If somebody is unable to differentiate between PoS vs PoW or sees no difference.
I understand the difference well. The former secures the network by finding valid hashes of a block that are also low numbers. Since there's no predictable way to find a hash that's a low number, it requires (on average) a lot of computations to find one, therefore a lot of work. Hence "proof of work". In contrast proof-of-stake solves blocks by randomly selecting addresses referring to coins of sufficient age and accruing new coins to those addresses. Both systems achieve consensus in the same sense.
And if someone is unable to differentiate between being sold to (XC website) and consensus (BTC website).
I differentiate sharply between the two. Consensus is either (a) price discovery in a market, or (b) agreement on the temporal ordering of transactions. Marketing is how market actors become aware of something.
Or unable to comprehend what I'm trying to say - then even if I went to the trouble of putting together what you ("XC PR guy") would accept as proper proof that what you are trying to sell is a bad investment (which is probably not possible as it would be a conflict of interest). It would change nothing.
Well if you're not trying to convince your readers (which aren't just me), then what are you here for?
Go on, convince us. I promise to respond respectfully and to consider your arguments with due seriousness, as I hope this post demonstrates.
But until you (or anyone else) can supply a rationale to explain how PoS does not achieve consensus, you have no case.
1. PoS vs PoW.
The difference between PoS & PoW (from a gut - how I think level).
PoW means I can buy hardware and mine this coin. Which while it may add indirect value to the coin - the person I'm making rich or adding wealth to off of my purchase is the hardware manufacturer. Not the coin. (IE - I don't feel like making dadon rich - 'cuz he's a tool). We can draw up charts and look at distributions or try to come to some hypothesis. But as I stated before you are not my primary audience.
This is less of a distribution thing for me than it is a psychological effect that I am utterly convinced will have long term impact on coin adoption. PoS attempts to directly capture this wealth into early adopters - so instead of new miners / adopters taking wealth away from existing miners (possibly early adopters) they have to directly add to it by purchasing the coin.
2. Marketing vs adoption. I think I would disagree with your sentiments. Marketing is an attempt for an early adopter to unload their coin for more something else (Bitcoin, fiat, whatever). Adoption is recognizing that what I hold in my hand is the currency I want to keep for next year. I understand the line is inherently blurred and if you don't want to see it - you can try and force me to quantify it to the point and say they are both the same. They are NOT the same.
Your website SCREAMS and YELLS at me - "Make dadon the tool rich". This entire post screams at me - "Make dadon the tool rich". Bitcoin doesn't scream and yell at me ... it quietly explains what cryptocurrency is & why there is a need for it.
3. The lack of a solid message. I mean I see USB sticks and hear everybody guaffing about their private XCChats and I don't know - I mean do I get to use XCChat for free without buying any coins? Or I have to own X number of coins? Or I have to pay so many coins to send a message? And what does XCChat have to do with anything esp a currency? If this is some revolutionary privacy technology - it's directly tied to the coin. So if the value of the coin suddenly goes to 0 and stays there for six months - all underlying technology will be abandoned I'm assuming?
Shouldn't I just use bitmessage?
While I understand that you're trying to invent web 3.0 or whatever. It's just - it's insane for me to believe that this tangled web of chats and marketing and terrible website and everything tied together somehow (including your secondary dev that abandoned his other projects that didn't pay off) is somehow the future.
4. Your people are irritating. (granted - I am easy to irritate so maybe that's my problem). (BTW - this post should read "Currencies" not "Currencys")
The bottom line is that no - I CANNOT put together a whitepaper to show that XCurrency is not the future. But I can with quite a bit of confidence say that it's not.
Edit: TL/DR. XCurrency is irritating me. OP "Currencys" should be "Currencies"
