Is wide distribution valuable ?

[Derrike]

Bitcoin network is so weak that even after 5 years of maturity it has disruptions of basic functionality.

So basically you are referring to Bitcoin as a shit coin.
And that's why the block chain is not hacked till now.
And 5 Years is just a scratch against the whole fiat system.

[1713585322]

1713585322

[1713585322]

1713585322

[1713585322]

1713585322

[1713585322]

1713585322

[1713585322]

1713585322

[1713585322]

1713585322

[AtheistAKASaneBrain]

We can't have a perfect distribution. I guess the closest to being good is bitcoin distribution. But if are talking about altcoins created some years after that
I see huge disproportions and backscene shady movement all the time. Distribution of a coin is not a feature it is a upshot of coin being good or bad.

Do you have any proof that "we can't" ?
It's convenient statement for early adopters, but is it true statement ? I doubt.
Prove it.

People give failing examples of distribution all the time (BTC, NEM, NXT, BTSX, AUR), but each one of them did not do the right thing, so those examples don't prove anything. There are millions of ways to fail, but we need one to succeed.

As for bitcoin distribution, even if it's currently the best (which I doubt), it's still not good enough and, unlike NXT, it cannot even get better due to weak algo. From my perspective bitcoin is dead and those merchants who bet on it investing into software that accepts bitcoin payments are fools. BTC rate may still fly for some time, but I would never keep my capital in it or do any development for it. I use it solely for quick conversion from fiat to NXT and ICOs.

Yes I have proof: Human nature. We aren't the same, some people is more skilled than other, smarter, clever, stronger, whatever, and profit from it. The early adopters in Bitcoin where smarter, more aware, visionaries that took the risk of getting involved into something worthless at the time. It is natural that they are compensated with more coins, simple as that.

[Amph]

The problem with wide ditribution is that you are giving it mostly to people that don't want it or that think it has no value.

basically 99% of the people around the world, who will dump at the first opportunity, i'm still wondering if those same people will ever embrace something like bitcoin, if they do not believe in it

and when bitcoin will be big, it will be too late for them anyway...

"too late" is the problem, this is the source of unfairness. Why do they have to buy at price much higher than early investors ?
It does not have to be that way. There are many other places on earth where people can gamble if they want to. Why force them to gamble just to own some crypto ?

Bitcoin will never be big. When I read that it's best to not transfer bitcoin for several days due to some Chinese miners relying on other miners for hashing disrupting network operations without evil intent, I can only laugh. Bitcoin network is so weak that even after 5 years of maturity it has disruptions of basic functionality.

that was true only for SPV client, last core client will not be affected by those problem, that's why i only use core

bitcoin is still in the beta because of this reason, and as long as new problem keep emerge it will remain in beta i believe, but this does not mean that it can not grow and be accepted widely

i still think that bitcoin can find its place on a niche market in the case it will not work as a global mainstream currency

[duphash]

Bitcoin network is so weak that even after 5 years of maturity it has disruptions of basic functionality.

So basically you are referring to Bitcoin as a shit coin.
And that's why the block chain is not hacked till now.
And 5 Years is just a scratch against the whole fiat system.

Yes, bitcoin is shit coin. It just happened to get traction because of SilkRoad and some other powerful groups.
It may have good technicals now, that makes it profitable short term, but it definitely has bad fundamentals that makes it deadend long term investment. No wonder bitcoin is currently one of Ryan's picks 😁 along with list of other shit coins.

I think it's best for everybody to take loss, abandon bitcoin ship selling on peaks, and move on to better avenues. Bitcoin hurts crypto scene big time. It's vulnerabilities scare people away from all cryptos considering that they hear that bitcoin is major representative of whole crypto environment. This shit coin should not represent us like major coin anymore. It discredited itself many times and it hurts crypto image.

[duphash]

We can't have a perfect distribution. I guess the closest to being good is bitcoin distribution. But if are talking about altcoins created some years after that
I see huge disproportions and backscene shady movement all the time. Distribution of a coin is not a feature it is a upshot of coin being good or bad.

Do you have any proof that "we can't" ?
It's convenient statement for early adopters, but is it true statement ? I doubt.
Prove it.

People give failing examples of distribution all the time (BTC, NEM, NXT, BTSX, AUR), but each one of them did not do the right thing, so those examples don't prove anything. There are millions of ways to fail, but we need one to succeed.

As for bitcoin distribution, even if it's currently the best (which I doubt), it's still not good enough and, unlike NXT, it cannot even get better due to weak algo. From my perspective bitcoin is dead and those merchants who bet on it investing into software that accepts bitcoin payments are fools. BTC rate may still fly for some time, but I would never keep my capital in it or do any development for it. I use it solely for quick conversion from fiat to NXT and ICOs.

Yes I have proof: Human nature. We aren't the same, some people is more skilled than other, smarter, clever, stronger, whatever, and profit from it. The early adopters in Bitcoin where smarter, more aware, visionaries that took the risk of getting involved into something worthless at the time. It is natural that they are compensated with more coins, simple as that.

They were compensated mostly because they were not busy doing other things and were hanging out in forums. I was visionary too looking for mathematically enforced constitution of the United States that does not rely on people's votes, but I was too busy to look for opportunities. Do you think I would not invest few hundreds into BTC after I invested thousands into failing stocks ? I have no doubt I would. And I would now if there was one major crypto coin with good fundamentals.

[odolvlobo]

I believe the distributions of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Netflix stocks are unfair. Everyone in the world should be able to buy shares at their IPO prices today. It is totally unfair. waaaaaaaaaa

Envy is such an ugly thing. Don't you think?

Oh, and if anyone wants to get Maxcoin at an early adopter price of $1, I'll be glad to sell up to 1 million of them.

[duphash]

I believe the distributions of Apple, Microsoft, Google, Facebook, and Netflix stocks are unfair. Everyone in the world should be able to buy shares at their IPO prices today. It is totally unfair. waaaaaaaaaa

Envy is such an ugly thing. Don't you think?

Oh, and if anyone wants to get Maxcoin at an early adopter price of $1, I'll be glad to sell up to 1 million of them.

No, those shares don't pretend to be decentralized business, so they don't have to be distributed fairly to be useful.
They don't pretend to become medium of value exchange and don't have goal of price stability (though funny thing that they are more stable than majority of crypto).

But considering that they are based on income from useful services, they would be best candidates for crypto if distributed widely and fairly as a token redeemable for their services. Currently Google does not offer any service in exchange for it's stock. But if this stock is to become currency - it must do that. It's like with trading oil through dollars. Why not skip conversion into dollar and pay for appengine, ads, gmail with Google tokens ? Why not pay Microsoft with msft tokens ? Why people are not allowed to prepay for future services from these companies but only allowed to speculate with their stock ? The answer is - taxation that requires everything to be valued in fiat disallowing barter of service in exchange for tokens.

How do I know if maxcoin will not significantly drop in price ?
What kind of tech does it have making it fundamentally successful ?

[duphash]

Envy is such an ugly thing. Don't you think?

Probably. But that is off topic. Replacing objective debate with personal attacks is a sign of weakness. I also consider it abuse of communication for the purpose of winning debate. Please don't abuse communication to win your point.

There are rules that don't need to be broken in any debate and those who break them only show weakness of their point of view and reduce efficiency of a debate.

One rule is do not change subject unless it helps you to objectively prove your point.
Second rule - do not put words into somebody's mouth. Don't assume, just ask.
Third rule - do not debate about intentions, debate about facts.
Fourth rule - do not joke without explicitly indicating that this was a joke. Joking can be used to conveniently back off wrong opinion without losing credibility, not that credibility matters much in objective conversation anyway, but it adds noise and waste of time.
Fifth rule - do not ask questions before getting answers on previous questions assuming how those answers will look like.
Sixth rule - do not interpret timing of response as part of an answer. Don't interpret silence as agreement or lack of knowledge.
Seventh rule - do not lie. Everybody can be objective about a subject even if their stakes are being hurt by discussion. It is not true that people have opinions based on their stakes. If discussion hurts your investments, just don't participate and if you do then don't abuse and don't lie.

[odolvlobo]

Envy is such an ugly thing. Don't you think?

Probably. But that is off topic. Replacing objective debate with personal attacks is a sign of weakness. I also consider it abuse of communication for the purpose of winning debate. Please don't abuse communication to win your point.

[Off-topic explanation of debate etiquette ...]

Sorry. I guess I could have stated it this way instead:

Posts about unfair distribution are off-topic, but I am compelled respond to them anyway by saying that I believe that people complaining of an unfair distribution of Bitcoin are driven primarily by envy.

I always thought that having wide distribution has huge benefit to a coin, especially PoS coin.
But recently someone told me that it has only slight benefit.

I thought that widely distributed coin will not have risks of pumps and consequently dumps.
Some debate that AUR was widely distributed and dumped.

