That's awesome and terrible at the same time. Good job, keep it updated!
The first one, 13, was a confirmed scam IPO.
Do you have any statistics, coins created, still alive, .. ?
1315 “created”, where I could find a logo and an algo - very relaxed criteria, more of a celebration than an analysis. The data is published as Linked Open Data and is downloadable in a variety of formats, from n3 triples to csv.
I've concentrated on facts rather than value judgements, can't make reliable value judgements without a basis of fact, or at least something that behaves like a fact when you lean on it.
I made an effort to record the obvious emergent features: distribution scheme (ipo, pow, poc) versus the protection scheme (pos, pow, pob) and then the variants of PoW scheme - combos such as nist5, qubit, x11, single hash functions, e.g. fugue, groestl, etc.
But it all grinds to a halt when it hits PoS schemes - apparently there aren't any readily-identifiable individual approaches or categories to be articulated. This is likely due to the fact that the only representation is the implementation --- and there lies epistemological trouble.
All that can reliably be said is: "claims to use a PoS scheme". It's not trivial to determine if the code actually functions as such and assessing whether it performs better or worse than an alternative implementation is a formidable technical challenge.
By contrast, consider the labels springing up to describe the various difficulty re-targeting algorithms: KGW, DGWv2, DigiShield.
PoW has labels, difficulty retargeting has labels, there are labels to apply to coin generation approaches, e.g. “an inflationary version”.
I'm now keenly interested in discovering why PoS schemes are apparently so intractable to classification.
Cheers
Graham
Poll
