Bitcoin Forum
March 29, 2024, 04:42:07 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Theymos's list of altcoins with some technical merit  (Read 33252 times)
lakimens
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 392
Merit: 101

PVxYGaa1UZM6oDqW3ZKe4Esi18DgwBpDkr


View Profile
August 17, 2017, 06:23:27 PM
 #41

Would be interesting to have a score for BTC. Do you dare to give one?
BitCoin would have a score of 100, as he said above.

Wrong. BTC would have had a score of 100 at the day of release. But now the technic behind BTC is getting older and older. Other coins might have better technic now. The other coins the op mentionend are scored with their current status. So if you want to compare all these coins with BTC, you should compare them under the same conditions: Now, or at the day of release.
That's why I am asking about the score of BTC (now).
Wink
But BTC has indeed that 100+ advantage over anything because of being the first one and the most popular and already established. Cryptocurrencies are even divided into that Bitcoin and Altcoins, already showing which one is important and the rest are thrown into one dump basket. Even if new better technologically coins emerge, people won't transition to these new better coins, so we are now forever stuck with bitcoin being number one no matter if he indeed is the best and most efficient one.

Let's see:

Zuse Z3 = Score 100
Quantum Computer = Score 0.4

Really... ?

Or:

Telephone with hand-cranked magneto generator = Score 100
Smartphone = Score 0.01
(because hackable and using old computer and telephone technology)

Sounds a little bit silly to me...

It is silly.
First, I have no idea why you would give 100 to BTC?
I'd rather give 100 to LTC, because my transaction passed in under 2 minutes, I wait 2 hours for BTC.

Yes, when BTC was alone, of course it was 100, because there were no others.

   ⚡⚡ PRiVCY ⚡⚡   ▂▃▅▆█ PRiVCY ($PRIV) is a new PoW/PoS revolutionary privacy project Best privacy crypto-market! █▆▅▃▂
    Own Your Privacy! ───────────────── WebsiteGithub  |  Bitcointalk  |  Twitter  |  Discord  |  Explorer ─────────────────
   ✯✯✯✯✯                 ✈✈✈[Free Airdrop - Starts 9th June][Bounty]✈✈✈ ║───────────║ Wallet Windows  |  macOS  |  Linux
1711687327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711687327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711687327
Reply with quote  #2

1711687327
Report to moderator
1711687327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711687327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711687327
Reply with quote  #2

1711687327
Report to moderator
1711687327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711687327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711687327
Reply with quote  #2

1711687327
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
1711687327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711687327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711687327
Reply with quote  #2

1711687327
Report to moderator
1711687327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711687327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711687327
Reply with quote  #2

1711687327
Report to moderator
1711687327
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1711687327

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1711687327
Reply with quote  #2

1711687327
Report to moderator
theheolyn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 37
Merit: 0


View Profile
August 17, 2017, 06:45:10 PM
 #42

But BTC has indeed that 100+ advantage over anything because of being the first one and the most popular and already established.

Which is Bitcoin: BTC w/SegWit fork, the 2MB hardfork of BTC+SegWit coming, Bitcoin Cash fork, Satoshi’s protocol original Bitcoin?

Seems Bitcoin became an altcoin.
illyiller
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 697
Merit: 520



View Profile
August 17, 2017, 07:15:45 PM
 #43

But BTC has indeed that 100+ advantage over anything because of being the first one and the most popular and already established.

Which is Bitcoin: BTC w/SegWit fork, the 2MB hardfork of BTC+SegWit coming, Bitcoin Cash fork, Satoshi’s protocol original Bitcoin?

Seems Bitcoin became an altcoin.

It's not immediately clear. Smiley

One take regards the ETH/ETC debacle. Let's forget for the moment that ETC itself is a hard fork of the original Ethereum protocol. Versus ETH, it is the original protocol. So what makes ETH the real Ethereum? Is it support from the vast majority of developers (comparable to Core)? Is it majority hashpower (I hope not)? Is it majority economic activity? Is it some composite of these things?

These aren't easy questions to answer...
theymos (OP)
Administrator
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 5152
Merit: 12580


View Profile
August 17, 2017, 07:18:41 PM
 #44

I added a list of coins that I've investigated and given a score of 0 to, and a list of coins that I haven't investigated yet. I'll look into the uninvestigated ones as I have time.

Would be interesting to have a score for BTC. Do you dare to give one?

These scores are basically how much I think that the coin has advanced the field of cryptocurrency through its innovations. Therefore, the scores don't decay over time. When Bitcoin was first created, I define it as having a score of 100. Now, it has advanced even more, so I'll give it a current score of 106.

I'm not trying to give an "overall technical quality" score here. I don't think that such a score would be all that useful, since anyone can create a "high-quality" altcoin by just cloning Bitcoin (probably with a few minor tweaks). Maybe such coins could survive, and in some cases you might even make money from them, but I don't find them interesting.

agree on all points except monero would get .1 for unlimited supply

That's not a factor that I'm evaluating here.

Incorrect. It has a horrible historical record as proven by Andrew Miller a widely respected cryptographer.

As for the increase in minimum ring signature mixin level, the Cryptonote upgrade to RingCT, and the 2014 MNL-001 Monero labs research report, that was all rebutted in great detail.

I am aware of all of those potential attacks, and I mentioned in my post that Monero is not the black box that it is often assumed to be. (And I went into more detail here.) But despite those issues, Monero is typically far better than any Bitcoin mixer, for example.

I mentioned that zcash is theoretically more anonymous than Monero, but its software is basically unusable for most people right now.

I'm surprised to see you promoting such a scam:

That criticism of IOTA may ultimately be correct, but it's not clear to me. It mentions facts about IOTA which I already know, and then claims that this obviously makes IOTA broken. I am not convinced that IOTA is convergent, which is why I only gave it a score of 0.1, but it strikes me as possible, and a good area for research.

Someone should create an IOTA simulation where there's double-spending attempts, latency, etc. with no coordinators and a large volume of transactions.

And yet can someone explain to me why doge received zero in this ranking?

It's just a clone of Bitcoin with slightly different parameters. Possibly useful in some cases, but it lacks any new tech.

What is the reason you are suddenly putting so much effort into investigating multiple altcoins?

I was thinking of creating a cryptocoin index based on my scores, and see how it'd compare to equal-weight / market-cap-weight / BTC-only indexes. Equal-weight or market-cap-weight indexes massively underweight BTC IMO due to treating no-innovation pump-and-dump coins too seriously. I don't know at this point whether technical merit actually helps the price at all, but it might; personally, I would be very reluctant to invest long-term in something with no real innovation like Dogecoin.

1NXYoJ5xU91Jp83XfVMHwwTUyZFK64BoAD
McWorse
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 618
Merit: 292


View Profile
August 17, 2017, 09:55:55 PM
 #45

A hackneyed example:

Archie = Score 100
Google = Score 0.1

Which one had been better for longterm investment?

It is a nice idea, to build up a ranking of innovation. And I hope, that you'll share your insights, if you'll find correlations to the market-weight. I believe: There are some. You can see them everywhere. But what you can also see: Two coins of the same kind, with the same idea and the same solving problems. One of them is going to the stars, the other one drowns. Innovation is a good basement for a start. But no guarantee for a take off. And definitely not a reason for a long and relaxing flight.

A new car is faster, saver, needs less gas, more comfortable. It serves demands.
Don't forget these desires. Don't forget marketing. Both can change quicker, than innovation can follow. The most usefull things are nothing, when noone likes to use them.

YOU CAN'T EAT BLOCKCHAINS!

... better enjoy some Yummy Recipes!
Traxo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 568
Merit: 703



View Profile
August 18, 2017, 02:23:05 AM
Last edit: August 18, 2017, 02:52:57 AM by Traxo
 #46

agree on all points except monero would get .1 for unlimited supply

That's not a factor that I'm evaluating here.

Research in 2016 has modelled that PoW (on Bitcoin and any other) diverges into chaos when the block reward declines to insignificant relative to the revenue from transaction fees. Thus no PoW cryptocurrency will be able to survive without perpetual inflation unless it is controlled by an oligarchy. Monero’s tail reward is insufficient because eventually revenue from transaction fees will be significantly higher than the tail reward. There is a new document coming out soon which will explain this in irrefutable detail.

PoW is dying or must become an oligarchy in order to survive. But a new design is coming which will be perpetually deflationary (money supply perpetually decreases) and fixes this problem (without PoW nor PoS), but with some tradeoffs in security-model that some may find objectionable. Yet after we see what happens to the security of Bitcoin over the coming months, minds will be opened as to what is plausible and optimum.

Incorrect. It has a horrible historical record as proven by Andrew Miller a widely respected cryptographer.

