IDEAL: no ICOs, no proof-of-work, no proof-of-stake, no governance, and no forks

[iamnotback]

Actually not Proof of stake, as coin amount or # of confirmations will not determine which one makes the next block.
The address order determines the next potential block maker , the amount of coins or processing power would not matter, so no advantage could be obtained by buying more coins or by buying ASICS.  

Using a coin address as an identifier that could not be counterfeit, so you would not need to worry about Sybil (that shameless hussy).

Sorry you can Sybil attack that by splitting your holdings into the smallest unit allowed (e.g. if it is a satohi).

Seriously I've thought of all those designs that you would contemplate and realized why they don't work. I was working on this since 2013.

I literally sat on the sofa and thought, perhaps a cumulative of 1000s of hours about every possible design. I thought through all the minute details of every possible design. I studied every design in crypto and dozens (probably 100s) of white papers.

[sdp]

I have thought about this too.  It would be nice if everyone could get an equal distribution.  Now with any idea I have come up with, and including this Bus system idea, the users can create a sybil attack. 

Distribute 10 Y coins every ten minutes to the users of bitcointalk.  What would happen?  More sock puppet accounts!  Every facebook account?  The same.

Distribute 10 Y coins every ten minutes to IPv4 addresses.  One company owns 1/256 of all the IP addresses.  Nearly everyone on the Internet would get some this way.  Maybe that is the closest thing to the IDEAL here, I will think of for some time.  Some people share IPv4 addresses, some have many.

sdp

[cabron]

isn't it decentralized already as we now have a lot of coins some are even useless and its up to you if you use it or not. isn't this decentralized already or fucked up?  

The ideal specified in the OP is to have a consensus+distribution system that:

• doesn't centralize
• doesn't allow voting or consensus to drive a fork, which violates the permissionless, trustless requirement (the entire reason that block chains exist otherwise we could use corporation and a database)

[/li]
[/list]

Hmm,
OK, as far as the 1st two.
Here is an idea.
IBM used to make a network topology called Token Ring,

The way it was explained was each token ring card address was a bus stop and the Token was a Bus,
So the Bus travels to each Bus stop to pick up information/passengers and moves on to the next stop.

So for an updated version
The Bus is the next Block in the Blockchain
Each online wallet have some type of Identifier/Address and is able to only generate a block only when the Bus is at their stop.
(Which means their should never be any orphans as their is no conflict on between blocks.)
Once the Bus leaves that stop it has to service every other stop before that one can create a new block.
If the wallet is not online when the Bus hits it's stop , the Bus just marks the block area blank and moves on to the next.
Also you could place some type of maximum limit on rewards per stop, to spread out rewards over a longer period.
And at some time if you need to add negative feedback, have the Bus skip their stop in 1 rotation.

 

i can't imagine how old are you lol you learned this on CISCO class?

[CoinHoarder]

no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible

....

Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals.

Well, well... Anonymint is still living in fantasy land, but at least he can admit it now.

Here he is spewing some false ideal ideology that no one can hope to achieve.

Meanwhile, tearing down other people's genuine effort/experiments/innovations, because they are flawed based on the unrealistic ideologies he concocted.

A wise man once said "those that can't do teach", and it is easy to see that applies here.

[NattyLiteCoin]

I'm a proof of work guy. Initiating excursions from SN's fundamental premise is ridiculous in my mind, but it's amongst us. That's what's with wrong with today's society's pride, let's the initial seed grow rather than bastardize it to this level of ridiculous we see each day. Motherfuckers need to see the forest through the trees. You are given something beautifu, but believe you are a snowflake and can may it even better when it doesn't have to be. Let that shit be and use it. Sorry to be such a Luddite, but I can use my iPhone6 for the next 30 years and be happy with it.

I agree with you all other points for the implentation of crypto.

/royal "you"

[iamnotback]

Well, well... Anonymint is still living in fantasy land, but at least he can admit it now.

