rpietila Altcoin Observer

[btc-mike]

Does anyone actually maintain an alt-coin index that provides some detail content on the top 20 alt coins. Things like:

developer strength - not just number of posts but strength of the individuals and past accomplishments, commitment level
technology factors - not just a guess but some details
momentum indicators - volume, coins mined per day, hash rate, hashrate moving averages, new media links per week/month
Scam indicator - premine, scammy founders, copied technology, pump and dump precedent
Mining method and future

Just too much information and too distributed, and for the average crytpo speculator it seems impossible to do anything but guess right now.

For me this compilation even not comprehensive on everything mentioned subject still was very useful to understand at least something:
http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins

That's a good one.

My short version:

- BTC is a good coin. Hold it.

- Of the cryptonote coins, only one has realistic chance of winning - the first fair launch: XMR. Buy it.

- Of the 2.0 "coins". They are actually startup stocks. Do your DD. I haven't bought any, for the lack of reason to buy.

What is your definition of fair launch?  

[synechist]

- XC does not use Github for development. Dan temporarily put some early XC code into Github to refute FUD-claims that it was a Fedora clone. The code was subjected to peer review, clearing the allegations, and then deleted.

- XC open-sources its code on a delayed timeline. Recently XC released its Rev 1 mixer.

- XC's Team have made their identities public and thus put their reputations at stake. If you think they're shady, you'll need to substantiate your view, because the evidence here is to the contrary.

- Cachecoin is a project of Jasinlee's, and Jasin is an XC developer. Cachecoin is in active development, none of the premine has been dumped there is no premine, and its future concerns PoBC, which is part of how XC will run on mobile phones.

- XC's ATM integration is not related to hiring anyone. The first two members of the incipient XC Foundation are involved in ATMs. As they're Foundation members they're not being paid. So that part of your statement is ill-informed conjecture.

- XC's premine is necessary to fund sustained development. You're welcome to disagree, but I fail to see how it constitutes something suspicious.
    (a) It can't be spent unaccountably, since people are always watching it.
    (b) It's more candid than an instamine and
    (c) it doesn't require taking other people's money upfront like an IPO.
    I'm open to discussion on this last point, but I don't think that it can be used to substantiate claims of XC being suspicious without substantial further argument as to why this might be the case.

That a great summery!  I hlod some XC, but only a token amount.

Metcalfe is an ad-hoc meshtech guru, but his crypto skills aren't anything special.  And one does not simply anon a coin, or it would have been done already.

Being closed source, even for a little while, is not acceptable and shows the XC paradigm and approach are flawed.

The premine is also an issue.  If (highly successful) Monero can be 100% open source and 0% premined, XC's excuses are invalid.

Thanks :-)

About being closed source:

XC's stance is that while being open-source is ideal, it is equally important to limit the prevalence of P&D scams and cheap knockoff clones that deceive noobs, dilute the marketplace, and reduce confidence in altoins in general. It's a phenomenon that hurts every project and is profoundly unethical.

Here's XC's statement:
XC is committed to the open source model. Open source code is vital for the health and advancement of cryptographic technologies, and it is a privilege to share our technical breakthroughs with a community such as this. We believe that XC's code embodies several world-firsts enabling anonymity that is scalable, mobile-friendly, POS-integrated, and is ultimately a platform upon which a broad range of Blockchain 2.0 technologies will be built.

However people’s faith in cryptocurrency projects is significantly hindered by clones. Therefore we believe that the ethical way to engage with the community is to make our code available on a delayed timeline. This way, the community will still benefit from our work, while we'd reduce the incentive for developers to flood the marketplace with clones that lack a long term future and reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon. XC represents several market-leading innovations, and we are honoured to make these available to the community in the near future.

[sonoIO]

That a great summery!  I hlod some XC, but only a token amount.

Metcalfe is an ad-hoc meshtech guru, but his crypto skills aren't anything special.  And one does not simply anon a coin, or it would have been done already.

Being closed source, even for a little while, is not acceptable and shows the XC paradigm and approach are flawed.

The premine is also an issue.  If (highly successful) Monero can be 100% open source and 0% premined, XC's excuses are invalid.

He would probably be wider appreciated if he was not dispersing dev power, but rather contributed to some of the projects that has most of network effect potential

[synechist]

- XC does not use Github for development. Dan temporarily put some early XC code into Github to refute FUD-claims that it was a Fedora clone. The code was subjected to peer review, clearing the allegations, and then deleted.

- XC open-sources its code on a delayed timeline. Recently XC released its Rev 1 mixer.

- XC's Team have made their identities public and thus put their reputations at stake. If you think they're shady, you'll need to substantiate your view, because the evidence here is to the contrary.

- Cachecoin is a project of Jasinlee's, and Jasin is an XC developer. Cachecoin is in active development, none of the premine has been dumped there is no premine, and its future concerns PoBC, which is part of how XC will run on mobile phones.

