rpietila Altcoin Observer

[jmw74]

I've always thought that any sufficiently funded team of professionals could blow Bitcoin out of the water in a short period of time. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet to be honest. Probably still too niche.

Blow bitcoin out of the water with what?  Pump and dump scams?  What else could possibly motivate anyone to run an expensive marketing campaign?

[1714187283]

1714187283

[1714187283]

1714187283

[1714187283]

1714187283

[daxiake]

Anonymous is a strong term, we have yet to see one cryptocurrency achieve that instead of boasting about "anonymity".

Simply integrating mixing or wiring the transactions via Tor/L2P isn't enough, integrating mixing and claiming anonymity makes about as much sense as lowering the block speed and claiming to be the "fastest altcoin" or "the altcoin with the fastest transactions". It implies that there is some original innovation when there is none.

I might not be on here 24/7 looking into every single altcoin but as far as I know we are the only candidate that got it so far, however we are pretty early into development ourselves.

seem NUD is the only true anon con.

and they will introduce ruduced blockchain soon.

The next update will likely be the last mandatory hardfork, we will introduce a reduced blockchain and apply some amorphous computing concepts that we have been working on very hard, topology-aware clients are the future of decentralized monetary systems and will lead to much faster propagation of information and generally significantly reduced dis-synchronization of the network.

[Este Nuno]

I've always thought that any sufficiently funded team of professionals could blow Bitcoin out of the water in a short period of time. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet to be honest. Probably still too niche.

Blow bitcoin out of the water with what?  Pump and dump scams?  What else could possibly motivate anyone to run an expensive marketing campaign?

No. A superior product produced by a professional team of coders and cryptographers. Backed by economists and social experts.

[Jungian]

Anonymous is a strong term, we have yet to see one cryptocurrency achieve that instead of boasting about "anonymity".

Simply integrating mixing or wiring the transactions via Tor/L2P isn't enough, integrating mixing and claiming anonymity makes about as much sense as lowering the block speed and claiming to be the "fastest altcoin" or "the altcoin with the fastest transactions". It implies that there is some original innovation when there is none.

I might not be on here 24/7 looking into every single altcoin but as far as I know we are the only candidate that got it so far, however we are pretty early into development ourselves.

seem NUD is the only true anon con.

and they will introduce ruduced blockchain soon.

Where is the evidence for NUD being anonymous?

[superresistant]

seem NUD is the only true anon con.
and they will introduce ruduced blockchain soon.

Where is the evidence for NUD being anonymous?

He was probably trolling lol.

[aminorex]

I've always thought that any sufficiently funded team of professionals could blow Bitcoin out of the water in a short period of time. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet to be honest. Probably still too niche.

Blow bitcoin out of the water with what?  Pump and dump scams?  What else could possibly motivate anyone to run an expensive marketing campaign?

Good question.  It would probably be a Google-esque give away, in which the boon is granted in order to create an ecosystem in which a novel business model is profitable.  For example, a financier-driven competitor would be similarly open-source (but community-oriented only in the degree required to avoid an immediate fork before the ecosystem was up and running) and be optimized for lending, leverage, and scripting contracts.  Ethereum, anyone?  They are funded by Goldman-Sachs alumni.  Their marketing has been brutal in its consequences for BTC.  Since their cronies run the governments in North America and Europe, prosecution for securities law violations seems questionable.

[JorgeStolfi]

I've always thought that any sufficiently funded team of professionals could blow Bitcoin out of the water in a short period of time. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet to be honest. Probably still too niche.

Blow bitcoin out of the water with what?

With a budget of 150 million USD, a group determined to push a "FooCoin", with similar protocol but independent blockchain, could hire the top 3-4 mining companies and switch the majority of the bitcoin hashrate to mining FooCoin, for three months at least.

Combine with some flashy bells and whistles, a TV marketing campaign, support by Apple and Facebook, perhaps some biased government regulation, and perhaps in that time the FooCoin will get enough newbie demand to stand on its own -- namely, with such a combination of market price, difficulty, and block reward that it would attract more hashrate than Bitcoin, even without the external subsidy.

That would not kill Bitcoin outright, but it would take away its "network advantage".

Could such a plan work?

[Este Nuno]

seem NUD is the only true anon con.
and they will introduce ruduced blockchain soon.

Where is the evidence for NUD being anonymous?

He was probably trolling lol.

He's not trolling. He actually thinks that.

Which is hilarious. Especially coming to this thread of all places.

[ShroomsKit_Disgrace]

Apart from the hate of Monero fans, has anyone a competent opinion about the incoming SuperNet? It sounds really interesting.

[jmw74]

I've always thought that any sufficiently funded team of professionals could blow Bitcoin out of the water in a short period of time. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet to be honest. Probably still too niche.

Blow bitcoin out of the water with what?  Pump and dump scams?  What else could possibly motivate anyone to run an expensive marketing campaign?

