rpietila Altcoin Observer

[Peter R]

Why do I think altcoins are valid?  Because the financial industry wants to hedge security, and one, single block chain does not give them that.  What if Gavin or some other guy issued an update that imploded the BTC network?  They're just supposed to accept 100% loss?  No, they're not going to do that.

This argument is part of the Alt-coin Narrative Cycle.  It is only considered valid by people who don't fully understand how bitcoin works.  As people learn more about bitcoin, they will learn that it is not possible to "implode" bitcoin by an "update."  Even a network split event due to a poorly-excuted forking change wouldn't result in anywhere near a 100% loss.  It would be annoying, some double spends would occur, speculators would no doubt dump coins, but things would return to normal.

How is it possible to "implode" bitcoin if the value of bitcoin is stored in the blockchain ledger? 

[Peter R]

Darkcoin and Privacy

Privacy has always been important to the bitcoin community and perhaps it was only a matter of time before this narrative was exploited.  Darkcoin is the first example of this: it is a bitcoin-derived coin that uses master nodes to create giant coinjoin transactions, thereby obscuring the link between sender and receiver.  

Darkcoin has seen enormous growth with a market cap exceeded by only Bitcoin and Litecoin.  This is the power of narrative.  But Darkcoin was illegitimately insta-mined, has closed-source binaries, is not technologically innovative, and has a volatility-enhancing block reward equation¹.   In fact, since Darkcoin transactions are essentially bitcoin transactions with forced coinjoin, I don’t see why wallets like Darkwallet can’t achieve similar benefits with little of the drawbacks.   I predict Darkcoin will collapse, some will call it a scam, and others will say they shouldn't have invested in something they didn't understand.

But instead of seeing the protocol-enforced privacy narrative as narrative, people might look for a more technically-sound alternative to Darkcoin and without the insta-mine black eye.

Peter R, you seem to be Darkcoin hater. I wonder why. Maybe because you invested in Monero and Darkcoin is its direct competitor? Or you simply missed the DRK train? The information you give is based mostly on rumors that FUDsters gladly spread around.

1. Insta-mine: http://wiki.darkcoin.eu/wiki/FAQ#Was_Darkcoin_Instamined.3F
2. Darkcoin is opensourced. Closed source is Darksend part for the development period only. http://wiki.darkcoin.eu/wiki/FAQ#Is_DarkSend_open_source.3F
3. Your link to Darkcoin whitepaper proves it is technologically innovative.
4. Block reward system (Dark Gravity Well) is enhanced version of Kimoto Gravity Well destined to protect the coin from multipools and miners hopping.
5. Darksend is not classical coinjoin. The main difference is that darksend is decentralized. Discussion here: https://darkcointalk.org/threads/coinjoin-in-bitcoin-and-darksend.560/   Also it is not forced, just turned on by default.

Every your statement can be disproved.

My post from which you quoted was an academic view of the "Alt-Coin Narrative" cycle.  Believing that Darkcoin will collapse does not imply that I am a "hater."  In fact, I believe Dogecoin will collapse too (due to its quickly dropping mining subsidy) but I actually have a soft spot for the Dogecoin community and I am saddened for the good people losing money (because they invested without understanding Dogecoin's fundamental technical flaws).  

Whether those 5 points you posted are true or false no longer really matter.  Darkcoin is riding the hype cycle--only hype matters.  Darkcoin is perceived as insta-mined.  Darkcoin is perceived as closed-source.  Darkcoin is perceived as non-innovative.  Darkcoin is perceived to have a volatility-enhancing block reward.  Darksend is perceived as less advanced that Cryptonote's ring signature approach (Bytecoin, Monero, etc). The fact that you feel the need to argue that this perception doesn't represent reality strengthens my case.  When the hype is over, the market will use these as excuses to justify dumping the coins.  The market is fickle.  

For the record, I don't believe in Monero either.  I gave my opinion that it may appear to The Market as a more legitimate continuation of the "privacy narrative" that began with Darkcoin, after the coming collapse.  

[Queeq]

My post was an academic view of the "Alt-Coin Narrative" cycle.  Believing that Darkcoin will collapse does not imply that I am a "hater."  In fact, I believe Dogecoin will collapse too (due to its quickly dropping mining subsidy) but I actually have a soft spot for the Dogecoin community and I am saddened for the good people losing money (because they invested without understanding Dogecoin's fundamental technical flaws). 

Whether those 5 points you posted are true or false no longer really matter.  Darkcoin is riding the hype cycle--only hype matters.  Darkcoin is perceived as insta-mined.  Darkcoin is perceived as closed-source.  Darkcoin is perceived as non-innovative.  Darkcoin is perceived to have a volatility-enhancing block reward.  Darksend is perceived as less advanced that Cryptonote's ring signature approach (Bytecoin, Monero, etc). The fact that you feel the need to argue that this perception doesn't represent reality strengthens my case.  When the hype is over, the market will use these as excuses to justify dumping the coins.  The market is fickle. 

For the record, I don't believe in Monero either.  I just think that it may appear to The Market as a more legitimate continuation of the "privacy narrative" that began with Darkcoin. 

Thanks for composed answer. Sure bubbles tend to pop and DRK is not an exception. However it does not necessarily mean it would collapse and die completely. With ongoing development I'm sure it will take its niche.

The perception of those points is purely subjective and I doubt that the majority of people who are interested in Darkcoin share your point of view. And I don't understand how my counter-arguments strengthen your position.

I agree market is fickle and the perception of the coin itself would be as you said simply a justification. However this is typical cycle for any new technology which I see as completely expected.

[damiano]

I sold all my other alts over the past 2weeks , dumped dark A few days ago at its peak and transferred it all into Monero.  As others have said, it's an easy choice once you lay everything out(especially next to dark)

That 2 million premise is a joke

[Gyrsur]

altcoins are testcoins for accidents which should not happen to Bitcoin. 

[Queeq]

I sold all my other alts over the past 2weeks , dumped dark A few days ago at its peak and transferred it all into Monero.  As others have said, it's an easy choice once you lay everything out(especially next to dark)

That 2 million premise is a joke

Would you be so generous to share your research with others? Otherwise this claim is unsubstantiated. I hope it doesn't repeat what was already discussed.

[tacotime]

I simply wouldn't invest in Monero because anyone can clone Bytecoin and make their own cryptonote coin, no innovation has gone into Monero like with Bitcoin forks.

There are 4 Bytecoin clones and they are, Monero, Quazarcoin, HoneyPenny, and FantomCoin. They all have the exact same code and were forked from Bytecoin's codebase...What makes any of them special or different from the other, and future cryptonote coins to come?

I would say this is inaccurate.

Monero code has been worked on by many different developers. We optimized the slow_hash code roughly 16 fold and continue to create bugfixes for the chain while keeping the code up to date with what ByteCoin is offering. A bunch of our commits have already been integrated into the ByteCoin master.

Additionally, the Monero community generously donated what is now more than ten thousand USD to support the generation of the first open source pools and GUI for cryptonote coins. The major pool developer zone117x (NOMP) has gone from wanting his bounty in BTC to wanting it in MRO over the past couple of weeks, and looks forward to continuing to optimize CryptoNote pools.

[dewdeded]

Subbed.

[Its About Sharing]

I simply wouldn't invest in Monero because anyone can clone Bytecoin and make their own cryptonote coin, no innovation has gone into Monero like with Bitcoin forks.

There are 4 Bytecoin clones and they are, Monero, Quazarcoin, HoneyPenny, and FantomCoin. They all have the exact same code and were forked from Bytecoin's codebase...What makes any of them special or different from the other, and future cryptonote coins to come?

I would say this is inaccurate.

Monero code has been worked on by many different developers. We optimized the slow_hash code roughly 16 fold and continue to create bugfixes for the chain while keeping the code up to date with what ByteCoin is offering. A bunch of our commits have already been integrated into the ByteCoin master.

Additionally, the Monero community generously donated what is now more than ten thousand USD to support the generation of the first open source pools and GUI for cryptonote coins. The major pool developer zone117x (NOMP) has gone from wanting his bounty in BTC to wanting it in MRO over the past couple of weeks, and looks forward to continuing to optimize CryptoNote pools.

I see you only disagree with that part. What about the botnet part? I'm really curious here as I like the idea of CPU coins for a distributed network but wonder about the long term viability. Even then, we are talking distribution of coin once the hackers dump, but not a preferred method and it brings other problems of course.

[othe]

I simply wouldn't invest in Monero because anyone can clone Bytecoin and make their own cryptonote coin, no innovation has gone into Monero like with Bitcoin forks.

There are 4 Bytecoin clones and they are, Monero, Quazarcoin, HoneyPenny, and FantomCoin. They all have the exact same code and were forked from Bytecoin's codebase...What makes any of them special or different from the other, and future cryptonote coins to come?

I would say this is inaccurate.

Monero code has been worked on by many different developers. We optimized the slow_hash code roughly 16 fold and continue to create bugfixes for the chain while keeping the code up to date with what ByteCoin is offering. A bunch of our commits have already been integrated into the ByteCoin master.

Additionally, the Monero community generously donated what is now more than ten thousand USD to support the generation of the first open source pools and GUI for cryptonote coins. The major pool developer zone117x (NOMP) has gone from wanting his bounty in BTC to wanting it in MRO over the past couple of weeks, and looks forward to continuing to optimize CryptoNote pools.

I see you only disagree with that part. What about the botnet part? I'm really curious here as I like the idea of CPU coins for a distributed network but wonder about the long term viability. Even then, we are talking distribution of coin once the hackers dump, but not a preferred method and it brings other problems of course.

GPU Miners also dump their coins because they are just interested in Profit - and they need to pay their electricity bills and equipment.
ASICMiners also dump their coins because, see above. KNC Miner dumps half a million USD worth per day in Bitcoin.
What do u think will happen to Litecoin when all the ASICS hit? The miners will first of all sell all their Litecoins to get their investment back.

A Botnetowner doesn't need to pay off his equipment or pay the electricity bill, why should it be more unlikely for him to hold his coins?

Also its absolutely no problem to start cgminer and co. on a Botnet - GPU mining has no difference there.

The whole PoW ecosystem depends on greedy miners to be secure, it simply doesn't matter much HOW they mine.

[r0ach]

The amount of coins lost is completely meaningless. I cannot make this any clearer.

The amount of coins lost per year matters, that's a net gain for every other holder.  

Nobody was talking about some noob question of "oh no, we will run out of bitcoins if people lose them because we only have eight 0's".  

I was talking about applying the average estimated coins lost per year towards a minimum block reward instead of only transaction fees for block rewards in the future.

It's a matter of security vs "oh no! we have to make the currency as hyper deflationary as possible!".

As an example, a coin like Whitecoin was mined in only 7 days distribution, yet during those days, some guy managed to lose 2% of the entire monetary supply by having a laptop stolen out of a car by people who most likely don't use digital currency.

Why do I think altcoins are valid?  Because the financial industry wants to hedge security, and one, single block chain does not give them that.  What if Gavin or some other guy issued an update that imploded the BTC network?  They're just supposed to accept 100% loss?  No, they're not going to do that.

This argument is part of the Alt-coin Narrative Cycle.  It is only considered valid by people who don't fully understand how bitcoin works.  As people learn more about bitcoin, they will learn that it is not possible to "implode" bitcoin by an "update."  Even a network split event due to a poorly-excuted forking change wouldn't result in anywhere near a 100% loss.  It would be annoying, some double spends would occur, speculators would no doubt dump coins, but things would return to normal.

Is this a joke?  I don't think you really understand how cryptocurrency works, the entire thing is a confidence game.  Since you can't hold it in your hand, that's what it's backed by.  Walk around in the altcoin world for a while and you'll see that when coins encounter major security issues like forking, double spends, whatever, most do implode and don't recover.  Bitcoin won't be exempt from that in the future.

[wachtwoord]

The amount of coins lost is completely meaningless. I cannot make this any clearer.

The amount of coins lost per year matters, that's a net gain for every other holder.  

Nobody was talking about some noob question of "oh no, we will run out of bitcoins if people lose them because we only have eight 0's".  

Yes he was. He was advocating a specific altcoin is useful because it has an infinite supply and Bitcoins coins get lost every year. That cannot be interpreted any other way.

As with your actual proposal: the block reward is a subsidy. If the subsidy is needed forever our little experiment has failed.

[Peter R]

Why do I think altcoins are valid?  Because the financial industry wants to hedge security, and one, single block chain does not give them that.  What if Gavin or some other guy issued an update that imploded the BTC network?  They're just supposed to accept 100% loss?  No, they're not going to do that.

This argument is part of the Alt-coin Narrative Cycle.  It is only considered valid by people who don't fully understand how bitcoin works.  As people learn more about bitcoin, they will learn that it is not possible to "implode" bitcoin by an "update."  Even a network split event due to a poorly-excuted forking change wouldn't result in anywhere near a 100% loss.  It would be annoying, some double spends would occur, speculators would no doubt dump coins, but things would return to normal.

