Is it time for Bitcoin to bite back against clonecoins and scamcoins? - page 4.

amincd

hero member

Activity: 772

Merit: 501

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:22:10 PM

It is clear that your average journalist is not properly educated enough to inform the public about the "importance" of these alt-coins (which is almost none). From PPCoin (which is actually somewhat innovative) being barely given a mention in favor of discussing Freicoin's silly demurrage scheme, to Feathercoin being discussed more than the coin it shamefully copies from, to the words "Franko" and "WorldCoin" ever being printed in a "respectable" publication, it is obvious that the media is looking to trumpet the story of a "better Bitcoin" or "Bitcoin successor" regardless of the actual facts. They are too used to Apple releasing another iWhatever every six months.

The Bitcoin community must not allow these airheads to take the lead in educating the public about alt-coins. We must make sure that people understand why these coins are slightly interesting from an experimental perspective at best and complete rip-offs at worst. Having dozens of cryptocoins get mainstream attention will harm not only Bitcoin but the entire idea of cryptocurrency by diluting the ecosystem and confusing people.

+1 Very well put.

anti-scam

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

COINECT

Quote from: Stampbit on June 26, 2013, 12:39:27 AM

scamcoins will eat themselves, no need to bite.

They may eat a few clueless average joes too. That's the problem. Cryptocurrency doesn't need the bad publicity.

Stampbit

full member

Activity: 182

Merit: 100

scamcoins will eat themselves, no need to bite.

anti-scam

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

COINECT

Quote from: lazydna on June 26, 2013, 12:30:04 AM

Y product will never reach Z event.

I never said that. I said "it's not needed". "It's" means "it is". "Is" does not mean "will". I did not say "it will never be needed". Please look up the difference between the present and future tenses and quit spamming my thread with your lack of understanding of the English language.

lazydna

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: anti-scam on June 26, 2013, 12:25:04 AM

Quote from: lazydna on June 26, 2013, 12:21:17 AM

no, I think there is room for many coins.
people mine and accept what they want.

but your argument is circular.
*we can adapt to scrypt if needed*
*it'll never happen we won't need to*
Quote from: anti-scam on Today at 08:22:10 PM
Even for slightly interesting coins like PPC and LTC, any improvements they make that prove to be useful can be implemented into Bitcoin if necessary.
I'm not going to fork Bitcoin to scrypt because it's not needed.

ne·ces·si·ty (n-ss-t)
n. pl. ne·ces·si·ties
1.
a. The condition or quality of being necessary.
b. Something necessary: The necessities of life include food, clothing, and shelter.
2.
a. Something dictated by invariable physical laws.
b. The force exerted by circumstance.
3. The state or fact of being in need.
4. Pressing or urgent need, especially that arising from poverty.

I never said it would never happen. I said that there's no need. Please look up the definition of the word "if".

the argument is circular,
You state X qualities can be added to Y product
You state X qualities aren't needed because Y product will never reach Z event.

argument is circular because you state Z event won't happen so X qualities aren't needed therefor Y product has no need to take X qualities.
but your opening statement is Y product can take X qualities.

which won't happen because Z state won't occur which brings us back to.....

anti-scam

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

COINECT

Quote from: lazydna on June 26, 2013, 12:21:17 AM

no, I think there is room for many coins.
people mine and accept what they want.

but your argument is circular.
*we can adapt to scrypt if needed*
*it'll never happen we won't need to*
Quote from: anti-scam on Today at 08:22:10 PM
Even for slightly interesting coins like PPC and LTC, any improvements they make that prove to be useful can be implemented into Bitcoin if necessary.
I'm not going to fork Bitcoin to scrypt because it's not needed.

ne·ces·si·ty (n-ss-t)
n. pl. ne·ces·si·ties
1.
a. The condition or quality of being necessary.
b. Something necessary: The necessities of life include food, clothing, and shelter.
2.
a. Something dictated by invariable physical laws.
b. The force exerted by circumstance.
3. The state or fact of being in need.
4. Pressing or urgent need, especially that arising from poverty.

I never said it would never happen. I said that there's no need. Please look up the definition of the word "if".

lazydna

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: anti-scam on June 26, 2013, 12:17:50 AM

Quote from: lazydna on June 26, 2013, 12:13:01 AM

Quote from: anti-scam on Today at 08:22:10 PM
Even for slightly interesting coins like PPC and LTC, any improvements they make that prove to be useful can be implemented into Bitcoin if necessary.

thanks for the circular discussion then.

Did you miss where I said "if necessary"? I don't see why such a minor point is such an issue for you. Did you invest your entire savings in Litecoin?

Quote from: ecliptic

It's more like "What do you think the value of gold would be if Alchemy was real and you could turn lead into gold"

0$, because it has no scarcity.

That's why scarcity would have to be reestablished, which it would be in the financial interest of many people to do.

no, I think there is room for many coins.
people mine and accept what they want.

but your argument is circular.
*we can adapt to scrypt if needed*
*it'll never happen we won't need to*
Quote from: anti-scam on Today at 08:22:10 PM
Even for slightly interesting coins like PPC and LTC, any improvements they make that prove to be useful can be implemented into Bitcoin if necessary.
I'm not going to fork Bitcoin to scrypt because it's not needed.

ne·ces·si·ty (n-ss-t)
n. pl. ne·ces·si·ties
1.
a. The condition or quality of being necessary.
b. Something necessary: The necessities of life include food, clothing, and shelter.
2.
a. Something dictated by invariable physical laws.
b. The force exerted by circumstance.
3. The state or fact of being in need.
4. Pressing or urgent need, especially that arising from poverty.

anti-scam

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

COINECT

Quote from: lazydna on June 26, 2013, 12:13:01 AM

Quote from: anti-scam on Today at 08:22:10 PM
Even for slightly interesting coins like PPC and LTC, any improvements they make that prove to be useful can be implemented into Bitcoin if necessary.

thanks for the circular discussion then.

Did you miss where I said "if necessary"? I don't see why such a minor point is such an issue for you. Did you invest your entire savings in Litecoin?

Quote from: ecliptic

It's more like "What do you think the value of gold would be if Alchemy was real and you could turn lead into gold"

0$, because it has no scarcity.

That's why scarcity would have to be reestablished, which it would be in the financial interest of many people to do.

ecliptic

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:48:50 PM

Quote from: lazydna on June 25, 2013, 11:46:04 PM

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:43:01 PM

Quote from: Brunic on June 25, 2013, 11:36:31 PM

Why don't you let the free market decide?

Where did I call for the government to ban any coin? "Free market" doesn't mean "freedom from criticism" or "freedom from backlash". I am calling for members of your beloved free market to give the public proper information.

Quote from: lazydna

not possible.
every asic owner would continue hashing sha because of their investment cost. and we all know asic hash > gpu hash.
who would mine the scrypt fork if they're already doing ltc?

"If necessary" means "if SHA256 is completely broken to the point of not securing the blockchain" which is the only real reason that one would desire scrypt. ASIC owners have no ROI if Bitcoins are worth nothing.

if sha 256 is broken. the the blockchain unsecured. then the coin is dead.
nobody would even bothering forking it to scrypt if there is already an existing alternative that is exactly the same but not broken and without any early adoptee incentive.

You're absolutely right. All of the merchants, users, miners, and holders of Bitcoin, a currency with more than a billion dollar market cap, will just say "It was a nice try guys. It's a shame it didn't work out." instead of making a simple and easy change to get the blockchain running again. Don't be silly.

It's more like "What do you think the value of gold would be if Alchemy was real and you could turn lead into gold"

0$, because it has no scarcity.

lazydna

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: anti-scam on June 26, 2013, 12:06:07 AM

Quote from: lazydna on June 25, 2013, 11:58:48 PM

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:48:50 PM

Quote from: lazydna on June 25, 2013, 11:46:04 PM

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:43:01 PM

Quote from: Brunic on June 25, 2013, 11:36:31 PM

Why don't you let the free market decide?

Where did I call for the government to ban any coin? "Free market" doesn't mean "freedom from criticism" or "freedom from backlash". I am calling for members of your beloved free market to give the public proper information.

Quote from: lazydna

not possible.
every asic owner would continue hashing sha because of their investment cost. and we all know asic hash > gpu hash.
who would mine the scrypt fork if they're already doing ltc?

"If necessary" means "if SHA256 is completely broken to the point of not securing the blockchain" which is the only real reason that one would desire scrypt. ASIC owners have no ROI if Bitcoins are worth nothing.

if sha 256 is broken. the the blockchain unsecured. then the coin is dead.
nobody would even bothering forking it to scrypt if there is already an existing alternative that is exactly the same but not broken and without any early adoptee incentive.

You're absolutely right. All of the merchants, users, miners, and holders of Bitcoin, a currency with more than a billion dollar market cap, will just say "It was a nice try guys. It's a shame it didn't work out." instead of making a simple and easy change to get the blockchain running again. Don't be silly.

oh okay, so get to work trying to fork bitcoin to scrypt. good luck with that.
I guess both our scenarios are just as likely as the other.

I'm not going to fork Bitcoin to scrypt because it's not needed. Your scenario that people will abandon Bitcoin and the billions of dollars in system because of any technical issue is highly unlikely.

Quote from: anti-scam on Today at 08:22:10 PM
Even for slightly interesting coins like PPC and LTC, any improvements they make that prove to be useful can be implemented into Bitcoin if necessary.

thanks for the circular discussion then.

Tomatocage

legendary

Activity: 1554

Merit: 1222

brb keeping up with the Kardashians

If you don't like it, don't mine it. I don't see what the problem is.

anti-scam

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

COINECT

Quote from: lazydna on June 25, 2013, 11:58:48 PM

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:48:50 PM

Quote from: lazydna on June 25, 2013, 11:46:04 PM

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:43:01 PM

Quote from: Brunic on June 25, 2013, 11:36:31 PM

Why don't you let the free market decide?

Where did I call for the government to ban any coin? "Free market" doesn't mean "freedom from criticism" or "freedom from backlash". I am calling for members of your beloved free market to give the public proper information.

Quote from: lazydna

not possible.
every asic owner would continue hashing sha because of their investment cost. and we all know asic hash > gpu hash.
who would mine the scrypt fork if they're already doing ltc?

"If necessary" means "if SHA256 is completely broken to the point of not securing the blockchain" which is the only real reason that one would desire scrypt. ASIC owners have no ROI if Bitcoins are worth nothing.

if sha 256 is broken. the the blockchain unsecured. then the coin is dead.
nobody would even bothering forking it to scrypt if there is already an existing alternative that is exactly the same but not broken and without any early adoptee incentive.

You're absolutely right. All of the merchants, users, miners, and holders of Bitcoin, a currency with more than a billion dollar market cap, will just say "It was a nice try guys. It's a shame it didn't work out." instead of making a simple and easy change to get the blockchain running again. Don't be silly.

oh okay, so get to work trying to fork bitcoin to scrypt. good luck with that.
I guess both our scenarios are just as likely as the other.

I'm not going to fork Bitcoin to scrypt because it's not needed. Your scenario that people will abandon Bitcoin and the billions of dollars in system because of any technical issue is highly unlikely.

lazydna

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:48:50 PM

Quote from: lazydna on June 25, 2013, 11:46:04 PM

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:43:01 PM

Quote from: Brunic on June 25, 2013, 11:36:31 PM

Why don't you let the free market decide?

Where did I call for the government to ban any coin? "Free market" doesn't mean "freedom from criticism" or "freedom from backlash". I am calling for members of your beloved free market to give the public proper information.

Quote from: lazydna

not possible.
every asic owner would continue hashing sha because of their investment cost. and we all know asic hash > gpu hash.
who would mine the scrypt fork if they're already doing ltc?

"If necessary" means "if SHA256 is completely broken to the point of not securing the blockchain" which is the only real reason that one would desire scrypt. ASIC owners have no ROI if Bitcoins are worth nothing.

if sha 256 is broken. the the blockchain unsecured. then the coin is dead.
nobody would even bothering forking it to scrypt if there is already an existing alternative that is exactly the same but not broken and without any early adoptee incentive.

You're absolutely right. All of the merchants, users, miners, and holders of Bitcoin, a currency with more than a billion dollar market cap, will just say "It was a nice try guys. It's a shame it didn't work out." instead of making a simple and easy change to get the blockchain running again. Don't be silly.

oh okay, so get to work trying to fork bitcoin to scrypt. good luck with that.
I guess both our scenarios are just as likely as the other.

anti-scam

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

COINECT

Quote from: lazydna on June 25, 2013, 11:46:04 PM

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:43:01 PM

Quote from: Brunic on June 25, 2013, 11:36:31 PM

Why don't you let the free market decide?

Where did I call for the government to ban any coin? "Free market" doesn't mean "freedom from criticism" or "freedom from backlash". I am calling for members of your beloved free market to give the public proper information.

Quote from: lazydna

not possible.
every asic owner would continue hashing sha because of their investment cost. and we all know asic hash > gpu hash.
who would mine the scrypt fork if they're already doing ltc?

"If necessary" means "if SHA256 is completely broken to the point of not securing the blockchain" which is the only real reason that one would desire scrypt. ASIC owners have no ROI if Bitcoins are worth nothing.

if sha 256 is broken. the the blockchain unsecured. then the coin is dead.
nobody would even bothering forking it to scrypt if there is already an existing alternative that is exactly the same but not broken and without any early adoptee incentive.

You're absolutely right. All of the merchants, users, miners, and holders of Bitcoin, a currency with more than a billion dollar market cap, will just say "It was a nice try guys. It's a shame it didn't work out." instead of making a simple and easy change to get the blockchain running again. Don't be silly.

lazydna

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:43:01 PM

Quote from: Brunic on June 25, 2013, 11:36:31 PM

Why don't you let the free market decide?

Where did I call for the government to ban any coin? "Free market" doesn't mean "freedom from criticism" or "freedom from backlash". I am calling for members of your beloved free market to give the public proper information.

Quote from: lazydna

not possible.
every asic owner would continue hashing sha because of their investment cost. and we all know asic hash > gpu hash.
who would mine the scrypt fork if they're already doing ltc?

"If necessary" means "if SHA256 is completely broken to the point of not securing the blockchain" which is the only real reason that one would desire scrypt. ASIC owners have no ROI if Bitcoins are worth nothing.

if sha 256 is broken. the the blockchain unsecured. then the coin is dead.
nobody would even bothering forking it to scrypt if there is already an existing alternative that is exactly the same but not broken and without any early adoptee incentive.

anti-scam

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

COINECT

Quote from: Brunic on June 25, 2013, 11:36:31 PM

Why don't you let the free market decide?

Where did I call for the government to ban any coin? "Free market" doesn't mean "freedom from criticism" or "freedom from backlash". I am calling for members of your beloved free market to give the public proper information.

Quote from: lazydna

not possible.
every asic owner would continue hashing sha because of their investment cost. and we all know asic hash > gpu hash.
who would mine the scrypt fork if they're already doing ltc?

"If necessary" means "if SHA256 is completely broken to the point of not securing the blockchain" which is the only real reason that one would desire scrypt. ASIC owners have no ROI if Bitcoins are worth nothing.

lazydna

full member

Activity: 126

Merit: 100

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:29:26 PM

Quote from: ecliptic on June 25, 2013, 11:28:04 PM

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:22:10 PM

Even for slightly interesting coins like PPC and LTC, any improvements they make that prove to be useful can be implemented into Bitcoin if necessary.

How do you think you'd implement scrypt in bitcoin?

It would require a hard fork but it could be done.

not possible.
every asic owner would continue hashing sha because of their investment cost. and we all know asic hash > gpu hash.
who would mine the scrypt fork if they're already doing ltc?

ltc is the bitcoin fork with scrypt.

Brunic

hero member

Activity: 632

Merit: 500

Why don't you let the free market decide?

anti-scam

sr. member

Activity: 476

Merit: 251

COINECT

Quote from: ecliptic on June 25, 2013, 11:28:04 PM

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:22:10 PM

Even for slightly interesting coins like PPC and LTC, any improvements they make that prove to be useful can be implemented into Bitcoin if necessary.

How do you think you'd implement scrypt in bitcoin?

It would require a hard fork but it could be done.

ecliptic

sr. member

Activity: 322

Merit: 250

Quote from: anti-scam on June 25, 2013, 11:22:10 PM

Even for slightly interesting coins like PPC and LTC, any improvements they make that prove to be useful can be implemented into Bitcoin if necessary.

How do you think you'd implement scrypt in bitcoin?

Topic: Is it time for Bitcoin to bite back against clonecoins and scamcoins? - page 4. (Read 4913 times)