Not sure what you mean. I'd just like to have a conversation or debate as to which Cryptocurrency is more anonymous. For fun I'll add Bitcoindark, Darkcoin, and Zerocoin/Anoncoin into the mix also.

I know a lot of people are high on Monero, but honestly they all look like shills to me by creating so many threads and spamming this subforum with pro-Monero propaganda soaked in arrogance. It doesn't help that all of their threads are self moderated either. It is no surprise to me that the past few days the trolls have been lashing out at the Monero folk... I can somewhat relate to the way they feel about them. So, let's lure the Monero folk out of the self moderated threads and get them in here debating the technicalities of which cryptocurrency is (or will be) the most anonymous.

That being said, I'd like to put all that Monero BS drama aside and talk about cryptocurrencies that have implemented anonymous features and which one(s) are the most anonymous. I never make self moderated threads, so please respect this request or the thread will be locked.

Which is (or will be) more anonymous and why?

I'd say BitsharesX and Nxt are somewhat tied.

Maidsafe, Storj, and Ethereum might be tied with those too, but they are vaporware right now so I think that is affecting the voting.

There are a lot of innovative cryptos out there though.. it is tough to say who is the most innovative.

More items that are for sale will be posted in the coming days. I will have for sale many mobo/mem/CPU combos, PSUs, Ethernet cables, Ethernet hubs and switches, Gridseed accessories (power and USB cables), USB hubs, broken GPUs for parts, GPU risers of all shapes and sizes, C13 to C14 power cables, 30a 240v PDUs, large Sentry 3 phase PDU, Dryer/Oven socket to PDU power adapters, etc.

You name it I probably have it.. I think the above is only a partial list, so if you are interested in something send a PM please. Everything except the broken GPUs are available immediately for sale.. I have a buddy testing out the GPUs so I prob can't answer any questions about those or tell you what is available until I get them back. Anyways...

30a PDUs (5)


Dryer Socket to PDU Adapter (1)


Oven Socket to Two PDUs Adapter (1)


3 feet Heavy duty C13 to C14 Power Cables (5)
5 feet Heavy duty C13 to C14 Power Cables ( 8 )


1 foot lower gauge C13 to C14 Power Cables (5) (I found more after taking picture)
5 feet lower gauge C13 to C14 Power Cables (5)
Note: Don't pull too much power through these, they are cheap and I had one spark up pulling about 1000 watts.


A couple powerful computer fans


More pictures & things to be posted shortly...

I wouldn't consider either of those options fair, as now the top 1% are completely left out of the distribution.

I would like to see the 1%'s 55% stake brought down to something closer to 1% than 55%, and the 99%'s stake increased to something closer to 99%. 1% getting 55% just doesn't seem right to me. If both sides met in the middle, I think it would be more ideal, but still flawed all the same.

Instead of implementing spin-offs on a cryptocurrency with a large wealth disparity (Bitcoin), I think it would be more fair to implement spin-offs on a more fairly distributed cryptocurrency. I think that would make more sense than playing with the percentages. For instance, Litecoin is an order of magnitude more fairly distributed than Bitcoin, there are a lot of other examples too. There just weren't enough people around when Bitcoin first came out to be distributed equally, and it results in a lot of early adopters. I think some of the cryptocurrencies being released today will have more equal distributions due to the amount of users cryptocurrencies have gained over the past few years.

I guess it depends on what you mean by fair. Fair as to the top 1% of Bitcoin stake holders, yes. Fair as to the bottom 99% of Bitcoin stake holders, no. Bitcoin's wealth disparity is worse than it is in the real world with hard money and fixed assets, the top 1% of Bitcoin stake holders own about 55% of the Bitcoins: http://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/owns-bitcoins-infographic-wealth-distribution/

It doesn't really look all that "fair" to me. I don't think this argument should be used in support of Spin-Offs, as the statement is a half-truth at best (and ludicrous at worst.) I am leaning towards ludicrous. It is a good idea and should be tried out as a distribution model, but championing it as the "fairest release method" is laughable.

