rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 13.

wizzardTim

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1000

Reality is stranger than fiction

Quote from: wpalczynski on December 12, 2014, 07:25:47 PM

What are Qora's unique features (selling points)?

Quote from: wizzardTim on December 09, 2014, 10:38:03 AM

Whoever is competent in programming p2p cryptocurrencies, or interested to explore programming code logic, can get ready to view Qora's code:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9785384

There are lots of them and more are being developed. There is asset exchange, with qora/asset and asset/asset exchange, multidividends and so on. Automated transactions are being developed by CYIAM, and a first example will be an atomic chain transfer. Arbitrary transactions are also inside the core, as well as a different Pos algorithm (maybe a code guru can analyze it), ability to forge with locked wallet for security, ability to recover a wallet from seed and not just by using a password, decentralized voting (used by community to decide which feature will be implemented next, and name exchange.

It's time i think for devs and people to start building on top of it. Apps, crowdfundings, assets, and more!

wpalczynski

legendary

Activity: 1456

Merit: 1000

What are Qora's unique features (selling points)?

Quote from: wizzardTim on December 09, 2014, 10:38:03 AM

Whoever is competent in programming p2p cryptocurrencies, or interested to explore programming code logic, can get ready to view Qora's code:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9785384

wizzardTim

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1000

Reality is stranger than fiction

Whoever is competent in programming p2p cryptocurrencies, or interested to explore programming code logic, can get ready to view Qora's code:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9785384

aminorex

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1029

Sine secretum non libertas

Quote from: Useli Violent on December 03, 2014, 09:48:22 PM

Anyone know what's up with MAID?
Up almost 50% on Poloniex.

such surges are pretty common in low volume alt markets. speculative momentum generally suffices as an explanation, when no catalyzing event is known. you will almost certainly learn mUch more in a MAID-specific forum.

Useli Violent

member

Activity: 68

Merit: 10

Anyone know what's up with MAID?
Up almost 50% on Poloniex.

1echo

sr. member

Activity: 280

Merit: 250

scams hunter!

so any new coins or still XMR talk ?

wizzardTim

legendary

Activity: 1708

Merit: 1000

Reality is stranger than fiction

Quote from: wizzardTim on October 22, 2014, 04:35:54 PM

Quote from: Este Nuno on October 15, 2014, 10:31:51 AM

Quote from: wizzardTim on October 15, 2014, 09:50:27 AM

Quote from: darlidada on October 15, 2014, 09:44:10 AM

Quote from: wizzardTim on October 15, 2014, 09:37:15 AM

Quote from: darlidada on October 15, 2014, 09:27:37 AM

Quote from: wizzardTim on October 15, 2014, 09:16:11 AM

From what it seems qora will be the first worldwide to have AT integrated into its core!

@rpietila: have you checked qora?

you can check the following posts:

Since this thread is about observing altcoins, I wonder why I haven't seen more references to qora..

Because its closed-source? or maybe "was" ? it's been a while since last time i've checked it out

It will be OS once the website and some other stuff are done. There is no way this is a scam. I mean the dev constantly keeps updating and communicating with the community. Just be patient.

Regarding OS please check here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9208721 It has a link to the first voting for OS.

Guys, we're talking about Complete Turing Engine, before Etherium! https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/qora-is-open-source-770239

If this isn't a once-in-a-livetime chance, then what is it?

Maybe it is. But the simple fact that it is still closed-source will be a turn off for many "investors". Also, I don't understand the reasoning behind not going open-source. There is nothing to be afraid of ! Especially clones... The only way a clone overcome the first implementation of the code is if the community leaves one for the other. The only way it happens is if the community as something to gain from the transfuge.

Noone said not going open-source. Community just decided not to rush it. It would be better to have some GUI embellishment, website (picture to the outer-world) and featured integrated before going OS imho.

The vast majority of people would say that your community chose wrongly. And the price seems to reflect that decision. Sounds like 'Qora'(the dev) himself is doing a good job, but closed source is a pretty big no-no regardless of whether people fork or clone your code base.

