What 2.0 Currency will be the most successful?

[mill0601]

@nzminer

With all due respect - you probably can't enter eMunie in that poll list for 2 reasons:

• It has only been tested in the founder group, and older obsolete versions with a few beta-testers also.
• It is not just a 'coin' - it is a complete, comprehensive package, which you will experience after it goes live, and expanding in the future.

I am no seer into the future, but I would not be surprised if your poll list will become obsolete.
Once eMunie launches it will probably rank more as a 3.0 compared to the rest being 2.0
Again - let's see what the future holds - noone knows yet.

The biggest issue with Emunie is most people stopped following it (myself included) after repeatedly missing deadlines. Literally every single deadline has been pushed back months to years.

[1715017653]

1715017653

[1715017653]

1715017653

[1715017653]

1715017653

[nihilnegativum]

maidsafe

[Peachy]

Good things come to those who wait.

[thinkinger]

i dont think any of these will be a year later.

[Abiky]

Well, lets take a look at reality at the moment shall we? First of all, Ethereum would be one of the most successful 2.0 currencies out there because it had a great ICO (if I'm not wrong) and good features such as a decentralized platform for applications. And second, Bitshares might be a good player here considering that fact that it has smartchain technology and the ability to own assets pegged to real world values such as Gold, Silver, etc They're all great but still who will be the winner is a matter of time whenever one of these fail or not. So my vote goes to Ethereum and Bitshares. 

[okiefromokc]

@nzminer

With all due respect - you probably can't enter eMunie in that poll list for 2 reasons:

• It has only been tested in the founder group, and older obsolete versions with a few beta-testers also.
• It is not just a 'coin' - it is a complete, comprehensive package, which you will experience after it goes live, and expanding in the future.

I am no seer into the future, but I would not be surprised if your poll list will become obsolete.
Once eMunie launches it will probably rank more as a 3.0 compared to the rest being 2.0
Again - let's see what the future holds - noone knows yet.

The biggest issue with eMmunie is most people stopped following it (myself included) after repeatedly missing deadlines. Literally every single deadline has been pushed back months to years.

When you are shooting for scaling ability to 150+ tps, which is Paypal levels currently, and  to have the capability of being an actual currency that is used by Joe Public and not just crypto fans, designs will get trashed.  eMunie has morphed design concepts from a block-chain, to a block-tree and finally to a full parallel partitioned transactional database.  Also, all of the coding has been done by a single person, Dan Hughes.  

The eMunie project has also been self funded by Dan, even though a closed fund raiser occurred, most if not all of those funds have either been refunded do to the delays, to those who have requested there return, or remain untouched from 2.5 years of development costs.

[nzminer]

@nzminer

With all due respect - you probably can't enter eMunie in that poll list for 2 reasons:

• It has only been tested in the founder group, and older obsolete versions with a few beta-testers also.
• It is not just a 'coin' - it is a complete, comprehensive package, which you will experience after it goes live, and expanding in the future.

I am no seer into the future, but I would not be surprised if your poll list will become obsolete.
Once eMunie launches it will probably rank more as a 3.0 compared to the rest being 2.0
Again - let's see what the future holds - noone knows yet.

I wont be adding it to the poll, is someone suggesting i should?
Anyway, technically all 1.0 coins are basically BTC clones, and NXT was considered the first 2.0 along with other platforms that have popped up, but if you want to get real technical, you could argue that only NXT clones are 2.0 currencies and something like NEM, Qora and Ethereum that are even newer could be classed as 3.0.

[BurstIncomeAsset]

NXT, BURST, MONERO, CLAM, DASH, NAMECOIN

Any of them can be the next winner. But to not gamble, I own a few of all of them to be prepared.

[freedomno1]

Ive listed the main ones i can think of, if there is anything else you would like added, post it below and i will add it

For the sake of listing could have put maidsafe and mastercoin as well but I wouldn't have voted for them lol

[xeman34]

Hard to say without being biased.

I am biased because I see real work going on daily behind the scenes with amazing devs and real connections being made outside of the cryptosphere.  NEM

HaH!. NEMM wIl $Ho ItselF 2 B da biggesT $cAmm yet. Ah Hv $een Daaa ReELL whItepApUH. Nwt DAA PHONayyy DeaYyy PosTEd. Nem IZ brOKen.    ... Peace.

[digit]

You forgot to add Counterparty XCP
This is and will likely continue to be the most successful Crypto/Bitcoin 2.0 project,  it main advantage over rivals is that its secured by Bitcoin blockchain and its miners.  
No messing about, no hardforks, seperate blockchains, restarts or multimillion dollar icos involved, it works and it here. 
http://counterparty.io/

[mill0601]

@nzminer

With all due respect - you probably can't enter eMunie in that poll list for 2 reasons:

• It has only been tested in the founder group, and older obsolete versions with a few beta-testers also.
• It is not just a 'coin' - it is a complete, comprehensive package, which you will experience after it goes live, and expanding in the future.

I am no seer into the future, but I would not be surprised if your poll list will become obsolete.
Once eMunie launches it will probably rank more as a 3.0 compared to the rest being 2.0
Again - let's see what the future holds - noone knows yet.

The biggest issue with eMmunie is most people stopped following it (myself included) after repeatedly missing deadlines. Literally every single deadline has been pushed back months to years.

When you are shooting for scaling ability to 150+ tps, which is Paypal levels currently, and  to have the capability of being an actual currency that is used by Joe Public and not just crypto fans, designs will get trashed.  eMunie has morphed design concepts from a block-chain, to a block-tree and finally to a full parallel partitioned transactional database.  Also, all of the coding has been done by a single person, Dan Hughes.  

The eMunie project has also been self funded by Dan, even though a closed fund raiser occurred, most if not all of those funds have either been refunded do to the delays, to those who have requested there return, or remain untouched from 2.5 years of development costs.

Mijin (built on the nem platform) is also looking to compete in this area and will be out before Emunie.

http://www.coindesk.com/press-releases/mijin-permissioned-blockchain-platform/

[bitcoin carpenter]

Perhaps 3.0 currencies should not be discussed here, but the best one that I have found, has a device that outperforms all promises has instant transfers, and many other features is VNL.

[Peachy]

Mijin?  
Good Lord that video looks it was developed by the old Mortal Combat game company.
I can't imagine Jamie Dimon opening that link in any way imaginable.  

[r0ach]

Mijin?  
Good Lord that video looks it was developed by the old Mortal Combat game company.
I can't imagine Jamie Dimon opening that link in any way imaginable.  

It sounded exactly like this:  https://youtu.be/Yy1flK6V50E?t=80

[nzminer]

You forgot to add Counterparty XCP
This is and will likely continue to be the most successful Crypto/Bitcoin 2.0 project,  it main advantage over rivals is that its secured by Bitcoin blockchain and its miners.  
No messing about, no hardforks, seperate blockchains, restarts or multimillion dollar icos involved, it works and it here. 
http://counterparty.io/

Since it uses the Bitcoin blockchain, I classed it as a 1.0 project.
When i refer to 2.0 i mean new blockchain and platform seperate from BTC 100%

[DecentralizeEconomics]

Stake leasing (centralization) isn't required in NXT's PoS.

Of course it's required.  That's like claiming pool mining in Bitcoin isn't required.  It's only not required when the coin price is low per unit and it's being used for virtually nothing, with no widespread distribution or demand (i.e. now).  Hey guys!  I'm not centralized because it's possible to solo mine Bitcoin if I spend $10 million dollars!  

With widespread adoption, you would need tons of cash to solo stake.  Due to the way transparent forging would work, you would most likely not be able to allow hundreds of thousands of people to stake either.  You would probably need to set a minimum stake amount required to be allowed in at all, while culling off all the others.  In this manner you've recreated DPoS except with no sybil protection.  With transparent forging, the need to pool your stake (delegated voting) increases even more as well.