How is it possible to "implode" bitcoin if the value of bitcoin is stored in the blockchain ledger?  

Is this a joke?  I don't think you really understand how cryptocurrency works, the entire thing is a confidence game.  Since you can't hold it in your hand, that's what it's backed by.  Walk around in the altcoin world for a while and you'll see that when coins encounter major security issues like forking, double spends, whatever, most do implode and don't recover.  Bitcoin won't be exempt from that in the future.

Perhaps it is you who doesn't understand how money works.

Money is a confidence game.  Like you said, "you can't hold it in your hand so that's what it's backed by."  Money is an abstract idea invented by humans to solve the double-coincidence of wants problem that a pure barter economy faces.  Money represents spots on a ledger that people trade in and out of for real goods and services.  The more legitimate the ledger, and the easier it is to trade in and out of that ledger (the payment system), the more useful this form of money becomes.  

You understand that the value of a cryptocurrency is related to confidence, but it seems you assume this confidence comes from the technology employed by the payment system.  But this is not true.  The confidence comes from the legitimacy of the ledger.  A new payment system can be built around a legitimate ledger, but a legitimate ledger cannot easily, if it's possible at all, be built around a new payment system.

The reason most alt-coins die is because the ledger wasn't legitimate in the first place.  It has very little to do with the technology of the payment system or else every bitcoin-clone would be equally valuable.  

You mentioned that a simple "update" could "implode" bitcoin such that 100% of its value was lost.  Can you explain how such an event would occur?  If the ledger of value is still intact, and if people can still prove ownership of their spots on that ledger with their private keys, and if transactions can still be registered on that ledger, what event could be so bad that suddenly everyone would agree that 7 billion dollars (or $7 trillion in the future) of purchasing power went up in smoke?  

Here's a thought experiment: at some point in the distant future, imagine that the Bitcoin Network gets relentlessly 51% attacked for days on end.  Imagine also that there is a new experimental technology that we know for a fact will defeat the attacks.  What would the economic majority do?  Would they abandon all their purchasing power, financial records and accounting systems?  Or would they simply employ this new technology to record transactions on the existing bitcoin ledger and go on with their lives?  

The answer is pretty obvious if you think about it.  

The Blockchain will be preserved.

[wachtwoord]

Peter R: If you claim to be an academic. What is you real name? So we can check your academic publications.

Judging form your posts, it looks like English isn't your first language. Right?

Wow, two logical fallacies and one false statement all wrapped up in a such a short post.  Are you disagreeing with or offended by something I've said?

If you claim to be an academic. What is you real name? So we can check your academic publications.

I don't make that claim, but nevertheless: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

Judging form your posts, it looks like English isn't your first language. Right?

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

And you shot the guy down perfectly.

[drawingthesun]

One huge problem with all CPU coins and that is bots. What about viruses, etc. infecting computers and having them serve as miners for DRK, MRO and other CPU coins?
Not 100% bad as it does strengthen the network but it can lead to problems later on. I could hear the department of homeland security now. But then again, any
anonymising technology (e.g. darkwallet), will probably cause similar reactions.

IAS

This^^ CPU only coins get destroyed by botnets..Monero will end up having a few hackers who own large botnet farms with the majority of coins. Don't be surprised when they dump 100k,200k etc Monero on the exchange. And the scaling/bloating issue of Monero's blockchain makes it even less accessible than Bitcoin and much much less user friendly...

I simply wouldn't invest in Monero because anyone can clone Bytecoin and make their own cryptonote coin, no innovation has gone into Monero like with Bitcoin forks.

There are 4 Bytecoin clones and they are, Monero, Quazarcoin, HoneyPenny, and FantomCoin. They all have the exact same code and were forked from Bytecoin's codebase...What makes any of them special or different from the other, and future cryptonote coins to come?

Nothing.

Regarding the clones, MRO was the first fair launch of a CryptoNote coin and is in my eyes essentially first, I couldn't invest into Bytecoin due to their chain being two years old underground. If Bytecoin had been known for two years I wouldn't consider it a pre-mine and I would have supported Bytecoin instead. I always support the first [1] but Bytecoin was such a pre-mine it makes no sense to invest.