As for the increase in minimum ring signature mixin level, the Cryptonote upgrade to RingCT, and the 2014 MNL-001 Monero labs research report, that was all rebutted in great detail.

I am aware of all of those potential attacks, and I mentioned in my post that Monero is not the black box that it is often assumed to be. (And I went into more detail here.) But despite those issues, Monero is typically far better than any Bitcoin mixer, for example.

I mentioned that zcash is theoretically more anonymous than Monero, but its software is basically unusable for most people right now.

Agreed. Your original summary seemed to lack this detail, which I think most readers would not have known if we had not delved into it as we have.

Whether Monero is far better than Bitcoin mixers is also perhaps irrelevant. For the time being since there is no rigorous math model to give us assurance, is an 80% risk of honeypot better than 20% of the transactions deanonymized honeypot? Even if the mixin levels of Monero are increased to insane levels (after some rigorous math to better model what those levels should be), we’ll probably still have a risk of a few tenths or hundredths of a percent of being deanonymized, which is entirely unacceptable for many use cases to depend on.

You only gave it a 4, which seemed large in comparison to the scores you assigned to other altcoin technologies, but I guess relative to the 106 you’ve assigned to Bitcoin, that puts into perspective your extremely low valuation of Monero’s innovation.

I'm surprised to see you promoting such a scam:

That criticism of IOTA may ultimately be correct, but it's not clear to me. It mentions facts about IOTA which I already know, and then claims that this obviously makes IOTA broken. I am not convinced that IOTA is convergent, which is why I only gave it a score of 0.1, but it strikes me as possible, and a good area for research.

Someone should create an IOTA simulation where there's double-spending attempts, latency, etc. with no coordinators and a large volume of transactions.

Why are simulations necessary? They’ve been challenged to remove the centralized server Coordinator, so as to find out if it blows up or not when decentralized. They refuse to do so, because the experts know it will blow up.

The onus is on them. They are running a centralized cryptocurrency, thus they have shown no innovation whatsoever. Anyone can write some technobabble BS in a whitepaper and then create a centralized server driven system and claim they created something. But all they did was reinvent Visa with some BS deception on top.

As for the scam aspect of it, isn’t it well documented already what they did with the ICO, Jinn Labs, and besides everyone knows that Come-from-Beyond originates from the Nxt scam wherein the entire money supply was awarded to 73 founders. IOTA is in the same breed of scams being perpetuated over and over again here. We had Steem with its sneaky mine awarding the new created money supply to a few insiders and then a system where whales can control where the ongoing money supply goes (for the most part). And then masternode scheme (Dash and PIVX) wherein the instamine or ICO buying from themselves so that the masternodes are held mostly by the insiders (which no one can prove or disprove because of ability to Sybil attack the identities of who owns them) who then award most of the newly created money supply to themselves. When doing the math of financial compounding, it is reasonably inarguable that the masternodes of Dash (also probably PIVX) are not predominately owned by the insiders.

Any way, I appreciate your clarification.
BitcoinEXpress
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1210
Merit: 1024



View Profile
August 18, 2017, 02:43:25 AM
 #47

Alright, who hacked Theymos account?

He's never been this friendly toward Altcoins!


~BCX~
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3864
Merit: 5815


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
August 18, 2017, 05:59:20 AM
 #48

Overall, I agree partly with the list - I also think IOTA is interesting but still has to prove if it really works, and Monero may be one of the few interesting innovations, but not really revolutionary. I would maybe add Burst (first coin with working turing complete smart contracts after Ripple, and first one with atomic cross chain trading), Nxt (first working Proof of Stake implementation without centralized checkpoints), Nem (improved PoS algorithm called "Proof of importance", not a big deal but may be OK for 0.1 points as it's a very good option for small coins, already in the second list), Bitshares (pegged assets), maybe also Slimcoin (Proof of Burn as distribution method), Decred (interesting PoS/PoW combination) and Sia (smart contract-driven storage management).

As for the scam aspect of it, isn’t it well documented already what they did with the ICO, Jinn Labs, and besides everyone knows that Come-from-Beyond originates from the Nxt scam wherein the entire money supply was awarded to 73 founders. IOTA is in the same breed of scams being perpetuated over and over again here.
The NXT "scam" was open to everyone, the "founders' list" was not limited to insiders. If you want, you can call me a shill, but please read the original announcement thread from 2013 before you make accusations. This "ICO" (one of the first of all) was running about 2 months and everyone could participate, only that it had only limited success. These weren't ERC20 times where even insignificant projects can get easily tens of thousands of dollars.

█▀▀▀











█▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
e
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████████████
████████████▄███
██▐███████▄█████▀
█████████▄████▀
███▐████▄███▀
████▐██████▀
█████▀█████
███████████▄
████████████▄
██▄█████▀█████▄
▄█████████▀█████▀
███████████▀██▀
████▀█████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
c.h.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀█











▄▄▄█
▄██████▄▄▄
█████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███░░█████████
███▌▐█████████
█████████████
███████████▀
██████████▀
████████▀
▀██▀▀
Invester
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 646
Merit: 252


PNNV.COM Live bitcoin price monitor


View Profile
August 18, 2017, 06:40:14 AM
 #49

I sincerely appreciate Theymos going this far to make a kind of merit summary with altcoins. My worry is that it might not cover all or majority of altcoins as we are already reaching almost a thousand altcoins.

I think it would be enough to make this kind of assessment to the top 100 or 200 altcoins. This will be enough basis already whether to invest on it or not. Reaching the top 100 or 200 is already a kind of merit, after all, to be subjected to a more careful scrutiny.

████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.PNNV.com..>..Live BTCitcoin Monitor.
████████
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
▄▄▄▄▄▄██
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
tobs
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 282
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 18, 2017, 06:58:39 AM
 #50

But BTC has indeed that 100+ advantage over anything because of being the first one and the most popular and already established. Cryptocurrencies are even divided into that Bitcoin and Altcoins, already showing which one is important and the rest are thrown into one dump basket. Even if new better technologically coins emerge, people won't transition to these new better coins, so we are now forever stuck with bitcoin being number one no matter if he indeed is the best and most efficient one.
Telephone with hand-cranked magneto generator = Score 100
Smartphone = Score 0.01
(because hackable and using old computer and telephone technology)

Sounds a little bit silly to me...

It is silly.
First, I have no idea why you would give 100 to BTC?
I'd rather give 100 to LTC, because my transaction passed in under 2 minutes, I wait 2 hours for BTC.

Yes, when BTC was alone, of course it was 100, because there were no others.

Yes that's silly indeed and that's what I meant, by saying it has +100 no matter what. We are stuck with bitcoin being the best and hyped no matter what other better technologies emerge out there. Actually I don't even have a clue what has to happen to bitcoin to be overthrown. And I wonder how many of these altcoins mentioned here will ever break out of this underground shadow and there will be other people than ICO holders and few enthusiasts to buy them. It came to that ridiculous point that even if there is a topic here where someone asks what is a good and promising coin to hold, everyone is answering bitcoin like it's already predetermined to succeed.
Nebell
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 104



View Profile
August 18, 2017, 07:23:01 AM
 #51

This thread is useless.

There's vague info, very few coins, the ratings are ridiculous at best.

It was made by a dude who clearly favors Bitcoin. Let the thread die.

BitcoinZ - community driven, no premine, no dev-tax, developers always welcome
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=3086664
https://btcz.rocks/
kelsey
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876
Merit: 1000


View Profile
August 18, 2017, 11:55:22 AM
 #52

I will assign a technical merit/innovation score.

technical merit/innovation  Roll Eyes you know its all about being a currency, not a mission to Mars, but that's been lost on the out of touch with reality nerdy types behind crypto for the longest time; hell you know shells are still used my more people today on the planet then Bitcoin is  Shocked

Bitcoin (and the rest of crypto) has almost zero value as a currency, the sole 'success' of Bitcoin todate is its 'price' increase not its value., and the mechanism for the price increase is nothing more then the Greater Fool Theory;

The Greater Fool Theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants. A price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price. In other words, one may pay a price that seems "foolishly" high because one may rationally have the expectation that the item can be resold to a "greater fool" later.

So lets all be honest here for a change.

(no bitterness here by the way, just being honest, i've been very lucky as a trader to be in crypto when bitcoin was single digit price, and tis been a amazing run that's dwarfed my real world earnings longtime back, but i still have a dream that p2p currency could have been something).
monsterer2
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 351
Merit: 134


View Profile
August 18, 2017, 01:49:52 PM
 #53

Bitcoin (and the rest of crypto) has almost zero value as a currency...

Seems to me that a trustless, governmentless, unregulatable, peer 2 peer, highly resilient, decentralised method of moving digital cash anywhere in the world has a lot of very real use cases both now and the future.
Traxo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 568
Merit: 703



View Profile
August 18, 2017, 01:57:41 PM
Last edit: September 05, 2017, 06:37:21 PM by Traxo
 #54

I also think IOTA is interesting but still has to prove if it really works

IOTA can prove it doesn’t work at any time by removing the centralized servers known as the Coordinator which is otherwise enforcing the convergence of the chain.

So why would they risk it? Wiser to continue the deception until some other technology comes along that they can copy and transition to.
Those holding IOTA are motivated to help shill and perpetuate the scam. The easy way to corrupt men is to entice them to profit on selling lies. The sad state of humanity.

Nxt (first working Proof of Stake implementation without centralized checkpoints)

The only reason it did not blow up is because the stake in Nxt is centralized.
PoS does not converge if 51% of the stake is not controlled by an oligarchy to enforce that the “nothing-at-stake” converges on a single chain.

I regurgitate this from a rough draft of an upcoming document not written by myself (publicly available on the Internet) where this is explained in more detail.
That document also seems to discredit PoS and PoW convincingly, at least in my non-expert interpretation.

The methodology of this scam evident in both IOTA and Nxt is create some technobabble BS that n00bs don’t realize is irrelevant because the system is centralized.
The functioning of those systems demonstrates nothing about the correctness of said technobabble.
The technobabble is a marketing gimmick.
The marketing side is to entice many men to spread the lies by selling them 1% of the tokens cheap, while keeping 99% for the originators of the scam.

NEM (improved PoS algorithm called "Proof of importance", not a big deal but may be OK for 0.1 points as it's a very good option for small coins

NEM was evidently a scam where the insiders pretended that there were 1000s of users who they distributed the NEM tokens in an air drop.
Those who argue there is no proof of the scam, take note that the insiders refused to use Facebook and other verification, and instead required only a BCT account.
So they were just distributing tokens to themselves via their 1000s of sock puppet accounts.

PoI is just another variant of PoS. It only works because the stake of NEM is centralized.
All of these cryptocurrencies exist to extract money from greater fools to the insiders.
None of these cryptocurrencies are real in any way.

Again I am regurgitating what I have read in a document written by another.

Bitshares (pegged assets)

Pegging is never stable long-term because there is always leakage against any such paradigm via externalities such as shorting. This was explained in a Pastebin.

Decred (interesting PoS/PoW combination)

These result in the worst attributes of each, combining to make something less secure than either alone.

As I recall, Theymos’ prior forays into analogous ideas for merging PoS and PoW were handily rebuked with detailed technical explanation. Perhaps he could revisit those threads to read posts.

As for the scam aspect of it, isn’t it well documented already what they did with the ICO, Jinn Labs, and besides everyone knows that Come-from-Beyond originates from the Nxt scam wherein the entire money supply was awarded to 73 founders. IOTA is in the same breed of scams being perpetuated over and over again here.

The NXT "scam" was open to everyone, the "founders' list" was not limited to insiders. If you want, you can call me a shill, but please read the original announcement thread from 2013 before you make accusations. This "ICO" (one of the first of all) was running about 2 months and everyone could participate, only that it had only limited success. These weren't ERC20 times where even insignificant projects can get easily tens of thousands of dollars.

Public ICOs are a scam, because the insiders buy the ICO from themselves pretending there is more interest and buyers than there really are.
With an ongoing scam ICO such as EOS and perhaps Nxt’s 3 month ICO, the insiders recycle the same ETH or BTC and buy the ICO from themselves over and over again.
Even if BTC didn’t move from Nxt address during the ICO period (and it may have, I have not checked), an insider with sufficient BTC can buy it from themselves.

I see someone is adding transactions non-stop.  Is it a stress-testing or a DoS attack?

Or someone thinking they can take all of the nxt for themselves by doing multiple 10k transactions until they reach 1,000,000,000 in their own account. Smiley

73 people who control all the money supply is not a cryptocurrency.
I would characterize that as a private club, except that when it sells on on an exchange, then it is a manipulated system for milking greater fools.
And then @kLee who was supposed to be holding a large portion of the money supply claims it was stolen.
In addition to selling ICOs to oneself, one can also steal funds from himself.
Ask Bitfinex how that works.

The announcement thread of Nxt which you provided a link to, has no technical or specifications in the first several pages.
No one in their right mind would have bought that obviously premeditated sneaky ICO:

So i hand over tons of BTC for a promise that i will get an unproven altcoin, that will probly be worth nothing?

Obvious scam.

Please don't send any money to an account created 4 days ago.


Who when reading that thread will come to the conclusion that Come-from-Beyond is not (or not an accomplice to) BCNext, as evident showing up in the thread from the very start pretending to be a different person offering server resources.
Coincidentally it was a Java program when no one else was coding altcoins in Java, which is the programming language CfB codes in.

http://archive.is/VCka0#selection-277.0-285.316

EDIT (09/05):
David Sønstebø confirmed that CfB was BCNext.



Quote from: Medium comment
The SEC recently emboldened the scammers and their accomplices with a purposely weak warning, with EU securities regulation also advancing. Note the SEC did point out that those who buy the ICO (and presumably especially those who help shill it) could also be culpable. To wax philosophical, why wouldn’t “Satan” first warn his victims to offer them free will because via their own clear free will can they be enslaved entirely. The weak must be enticed to destroy themselves by their own greed and civilization-destructive (as opposed to constructive) ethics.
freebutcaged
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 588
Merit: 541


View Profile
August 18, 2017, 06:51:00 PM
 #55

Just my few cents mate, the entire open source cryptocurrencies worth zero if you ask me, only a few people are deciding on which coin they should

Put their money and invest heavily, cryptocurrencies are literally like the money printing plates, imagine if US was sharing dollar bills plates with the

Public. regarding IOTA, you call it as a coin currency while it was supposed to be used for something else entirely different. Bitcoin is the one decentralized currency which the community agreed upon adopting and supporting it, if community decides to move to another coin there is nothing

That could stop them,, this is the downside of crypto, anyone at any time could make a clone of any coin and if everyone start investing on the clone
Then the original coin could collapse.
Midas111
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 772
Merit: 105

Close the federal reserve


View Profile
August 18, 2017, 07:21:03 PM
 #56

byteball is really cool and they have their tech rolling strong. byteball has the lowest supply of any coin. you can link your btc to get gbyte airdrops. byteball is the #1 general alt. If btc is gold, byteball is rhodium imo. tenx is the best for cryptocard market, ioc looks great for a micrrocap with their own tech

I enjoy working with the finest digital currency developers on earth
ghoom2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 548
Merit: 265

My old account was "Ghoom" (hacked) u=199247


View Profile
August 18, 2017, 08:25:00 PM
 #57

And what do you think of Elastic (XEL)?

█████████████ ⚡ BITCOIN 2 ⚡ ███████c█████████████████
█████████████ ⚡ Join the discussion thread ⚡ █████████████
👀 Private  ⚡ Fast  ¢ Low fees 🔴 Scalable 💡 Economical  ❂ Decentralized
d5000
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 3864
Merit: 5815


Decentralization Maximalist


View Profile
August 18, 2017, 09:42:38 PM
 #58

IOTA can prove it doesn’t work at any time by removing the centralized servers known as the Coordinator which is otherwise enforcing the convergence of the chain.
Exactly, that's the problem. With Byteball there is a similar problem - it seems not to work without trusted "witnesses". However, there is no proof that it doesn't work, so I give it a minimal chance.

The only reason it did not blow up is because the stake in Nxt is centralized.
PoS does not converge if 51% of the stake is not controlled by an oligarchy to enforce that the “nothing-at-stake” converges on a single chain.
I know about Nothing at stake, and the attack scenarios are very difficult to implement. I've read the whole series the Ethereum team has written about that topic ("The History of Casper"). From what I know it is even more problematic if PoS coins have an uneven distribution, while a PoS currency with relatively equal distribution would normally work as expected. And at NXT most of the original holders only hold a fraction of their original holdings. Distribution may be still uneven but should have improved.

What is true is that the holders of 51% of the stake must behave in a honest way (not trying to cheat minting on several chains at once), but that is not different from mining.

PoS has some disadvantages, because no external resources are "burnt" and so its consensus depends on the blockchain history, but it can be organized in a way the disadvantages aren't relevant for a working cryptocurrency system.

NEM was evidently a scam where the insiders pretended that there were 1000s of users who they distributed the NEM tokens in an air drop.

I didn't like the NEM distribution and I am not a NEM holder. The advantage their system has to "regular PoS" is that it incentives the creation of services like exchanges (these are rewarded a lot more than in PoS because they "use" the currency) , what can be an advantage for a small cryptocurrency. But for a large crypto (thousands of TX per hour) their method isn't very suitable because it incentives blockchain bloat.

Pegging is never stable long-term because there is always leakage against any such paradigm via externalities such as shorting. This was explained in a Pastebin.

Well, until now, it has worked. Can you link me to the Pastebin? (The other text you're referring to would also be interesting. Isn't it Andrew Poelstra's well-known criticism of PoS?)

Decred (interesting PoS/PoW combination)

These result in the worst attributes of each, combining to make something less secure than either alone.

As I recall, Theymos’ prior forays into analogous ideas for merging PoS and PoW were handily rebuked with detailed technical explanation. Perhaps he could revisit those threads to read posts.
OK, in this case I didn't know the details, so if you want you can point me to a text explaining that.


Public ICOs are a scam, because the insiders buy the ICO from themselves pretending there is more interest and buyers than there really are.

That is simply speculation. It may be true for some ICOs but not for all of them. ICOs on blockchain platforms are not trustless, that's true - that's also why someone should check carefully who is selling.

Quote
Even if BTC didn’t move from Nxt address during the ICO period (and it may have, I have not checked), an insider with sufficient BTC can buy it from themselves.
This and this suggest the first transaction was on October 29 but to another address controlled by BCNext and from that it was not moved until November 17.
Quote
The announcement thread of Nxt which you provided a link to, has no technical or specifications in the first several pages.
No one in their right mind would have bought that obviously premeditated sneaky ICO:
At the beginning, they had suggested to not invest more than a few satoshis.

Quote
Who when reading that thread will come to the conclusion that Come-from-Beyond is not (or not an accomplice to) BCNext, as evident showing up in the thread from the very start pretending to be a different person offering server resources.
Coincidentally it was a Java program when no one else was coding altcoins in Java, which is the programming language CfB codes in.
CfB is the coder of the first versions, yes, but that was also announced in the announcement thread. I also believe he could be BCNext (and maybe also Jean-Luc, the anonymous lead developer of the current Nxt team).

But I don't want to hijack this thread for a lengthy discussion if NXT was a scam or not - if you believe that, you can continue to do that. But the "Nxt is controlled by 73 insiders" is a myth that has been divulged very often here and is simply not true, that's why I commented it.

█▀▀▀











█▄▄▄
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
e
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████████████
████████████▄███
██▐███████▄█████▀
█████████▄████▀
███▐████▄███▀
████▐██████▀
█████▀█████
███████████▄
████████████▄
██▄█████▀█████▄
▄█████████▀█████▀
███████████▀██▀
████▀█████████
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
c.h.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▀▀▀█











▄▄▄█
▄██████▄▄▄
█████████████▄▄
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███████████████
███░░█████████
███▌▐█████████
█████████████
███████████▀
██████████▀
████████▀
▀██▀▀
Soutogu
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 154
Merit: 100


View Profile
August 18, 2017, 09:54:17 PM
 #59

Bitcoin (and the rest of crypto) has almost zero value as a currency...

Seems to me that a trustless, governmentless, unregulatable, peer 2 peer, highly resilient, decentralised method of moving digital cash anywhere in the world has a lot of very real use cases both now and the future.

Unless it takes days to receive confirmations and you have to pay an absurd amount of money as fees... I just hope we don't continue going down that road, which will eventually lead to a crash/much lower adoption rates...

What you described is what we, as users, aim and hope for the most... unfortunately there are a bunch of people with more influence and money disturbing the roots of the coin atm...
semaforo
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728
Merit: 500


View Profile
August 18, 2017, 09:58:17 PM
 #60



NEM (improved PoS algorithm called "Proof of importance", not a big deal but may be OK for 0.1 points as it's a very good option for small coins

NEM was evidently a scam where the insiders pretended that there were 1000s of users who they distributed the NEM tokens in an air drop.
Those who argue there is no proof of the scam, take note that the insiders refused to use Facebook and other verification, and instead required only a BCT account.
So they were just distributing tokens to themselves via their 1000s of sock puppet accounts.

PoI is just another variant of PoS. It only works because the stake of NEM is centralized.
All of these cryptocurrencies exist to extract money from greater fools to the insiders.
None of these cryptocurrencies are real in any way.

Again I am regurgitating what I have read in a document written by another.

Bitshares (pegged assets)

Pegging is never stable long-term because there is always leakage against any such paradigm via externalities such as shorting. This was explained in a Pastebin.