You either don't know what your talking about or you're lying.  Stake leasing isn't required in NXT and the cost of running a node is minuscule.  How much does it cost to run a 30W computer 24/7 year round?  At $0.1 USD / kWh it costs $26.28 USD not "$10 million dollars!"  If you have 10k NXT, you'll generate ~3.15 blocks a year or a block every four months if all the stake is forging.  10k NXT costs $80 USD.  Even if TF would require a minimum stake amount of 100k NXT, you would still have a potential of 10,000 forgers and it would only cost each forger $800 USD to acquire such a stake.

DPoS is the mechanism that doesn't have any Sybil protection not NXT.  With NXT, you actually have to pay for your stake.  With DPoS, you only have to convince others to vote you in.  There is no guarantee that the delegates are actually independent and nobody has any idea what type of deals are going on behind the scenes between delegates (aka collusion).  DPoS is actually implemented with "approval voting" which is known to be unworkable in contested elections because it allows strategic voting.

Virtually everything that you complain about for Bitshares claiming it's centralized also applies to NXT and Bitcoin.  They are far more similar than not.  The main difference is, DPoS starts off with the acknowledgement that PoW and PoS both use delegation and engineers the voting process to do so in the protocol itself.  The other two are using a more Rube Goldberg approach to reach the same destination of delegation.

Wrong.  NXT doesn't artificially cap the amount of forgers to an arbitrary number that is easily controllable by a very small amount of stakeholders.  Why would Bitshares choose approval voting for their delegate selection mechanism when it is susceptible to this manipulation if this was not their intent?

Here's your own hero, "come-from-beyond", telling you NXT isn't going to fit your definition of "decentralized" so you better sell off your NXT now:

I want u to pay attention to a paper titled Decentralised Currencies Are Probably Impossible But Let’s At Least Make Them Efficient.

He's not my hero because he's not BCNext.

I dislike DPOS because of the necessity for people to vote on delegates. Now this may work perfectly fine in such an enclosed envirement that we're in right now where the userbase is very small but I doubt it'll work very well if any DPOS ever hit's mainstream.

DPoS actually scales to world reserve currency better than any other consensus mechanism.  The first transition for DPoS voting would be people like exchange owners and businesses that utilize the platform would run as delegates to make sure the network they depend on is secure.  From there, the actors would just keep scaling larger until you had every nation state as a delegate.  Some people would think this sounds like a bad thing, but unless every nation was colluding with each other, it would get rid of fractional reserve banking at the very least, which is the real root of all problems.

First off let's clarify that Bitshares is in fact a fractionally reserved system because the bit"assets" are not fully, 100% reserved and thus there is a lack of convertibility.  Regardless of how many "gateways" are brought online, it will always be fractionally reserved because of the way bit"assets" are created.  "Gateways" in Bitshares are entirely different than "gateways" in Ripple.  All assets in Ripple are brought onto the network through the gateways and therefore the gateways should, in theory, have 100% reserves unless they are corrupt.  Assets in Bitshares are merely created and the gateways serve only as a means of allowing a limited amount of bit"assets" to be redeemed for their physical counterparts for a fee.  Since bit"assets" are fractionally reserved by the gateways, this allows a situation to develop where a lack of confidence in your prediction market will lead to a total collapse of the asset.  This is why it is so irresponsible and in my opinion fraudulent, to describe bitshares as:

BitShares.  
Safer than a Swiss Bank.  
(Ask me why!)

Furthermore, your insistence that PoS must accept arbitrary centralization to scale is absurd.  No platform is even close to reaching 100 tps let alone 1ktps or 100ktps.  The necessity of such tps throughputs are so far in the future that it borders on lunacy to state we must relinquish our decentralization today in preparation for this future event.  There's a good chance that 100ktps will never be required by any of these platforms and if it is most likely consumer grade hardware at that point will be able to handle it.

