rpietila Altcoin Observer

[Peter R]

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

You've been keeping an important log for posterity of the death of alt coins.  Thank you for your contribution!

What I would be keen to see is a repository of simple blockchain and market price data for many of these coins, that we could download in a common format.  Even if we had time series in CSV format of {date, price, coin supply, hashrate} I think it would be very useful.  By plotting graphs and fooling around with the raw data, new and important patterns may reveal themselves. 

It is very easy to do analysis for bitcoin since I can import data directly into Mathematica from blockchain.info.  I've learned a lot by playing around with this data (for example the Metcalfe Value correlation):

Code:

Import["https://blockchain.info/charts/total-bitcoins?showDataPoints=false&timespan=all&show_header=true&daysAverageString=1&scale=0&format=csv&address="];

[rpietila]

I wrote down the rules for the thread (found also in the OP):


Hi, I am rpietila. Welcome to my first thread on altcoins. I have been a Bitcoin owner since 2011 but never owned any alts, until I bought some MRO after it hit the exchange last week.

The rules of this thread are very strict, as always in my threads:

- There is no freedom of speech. The topic is altcoins, but I also want that it stays in a level that is possible and interesting to read for a busy Bitcoin holder that does not care about alts. I know how it feels to be a busy Bitcoin holder, so I steer the discussion to the maximum benefit for me, and for my readers.

- Which alts can be discussed, is up to me. Mentioning an alt after that specific alt has been banned from a thread results in a ban for you. If you do not obey my ban from the thread, historically you have had 100% chance to be banned from the forum as a result. Don't try your luck.

- Posts may be deleted for whatever reason. Deletion does not necessarily mean that the post was offensive. It may also have been too long quote (in which case either the original, or the reply may be pruned), repetition of yours or somebody else's point, or anything else.

- Moderating actions are written in red. Others are not allowed to use red.


Until now, the discussion has been very nice. Unfortunately many altcoins threads are unadulterated garbage with a few diamond posts in every 20 pages. To preserve this one to be actually readable, I made the above rules. Don't post unless you have something new to say, and can match the previous posters in clarity. Even mentioning a shitcoin in this thread results in a ban.

Special thanks to 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.
...

This kind of posters we need!

[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.

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.

(and drawingthesun)

I realize what you say but you still really haven't gotten to the heart of my issue. I'm not super concerned about dumping coins (I agree with your points). I'm concerned their might be more
"bad" miners (bots) than "good" miners. Again, this might be a good thing as you can't exactly attack a network that some don't even know exists (on their computers.)
A bit of a Matrixy argument. I really don't know here. I'd say I'm more on the side of a few CPU coins existing actually (and loved Quark but the one thing I was worried about was this issue
of bots which really hasn't been investigated.)

I think when the ASIC's hit, it is going to solidify LTC as the #2 coin, especially after Doge is getting slammed (Which I think is good for many reasons.) Perhaps a CPU
based coin is number 2 for a bit, but I think the big money is going to continue to move in and offer clients a choice  - The leader and big dog - BTC, and then a cheaper
and faster alt - LTC.

Back to bots, as I said, this might end up being a good thing, but what are the bad things? I think we need to look into this further. And I realize lots of BTC's have been stolen, and that is
essentially the same thing (e.g. raising dark money for whatever purpose, theft, etc.).

So, what can the implications of bots be on coins? (Good and Bad)

Its about sharing

[digitalindustry]

Bots are just bots.

There is no implications, there are only %'s .

All that matters is the % , when you want to take a monopoly of a currency all that matters is the % .

A currency that is generated from genesis block into a monopoly is much much worse than a few free market robots mining it alongside many other participants, % wise it is anyhow.


For the same reason X11 is popular now because it is the most equitable for the most of the market , it's keeping the monopolies happy for now and its still equitable enough for mid to small miners also.

All is how it should be.

[superresistant]

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.  

It is really interesting.
What is your view on Monero ? For what reasons you don't believe in it ?

[devphp]

An extremely biased review from someone with a lot of vested interest towards Bitcoin.

[Its About Sharing]

Bots are just bots.

There is no implications, there are only %'s .

All that matters is the % , when you want to take a monopoly of a currency all that matters is the % .

A currency that is generated from genesis block into a monopoly is much much worse than a few free market robots mining it alongside many other participants, % wise it is anyhow.


For the same reason X11 is popular now because it is the most equitable for the most of the market , it's keeping the monopolies happy for now and its still equitable enough for mid to small miners also.

All is how it should be.

And what is that % of bots relative to the "legit" miners? 10%, 40%, 90%, etc?
This can be a serious consideration. If Cryptos become a threat then it is super easy for e.g. the government of a country to mandate the implementation of bots, etc. LOL
There could theoretically be situations where bots would control more of a Crypto than miners. And then that could be tied to terrorism, etc. We need to look closer at this.

I see no debate about this, just dismissing bots. To bring fairness to the discussion, let's not gloss over it.

Quite simply, we don't know the effect of bots. And brainstorming seems more productive than ignorance.

