved) features, but on the other hand a lot of people do, otherwise the more innovative coins wouldn't have been able to achieve the market cap and community that they have. It is silly to only cater to one half of the population when you can cater to both and the ones that don't want or need those features/improvements don't have to use them.


You need to be more open minded and hopeful that there is a solution. If everyone thought this way then Satoshi would of never made the huge innovation that was Bitcoin. Everyone thought a trustless decentralized currency was impossible until he came along and did it.

First, there is no reason that consensus has to be reached by mass extreme consumption of electricity and a large waste of processing power, which is one of the major flaws of PoW.

Second, Most PoW zealots can't seem to see into the future like I (and a lot of other people.. the PoS crowd) can in regards to the inevitable centralization of PoW mining. No PoW algorithm can be ASIC proof.. it is not possible. Due to this and economies of scale, all forms of PoW mining will slowly go from decentralized to centralized as large mining conglomerates take over the block chain. The people with the most money to spend and the cheapest power will make all mom and pop miners unprofitable, and at that point they will stop investing/buying ASICs. Over time the block chain will become more and more centralized until it is so centralized that they can do many nefarious things, such as raise transaction fees on a whim by only including transactions into blocks that have X amount of fees, because they decide they are not making enough profit.

Third, once a PoW cryptocurrency exits its inflationary stage of the money supply distribution, it is possible that the transaction fees are not enough to compensate the miners and keep the blockchain secure. We recently saw this with Dogecoin which was one of the first ones in which their emission curve has dramatically stabilized, and they were forced to choose in between death or merge mining with a larger chain. They are still inflationary and can't afford to pay miners enough to secure their chain, imagine how hard of a task that will be for some coins that at some point no more coins will ever be minted. The market caps of PoW currencies and the adoption in the form of every day use will be mandatory for these cryptocurrencies to survive. No one really knows is mass adoption is likely or possible as it is all speculation at this point, but if they don't achieve that then PoW cryptos will be in trouble at some point down the road. Even if they achieve mass adoption, it is still speculation whether or not that will be enough to pay miners to secure the block chains. PoW cryptos may one day be much more expensive to used than PoS cryptos for this reason.

The resources and processing power wasted, the inevitable centralization, and the sustainability are three of the largest issues I see with PoW in the future. I am sure I am forgetting one or two glaring issues as well, but I will leave it here for now.


Lol, OK... I admit that would be pretty damn cool.

Do you not understand how big of a clusterfuck this subforum would be if every ALT coin used this subforum as their main forums?  

If Monero solved all current problems with cryptocoins, was the most innovative alt coin, made everyone millionaires, achieved world peace, and could shoot gold bullion out of its ass, I would still feel the same way.