SMART Coin Observer

[Spoetnik]

Estimated nonsense with no factual justifications.

Doge Shit 00.01% is MOONING soon !

Have you not heard from guys in Crypto claiming "marketing" is more important than code ?
I sure as hell have LOL
And yeah i had argued that with them many times..
Sadly we have kids here with Marketing degrees 

So the factual justifications are the shit talking marketing babble
AKA: Shill spam.

so..

This topic is Spoetnik Approved™

But you missed your Risto / reptiela rules..
Here i will copy and paste King Monero's Parody topic i made so you can use them..
(It showcases the self-moderated topic bullshit they are always pulling here)

Also note after i made what is a copy of risto's comment in my own parody topic
..he quickly ran over and deleted his comments and reworked it so he didn't look so bad.
(he has a tendency to do that type of deceitful bullshit)

Hi, I am reptiela. Welcome to my thread on altcoins. I have been a Bitcoin owner since 2011 but never owned any alts, until I bought started mining Monero last year.

The rules of this thread are very strict, as always in my threads:

- There is no freedom of speech. The topic is altcoins, but I also want that it stays in a level that is possible and interesting to read for a busy Bitcoin holder that does not care about alts. I know how it feels to be a busy Bitcoin holder, so I steer the discussion to the maximum benefit for me, and for my readers.

- Which alts can be discussed, is up to me. Mentioning an alt after that specific alt has been banned from a thread results in a ban for you. If you do not obey my ban from the thread, historically you have had 100% chance to be banned from the forum as a result. Don't try your luck.

- Posts may be deleted for whatever reason. Deletion does not necessarily mean that the post was offensive. It may also have been too long quote (in which case either the original, or the reply may be pruned), repetition of yours or somebody else's point, or anything else.

- Moderating actions are written in red. Others are not allowed to use red.

My take on altcoins

Real simple
Scumbags like this guy and his power tripping self moderated flood of shill topics are drowning this forum in one sided garbage scam coin advertising.
see this bullshit.. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=624223.0

[BitcoinNational]

[FACT] Anon coins will never work ! » Spoetnik » https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=853767.0

[BitcoinNational]

mostly agree with pegasus on his Coin Observer picks

God-Tier  
These blockchains are the gold standard, built upon careful cryptographic principles with lots of support from esteemed mathematicians and computer scientists.  These are the true blue chips of crypto, coupling unique algorithms with clearly defined purposes for existence.  They may yet have flaws, but they are at least advancing the art, and all of them fairly launched with no premine/ICO nonsense.  Not only do I own these, I usually consider them as default units of account.  
  

• Bitcoin: The coin father of them all.  Original PoW algo, and a unique purpose for existence.
• Monero: The first crypto to significantly advance the art beyond Bitcoin with a unique mining algo and actual privacy, untraceability, and fungibility built in.

 
  
High-Tier  
These blockchains may have some technical hurdles to overcome, and/or may have launched with distasteful features such as ICOs, but they represent a quality project which aims to advance the space and do something unique and valuable.  I usually own at least some of these projects when I am looking for a quality investment.  
  

• Ethereum Classic:  The first major programmable blockchain, it may have launched with a strange ICO and perhaps the Turing complete nature makes it a nightmare of vulnerabilities, but it has a lot of potential to radically alter the way we look at decentralized computing.
• SIA: The premier blockchain for data storage, it could eventually rival massive cloud storage operations.
• IOC: A unique value proposal, IOC aims to be the glue that holds the other blockchains together with things like name registration and other advanced features.
• Bitcrystals: An innovative idea - release a collectible trading card game and use profits to buy and burn proprietary Counterparty tokens off the open market.

 
  
Mid-Tier  
These blockchains don't do anything really innovative but are highly supported clones of other popular projects.  They could conceivably hold some value going forward, or even move to high tier if they continue to innovate where their parent project does not.  
  

• Litecoin: The original clone coin, is still considered crypto-silver by many.
• Dogecoin: Very middle.  Still going. wow.
• Aeon: A Monero fork/clone focusing on pruning and lightweight operation.

 
  
Low-Tier  
These blockchains have significant issues with coin distribution or value proposition which aren't due to outright dishonesty or malice.  It is unlikely they will be viable in the long term, but there is a small chance I am wrong.  
  