I find it much more likely that your insistence on forcing centralization on your userbase today is an attempt to establish a stranglehold of control around your network which is impossible to break.  You can say all day that the delegate numbers can change from 101 to 1001, but who controls this change is the delegates and when the delegate elections can be controlled by a limited amount of shareholders (because of approval voting), it's those limited shareholders who set the rules now and in the future.

You state you want to "rid the world of fractional reserve banking", but what you really want to do is "rid the world of fractional reserve banking" only to resurrect it via DPoS which is in fact its "second coming".  Self admittedly, you refer to this as "corporate fascism" which it is, but it's also communism.  There is no greater centralization than that which merges the bureaucracy of state and capital.

I vote that we stomp out this r0ach!

[peonminer]

hmmmmmmmmmm

[silverleafy]

Personally, I think that it's branding that is moving the cryptocurrency market. That, after the coin shows that it actually works and has a strong dev team behind it. I don't think there will ever be a project that is perfect, every single new coin that comes out will have issues. There will always be problems.
Once the initial problems are out of the way, I think the marketing involved is very important. Getting merchants to accept it is also very important. As of right now, the only one of these that I've had personal experience with is NXT, so I chose that one.

[r0ach]

You either don't know what your talking about or you're lying.  Stake leasing isn't required in NXT and the cost of running a node is minuscule.

All it takes is for anyone to look at your post history to tell you're a serial liar and your entire purpose on this forum is to shill for NXT.  You picked the wrong person to shill against who can easily demonstrate how NXT really functions:

Pooled staking is required in NXT for the exact same reason pooled mining is required in Bitcoin PoW.  Everything you claim, in reality, is already shown to be false because Bitcoin shows us the reasons.

You claim "anyone" can stake, yet that's like saying "anyone" can solo mine Bitcoin using a $5 USB miner.  Yes, you are technically "mining", but if you never validate any blocks, or one block a century, that does nothing to help the security model and you may as well not exist.  All that matters is how often the top block producers are validating blocks in relation to each other.

Due to the fact that it's already a given other people are going to be pooling stake for frequency of payouts in the endgame of standard PoS, the act of them doing so makes it even harder for you to solo stake (more like impossible), thus forcing you into pooling stake as well.  It's a textbook case of snowballing feedback loop.  It eventually turns into the exact same thing as Bitcoin PoW pool mining centralization.

DPoS is the mechanism that doesn't have any Sybil protection not NXT.

I'm not sure if the problem is you don't understand how PoW, PoS, and DPoS work, or if you're lying on purpose.  All three of those consensus mechanisms use delegation.  DPoS is the only consensus mechanism with Sybil protection built into the protocol because it forces you to manually audit each block validator and vote for them.  For example, when you use a mining pool in PoW, or lease your stake in standard PoS to a pool (which is required as it scales as shown above), if three big pools own all of the hashrate (or leased stake power), the protocol is only telling you to send your vote power to the smallest one to avoid 51% attack.  There is nothing in the protocol of PoS or PoW forcing you to audit all three pools to make sure they aren't owned or run by the same person, which they easily can be.

You then have no other option but to vote for one of the three pools (delegation) even though it's all the same guy because solo mining is useless.  Your other option is to create your own pool and run a political campaign to try and attract transient miners (or leased stake).  In doing so, you've just recreated a more inefficient version of DPoS with less block validators and 5 tps vs real DPoS with 100,000 TPS and 3s blocks.

Furthermore, your insistence that PoS must accept arbitrary centralization to scale is absurd.  No platform is even close to reaching 100 tps let alone 1ktps or 100ktps.

There is no "arbitrary" centralization.  DPoS is engineered knowing what the end game of all these consensus mechanisms turn into, and forces a mandatory number of block validators instead of letting it dwindle down to 3 like in pooled mining or pooled staking.  Deterministic block validation is also required to run a 2.0 platform.  Any system without it shouldn't even be considered one.  You can't run things like exchanges and all this other stuff with 10 minute or even 1 minute blocks.