btc

[ArticMine]

It has been around for slightly over a year and trades on Poloniex. https://www.poloniex.com/ If one wants a POW coin that does not have the fixed blocksize issue then the Cryptonote https://cryptonote.org/whitepaper.pdf coins are the way to go and Monero is the strongest and most liquid. It goes without saying that it is imperative to do one's research first.

Thanks, I don't visit the altcoin section much so I don't really know anything about it. I'm looking for something stable to transfer a percentage of my coins into until the current drama shakes out. I really just want something that holds its value well relative to btc. I'll check it out.

You are very welcome. Ironically I found out about XMR in 2014 while researching the 1 MB blocksize limit.

[Amph]

What can PPC do?

nothing that bitcoin can't

it's a coin that combine pos with pow, and has not a cap limit like doge(i think doge copyed it) plu 1% interest on the minting, with all this ppc is aiming at a good scalability

personally i choosed litecoin, because i find it as a natural successor of bitcoin

dogecoin is not seirous enough i guess, and i don't like infinite supply

ppc same as doge because of inflation caused by infinite supply

ripple and stellar are the same crap(too much centralization)

nxt was heavily instamined and now it's pure pos, i don't like it

bitshares feels like a scam

[pereira4]

I dont think we need any other coin than Bitcoin, with or without fork Bitcoin will keep adapting and solving any problems. I am tho a pro-monero guy, I think its a great coin and like the anonymity. Not sure if could reach mainstream status tho, a super anonymous coin with no chance of being non-anonymous has tons of cons to reach mainstream status.

[liondani]

If they are smart and independent they will pick up the best futures from the mentioned coins...

I think they are "smart"...
but are they really... free?

[iCEBREAKER]

I am tho a pro-monero guy, I think its a great coin and like the anonymity.

Monero uses an auto-adjusting dynamic block size so tps aren't an issue.

LOL at the old fashioned static block sizes in the OP.   

[Fuserleer]

Directed here from a different thread by OP

Are there any documented tests or better yet real world activity & evidence on these 3

Stellar – 300 TPS
NXT – 1000 TPS
BitShares 100,000 TPS

the 300 & 1000 TPS might just be possible to achieve a peak on a block chain tech with a controlled test environment....I remember a long while ago NXT was touting about something called "transparent forging", but I've lost touch with what they were up to recently.  Even so, I would be very surprised if either of the 2 could sustain that load, in a true P2P decentralized fashion over time, so I'd like to see some evidence

The 100,000 TPS that BitShares claim on block chain based tech is not possible.  So this must have something to do with the 100 super-nodes or whatever they are called, or dedicated nodes which process these transactions in a different manner to everyone else, which doesn't count in my opinion as its then (semi)centralized.  However I can't find any information anywhere on this supposed 100,000 TPS figure, what is your source?

[hodlmybtc]

Definately Monero if you only look at TPS, but I doubt more than 1% of buyers are buying because of that, it's just a nice addition.

[kazuki49]

None of the above.

Monero (XMR) as the leading Cryptonote coin has no fixed blocksize limit and so no built in TPS limitation. It can scale easily with the growth in Bandwidth, CPU, Memory, Storage etc. It is currently 14 on the list.

[johnyj]

In today's network infrastructure, none of the coins can reach 100TPS if there are serious amount of traffic on it

This is because: With faster block generation, you have much less time to broadcast the block to the whole network before the next block arrives and orphan your block. Only those very small blocks will reach the whole network quickly in time, but small blocks does not contain any meaningful number of transactions

It will take 1-2 minutes to broadcast 2000 transactions (about 1MB) to the whole network, that is the hard number, no matter what kind of coin design, this number can only be improved with better network infrastructure around the world

[Sparky_eMunie]

There is one item missing in the poll:

Magic Bean Coin - 100,001 TPS

[Sparky_eMunie]

I like what you've done with e-munie.  You should come work for the BitShares blockchain.  Just submit a proposal, and the community would certainly vote you into a paid position (that's how BitShares members fund development).

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/board,61.0.html?PHPSESSID=2170a8f0b09b8fa2bdc7d35908ab4517

You are joking, aren't you? In the eMunie project we've discovered almost two years ago that the blockchain is a deadend and started basically from scratch. Now we should go back to the blockchain?

[didnottell]

blockchain = a clayman

[iCEBREAKER]

Monero uses an auto-adjusting dynamic block size so tps aren't an issue.