Here he is spewing some false ideal ideology that no one can hope to achieve.

Meanwhile, tearing down other people's genuine effort/experiments/innovations, because they are flawed based on the unrealistic ideologies he concocted.

A wise man once said "those that can't do teach", and it is easy to see that applies here.

Hello Bitshares' DPOS (proof-of-stake) supporter. Your bias is obvious. I just wish you'd make a technical argument, instead of attacking a person to defend your Bitshares. You must love Bitshares more than the truth.

I had hope people wouldn't bring specific coins into this thread and turn the thread into a flame war.

Is it even possible to have a rational discussion on Bitcointalk?

[iamnotback]

I'm a proof of work guy.

Me also. Note the OP says "No (Satoshi) Proof-of-work". I've invented a new system of proof-of-work which I claim doesn't have the flaws of Nakamoto proof-of-work:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1319681.msg15137236#msg15137236
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520678.msg15340104#msg15340104
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15352029#msg15352029

Initiating excursions from SN's fundamental premise is ridiculous in my mind, but it's amongst us.

The Model T was the best car every designed  

I agree with you all other points for the implentation of crypto.

Thanks. Yes Satohi's design is unfortunately flawed and needs to be improved.

[tmzn32]

This thread is not intended to be about any specific crypto project, nor claim that these ideals are the only way forward. Because for one reason, no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible.

I just want to explain my reasons for setting these ideals as the goals from my crypto work and open these goals to discussion. Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals. The following summaries are not intended to be exhaustive nor present counter arguments. This thread is unmoderated, so you all can add your thoughts.

One of my motivations for creating this post, is to gather the past couple of weeks of my discussion into one coherent post, for my own future reference.

Readers should click all the links in this OP, to get the full flavor behind these summaries.

1.	No ICOs: ICOs enable insiders to buy from themselves, creating a non-free market distribution of the money supply, thus manipulating all the market parameters and effects creating a controlled, non-free market. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686
2.	No (Satoshi) Proof-of-work: Proof-of-work concentrates the money supply, economic profits, and control to the mining farms (esp. those with electricity subsidies). Meet your new central bank masters, the mining cartel. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. Since all the debasement ends up with the rich via mining, the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public. Proof-of-work launches provide no funding for the core developers, unless they are accomplished with premine, instamine, stealthmine, or non-optimized proof-of-work function deceptions. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15342314#msg15342314
3.	No Proof-of-Stake: The brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) applies. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. No changes of the ICO token distribution share can be accomplished via mining, thus the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public.
4.	No governance: Foundations and governance are just bringing the brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) to what should be permissionless, trustless. If democracy was going to save us, why has it never done so in 6000 years. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15352261#msg15352261
5.	No forks: no one, not even miner's should have the brutality-of-the-majority power to break the Nash equilibrium and vote on a fork: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520678.msg15335354#msg15335354 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.msg15285558#msg15285558

So maybe you have your own ideas how to launch a coin and make money. If you have new approaches, good for you.

No comment.  

Yes smooth I have some new magic¹ for launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer. Not an ICO, not proof-of-work, and not some obfuscation of an ICO which has the negative implications of an ICO I enumerate in #1 above.

Note I don't see any need to eliminate having a set of core developers, as I don't see how any development can proceed without them. I would encourage those developers to not cultivate nor employ their political clout to facilitate forks. Note ecosystem development can proceed without the need for a fork.

¹ “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”— Arthur C. Clarke

[iamnotback]

Hahaha. Good one!

Btw, as I mentioned in the OP, I intend to demonstrate how to raise money for the development without the scam of an ICO and where the pricing is set by the market.

I am hopefully going to turn the entire altcoin arena upside down, and inside out.

I hope we can get back to discussing the IDEALs in the OP, irrespective of my plans. Thanks.

[iamnotback]

Here is follow-up on the "No ICO" ideal:

According to escrow agreement the funds have to be transferred from the escrow address.

