Topic: MASTERCOIN VS NXT (Read 5024 times)

Thx. I would agree in so far as fairness is less significant for a positive outcome as broad distribution but I think it does matter though. Think of the negative perception. If anything is premined or stealth mined to a significant percent (greater the 5%) nowadays it carries a stigma. (I recommend this good read: http://www.devtome.com/doku.php?id=a_massive_investigation_of_instamines_and_fastmines_for_the_top_alt_coins) Few coins stick out in this dimension of competition, such as Monero or Counterparty (where everybody including the devs burned their Bitcoins in order to get XCP). Bitcoin would not pass so easily today as it did in 2009, simply because there was no competition back then.

I might correct that to:

The broader distribution of else-equal coins will make the difference.

Fairness does not matter.

I agree with you that the fair distribution aspect on its own cannot secure a long term success. It depends on utility x scarcety to create (=) value. Only when a currency has those two qualities it will be used. Nevertheless a fair distribution can greatly contribute to the long term success of any given currency in a competitive environment such as the cryptocoin space. In a theoretical case of two contenders (Acoin and Bcoin) with equal qualities and environment, the one that manages to be more equally and broadly distributed would win out over the one that pursues a narrow distribution imo. The main causes would be network effects which constitute higher adoption, recognition, larger community in holders, developers and investors and faster innovation rate. A real world example that comes close to the hypothetical case described may be the Monero/Bytecoin case where both chains have been introduced to the public almost simultaneously, they have almost the same qualities (Monero is a clone of Bytecoin with slower emission schedule and faster block times) but differ in the distribution by a large extent (Bytecoin 83% stealth mined, Monero 0% pre/stealthmined). Monero in opposition to Bytecoin has already achieved a huge appreciation in price, market cap and daily volume, however this case is very young and no conclusions can be drawn regarding the long term development of this case.

Your second argument goes in the direction of what has been mentioned here before and is also valid: that in order for acceptance a currency has to be perceived as valuable by its holders or it will be dumped at the first best occasion. In case of Auroracoin this perception was most likely not present with most of its target group. Thus the biggest part of the claimed coins were dumped immediately. With floating exchange rates and legal tender laws not strictly enforced, the reverse case of "Gresham's Law" applies, which praphrased states that "Good Money will drive bad money out of circulation into savings". Good money being the one with most perceived value compared to its exchange rate. So yes, with value people will accept the new coin and try to accumulate it (like Bitcoin). Without value, they will dump it for any other currency (like they did with Auroracoin for Krona).

Because this discussion kind of de-rails this thread I have cross-posted my response to:
Most efficient distribution strategies
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.7456628

Regardless it still means you could have got maidsafe cheaper with mastercoin. Mastercoin can try more stunts like this in te future.

Sad to hear.

That was used as a pump&dump scam to get rid of their Mastercoin. 20% of total Mastercoin supply was used in 3 hours to buy MaidSafe... That's how much strong hands like Mastercoin.

Also look Mastercoin's volume and orderbook, once you buy you are trapped bag holding.

BTW: I like Mastercoin idea, but the coin itself is not worth investing. Same applies to Ripple idea and XRP.

This is volume for 30 days

http://www.cryptoassetcharts.info/assets/info

Except that you paid a lot more buying through bitcoins.

At least the 4 core devs of Mastercoin came out and voted for their coin, they should be commended for the effort.

what the Java nay-sayers forget to mention is how it's enabling NXT to develop features RAPIDLY and that's exactly what's causing it to flourish.

these old arguments about Java security has no bearing.  I've worked for major FIs as a Java architect and basically the argument goes like this:


it's an old canard and it's been around forever.

-bm

I cannot believe that is still an issue.


So what?


Feel free to re-program the server in C++, C, Assembler, Python, Ruby. And feel free to program clients in ObjectivC for iOS, Java for Android, for WinRT in JS+HTML+CSS or C#+YAML.

I do not see why the programming language has anything to do with something language-agnostic as the Nxt Protocol. It is a protocol; the programming language is completely irrelevant.

totally agree with you here!

the NEM people lacked the vision for what you can do with NXT as it is, and there are great opportunities there.  There are lots of features coming out(like VCorps) and people will use these things to build real value.  This isn't bitcoin- NXT lets people collaborate and build collective wealth which is something that has been happening since the dawn of civilization.  (Cue Wagnerian opera music).