• Steem: A core group of insiders hold 90% of the voting power and shower boobs and Bitshares posts with scrumptious crumpets while genuine quality content earns scraps!?  Oh boy, sign me up.
• Factom: So what would you say.... You do around here?

 
  
Shit Tier  
Scams, broken nonsense, and blockchains which bend to the whims of whales.  Stay away at all costs.  
  

• Dash: Ninja/Instamined garbage which uses a 'Masternode' pyramid scheme to incentivize protocol-level coin-mixing.  Unfortunately is highly vulnerable to Sybil attacks along with other potential attack vectors.
• VCash: The lead Dev has stolen code, radically fucked with the block rewards in early mining to his own benefit, and still hasn't produced an open source and verifiable proof of his miraculous claims.  Stay away.
• Ethereum Hardfork:  Programmable blockchain which will fork when necessary to protect the financial interests of whales and large holders, including bailing them out from bad code.  Essentially a centrally controlled cloud server to practice code on, but that doesn't mean the tokens should hold monetary value.
• Ripple: A premined and centrally controlled token by Google which has no value proposition whatsoever since its centrally controlled, and no fundamentally different than fiat held by a bank.

[BitcoinNational]

I targeted a well coded, modest entry cost, high interest, pos coin that is nothing less than one of the most cost efficient, low carbon foot print, ecologically sound, bitcoin generators in the crypto world.  ---tevasu

edit:
*Quote from tevasu
was to lazy to trim it with the right tags  

[BitcoinNational]

I would change and augment as follows (to complete the list of top coins from coinmarketcap.com):

Market Size	God-Tier	High-Tier	Mid-Tier	Low-Tier	Shit-Tier
Masses:				Steem
Finance:	Bitcoin	Litecoin	Ethereum Classic Stellar	Counterparty Factom Lisk NEM Ripple	Ethereum HF Nxt Waves
Commerce:	Bitcoin			Dash
Niche:	Namecoin		Dogecoin I/O Coin	Sia Storj Synereo Voxels	MaidSafe
Unknown:		Monero Peercoin	Aeon Bitcrystals BitShares		Bytecoin Rimbit Vcash

[mybitcoin101]

I targeted a well coded, modest entry cost, high interest, pos coin that is nothing less than one of the most cost efficient, low carbon foot print, ecologically sound, bitcoin generators in the crypto world.  ---tevasu

tell us more about utility

[mybitcoin101]

I targeted a well coded, modest entry cost, high interest, pos coin that is nothing less than one of the most cost efficient, low carbon foot print, ecologically sound, bitcoin generators in the crypto world.  ---tevasu

cant find it

[BitcoinNational]

I see 3 possible outcomes for Litecoin: (which one do you think it will be)

1. Litecoin continues as the silver to Bitcoin's gold analogy forever and maintains 60-70 to 1 ratio with BTC (or better at times similar to precious metals).
2. Bitcoin has an issue such as scaling and it brings down or sideways the entire crypto market including Litecoin.
3. People realize that Litecoin is a better Bitcoin and it has to be rebranded as the platinum to Bitcoin's gold.

Also, If you've seen the interview with Charlie he says that he absolutely loved every aspect about Bitcoin, but felt there could be some improvements (since he had 2 years of Bitcoin data to make that assessment). The way he went about launching LTC was a much more fair process as well while BTC was not technically a premine it might as well be.

The other odd thing is that back between 2011-2013 I remember people saying Bitcoin would rule the world. Now if you listen carefully often times people say Bitcoin will rule the world or something like it... wtf? Something like it? Nobody ever said that in the past and now it's common. So are they referring to something like Ethereum or Litecoin? I'm not sure, but I find that odd.

[BitcoinNational]

https://steemit.com/cryptocurrency/@rok-sivante/the-decentralized-exchange-showdown-where-to-put-your-cryptos-for-safe-headache-free-trading-and-storage

[raphma]

I targeted a well coded, modest entry cost, high interest, pos coin that is nothing less than one of the most cost efficient, low carbon foot print, ecologically sound, bitcoin generators in the crypto world.  ---tevasu

does that exist? especially the part with "high interest".... generally they have huge inflation so the interest dont worth anything.

[BitcoinNational]

high interest, pos coins
yes they are out there ... 200% yields ... so it forces a downward pricing model.

NOTE:
Quote is from tevasu

if me; i say

I targeted a well coded, mid-range or low entry cost, low coin inflation, healthy network, coins with existent and established community.

POW entropy is fundamental to creating 'currency' coins, that will likely depreciate over time unless constantly up scaling in participant growth.
 
POS is the most cost efficient, low carbon foot print, ecologically sound, type of block chain in the crypto world, they lack fundamental to creating a liquid and volital 'currency', however they serve as 'store of value' ledgers exceedingly better than POW chains.    

A is not B.

[BitcoinNational]

Algorithm
SHA3 [Skein and Keccak]

Minting Channels
CPU, GPU, (POS)

CPU, GPU, (POS), ASIC, servers

---
BTC
LTC
blake
x11
*multi*
neo_FTC
lyra_VTC
lyrarev2_mona
SHA3_niro
quark

POS

servers_open
STEEM 10% coin inflation
BTS
PEERplay
sia
lsk
NXT
NXT_ardor
XPM
RIC
grid

blake(b) sia

servers_master_nodes
XRP
DASH
FACT
steallr
mue

====
sha256_btc duo dgc dgb aur xmy
scrypt_ltc duo dgc dgb aur xmy verge
x11_start  dgc
sha3_max xmy dgb
yes_bsty xmy
qubit_geo dgb
groestl_xmy verge
groestl dgb
lyra_VTC verge

crypto_note_monero
ETC_hash  exp krypton
x13_amber

[BitcoinNational]

We identified three types of tokens:

    Debt Tokens
    Equity Tokens
    User Tokens.

User tokens

User tokens , or 'appcoins' as Naval Ravikant and Balaji Srinivasan have called them, are a form of digital currency needed to access the service provided by the distributed network.

As Union Square Venture managing partner Albert Wenger explains, you can think of these as tokens you buy at a fair to get on a ride.

In ethereum, for example, you need ether to build distributed apps on the platform. In the case of Sia, a distributed storage system, you need to own Siacoins to store files in the network.

User tokens are earned by providing value to these networks.

Contributions can take the form of mining, as in bitcoin, ethereum and Sia, or publishing stories, as in Steemit. Since user tokens are on a blockchain, they can be easily redeemed for any local or cryptocurrency.
Equity tokens

Equity tokens are used to finance the development of the network, but are not needed to access the services provided by the underlying protocol. As its name suggests, we can see 'equity tokens' as cryptographic shares of a network.

In exchange for investment, equity token holders are entitled to "dividends" in the form of revenue sharing or transaction fees in the network. For example, in the case of Sia, 3.9% of all successful storage payouts go to the holders of Siafunds, their equity token.

In many cases, these equity tokens represent shares of a distributed autonomous organization (DAO). A DAO's code is responsible for issuing the tokens, holding the money collected from the token sale, and contracting a company to develop the network.

Besides receiving a pro-rated reward, equity token holders in the form of DAO shares are usually entitled to pledge on proposals for how the investment money will be used.

That's the case of Digix, an asset-tokenisation platform built on ethereum. DGD token holders:

    Receive a reward on the transaction fees of the Digix Gold Network
    Are able to submit and vote proposals on the DigixDAO.

Debt Tokens

A third type of token is the 'debt token'.

We can see these as a 'short term loan' to the network, in exchange for an interest rate on the amount lent. Steemit is one of the few networks with debt tokens, issued in the form of Steem Dollars.

Steem, the cryptocurrency mined by the network, can be used to buy Steem Power or Steem Dollars. Holders of Steem Dollars receive a ~10% interest rate, paid in Steem Dollars.

Steem Dollars are unique to the economics of the Steemit protocol.

Through buying Steem Dollars, people can invest in the network with sufficient liquidity, without committing to the two-year vesting period to which Steem Power holders are subjected.

We see networks with multiple combinations.

These include networks with:

    Both user and equity tokens (Sia, Digix)
    Only user tokens (bitcoin, ethereum)
    Only equity tokens (Golem, SingularDTV)
    User, equity and debt tokens (Steemit).


http://www.coindesk.com/tokens-crowdsales-startups/

[BitcoinNational]

I think the OP is, without realizing, re-inventing some kind of PoS mechanism.

One must realize the intend of PoW mining: it is to BURN SEIGNIORAGE.   In any financial system, there must be a way to create a LIMITED amount of money that will be used.  Money is to be used as a store of value and as a means of exchange (both are the same, only the time scale differs: "means of exchange" is store of value on short term between trade A and trade B, "store of value" is storing what one obtained from trade A, to do trade B far in the future).
In order for it to be usable that way, it has to be scarce.
In order to be perceived as "fair", the idea is that nobody should be able to "make some for free" without getting them in return for goods and services as anybody else.  This is the problem with seigniorage: it is fundamentally unfair.

