Well, then all alts are like everything, just a little bit different. I mean we still talking about the same technology.
Yes, a lot of altcoins use exactly the same source code as Bitcoin and there are only small, minor changes here and there. There are some exceptions like Ethereum written entirely from scratch, but most of the coins are based on some version of Bitcoin Core.
If it doesn't matter - why are u complaining?
I guess he wasn't complaining, just pointing out that the only important thing is scarcity, so there is no point in trying to change 21 million coins limit. Also, there are some interesting examples how to increase scarcity without creating bigger values than 64-bit:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5330102. I think that proposal is quite interesting, but I prefer using decimal prefixes instead of binary, for example "03" for millisatoshis.
Sure 5th graders could manage the math options. It should be clear that numbers should be set like that this is not possible to make profit with sending to yourself - If the transaction min fees are bigger than your "profit" for a transaction as example. Looks like you looking for something that could be done wrong.
I guess for some people it wasn't obvious if total supply will be limited. There are successful coins with tail emission like Dogecoin or Monero.
Pls read the OP again. BC are with a max supply. GC are not - but they selfburned by transactions so there will be always a circle of creating and burning.
That's quite similar to one of my test sidechains, where test coins are created by sending to "cpu1qtapr00t" vanity address and burned by spending them on mainchain. But in my test network, coins are naturally distinct (there are mainnet coins and testnet coins), here I can see two coins for no reason.
I forgot the word min. - sure this would makes no sense cause it would not work with the feature of the encrypt level decision.
Technically, there is something called range proofs. They are quite heavy, but it is possible to prove that some number is in some range without revealing it. As far as I know, coins like Monero or Grin use that kind of things. More than that: Grin use Pedersen Commitments, so each block is in fact one huge transaction with a lot of inputs and outputs, joined at mempool level by miners. Maybe something like that will be implemented in Litecoin in the future when they will activate MimbleWimble protocol.
Again a problem that dont exist. Work with min amounts to send & use one of the simplest math features: Rounding.
If you use typical integers in typical programming languages, all numbers are rounded down, so one divided by two is zero (the same for 9/10). But I think such values could be simply rejected on mempool level.
Makes no sense. That's the idea of creating and burning to have with a huge adaption a way of self regulation. It's wrong to say it don't can work, but it's also wrong to say it will work 100%. So for people like u who wanna find something I better had to use the word "could".
I think creating and burning makes sense if there are some sidechains, but on mainchain it is not needed. Of course you can try it, the worst that could happen is just that the coin will be more complex, as far as I know that shouldn't affect security if done correctly.
I think you don't understand what I mean. Imagine you are in your wallet and want send someone money - you can set how long the number of the "password" or encryption for this transaction has to be.
With a higher encryption the miner works more to solve the transaction and the transaction is "safer". This is as I explained a way where the upcoming problem with quantum comps could be solved, cause then also quantum comps can do the encryptions as miners witch makes the whole thing equal again.
So do you want to mine single transactions instead of mining the whole blocks? (whatever "mining" means in context of no difficulty)
Sure in the beginning the coin is worthless - I mean every coin is worthless in the very beginning. It's not the first coin without the typical difficult rising concept from bitcoin - so if you like what ripple do, why looking for contra in this case?
Because in Ripple coin distribution was unfair. No difficulty means that coins have to be distributed somehow, the chain have to be protected from reorganizations and double-spending somehow. Skipping difficulty is one thing, but it should be replaced by something, because in other case it is not better than some centralized database in many banks. From difficulty comes security, you cannot produce Bitcoins just like that because of huge difficulty. If some coin has no difficulty, it has to be protected somehow and there is no information about that protections.
Wrong. Bitcoin is backed by nothing.
Bitcoin is backed by the heaviest chain of sha256d Proof of Work in the world.
You can't split them up and they give u the energy back it was needed to mine them.
That's true, but you have to use energy to make them. If there is no difficulty, then the energy involved in coin creation is minimal, so the value of the coin is also minimal, because the creator can produce a lot of coins just like banks. Even if some coin has limited supply, then still, initial coin creation usually belongs entirely to the coin creator, so it is unfair. Bitcoin would be worth much less than today if everyone would have to buy all coins from Satoshi.
And again: It's not the first coin without the BTC rising difficult distribution. I didn't say anything about the distribution yet so why you assume something?
Because most coins with no difficulty are premined or there are ICO's splitting coin supply between early adopters. In Bitcoin there are no such things, because coins are distributed based on difficulty, so they are based on using energy needed to create them. If there is no difficulty, that problem of initial coin distribution have to be solved somehow and I don't see any such coin doing it in a fair and honest way.
What if the wallets have no passwords? Without passwords your money could be stolen by a hacker! Bad unsafe coin!
You mean passwords invented by humans? They have low entropy, that's why public keys are better, because they are more random. Using public keys alone can provide enough security, but problems mentioned above are not related to that. You can use the same elliptic curve as Bitcoin, the problems above still hold. What if someone will create two conflicting transactions? In your coin Alice could send some coins to Bob, then restore some backup on another machine and send the same coins to Charlie. How your coin is protected from that if there is no difficulty? Who decides which transaction comes first? More than that: if there are two mining nodes, who decides which block is correct if there is no difficulty? Also, if there is some third node and it has completely different chain, who decides which chain is valid? In Bitcoin, all of those things are solved by difficulty, here you need some other solution for such problems.