No. A superior product produced by a professional team of coders and cryptographers. Backed by economists and social experts.

How would it differ substantially from bitcoin?  

Unless you're talking about philanthropy, whoever funds this project will expect something in return.  What is it?

[Este Nuno]

I've always thought that any sufficiently funded team of professionals could blow Bitcoin out of the water in a short period of time. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet to be honest. Probably still too niche.

Blow bitcoin out of the water with what?  Pump and dump scams?  What else could possibly motivate anyone to run an expensive marketing campaign?

Good question.  It would probably be a Google-esque give away, in which the boon is granted in order to create an ecosystem in which a novel business model is profitable.  For example, a financier-driven competitor would be similarly open-source (but community-oriented only in the degree required to avoid an immediate fork before the ecosystem was up and running) and be optimized for lending, leverage, and scripting contracts.  Ethereum, anyone?  They are funded by Goldman-Sachs alumni.  Their marketing has been brutal in its consequences for BTC.  Since their cronies run the governments in North America and Europe, prosecution for securities law violations seems questionable.

This current Bitcoin downturn started at the same time that there was a minor hysteria regarding the perception that Ethereum was going to be selling their 26000 BTC. Now I'm certainly not claiming this downturn is caused solely by Ethereum, but the perception that they could actually produce a valuable product isn't something that is likely to have a positive effect on the price of Bitcoin.

[Este Nuno]

Apart from the hate of Monero fans, has anyone a competent opinion about the incoming SuperNet? It sounds really interesting.

It is interesting. I like many others are worried about jl777's possible over extension, considering how many projects he's currently running. Although he insists that this is the optimal way for him to work.

From an investment stand point I have no real opinion either way. James seems convinced that he will be able to provide significant profits to investors by offering his services through the superNET GUI that will be present in all the wallets participating in the network. I'm not really in any position to judge it as an investment in that sense since I'm not really familiar with how his other projects intend to make money. It's quite possible that he is right and the consolidation of features in to one GUI accessible by a large group of people will be a source of massive profit. Sounds plausible I guess.

But I'm mostly interested in it as a spectator. I would very much like to see him pull this off technically. As it's something that's never been done before and does actually have potential to change the game so to speak. I would like to see it all come together like he says. And I'm also eagerly awaiting any attention from the "we hate anything that's not Bitcoin" community.

[jmw74]

I've always thought that any sufficiently funded team of professionals could blow Bitcoin out of the water in a short period of time. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet to be honest. Probably still too niche.

Blow bitcoin out of the water with what?  Pump and dump scams?  What else could possibly motivate anyone to run an expensive marketing campaign?

Good question.  It would probably be a Google-esque give away, in which the boon is granted in order to create an ecosystem in which a novel business model is profitable.  For example, a financier-driven competitor would be similarly open-source (but community-oriented only in the degree required to avoid an immediate fork before the ecosystem was up and running) and be optimized for lending, leverage, and scripting contracts.  Ethereum, anyone?  They are funded by Goldman-Sachs alumni.  Their marketing has been brutal in its consequences for BTC.  Since their cronies run the governments in North America and Europe, prosecution for securities law violations seems questionable.

Either the creator controls it or they don't.  If they don't mind it being neutral, they might as well just hire the bitcoin devs.  Unless you think there's something wrong with bitcoin's ledger.  Seemed like a fair distribution to me.

The reason alternative coins don't build off the existing bitcoin ledger is because it doesn't permit pump and dump.

[aminorex]

If they don't mind it being neutral, they might as well just hire the bitcoin devs.  

Easier said than done. 

[Este Nuno]

I've always thought that any sufficiently funded team of professionals could blow Bitcoin out of the water in a short period of time. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet to be honest. Probably still too niche.

Blow bitcoin out of the water with what?  Pump and dump scams?  What else could possibly motivate anyone to run an expensive marketing campaign?

Good question.  It would probably be a Google-esque give away, in which the boon is granted in order to create an ecosystem in which a novel business model is profitable.  For example, a financier-driven competitor would be similarly open-source (but community-oriented only in the degree required to avoid an immediate fork before the ecosystem was up and running) and be optimized for lending, leverage, and scripting contracts.  Ethereum, anyone?  They are funded by Goldman-Sachs alumni.  Their marketing has been brutal in its consequences for BTC.  Since their cronies run the governments in North America and Europe, prosecution for securities law violations seems questionable.

Either the creator controls it or they don't.  If they don't mind it being neutral, they might as well just hire the bitcoin devs.  Unless you think there's something wrong with bitcoin's ledger.  Seemed like a fair distribution to me.

The reason few alternative coins don't build off the existing bitcoin ledger is because it doesn't permit pump and dump.

The developers that people are currently trusting by running their software effectively control it. Until everyone decides they don't like whats being given to them and decide to switch.