The brilliant idea of PoW is that competition between miners makes that miners (almost) don't make a profit: they burn it because their competition makes the difficulty rise so much that there remains only a small margin.  (if the margin is large, that will attract more miners, and will increase the difficulty and hence the real world cost of mining).

The margin is considered "fair" because it is the market for securing the block chain: if people don't want to go through the hassle of mining for a smaller margin (visibly they don't), that means that the fair price of doing the work is the mining margin.

All coins that do not apply PoW with destruction of almost all value of coin creation through mining competition are fundamentally unfair, in that they assign market value by coins against nothing (no goods and services have been delivered for that money but their owners will obtain goods and services: they get a free ride).

One has to understand that coin creation is an "inflation tax" on all the coin holders.  With PoW, even if the coin has no finite limit of creation and has non-zero inflation all the time, this tax is entirely burned in order to secure the chain, and nobody is reaping in the tax.    All mechanisms that assign this "tax" to a limited fraction of people (the developers, the stake holders....) have some smell of statish aristocracy reaping in taxes for a free ride.

dinofelis is saying some intelligent stuff here!

1.  POW is the ultimate shit coin, there is always more and more of them being created, but without them there is no crypto.   It's a game of hot potato, called currency.

2. Like every human managed industry ... they eventually end up in cartel and finally monopoly.  Check this out ... https://btc.com/
10 pools control BTC, and notice that the mining hardware monopoly is vertically organizing their position.

3.  So the solution is to re-invent the wheel.  bing!  LTC  bing! ETC  bing!  XPM bing! blake
So you see some are hits others misses.

4.  Now I think it is time to create POWs that do something besides just burn electricity and fall pray to specialized hardware (asics).
Like run the internet   Or google stuff ... crawl, indexing.  Or provide API broadcasts.  You know the work required to keep the net up.  Steem is kind of like the idea, but I think it falls more to the POS side (you need to buy in in order to have the right to mint more coins).

5.  POS is a-okay ... but a different kettle of fish ... the markets will tend to be much less risky ... and thus lack volume.  Same with 'assets' they are exactly like stocks.

6.  These ICO daos are lunatical ... the winners will be the ones that can organize a public utility ... that means null profit margin and hence shit roi ... but cool none the less.

[BitcoinNational]

Bitcoin is open source and is still so young that no position, no matter how well entrenched it may be perceived, is unassailable.

[BitcoinNational]

smarty pants of the day

How is Voxelus a scam? They built a VR market place, a 3D engine and a 3D modeler, didn't they?
Hasley Minor has a track record of building legit businesses, doesn't he?
Businesses fail all the time, that's the thing. Time is of the essence. Voxelus made its ICOs at the wrong time when there wasn't much hot money to get in. They raised 300k USD, that's too little to get anywhere, they had to take from the remaining premined funds to get going, and that obviously affected the price.
They also went for VR too early, a typical killer for businesses. Too early is as bad as too late. Timing is key. VR still very much is a fringe technology, and although it starts to pick up steam, it's still a very long way before mainstream, and together with the failed fundraiser, Voxelus didn't have enough funds to survive until the VR really takes off.

Investors are also responsible for doing due diligence. Although Hasley Minor has been doing well during the Dotcom bubble, this was a long time ago, and recent history show that he has managed to blow 200M USD of personal wealth and make 50M USD of debts since then. So obviously this was a risky bet.

From my perspective, there is very little that can be reproached to Voxelus. And it's fair game for Uphold to try to diversify with ETH and other currencies even though they initially promised to give exclusivity to VOX. VOX has failed. Should Uphold fail too? If Uphold can survive by diversifying, power to them.

OP, you should be happy that VOX still has a price at all on the market. You can still get out now and recoup at least some of your initial investments while you still can. Crypto businesses fail slowly by becoming irrelevant while the equity is still liquid enough to be traded, that's still a very sweet deal compared to real life businesses that fail brutally letting investors with no way out and a 100% loss. Making libelious threads against Minor and his projects doesn't help the price. Ultimately, you are shooting yourself in the foot by doing that. At the very least, be rational and keep your vitriol for after you sold your position. And remember that although failing a business isn't illegal, slander is, so please remain factual in your accusations.

