Maidsafe and Bitshares listed as anonymous is almost as funny as Ripple getting the highest rating on decentralization.
in which way is MaidSafe not enough anonymous?
Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 5. (Read 387542 times)
Maidsafe and Bitshares listed as anonymous is almost as funny as Ripple getting the highest rating on decentralization.
in which way is MaidSafe not enough anonymous?
I don't know if this has been shared in this thread already or not, and if it has I apologize for bumping it.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
A rating without reasoning isn´t a rating in my eyes.
Here you go, a 79 pages slideshow. It's from earlier this year though so maybe not fully up to date. ^^ That's slide 21.
http://cyber.fund/cyberep
Maidsafe and Bitshares listed as anonymous is almost as funny as Ripple getting the highest rating on decentralization.
Bytemaster's rating is a 1-7 scale with 7 being the most decentralised in his opinion.
ya i think that slide is rather subjective then objective, proof of garbage doesn´t sound pretty convincing for a rating. Either you stick to the stuff for all coins or you don´t. Cherry Picking is just biased.
I don't know if this has been shared in this thread already or not, and if it has I apologize for bumping it.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
A rating without reasoning isn´t a rating in my eyes.
Here you go, a 79 pages slideshow. It's from earlier this year though so maybe not fully up to date. ^^ That's slide 21.
http://cyber.fund/cyberep
Maidsafe and Bitshares listed as anonymous is almost as funny as Ripple getting the highest rating on decentralization.
I think it got the lowest? Most everything about that list is... well, let's say biased.
I don't know if this has been shared in this thread already or not, and if it has I apologize for bumping it.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
A rating without reasoning isn´t a rating in my eyes.
Here you go, a 79 pages slideshow. It's from earlier this year though so maybe not fully up to date. ^^ That's slide 21.
http://cyber.fund/cyberep
Maidsafe and Bitshares listed as anonymous is almost as funny as Ripple getting the highest rating on decentralization.
I don't know if this has been shared in this thread already or not, and if it has I apologize for bumping it.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
A rating without reasoning isn´t a rating in my eyes.
Here you go, a 79 pages slideshow. It's from earlier this year though so maybe not fully up to date. ^^ That's slide 21.
http://cyber.fund/cyberep
I don't know if this has been shared in this thread already or not, and if it has I apologize for bumping it.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
A rating without reasoning isn´t a rating in my eyes.
I don't know if this has been shared in this thread already or not, and if it has I apologize for bumping it.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
Cyber.fund has rated basically every crypto-currency excising. It can be found here: http://dev.cyber.fund/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=blog&utm_campaign=8
What do you you think about it? In my opinion it's spot on.
rpietila my compliments on your thread.
It's nice to read the different ideas about crypto and btc here.
It's nice to read the different ideas about crypto and btc here.
Ignoring that proof of stake is pointless (it doesn't work unless ultimately centralized, in which case there are better solutions), the distribution method for CLAMs is untenable in terms of susceptibility to fraud, and the impossibility of demonstrating that there wasn't and isn't an enormous hidden premine.
Specifically, there is no way to know that insiders didn't create or control enormous numbers of, for example, non-dust DOGE outputs. Of course other coins could be used but it seems likely that DOGE would be the easiest place to hide such a premine.
The only distribute-to-outputs method that isn't susceptible to this form of manipulation is to distribute according to the balances.
Specifically, there is no way to know that insiders didn't create or control enormous numbers of, for example, non-dust DOGE outputs. Of course other coins could be used but it seems likely that DOGE would be the easiest place to hide such a premine.
The only distribute-to-outputs method that isn't susceptible to this form of manipulation is to distribute according to the balances.
I agree with you on all points.
However some may feel that a distribute according to balances method would just enrich the early adopters of the coins the distribution was based on (similar fairness arguments that apply to side chains)
If another coin besides BTC was used to base the distribution on the dev could still buy up large portions of that coin (since it is much cheaper than BTC) prior to the distribution balance based snapshot.
The one positive for the CLAM based model is that no trust is involved. In fact someone could wait several years (since PoS interest rate is low they risk very little by waiting) and only bother to claim CLAM or some similarly distributed coin if/when it has proven itself to be a successful project
edit: I don't own any CLAM. I am just interested in different forms of distribution. I still see PoW as the best
I agree with you that Bitcoin's distribution is problematic in some ways, but at least it isn't a complete structural fail in terms of enabling fraud-at-will the way CLAM does. The positive of being able to wait indefinitely applies to any spin-off method that bootstraps from another coin, as long as it doesn't have an expiration date for claims.
Ignoring that proof of stake is pointless (it doesn't work unless ultimately centralized, in which case there are better solutions), the distribution method for CLAMs is untenable in terms of susceptibility to fraud, and the impossibility of demonstrating that there wasn't and isn't an enormous hidden premine.
Specifically, there is no way to know that insiders didn't create or control enormous numbers of, for example, non-dust DOGE outputs. Of course other coins could be used but it seems likely that DOGE would be the easiest place to hide such a premine.
The only distribute-to-outputs method that isn't susceptible to this form of manipulation is to distribute according to the balances.
Specifically, there is no way to know that insiders didn't create or control enormous numbers of, for example, non-dust DOGE outputs. Of course other coins could be used but it seems likely that DOGE would be the easiest place to hide such a premine.
The only distribute-to-outputs method that isn't susceptible to this form of manipulation is to distribute according to the balances.
I agree with you on all points.
However some may feel that a distribute according to balances method would just enrich the early adopters of the coins the distribution was based on (similar fairness arguments that apply to side chains)
If another coin besides BTC was used to base the distribution on the dev could still buy up large portions of that coin (since it is much cheaper than BTC) prior to the distribution balance based snapshot.
The one positive for the CLAM based model is that no trust is involved. In fact someone could wait several years (since PoS interest rate is low they risk very little by waiting) and only bother to claim CLAM or some similarly distributed coin if/when it has proven itself to be a successful project
edit: I don't own any CLAM. I am just interested in different forms of distribution. I still see PoW as the best
Apropos speaking about PoS:
darknote aka ducknote just rebranded again to diginote: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-digitalnote-xdn-icco-announce-news-1082745
Trying to understand what they did here - at least they seem to be an innovative branch of the cryptonote clones.
They seem to have implemented some sort of PoS: coins can now be locked (at which point they become "semi-anonymous") to gain a 1%pa interest rate. The interest rate is covered by newly minted coins (?) but I am not sure whether they actually implemented this "proof-of-activity" as they call it already.
Did anyone had the opportunity to read the "whitepaper" or look at the source already? It's quite unclear what they did and what they didn't implement, but the dev is notorious for misleading English...
darknote aka ducknote just rebranded again to diginote: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-digitalnote-xdn-icco-announce-news-1082745
Trying to understand what they did here - at least they seem to be an innovative branch of the cryptonote clones.
They seem to have implemented some sort of PoS: coins can now be locked (at which point they become "semi-anonymous") to gain a 1%pa interest rate. The interest rate is covered by newly minted coins (?) but I am not sure whether they actually implemented this "proof-of-activity" as they call it already.
Did anyone had the opportunity to read the "whitepaper" or look at the source already? It's quite unclear what they did and what they didn't implement, but the dev is notorious for misleading English...
I don't understand the definition of proof of activity in this case
I will never be a fan of XDN because of the very fast mine when the coin had the silly duck name and no features. However what they are doing now is interesting.
Yes, their emission was certainly weird. They are, however, by far the fasted developing cryptonote coin in terms of features: QT wallet, chat, combining PoW with PoS etc.
Which is why I asked: they show very good progress, but I never had the time to check their stuff for bullshit - and as their community seems to be mostly noobs, I don't see much checking happening there.
Regarding their "PoA": here's the original idea https://eprint.iacr.org/2014/452.pdf
Apropos speaking about PoS:
darknote aka ducknote just rebranded again to diginote: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-digitalnote-xdn-icco-announce-news-1082745
Trying to understand what they did here - at least they seem to be an innovative branch of the cryptonote clones.
They seem to have implemented some sort of PoS: coins can now be locked (at which point they become "semi-anonymous") to gain a 1%pa interest rate. The interest rate is covered by newly minted coins (?) but I am not sure whether they actually implemented this "proof-of-activity" as they call it already.