Why would they hire the Bitcoin devs? And I think it would be fairly obvious at this point in 2014 not to use Bitcoin's ledger when we're talking about having access to millions of dollars in resources and world class programming talent.

Not every project that is an alternative to Bitcoin is a "pump and dump" you know.

[aminorex]

I'm not really familiar with how his other projects intend to make money.

You make certain assumptions there, for which I would like to see evidence.  Evidence would certainly make me much more positively disposed to James' ... projects.

[othe]

I've always thought that any sufficiently funded team of professionals could blow Bitcoin out of the water in a short period of time. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet to be honest. Probably still too niche.

Blow bitcoin out of the water with what?  Pump and dump scams?  What else could possibly motivate anyone to run an expensive marketing campaign?

Good question.  It would probably be a Google-esque give away, in which the boon is granted in order to create an ecosystem in which a novel business model is profitable.  For example, a financier-driven competitor would be similarly open-source (but community-oriented only in the degree required to avoid an immediate fork before the ecosystem was up and running) and be optimized for lending, leverage, and scripting contracts.  Ethereum, anyone?  They are funded by Goldman-Sachs alumni.  Their marketing has been brutal in its consequences for BTC.  Since their cronies run the governments in North America and Europe, prosecution for securities law violations seems questionable.

Either the creator controls it or they don't.  If they don't mind it being neutral, they might as well just hire the bitcoin devs.  Unless you think there's something wrong with bitcoin's ledger.  Seemed like a fair distribution to me.

The reason alternative coins don't build off the existing bitcoin ledger is because it doesn't permit pump and dump.

Just no.

In case of Monero, NXT and co. who have a completly different codebase, how would you even do that?

Other good reasons against that are:
1) Exchanges will get most coins.
2) A lot of coins are already lost.
3) Satoshi would get a shitload of coins.
4) Mark Karpeles gets a shitload of coins.
5) Most users would prolly just dump them till the value is 0.
6) Shitload of coins in hands of investors who did nothing for the coin itself.

Why should people who did nothing for the coin even get them? Miners get there share because they help to secure the network for example....

[Este Nuno]

I'm not really familiar with how his other projects intend to make money.

You make certain assumptions there, for which I would like to see evidence.  Evidence would certainly make me much more positively disposed to James' ... projects.

Assumptions that his other projects make money? I have no idea personally, but unsurprisingly he's convinced they will. So I guess I'd believe him until I see evidence other wise, the fact that people are investing millions of dollars in his projects suggests something at least.

Until recently jl777 was just a vaguely familiar name to me that was somehow related to NXT. I've only recently learned about him being responsible for creating all these assets valued at millions of dollars. That sparked my interest and from what I can tell he's created the NXT Multi Gateway which is currently in use, so at least on that end there is evidence that he's been producing something. I don't claim to know much about what he's doing, I'm just an observer with no vested financial interest giving my opinions. I honestly don't know either way and I'm just waiting to see the results of all these projects.

I guess you could boil it down to the fact that there is big money involved and apparently code as well. If it were just a bunch of money I probably wouldn't be so interested. It seems like he has a lot of work ahead of himself though.

[AnonyMint]

Have you not seen the bombings that threaten cities worldwide? From the boston bombing that claimed a few lives, to ISIS taking over bases in the middle east?

The big 'T' propaganda that is designed to keep you enslaved to the State.

You have more risk of dying in a car accident or heart attack.

In the USA, one has an 800% higher probability of being killed by the police than a terrorist.

Full secrecy would allow child molesters, terrorist organizations, violent racial groups, gangs, corrupt governments(north korea), etc to grow even more without anyone being able to take them down, especially when it comes to transmitting money..

It will also enable men to get back to being gentlemen who use deadly force against such. It will enable anonymous bounties to be put on the heads of such criminals. I live in Davao which has nearly no crime, because criminals are executed along the side of the road by the Davao Death Squad. No court, no jail time, no nonsense. You are given 3 warnings to reform or leave.

That's why I do not support Zerocash. WIth Ring Signatures you can have full anonymity and still be Legal(so you're transaction history is still known by you incase of anything), while zerocash doesnt have such things.

Zerocash can't be trusted, because the money supply can't be known and the math is unvetted. Also like Ethereum it is created by academics, so will (most likely) suck.

Ring signatures are unwound if the tax authorities will require us to provide our password to justify our tax basis (my theory of the future). Ring signatures don't mix well with a fully decentralized design which can scale transactions.

[othe]

Ring signatures are unwound when the tax authorities require you to provide your password to justify your tax basis.

Use more than 1 wallet? Plausible deniability is such a nice toy. And why password? Give them a viewkey to whatever wallet you want to have exposed. Ideally you can even password protect a wallet with different keys who then unlock whichever viewkey you want to release, like the hiddenos feature of safeguard and truecrypt.