POLL - which coins are scams as defined in the OP?

[TPTB_need_war]

TPTB is correct, although I'll try and explain in a more digestible manner

A contract in ETH (or any platform for that matter) can only come to a reliable consensus if the information it is using to come to that consensus is solely internal to the system.

In the case of this, the driver and the passenger could collude to input "fake" information into the system, perhaps so that the driver gets more tokens or whatever.  There is no way for the system to check, irrefutably, that the journey really was say 20 miles in distance, it could all be fake.

Even if you put a "black box" in the cab, you still cant ever be 100% sure that it wasn't tampered with, and so due to that uncertainly, the consensus can never be totally reliable.

[achimsmile]

There was something about you had to have invested in JINN before to get in on the ICO or something I forget exactly.

They weave a maze to try to obfuscate.

Good one. Your first sentence is false. Who's trying to obfuscate now?

[cryptohunter]

There was something about you had to have invested in JINN before to get in on the ICO or something I forget exactly.

They weave a maze to try to obfuscate.

Good one. Your first sentence is false. Who's trying to obfuscate now?

Oh you're here. I wondered where you had gone.

Come back to our other thread where we are discussing the scheme/scam you're supporting right now called IOTA.

[achimsmile]

There was something about you had to have invested in JINN before to get in on the ICO or something I forget exactly.

They weave a maze to try to obfuscate.

Good one. Your first sentence is false. Who's trying to obfuscate now?

Oh you're here. I wondered where you had gone.

Come back to our other thread where we are discussing the scheme/scam you're supporting right now called IOTA.

Oh, you are here too. You seem to be a rather impatient fellow.

[TPTB_need_war]

Bottom line is that the block chain is applicable for recorded state transitions that can be proved to be correct from data internal to the block chain. It is not applicable to anything which requires subjectivity about data external to the state in the block chain.

So most everything people are proposing for Dapps, can't work without breaking the objective census mechanism and thus destroying the Nash equilibrium security of the consensus due to a Prisoner's dilemma over which is the consensus choice.

And validation will always end up centralized for any block chain (smart contracts or crypto currency) no matter which consensus design is chosen.

Ethereum will crash and burn eventually. For a while, they might be able to keep the market fooled with technobabble and centralized training wheels.

[generalizethis]

Bottom line is that the block chain is applicable for recorded state transitions that can be proved to be correct from data internal to the block chain. It is not applicable to anything which requires subjectivity about data external to the state in the block chain.

So most everything people are proposing for Dapps, can't work without breaking the objective census mechanism and thus destroying the Nash equilibrium security of the consensus due to a Prisoner's dilemma over which is the consensus choice.

And validation will always end up centralized for any block chain (smart contracts or crypto currency) no matter which consensus design is chosen.

Ethereum will crash and burn eventually. For a while, they might be able to keep the market fooled with technobabble and centralized training wheels.

This even applies to the Internet of Things as you (or a hacker or the manufacturer) can program your things to lie, correct?

I was thinking on how to defend autonomous cars from hackers and thought a decentralized consensus network offered the best chance of secure/safe driving, but reading your posts, makes me think that it will either be a state system or off-ramped to a corporate system, but it can't be decentralized because the blockchain can only verify its chain in a decentralized manner--hope I'm reading this aspect correctly.

[TPTB_need_war]

Bottom line is that the block chain is applicable for recorded state transitions that can be proved to be correct from data internal to the block chain. It is not applicable to anything which requires subjectivity about data external to the state in the block chain.

So most everything people are proposing for Dapps, can't work without breaking the objective census mechanism and thus destroying the Nash equilibrium security of the consensus due to a Prisoner's dilemma over which is the consensus choice.

And validation will always end up centralized for any block chain (smart contracts or crypto currency) no matter which consensus design is chosen.

Ethereum will crash and burn eventually. For a while, they might be able to keep the market fooled with technobabble and centralized training wheels.

This even applies to the Internet of Things as you (or a hacker or the manufacturer) can program your things to lie, correct?

I was thinking on how to defend autonomous cars from hackers and thought a decentralized consensus network offered the best chance of secure/safe driving, but reading your posts, makes me think that it will either be a state system or off-ramped to a corporate system, but it can't be decentralized because the blockchain can only verify its chain in a decentralized manner--hope I'm reading this aspect correctly.

The only way to have an external data feed that is not binary is to delegate to a centralized source, because even if we use reputation (or stake deposits) to prevent Sybil attacks and take a vote, the problem is that such a vote only surely converges to a majority outcome if the choices are only binary (e.g yes or no). Otherwise we can get forks which disagree on the consensus choice.

So conceptually an Augur-like prediction market could work if the bet outcomes are binary. But this reputation consensus has to be integrated with the block chain consensus and can't be orthogonal to it. Augur's mistake is building a reputation consensus on top of Ethereum's separate (but not orthgonal!) consensus protocol, which thus destroys the Nash equilibrium and creates a Prisoner's dilemma over which is the consensus choice.

But an additional problem, is that reputation systems are a power vacuum that ultimately centralize to a winner-take-all due to the Iron Law of Political Economics.

And the flaws of proof-of-stake have been enumerated.

I'd be interested in seeing a proof-of-work consensus for binary outcome predication bets. But that will have serious problems if the binary outcomes are not objectively clear to all miners.

[TPTB_need_war]

Dapps, can't work without breaking the objective census mechanism and thus destroying the Nash equilibrium security of the consensus

And validation will always end up centralized for any block chain (smart contracts or crypto currency) no matter which consensus design is chosen.

Ethereum will crash and burn eventually. For a while, they might be able to keep the market fooled with technobabble and centralized training wheels.

Who cares,

the contract will still get processed

the central controller has no incentive to steal anyone's money and scatter the billion dollar community that was just created

community size is worth more than tech, case in point: bitcoin

"decentralization" is overrated

distributed liability is all that really matters today. In other words, having the ability to move the physical geographic location of the central node to another country without service disruption in order to escape government control is all that matters. That my friends is what the average Joe considers "adequate decentralization"

Nobody gives a shit about John Nash.

So until there is a better non-vaporware alternative to Ethereum (when they eventually crash and burn), the hype continues unabated

You don't seem to understand the failure caused by vested interests (case in point: Bitcoin's scalepocalypse) which makes your $billion adoption market implausible, which was the reason we needed decentralization. Case in point: Apple Pay's inability to scale because it competes against other vested interests.

Market caps are not adoption valuation. They are greater fool illusions, especially when one can't even calculate a P/E ratio in the case of crypto trash. When five MAD men carrying box cutters and riding camels buy ETH from themselves to create the illusion of a $billion market cap, I know crypto has turned into a cess pool going no where.

[schlonged]

Hello again TPTB, thanks again for the help.  I'm not the fastest learner but I'm trying.  I'll just post terse responses to chronological postings.  Let me know which of my references you would like me to post links to (because I know you are busy, and I can easily do DD for you).

It appears that overall, you are trying to form a more perfect union (with everyone), which would definitely make America great again!

Peertracks runs on the Bitshares block chain

No, it has it's own chain (BTS clone)

Also Bitshares is a highly centralized platform

What platform isn't?

Bitshares instant transactions aren't reliable, because there is only one designated confirmation node for each block period, so the performance of blocks can vary.

Poor performers get voted out, and are no longer permitted to form blocks. Only historically reliable block producers are allowed to mine.  It's the core feature of the "meritocracy" model:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQGlcLFhwE0#t=2m39s

The Peertracks Note features is interesting. It might turn audiences in P&D targets though

Yes, if that particular artist wants to make his fans angry.
 

It is also not clear if these are illegal unregistered securities under SEC law in the USA. I do know that in the case of airplane VIP memberships the Supreme Court ruled they were not subject to the Howey test. I will need to study that more.

Good point, I read that much of the ICO went to paying for lawyers.

Peertracks doesn't appear to do anything about enabling the unbanked to monetize music, which is one of my major goals.

Not sure what you mean, please explain.

Peertracks is IMO too focused on just music. You are basically trying to turn the serious music fans into speculators. Yeah speculators here will think Notes are cool, but the actual music fans I think will perceive it to be a negative feature and an insult to love of music. You basically corrupt the musicians teaching then to do P&D instead of produce great music. Sigh.

Wrong business model.  "Notes" now called "MUSE" blockchain tokens are for speculators who pay for the decentralized mining network and stand to profit if the number of transactions (fees) increases to the point that more MUSE can be burned than are created on the blockchain.

Artists (not just musicians) make "coins" for their fans that can be redeemed for front row seats, back stage passes, limited edition swag, etc.  

This project is still in the early stages however:

Fan side vid:
https://youtu.be/aQM4P7uFgk4

Artist side vid:
https://youtu.be/yWOUJehIfJc

my project to develop a truly decentralized, instant, microtransaction altcoin, and achieving widespread adoption also incorporates the features targeted by Peertracks except without the Notes, but my projects runs the gamut from games to collaborating on graphic arts and business documents. We have already chosen a name for the project, and I am confident it is the best name seen yet in our crypto arena. The name implies music distribution but it also implies collaboration on anything not just music.

Great, let us know when it is liquid, but until then, I must deploy my capital.

Hmmm 15 votes for IOTA and it's not even released? this does not look good.

If not a scam then a poor effort considering your background and knowledge in this field and on this board. All I can see so far is a small group of people hyping and pumping.

I don't know an iota about IOTA, but those who are crying because the IOTA IPO did not have enough positive spam should never post again.  There is already enough spam around here, and besides, here's what you said when you had the chance to purchase IOTA:

(first post in the IOTA ICO thread)

People should keep in mind that ICOs are mostly scams.

So, tell me exactly, who made it hard to learn about the IOTA ICO again (when you had the chance)?

answer: those who cried "scam"

All top POS coins have been distributed through some type of ICO.

I made some major mistakes in my 30s. I would hope someone younger than me, who still has a chance to change course

I declared bankrutcy multiple times, so come on now, your mistakes can't be all that bad

Americans have succeeded because we believed in law & order and bettering people. Some significant portion of the population has become corrupted (and really embraced Socialism and stealing from each other), but there is still a core that will break free of the corrupted portion of the USA. Trump is indicative that the productive and conservative sector of the USA is beginning to rise up.

Unethical systems always devolve into abject failure.

Amen brother, let's make America great again!

The corporations may eventually come around to an open source standardization process, but that is not now. And I doubt any standards will form around a block chain and coin launched as an ICO that is illegal in the USA.

Who cares about corporations in 2016 son?  They are the apex of "centralization" and survive today only on free fiat handouts from the money printers.

Corporate buybacks are the only thing proping up the market.

And where exactly do they get the money to buy back their own stock?

Bond sales to the ECB, etc. So now that the global stock market valuations are connected directly into the fiat printing press, it's mission accomplished.  

The corporate snake eating its tail is the definition of unsustainability.

Let me know if you want links.

Welcome to the decentralized future where the individuals (aka owners) decide the global standard.  If the people did not chose bitcoin to be the standard unit of crypto value, then who did?  The corporations? lol!

Pre-selling the AMPs before having a viable design and viable product ready for Synereo is already a sign of a scam.

Paying for R&D has been standard buiness prectice for centuries, what's the problem?

Maybe they come up with something, maybe they don't.  Nobody is requiring you to invest.

All the IPO/ICO coins have crashed and burned. Only the proof-of-work distributed coins have sustained, e.g. Monero, Litecoin, Bitcoin.

Some IPO/ICO coins have "sustained" (a large market cap) a position among the most successful cryptos on the planet:

#2. Ethereum POS/IPO
#5. Maidsafe POS
#8. Factom POS/IPO
#9. Bitshares POS/IPO

OK, so it appears that we have progressed no further, but at least we did shorten the 2 points in the following quote down to their essence:

1. no existing crypto is perfectly decentralized but no coins get doublespent
2. IPO = R&D, not scam

(thanks in advance to anyone who can answer the highlighted question at the bottom)

Early adopters can crash the share price at will.  You can’t escape the “the early bird gets the worm” principle, since it is time dependent, so I must disregard “equity distribution” concerns.

Who cares about a central entity taking control of a blockchain? Not me.  POW coins are all susceptible to this and so far none of the big cap coin miners have taken advantage of their power because they would destroy the value of the coins that they mine if they did.  

....

Well, now my portfolio only consists of a handful of coins: Bitcoin, BitShares, Peertracks, and Namecoin giving me a scam-average of 13% which is twice as good as the 24% average!  I'd say that is a pretty awesome score. What's yours?  You will need to recalculate the average each time since it keeps changing.

I still need to research the “World Computer”, “Social Networking” sectors and wait for Zcash.

One final question I have for the peanut gallery:

Is there nothing else out there that is effectively delivering what they claim to do (business solutions)?

[TPTB_need_war]

Bottom line is that the block chain is applicable for recorded state transitions that can be proved to be correct from data internal to the block chain. It is not applicable to anything which requires subjectivity about data external to the state in the block chain.

So most everything people are proposing for Dapps, can't work without breaking the objective census mechanism and thus destroying the Nash equilibrium security of the consensus due to a Prisoner's dilemma over which is the consensus choice.

And validation will always end up centralized for any block chain (smart contracts or crypto currency) no matter which consensus design is chosen.

Ethereum will crash and burn eventually. For a while, they might be able to keep the market fooled with technobabble and centralized training wheels.

This even applies to the Internet of Things as you (or a hacker or the manufacturer) can program your things to lie, correct?

I was thinking on how to defend autonomous cars from hackers and thought a decentralized consensus network offered the best chance of secure/safe driving, but reading your posts, makes me think that it will either be a state system or off-ramped to a corporate system, but it can't be decentralized because the blockchain can only verify its chain in a decentralized manner--hope I'm reading this aspect correctly.