- XC's ATM integration is not related to hiring anyone. The first two members of the incipient XC Foundation are involved in ATMs. As they're Foundation members they're not being paid. So that part of your statement is ill-informed conjecture.

- XC's premine is necessary to fund sustained development. You're welcome to disagree, but I fail to see how it constitutes something suspicious.
    (a) It can't be spent unaccountably, since people are always watching it.
    (b) It's more candid than an instamine and
    (c) it doesn't require taking other people's money upfront like an IPO.
    I'm open to discussion on this last point, but I don't think that it can be used to substantiate claims of XC being suspicious without substantial further argument as to why this might be the case.

That a great summery!  I hlod some XC, but only a token amount.

Metcalfe is an ad-hoc meshtech guru, but his crypto skills aren't anything special.  And one does not simply anon a coin, or it would have been done already.

Being closed source, even for a little while, is not acceptable and shows the XC paradigm and approach are flawed.

The premine is also an issue.  If (highly successful) Monero can be 100% open source and 0% premined, XC's excuses are invalid.

Thanks :-)

About being closed source:

XC's stance is that while being open-source is ideal, it is equally important to limit the prevalence of P&D scams and cheap knockoff clones that deceive noobs, dilute the marketplace, and reduce confidence in altoins in general. It's a phenomenon that hurts every project and is profoundly unethical.

Here's XC's statement:
XC is committed to the open source model. Open source code is vital for the health and advancement of cryptographic technologies, and it is a privilege to share our technical breakthroughs with a community such as this. We believe that XC's code embodies several world-firsts enabling anonymity that is scalable, mobile-friendly, POS-integrated, and is ultimately a platform upon which a broad range of Blockchain 2.0 technologies will be built.

However people’s faith in cryptocurrency projects is significantly hindered by clones. Therefore we believe that the ethical way to engage with the community is to make our code available on a delayed timeline. This way, the community will still benefit from our work, while we'd reduce the incentive for developers to flood the marketplace with clones that lack a long term future and reduce the trustworthiness of the altcoin phenomenon. XC represents several market-leading innovations, and we are honoured to make these available to the community in the near future.

As for the premine, XC would also be able to fund development with no premine if highly successful. But if needs to get there first, and for that it'll need a big investment in top-notch development.

Have you seen XC's rate of progress? Since its launch on 8 May it's delivered the Xnode protocol (true P2P with end-to-end encryption), trustless mixing, multipath ad hoc networking, the XC TOR Stick, and XChat. Up next is the official public launch, and then full-featured mobile wallets.

You don't get that without funding.

[coinsolidation]

Buy it.

Nobody, especially with influence, should say this.

[synechist]

That a great summery!  I hlod some XC, but only a token amount.

Metcalfe is an ad-hoc meshtech guru, but his crypto skills aren't anything special.  And one does not simply anon a coin, or it would have been done already.

Being closed source, even for a little while, is not acceptable and shows the XC paradigm and approach are flawed.

The premine is also an issue.  If (highly successful) Monero can be 100% open source and 0% premined, XC's excuses are invalid.

He would probably be wider appreciated if he was not dispersing dev power, but rather contributed to some of the projects that has most of network effect potential

Interesting point. You're probably correct.

On the other hand XC's approach is unique (layered, flexible, designed for mobile and for scalability), and so starting afresh makes sense.

[iCEBREAKER]

What is your definition of fair launch?  

I believe mine is the consensus view:

-0% premine

-100% open source

-reasonable notice (a week or two)

-reasonable emission curve (<50% coins mined in first week or two)

Please note that fairness (equality of opportunity) is a concern entirely unrelated to equality of outcome.  We've all seen how confusing the two causes no end of entitled whining.

[rpietila]

What is your definition of fair launch?  

1. No premine, instamine or ninjamine.
2. Exchange as soon as possible.
3. Marketing as soon as possible.

For Monero:

1. The current devteam did not actually launch the coin, but took it over soon after launch. The devteam combined has less than 0.5% of the eventual number of coins, and has bought/mined all their coins fairly in a competitive environment, in addition to working for free and paying most of the development costs out of their pocket (a minority of the costs have been covered by community donations).

2. Monero started OTC trading before 0.5% of the coins were mined, and was listed when 3.2% were mined. The volume in the most voluminous channel alone (OTC thread, then CryptoNote exchange, then Poloniex), during the coin's history, is 4460k, which is 3.7 times higher than the average number of coins existing during the same period. Thus, on average, every monero changes hands in less than a month.

3. There has been marketing from early on, so that the difficulty and the price have been high since almost the beginning (only 2.4% of the trades ever, have been executed at a price 1/4 or less than the current price). I heard about the coin promptly after launch, and I don't usually seek information on altcoins, actually never before (or after) bought one. Withholding information (factual and hype), and then releasing it, is conducive to pump & dump, but none of that has happened with Monero.

When there is no comparison. You just know it.

[sonoIO]

That a great summery!  I hlod some XC, but only a token amount.