Decred (interesting PoS/PoW combination)

These result in the worst attributes of each, combining to make something less secure than either alone.

As I recall, Theymos’ prior forays into analogous ideas for merging PoS and PoW were handily rebuked with detailed technical explanation. Perhaps he could revisit those threads to read posts.

As for the scam aspect of it, isn’t it well documented already what they did with the ICO, Jinn Labs, and besides everyone knows that Come-from-Beyond originates from the Nxt scam wherein the entire money supply was awarded to 73 founders. IOTA is in the same breed of scams being perpetuated over and over again here.

The NXT "scam" was open to everyone, the "founders' list" was not limited to insiders. If you want, you can call me a shill, but please read the original announcement thread from 2013 before you make accusations. This "ICO" (one of the first of all) was running about 2 months and everyone could participate, only that it had only limited success. These weren't ERC20 times where even insignificant projects can get easily tens of thousands of dollars.

Public ICOs are a scam, because the insiders buy the ICO from themselves pretending there is more interest and buyers than there really are.
With an ongoing scam ICO such as EOS and perhaps Nxt’s 3 month ICO, the insiders recycle the same ETH or BTC and buy the ICO from themselves over and over again.
Even if BTC didn’t move from Nxt address during the ICO period (and it may have, I have not checked), an insider with sufficient BTC can buy it from themselves.

I see someone is adding transactions non-stop.  Is it a stress-testing or a DoS attack?

Or someone thinking they can take all of the nxt for themselves by doing multiple 10k transactions until they reach 1,000,000,000 in their own account. Smiley



I appreciate a lot of the commentary and I would not try to contradict anything necessarily but the discussion is about technical merit. XEM is the first altcoin I have ever taken really seriously as a possible major technical advancement. I am still learning about it, but I am suprised there has not been more discussion of it on this thread.


   As I understand it, the founder admitted to using the sock puppet accounts and resigned, but I don't believe that there were thousands of them.

  Being technically superior to Bitcoin does not guarantee adoption. But neither does centralization automatically negate technical merit.

   In some regards XEM seems inferior to BTC- for example, the total number of possible addresses is much smaller and there is the possibility of losing coins by sending to the wrong address. It's still very unlikely, but much more so than with BTC.

    However the POI has interesting implications when considered from an economic perspective. It acta as an incentive to increase the velocity (to borrow from monetary theory terminology) or the speed at which the currency is transacted. The best way to earn XEM through harvesting is to provide a service that sees high levels of circulation. There are built in algorithms that favor the addresses with the most transactions with other addresses- in other words, making it more costly to set up fake accounts to fake 'importance' than the value of the coins harvested in the process.

      The supernodes program seems like it might just be an extended premine scam. A number of XEM are set aside to be awarded to those running supernodes, but it requires having an address with something like 3 million XEM. There is a sizable reserve of XEM that is then awarded to the supernodes, but my calculations showed that this reserve will be exhausted within four years, and I'm still not clear on what the incentive for running a supernode will be after that, perhaps beside ensuring the continued value of of the sizable investment required for setting up.a supernode in the first place.

     The multisignature transactions also appears to be a big deal- ETH smart contracts sort of sound great in theory, but the actual implementation remains... ethereal. As I understand it XEM multisig transactions are essentially a very robust and versatile established protocol for one of the most useful smart contracts imaginable.

    I don't quite understand the namespace and mosaic functionality yet, but it also appears to be an attempt to provide readymade smart contract functionality which can be used for issuing securities. I am not sure how novel this actually is or how it could be used.

     As far as scalability, the experiments conducted by Mijin using NEM technology suggest that XEM tech could support what might be the highest transaction volume of any cryptocurrency to date- please go ahead and correct me if I'm wrong. I don't understand why this is, perhaps someone can explain.

      However, combining a high degree of scalability with the incentive to generate a high transaction volume present in POI could result in a very unique and active ecosystem more suited to microtransactions and more conducive to an active economy, as compared to bitcoin's tendency toward hoarding. I never bought the criticisms of deflationary currencies put forth by mainstream economists, but I do think a concept like XEM is more likely to cut into the day to day economic activity, whereas BTC seems like it might be more likely to remain primarily a store of value and escape from fiat.

   In sum I get a feeling from XEM that I have not gotten from any coin since I first learned about bitcoin. I think there may be elements in XEM that could be part of some major advancements for cryptocurrency. Certainly I think it deserves more discussion.

      
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!