The problem with the Monero code is that it is anonymous, and bitcoin is transparent.  

Transparency is an option in Monero.

Mixin zero for transparency.

Mixin >zero for privacy.

[Amph]

I highly doubt that the bitcoin community would want to give up their transparency for anonymity.

how so? many just want this from bitcoin, and i'm one of these, it would be a blessing to have fully anon on bitcoin, only bank want it to be transaparent

i can still understand that without regulation fully adoption, maybe will never happen

but zerocoin is coming anyway

[liondani]

Monero uses an auto-adjusting dynamic block size so tps aren't an issue.

The problem with the Monero code is that it is anonymous, and bitcoin is transparent.  

Transparency is an option in Monero.

Mixin zero for transparency.

Mixin >zero for privacy.

very interesting!

[Lauda]

OP you forgot to add something to the poll: None.
Let me just put this here:

Looks like the more centralized/scammish a coin gets, the faster the transactions.

Whoever thinks that altcoins have superior technology should ask themselves a single question: Why isn't someone trying to implement it into Bitcoin?
None of the altcoins currently present offer anything worth the time of the current developers. Since you're already talking about incorporating new technologies into Bitcoin, we should rather stick with Side chains and see what happens.

Transparency is an option in Monero.

Mixin zero for transparency.
Mixin >zero for privacy.

Even though I have respect for Monero (especially fluffy), this is a no. Even though the coin is good, that's not the right path for Bitcoin.


NXT and BitShares are the worst suggestions that you could have pulled from the Altcoin section. It would be better if we used Trollcoin.  

[didnottell]

..it'll soon dawn on everyone which is the only No 1 - on it's own list that is - w/o comparison..
..and - no - I'll not tell you - you'll know it when it's here..

[ragi]

Litecoin or Peercoin!

[Kazimir]

BitShares = centralized scamcoin, how the f*ck can anyone put that in the "top 10".

[Lauda]

Easy, because bitcoin cannot change (without crashing the price and bringing uncertainty into the community concerning future changes to the rules that govern our money).  Bitcoin is digital gold, and gold is money.  Gold is not scalable to Visa/MasterCard levels, and that's OK.  Gavin is trying to make gold into something that it is not by increasing the degree of centralization in order to process more transactions.  Why doesn't he just have the protocol process the transactions with the highest fees first?

-snip-

I was just offering options since we are about to get forked, we might as well choose protocol changes that benefit the little guy instead of just the big miners (like these current TPS increase proposals which will eliminate the cartel's competition over time).  Why should we not adopt DPOS so that all coinholders can vote on future hard forks?  Because we love not having a say in what monetary rule changes occur, because if we did, then we would be fighting for representation in Gavinment.  You might not want your voice to be heard, but the people in the BitShares community would not have it any other way.

In any case you need to realize that you're going to get highly (!) inaccurate results on this poll when it comes to those altcoins. They will probably group up and vote for their selective coins rather than actually thinking about this.
I'm going to answer this all in one. I don't think that you're right. Bitcoin can not change when it comes to the fundamental rules that were set, however there are many technologies in the altcoin world (raging from instant transactions and master nodes (DASH) to ring signatures and so on). I've already argued that while Side chains might have a great potential, they have a major drawback which is network complexity. This is something that would start becoming a huge problem if we start hand picking and adding things.
If you've been following and participating in the Bitcoin part of the forum here as I have (a certain period back in time from now), then you would see that there are only a few people who are true Bitcoin supporters that actually support some altcoin. Anyone who comes here and says: "Hey Coin X is the right option."; is most likely doing so because of their own stake in Coin X.

that's not the right path for Bitcoin.

Hey, you have an opinion, that's cool.  It' just too bad that you cannot vote on what "path for Bitcoin" you think is best for you.  The path has been chosen and it is best for the mining cartels.   And there is not a thing that we can do to change what is about to happen to us.  If this fork passes without a fight, then Gavin has proven that he controls the cartels and that he can get whatever he wants passed in the future (and who is certain that they know exactly what Gavin wants?)

I was specifically talking about Monero when I said that. It's not my opinion.


As I've previously stated in another thread, someone should definitely make a explanation to the pros and cons to Side chains (one of the developers or someone like D&T) in addition to explaining why incorporating technology X from altcoin Y isn't the right way to go (if that is the case according to them). Even after (if) someone does this, there would still be people trying to waste everyone's time proving otherwise.