-bm

Any coin that focuses on fair distribution or any type of gimmicky feature will sooner or later fail.  You can not innovate based on one feature that has no worth or value in the real world. only a handful of broke folks ever complain about unfair disitribution cuz they live in a world of "scarcity".  if u live in a world with an "abundance" mindset. u don't pay attention to nonsense such as unfair distribution.

a coin can not succeed when it attempts to focus on just one feature.  the entire coin, network, etc has to be innovative.

We might not hear from NEM by next year.

Tai Zen

I agree that a lot of alt coins will be in trouble when btc increases their transaction speeds which is not a big deal like everyone thinks.

You can not compare nxt to ltc or any other alt coin because ltc n others were created to include a specific feature that btc does not have.  Whereas, NXT was created to be a full feature independent platform.  In other words they didn't go out n say we need faster transaction speeds so lets buildd a new altcoin centered around transaction speed like ltc or others. or lets focus on anonymity like darkcoin etc.

NXT is focused on fiancial innovation so it was designed from the ground up to include other features when necessary so u don't have to go out n recreate the blockchain again.

So comparing nxt to other alts is not an apples to apples comparison.

I'm not necessarily saying nxt is way better it's just way different in approach n design.

Tai Zen

VC's don't have a choice if NXT is on their radar or not because it has been in the top 10 coins traded since day 1 on coinmarketcap.com.  It's not one of those things u can ignore.

Tai Zen

By volume for the last week. http://nextblocks.info/#section/assets_exchange/12465186738101000735

I'm not convinced that even if you gave every human in the world (or a country) "free" coins, the coin would succeed. Here is my post when Auroracoin was nearing $1bil marketcap:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/the-true-value-of-auroracoin-497736

And we all know where Auroracoin is now. Regardless of any other problems Auroracoin had, the basic supply-and-demand economic principles apply. Additionally, people don't "hold" what they don't perceive as valuable, hence the huge dump. This means that with any "perfectly fair" distribution, the moment the currency is traded, the distribution is suddenly skewed to those who are: a) smarter and b) have the money to buy it up.

A coin cannot succeed on distribution alone (or community, if you want to call it that) - this has been proven again and again. There may be short-term hypes like dogecoin, but people eventually get bored if there is absolutely zero development.

I would like to hear your side of why you think *initial* distribution is all-important. What if initial distribution was not great, but now the distribution is better than Bitcoin (in the case of NXT)? Why does initial distribution matter anyways - other than jealousy? Is there any evidence that a a large initial distribution = long term success? (I cannot find any) Bitcoin and litecoin both have terrible distributions (worse than NXT), yet they are #1 and #2, respectively.

Pandaisftw

What do you mean "not the rest"? They will "use" whatever is needed.

There is also open JDK if someone doesn't want to install Oracle's version. http://openjdk.java.net/

By the way, did you know that Gmail is written in Java and compiled to javascript? http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/197031/why-does-gmail-use-java-is-there-really-a-advantage-over-something-like-php-or

Not to mention all Android apps are written in Java too. Plus twitter has migrated to Java

Java remains top 3 most used programming language

No need to explain what is java, I know. They use only servlets, not the rest.

Java is a programming language interpreted by the JVM (java virtual machine) and when you install it or update it, it tries to install a shitty toolbar.

But I am ok with you, it's much easier to write in Java than in C...

Didn't seem to hurt bitcoin, much. IPO was open for anyone 2 months on this forum.



This can and has been used as marketing tool. PoW wastes energy. Nxt is green. It will be a pro when it comes to marketing.




This quote above shows a basic lack of understanding from someone who has never been a programmer. Java is a programming language. It's Oracle's applet (a web browser plugin) that  has security issues.  It's much easier to write secure software in Java than in C. There is also OPenJDK which is free and open source.  

Java remains the most popular programming language for server side. If you have ever used Amazon and Ebay, the server side was run by Java.  Almost all banks use Java on server side. So you already use Java as a client everyday.

NRS is a server application (it's not a web browser applet with security problems).  The client side can be written in any programming language.