Topic: POLL - which coins are scams as defined in the OP? - page 2. (Read 11708 times)

I want to say something regarding GadgetCoin and IOTA, I follow them from the very beginning, guys behind these two projects are very talented and skilled, these two projects are very potential,  it's not necessary to argue on which one is better, time will prove it, client release will prove it and  market will prove it, if the guys can cooperate with each, it's the best thing,win-win is real win.

The irrefutable logic that Dash is a scam:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14393865

Also:

I added Rimbit to the poll. The poll already has 141 votes, so the relative Rimbit percentage must be rebased accordingly (especially since voters can't change their prior votes unless I reset vote count to 0).

---

---

---

My prior analysis of Synereo is linked from the following thread:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/synereo-community-hangout-11-feb-2016-protip-get-in-here-1361721

One excerpt:

well i like how you posted what you said in your thread but not what i had to say.. Thats funny.. what are your intentions.. What are your views of the system of money in general.. How is it that those that hold over 1 btc when their is over 7 billiion people any different than the system we were supposed to get away from.> Looks to me btc is going to be a safe haven only for the rich when the current system inevitably implodes..  for those of you wondering where this guy is getting his info from.. how about you list the sources.. And hey try not to look so butthurt that eth took over the stagnant btc or the "lite" version of btc...   Drag your feet and bitch and moan about dick sizes.. oops i mean block sizes and  watch these that think they are entitled to btc drive it right into the dirt..  

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14239189

good luck with your thread..which is nothing more than hot air.. Maybe you should try contributing to your precious btc so that it doesn't fail..  

EDIT.  wheres the option for all of the above.. this poll is biased!  in all these coins someone stands to gain at the expense of others loss.  So does that qualify as a scam???

Turn [it] Down For What?

Just Let it Go

Best viewed with:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCcrggG8u_8#t=85
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTcL2Lg0RcU#t=33

An altruistic altcoin will win:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14166341

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14167046

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14158348

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14166341

TPTB

Sorry if this is an annoying question that may have been answered in a previous post but could i get a detailed example of a sybil attack on the maidsafe network, like what exactly would someone do. Like i know how and what a sybil attack is but the safenetwork has been specifically planned to not be attack proof but make it survive and more resilient to attack with the logic that no system will be attack proof but making it mathematically improbable to be able to attack it to such a degree as to cause any real damage.

The favorite way they would explain this would likely be : a ant colony , killing a few ants doesn't do much damage to the entire colony and recovers quickly , trying to destroy the whole colony would be extremely expensive and  costly and would require more resources than the network has , so a small network would be easier perhaps to successfully attack but the larger the network the hard it is .

It's not a blockchain so not the same as the other decentralized storage coins.

To be able to make any bad decisions within one of the groups of nodes you would require control of 28 out of 32 nodes to control that group of nodes decisions , which would be 87.5% of the new nodes being created just to stand a chance to hopefully, randomly getting control of a single group of nodes, even then that groups nodes would still need confirmation of another close group of nodes, which would be even harder to gain control of, because if you are in the example creating 87.5% of new nodes as an attack to try and randomly end up with control over 28 nodes in a random group of nodes, you would then need to somehow have the first group of nodes close in XOR space to the second else they wouldn't confirm the decisions off of each other, meaning you might need to somehow take control of 10 groups of nodes before you have 2 that are close enough to each other to validate what you want to do

The same for data , your nodes in your group and in a secondary group would need to confirm your delivery of data that you delivered in order to reward you , if they find out you are not delivering, downgrade reputation and perhaps kick you from the group, so even when pretending to deliver data instead of actually delivering it would require control of 87.5% of at least 2 groups of nodes, that are assigned in XOR space completely randomly.  

I'll answer in the main thread, no time on duplication of posts.

No. You should explain why you thought I changed my position. So readers can decide if your logic makes any sense.

I suspect that you thought that because I wrote "Software is not a fungible money" that I had changed my position. That phrase was a terse response to iotatoken's point that Iota tokens are only software. Actually that phrase taken out-of-context would be incorrect, because Bitcoin is software and is fungible. The salient distinction as I clarified in my long post just a few moments ago, is that no one is depending on the control exerted by a group that sold us the Bitcoins for the expectation of gains in the value of Bitcoin. That is why Bitcoin is not an investment SECURITY. It is an investment or speculation, but not a SECURITY, because no one is depending on the efforts of an ongoing enterprise for the expectation of gains.

You may be right or wrong. In any case it doesn't make sense to argue on that.

Microsoft has a horrible reputation of producing inferior technology.

Windows Phone has 1% market share. Microsoft is dying in the age of open source.


You disingenuously quoted me out-of-context. I wrote Monero is probably more decentralized because its CPU hash doesn't yet have an ASIC.


Hell no!

Apparently you did not understand what I wrote about Proof-of-stake requires that only one node can confirm all transactions for its block. No other node can compete with that designated node.

As for governance, clearly Proof-of-stake is most centralized design possible.

CfB I did not change my position. Your disingenuous attempt to assert that I am waffling is a despicable obfuscation tactic.

If you read the entire thread, you will see I have explained in great detail with quotations from the relevant Supreme Court decisions, that the Supreme Court has clarified that the Howey test is employed to distinguish an investment security from other scenarios which are not investment securities.

The key aspect of the Howey test is whether the individuals who are purchasing what is offered, are expecting to gain on the resale value due to the ongoing efforts of some group other than themself. This means they've placed their trust in a group (an ongoing enterprise) that is responsible for their future gains.

It is quite clear that ever since your ICO, that the future value of Iota's tokens is dependent on iotatoken and Come-from-Beyond, for example all the development work you had to complete from the time you sold the tokens until now and still ongoing work required. As well, you arguing with me here in this thread, indicates that you are responsible for the promotion and forming public opinion which determines the value of Iota's tokens.

Also one of the other key factors is that money paid for these tokens was transferred to this group, which the investors are depending on for their expectation of gains.

Pokemon cards are not software, they are physical collectibles similar to baseball cards. The major reason for obtaining these cards was not for depending on the ongoing efforts of a group to promote and provide value for these cards. To the extent these cards have risen in value, it is because of the inherent value of the cards when they were created, not due to any reliance on ongoing efforts of promoters and developers to raise their value over time.

Pokemon card values are a user-driven phenomenon. Iota token values are an iotatoken and Come-from-Beyond driven phenomenon (and the various early investors who also pump your tokens here in this forum and rave about Come-from-Beyond's reputation of creating Nxt). The users are depending on your development group to implement and monitor the coin ongoing. Heck your company is even providing centralized servers which are essential to the launch phase which will make or break the value of the tokens.

The USA Supreme Court has specifically stated it will ignore all such obfuscations and focus on the economic facts, which is whether the investors were depending on the actions of the sellers of the securities for the expectation of the gains on the value of the securities. The Supreme Court will also look as to whether the primary reason for obtaining the tokens was for an expectation of the gains, and not primarily for the use value of trading the tokens as a currency for some game or services.

None of the investors of Iota are using them to trade for services or in a game. They are HODLing them in expectation of selling them for an investment gain to greater fools, and they help to promote the tokens on these forums thus displaying their intentions and expectations.

If you two insist of writing stupid shit which exemplifies that you have not even read this thread entirely, and thus do not understand the Howey test, then you are being disingenuous and trying to fool your investors. Which is another fact to add to your culpability under the Howey test and USA securities law.

And yes I think Ethereum's lawyers are dumb shit. And btw, my father is very prominent attorney who has been a general counsel and run the entire west coast division for the world's largest oil company. I have not only inherited his IQ, but I also was exposed to numerous legal briefs and discussions with him over my teenage years which thus an imbued in me the ability to understand key salient points of the court's legal decisions.

I see many attorneys making some egregious mistakes with their comments about crypto currency within the context of the USA's Howey test. I have provided those refutations and clarifications upthread.

The Howey test is very simple. A security means the investor places his surety and trust in a ongoing enterprise to provide his expectation of gains. When buying a bicycle which I resell in the future, I don't depend on the efforts of some ongoing enterprise for the expectation for gains in the value of the bicycle. When I buy software which I resell one day, I don't buy the software to expect gains on the value of the software but rather I buy it primarily to use it. Duh! The SEC regulates these ongoing enterprises so they provide proper disclosures or that they limit their offerings to qualified investors who have at least $1 million in liquid net worth or who have proven they are sophisticated investors who understand well all the technologies and risks involved. Obviously from the dumb comments that speculators make on these forums, they are not all sophisticated. And I understand you did not check to make sure all participants in your ICO (that are USA citizens) had a liquid networth of $1 million.

Hey TPTB, thanks for the valued feedback... let me see...


Nothing's perfect, if it's good enough for Microsoft, then it's good enough for me.  Next..


Got pleanty of that, looking to diversify into crypto.  I should have said "What CRYPTO platform isn't."  Sorry sir, I'll try to be more precise next time I open my big mouth  



OK, so BitShares is decentralized (more than bitcoin and Ethereum), but it is not permissionless.  That's fine by me, let the winner take it all.  I'm a winner, and I want it all, and I will vote only for those miners who are winners with the ability to take it all, while simultaneously voting out slow nodes.  Competition, survival of the fittest,

Pure Unadulturated Laissez Faire Free Market Capitalism is what made this country great in the first place, and it's what I plan to re-instate to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAI!  Sorry, I can't resist a good grandstand.

Bottom line, is I am the owner, I am the shareholder, so only I should have the power and control over precisely who controls my property.  

"permissioned"?

yes exactly,

my permission




Yeah, it is a bit complex.  It's also for managers who manage multiple bands, and have to distribute royalties.  It tracks who gets what so there can be no band break ups over who got paid more (because it's on the Satoshi certified transparent blockchain).  So yeah, it has some cool things for artists, fans, and managers.  Simple, it is not.  



Thanks again for confirming my selections, however, my main question to everyone when I started this thread has gone unanswered this whole time, and I finally found an answer that should have been obvious to you all by now:



What prominent crypto business sector am I missing?




anyone?



anyone?




Bueller?




Could it be maybe the coin that has doubled in value over this past week and is currently one of the top volume coins on earth!!

Syscoin! (P2P ebay marketplace)

Come on guys, throw me a fricken bone here.  I'm trying to build large positions based on limited capital, and you guys would rather compare shoe sizes than make money?!

I had to stumble upon this phenomenon myself:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.14044856

P2P ebay (physical marketplace), is a business sector that was not on my list.  OK, I'm done crying.  Yes, I should not expect anyone else to do my DD.  So then what other companies becides SYS has a decentralized P2P marketplace?

I know that SYS can't be any more "fatally flawed" than the $6 billion coin.  And how flawed could it really be since Microsoft already approved it?  Good enough for me.  But I'm just wondering what other eqally flawed (but acceptable to someone on the level of Microsoft) options there might be hidden in this sector.

All right guys, this is a lot of work, and I'm a little disappointed, but I'm still not giving up.  I've narrowed down the imperfect but acceptable portfolio to bitcoin, BitShares, Namecoin, Peertracks, and now possibly Syscoin (pending further investigation) using Microsoft acceptance as a benchmark.  I'll never stop doing my DD.  And of course, thanks in advance!

I mean it runs on the same insolubly flawed technology.


Physical cash.

Cash can be canceled by governments though.

The internet is decentralized because of the End-to-End principle which makes the network redundant and fungible.

As for a decentralized currency where no one controls it, no one has invented this yet (well except maybe me, but I haven't implemented my design yet).

Monero might be quite decentralized due to its CPU-only hash function which hasn't yet been implemented on an ASIC.


Then it is not decentralized, permissionless. A permissionless system should be able to scale while still permitting slower nodes. In short, yeah you can guarantee anything with total control, but you also insure a power vacuum which is winner-take-all. It is an Iron Law of Political Economics.

But even your reply is technically ignorant, because the point I was making is that no one can guarantee that a node performs well 100% of the time. Nothing on the internet is perfectly reliable. The fault tolerance must be built into the system by allowing many nodes to confirm transactions simultaneously, not a synchronous queue as is Proof-of-Stake's idiotic design.


Some will pretend to be musicians and give the Peertracks a bad reputation.


I concluded they are illegal. The attorneys were idiots then.


I refuse to give my design away.


Just sell the band paraphernalia to the users. Don't obfuscate gambling and complicate a music distribution site so you can mix gambling with music.