BitUSD and other bitassets will start generating variable interest (like a savings account at a bank) starting Wednesday: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=8520.0

BTSX up 20% today.  

Nxt and eMunie

I remember the first crypto currency partnership.. UNOCS.. what a train wreck that was, except they didn't raise any money. I hope this one doesn't end as quickly as the first.

I have a hard time seeing how the tokens SuperNET is issuing will be very valuable... it is basically an investment in the development of Nxt and BTCd. I see how that benefits Nxt and BTCd, but not the SuperNET token, wouldn't it be better to invest in Nxt or BTCd directly?

The Chinese buying up Doge yesterday and today. Volume was higher yesterday on BTC38, but still impressive today. http://coinmarketcap.com/exchanges/volume/24-hour/

I agree minutes are too slow for confirmation times, but you over-generalize cryptocoin 2.0s are all as slow as this, as some of them are not. For instance a Bitshares confirmation is 15 seconds with a lot more security per confirmation than Bitcoin. Nxt is also in the process of improving their PoS implementation for much quicker confirmations and more protection versus attacks via transparent forging.

You also don't seem to understand how difficult of a problem it is to make a secure decentralized cryptocurrencies whose confirmations are quicker than Bitcoins. When you start getting faster than 1 minute or so confirmation times with the older PoW models, there are a lot of issues that pop up such as stale/orphan blocks and a greater likelihood of being forked. So, these systems need to be redesigned from the ground up for quicker confirmations to be possible. If this was easy to do it would have been done a long time ago, but we are just now seeing quicker and redesigned algorithms hitting the market.

I'd venture to say we may NEVER see instant confirmations/transactions that have the same amount of security as current Cryptocurrency confirmations... at least not one that is a purely decentralized solution. The
legitly (without forks, stales, etc) fastest Cryptocurrency in development I've seen has just 5 second block times with 25 seconds to only have a 0.01% probability of a reversal. That in itself is a huge innovation compared to current cryptocoins and it is far from instant. I'm talking about Nimblecoin by the way. http://nimblecoin.com/


+1

Also if a better solution ever pops up.. It doesn't make old cryptos obsolete since they can adopt the better technology and implement it themselves.

I disagree. The dynamics are different this time around, as there didn't use to be any decent alternatives to Litecoin.. there was only clones of Litecoin that changed block speed or currency supply for the most part, most of these clones died because of the lack of innovation. There are many cryptocurrencies that have much faster block times, which is basically the only thing that was good about Litecoin. The main problem I see is that there are many cryptocurrencies with new and/or improved features as compared to Litecoin. There is not much of a reason to speculate in Litecoin other than thinking it is "too big to fail", but I think this line of thinking is flawed. Litecoin got popular as it was a safe haven for GPU miners that got kicked off the Bitcoin chain by ASICs. Now GPUs have also been kicked off of the Litecoin chain that appeal is lost.

There are many large companies that fail due to not being able to understand their original formula is not working and not adapting their game plan to compete against more innovative competition. Take Sears for example.. They failed to see the way malls and retailers were losing business to online commerce and failed to adapt quick enough. They were once a giant that got started as a mail order catalog and failed to adapt their one time successful strategy to compete with other companies.

There are some companies that never change their product or business strategy and remain wildly successful, but these companies generally either have a proprietary formula or recipe, or have a patent. With Litecoin being open source, it doesn't have either of those benefits going for it.

I have been pretty tough on Dogecoin in the past. I was pretty skeptical a Cryptocurrency could survive on just a meme and community. I have been impressed lately with their determination though. They realize they have an issue with security and are trying to fix that. I think making it merge mined with Scrypt coins was the wrong solution for that though for economic reasons. I would of preferred them moving to a PoS model. On top of that though they are innovating on top of the Dogecoin chain with Dogeparty. There could be some interesting projects that pop up from that.

