Topic: Blame the miners/investors for the sad state of alt coins? (Read 828 times)

and the biggest holder of Bitcoin is the FBI means what ?
de-centralized my ass.. i seen one mining op in China and another in Washington state that are prob worth more then half of all BTC users.

I think a rating system will be really good for many alt-coins.

Can I ask who will buy those mined shitcoins?
If nobody will buy, who will mine ?
That's not all fault of miners or investors.

A rating system is coming, a community project is working on it.

blame bitcoin!

Simply put, yes blame everyone frankly...

The whole debacle surrounding the crypto-currency realm is due to deeply rooted systemic problems. Not only has it gotten easy to release a new coin, but there are tons of sleek, yet sleazy, ploys to get people to float from one coin to the next. The problem is that miners are instantly drawn to other coins and begin picking them up in hopes of additional profit. This then bleeds over to the exchanges that wants to get in on the action and make an even more significant cut.

What can we do about it? Just ignore coins that aren't worthwhile. And allow the system to weed out those who don't learn from mistakes. It's harsh, but it's also how it needs to be. I mean sure, the people on the forum could attempt to police the Announcements page and use a subjective set of discrete criteria. Or a policy could be set up to not allow new users to start a thread on the Announcements page. But I don't think either gets us far at all. Sure ignoring is hard, but naturally only those that have substance behind the coin will continue to get notice.

[Then again, who's to say that's not the start of a long con?]

First of all, this thread is yet another of a few recent ones that can be summarized as: "it's always someone else to blame, but me ...". Most people are here for their own self-interest, but I've learned to appreciate those who spare me the "holier-than-thou" bullshit.

Then, I don't agree with the "sad state" of alt coins. For some it just means "I'm losing hope of getting rich quick" or "I'm unable to pull money out of thin air at a rate I was used to". For me, the purposes of alts are:

- True de-centralization. Bitcoin protocol is decentralized, but the layers above are not. Bitcoin Foundation, discussion forum, development, source code repository, etc... are centralized (in the United States mostly).
- Plan B, just in case Bitcoin is attacked to the ground, with 51% or exploits.  So, with many alts, you just can't kill crypto-currencies.
- Storage of value out of the system. Bitcoin is subject to speculation attacks, so storing on BTC and a few carefully picked halts allows some hedge. Maybe this is nonsense, we will see.
- A way to get BTC without purchasing at an exchange or mining it directly at huge loss. With videocards, I buy BTC from my power company. Yeah, I'd like to get more mBTC per Mh/s, of course I would, but I'll continue to mine alts, even at a slight loss, measured on fiat.

If you mean that they bring all kinds of scammers and immorality, and this seems unstoppable...? Or that the scene is littered with clone crap and innovative projects don't thrive? Well, that's an issue with lack of forum moderation or "free market" or whatever, but that's a social issue,  not technological. The latter is intact.

I won't try to defend/debate IPO's (in their current form), especially since they "make you sick."


By giving little or no incentive for good people to create "great new coins", you leave a void which is filled by endless crap.
Perhaps your attitude is a major part of the problem?
How is someone with a "truly worthwhile idea" (they do exist you know) supposed to fund/get rewarded for their efforts?

I'm respond to you right away because you mentioned "everyone expects the devs to work for charity"

This topic isn't simple because I have tremendous respect for Open Source projects (cooperation for mutual benefit)
In the Real World:
People who start projects/companies have every right to be seeking large profits when they succeed.

If there is room in the marketplace for at least a few alt coins to flourish (there is IMO),
Then how can innovators/visionaries/devs (who are not miners) earn legit rewards from a "respectable" project?

IPO buyers could vote on the quality of a deliverable and ask the escrow to return their money if the majority think it's shit. At present a dev can deliver any piece of crap and get payment from the escrow just for delivering. Maybe rewriting the escrow rule book might prevent a lot of IPO rip offs.

When places like Cryptsy keep lowering the bar when it comes to what coins to add we have a problem..
Now they are SELLING votes for new coins to be added (as announced on their twitter feed)
So you can make a scam coin and pay to have it added lol
Pool operators always get to slip by this too.. are we forgetting to place blame on them also ?
They fumble over themselves to setup pools as fast as they can for all shit coins.

The fact an IPO was ever sold for a coin one single time makes me sick.
These scammers won't give up they are clawing at us all with all their might trying to manipulate us into handing over our cash.
And by cash i mean our mining power or our online support (propaganda spreaders) etc etc.. support is support.

Sadly this forum could do a lot to help but they don't.. they setup this place for a free for all for scammers and let them run wild.

shit always gets funny when money is involved.

Tragedy of the commons.

Most altcoins coming out are crap because everyone expects the devs to work for charity.  Since miners denounce premined coins, there needs to be another transparent way for devs to recoup costs.  Otherwise we will continue to see crap, with the least amount of effort.

I agree with everything in this thread. Greed is to blame so it's generally everyone's fault not just the miners or buyers.

blame the speculators.  if the shitcoin wasn't worth anything to begin with, there would be no mining.  miners who sell their minted currency just remove the profitability from the pump-and-dump strategy. 

if a coin was allowed to increase in value gradually without pump-and-dump speculators looking for a quick buck, the hashrate would increase gradually along with gradual acceptance of the coin, and overall coin value. 

Blame the buyers, stop buying and trading the shitty coins.

we need a rating system to rate coins on various different things so that people can easily see what each coin brings to the table

that would also make devs up there game and get more done for there coin to get it higher up on the list

it would take some work to set up but o think in the end it would take altcoins to the next level !

miners are a part of the problem. Everyone now is scrambling to switch algos now that Scrypt has ASICS. Its really sad because the end user doesn't care.

1 in 20 people might know about bitcoin. Now does that 1 person know about BFL, Blackarrow or KNC? Do they care about ASICMINER or GRIDSEED? The answer is most likely NO. They don't give a rats ass, they just want to be able to buy stuff with their magical internet money.

Cryptos is turning in a circle jerk of miners who just want to instamine everything and become millionaires over night. If that fails then they are left playing hot potato with a sack of useless coins while they try to pump it on BTCTalk.

Very sad indeed.

If miners stopped responding (rushing in and mining horrible new coins), then shitcoin devs wouldn't create endless new [ANN] threads, so...
Blame the miners! (and IPO buyers)

OK wait:
Instead of "blaming" anyone how can we move in the direction of something better?
Any ideas?