how to spot scam coin?

[HonkTonk]

I dont know what i should be look for how do i know coin is scam? people cant do premine anymore so how are they trying to scam us now? It seem to me every coin is scam how can i avoid this?

[celestio]

I dont know what i should be look for how do i know coin is scam? people cant do premine anymore so how are they trying to scam us now? It seem to me every coin is scam how can i avoid this?

A premine does not absolutely indicate a scam.  Original Ripple holders still possess a great majority, yet it is the second largest by market capitalization.

I hope you're joking. A rough estimate I'd say, is that 99% of all coins that have had a premine, instamine, whatever, has been a scam in one way or the other. Ripple isn't a cryptocurrency, plus it's centralized. Please don't compare a payment gateway such as Ripple to Cryptocurrencies. Ripple's marketcap is also worthless, since the owners of ripple control 80% of the supply, meaning that the entire marketcap and subsequent price-per-ripple is practically controlled by the creators of Ripple labs.

[celestio]

I hope you're joking. A rough estimate I'd say, is that 99% of all coins that have had a premine, instamine, whatever, has been a scam in one way or the other. Ripple isn't a cryptocurrency, plus it's centralized. Please don't compare a payment gateway such as Ripple to Cryptocurrencies.

NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders.  There are successful others.

Yes, the random premined cryptocurrency probably has a higher risk of failure than not.

Ripple is certainly a cryptocurrency since all data is secured with cryptography.  Even calling Ripple distributed is incorrect since any client can choose any NDL node list they wish, yet they don't.  BTC has centralized checkpoints built in, but no one would say it's not decentralized.

"Users must ‘extend trust’ to the Ripple gateway that holds their deposit. This manual creation of a trustline indicates to the Ripple network that the user is comfortable with the gateway’s counterparty risk. Furthermore, the user must put a quantitative limit on this trust and create a similar limit for each currency on deposit at that gateway. For example, if a user deposits US$50 and BTC2.00 at The Rock Trading, the user will have to grant trust of at least that much in both currencies to the gateway for the monies to be available in the Ripple network. It is not recommended for a user to grant trust to other parties unless the user fully understands the ramifications" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29

"Ripple runs on a network of servers that creates a ledger, which is a distributed database storing information about all Ripple accounts.The consensus process is distributed.[37] While users may assemble their own UNL nodes and have full control over which nodes they trust, Ripple Labs acknowledges that most people will use the default UNL supplied by their client "

[celestio]

I hope you're joking. A rough estimate I'd say, is that 99% of all coins that have had a premine, instamine, whatever, has been a scam in one way or the other. Ripple isn't a cryptocurrency, plus it's centralized. Please don't compare a payment gateway such as Ripple to Cryptocurrencies.

NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders.  There are successful others.

Yes, the random premined cryptocurrency probably has a higher risk of failure than not.

Ripple is certainly a cryptocurrency since all data is secured with cryptography.  Even calling Ripple distributed is incorrect since any client can choose any NDL node list they wish, yet they don't.  BTC has centralized checkpoints built in, but no one would say it's not decentralized.

"Users must ‘extend trust’ to the Ripple gateway that holds their deposit. This manual creation of a trustline indicates to the Ripple network that the user is comfortable with the gateway’s counterparty risk. Furthermore, the user must put a quantitative limit on this trust and create a similar limit for each currency on deposit at that gateway. For example, if a user deposits US$50 and BTC2.00 at The Rock Trading, the user will have to grant trust of at least that much in both currencies to the gateway for the monies to be available in the Ripple network. It is not recommended for a user to grant trust to other parties unless the user fully understands the ramifications" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ripple_%28payment_protocol%29

"Ripple runs on a network of servers that creates a ledger, which is a distributed database storing information about all Ripple accounts.The consensus process is distributed.[37] While users may assemble their own UNL nodes and have full control over which nodes they trust, Ripple Labs acknowledges that most people will use the default UNL supplied by their client "

They can call it whatever they want.  It's decentralized.  BTC's data is distributed so that every node has a full copy, not a decentralized ledger split across many nodes which one cryptocurrency developer was at least thinking about.  BTC's consensus is distributed to processing power pro rata.

Trust can be extended, or it may not much like how a BTC transactor can extend trust to another in exchange for products by not waiting for sufficient confirmation.  XRP has no centralization and no more semi-centralization than BTC.

Lack of compensation for processors is what retards their investment not some accusation of centralization.

Ok, I looked at your history and how you criticized Bitcoin's confirmation times(which provide security against double spend threats), you have no idea how cryptocurrencies work. Ripple is not decentralized the way Bitcoin is, it's not a "cryptocurrency", it's a payment gateway. Over 80% of ripples have been given to the "founders" of the ripple project.

If you don't know what you're talking about, please dont talk...or rather type.

[DrGrid]

They steal your Sweetcorn: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vdd4rBlsj2o

[kelsey]

I dont know what i should be look for how do i know coin is scam? people cant do premine anymore so how are they trying to scam us now? It seem to me every coin is scam how can i avoid this?

A premine does not absolutely indicate a scam.  Original Ripple holders still possess a great majority, yet it is the second largest by market capitalization.

large marketcap is no indication that tis not a scam  

[DecentralizeEconomics]

The Rules of Spotting a Scam

1 - Look out for liars, cheaters and thieves.
2 - If it sounds ridiculous, it probably is.
3 - If someone is trying to convince you a non-physical representation of a physical asset is just as good as the REAL, PHYSICAL asset, RUN!
4 - If they say, "It's safer than a Swiss Bank account."
5 - If they claim to eliminate "counterparty risk" while at the same time exposing you to massive systematic risk.
6 - If the lead dev claims there is "No Pegging" when their whole platform is based on establishing central market pegs.
7 - Are they currently driving one or several red Ferraris?
8 - Does the coin have an animal mascot?
9 - Do the devs claim to be "Libertarians" while at the same time establishing an oppressive taxation scheme on the poor without giving them due and proper representation?
10 - Inflation?  (aka "Dilution Without Limit" hahaha)
11 - Are they Communists?
12 - Are they Corporatists?
13 - Do they claim to be "decentralized" while saying at the same time that they "are a company selling shares"?

[gjhiggins]

I dont know what i should be look for how do i know coin is scam? people cant do premine anymore so how are they trying to scam us now? It seem to me every coin is scam how can i avoid this?

This “thought experiment” is the best I can suggest at the moment:

https://minkiz.co/posting/

Notes:

1. On reflection, I'd give even greater weight to a full commit history, maybe as much as +1500 / -1500.

2, Looks like PoD has turned out to be a busted flush as it seems to provides no effective protection from bad actors.

Cheers

Graham

I might be motivated at some point to check the dimensions/weights by conducting a Repertory Grid analysis for say, a dozen altcoins.

[HonkTonk]

does not every coin have premine this is bad?

[gjhiggins]

does not every coin have premine this is bad?

Premine not necessarily bad practice or indication of scam when used to cover costs of coin logistics (hosting dns seed nodes, etc).

Cheers

Graham

[Daedelus]

NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders.  There are successful others.

Nxt's distribution was to 73, to be exact, after two months of little to no interest (this is before the terms IPO/ICO etc existed in crypto). Curious to know how you came to the conclusion for the rest? What indicates to you that they are malicious?

[SurplusBob]

http://dobbscoin.info/images/dobbscoin16.png

Is there a Dobbshead on it?

[mistercoin]

Always look for 'scammy' things. Look too good to be true? Probably is. Poor English and no escrow for IPO? Most likely scam. No screenshots of 'super awesome innovative product'? Probably a money grab.

Just use your brain, and look out for sketchiness. Also, look through the thread and see what others have to say.

[Daedelus]

NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders.  There are successful others.

Nxt's distribution was to 73, to be exact, after two months of little to no interest (this is before the terms IPO/ICO etc existed in crypto). Curious to know how you came to the conclusion for the rest? What indicates to you that they are malicious?

Excuse me, that should've read "large potentially malicious holders".  I meant to imply that NXT was successful despite the risks of Proof-of-Stake.  The Proof-of-Stake coins don't seem to have recovered since the Zerocoin incident.

Do you consider Satoshi a "large potentially malicious holder" within Bitcoin?

[Daedelus]

NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders.  There are successful others.

Nxt's distribution was to 73, to be exact, after two months of little to no interest (this is before the terms IPO/ICO etc existed in crypto). Curious to know how you came to the conclusion for the rest? What indicates to you that they are malicious?

Excuse me, that should've read "large potentially malicious holders".  I meant to imply that NXT was successful despite the risks of Proof-of-Stake.  The Proof-of-Stake coins don't seem to have recovered since the Zerocoin incident.

Do you consider Satoshi a "large potentially malicious holder" within Bitcoin?

How could he be?  Proof-of-Work is not dependent upon percentage ownership of the issue like Proof-of-Stake is.  He could have an equal percentage of MØ, yet the Clotho-Hydra is unaffected in the same way.

Satoshi owns about ~5% of all Bitcoins that will ever be. The largest Nxt holders were given 5% (1 BTC donation of the 21 BTC collected = ~5%) .

The only power either have in a POW or POS network is to dump the price.

Isn't this what you meant by "potentially malicious" or are you implying that someone with 5% of the stake can control Nxt's network if they chose to?

[Daedelus]

NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders.  There are successful others.

Nxt's distribution was to 73, to be exact, after two months of little to no interest (this is before the terms IPO/ICO etc existed in crypto). Curious to know how you came to the conclusion for the rest? What indicates to you that they are malicious?

Excuse me, that should've read "large potentially malicious holders".  I meant to imply that NXT was successful despite the risks of Proof-of-Stake.  The Proof-of-Stake coins don't seem to have recovered since the Zerocoin incident.

Do you consider Satoshi a "large potentially malicious holder" within Bitcoin?

How could he be?  Proof-of-Work is not dependent upon percentage ownership of the issue like Proof-of-Stake is.  He could have an equal percentage of MØ, yet the Clotho-Hydra is unaffected in the same way.

Satoshi owns about ~5% of all Bitcoins that will ever be. The largest Nxt holders were given 5% (1 BTC donation of the 21 BTC collected = ~5%) .

The only power either have in a POW or POS network is to dump the price.

Isn't this what you meant by "potentially malicious" or are you implying that someone with 5% of the stake can control Nxt's network if they chose to?

Supply & demand are at work regardless of the temporal order security implementation.

More precisely, I'm talking about the large exchange thefts that sometimes gave attackers onerous proportions.  The Zerocoin chargeback fork is what demolished trust in Proof-of-Stake.  Those who solve that problem should have a better chance of getting out of the doghouse.

Supply & demand are at work regardless of the temporal order security implementation.

Not sure what this refers to and is an obvious statement but it didn't answer my question. Supply and demand have nothing to do with whether 5% of a supply can control a POS network. The highest amount stolen and dumped was about 8 million Nxt. I doubt many even notice it. There is no large stake stored anywhere to steal so I don't follow why you have any concern.


What makes you believe there is no trust in Proof-of-Stake and it is in the doghouse?

Very few dismiss the best implementations of POS outright anymore on BTT. If anything, trust is growing thanks to the work of groups like Consensus Research who have debunked BS such as the so called "Nothing at Stake attacks" and continue to research in further improvements to POS (for Nxt at least).

Consensus Research > https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.0

[Daedelus]

There is some but much less than before Zerocoin, evidenced by the market capitalizations.

What were the conclusions of Nothing-at-Stake?

Regardless, the problem of large stakes threatening a proof-of-stake network is not yet solved.

What were the conclusions of Nothing-at-Stake?

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=897488.msg10152632#msg10152632

Tl:Dr - nothing to write home about. There have been 2 more papers since these results that are in the thread.

Regardless, the problem of large stakes threatening a proof-of-stake network is not yet solved.

Define large. You still seem to imply you think 5% of a stake can damage a network, where are these large stakes in Nxt's POS that you fear so much?

Also:

Regardless, the problem of large mining pools threatening a proof-of-work network is not yet solved.

[o0‡0o]

NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders.  There are successful others.

Nxt's distribution was to 73, to be exact, after two months of little to no interest (this is before the terms IPO/ICO etc existed in crypto). Curious to know how you came to the conclusion for the rest? What indicates to you that they are malicious?

To be exact you should say 73 anonymous accounts on Bitcointalk. It is fair to say that 50 or more of those accounts belong to one and the same group who created nxt

[Daedelus]

NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders.  There are successful others.

Nxt's distribution was to 73, to be exact, after two months of little to no interest (this is before the terms IPO/ICO etc existed in crypto). Curious to know how you came to the conclusion for the rest? What indicates to you that they are malicious?

To be exact you should say 73 anonymous accounts on Bitcointalk. It is fair to say that 50 or more of those accounts belong to one and the same group who created nxt

There isn't any definitive way to substantiate this either way so it is a moot point. But, by the same logic, you must believe Bitcoin was mined by Satoshi's small group in the early days?

[o0‡0o]

NXT's initial supply went to few investors, and it remains strong despite the threat of large malicious holders.  There are successful others.

Nxt's distribution was to 73, to be exact, after two months of little to no interest (this is before the terms IPO/ICO etc existed in crypto). Curious to know how you came to the conclusion for the rest? What indicates to you that they are malicious?

To be exact you should say 73 anonymous accounts on Bitcointalk. It is fair to say that 50 or more of those accounts belong to one and the same group who created nxt

There isn't any definitive way to substantiate this either way so it is a moot point. But, by the same logic, you must believe Bitcoin was mined by Satoshi's small group in the early days?

There is a fundamental difference