Where can we read this escrow agreement? Direct link please.

How can we be sure you are not paying back a BTC loan that was used to buy WAVES tokens from yourself during the IPO?

Sasha still hasn't answered.

OP https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1387944.0
Section Escrow.
as for the other question, what reasons do you have for these accusations, I'm sorry?

Thank you sasha for the answer. Please see my logic on how ICOs can be manipulated with loans:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159

Please explain how you can prove you haven't taken out a loan to buy the ICO from yourself, for the following purpose:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1483658.msg15362517#msg15362517

Please do not conflate ICO coins with premined, instamined, or stealthmined coins. If the ICO coins were distributed at the market price then that is not a premine. The problem is that ICO pricing is never set by the market and ICOs can be manipulated as follows.

Apparently they need to include WAVES in the "significantly premined". Please note that every ICO is likely "significantly premined" because the issuers can borrow BTC to buy the ICO from themselves, then pay back the loan (with the BTC they paid themselves) giving themselves free ICO tokens and giving the illusion that they raised more money than they really did:

Instead please continue growing the platform. People just love to waste time in here.

Please don't try to cover up the truth. Let him answer.

The same question will be asked of Rise and Lisk.

They already distributed 9 million coins to themselves. That's plenty of coins to manipulate the market when the supply is set at 100 million, with no more to ever be created. They are also using 1K of ICO funds to buy back even more coins. Interesting how the market appears to be suppressed now. They also distributed 4 million coins to "strategical partners and backers."

Thank you for the information. I hope someone can document that, so it is a fact and not a hearsay.

I hope he also answers my question.

I am not here to play altcoin police. So I will not harp on this. Speculators should be free to do what ever they want and decide to use trust instead of trustless paradigms if they so desire.

I've asked the questions. Cheers.

The bolded part in your response is exactly what ETH/DAO is. Not to say these maniacs can't push the price much higher in the future but the con will only last so long.

The way the insiders manipulate the market with these premined tokens is explained, and note the high leverage employed which means if they run out of tokens to margin with, it is like a house-of-cards and will implode to 0 in a heartbeat:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159

They siphon off BTC for as long as they can and high as they can pump it, then game over and they walk away with BTC and the fools walk away with empty bags.

Also some (including the Daoattacker) allege that the USGovt + MIT (university) are complicit in the ETH pump:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686

And the price of Ether has been manipulated by classic, r/BTC, etc since day one.  So the price alone is not an accurate gauge.  BTW, I was telling people to buy up ETH since its ~$.30 lows.  Follow the big money cause they always have a plan...or a clever exit scam.  

Are you sure that final decision won't be reverted too?

Excellent point.  Ethereum is one big game; I'm really curious to see what they have planned next.  Cause I do think it's all a plan, an insider job with a scope and goal.

I am planning to demonstrate a way to raise money without an ICO wherein the market sets the price and the distribution is fair and the scam of getting a loan to buy the ICO from yourself is not plausible. You can read more about that:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1526067.msg15362605#msg15362605

So my serious question to this forum is, with a fair distribution is it impossible for the price to go up? Monero was fairly distributed and the price went up and they have no serious means of attaining adoption (who cares about anonymity).

Is launching a project the honest way, with a serious plan for massive adoption and challenging Bitcoin technologically, going to be rewarded by our community or can only insider pumps succeed?

Serious question. Please feedback.

Serious question. Please feedback.

Define "fair distribution" first.

Market determined pricing. Free market competition to acquire the tokens. The insiders can't amass a large proportion of the tokens via deception, such as taking out a loan to buy their own ICO.

Market determined pricing.

What kind of market? Perfect market?

I already described the parameters of the market:

1. Competitive, i.e. the price not set by the insiders.

2. Insiders can't via deception amass large proportion of the tokens.

I should add a third:

3. Does not require tying the mining to centralization indefinitely, e.g. Zcash's plan to have the miners pay 10% to its foundation indefinitely (does theirs decline to 1% tail, I've forgotten?).


Ah maybe this is becoming a thread jack. Apologies. The opportunity popped up to ask a question. I was just hoping to get some feedback.

[iamnotback]

I am going to add "No Marginable Exchanges" to the OP.

Apparently the first and most immoral aspect of crypto work that needs to be addressed is how centralized exchanges are turning the entire ecosystem into a criminal enterprise:

The probable reason that whales (insiders) don't want DEX (decentralized exchange) is because then they can't do their "print demand out of thin air" margined premine manipulation pumps:

r0ach your allegation about ETH being manipulated is starting to resonate on this board:

The bolded part in your response is exactly what ETH/DAO is. Not to say these maniacs can't push the price much higher in the future but the con will only last so long.

The way the insiders manipulate the market with these premined tokens is explained, and note the high leverage employed which means if they run out of tokens to margin with, it is like a house-of-cards and will implode to 0 in a heartbeat:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159

They siphon off BTC for as long as they can and high as they can pump it, then game over and they walk away with BTC and the fools walk away with empty bags.

Also some (including the Daoattacker) allege that the USGovt + MIT (university) are complicit in the ETH pump:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686

[ttookk]

Just for fun, I'll throw in this:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1505815.0

A parasitic coin piggybacking on other blockchains.

[AZwarel]

Just two things came to my mind reading (most) this.

1. There can not be equal distribution. Because we are not the same (may i say equal), and if any coin represents economic value, the economic activity made through it will instantly "unbalance" the equal distribution of itself by the users, based on the different skill levels they can contribute to other people's needs. See, same reason why communism can not work.

2. I do support PoW, because it is secure. You have to burn those Mgwatts, and spend the TIME. Mining has to provide security on a technical level - NOT minting coins -, and big datacenters with low electricity cost are the most economic, you can not avoid this, ever, with any "ideal solution"*. Forking, or "evil miners do evil plots" scenarios can not be solved by any technical/software/genious invention solution, because, they are social problems (which means they derive from human action, which is always subjective, non-deterministic, and can not be expressed in 1s and 0s).
Also, that is why miners will not do anything against the network, ever. The moment they do, their own reward (coins) value collapses, and the network just fork, and we can again mine on laptops for a short while :-)

*if you can evade economic scaling (like CPU-only mining) that means it is highly vulnerable to anyone, who wants to destroy the network regardless of cost(!), which is what ASIC PoW protect us against. It is the lesser evil so to speak.

[iamnotback]

Just two things came to my mind reading (most) this.

1. There can not be equal distribution. Because we are not the same (may i say equal), and if any coin represents economic value, the economic activity made through it will instantly "unbalance" the equal distribution of itself by the users, based on the different skill levels they can contribute to other people's needs. See, same reason why communism can not work.

Agreed. When I write "fair distribution", I do not mean uniform distribution. Uniform distribution is some idealistic nonsense that doesn't even exist in socialism or communism either.

Fair distribution means a level playing field of a free market as per what I quoted upthread:

Market determined pricing.

What kind of market? Perfect market?

I already described the parameters of the market:

1. Competitive, i.e. the price not set by the insiders.

2. Insiders can't via deception amass large proportion of the tokens.

I should add a third:

3. Does not require tying the mining to centralization indefinitely, e.g. Zcash's plan to have the miners pay 10% to its foundation indefinitely (does theirs decline to 1% tail, I've forgotten?).

I will add a 4th requirement:

4. The distributed (mined or paid for) tokens are freely tradable instantly (newly mined coins typically aren't spendable unitl after some block confirmations for security reasons). No lockups and holdbacks. In a free market, no one should delay your money and hold it from you.

2. I do support PoW, because it is secure. You have to burn those Mgwatts, and spend the TIME. Mining has to provide security on a technical level - NOT minting coins -, and big datacenters with low electricity cost are the most economic, you can not avoid this, ever, with any "ideal solution"*. Forking, or "evil miners do evil plots" scenarios can not be solved by any technical/software/genious invention solution, because, they are social problems (which means they derive from human action, which is always subjective, non-deterministic, and can not be expressed in 1s and 0s).
Also, that is why miners will not do anything against the network, ever. The moment they do, their own reward (coins) value collapses, and the network just fork, and we can again mine on laptops for a short while :-)

*if you can evade economic scaling (like CPU-only mining) that means it is highly vulnerable to anyone, who wants to destroy the network regardless of cost(!), which is what ASIC PoW protect us against. It is the lesser evil so to speak.

I have solutions to all of these, even including the excessive power consumption problem. You may think it is impossible. Just like everyone thought decentralized electronic currency was impossible (even Chaum's ECash had been tried and failed), yet Satoshi surprised everyone. Even Gregory Maxwell and Adam Back were surprised by Satoshi's solution.

And I am preparing to surprise all of you.

I disagree and encourage users to consider any & all ICO coins as "100% premined"

What is the difference between paying for electricity to mine Bitcoin or Monero, and paying for coins directly?

The only relevant differences are when the latter creates a non-free market. Otherwise they are equivalent.

Thus not all paid for coins are necessarily a premine, otherwise mining would be premining by your incorrect conceptualization.

[kiklo]

isn't it decentralized already as we now have a lot of coins some are even useless and its up to you if you use it or not. isn't this decentralized already or fucked up?  

The ideal specified in the OP is to have a consensus+distribution system that:

• doesn't centralize
• doesn't allow voting or consensus to drive a fork, which violates the permissionless, trustless requirement (the entire reason that block chains exist otherwise we could use corporation and a database)

[/li]
[/list]

Hmm,
OK, as far as the 1st two.
Here is an idea.
IBM used to make a network topology called Token Ring,

The way it was explained was each token ring card address was a bus stop and the Token was a Bus,
So the Bus travels to each Bus stop to pick up information/passengers and moves on to the next stop.

So for an updated version
The Bus is the next Block in the Blockchain
Each online wallet have some type of Identifier/Address and is able to only generate a block only when the Bus is at their stop.
(Which means their should never be any orphans as their is no conflict on between blocks.)
Once the Bus leaves that stop it has to service every other stop before that one can create a new block.
If the wallet is not online when the Bus hits it's stop , the Bus just marks the block area blank and moves on to the next.
Also you could place some type of maximum limit on rewards per stop, to spread out rewards over a longer period.
And at some time if you need to add negative feedback, have the Bus skip their stop in 1 rotation.

 

i can't imagine how old are you lol you learned this on CISCO class?

LOL,

I went to grade school with Methuselah.  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah

Actually set some token ring networks up when they were first came out.
But used mostly Arcnet topology in the early days of networking.
Ethernet eventually crushed all of the other network topology.
LOL, I remember when ethernet did not even use a switch.
It ran on coax cable that went in a circle to each PC and you had a T connector on each network card and a terminator at each end.
One break in the cable or a bad terminator killed the entire network back then.  
(Years before Cisco was even a thought bubble in someone's brain)

 

FYI:

Definition - What does Attached Resource Computer Network (ARCNET) mean?

Attached Resource Computer Network (ARCnet) is a type of LAN protocol that provides network services to 255 nodes at data rates of up to 2.5 Mbps. ARCnet is similar to token ring and Ethernet network services.

ARCnet was fast, reliable and cheap, and it allowed different transmission systems to be merged and implemented on same network. ARCnet was the first simple networking based solution that provided for all kinds of transmission regardless of the transmission medium or the type of computer. ARCnet was also the first widely available networking system for microcomputers. Although a new ARCnet specification, ARCnet Plus, has been developed to deliver data transfer rates of 20 Mbps, ARCnet is still used in the embedded systems market.

[MarketMagic]

This thread is not intended to be about any specific crypto project, nor claim that these ideals are the only way forward. Because for one reason, no one has yet shown that these ideals are plausible.