I object saying that it was initially pumped only because of poor initial distribution before airdrop and also did not have useful features.
If it had same qualities as Ether or NXT and was not allowed to be traded before airdrop is finished then it would not be pumped dumped.

I agree that a wide distribution is best and I agree with your response to the example of AUR.

However, a wide distribution is difficult for something that most people don't know about or care about. And as I wrote before, distributing nearly worthless currencies to people that don't care about them is ineffective.

Even the distributions of NXT and Ether are very narrow, as they are only distributed to the people that care about them now. If they are as successful as Bitcoin in the future, those currencies will also be considered narrowly distributed.

[duphash]

Envy is such an ugly thing. Don't you think?

Probably. But that is off topic. Replacing objective debate with personal attacks is a sign of weakness. I also consider it abuse of communication for the purpose of winning debate. Please don't abuse communication to win your point.

[Off-topic explanation of debate etiquette ...]

Sorry. I guess I could have stated it this way instead:

Posts about unfair distribution are off-topic, but I am compelled respond to them anyway by saying that I believe that people complaining of an unfair distribution of Bitcoin are driven primarily by envy.

I always thought that having wide distribution has huge benefit to a coin, especially PoS coin.
But recently someone told me that it has only slight benefit.

I thought that widely distributed coin will not have risks of pumps and consequently dumps.
Some debate that AUR was widely distributed and dumped.

I object saying that it was initially pumped only because of poor initial distribution before airdrop and also did not have useful features.
If it had same qualities as Ether or NXT and was not allowed to be traded before airdrop is finished then it would not be pumped dumped.

I agree that a wide distribution is best and I agree with your response to the example of AUR.

However, a wide distribution is difficult for something that most people don't know about or care about. And as I wrote before, distributing nearly worthless currencies to people that don't care about them is ineffective.

Even the distributions of NXT and Ether are very narrow, as they are only distributed to the people that care about them now. If they are as successful as Bitcoin in the future, those currencies will also be considered narrowly distributed.

I already consider NXT and Ether narrowly distributed. One indication is limited time of IPO distribution. Ether can still fix it because not all coins are distributed yet. NXT can fix it too if big holders make that choice.

I suggested to keep distributing at IPO price for long term, what is wrong with my suggestion ?
I did not suggest to give it to people for free.

[odolvlobo]

I already consider NXT and Ether narrowly distributed. One indication is limited time of IPO distribution. Ether can still fix it because not all coins are distributed yet. NXT can fix it too if big holders make that choice.

I suggested to keep distributing at IPO price for long term, what is wrong with my suggestion ?
I did not suggest to give it to people for free.

Nothing is wrong with your suggestion. It has been done before. When the dollar was on the gold standard, then you could always get a dollar for a fixed amount of gold. China's currency (as well as those of a few other countries) can be bought for a fixed amount of dollars.

The term "pegged" is used to describe a currency whose value is fixed to the value of another asset, generally a currency or commodity. Typically, the peg is requires a person or organization to guarantee that the currency can always be exchanged for the underlying asset.

There are a few "pegged" cryptocurrencies, but they are generally very small because they rely on trusting the operator to maintain its pledge to exchange the currency for the underlying asset.

There are are a few ramifications:

1. The value of the currency is never more than the underlying asset because you can always get it at the pegged rate.
2. In order to maintain the value at the peg, the currency has to be at least as useful as the underlying asset, or the issuer must promise to also buy it at the peg, no matter what.
3. If the value of the underlying asset goes down, so does the value of the currency.

In effect, you are suggesting a currency that acts as a substitute for the underlying asset.

[duphash]

I already consider NXT and Ether narrowly distributed. One indication is limited time of IPO distribution. Ether can still fix it because not all coins are distributed yet. NXT can fix it too if big holders make that choice.

I suggested to keep distributing at IPO price for long term, what is wrong with my suggestion ?
I did not suggest to give it to people for free.

...
There are are a few ramifications:

1. The value of the currency is never more than the underlying asset because you can always get it at the pegged rate.
2. In order to maintain the value at the peg, the currency has to be at least as useful as the underlying asset, or the issuer must promise to also buy it at the peg, no matter what.
3. If the value of the underlying asset goes down, so does the value of the currency.

In effect, you are suggesting a currency that acts as a substitute for the underlying asset.