Did anyone had the opportunity to read the "whitepaper" or look at the source already? It's quite unclear what they did and what they didn't implement, but the dev is notorious for misleading English...
darknote aka ducknote just rebranded again to diginote: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-digitalnote-xdn-icco-announce-news-1082745
Trying to understand what they did here - at least they seem to be an innovative branch of the cryptonote clones.
They seem to have implemented some sort of PoS: coins can now be locked (at which point they become "semi-anonymous") to gain a 1%pa interest rate. The interest rate is covered by newly minted coins (?) but I am not sure whether they actually implemented this "proof-of-activity" as they call it already.
Did anyone had the opportunity to read the "whitepaper" or look at the source already? It's quite unclear what they did and what they didn't implement, but the dev is notorious for misleading English...
I don't understand the definition of proof of activity in this case
I will never be a fan of XDN because of the very fast mine when the coin had the silly duck name and no features. However what they are doing now is interesting.
Just more of the same it seems. Crypto moves so slow, then so fast.
Very mysterious.
Just more of the same it seems. Crypto moves so slow, then so fast.
Apropos speaking about PoS:
darknote aka ducknote just rebranded again to diginote: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-digitalnote-xdn-icco-announce-news-1082745
Trying to understand what they did here - at least they seem to be an innovative branch of the cryptonote clones.
They seem to have implemented some sort of PoS: coins can now be locked (at which point they become "semi-anonymous") to gain a 1%pa interest rate. The interest rate is covered by newly minted coins (?) but I am not sure whether they actually implemented this "proof-of-activity" as they call it already.
Did anyone had the opportunity to read the "whitepaper" or look at the source already? It's quite unclear what they did and what they didn't implement, but the dev is notorious for misleading English...
darknote aka ducknote just rebranded again to diginote: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/ann-digitalnote-xdn-icco-announce-news-1082745
Trying to understand what they did here - at least they seem to be an innovative branch of the cryptonote clones.
They seem to have implemented some sort of PoS: coins can now be locked (at which point they become "semi-anonymous") to gain a 1%pa interest rate. The interest rate is covered by newly minted coins (?) but I am not sure whether they actually implemented this "proof-of-activity" as they call it already.
Did anyone had the opportunity to read the "whitepaper" or look at the source already? It's quite unclear what they did and what they didn't implement, but the dev is notorious for misleading English...
Ignoring that proof of stake is pointless (it doesn't work unless ultimately centralized, in which case there are better solutions),
I'm interested, how did you come to this conclusion?
The only distribute-to-outputs method that isn't susceptible to this form of manipulation is to distribute according to the balances.
This is not immune to insiders taking advantage if the point in time when the blockchain is "snapshotted" is only known publicly a posteriori. You can take a fiat loan to own coins just one particular day.
Even if the point in time is announced in advance you still can't have everybody to actually read and be aware of it and it might still be seen as a soft ninjamine.
Yeah I agree, but it is still much better than being able to take 100 coins, split into 100 outputs of 1 coin each, and get 100x as much of the spin off for the cost of a small transaction fee (if that). That's just absurd.
The only distribute-to-outputs method that isn't susceptible to this form of manipulation is to distribute according to the balances.
This is not immune to insiders taking advantage if the point in time when the blockchain is "snapshotted" is only known publicly a posteriori. You can take a fiat loan to own coins just one particular day.
Even if the point in time is announced in advance you still can't have everybody to actually read and be aware of it and it might still be seen as a soft ninjamine.
Ignoring that proof of stake is pointless (it doesn't work unless ultimately centralized, in which case there are better solutions), the distribution method for CLAMs is untenable in terms of susceptibility to fraud, and the impossibility of demonstrating that there wasn't and isn't an enormous hidden premine.
Specifically, there is no way to know that insiders didn't create or control enormous numbers of, for example, non-dust DOGE outputs. Of course other coins could be used but it seems likely that DOGE would be the easiest place to hide such a premine.
The only distribute-to-outputs method that isn't susceptible to this form of manipulation is to distribute according to the balances.
Specifically, there is no way to know that insiders didn't create or control enormous numbers of, for example, non-dust DOGE outputs. Of course other coins could be used but it seems likely that DOGE would be the easiest place to hide such a premine.
The only distribute-to-outputs method that isn't susceptible to this form of manipulation is to distribute according to the balances.
Jump to: