Doesn't stack up IMHO.
1. Satoshi's original white paper makes the point that crypto coins cut out having to rely on a central authority. Yet with Aircoin we have to rely on an anonymous bunch of "economic experts".
2.We give them bitcoins
3.They fill the market with bots.
The only good point is that the concept allows a person to reduce risk by diversifying, but with Bitcoin already established I don't think I need that. And coins are so easy to buy and sell and commissions so low it's easy to diversify without the help off "expert traders", who are giving little and taking a lot
I'd like to ask a few questions to make sure I'm reading your post correctly.
Sure
I neither believe it is or isn't would be the best answer. It's an experiment.
Or do you consider any form of decentralization beneficial by nature, regardless of the economic principles behind it?
You are putting up a false dichotomy here though aren't you? Nothing I wrote indicated I must believe one or the other.
Do you find algorithmic trading itself, to be wrong,
No
or just the use of it in Cryptocurrency?
No. I'm not moralising about algo trading. The space will IMHO become very crowded if it isn't already. The barrier to entry is very low.
To be able to say what "should" or "shouldn't" be done, you need some goal, or some comparative metric.
But I didn't say what "should" or "shouldn't" be done.
While a peer-to-peer money transfer system is exciting technology, there's a lot of problems that prevent its widespread adoption, most of them outlined in the whitepaper for AIRcoin. (
http://www.teamaircoin.org/whitepaper.pdf).
You have some curious theories. And though I wish you well I'm not sure most are anything but theories. But, let's test them out in practice.
A few notes before details,however; AIRcoin doesn't make other cryptocoins more centralized.
I did not say it did.
It's concept is, in some ways, more centralized in that there is an accountable authority that helps protect the coin
.Who are you? Why should we trust you?
It is an attempt at an economically viable means of transaction that can be both accepted and adopted beyond the relatively small hobbyist and speculative market that Bitcoin has.
I wish you well with that.
Your questions are qualitative, as in, they deal with opinion and what you think "should" or "shouldn't" happen
.Funny though that you didn't quote me but re-wrote what you seemed to think I was saying. I actually didn't ask any questions.
If you take a minute and elaborate, tell us little more information about your opinions, it could explain why you have these concerns, then we can have a starting point for a good discussion.
My concerns are that you are not disclosing who you are for a start and that there is nowhere near enough transparency about your methodology.
I also think the algo space will probably become too crowded, and that this will impact any projections you've made.
So, would you mind speaking a bit more about it?
- Alexander
Are you and your team doing this for free? If not can you explain how you will be remunerated?
Good luck with it. I'll watch for now.