Just the idea that Qora has been out for months now as closed source puts a rain cloud over the project. That alone might forever turn a lot of people off who otherwise might have been interested.

Qora is indeed New Source!! Confirmed by one of the AT devs --> https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9294813

Regarding our previous conversation for Qora:

Open Source is coming in a week: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/qora-100-pos-assets-names-voting-open-source-881230

So no more doubts that this is a true 2nd gen crypto with innovations.

HCLivess

legendary

Activity: 2114

Merit: 1090

=== NODE IS OK! ==

I wish I knew this thread earlier, although generally I was guided by it

ArticMine

legendary

Activity: 2282

Merit: 1050

Monero Core Team

Quote from: aminorex on December 01, 2014, 10:33:53 PM

Quote from: jehst on November 30, 2014, 03:15:51 AM

Quote from: smooth on November 30, 2014, 02:42:46 AM

I view issues as catastrophic dysfunction of the development process, catastrophic failure of fungibility, catastrophic loss of decentralization (arguably has already happened, though likely is not irreparable quite yet), or even catastrophic damage to the brand (and entirely cultural and not technical issue) as being the sorts of failures that could lead to a somewhat different cryptocurrency becoming dominant.

Yes. There could easily be a situation where different governments start blacklisting coins and trying to become gatekeepers. This might happen somewhat slowly at first and then more quickly if bitcoin is seen as a threat in countries with weaker currencies. Slowly, and then perhaps increasingly quickly, speculators and users will start rebalancing their money into unblacklistable crypos. This might not result in bitcoin losing its #1 spot, but it will result in a crippling of bitcoin. And it may mean that an unblacklistable coin increases 10x in value.

This is distinct from the privacy niche.

That is closely related to the fungibility crisis hedge scenario. The fungibility crisis is only possible in jurisdictions deriving from English common law. Those are the jurisdictions, coincidentally, where private currencies are generally accepted and acknowledged by the legal system. The threat you describe is already manifest, IIRC, under the military dictatorship in Thailand.

Actually the biggest risk here to fungibility may be from private sector players attempting to recover stolen XBT using the courts. Fungibility is actually far more important than privacy as a selling point of XMR for this reason.

aminorex

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1029

Sine secretum non libertas

Quote from: jehst on November 30, 2014, 03:15:51 AM

Quote from: smooth on November 30, 2014, 02:42:46 AM

I view issues as catastrophic dysfunction of the development process, catastrophic failure of fungibility, catastrophic loss of decentralization (arguably has already happened, though likely is not irreparable quite yet), or even catastrophic damage to the brand (and entirely cultural and not technical issue) as being the sorts of failures that could lead to a somewhat different cryptocurrency becoming dominant.

Yes. There could easily be a situation where different governments start blacklisting coins and trying to become gatekeepers. This might happen somewhat slowly at first and then more quickly if bitcoin is seen as a threat in countries with weaker currencies. Slowly, and then perhaps increasingly quickly, speculators and users will start rebalancing their money into unblacklistable crypos. This might not result in bitcoin losing its #1 spot, but it will result in a crippling of bitcoin. And it may mean that an unblacklistable coin increases 10x in value.

This is distinct from the privacy niche.

That is closely related to the fungibility crisis hedge scenario. The fungibility crisis is only possible in jurisdictions deriving from English common law. Those are the jurisdictions, coincidentally, where private currencies are generally accepted and acknowledged by the legal system. The threat you describe is already manifest, IIRC, under the military dictatorship in Thailand.

jehst

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

21 million. I want them all.

Quote from: smooth on November 30, 2014, 02:42:46 AM

I view issues as catastrophic dysfunction of the development process, catastrophic failure of fungibility, catastrophic loss of decentralization (arguably has already happened, though likely is not irreparable quite yet), or even catastrophic damage to the brand (and entirely cultural and not technical issue) as being the sorts of failures that could lead to a somewhat different cryptocurrency becoming dominant.

Yes. There could easily be a situation where different governments start blacklisting coins and trying to become gatekeepers. This might happen somewhat slowly at first and then more quickly if bitcoin is seen as a threat in countries with weaker currencies. Slowly, and then perhaps increasingly quickly, speculators and users will start rebalancing their money into unblacklistable crypos. This might not result in bitcoin losing its #1 spot, but it will result in a crippling of bitcoin. And it may mean that an unblacklistable coin increases 10x in value.

This is distinct from the privacy niche.

smooth

legendary

Activity: 2968

Merit: 1198

I think the catastrophic event hedge makes some sense, but you have to define catastrophic event more broadly and it could be the sort of thing that happens in slow motion, as opposed to waking up one day and finding out that Bitcoin has been hacked (which I agree would likely just be fixed).

I view issues as catastrophic dysfunction of the development process, catastrophic failure of fungibility, catastrophic loss of decentralization (arguably has already happened, though likely is not irreparable quite yet), or even catastrophic damage to the brand (an entirely cultural and not technical issue) as being the sorts of failures that could lead to a somewhat different cryptocurrency becoming dominant. None of these happen overnight, and in fact might be more likely to happen at all if they happen slowly (boiled frog). Failure of scalability also possible, but I mention it separately from the above list since there is strong overlap with the first and third items.

As long as the possibility of network-specific failure exists -- for whatever reason technical or otherwise -- the concept of hedging has validity.

Only the failure of the brand is effective hedged with something like LTC or DOGE.

turtoro

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: jehst on November 30, 2014, 02:28:57 AM

Quote

I hear what you are saying, its late on my side so forgive me if I am succinct in my response:

1: Crypto is no longer at the MTgox stage. It was still a relatively isolated and insular market in 2013. If something like that happens a few years down the line, affecting the core, it would be devastating with market confidence of a new and untested technology being shattered.

2: The larger bitcoin gets, the more a flaw has on the daily economics of business/personal, the MORE a temporary issue with the blockchain will impact users and cause them to lose confidence. A system handling billions of dollars a day in transactions will be affected by the smallest sneeze.

3: Its disingenuous to compare the RBL and Peso to bitcoin. Because bitcoin is inherently decentralized and trust less, this inherently assumes that faith is absolute. If that faith is shattered for any reason, without the back stop of a "trusted" centralized authority to fix the issues, what makes the average person follow crypto rather than a central bank?

1. Years from now, after bitcoin has "died" 5+ times, the market is going to react less and less to new "deaths."

2. I think it's the opposite. The more money there is in bitcoin, the more motivated we (as bitcoin holders) will all be to develop a solution and find consensus.

3. I don't have absolute faith in the current protocol. I have faith that some group of developers somewhere (if not the core devs) will provide a fix and a suitable fork for any issue. In contrast, I have much less faith that the Argentinian government won't collapse within a few decades making the peso worthless.

I think we've made our positions clear on this issue. We'll have to disagree on what will happen if a crippling flaw occurs. We're getting off-topic.

Well, I dont think its off topic because it goes back to your "catastrophic event" theory. Which is an interesting theory nonetheless and merits discussion.

I agree. Lets let other people chime in if they have an opinion.

jehst

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

21 million. I want them all.

Quote

I hear what you are saying, its late on my side so forgive me if I am succinct in my response:

1: Crypto is no longer at the MTgox stage. It was still a relatively isolated and insular market in 2013. If something like that happens a few years down the line, affecting the core, it would be devastating with market confidence of a new and untested technology being shattered.

2: The larger bitcoin gets, the more a flaw has on the daily economics of business/personal, the MORE a temporary issue with the blockchain will impact users and cause them to lose confidence. A system handling billions of dollars a day in transactions will be affected by the smallest sneeze.

3: Its disingenuous to compare the RBL and Peso to bitcoin. Because bitcoin is inherently decentralized and trust less, this inherently assumes that faith is absolute. If that faith is shattered for any reason, without the back stop of a "trusted" centralized authority to fix the issues, what makes the average person follow crypto rather than a central bank?

1. Years from now, after bitcoin has "died" 5+ times, the market is going to react less and less to new "deaths."

2. I think it's the opposite. The more money there is in bitcoin, the more motivated we (as bitcoin holders) will all be to develop a solution and find consensus.

3. I don't have absolute faith in the current protocol. I have faith that some group of developers somewhere (if not the core devs) will provide a fix and a suitable fork for any issue. In contrast, I have much less faith that the Argentinian government won't collapse within a few decades making the peso worthless.

I think we've made our positions clear on this issue. We'll have to disagree on what will happen if a crippling flaw occurs. We're getting off-topic.

turtoro

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: jehst on November 30, 2014, 01:37:08 AM

Quote from: turtoro on November 30, 2014, 01:27:04 AM

Quote from: jehst on November 30, 2014, 01:12:53 AM

Quote

Lets be real. If there is a catastrophic breakdown with btc then all cryptos will be degraded for at least 3-5 years. Both the faithful followers and the layman investors will be scared to the core of their bodies. The media onslaught will be like a tsunami. By the time the smoke settles and faith/confidence restored years later, there will be a completely new set of innovations in the space that will be 3-5 years ahead of xmr.

I dont buy the catastrophe argument for one minute. If btc has a major flaw, the space will be stagnant in terms of investment for many year after.

If bitcoin has a catastrophic failure, bitcoin will be patched and the blockchain will be rolled back to a safe date. It's not going to take years. However, there will be a significant shakeup of the market, including a reordering of alts. The coins that were least affected by the exploit will do better than those that were.

This is technically true. I was referring to market perception. ANY major flaw in the protocol will have disastrous implications for all cryptos. While the tech savvy might understand that the issue can be managed and fixed, the public at large will have a major reason to dismiss it. Seeing as market adoption is the next hurdle to overcome, a shakeup of the scale we are talking about would set the space back for more time than you are assuming. Btc is fragile as it is, everything underneath is x10 more fragile. We can do all the T.A and tech discussion we want to, but adoption/market confidence is ~90% of future value.

Currency crises happen all the time. I agree that bitcoin is very fragile, but look at what happened with MTGOX. The market shat itself, but then recovered. In the aftermath, the exchange rankings were shaken up. This is not the same as a problem with the protocol, but eventually bitcoin's going to get big enough where a temporary issue with the blockchain will play out similarly. The public at large is eventually going to hear about a bitcoin crisis and go "Oh, again? Whatever." the same way they hear about a crisis with Russian ruble or Argentinian peso.

I hear what you are saying, its late on my side so forgive me if I am succinct in my response:

1: Crypto is no longer at the MTgox stage. It was still a relatively isolated and insular market in 2013. If something like that happens a few years down the line, affecting the core, it would be devastating with market confidence of a new and untested technology being shattered.

2: The larger bitcoin gets, the more a flaw has on the daily economics of business/personal, the MORE a temporary issue with the blockchain will impact users and cause them to lose confidence. A system handling billions of dollars a day in transactions will be affected by the smallest sneeze.

3: Its disingenuous to compare the RBL and Peso to bitcoin. Because bitcoin is inherently decentralized and trust less, this inherently assumes that faith is absolute. If that faith is shattered for any reason, without the back stop of a "trusted" centralized authority to fix the issues, what makes the average person follow crypto rather than a central bank?

jehst

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

21 million. I want them all.

Quote from: turtoro on November 30, 2014, 01:27:04 AM

Quote from: jehst on November 30, 2014, 01:12:53 AM

Quote

Lets be real. If there is a catastrophic breakdown with btc then all cryptos will be degraded for at least 3-5 years. Both the faithful followers and the layman investors will be scared to the core of their bodies. The media onslaught will be like a tsunami. By the time the smoke settles and faith/confidence restored years later, there will be a completely new set of innovations in the space that will be 3-5 years ahead of xmr.

I dont buy the catastrophe argument for one minute. If btc has a major flaw, the space will be stagnant in terms of investment for many year after.

If bitcoin has a catastrophic failure, bitcoin will be patched and the blockchain will be rolled back to a safe date. It's not going to take years. However, there will be a significant shakeup of the market, including a reordering of alts. The coins that were least affected by the exploit will do better than those that were.

This is technically true. I was referring to market perception. ANY major flaw in the protocol will have disastrous implications for all cryptos. While the tech savvy might understand that the issue can be managed and fixed, the public at large will have a major reason to dismiss it. Seeing as market adoption is the next hurdle to overcome, a shakeup of the scale we are talking about would set the space back for more time than you are assuming. Btc is fragile as it is, everything underneath is x10 more fragile. We can do all the T.A and tech discussion we want to, but adoption/market confidence is ~90% of future value.

Currency crises happen all the time. I agree that bitcoin is very fragile, but look at what happened with MTGOX. The market shat itself, but then recovered. In the aftermath, the exchange rankings were shaken up. This is not the same as a problem with the protocol, but eventually bitcoin's going to get big enough where a temporary issue with the blockchain will play out similarly. The public at large is eventually going to hear about a bitcoin crisis and go "Oh, again? Whatever." the same way they hear about a crisis with Russian ruble or Argentinian peso.

turtoro

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: jehst on November 30, 2014, 01:12:53 AM

Quote

Lets be real. If there is a catastrophic breakdown with btc then all cryptos will be degraded for at least 3-5 years. Both the faithful followers and the layman investors will be scared to the core of their bodies. The media onslaught will be like a tsunami. By the time the smoke settles and faith/confidence restored years later, there will be a completely new set of innovations in the space that will be 3-5 years ahead of xmr.

I dont buy the catastrophe argument for one minute. If btc has a major flaw, the space will be stagnant in terms of investment for many year after.

If bitcoin has a catastrophic failure, bitcoin will be patched and the blockchain will be rolled back to a safe date. It's not going to take years. However, there will be a significant shakeup of the market, including a reordering of alts. The coins that were least affected by the exploit will do better than those that were.

This is technically true. I was referring to market perception. ANY major flaw in the protocol will have disastrous implications for all cryptos. While the tech savvy might understand that the issue can be managed and fixed, the public at large will have a major reason to dismiss it. Seeing as market adoption is the next hurdle to overcome, a shakeup of the scale we are talking about would set the space back for more time than you are assuming. Btc is fragile as it is, everything underneath is x10 more fragile. We can do all the T.A and tech discussion we want to, but adoption/market confidence is ~90% of future value.

Edit:

BTW, bitcoin has already experienced major flaws, including a fatal exploit where anyone's bitcoin could be spent by anyone. It was fixed.

This all happened before bitcoin came into the public consciousness. What would happen if this occurred today?

I stand by my argument. If Biitcoin loses faith, there is no hedge because faith will be lost on all cryptos in the mainstream market (for some time)

jehst

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

21 million. I want them all.

Quote

Lets be real. If there is a catastrophic breakdown with btc then all cryptos will be degraded for at least 3-5 years. Both the faithful followers and the layman investors will be scared to the core of their bodies. The media onslaught will be like a tsunami. By the time the smoke settles and faith/confidence restored years later, there will be a completely new set of innovations in the space that will be 3-5 years ahead of xmr.

I dont buy the catastrophe argument for one minute. If btc has a major flaw, the space will be stagnant in terms of investment for many year after.

If bitcoin has a catastrophic failure, bitcoin will be patched and the blockchain will be rolled back to a safe date. It's not going to take years. However, there will be a significant shakeup of the market, including a reordering of alts. The coins that were least affected by the exploit will do better than those that were. If, for example, bitcoin ends up switching to a different hashing algorithm/codebase more similar to Peercoin or XMR in the patch, then we might see Peercoin or XMR increase in value by an order of magnitude, overtaking other alts which lack the staying power of bitcoin. That's a real possibility. I believe that speculators will be prepared to hold qualifying coins for the chance at achieving those sorts of gains.

BTW, bitcoin has already experienced major flaws, including a fatal exploit where anyone's bitcoin could be spent by anyone. It was fixed.

jehst

hero member

Activity: 798

Merit: 1000

21 million. I want them all.

Quote from: dewdeded on November 29, 2014, 11:33:13 PM

jehst:
I think you should do more, deeper and real research on cryptocurrency in general and the altcoin enviroment (incl. at least trying to understand technical backgrounds and how to rate the devs and community behind a coin) before trying predict chances of success of so many different coins and technologies, you talk about in your post.
You made alot very general statements, mostly without giving any reasons for your argument.

To me, it looks like you read some general altcoin news pages and some threads here and now repeated some standard arguments, you heard there. You didn't mentioned any kind of (simple) scientific instrument or methods of analysis you used during your research work (to create valid arguments and reasonings). Some stuff you wrote is ridiculous incorrect and shows you don't really know what you are talking about.

BTW, a currency lives through usage, no coin will just survive on being an "catastrophic hedge" against an BTC failure. There are other tools and ways to do that.
I think this catastrophic hedge-scenario isn't even worth discussing. (It was discussed in 100.000 threads before here on this board. Just research there.)

(No personal attack or hate, just a comment to improve level of discussion.)

Quote

I think you should do more, deeper and real research on cryptocurrency in general and the altcoin enviroment (incl. at least trying to understand technical backgrounds and how to rate the devs and community behind a coin) before trying predict chances of success of so many different coins and technologies, you talk about in your post.

Although I talk about many coins in my catastrophic hedge post, the scope is extremely limited. The requirements are very clear: no pre-mine/insta-mine, good liquidity, different codebase, different hashing algorithm. Nearly all coins are clearly disqualified on one of these grounds. I admit that I have not done any deep research on most of the coins, but I am not going to do any "deeper research" on any pre-mined/IPO shitcoin, for example. If it fails to meet the requirements, then it's immediately out of consideration. If it meets the requirements in the future, I will reconsider it.

Quote

a currency lives through usage, no coin will just survive on being an "catastrophic hedge" against an BTC failure.

A currency lives on for one reason and one reason only. Supply and demand. This is why I made "liquidity" a requirement. Liquidity is a proxy for demand. The coin wouldn't be valued if it didn't have demand and a limited supply. I do not need to examine what the coin is being used for, nor am I saying that any of these coins won't have other uses besides being a catastrophic hedge.

turtoro

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 250

Quote from: dewdeded on November 29, 2014, 11:33:13 PM

jehst:
I think you should do more, deeper and real research on cryptocurrency in general and the altcoin enviroment (incl. at least trying to understand technical backgrounds and how to rate the devs and community behind a coin) before trying predict chances of success of so many different coins and technologies, you talk about in your post.
You made alot very general statements, mostly without giving any reasons for your argument.

To me, it looks like you read some general altcoin news pages and some threads here and now repeated some standard arguments, you heard there. You didn't mentioned any kind of (simple) scientific instrument or methods of analysis you used during your research work (to create valid arguments and reasonings). Some stuff you wrote is ridiculous incorrect and shows you don't really know what you are talking about.

BTW, a currency lives through usage, no coin will just survive on being an "catastrophic hedge" against an BTC failure. There are other tools and ways to do that.
I think this catastrophic hedge-scenario isn't even worth discussing. (It was discussed in 100.000 threads before here on this board. Just research there.)

(No personal attack or hate, just a comment to improve level of discussion.)

Lets be real. If there is a catastrophic breakdown with btc then all cryptos will be degraded for at least 3-5 years. Both the faithful followers and the layman investors will be scared to the core of their bodies. The media onslaught will be like a tsunami. By the time the smoke settles and faith/confidence restored years later, there will be a completely new set of innovations in the space that will be 3-5 years ahead of xmr.

I dont buy the catastrophe argument for one minute. If btc has a major flaw, the space will be stagnant in terms of investment for many year after.

Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 13. (Read 387455 times)