Metcalfe is an ad-hoc meshtech guru, but his crypto skills aren't anything special.  And one does not simply anon a coin, or it would have been done already.

Being closed source, even for a little while, is not acceptable and shows the XC paradigm and approach are flawed.

The premine is also an issue.  If (highly successful) Monero can be 100% open source and 0% premined, XC's excuses are invalid.

He would probably be wider appreciated if he was not dispersing dev power, but rather contributed to some of the projects that has most of network effect potential

Interesting point. You're probably correct.

On the other hand XC's approach is unique (layered, flexible, designed for mobile and for scalability), and so starting afresh makes sense.

I just may agree on everything except POS. Does not gets into my head easily. I just may be too stupid, sry

[btc-mike]

What is your definition of fair launch?  

1. No premine, instamine or ninjamine.
2. Exchange as soon as possible.
3. Marketing as soon as possible.

...

I agree those are important parts of a fair launch, but there are other factors to consider.

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

[rpietila]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

Please quantify this advantage in terms of % of the eventual coin supply of 18.4 million.

Also, do you have grounds to believe that it was both intentional, and the devs or whoever did it intentionally, are getting personal gain such as a kickback? Quantify also this, and produce the evidence.

[iCEBREAKER]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

You are confusing fairness (equality of opportunity) with equality of outcome.  This conceptual error is a basic tenet of the Free Shit Army.

Being able to optimize hash functions is something only a few people can do.

It would be unfair to deny those people the opportunity to profit from their applied knowledge and intelligence.

If you can't optimize functions but want cheap/easy early coins, you need to stop mewling and buy them from someone who can and did.

[Brilliantrocket]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

You are confusing fairness (equality of opportunity) with equality of outcome.  This conceptual error is a basic tenet of the Free Shit Army.

Being able to optimize hash functions is something only a few people can do.

It would be unfair to deny those people the opportunity to profit from their applied knowledge and intelligence.

If you can't optimize functions but want cheap/easy early coins, you need to stop mewling and buy them from someone who can and did.

Great, so those in the know got a massive advantage when it comes to mining. This is different from a premine how?

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

Inherited from Bytecoin, fixed early by noodledoodle.

[TooDumbForBitcoin]

Great, so those in the know get a massive advantage when it comes to mining.

Are you suggesting no optimzation of open source protocols is allowed?

[Brilliantrocket]

Great, so those in the know get a massive advantage when it comes to mining.

Are you suggesting no optimzation of open source protocols is allowed?

If it was there for the purpose of giving someone an advantage, it really isn't the same thing. Ideally, optimization would not be necessary, because a crippled hash wouldn't be used.

[btc-mike]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

Please quantify this advantage in terms of % of the eventual coin supply of 18.4 million.

Advantage after 20 yrs or so is not relevant to defining a fair launch. Fair launch is used to describe multiple factors during the first few days/week/months of a coins existence.

[iCEBREAKER]

Great, so those in the know got a massive advantage

Yes, those in the know always have a massive advantage.  That's life; get used to it.

It would be unfair to penalize those in the know for successfully utilizing their talents just to subsidize ignorance, laziness, and avarice.

Inequality of outcome is the most natural thing in the world (entropy and all that).

Equality of opportunity is an amazing innovation that potentially reduces/reverses the misery of Pareto optimality.

Do you support hunting down Satoshi and progressively taxing his stash of easy early coins?

Why not?  Wasn't it "unfair" that he was in the know and had a massive advantage?

Or is it a good thing that he was motivated to give the world Bitcoin perhaps in part by his enormous potential wealth?

[nioc]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

Please quantify this advantage in terms of % of the eventual coin supply of 18.4 million.

Advantage after 20 yrs or so is not relevant to defining a fair launch. Fair launch is used to describe multiple factors during the first few days/week/months of a coins existence.

80% is mined in the first 4 years.  Is that a good place to start?

[drawingthemoon]

Same thing happened with Boolberry where a guy who has been writing miners for several different algos for years came up with his own GPU miner and used his farms to mine and dump. Like ArtForz back in LTC days. Some clowns who have no knowledge of how to do this will vilify an entire coin because of this instead of coming and contributing to open source opencl mods like Wolf and sbk et al are doing.

These same clowns have no problem that botnet ops are the major mining power behind Monero and say we don't care about the source of mining, we just buy it in the market.

Much hypocrisy. Such Conniving. Very Antagonistic. WOW

Market has far from spoken about the CN coins future. I believe a Boolberry whitepaper is in works and waiting to be reviewed by cryptographers. Technically BBR is ahead of XMR is various aspects but they are not being shoved to users like typical altcoin strategy and I support this approach. XMR has the advantage of being the first launch (discounting Bytecoin completely), so some of the community members jumped on it first. Had zoidberg launched Boolberry first, these same guys would have been touting the technical advantages of BBR. Buy and hold both and don't get swayed by individuals pushing anything on you here.