Regarding botnet dumping, I wouldn't worry so much as Bitcoin has been doing well with ASIC dumping and Litecoin with GPU dumping. I thought it was common knowledge many farms dump their coin straight back to USD, the amount of believers that mine is a lower percentage of the total amount of miners.

[1] I like the idea of Ethereum too, that's a fair launch. If they instead released with a two year old chain, we'll have to move onto a clone because it's unethical to support two year pre-mines, hence why I see Monero as being first, because Bytecoin is void.

[Joshuar]

One huge problem with all CPU coins and that is bots. What about viruses, etc. infecting computers and having them serve as miners for DRK, MRO and other CPU coins?
Not 100% bad as it does strengthen the network but it can lead to problems later on. I could hear the department of homeland security now. But then again, any
anonymising technology (e.g. darkwallet), will probably cause similar reactions.

IAS

This^^ CPU only coins get destroyed by botnets..Monero will end up having a few hackers who own large botnet farms with the majority of coins. Don't be surprised when they dump 100k,200k etc Monero on the exchange. And the scaling/bloating issue of Monero's blockchain makes it even less accessible than Bitcoin and much much less user friendly...

I simply wouldn't invest in Monero because anyone can clone Bytecoin and make their own cryptonote coin, no innovation has gone into Monero like with Bitcoin forks.

There are 4 Bytecoin clones and they are, Monero, Quazarcoin, HoneyPenny, and FantomCoin. They all have the exact same code and were forked from Bytecoin's codebase...What makes any of them special or different from the other, and future cryptonote coins to come?

Nothing.

Regarding the clones, MRO was the first fair launch of a CryptoNote coin and is in my eyes essentially first, I couldn't invest into Bytecoin due to their chain being two years old underground. If Bytecoin had been known for two years I wouldn't consider it a pre-mine and I would have supported Bytecoin instead. I always support the first [1] but Bytecoin was such a pre-mine it makes no sense to invest.

Regarding botnet dumping, I wouldn't worry so much as Bitcoin has been doing well with ASIC dumping and Litecoin with GPU dumping. I thought it was common knowledge many farms dump their coin straight back to USD, the amount of believers that mine is a lower percentage of the total amount of miners.

[1] I like the idea of Ethereum too, that's a fair launch. If they instead released with a two year old chain, we'll have to move onto a clone because it's unethical to support two year pre-mines, hence why I see Monero as being first, because Bytecoin is void.

Even if in your eyes Monero is seen as the  "first", it's just a clone of Bytecoin and offers nothing new to the table...Monero has the same exact features as Quazarcoin, HoneyPenny, and FantomCoin. The only thing that makes them different is the names and logos...I'm sorry but coins like these never make it far, they may be hyped in the short run, but in the long run, having innovation is what carries a coin further, not being copied code for code like Monero was from Bytecoin..

[digitalindustry]

So why invest into litecoin OVER bitcoin?

It's funny reading threads like this where people get outright angry at the existence of Litecoin.  The people with 5 stars by their name won't tell you the reason they're angry about it, but the reason is, they're scared a network won't function solely with transaction fees unless it has a monopoly on the entire market, and even then, it's still sketchy.  What I see happening in the long run is, eventually this model might prove to be faulty, but nobody will be able to gain consensus to change it due to being called Keynesians.  Some lower coin with a minimum block reward that never goes below X units will probably have to lead the way until the top coins are forced to change.

I don't want to be called  Keynesian as much as anyone else, but I foresee the amount of coins lost per year if cryptocurrency ever becomes mainstream to be a huge number.  People will lose passwords or die all the time with encrypted wallets and those coins will be lost forever.  The number lost per year is going to be at least 1% in my opinion, so having a coin supply that always emits new coins by a minimum of 1-2% wouldn't be a big deal.

The real conspiracy theory in this situation, would be if some government entity already knew this model wasn't viable, and tries to lure everyone into a one world currency using Austrian economics as bait, then pulls the rug out on them.  I don't consider always having a small, minimum block reward being a bait and switch, but there's no telling the scope of the bait and switch government regulation could pull off.

There's also the option that the miners themselves are going to vote themselves a raise in the form of minimum block reward, and everything will be quietly settled that way.

I think someone has been doing some reading ! https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=619427.0  ; D

Roach has got this one right -

there is significant risk of both complete monopoly and velocity manipulation, in this way the owner of the majority stake cold in effect "tighten" supply and cause a recession or "increase" velocity and have "good times" just as interest rates are manipulated today.

That is why the EQ reward exists.

yet wait for it !


NO ONE TALKS about it ! ha ha ha ha ha ha !

 

[digitalindustry]

that's why i can embarrass the Crypto community  by asking for the smartest minds to discuss the issue with me.

because they won't.

The truth is a funny little thing isn't it.


I'm sorry to say it for the people that don't like to hear it but Quark is the only Crypto that is certainly not subject to this control.

the reason it is not is because it was mined in that 6 month period and dropped to a near zero value then lots of smaller investors picked it up, this way it was distributed in a way that will forever mean that it is outside that control largely then combine that with the EQ reward. and you have a currency that will flow in the free market, stabilize and be one of the best measures of crypto in the future.  

i don't doubt there will be others and there may already be , but Quark set this precedent, Quark is and was the first real Alternative currency.

[the_darkness]

Even if in your eyes Monero is seen as the  "first", it's just a clone of Bytecoin and offers nothing new to the table...Monero has the same exact features as Quazarcoin, HoneyPenny, and FantomCoin. The only thing that makes them different is the names and logos...I'm sorry but coins like these never make it far, they may be hyped in the short run, but in the long run, having innovation is what carries a coin further, not being copied code for code like Monero was from Bytecoin..

The only way that Darkcoin is able to avoid the same problem is by being closed source and hence entirely unvalidated in its claims. If Darksend goes open source as Evan has claimed, what is going to stop someone from launching a "fair launch" Darkcoin with identical technology but none of the problems involving the "insta-mine" etc.? I'd be really careful relying on this argument as the exact same criticism will apply to DRK three months from now when clones start coming out. The MRO developers are clearly the drivers of CryptoNote innovation right now in terms of volume of improvements to the code base, making CryptoNote technology more accessible, etc. That is how you establish a currency amongst a sea of duplicates.

[Cryddit]

I've been trying to track the deaths of altcoins;  Not so much to hasten them along as just putting up a memorial so they won't be forgotten.  The list of "dead" alts I know about is at:  

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=588413.0

There's room for debate; some of those blockchains are still running, but with microscopic market cap.  Others could be revived at some future moment.  And I'm sure there are dozens or hundreds that I don't even know about which could be added to the list.

But in general, these are cryptocurrencies that, as far as I can tell, have either run their course or don't have a course in front of them to run.

When I have time, I investigate further and put as much information as I can gather into a summary next to one or more of the names.  

It is truly upsetting how many of these stories are the stories of obvious scams.

However, some patterns are emerging.  Here are some observations about the ones that DON'T appear to be obvious scams:  

• Alts have a plethora of different hashing algorithms, but there are really only three divisions that matter between their proof of work.  Either they are CPU dominated, GPU dominated, or they are mined with a particular kind of algorithm-specific ASIC.  ASICs exist for SHA256D coins like bitcoin and for Scrypt coins like Litecoin.  No other algorithm-specific hardware exists, so no other difference in hashing algorithm matters.
  
• Within each division, coins rapidly reach an equilibrium where whichever hardware generates their proof of work is allocated in direct proportion to the financial reward per minute of the block reward.   Usually this means that halving the block reward of an alt, other things being equal, halves the hashing power securing its block chain.
  
• Most alts become unstable when 3/4 or more of their coin supply has been mined (second reward halving), even if no other factors have made the cryptocurrency unstable prior to that time.  If the value being secured exceeds the block reward by too great a fraction, 51% attacks and forks are to be expected.  
  
• "Burst mining" or "automatically switching multipools" act like positive feedback amplifiers with a delay loop in mining - they make it VERY difficult for an alt to maintain a 'stable' block rate when its hash rate gets too small relative to the pool (GPU, CPU, or specific ASIC type) of hashing power it belongs to.  This is a heavy contributing factor in the 51% attacks and forks mentioned above.  
  
• Several alts switched to proof-of-stake after to this instability led to bad forks or "stuck" block chains where miners essentially had given up due to a burst miner leaving the chain at a ridiculously high difficulty level.
  
• A shift from proof-of-work to to proof-of-stake, whatever its effect on market value, has usually led to stagnation or decline in the community surrounding the alt.  In turn this usually leads to a collapse in value of the alt, unless heroic measures (such as direct giveaways by stakeholders to non-stakeholders) are used to bring people into the community.