Please discuss. Is the future of crypto in POW?

[tokeweed]

Read this post by ArcticMine

Here is the Ripple agreement. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/05/05/settlement_agreement.pdf Well worth reading especially Appendix A. My take is that a fairly launched POW coin (no pre-mine, insta-mine or ninja-mine) is likely safe. So would a proof of burn such a Counterparty. The rest could easily be currently under investigation. If they are working their way down the market capitalization list, it will be very interesting to see how they react to DASH. I would also suspect Ethereum is in the cross hairs not only of FinCEN but also of the SEC.

If Fincen starts going after IPO/ICO/presaled coins, do you think the future of crypto is in Proof of Work?

[celestio]

Quite possibly.

IPO style coins and etc is basically the selling of unregistered securities and that's illegal. The same accusations can be said against premined and instamined coins as well, if the developers benefited financially through the sale of coins that they acquired unfairly ahead of everyone else through any work of their own such as premining coins ahead of launch, or instamining coins after launch through changing the coin's features, it probably counts as selling unregistered securities.

[Agestorzrxx]

I believe as a currency, bitcoin is the only coin can success.
IPO/ICO style coin can't be a currency, they only could be a platform provide something bitcoin can't provide.

[GTO911]

Nothing beyond where an actual work has to be done to earn value will ever be fair

POW is the only way

[jdebunt]

Nothing beyond where an actual work has to be done to earn value will ever be fair

POW is the only way

Sums it up pretty much. Plus, Ripple is a far different creature than BTC has ever been or will ever be.

[BTC_Superman]

IPO/ICO can not be sustained but Bitcoin will be succeed.

[Shindo1988]

Quite possibly.

IPO style coins and etc is basically the selling of unregistered securities and that's illegal. The same accusations can be said against premined and instamined coins as well, if the developers benefited financially through the sale of coins that they acquired unfairly ahead of everyone else through any work of their own such as premining coins ahead of launch, or instamining coins after launch through changing the coin's features, it probably counts as selling unregistered securities.

I am sorry I don't get what you are saying.
Premine and instamine are illegal because they count as selling unregistered securities?
How so?

[tokeweed]

Quite possibly.

IPO style coins and etc is basically the selling of unregistered securities and that's illegal. The same accusations can be said against premined and instamined coins as well, if the developers benefited financially through the sale of coins that they acquired unfairly ahead of everyone else through any work of their own such as premining coins ahead of launch, or instamining coins after launch through changing the coin's features, it probably counts as selling unregistered securities.

I am sorry I don't get what you are saying.
Premine and instamine are illegal because they count as selling unregistered securities?
How so?

FINCEN could just bunch them altogether with the same case as Ripple.

[Shindo1988]

Quite possibly.

IPO style coins and etc is basically the selling of unregistered securities and that's illegal. The same accusations can be said against premined and instamined coins as well, if the developers benefited financially through the sale of coins that they acquired unfairly ahead of everyone else through any work of their own such as premining coins ahead of launch, or instamining coins after launch through changing the coin's features, it probably counts as selling unregistered securities.

I am sorry I don't get what you are saying.
Premine and instamine are illegal because they count as selling unregistered securities?
How so?

FINCEN could just bunch them altogether with the same case as Ripple.

OK, not that I understand how they are going to do that exactly, but, FinCEN only has jurisdiction in the U.S. right?
So, they can only do that with coins/developers in the U.S. right?

[tokeweed]

Quite possibly.

IPO style coins and etc is basically the selling of unregistered securities and that's illegal. The same accusations can be said against premined and instamined coins as well, if the developers benefited financially through the sale of coins that they acquired unfairly ahead of everyone else through any work of their own such as premining coins ahead of launch, or instamining coins after launch through changing the coin's features, it probably counts as selling unregistered securities.

I am sorry I don't get what you are saying.
Premine and instamine are illegal because they count as selling unregistered securities?
How so?

FINCEN could just bunch them altogether with the same case as Ripple.

OK, not that I understand how they are going to do that exactly, but, FinCEN only has jurisdiction in the U.S. right?
So, they can only do that with coins/developers in the U.S. right?

Oh yeah.  It will also be a problem for them if the devs are anonymous.  It's a pity...  Some projects like Maidsafe or GetGems are really trying to make something.  But FINCEN will come knocking on their door soon.

Im begining to think that POW + anonymous dev + no instamine, premine, ninjamine, everything transparent and honest is the way to go in crypto it seems.

[Shindo1988]

Quite possibly.

IPO style coins and etc is basically the selling of unregistered securities and that's illegal. The same accusations can be said against premined and instamined coins as well, if the developers benefited financially through the sale of coins that they acquired unfairly ahead of everyone else through any work of their own such as premining coins ahead of launch, or instamining coins after launch through changing the coin's features, it probably counts as selling unregistered securities.