I just want to explain my reasons for setting these ideals as the goals from my crypto work and open these goals to discussion. Any project I launch will be attempting to achieve these goals. The following summaries are not intended to be exhaustive nor present counter arguments. This thread is unmoderated, so you all can add your thoughts.

One of my motivations for creating this post, is to gather the past couple of weeks of my discussion into one coherent post, for my own future reference.

Readers should click all the links in this OP, to get the full flavor behind these summaries.

1.	No ICOs: ICOs enable insiders to buy from themselves, creating a non-free market distribution of the money supply, thus manipulating all the market parameters and effects creating a controlled, non-free market. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524111.msg15340159#msg15340159 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1413819.msg15343686#msg15343686
2.	No (Satoshi) Proof-of-work: Proof-of-work concentrates the money supply, economic profits, and control to the mining farms (esp. those with electricity subsidies). Meet your new central bank masters, the mining cartel. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. Since all the debasement ends up with the rich via mining, the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public. Proof-of-work launches provide no funding for the core developers, unless they are accomplished with premine, instamine, stealthmine, or non-optimized proof-of-work function deceptions. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15342314#msg15342314
3.	No Proof-of-Stake: The brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) applies. Permissionless, trustless attributes are lost, e.g. forks are possible. No changes of the ICO token distribution share can be accomplished via mining, thus the system has no countervailing mechanism to recirculate the money supply to prevent it from losing its attribute as a unit-of-exchange for the broad public.
4.	No governance: Foundations and governance are just bringing the brutality-of-the-majority (aka democracy) to what should be permissionless, trustless. If democracy was going to save us, why has it never done so in 6000 years. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1524286.msg15352261#msg15352261
5.	No forks: no one, not even miner's should have the brutality-of-the-majority power to break the Nash equilibrium and vote on a fork: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520678.msg15335354#msg15335354 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1516067.msg15285558#msg15285558
6.	No Marginable Exchanges: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1526067.msg15363845#msg15363845

So maybe you have your own ideas how to launch a coin and make money. If you have new approaches, good for you.

No comment.  

Yes smooth I have some new magic¹ for launching a token system fairly yet also funding the developer. Not an ICO, not proof-of-work, and not some obfuscation of an ICO which has the negative implications of an ICO I enumerate in #1 above.

Note I don't see any need to eliminate having a set of core developers, as I don't see how any development can proceed without them. I would encourage those developers to not cultivate nor employ their political clout to facilitate forks. Note ecosystem development can proceed without the need for a fork.

¹ “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”— Arthur C. Clarke

My new favourite thread on BCT.

[iamnotback]

Some discussion about how ICOs may be converting altcoin investing into a criminal enterprise. Please read the following linked post:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1526730.msg15372116#msg15372116

[iamnotback]

My new favourite thread on BCT.

Thank you. May I suggest you sample all my posts, because I am trying to keep them focused and on point lately:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=851556;sa=showPosts

[iamnotback]

We are just fools:

It seems that a corrupted exchange is an essential ingredient for pumping a crypto currency to $billion nosebleed mcaps, so apparently not only is demand being created out-of-thin-air using margined coins the insiders deceptively obtained from the ICO by buying from themselves (taking out a BTC loan and paying it back after the ICO)...

...but likely also that some high volume exchange is also creating tokens literally out-of-thin-air and is another Mt.Gox or Cryptsy waiting to default when there is a run to withdraw.

A likely essential ingredient in BitCON's rise from $10 to $1200 was because Mt.Gox was creating coins out-of-thin-air and handling most of the BTC volume, so this provided more coins for everyone to leverage and create fake demand with.

So this huge pump in ETH likely means another high volume exchange will end up stealing all your coins again soon.

The way this criminal enterprise crypto-currency enterprise works is that the insiders create tokens out-of-thin-air on the exchanges, then when the ponzi scheme implodes, the "hackers" or owners of the exchange are blamed instead of blaming the real manipulators behind the curtain.