About ramifications:
1. I disagree. The value of crypto coins can be more, but people can still buy it for the same low price from issuer or distributor. They will buy like crazy, knowing that value of what they buy is more. They will even borrow fiat to buy more of it. They will stop buying when they got nothing to pay with. When people buy like crazy distribution becomes wide. Example - when people bought cheap gold for dollars before gold standard peg ended, gold achieved wide distribution, so wide that govts had to confiscate it and start world war 2 to reclaim monopoly on gold.

2. Yes, issuer can and will promise. After all, we trust big holders of NXT and BTC to not dump it on us, which serves as promise to be able to redeem at reasonable price from somebody on the market.

3. To solve it we would have to trust issuer to adjust sell order price accordingly. Or we can just assume that assets that we accept in exchange for coins have stable value. We could accept very broad ETFs or stocks of big and stable companies. But that problem exists only if coin value is less than redeemable asset. Once coin takes off and it's value greatly exceeds value of redeemable asset, this problem will not exist. People will not redeem at loss, unless they urgently need that asset.
Once issuer sell order is completely purchased, people will be able to sell at higher prices. Until then they are locked in their investment even if it has super high ROI.
Long term locking will also help to deter borrowing making sure people invest only what they own - their savings.
That will help to prevent premature exhaustion of issuer sell order and subsequent bubbles and contractions.

But if we accept PoHW (proof of human work) in exchange for tokens then problem of trust to issuer does not exist because there is nothing valuable to redeem. Image recognition can be successfully used as PoHW.

We could also give 2 options - to buy with fiat or give PoHW.
Those from poor countries will get coins with PoHW. Those from rich would buy with fiat.
In this case only those who paid in fiat will be able to redeem. Or we will not provide redemption option at all and spend collected fiat on development and marketing.
Amount of fiat should be comparable to average labor cost on the planet to get a coin with PoHW.

We could also give people opportunity to pick middle ground multiplying fiat amount by PoHW amount so that lower income people would choose to work more, but spend less fiat, and higher income people would choose to spend more fiat and work less.

[botany]

The term "pegged" is used to describe a currency whose value is fixed to the value of another asset, generally a currency or commodity. Typically, the peg is requires a person or organization to guarantee that the currency can always be exchanged for the underlying asset.

This is a big requirement of trust and cryptocurrencies don't work well  with trust.
Lots of professional traders went bust when the Swiss government decided to remove the pegged floor to the Euro. So you will have to be certain about the peg and the person/institution guaranteeing the peg. 

[Derrike]

Bitcoin network is so weak that even after 5 years of maturity it has disruptions of basic functionality.

So basically you are referring to Bitcoin as a shit coin.
And that's why the block chain is not hacked till now.
And 5 Years is just a scratch against the whole fiat system.

Yes, bitcoin is shit coin. It just happened to get traction because of SilkRoad and some other powerful groups.
It may have good technicals now, that makes it profitable short term, but it definitely has bad fundamentals that makes it deadend long term investment. No wonder bitcoin is currently one of Ryan's picks 😁 along with list of other shit coins.

I think it's best for everybody to take loss, abandon bitcoin ship selling on peaks, and move on to better avenues. Bitcoin hurts crypto scene big time. It's vulnerabilities scare people away from all cryptos considering that they hear that bitcoin is major representative of whole crypto environment. This shit coin should not represent us like major coin anymore. It discredited itself many times and it hurts crypto image.

So that you think that THE BITCOIN IS A SHIT COIN then why are you on THE BITCOINTALK FORUM???

You must leave the forum if you think that Bitcoin is a shit coin.

[Pk880058]

If the distribution isn't proper and accountable then yes it is valuable.

But the developers are known to be run away by dumping the coins when they see the prices rising.
And those coins sucks.

[duphash]

Bitcoin network is so weak that even after 5 years of maturity it has disruptions of basic functionality.

So basically you are referring to Bitcoin as a shit coin.
And that's why the block chain is not hacked till now.
And 5 Years is just a scratch against the whole fiat system.

Yes, bitcoin is shit coin...

So that you think that THE BITCOIN IS A SHIT COIN then why are you on THE BITCOINTALK FORUM???

You must leave the forum if you think that Bitcoin is a shit coin.

I am on this forum because it serves as forum for all crypto.
Bitcoin became word that represents all crypto and I try to show people important difference between specifically BTC and crypto coins in general.

Even if it was bitcoin only forum, why must I leave if I have unfavorable for BTC opinion that I can logically prove ?

Is the purpose of this forum to maintain artificial peg BTC = good coin by suppressing negative opinions ?