Its about sharing

[digitalindustry]

Bots are just bots.

There is no implications, there are only %'s .

All that matters is the % , when you want to take a monopoly of a currency all that matters is the % .

A currency that is generated from genesis block into a monopoly is much much worse than a few free market robots mining it alongside many other participants, % wise it is anyhow.


For the same reason X11 is popular now because it is the most equitable for the most of the market , it's keeping the monopolies happy for now and its still equitable enough for mid to small miners also.

All is how it should be.

And what is that % of bots relative to the "legit" miners? 10%, 40%, 90%, etc?
This can be a serious consideration. If Cryptos become a threat then it is super easy for e.g. the government of a country to mandate the implementation of bots, etc. LOL
There could theoretically be situations where bots would control more of a Crypto than miners. And then that could be tied to terrorism, etc. We need to look closer at this.

I see no debate about this, just dismissing bots. To bring fairness to the discussion, let's not gloss over it.

Quite simply, we don't know the effect of bots. And brainstorming seems more productive than ignorance.

Its about sharing

i'm all about it - brainstorming, robots need to expose the back-doors that were written into the popular closed source software for the NSA and other adventurers - this is WIndows and OSX.

as most systems are tending towards open source, and that trend seems to be growing, the problem looks limited - another factor is I don't believe a CPU only algo will ever be viable.

i've always said that the algorithm that will be the most viable will be the one that makes "the most of the market happy"

I predicted that,  and it happened, so this at the moment is X11 - in the future it will change again , but in the end my statement was that hash complexity (Complex Proof of Work) will be the permanent PoW solution.

and now its taking over, this eliminates the Robot issue and allows some equity back into the market, the market always seeks to find an equilibrium.

it does this beautifully, there is nothing controlling it, even if participants believe they are, they actually are not.   

[luke997]

I understand OP is a busy man, but this is biased and [EDIT - missing "not"] not researched properly.

The classical altcoins do not offer anything relative to Bitcoin, except maybe a different hashing algorithm. An important thing to remember is that there is no long-term market niche for two coins with the same algo. The hashing power of the larger coin is constantly threatening to destroy the smaller one. Even if that does not happen, there are network effects in play that favor the larger coin and suppress the smaller.

There's at least several features in few of the alts which offer something interesting that Bitcoin is lacking.
However you look at it, if there is an interesting feature worth exploring and further development - that's what should be done, from many angles - first rule of progress in any technology.

There's more, but I just stopped on this.

Nothing to be taken away from Bitcoin - it is and it'll be cryptographic currencies king for some years to come, but progress has to be made.

[drawingthesun]

I understand OP is a busy man, but this is biased and researched properly.

The classical altcoins do not offer anything relative to Bitcoin, except maybe a different hashing algorithm. An important thing to remember is that there is no long-term market niche for two coins with the same algo. The hashing power of the larger coin is constantly threatening to destroy the smaller one. Even if that does not happen, there are network effects in play that favor the larger coin and suppress the smaller.

There's at least several features in few of the alts which offer something interesting that Bitcoin is lacking.
However you look at it, if there is an interesting feature worth exploring and further development - that's what should be done, from many angles - first rule of progress in any technology.

There's more, but I just stopped on this.

Nothing to be taken away from Bitcoin - it is and it'll be cryptographic currencies king for some years to come, but progress has to be made.

His point was that some of the new generation alternative coins are offering quite a bit more than Bitcoin (Monero) whereas the old first generation alt's offered very little in the way of innovation.

I liked PPC, but the inflation mechanism only favours people who can hold coins still for 30 days, thus if this coin were to take off, people that lived paycheck to paycheck would never get interest and the rich would, eventually this dilutes the poor to favour the rich.

Huntercoin is interesting but the game isn't fun in a game sense, it's slow and has bots that just sit in one place.

What other coin are you talking about from the first generation that had a lot of innovation?

[luke997]

What other coin are you talking about from the first generation that had a lot of innovation?

Just the few interesting current alt features, that in my opinion bring something something useful to the table:

Privacy/Anonymity
Node upkeep incentive
Blockchain voting (MMC2)

I see one big niche, one must have and one small niche.
OP is certainly right in one part - at the end of the day, there's only space for alts which offer something interesting and useful.
Trying to solve a problem is usually much more productive than doing something for the sake of it (although some great things can happen by an accident).

I understand OP is a busy man, but this is biased and [EDIT - missing "not"] researched properly.

The classical altcoins do not offer anything relative to Bitcoin, except maybe a different hashing algorithm. An important thing to remember is that there is no long-term market niche for two coins with the same algo. The hashing power of the larger coin is constantly threatening to destroy the smaller one. Even if that does not happen, there are network effects in play that favor the larger coin and suppress the smaller.

There's at least several features in few of the alts which offer something interesting that Bitcoin is lacking.
However you look at it, if there is an interesting feature worth exploring and further development - that's what should be done, from many angles - first rule of progress in any technology.
There's more, but I just stopped on this.
Nothing to be taken away from Bitcoin - it is and it'll be cryptographic currencies king for some years to come, but progress has to be made.

His point was that some of the new generation alternative coins are offering quite a bit more than Bitcoin (Monero) whereas the old first generation alt's offered very little in the way of innovation.

I don't think Cryptonote classifies (Bytecoin specifically - from which Monero has been forked) as 2.0 - beside, first the Cryptonote developers need to solve blokchain bloat issue.
2.0 would be Zerocash, NEM and few other maybe.

[drawingthesun]

I don't think Cryptonote classifies (Bytecoin specifically - from which Monero has been forked) as 2.0 - beside, first the Cryptonote developers need to solve blokchain bloat issue.
2.0 would be Zerocash, NEM and few other maybe.

Zerocash has a trusted accumulator, so I won't be using it.

Also what is the CryptoNote blockchain bloat issue?

And yes, we all know Monero was forked, that was because we didn't want to mine a chain that had a hidden two year pre-mine.

See the Litecoin situation, a fork is always required when original developers get greedy.

[luke997]

I don't think Cryptonote classifies (Bytecoin specifically - from which Monero has been forked) as 2.0 - beside, first the Cryptonote developers need to solve blokchain bloat issue.
2.0 would be Zerocash, NEM and few other maybe.

Zerocash has a trusted accumulator, so I won't be using it.

There are issues with it - yes - but I was merely stating fact that it's interesting project/research which classifies as 2.0.

Also what is the CryptoNote blockchain bloat issue?

I don't want go into discussion about particular alt, but since you've asked:
Blocks are much larger than Bitcoin's for example - so the blockchain gets very big rather fast.
Main problem with this is, when (and if) solved, only a fork into new coin can deal with already generated blocks.

And yes, we all know Monero was forked, that was because we didn't want to mine a chain that had a hidden two year pre-mine.

Again, I don't want go into discussion about particular alt - so only very briefly my opinion on the fork:
That leaves the problem of the development.
Many can fork, but I'm sure not many fully understand what they fork, so this is an issue. Until you can secure original developer's cooperation, or fork's developer proves he does - through development.
Otherwise you risk slowly falling into a dead branch.

See the Litecoin situation, a fork is always required when original developers get greedy.

Do you mean that Litecoin fork is needed?
Doesn't look to me like market needs second Litecoin.

[ghur]

AUR
Even though I was interested in this before the great pump in March (and would have made up to 100x gains if I had bought), now it is in a "following" mode after crashing back. If I moved to Iceland, I would probably start using it. Not an unconditional "sell" though.

Auroracoin bag holder detected.

The only new thing this coin brought to the table is a new method to have a giant premine for devs to sell while still making people think the coin has merit.

[rpietila]

AUR
Even though I was interested in this before the great pump in March (and would have made up to 100x gains if I had bought), now it is in a "following" mode after crashing back. If I moved to Iceland, I would probably start using it. Not an unconditional "sell" though.

Auroracoin bag holder detected.

The only new thing this coin brought to the table is a new method to have a giant premine for devs to sell while still making people think the coin has merit.

That possibility was one reason why I did not buy. The other was that before the coins were available, I calculated that the fair price would be $20-$50 per 1 airdrop. When I had the chance, it was already $30. Who would have thought that it could peak at $3000 per airdrop at a billion USD marketcap?  Needless to say, during the downtrend it has not been interesting.

Is it now public that the devs made money on the premine, or are you speculating?

[AlexGR]

Is it now public that the devs made money on the premine, or are you speculating?

I think he is referring to the fact that other "countrycoins" emulated the model but devs dumped the premine on exchanges and took the money for themselves (=scammers).

[rpietila]

Monero, my man, why are you tanking? 

[johncitizen]

I like your attitude towards unnecessary alts. The focus is now on bitcoin 2.0 tech.

Some time has been spent gathering intel on the cryptonote coins and technology. All links are of relevance and importance. Please visit this post, it may prove resourceful= https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=625660.0

[drawingthesun]

Monero, my man, why are you tanking?  

It's a fast release coin, I think it'll take a while before the QT wallet and I2P stuff is done before it stabilizes at a decent price.

Remember the supply will increase 6 times in the next 52 weeks.

[Zer0Sum]

I like your attitude towards unnecessary alts. The focus is now on bitcoin 2.0 tech.

Some time has been spent gathering intel on the cryptonote coins and technology. All links are of relevance and importance. Please visit this post, it may prove resourceful= https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=625660.0

It's not just an attitude, he watches the markets:

Since May 1, 2014

DRK.....+550%
XCP..... +53%
NXT..... +42%
ANC..... +36%

MRO, QCN, XC, etc... to the Moon.

BTC......+26%

---------------

MYR...... -48%
FTC...... -40%
DOGE.... -36%
QRK...... -28%
LTC...... -20%
PPC...... -12%
VTC...... -12%
NMC....... -8%

Anyone see a pattern here?

Anon, Crypto Asset Platforms, and BTC sucking up all the oxygen...
While legacy alts may already be in a Death Spiral to zero...
Of the 2013 crop only ANC is up in May.