I am sorry I don't get what you are saying.
Premine and instamine are illegal because they count as selling unregistered securities?
How so?

FINCEN could just bunch them altogether with the same case as Ripple.

OK, not that I understand how they are going to do that exactly, but, FinCEN only has jurisdiction in the U.S. right?
So, they can only do that with coins/developers in the U.S. right?

Oh yeah.  It will also be a problem for them if the devs are anonymous.  It's a pity...  Some projects like Maidsafe or GetGems are really trying to make something.  But FINCEN will come knocking on their door soon.

That is true.
I am guessing Satoshi does not need to worry about his mined Bitcoins  

[numismatist]

Read this post by ArcticMine

Here is the Ripple agreement. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/05/05/settlement_agreement.pdf Well worth reading especially Appendix A. My take is that a fairly launched POW coin (no pre-mine, insta-mine or ninja-mine) is likely safe. So would a proof of burn such a Counterparty. The rest could easily be currently under investigation. If they are working their way down the market capitalization list, it will be very interesting to see how they react to DASH. I would also suspect Ethereum is in the cross hairs not only of FinCEN but also of the SEC.

If Fincen starts going after IPO/ICO/presaled coins, do you think the future of crypto is in Proof of Work?

FUD. Fincen will continue to eagerly do nothing next several years.

OK, not that I understand how they are going to do that exactly, but, FinCEN only has jurisdiction in the U.S. right?
So, they can only do that with coins/developers in the U.S. right?

Exactly.

[tokeweed]

Read this post by ArcticMine

Here is the Ripple agreement. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/05/05/settlement_agreement.pdf Well worth reading especially Appendix A. My take is that a fairly launched POW coin (no pre-mine, insta-mine or ninja-mine) is likely safe. So would a proof of burn such a Counterparty. The rest could easily be currently under investigation. If they are working their way down the market capitalization list, it will be very interesting to see how they react to DASH. I would also suspect Ethereum is in the cross hairs not only of FinCEN but also of the SEC.

If Fincen starts going after IPO/ICO/presaled coins, do you think the future of crypto is in Proof of Work?

FUD. Fincen will continue to eagerly do nothing next several years.

OK, not that I understand how they are going to do that exactly, but, FinCEN only has jurisdiction in the U.S. right?
So, they can only do that with coins/developers in the U.S. right?

Exactly.

FUD?  It already happened.  FINCEN already went after Ripple Labs.  And to think Ripple was already going for compliance.

FINCEN may not have jurisdiction outside the US, but they would def come after the ones operating inside it.

[Shindo1988]

Read this post by ArcticMine

Here is the Ripple agreement. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/05/05/settlement_agreement.pdf Well worth reading especially Appendix A. My take is that a fairly launched POW coin (no pre-mine, insta-mine or ninja-mine) is likely safe. So would a proof of burn such a Counterparty. The rest could easily be currently under investigation. If they are working their way down the market capitalization list, it will be very interesting to see how they react to DASH. I would also suspect Ethereum is in the cross hairs not only of FinCEN but also of the SEC.

If Fincen starts going after IPO/ICO/presaled coins, do you think the future of crypto is in Proof of Work?

FUD. Fincen will continue to eagerly do nothing next several years.

OK, not that I understand how they are going to do that exactly, but, FinCEN only has jurisdiction in the U.S. right?
So, they can only do that with coins/developers in the U.S. right?

Exactly.

FUD?  It already happened.  FINCEN already went after Ripple Labs.  And to think Ripple was already going for compliance.

FINCEN may not have jurisdiction outside the US, but they would def come after the ones operating inside it.

They could simply go to another country can they?
What are they going to do to them if they operate from abroad?

[Amph]

well there aren't many good alternatives besides pow, pos is inferior, pob shares some of the same weakness of pos(https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=131139.msg1404587#msg1404587), then you have a bunch of silly proof of x no-sense, that aren't even taken in consideration

i'm still with POW, because there isn't something really better

[tokeweed]

Read this post by ArcticMine

Here is the Ripple agreement. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/05/05/settlement_agreement.pdf Well worth reading especially Appendix A. My take is that a fairly launched POW coin (no pre-mine, insta-mine or ninja-mine) is likely safe. So would a proof of burn such a Counterparty. The rest could easily be currently under investigation. If they are working their way down the market capitalization list, it will be very interesting to see how they react to DASH. I would also suspect Ethereum is in the cross hairs not only of FinCEN but also of the SEC.

If Fincen starts going after IPO/ICO/presaled coins, do you think the future of crypto is in Proof of Work?

FUD. Fincen will continue to eagerly do nothing next several years.

OK, not that I understand how they are going to do that exactly, but, FinCEN only has jurisdiction in the U.S. right?
So, they can only do that with coins/developers in the U.S. right?

Exactly.

FUD?  It already happened.  FINCEN already went after Ripple Labs.  And to think Ripple was already going for compliance.