[HeroCat]

Wide distribution is the only way, if you want that your crypto coin will be popular 

[Derrike]

Bitcoin network is so weak that even after 5 years of maturity it has disruptions of basic functionality.

So basically you are referring to Bitcoin as a shit coin.
And that's why the block chain is not hacked till now.
And 5 Years is just a scratch against the whole fiat system.

Yes, bitcoin is shit coin...

So that you think that THE BITCOIN IS A SHIT COIN then why are you on THE BITCOINTALK FORUM???

You must leave the forum if you think that Bitcoin is a shit coin.

I am on this forum because it serves as forum for all crypto.
Bitcoin became word that represents all crypto and I try to show people important difference between specifically BTC and crypto coins in general.

Even if it was bitcoin only forum, why must I leave if I have unfavorable for BTC opinion that I can logically prove ?

Is the purpose of this forum to maintain artificial peg BTC = good coin by suppressing negative opinions ?

It is not at all logical, as the bitcoin network is the strongest network of all crypto.
And it is the father of all cryptocoins and also it is the first crypto coin mankind has ever seen, so it can have some flaws and developers are looking for ways to correct those.

[duphash]

Bitcoin network is so weak that even after 5 years of maturity it has disruptions of basic functionality.

So basically you are referring to Bitcoin as a shit coin.
And that's why the block chain is not hacked till now.
And 5 Years is just a scratch against the whole fiat system.

Yes, bitcoin is shit coin...

So that you think that THE BITCOIN IS A SHIT COIN then why are you on THE BITCOINTALK FORUM???

You must leave the forum if you think that Bitcoin is a shit coin.

...I can logically prove ...

It is not at all logical, as the bitcoin network is the strongest network of all crypto.
And it is the father of all cryptocoins and also it is the first crypto coin mankind has ever seen, so it can have some flaws and developers are looking for ways to correct those.

No, bitcoin network is not strongest as of today.
 It had many failures and technical weaknesses that allowed Mt Gox to exist longer than desirable.
Recent weeks advice to not send bitcoin for several days shows that the network is still weak.
When was the last time VISA advised to avoid using credit cards for several days ?


Just because it has respectable status of father does not make it right to hide it's weaknesses from new investors.
Do I admire Satoshi's invention - yes, very much. If I was asked to donate him some coins as charity - sure I would. But investment and charity are 2 different things.
Do I think we should keep advertising bad tech for investments - no.
Do I think we should keep advertising it for charity and historical value - yes.
May be BTC should be considered rare collectors coin. But no one uses collectors coins for everyday business.

So if someone issues fixed number of physical coins that are very hard to fake and sells them for 1000 BTC each only to long term dormant BTC account holders that would make a lot of sense. It will remove risk of dump and will give collectors their rare coins that preserve value through rarity and historical significance. They can keep sitting on them till death, but they will no longer represent risk for new BTC investors because it will be impossible to dump BTC price by selling these rarities.

Once these flaws in BTC are fixed, I will change my opinion.
But what if it's impossible to fix them ?
What if BTC devs are on govt payroll to keep flaws for as long as possible ?
What if major miners will not accept these changes ?
What if miners are on govt payroll ?
It's not done until it's done.

[duphash]

I do not think wide distribution is needed, but to avoid the opposite is quite desirable (why would you trust in a coin which is 90% holded by only one person?). Of course with massive adoption wide distribution will be achieved to some extent (or my idea of wide distribution is wrong?).

Yes, avoiding the opposite is my goal.
When I say wide, I don't mean 100% equal and also I don't mean fair.
Wide means that majority of small holders hold 90% and minority of big holders hold 10%.
Each small holder should not have more than 0.00001% of coins. If any holder has more than that, he is considered major holder and counted towards 10% cap.

Distribution is bad when minority owns more than 50% and has power to take it all from majority through dumping or disruption of network.

Big holders from minority will work hard and invest into coin development.
Passive majority will sit idle, but serve as guarantor of distributed ownership preventing pumps by taking profit selling during pump attempts and buying during dump attempts.

The problem with current coins is that there is no proof of wide distribution.
Many accounts could be owned by one person just to fake wide distribution.
Which is why I suggest to conduct crypto census after convincing everybody to participate because that proof will be valuable and give incredible boost from new investors. Those coins who cannot prove will be left behind.

Of course, if those 10% rich devs or investors abandon the project then coin will die, which is why census can bring value only to long standing coins with good history of development like BTC, NXT, etc.