Peercoin and Namecoin are a couple other examples of old coins that are building new features on top of their original innovations. I think it is important that cryptocurrencies continue to build on top of themselves to stay relevant in this speculators market that is alt coin investing. Most people that deem new and/or improved features as unneeded gimmicks don't understand that cryptocurrencies, especially alt coins, are a speculators market. You need to give people more of a reason to speculate on your Cryptocurrency in this competitive market with so many new cryptocurrencies that are innovating in a lot of different areas. I think the most innovative cryptocurrencies will rise above the more lethargic ones in terms of development.

Thanks for the feedback! I can see how having the navigation bar at the bottom could be confusing. I'll try to figure out how to get it on the top.. If not I can just change themes.

I noticed that about the form too.. On my browsers (iPad and chrome) it looks OK now. When I first made it the message field name was doing the same, so I guess I can probably do the same by shortening "word verification" to "captcha" or something similar.

Anyways, thanks for your opinion I will change those things.

70% Bitcoin
5% Maidsafe and Storj
5% Bitshares DACs and Nxt
5% Ethereum and Counterparty
5% Monero, Darkcoin, Anoncoin, and Bitcoindark
5% Ripple and Stellar
5% Bitmark, Crypton, and Peercoin

Well, thanks for this amicable conclusion. I am not trying to act like a know it all, just wanted to make the point that no one really knows what will happen. All people can do is speculate. Sorry for making assumptions about you. It is hard to tell trolls from rational people on here, and I can get worked up sometimes because I really care about the success of innovative cryptocurrencies.

Innovative cryptocurrencys will push the technology forward and improve them for the better of all cryptos. Bitcoin/Litecoin's innovation and features are pretty much at a standstill because their communities have grown so large that no one can agree on what should and shouldn't be done. Most of them think they are fine just the way they are, which I think couldn't be further from the truth.. but I digress. It is up to cryptos like this to push the technology forward.

A lot of assumptions..

For the record, I did not invest in the AGS fund, nor did I hold PTS for the BTSX snapshot. I currently have less than 10k BTSX and stand to gain very little from a pump. I bought above the current price, so I am in the red and was not "selling through the pump" like you assume. I was here defending BTSX through the bubble and now I am here defending it after the bubble. That is because I am just someone who believes in BTSX, and believes it is worth MUCH more than its current evaluation of less than 3 cents a coin.

I understand it has a chance to go down even more, but day trading is a gamble and I wouldn't recommend it. It is better to pick a coin you think will grow in value long term and hold it. A lot of people (including me) have lost out on a lot of money because they were so certain Bitcoin would go down and was in a mini bubble, only to have it go up by more than 1000%. It's a fact that you don't know where the price is going to go. You might think you have it figured out... So did I back in the day.

It will only take once though for you to learn your lesson when you miss out on a huge upswing because you were so certain it was heading south. I am just speaking from personal experience in the crypto markets for 2 years now. No one knows what the markets will do at any certain moment unless you have a lot of money to manipulate it. It could go up or it could go down, you have no clue.

It's a little bit of both I think. Either that or you are trying to pump your ego and make sure you are proven correct by shifting public sentiment.

It's not the fact that you are posting your opinion, just the fact you are repeating it over and over across multiple threads in an attempt to sway public opinion. That is almost all you've posted about for days. There are so many people trying to affect the price negatively through FUD like you, that I have made it my mission to defend BTSX. Who are you to say it is hyped or isn't worth it's current evaluation? No one truly knows, all you can do is speculate on its value. No one knows the true value of any Cryptocurrency. You are acting like you are some omniscient being or something.

The asset fee is high because we only want legit (read:quality or large businesses) assets being created on BitsharesX. BitsharesME will come out later this year that will have a much lower asset fee for smaller mom and pop assets.

I think he is way off on the fee amount to create an asset on BTSX anyways, but I don't know the number off the top of my head.