Topic: Investigation Complete of Instamines and Fastmines for almost every top alt coin (Read 12014 times)

I know this is a late comment, but the overall approach and use of mining data by the OP was simply awesome and a real eye opener.  Truly shows that due diligence is the key here when choosing a coin to invest in.

I wonder if the OP would do a sequel report with new coins this last year...

Rather than spending all that time creating the Complete Guide for ICO Complainers he should have spent that time rethinking his approach to buying coins.

If he had spent half that time trying to learn instead of complaining he would have a lot less to complain about. Either that or he should go back and look at his record of terrible losses and reconsider how he spends his time overall. Although maybe that's his thing: Losing in altcoins and then reporting it for others to share.

For what it's worth, I agree with him.

The more of something is in a very few hands, and the more of a disadvantage latecomers are at, the more unstable it is as an investment. 

When I see something where there's good reason to believe that one or a few 'whales' can utterly destroy the market and will have a motive to, I tend to step very cautiously.

That's why I didn't make more money than I made in Bitcoin.  I was worried that Satoshi had too many coins in too few hands, so I stayed out until I was pretty sure it was well past the point where a pump&dumper would have struck.

FWIW, I don't even particularly like the reward halving in Bitcoin.  Leave the block subsidy constant, and money supply inflation will still approach zero percent annually in the long run.

absolutely every coin to come out of this forum (especially bitcoin) has been massively instamined in terms of the wider international community acceptance most hope to eventually gain.

I respect the work put into this but..

It is like a reporter in front of a blue screen...


He was never there to actually report what really happened.


I strongly disagree with a some of his assessments.



Update: Nice necro

Yes. This was ax-grinding taken to a level never before seen in the modern world.

The bias in this resource is so overwhelming it's absurd.


"Remember that these alternative currencies should be trying to be better than government fiat currencies"

Really? If that is the basis for comparison then I think the point of cryptocurrencies is being missed completely. Good luck to those who think any of this is a basis for judging where to put their money.

Oh my!

A very possible big winner here that was on my short list!

It's very difficult (to not say practically impossible) to find anything against this one at all.

Nothing but positive here. Unless you can uncover something I have no clue about. 

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.10892349

I imagine you're busy and haven't been able to give SRC, EXE, HIRO, DGB, DMD, GRS, and MYR the attention they deserve (or perhaps the attention they don't deserve, since, in the main, my quick glance analysis using your criteria puts these coins in pretty favorable light).

That being said, my positive "quick glance analysis" is by no means an endorsement however. There's much more to be looked at beyond a coin's inception.

Here's a good exercise for anyone wishing to look at these 7 coins more in-depth.


Can you match each coin with the following descriptions?

• Slick hucksters with a very polished spiel who are only interested in getting rich themselves
• Kids who really are convinced that they know what they're doing
• Adults who are in way over their heads and risking total coin inoperability at every turn
• Seasoned experts who will survive
• The man who someday will be called the Steve Jobs of cryptocurrencies is a member here
• Kids who are smart enough to know their days are numbered and are bailing
• More kids who still think they just might get lucky and pull it off

As you might imagine, 2 of the seven are on my aggressive accumulation list (along with one other not included in this list - in a portfolio that also has a smattering of "long shots").

I know you like goldcoin.

I don't like goldcoin. However, I didn't have an opinion of goldcoin until I looked at their basic blockchain data.

The fact is, coins like goldcoin were designed to do one main thing; make their developers and first few adopters wealthy. Look at the data, they practically admit openly that the coin was meant to enrich early adopters (although they don't tell latecomers that...hmm).

You can call it an axe to grind all you want. I give every coin a chance to SHOW ME empirically something worth smiling about. Goldcoin has nothing of the sort to offer me. Now that I have seen what I shouldn't have seen, I don't like goldcoin. The same is true for all the coins.

In fact, I had to do some soul searching before I posted about Peercoin and Primecoin. I still support PPC, although not nearly to the extent I used to.

Yeah graphs are great, although I've gotten a few messages from people that too many images slows down their page dramatically. I'm slowing down the images for now, kinda hoping they just get new tech eventually haha.

thanks,

updated to SHA256.

According to the latest news, everything is a instamine.

Bump

found an error :

from http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins#terracoin :


Terracoin (TRC) is not scrypt.

Thanks for doing your part to help keep this at the top!

You must be joking. I've never seen a single author with this many axes to grind.

Nice updating of your wiki. The graphs are an especially helpful addition - a picture's worth a thousand words!

I am somewhat surprised by the nearly complete absence of intellectual integrity on the part of the critics of this research and the insistence on defending the indefensible by means of innuendo and unfounded attacks. NOT!

The first line of the Wiki goes like this:

"Note: The following attempts to approach 90% of the top ranking coins on www.coinmarketcap.com in terms of their rudimentary mining data."

What is it that is so hard to understand about that statement? Are you all really that mentally challenged?

“ . . . in terms of their rudimentary data.”

Now, if you’d like to criticize the fact that there isn’t better data to work with (instead of trying to blame that shortcoming on the author), that’d be another thing (where, by definition, you’d actually end up finding yourselves more closely aligned with the author and probably not too happy doing so).

There are other metrics, like being able to tell the difference between which dev is a scam-man, and which is simply incompetent (two very important metrics for making long term investment decisions BTW, both equally disastrous, but with the latter always having the remote possibility of ‘making good’), but those are very subjective metrics ATM (not to be ignored, to be sure, just because of that however, when we see very clear signs that someone is either killing the code or intentionally manipulating).

On the other hand, this research is attempting to be as objective as possible. What problem does anyone possibly have with that? Other than not wanting what little objective data there is to become better known?

Why would someone suggest that this research is invalid due to the limited (by nature) data it is based on? And how infantile to think that you might be able to discredit the author based on such a childish attack!

Is there somehow, somewhere, more objective data on real, verifiable, historical coin behavior that could be included?

How can you blame the author for the shortcomings of the subject under study?

Objectivity depends in large part on objective data. The only reason why I think someone would try to put down with irrationally aggressive attacks an objective report based on the scant objective data available would be that they don’t want any objective analysis to begin with of whatever little objective data that there may be – they'd prefer to keep the ‘suckers’ in the dark (much can be said about someone by their reaction and attitude towards any given stimulus . . .).

Now, the next logical step would be to start comparing what different devs say with what they do/have done, coin specs and objectives with real life expectations, transparency with the lack of, etc., but those are, as I’ve said, much more subjective and open to debate, and, as such, well beyond the scope of this current work (so if you want to be critical of the limitations of this wiki, you know what to do and can start rolling up your sleeves).

And if anyone is honestly struggling with the conceptual premise of this current work in progress, think about it this way: if past performance (i.e. track record) is any indication . . .

 

Glad I can be of service!

Sure I can check out those coins. Might take a few days before they show up...

i'm hoping the alt coin ecosystem evolves so that we can move beyond the money making schemes and get our hands and feet dirty with changing the economic system for the better, not just to make a buck.