Idea for how to kill the sh*t/clone/scamcoin industry

[poornamelessme]

Just stick to coins that have something of value and the others will simply die out by themselves without anyone doing anything.

The shitcoin may die out, only to be replaced by another shitcoin. That's the problem. People keep buying Shitcoin 2.0. I don't know who these people are but they buy ANYTHING thats new and thats on an exchange. Its their money to lose, but still, its a total distraction from the end goal which is develop useful alternatives to bitcoin.

I see the term shitcoin used interchangeably with scamcoin, and again, am curious how people define either one. Most of the coins people have called shitcoins, coingen stuff, coins with no devs, etc just die on their own. They may add noise to the forum and exchanges, but are pretty harmless really. The marketplace should take care of that issue over time.

How do you define a shitcoin? Should the goal be to warn people about scams and hopefully reduce their frequency, or to reduce shitcoins (simply defining one is highly subjective), just to minimize what they feel is a distraction from better coins? The former should be the goal in my opinion, as the latter will vary way too much  depending on what coins people hold.

[1714731454]

1714731454

[BigBoy89]

We can't prevent shitcoin/scamcoin born in this crypto world
but we can contribute to harm their "business"
if you find any shitcoin launch, you can bother/disturb them by make a warning post in its thread
many people who have common sense will either ignore that coin or bother them too
only dumb people will join, and retarded people buy that shitcoin IPO
if you want manipulate that coin to damage them, it needs many resources and cost you many BTC

[kingaltcoins]

Sounds interesting

[Nobitcoin]

Without a huge amount of Bitcoins your idea is some what flawed and how would you stop all the upcoming shitcoins there's only 24 hours in a day and how many exchanges are there now?

[gatra]

if you want manipulate that coin to damage them, it needs many resources and cost you many BTC

not necessarily...
how about a coin, let's call it ShitKillerCoin that is merge-mined with any shitcoin, but with the requisite that the merge-mined blocks must have no transactions (only coinbase) on the shitcoin chain?
This way, while mining your ShitKillerCoin, you are damaging the shitcoin because you are finding blocks in their chain that don't process transactions, delaying their network.
It would be important that everyone agrees on which shitcoin to target so hashrate doesn't get diluted in the sea of shit. Also, if mining software is "smart" and you achieve 51% hashrate you can orphan blocks with any real transactions, effectively halting the shitcoin for as long as you can agree to do so. Then you would dump your shitcoin if someone still wants them (or keep them as a trophy) and move on to the next one.
Maybe some voting system could be implemented so the ShitKillerCoin protocol could enforce which is the current target...

edit: (probably almost) any idea that includes actually mining or buying the shitcoins may end up being good for them, but this could really hurt them.

[nutildah]

Without a huge amount of Bitcoins your idea is some what flawed and how would you stop all the upcoming shitcoins there's only 24 hours in a day and how many exchanges are there now?

Point taken. I was hoping to somehow curb the phenomena like others have attempted before me but its gone global and doesn't need this website necessarily.

Eventually there will be a saturation point, its just who knows when. I myself have realized that bitcoin is the best coin investment, finally.

I guess I just get pissed that this constant flood of new coins that aren't very innovate or long term-minded is drawing BTC away from some of my cherished pet projects / investments.

[nutildah]

if you want manipulate that coin to damage them, it needs many resources and cost you many BTC

not necessarily...
how about a coin, let's call it ShitKillerCoin that is merge-mined with any shitcoin, but with the requisite that the merge-mined blocks must have no transactions (only coinbase) on the shitcoin chain?
This way, while mining your ShitKillerCoin, you are damaging the shitcoin because you are finding blocks in their chain that don't process transactions, delaying their network.
It would be important that everyone agrees on which shitcoin to target so hashrate doesn't get diluted in the sea of shit. Also, if mining software is "smart" and you achieve 51% hashrate you can orphan blocks with any real transactions, effectively halting the shitcoin for as long as you can agree to do so. Then you would dump your shitcoin if someone still wants them (or keep them as a trophy) and move on to the next one.
Maybe some voting system could be implemented so the ShitKillerCoin protocol could enforce which is the current target...

edit: (probably almost) any idea that includes actually mining or buying the shitcoins may end up being good for them, but this could really hurt them.

I just read this and its pretty brilliant. The one drawback is how often are there blocks with 0 transactions? (my knowledge in this particular subject is limited). It seems it would infer that the coin isn't heavily traded, and then perhaps not worth killing.

But I like the general premise of this idea. Spoetnik and a couple others would probably be on board. Shit I just ordered my first miner you can officially put me down as will have a go at it.

[ellen_me]

Many countries have laws about this too.

e.g. in your quest to take down an alt-coin, you could end up behind bars.

This is interesting, which countries and what is the minimum/maximum penalty. Also why it will be illegal to take down a scam coin?

[daimyo]

I envy you guys. You must have no problems of your own so taking on the heroic mission of ridding the world of scamcoins once and for all is your primary concern these days Maybe new comic heroes might emerge one day in the future! CryptoWillie - The shitcoin terminator

[Oldminer]

There's no need for all this...ASIC's will end up killing a lot of crapcoins 

[poornamelessme]

I guess I just get pissed that this constant flood of new coins that aren't very innovate or long term-minded is drawing BTC away from some of my cherished pet projects / investments.

For many, I think this is the true reason they are so against what they call shitcoins or scamcoins.

Sure, reducing scams would be nice, but whether consciously or subconsciously I think their main objective is their own profit. The mindset that some new coin is taking attention away from <whatever I am holding>, so let's try to kill it. There is no altruistic goal, although many try to hide behind it.

It's a misguided mindset in my opinion. There is no guarantee that killing a handful of new coins, whether they are innovative or not, would all of sudden make some older coin gain additional interest.

If a coin is truly useless, let's say something like taxicoin (apologies if anyone actually owns this), it'll die on its own. The market will take care of it.

Otherwise you just get people subjectively choosing coins which they think are lackluster or taking attention away from their investments... and thinking of ways to kill them. Basically what that shitcoin killing group was about, sorta. I say sorta, as they also included a ton of nuts, hypocrisy, and a shitcoin maker started the thread to begin with.

I'd much rather see people focus on stopping scams, not trying to destroy coins because they think it's a shitcoin, or somehow taking attention away from their own investments.

[nutildah]

Many countries have laws about this too.

e.g. in your quest to take down an alt-coin, you could end up behind bars.

This is interesting, which countries and what is the minimum/maximum penalty. Also why it will be illegal to take down a scam coin?

I don't know what country Alice is in but in mine (U.S.) its not. Not by the methods described in this thread, anyway.

Bitcoin won't even be on the radar of my state's local government for another... 5 years minimum?

We need more self-policing and less threat of government-inspired regulation.

I know, that raises the conundrum of who polices the policemen, but I sure as hell prefer our shot at handling such a task than the federal governments.

When the green light is given in their respective countries, federal governments will _immediately_ usher in at least 3 layers of bureaucracy on top of all crypto-related transactions that you will be paying for with your time and money. And in America, its mostly to fund a monstrosity of a corporatocracy, that which bitcoin is attempting to provide a conduit around.

So the best way to keep regulation out is by implementing some sort of self-policing system in an attempt to minimize losses due to outright scams, which may dissuade scamees from contacting lawyers and so forth.

The forum software admins do a pretty good job of keeping out suspicious noobs, and if they think they're doing a good enough job, then well... They're probably thinking they don't have to do shit, because from a legal standpoint they probably don't.

[djarot]

I guess I just get pissed that this constant flood of new coins that aren't very innovate or long term-minded is drawing BTC away from some of my cherished pet projects / investments.

For many, I think this is the true reason they are so against what they call shitcoins or scamcoins.

Sure, reducing scams would be nice, but whether consciously or subconsciously I think their main objective is their own profit. The mindset that some new coin is taking attention away from <whatever I am holding>, so let's try to kill it. There is no altruistic goal, although many try to hide behind it.

It's a misguided mindset in my opinion. There is no guarantee that killing a handful of new coins, whether they are innovative or not, would all of sudden make some older coin gain additional interest.

If a coin is truly useless, let's say something like taxicoin (apologies if anyone actually owns this), it'll die on its own. The market will take care of it.

Otherwise you just get people subjectively choosing coins which they think are lackluster or taking attention away from their investments... and thinking of ways to kill them. Basically what that shitcoin killing group was about, sorta. I say sorta, as they also included a ton of nuts, hypocrisy, and a shitcoin maker started the thread to begin with.

I'd much rather see people focus on stopping scams, not trying to destroy coins because they think it's a shitcoin, or somehow taking attention away from their own investments.

agree! But perhaps the mindest of shitcoin killers is more altruistic then creators of pump and dump schemes, anyway. But poor coins will die out anyway, the market is so full of them that they cannot possibly all achieve greatness and super recognition!

[nutildah]

I'd much rather see people focus on stopping scams, not trying to destroy coins because they think it's a shitcoin, or somehow taking attention away from their own investments.

Yeah but therein lies the rub. What is the exact line between a shitcoin and a scamcoin?

Have you ever seen people who have obviously been fleeced (missing dev is a good indicator) still cling to their coins like the Virgin Mary was still going to come down and swoop their coin up to its rightful status of Bitcoin 2.0? I have... It happens all too often. But you can't tell them they were part of a scamcoin, they just don't want to hear it.

I still think its possible to curb people's over-enthusiasm, like what should have happened with the housing market bubble. Its just that not enough people spoke up because too many people were busy making money. (Which they later lost, likely)

[poornamelessme]

Yeah but therein lies the rub. What is the exact line between a shitcoin and a scamcoin?

Have you ever seen people who have obviously been fleeced (missing dev is a good indicator) still cling to their coins like the Virgin Mary was still going to come down and swoop their coin up to its rightful status of Bitcoin 2.0? I have... It happens all too often.

I still think its possible to curb people's over-enthusiasm, like what should have happened with the housing market. Its just that not enough people spoke up because too many people were busy making money. (Which they later lost, likely)

I brought this up earlier in this thread and stated my definition, and asked how others define a scam or shitcoin, but don't think anyone did.

A scamcoin to me is a coin where the dev promises features and doesn't come close, when a dev bails on a coin, when a dev runs an ipo and doesn't deliver coins at all, when there is a hidden premine, or a giant premine and the dev dumps... and things like that.

A shitcoin would simply be a plain coin, no unique features necessarily, perhaps a hired gun as a coder. If there is no giant premine hidden away, they are pretty harmless. Market forces take care of most of them. A perceived shitcoin may actually end up being popular too (ie doge), based on community involvement, so it's not like they are all completely useless.

And what occurs here for many is: a shitcoin is whatever coin that a specific person isn't holding. It's too subjective. I've seen 'shitcoin killers' in this forum brag about hyping coins listed on that shitcoin killing list. Or have shitcoins in their signatures, yet still go on a rampage against other perceived 'shitcoins'. It's a mess, and again their only goal is basically what you stated -- to kill coins they think are taking attention away from their own investments.


And yes, I have seen people hold out hope that they haven't been fleeced. It just occurred in the ConcealCoin thread. People did speak up when things looked suspicious (including myself) and we pointed out how the dev of VastCoin apparently was the same person, trying to run the scam again. I pointed out the similarities in the logos, as an example.

And that is what I think people should do. Post in threads pointing out potential issues, or things that are rather blatant scams. You can't protect against scams before they always occur (again, how would you stop ConcealCoin in one day?), but you can educate and provide info as you see it. No FUD, not trolling, just point out potential problems. That may help protect against some scams.

But nope, it won't protect people's investment in some 1 year old ALT that isn't doing well, if they think newer coins are getting too much attention. That is a separate issue and really nothing to do with scams or shitcoins.

[nutildah]

But nope, it won't protect people's investment in some 1 year old ALT that isn't doing well, if they think newer coins are getting too much attention. That is a separate issue and really nothing to do with scams or shitcoins.

I can agree with your definitions and I liked your post all the way up to this last part. You just tossed the whole point aside if you think I am worried that "newer coins are getting too much attention."

The point of the exercise is to come up with ways to prevent scams from getting too far off the ground. Its obviously a highly subjective and delicate process and does not encompass all new coins.

What happens after implementation is anyone's guess, but if scams were made more obvious I think investors would be more inclined to try to figure out which coins actually had real world potential on their horizon and weren't just cheesy, high-risk investment vehicles.

I know thats part of my idealism coming through. Well you can't make real progress if you don't set high goals.

[poornamelessme]

I can agree with your definitions and I liked your post all the way up to this last part. You just tossed the whole point aside if you think I am worried that "never coins are getting too much attention."

Your previous post gave a different impression:

I guess I just get pissed that this constant flood of new coins that aren't very innovate or long term-minded is drawing BTC away from some of my cherished pet projects / investments.

It certainly reads like your concern is that newer coins are taking BTC away from your investments. If you were concerned newer or existing coins are scamming people, then that is a different issue. Although determining what coin is a scam and which isn't, can be a tad difficult. People can point out obvious stuff though without veering into fud territory.

[nutildah]

I can agree with your definitions and I liked your post all the way up to this last part. You just tossed the whole point aside if you think I am worried that "newer coins are getting too much attention."

Your previous post gave a different impression:

I guess I just get pissed that this constant flood of new coins that aren't very innovate or long term-minded is drawing BTC away from some of my cherished pet projects / investments.

It certainly reads like your concern is that newer coins are taking BTC away from your investments.

new coins that aren't very innovate or long term-minded

If its a new coin thats innovative and long term-minded, I'm for it.

I liked the idea behind URO though I am not completely sure its not a scam. This is exactly where some sort of embodied process would kick into action. We should all be working on it.

[poornamelessme]

If its a new coin thats innovative and long term-minded, I'm for it.

I liked the idea behind URO though I am not completely sure its not a scam. This is exactly where some sort of embodied process would kick into action. We should all be working on it.

But if a coin isn't innovative, does that mean it deserves to be called a scam? Many do, many would say it is a shitcoin and perhaps even should be killed off. If a new coin isn't innovative but has an active community + dev, why is it a problem to anyone?  Most are harmless, and if truly worthless, will die off on their own anyway.

And yet people feel such coins take attention away from their investments. It's too subjective to say what coins should live or die, just because it may not be innovative enough. That is where the marketplace comes in.

And I first assumed URO was a joke, someone making a coin as some sort of weird metaphor for shitcoins, using Urea instead of shit. Shame I didn't invest in it, as it sure went up a lot, at least for a while there.

[Nxtblg]

Many countries have laws about this too.

e.g. in your quest to take down an alt-coin, you could end up behind bars.

This is interesting, which countries and what is the minimum/maximum penalty. Also why it will be illegal to take down a scam coin?

I don't know what country Alice is in but in mine (U.S.) its not. Not by the methods described in this thread, anyway.

Bitcoin won't even be on the radar of my state's local government for another... 5 years minimum?

We need more self-policing and less threat of government-inspired regulation.

I know, that raises the conundrum of who polices the policemen, but I sure as hell prefer our shot at handling such a task than the federal governments.

When the green light is given in their respective countries, federal governments will _immediately_ usher in at least 3 layers of bureaucracy on top of all crypto-related transactions that you will be paying for with your time and money. And in America, its mostly to fund a monstrosity of a corporatocracy, that which bitcoin is attempting to provide a conduit around.

So the best way to keep regulation out is by implementing some sort of self-policing system in an attempt to minimize losses due to outright scams, which may dissuade scamees from contacting lawyers and so forth.

Kudos for your common sense, but I'm afraid that the record of history speaks otherwise. To a larger extent than you realize, the Securities and Exchange Commission overlaid itself over the "self-policing" rules of the New York Stock Exchange. Same thing with Canada: in fact, there's an official terminology for a private self-policing organization that the regulators have let in as a kind of junior partner. They're called "Self-Regulatory Organizations" or SROs. Formally, an SRO is a private institution. In the case of the exchanges, they were private institutions before the regulatory agency was even born.

I know this is going to sound counterintuitive as hell - not to mention depressing as hell - but the best chance for the altcoin sector to remain regulation-free is for it to stay a "wild west jungle" until the point when radical decentralization has settled in and matured. To show why, I have to draw upon a different, more hard-bitten kind of common sense.

Just ask yourself: what part of the big city do you find the neighbourhoods where the cops just don't go? Where you find the locals openly flouting certain laws (felonies) on the streets and thinking almost nothing of it? Where the physical presence of the police is, uh, counterintuitively sparse?

And why?

----------

As for the decentralization - to shift from one area to a completely different one - do you know why OTC derivatives have not been regulated? Because too many of them are one-shot custom-made packages - so-called "bespoke" deals - that are put together on the assumption that they'll be held by the buyer until maturity. Once of the D.C. bigwigs (bureaucrat) said in so many words that OTC derivatives are impossible to regulate because the market is so fragmented. Bureaucrats, bless their hearts, are organized people. When they try to regulate a chaotic and disorganized system, they're actually at a loss. That top bureaucrat - I can't remember who it was; I think it was a woman - said that the first step to regulating OTC derivatives was to set up a central(ized) clearing house for them.

The original clearing houses were set up by the banks and brokerage firms in the nineteenth century, solely as a convenience. The setter-uppers had absolutely no idea that their invention would be a linchpin of later regulation (for tracking purposes, at the nuts-and-bolts level.)

Just something to think over...