[BitcoinNational]

Charlie Lee: Nuclear option of forking the codebase should only be used as a last resort. It's dangerous & irresponsible. (twitter.com)
https://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/3hp190/charlie_lee_nuclear_option_of_forking_the/cu9e4tj

coblee 64 points 1 year ago*

By forking the codebase, I meant a contentious hardfork of the consensus protocol, the users, and the miners. (Not enough characters in a Twitter message!)

Some people have mentioned that it's ironic for me to say this because I forked Bitcoin to create Litecoin. That fork is drastically different than what BitcoinXT is doing. Litecoin uses a different proof of work, so that it's not competing with Bitcoin for miners. And by creating a new genesis block, it did not fork Bitcoin's userbase. Users and miners can choose to (or not) support Litecoin and it would have no effect on Bitcoin whatsoever.

People have also said that forking the code is just a push of a button and that people do it all the time with open-source software projects. So forking should be encouraged instead of discouraged. I agree with this, but Bitcoin is different in that there is one thing that you need to be careful with. And that is the consensus protocol. Bitcoin only works if everyone (well, the vast majority of the people) are on the same protocol. Any small change to the protocol will leave users on a different fork and not able to reach consensus with the rest of the network. And that's fine in most cases. Users/miners, finding that they are left behind (shorter chain length), can quickly fix their code to be back in consensus.

The reason why BitcoinXT is dangerous and irresponsible is because it could potentially destroy Bitcoin and split the userbase into 2 separate Bitcoin networks. There are very good reasons why most of the core developers and Bitcoin experts are super cautious with increasing the block size too quickly. But these reasons are hard to explain to regular users of Bitcoin. Yet, it is quite easy for Mike & Gavin to convince people that supporting BitcoinXT means supporting block size increase, which makes Bitcoin scale for worldwide use, and it's what Satoshi intended. BitcoinXT is set to trigger with 75% miner support. This means it can trigger with only 50% miner support + a lucky streak. Or if there are malicious people running NoXT, they can cause the trigger to go off without majority support. When that happens, there's no guarantee that the losing side will all switch to running BitcoinXT. Now you've got a split user base and miner base. Some wallets will support BTC, some will support BTCXT, and some may support both. Same for exchanges and payment processors. It's going to be total chaos. Miners will switch back and forth between mining BTC and BTCXT. Users will send transactions on one network and not know why the recipient didn't get it. The price for both coins will tank. If you thought Litecoin and altcoins dilute the value of Bitcoin, wait til you see what BTCXT does to the price! Actually, the market is already giving us a hint as to why BitcoinXT is such a bad idea.

A more responsible option would have been to set the trigger threshold at a real super majority of 90% miner vote. If it was set at 90%, the chance of a bad fork would be far less likely. But Mike & Gavin knows that there's no way they can get 90% support, so they would rather risk hurting Bitcoin in order to get their way. Mike has even mention using checkpoints to force the issue if XT doesn't get the hashrate majority (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1089283.0). That is scary.

There's a better option. Really try to reach consensus. Unlike what you have been told, the devs actually support increasing the block size. They just couldn't come to a consensus on how much and when. And we still have plenty of time to get to a consensus. Next month, most of the devs and bitcoin experts are gathering in Montreal to discuss this topic to get everyone on the same page. Check out https://scalingbitcoin.org/montreal2015/

[BitcoinNational]

some of the smartest lines of advice i've seen on crypto coin trading

a good start is : www.theforexguy.com
the strategies are the same as forex, and forex have way more material to study.

and dont ask for tips, you will need to learn... people here will say BS all the time so i wouldnt trust in tips if i were you.

[BitcoinNational]

20% of BTC is stolen goods?
https://steemit.com/bitshares/@steempower/the-bigger-they-are-the-harder-they-fall-biggest-crypto-currencies-exchange-failures

Report doesn't account for Ross's and Chuck's coins seized by agents of the G.

[BitcoinNational]

http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/nswamy/papers/solidether.pdf?tduid=%2877f72456b86618d9043d2b340a061012%29%28256380%29%282459594%29%28TnL5HPStwNw-Mdvl2IDzF9xJq3q2SBnuLg%29%28%29
Short  Paper:  Formal  Verification  of  Smart  Contracts
by MSFT/haVrd