The only way to have an external data feed that is not binary is to delegate to a centralized source, because even if we use reputation (or stake deposits) to prevent Sybil attacks and take a vote, the problem is that such a vote only surely converges to a majority outcome if the choices are only binary (e.g yes or no). Otherwise we can get forks which disagree on the consensus choice.

So conceptually an Augur-like prediction market could work if the bet outcomes are binary. But this reputation consensus has to be integrated with the block chain consensus and can't be orthogonal to it. Augur's mistake is building a reputation consensus on top of Ethereum's separate (but not orthgonal!) consensus protocol, which thus destroys the Nash equilibrium and creates a Prisoner's dilemma over which is the consensus choice.

But an additional problem, is that reputation systems are a power vacuum that ultimately centralize to a winner-take-all due to the Iron Law of Political Economics.

And the flaws of proof-of-stake have been enumerated.

I'd be interested in seeing a proof-of-work consensus for binary outcome predication bets. But that will have serious problems if the binary outcomes are not objectively clear to all miners.

Whoops:

"The other thing we added was the ability to create multiple-choice markets. In the alpha we only had binary yes or no markets."

[Come-from-Beyond]

Whoops:

"The other thing we added was the ability to create multiple-choice markets. In the alpha we only had binary yes or no markets."

It can be just a coincidence.

[TPTB_need_war]

Whoops:

"The other thing we added was the ability to create multiple-choice markets. In the alpha we only had binary yes or no markets."

It can be just a coincidence.

My point is they just decided to surely break Augur (although it was already doomed for the other reasons I enumerated). Whether the timing of my reading of that statement about the Augur beta is coincidence to the timing of my post, is not my point.

[TPTB_need_war]

When five MAD men carrying box cutters and riding camels buy ETH from themselves to create the illusion of a $billion market cap, I know crypto has turned into a cess pool going no where.

They can't just be buying from themselves. All the miners must be paid as well...

I bet the mining is largely a set of insiders who were told to borrow money and mine the shit out of it, because they would be part of the P&D. So I do believe the majority of the miners are cooperating with those who are executing this P&D.

Mining with GPUs doesn't mean widely held.

hv_ conjectured upthread that the Chinese are trying to obtain ETH in order to monopolize the coming switch to proof-of-stake consensus in Casper. Thus they would not be selling and they may be involved in the P&D by taking huge short positions, so they can scoop up the coins cheaply.

[TPTB_need_war]

Well the offer me to buy some software during Crowdsale, I liked the idea DAG and bought some.

What have I done wrong 

Did you verify that Iota adhered to all laws and regulations for selling investment securities in every jurisdiction where they offered the "tokens" for sale to investors?

Specifically did they register these tokens with the SEC in the USA? If not, did they restrict non-qualified USA investors from obtaining the coins?

I hope you aware it is against the policy of crowdfunding sites such as Kickstarter and Indiegogo to offer any shares or redeemable tokens to contributors.

[TPTB_need_war]

CIYAM has alleged the possibility that Iota is designed to be a trojan horse which can take root control of your computer:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1400837.msg14220154#msg14220154

[Come-from-Beyond]

CIYAM has alleged the possibility that Iota is designed to be a trojan horse which can take root control of your computer:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1400837.msg14220154#msg14220154

Of course, he "forgot" to mention that Iota package contains the source code and unobfuscated binaries that can be reverted back into the almost original source code (different indent and different local variables).

[TPTB_need_war]

CIYAM has alleged the possibility that Iota is designed to be a trojan horse which can take root control of your computer:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1400837.msg14220154#msg14220154

Of course, he "forgot" to mention that Iota package contains the source code and unobfuscated binaries that can be reverted back into the almost original source code (different indent and different local variables).

Since he closed his thread, I mentioned here to give you a place to rebut.

[Cashew]

I doubt that anyone will be objective with this poll and will simply put as a scamcoin all the crypto-currency that he think (or even not, most of them are parrots) to be scams.

[TPTB_need_war]

I doubt that anyone will be objective with this poll and will simply put as a scamcoin all the crypto-currency that he think (or even not, most of them are parrots) to be scams.

Worse yet, I fear that many vote for what ever they don't own. But perhaps they don't own what they think is a scam.

I think we've given a lot of explanation in this thread about which are scams and why.

There are outright fraudulent scams (e.g. Dash) and then flawed hyped ICOs (so flawed they can't even function for anything at any scale worth mentioning) which are most of the coins on the list, except not Bitcoin, Litecoin, Monero.

Some of those (e.g. Iota) might function as centralized up to the point that vested interests prevent further adoption and scaling (barring any technical reinterpretation that I failed to see coming).

[Come-from-Beyond]

Since he closed his thread, I mentioned here to give you a place to rebut.

Thank you, but let's leave it as is.