We apparently have criminal gangs in the crypto-currency ecosystem. The DAO attacker says the UGGovt + MIT/Cornell universities are complicit. Others say Goldman Sachs is in this. Probably also Russian criminals, etc..

That is likely why there is no enforcement from the SEC. Because the SEC is owned by the criminal gangs.

Nothing has changed! We have not defeated fiat. We have not defeated the same banksters bastards who are always enslaving us.

We're just fools.

[iamnotback]

More details on my plan for an alternative to an ICO launch:

Fair number of coins kept by dev

(Please click the links, as they are essential to understanding this post.)

This is a very important question.

This is a difficult question to answer, because developers need to be funded if we expect any realistic chance of actually fixing our F.U.B.A.R. crypto ecosystem within any rapid timeframe.

Also we'd like the developers to have a vested interest in improving the ecosystem. Ideally every token hodler would be a developer also, but that isn't realistic so we rely on developers.

Yet when the insiders control a significant portion of the tokens (and/or the tokens trade on a corrupt exchange), the price and market cap can be manipulated in a way that transfers all the gains to the insiders and leaves most of the speculators holding an empty bag at the end.

Ideally we'd prefer not to rely on trust, because trust is a honeypot that attracts those who will break the trust. And thus trust replaces "the code is the law" with "politics is the law".

There will exist no perfected solution. For example, Monero claims they launched what I define to be a "fair", competitively mined, free market distribution, but this just handed all their funding to utility companies because paying for electricity for mining is financially equivalent to paying for tokens and/or to those who amassed economies-of-scale cost advantages such as mining farms (even stolen cloud cloud computing accounts) with cheap (even stolen) electricity. Thus proof-of-work launches are not trustless either, and they throw all the funding into the garbage can.

I plan to offer a fair, competitively priced, free market alternative to aforementioned disadvantages of an ICO or proof-of-work launch, which can fund the developer while mathematically placing an upper bound of the percent of the launch tokens the developer can possibly own. While this can't guarantee that the percentage is less than 2% (more realistic guarantees are 10 - 20%) of the launch money supply, it can guarantee (under reasonable assumptions) that the percentage is less than 2% of the long-term money supply (assuming there is an ongoing tail distribution block reward). So while this can't entirely eliminate the possibility of the insiders owning enough coins to do some short-term manipulation to drive the price and market cap higher, it does at least provide some reasonable bounds. And the advantage is the developers are funded. So my conceptual innovation, will offer the speculator a choice to have a mathematically bounded balance between trust and trustless, with the advantage being the developers are funded. Note again, proof-of-work launches are not trustless either, and they throw all the funding into the garbage can.

I plan to use this new conceptual way to launch, to offer speculators to invest some small portion of their net worth in a project and developer(s) they feel will be good for the long-term development of our crypto ecosystem. A long-term holding for ideological reasons, not just monetary return on investment but also ideological accomplishment return on investment. Note again, proof-of-work launches are not trustless either, and they throw all the funding into the garbage can.

If you read my threads, you will know I am against trust and politics of trust (being I am a minanarchist leaning full blown anarchist). I would prefer a launch that has no trust, but I can't think of a way to fund development without any trust whatsoever. But at least the produced token software will be a trustless protocol. So some trust and some leadership is necessary to produce the trustless end. The end justifies the means.

Perfection is for incapable dreamers who handicapped themselves with their perfectionist delusion. The real world requires a balancing act. Let's get the balance right.

POW is the LEAST dirty way of generating coins in a fair manner since anyone in the world can mine on virtually the same ground

You can't prove how many people weren't mining with stolen cloud computing as I pointed out:

...even stolen cloud cloud computing accounts...

Monero and Bitcoin can never prove their distribution was any more fair than any other.

Sorry. Monero has no more "holier than thou" bullshit excuse for their lack of leadership and rapid development.