FINCEN may not have jurisdiction outside the US, but they would def come after the ones operating inside it.

They could simply go to another country can they?
What are they going to do to them if they operate from abroad?

It's not about what FINCEN can do to crypto.  It's about crypto losing a big chunk of its market/users, and potential users.

I repeat...  Im begining to think that POW + anonymous dev + no instamine, premine, ninjamine, everything transparent and honest is the way to go in crypto it seems.

[Q7]

I don't know how they will ensure it's a fairly launched coin the fact that I've never seen one before having achieved that but I see the approach is still not to rely solely on pow but a combination of both pow and pos being applied together. Until somebody finds a better way we still have to rely on this two.

[shulio]

FINCEN may not have jurisdiction outside the US, but they would def come after the ones operating inside it.

If this is the case then those operate outside of US may be safe and also that most developers are hiding behind TOR, it will be hard for FINCEN to track them down

Read this post by ArcticMine

Here is the Ripple agreement. http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/05/05/settlement_agreement.pdf Well worth reading especially Appendix A. My take is that a fairly launched POW coin (no pre-mine, insta-mine or ninja-mine) is likely safe. So would a proof of burn such a Counterparty. The rest could easily be currently under investigation. If they are working their way down the market capitalization list, it will be very interesting to see how they react to DASH. I would also suspect Ethereum is in the cross hairs not only of FinCEN but also of the SEC.

If Fincen starts going after IPO/ICO/presaled coins, do you think the future of crypto is in Proof of Work?

This is actually funny because the coins that satoshi first mined were consider to be instamine as well isnt it? Good thing that satoshi's identity is unknown

It's not about what FINCEN can do to crypto.  It's about crypto losing a big chunk of its market/users, and potential users.

I repeat...  Im begining to think that POW + anonymous dev + no instamine, premine, ninjamine, everything transparent and honest is the way to go in crypto it seems.

Crypto will not be losing potential user because if it is not about bitcoin than people will actually dont care about it. I would say it is better if the dev is not anonimous since anyone who hide behind anonimous thing is considered to not be honest

[tokeweed]

^ No arguments there.  Makes a for a good point that POW is crypto's only true path even with the 'instamine'.

[cyberpinoy]

This will depend on how the POW coin is developed.

Bitcoin was the first of its kind, and most of its protocol was based on things that are no loner a factor of the equation. The founders did not factor in for GPU Mining much less ASICS, and this is right now the downfall of Bitcoin. Large farms are manipulating the bitcoin network, whether people want to admit it or not. the original design was based on basic computer computational power and did not factor in the use of much faster machines like ASICS. the 2016 block difficulty re-target is killing bitcoin right now, 35 minute to 2 hour confirms, this is because the network is being manipulated.  I mean look at the difficulty compared to reward right now, not lets move into the future a bit, and think where will that difficulty be when the block reward is 3 BTC per block found? how many machines will you need to successfully mine 3 whole BTC. with the continual downward movement in price this does not look so good for bitcoins future.

Everyone thinks, "oh it will be ok as people leave the mining scene the difficulty will go down. But think about this, let's say i have 20PHS of mining power and I point that hash at the BTC network on block 2000 of the 2016 re-target mark, Once the 2016th block has been processed and the difficulty re-target takes place I move that 20 PHS off the bitcoin network and mine other coins( or If I am a real asshole and am doing it just to hurt bitcoin I just turn the mine off) and I do this that way every time the block re-target some up? what happens to bitcoin difficulty then? if you think this is already not happening? your naive, why do you think it is we have 35 minute to 2 hour confirmation times, because the network does not have the hash to support the difficulty.

In addition to this the blind faith lovers of bitcoin will say, Oh when the reward goes down the demand will go up, why, because there is such a huge demand for bitcoin, what is that demand, silk road is gone, look at the price, hackers are stealing every coin they can get any way they can get it, unethical companies scamming people, unprofitable investment opportunities ran by the most greedy of people.  What is this imaginary demand you feel will take over? By the time the reward gets to 3 BTC per solved block there will be more BTC on the market than can be used. Hence why we have nothing but downward sideways movement at the present. There is no real demand for the coin, and what Bitcoin had for it (illegal or not) has died and will not come back, as it proved to be less anonymous than it advertised.

Now what this does for other POW coins is give a little leighway for new and emerging coins to prosper a bit faster, but at the same time hurt them, as a new coin comes out the difficulty skyrockets when any large miner or mining farm or even a multipool adds it to the list. It has no ability to gradually move into the difficulty, but the lowering block difficulty re-target really helps to stabilize this situation.

I do not think the Future of the coins rest in POW, i think it rests in POS coins, this is the system that was meant to support POW coins like bitcoin, thier estimations were based on many computers adding their processing power to support the network, not huge mining farms with tons of ASICs.