Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 179. (Read 387493 times)

"Hash Rate: 573.16 KH/sec" that's 100 till 120 computers. That's a kid, with his Windows Skiddy-RAT or an computer pool admin at university or whatever.

What I wanted to point out is, there is no major botnet (> 20.000 bots) mining.
Because people talk like the really big and well known botnets - managed by professional east-european groups - are mining now. Not true.

This botnet talk is really big exaggerated. There is not a single Malware-Report by AV/IT-Sec guys, about an XMR mining botnet.
Every new variation of malware is tracked and documented very closely, e.g. a report from yesterday is here http://blog.malcovery.com/blog/breaking-gameover-zeus-returns?utm_campaign=Gameover+Zeus+Return or just see http://malware.dontneedcoffee.com/ (+ blog roll) every new development in botting is documented and known
There is no announcement or advertisement for about an new mining/mining-modules/mining-plugin for Monero/CryptoNote (for the major botnet frameworks/software systems) on any major (russian) botnet/cybercrime forum. Not even an discussion thread or postings.
--> there is no big botnet mining
---> Hello FUDder!!!?s

I think it is valid to make a slim distinction between the literal process of mining (securing the network, processing transactions, decentralization, etc.) and the distribution of mining rewards. The latter exists to incentivize the former. If a coin is not effectively delivering on the former, or is anticipated to fail to deliver in the future, then the something about the latter may be partially to blame, or the very concept of what you call "bitcoin proof of work" maybe flawed. It also may be valid to claim that mining rewards cost too much relative to the value of the activities they incentivize (though compared to what?)

Alternatives such as proof-of-stake and various other methods of distributed global consensus attempt to address this, although none has convincingly and compellingly delivered a working and widely trusted solution.

This botnet talk is really big exaggerated. There is not a single Malware-Report by AV/IT-Sec guys, about an XMR mining botnet.
Every new variation of malware is tracked and documented very closely, e.g. a report from yesterday is here http://blog.malcovery.com/blog/breaking-gameover-zeus-returns?utm_campaign=Gameover+Zeus+Return or just see http://malware.dontneedcoffee.com/ (+ blog roll) every new development in botting is documented and known

There is no announcement or advertisement for about an new mining/mining-modules/mining-plugin for Monero/CryptoNote (for the major botnet frameworks/software systems) on any major (russian) botnet/cybercrime forum. Not even an discussion thread or postings.

--> there is no big botnet mining

---> Hello FUDder!!!?s

This botnet talk is really big exaggerated. There is not a single Malware-Report by AV/IT-Sec guys, about an XMR mining botnet.
There is no announcement or advertisement for about an mining/mining-modules/mining-plugin for Monero/CryptoNote on any major (russian) botnet/cybercrime forum. Not even an discussion thread or postings.

--> there is no big botnet mining

No etherium?

Putting so much emphasis on mining is unnecessary to the long-term usefulness of a coin.

Yes, mining is important because that's how crypto ensure a "fair" distribution but this becomes less and less important as time goes on.

Almost all coins have diminishing coin emissions, either in the form of block halving, or the continuous decreasing award per block like XMR but eventually, all mining stops creating new coins and you are left mining the scraps of TX.

This means mining becomes less and less dominant as time goes on and the focus should be placed on the value such network has on facilitating transfer of value or storage of wealth.

Ideally for a miner, they would be able to mine forever, so you either want a coin with unending emission or you jump onto the next pump and dump, which XMR is neither of these.

Please take the discussion elsewhere if it does not concern the following coins. Thank you

Look at LTC. The #1 reason it is failing or on a road to failure is its acceptance and adoption of mining centralization. Everything else is just a by-product of this phenomena, even the use-case debate is an offshoot of this.

1    Bitcoin   $ 7,947,027,453   $ 619.09
2    Litecoin   $ 318,843,456   $ 11.05
3    Darkcoin   $ 52,733,769   $ 12.14
4    Nxt   $ 46,808,290   $ 0.046808
5    Peercoin   $ 45,744,698   $ 2.13

Dark is acting corrosively to the top altcoins.

Once DRK overtook DOGE, doge crashed from 100 satoshis to 50.

Ripple owner chose to sell.

PPC lost it's "next-to-LTC" position.

LTC prices are going down and down (0.021 -> 0.020 -> 0.019 -> 0.018 etc - as I had predicted it would happen). Instead of being BTC-on-steroids, it's losing money for BTC holders who bought it.

It's fair to say DRK is a catalyst. It's Platinum to Bitcoin's gold - but it doesn't need to be marketed as such. The "Dark" element can stand on its own pretty well combined with a good anonymity system.

BTC: The "gold"... The benchmark. The one constant that everyone goes to or uses as a measure. The property of gold is to be inert and resistant to corrosion for ages - as is Bitcoin. Altcoins come and go, altcoins evolve, Bitcoin stays the same and rules the market no matter what. Rich people hoard it, just like gold bars.

LTC: The "silver"... Silver is reflective and conductive (fast transfers). However it tarnishes over time and loses its "bling". It is also more abundant than gold (29m LTC vs 13m BTC). Silver coins are "brilliant" when exiting the mint but now we are in the tarnishing phase.

DRK: The "platinum"... Platinum is a catalyst and is used in specific applications for its catalytic properties. Doesn't corrode no matter what. It's also mined at much lesser quantities than gold (scarcer) at a ratio of 150 tons (platinum) to 2500 tons (gold) to 25000 tons (silver). Mining production and scarcity of DRK adequately positions it as the platinum. (4.4mn coins vs 13mn BTCs)

(warning: the above do not represent predictions for prices, just analogies of nature and cryptocurrencies)

I think these are good points from dga and you, but I think the role of mining is being downplayed. Those who are in Crypto these days have complete lack of respect for an equitable Proof of Work and how important it is in the perceived value of a crypto currency. Bitcoin mining centralization is a serious problem that everyone should be criticizing, learning from and adapting to make it viable and useful for the common denominator. That is why Bitcoin is Proof of Work and not some random distribution through stakes or shares.

Look at LTC. The #1 reason it is failing or on a road to failure is its acceptance and adoption of mining centralization. Everything else is just a by-product of this phenomena, even the use-case debate is an offshoot of this.

PoW centralization and discrepancies will be reflected in a coin's perceived value and economies. It is a serious cancer. Getting away with it will not be duplicable like Bitcoin. It is basic human psychology.

I could not agree more that the whole focus on mining in this community is completely misplaced.

The underlying truth behind this is that mining output is approximately constant. It doesn't really matter to anyone other than miners who is mining or how they are mining. The same number of coins are being released onto the market every single day, and the same number will be released every single day in the future regardless of who is mining (to be more precise for XMR-style coins, as opposed to BTC-style coins, a very slightly reduced amount each day).

If you are are a user what matters to you is what you can use the coin for (at present, nothing in this case). If you are investor what matters to you is whether other people are investing and how much (which affects the price action)

As I have said before, if you want this coin or any coin to appreciate in value, make it more useful. Create applications for it. Use your imagination as to which of these is likely to be profitable in their own right, and you will likely be directly rewarded handsomely for your efforts (in addition to increasing the value of any coin holdings). It isn't really that hard to figure out.

Sure but miners who have no interest in the coin and this sell immediately increase available supply and contribute to the overall sell pressure.

The demand is fixed in this case. But the miners are incentivized to increase the supply(available supply for sale and not held).

This is bullshit needlessly complicated way of thinking.

No matter who mines, there must be demand for the newly created coins. Economically, it does not matter if it is the miner who saves the coins or investor who buys them.