Topic: Cryptocurrency with the best distribution? - page 3. (Read 9484 times)
Any PoW crypto is weak due to fiat leak. There you go, almost makes a rhyme. Electricity/datacenter renting fees are the sword of Damocles overhanging PoW economy. With the looming exception (still to be confirmed) of those PoW cryptos that mine most of their supply quickly enough and then go PoW/PoS, PoS, or use a different mechanism to protect their network but at the same type do not stay very inflationary (auXPoW in Doge, 5-algo in Myriad although the prospects of Myriadcoin are bleak due to no meaningful community). But you probably will refute this argument for some reason, and it's ok
so summary:
- Monero weak.
- Myriad, Quark are robust.
The weak will under-perform against the robust in the medium to long term.
- Monero weak.
- Myriad, Quark are robust.
The weak will under-perform against the robust in the medium to long term.
OK. So now please try to add some reasoning to your opinion. What makes them weak or robust?
(Actually everyone has just told me to ignore you
) 
I am sorry but nothing you say makes any sense, including your interpretations of what I might have said.
Are you sure you are ok?
Sorry i'll say it without the rant.
Monero is weak and can't handle to be PoW distributed by a common known algo ( like Quark )
Myriad also used multiple common algos, ( with separate difficulty) it has been mined in a similar fashion.
so summary:
- Monero weak.
- Myriad, Quark are robust.
The weak will under-perform against the robust in the medium to long term.
so you are actually just making bad investment decisions.
i.e those that invest in robust systems will make more % gains in the long term than little pump and dumps.
What makes it valuable? Why would somebody try to amass them? How long does it take to arrive at the functional "optimal" distribution with the 4 classes? Is it even possible?
You are all children, or at least not monetary economists 
The issue is not a fantasy about everybody having as many "credits". That existed long before I learned to read. The issue is to build a monetary system whose currency gains so much value in the market spontaneously (as Bitcoin has done) that a part of the value creation can be used to further boost its adoption (as Bitcoin has not done due to the lack of mechanism for such).
The issue is not a fantasy about everybody having as many "credits". That existed long before I learned to read. The issue is to build a monetary system whose currency gains so much value in the market spontaneously (as Bitcoin has done) that a part of the value creation can be used to further boost its adoption (as Bitcoin has not done due to the lack of mechanism for such).
it does not create value because it excludes people in the creation of money. people need to buy bitcoin with fiat - that is the reason why it is lacking adoption. because for most western people fiat works. bitcoin offers some things which can be seen as superior but it is missing a way to integrate more people
demand for state currencies is driven by governments authority to raise taxes in that specific currency - - until now the integration despites early adopters was mostly driven by the expectation of appreciation of bitcoins value. - I think that I do not neccessarily need to tell you as a monetary economist what that normally means - I personally think that it is little different in bitcoin, but normally this is the definition of a bubble
with the part quoted you show that you do not want to create a currency, but a decentralized network with tokens, which creates value - but this is not a currency as well as bitcoin is not a currency by definition. I am pretty sure you as well as me have already found the second network which creates value
.your arrogance is remarkable - I assume that I am at least given academic history more of a monetary economist than you are
This ties into why World Dollar (http://www.world-dollar.com) is so brilliant, no-one has to "buy" into it, and everyone is integrated into it as it is distributed to everyone, equally. Expect big things from WLD.
Quark has already achieved more than Monero so it is the evidence, Monero is held by what ? 20 people? maybe? maybe 40 ?
Your number on people holding Monero is extremely far off. I know at least 40 and I'm quite sure that I know only a tiny percentage.
Bitcoin has about 1 million and the marketcap per user is $5,000. Now if we think Monero has the same marketcap per user (which is very far-fetched), it should have 1,000 users.
Monero downloads typically measure in 10,000s per week. Poloniex alone has 5,000 distinct speculator accounts. MEW has 60 members a week after inception while membership costs 10 XMR at least and is only really possible for BCT accounts.
By getting back to marketcap per user metric, 5,000-10,000 users ($500-$1,000 per person) is reasonable. If all exchanges are considered, the number might be 10,000-15,000. Probably not more though.
I don't know of anything that Quark has accomplished, so it's not a comparison. Auroracoin had a much bigger pump, but is equally dead now.
Doge ; )
yeah no problem that's got to be all above board, the fact of the matter is it will all come out in the wash,(everyone here knows that) and I was talking about in % terms.
Equally as dead as Monero? you are too hard on yourself, I never said it was "dead" I'm just saying its a long way behind because of the "tech insider" pump that i easily could have been involve in, as you know i went on to your topic an called it as it was happening, but when I make % gains its not on these little pump dump actions, I just don't see the point?
Monero is just another crypto that "can't stand the heat" so to say, the heat being the ability to be distributed.
its basically too weak to be able to be properly distributed.
so you have moved back to some faulty logic that only the "business class" should control it (similar to the way Bitcoin furiously tries to ignore the elephant in the room right now ha ha)
i can't even conceive of how that works?
I'll make a bet - Myriad is a Crypto that "is standing the heat" it had the strength to put its units out into the system just like Quark did.
I bet both Myriad and Quark over the medium to long term outperform Monero .
if i'm wrong I'll concede your "business class theory" is correct.
I am sorry but nothing you say makes any sense, including your interpretations of what I might have said.
Are you sure you are ok?
Quark has already achieved more than Monero so it is the evidence, Monero is held by what ? 20 people? maybe? maybe 40 ?
Your number on people holding Monero is extremely far off. I know at least 40 and I'm quite sure that I know only a tiny percentage.
Bitcoin has about 1 million and the marketcap per user is $5,000. Now if we think Monero has the same marketcap per user (which is very far-fetched), it should have 1,000 users.
Monero downloads typically measure in 10,000s per week. Poloniex alone has 5,000 distinct speculator accounts. MEW has 60 members a week after inception while membership costs 10 XMR at least and is only really possible for BCT accounts.
By getting back to marketcap per user metric, 5,000-10,000 users ($500-$1,000 per person) is reasonable. If all exchanges are considered, the number might be 10,000-15,000. Probably not more though.
I don't know of anything that Quark has accomplished, so it's not a comparison. Auroracoin had a much bigger pump, but is equally dead now.
Doge ; )
yeah no problem that's got to be all above board, the fact of the matter is it will all come out in the wash,(everyone here knows that) and I was talking about in % terms.
Equally as dead as Monero? you are too hard on yourself, I never said it was "dead" I'm just saying its a long way behind because of the "tech insider" pump that i easily could have been involve in, as you know i went on to your topic an called it as it was happening, but when I make % gains its not on these little pump dump actions, I just don't see the point?
Monero is just another crypto that "can't stand the heat" so to say, the heat being the ability to be distributed.
its basically too weak to be able to be properly distributed.
so you have moved back to some faulty logic that only the "business class" should control it (similar to the way Bitcoin furiously tries to ignore the elephant in the room right now ha ha)
i can't even conceive of how that works?
I'll make a bet - Myriad is a Crypto that "is standing the heat" it had the strength to put its units out into the system just like Quark did.
I bet both Myriad and Quark over the medium to long term outperform Monero .
if i'm wrong I'll concede your "business class theory" is correct.
NEM has the best distribution by far.
Almost 3000 NEM stakeholders vs. 73 NXT stakeholders.
Almost 3000 NEM stakeholders vs. 73 NXT stakeholders.
Please if you state that something is "better", tie it to the body-of-knowledge of "what is better" provided by me.
If you don't want to use my framework, argue that betterness has another criteria, state them, and be ready to discuss.
This way the conversation improves and leads to interesting conclusions.
/OP: sorry for hijack
NEM has the best distribution by far.
Almost 3000 NEM stakeholders vs. 73 NXT stakeholders.
Almost 3000 NEM stakeholders vs. 73 NXT stakeholders.
Both numbers are dubious. Its much less than 3000, less than 2000 probably as there were lots of multiple accounts. Similarly with NXT, there were multiple donations by the same individual.
NEM has the best distribution by far.
Almost 3000 NEM stakeholders vs. 73 NXT stakeholders.
Almost 3000 NEM stakeholders vs. 73 NXT stakeholders.
I think MangoCoinz has a chance of being distributed amongst a wider audience than others.
I defy anyone to find a better more accessible to the masses fun and fair distribution ever!
I feel like once people hear about this it's gonna be big.
Apparently exchanges are coming, it's very under the radar at the moment. Simply download app and you can run in background, awesome!
http://www.mangocoinz.com
I feel like once people hear about this it's gonna be big.
Apparently exchanges are coming, it's very under the radar at the moment. Simply download app and you can run in background, awesome!
http://www.mangocoinz.com
Challenge
In a regime of slow initial emission of a currency, propose ways that capture the part of the value of the coins emitted (which currently goes to excess mining cost), in such a way that the value is automatically and trustlessly (or, as close to that as possible) spent/distributed in way that increase the adoption of the currency.
Adoption benefits may be best gained from saving as much cost as possible for newcoin.
Saving mining costs can give newcoin more room to grow, as maximal value is available from investment to stimulate adoption.
One method to do this would be to employ merge-mining from the outset with another existing coin.
Additionally development cost can be saved with this merge mined coin if the existing coin is friendly to the idea. Developers of the existing coin will keep the coin compatible with everything except for only necessary changes at initial release, so minimal or no additional work for most commits if there is some process automation for commits.
This has potential downstream benefits by enhancing developer support for the initial coin, as well as increase the value of the initial coin by stimulating more profitable mining, thus more mining for initial coin as well, and thus more security for the initial coin.
Thus adoption efforts receive maximal support from the value accretion. Highest utility at lowest cost.
Consider that when something is less expensive it is more used. If adoption is the goal, economy of scale from the outset must be assumed as necessary.
By example, electricity was expensive compared to total cost of living there was maximal conservation. When processors and memory were scarce, every bit counted. When these costs diminished usage became ubiquitous.
USA lost $55 Million dollars last year in their penny manufacture (above the value of the pennies made), lets not follow their fail.
GE coins are the personal property of the imperial government (here, the current emperor) of a 240 x 1015 km3 empire (the largest celestially permissible for this planet).
That gives "These note are legal tender in all debts, public and private" a whole new meaning (and value).
Let me guess, your ideal coin is...That gives "These note are legal tender in all debts, public and private" a whole new meaning (and value).
ForgivenessCoin?
Ask and ye shall receive...
Seek and ye shall find...
Knock and the paper wallet is opened unto thee?
All debts forgiven upon request for this coin.
[ask]Read comments here,so according to that, can we make a list, some coin that have a big potential to grow up and survive in crypto market?
Quark has already achieved more than Monero so it is the evidence, Monero is held by what ? 20 people? maybe? maybe 40 ?
Your number on people holding Monero is extremely far off. I know at least 40 and I'm quite sure that I know only a tiny percentage.
Bitcoin has about 1 million and the marketcap per user is $5,000. Now if we think Monero has the same marketcap per user (which is very far-fetched), it should have 1,000 users.
Monero downloads typically measure in 10,000s per week. Poloniex alone has 5,000 distinct speculator accounts. MEW has 60 members a week after inception while membership costs 10 XMR at least and is only really possible for BCT accounts.
By getting back to marketcap per user metric, 5,000-10,000 users ($500-$1,000 per person) is reasonable. If all exchanges are considered, the number might be 10,000-15,000. Probably not more though.
I don't know of anything that Quark has accomplished, so it's not a comparison. Auroracoin had a much bigger pump, but is equally dead now.
Another statistic, and a little analysis:
From a spot check of the moment there are 109 folks currently connected in the monero-dev irc on freenode, there are 500 in the Bitcoin developer IRC.
So comparing the other statistics you've already gathered, it would seem the Monero community has a higher developer type / user type than Bitcoin. This bodes well for its future, but may also indicate the need for user tools. With those tools, Monero may more swiftly reach the userbase proportionate, which if Bitcoin is 1,000,000 people today, this would put the Monero userbase at 200,000. Its not anywhere near that today, but it speaks to the potential to be unlocked when those tools are developed.
You are all children, or at least not monetary economists
The issue is not a fantasy about everybody having as many "credits". That existed long before I learned to read. The issue is to build a monetary system whose currency gains so much value in the market spontaneously (as Bitcoin has done) that a part of the value creation can be used to further boost its adoption (as Bitcoin has not done due to the lack of mechanism for such).
The issue is not a fantasy about everybody having as many "credits". That existed long before I learned to read. The issue is to build a monetary system whose currency gains so much value in the market spontaneously (as Bitcoin has done) that a part of the value creation can be used to further boost its adoption (as Bitcoin has not done due to the lack of mechanism for such).
it does not create value because it excludes people in the creation of money. people need to buy bitcoin with fiat - that is the reason why it is lacking adoption. because for most western people fiat works. bitcoin offers some things which can be seen as superior but it is missing a way to integrate more people
demand for state currencies is driven by governments authority to raise taxes in that specific currency - - until now the integration despites early adopters was mostly driven by the expectation of appreciation of bitcoins value. - I think that I do not neccessarily need to tell you as a monetary economist what that normally means - I personally think that it is little different in bitcoin, but normally this is the definition of a bubble
with the part quoted you show that you do not want to create a currency, but a decentralized network with tokens, which creates value - but this is not a currency as well as bitcoin is not a currency by definition. I am pretty sure you as well as me have already found the second network which creates value
.your arrogance is remarkable - I assume that I am at least given academic history more of a monetary economist than you are
You are all children, or at least not monetary economists
The issue is not a fantasy about everybody having as many "credits". That existed long before I learned to read. The issue is to build a monetary system whose currency gains so much value in the market spontaneously (as Bitcoin has done) that a part of the value creation can be used to further boost its adoption (as Bitcoin has not done due to the lack of mechanism for such).
The issue is not a fantasy about everybody having as many "credits". That existed long before I learned to read. The issue is to build a monetary system whose currency gains so much value in the market spontaneously (as Bitcoin has done) that a part of the value creation can be used to further boost its adoption (as Bitcoin has not done due to the lack of mechanism for such).
give every human being the possibility to produce his own money under one currency (produce coins with your birth-certificate or your finger print)
Reliable PoI is for sure the desperately and still missing killer app
if I understood ristos post properly he says:
fiat creation is unfair because most people are excluded of money creation
central institutions for value production were historically neccessary, nowadays due to our beloved bitcoin protocol this is no longer the case
PoS as well as PoW still exclude most people in money production.
I am pretty sure that a decentralized proof of identy for money production on global scale is closest to perfect money creation.
Just imagine you give every human being the possibility to create a predefined amount of money a day, noone is excluded, noone earns money by producing money, market allocation is still in play for value distribution. I would bet that this baby would network - maybe something like that will make in the future miners for bitcoin security obsolete.
Jump to: