Topic: rpietila Altcoin Observer - page 8. (Read 387507 times)

PoS as an idea isn't inherently flawed.

But the PoS algorithms we've seen so far are IMO very flawed. 

I believe that Transactions-as-proof-of-Stake can work in the long term.  But I only see it as being successful if the people securing the chain (that is, the people making transactions and the people running nodes) are the ones who actually get paid for securing the chain.  And I think that while TaPoS is good for securing the chain in the long run, it's probably best deployed in combination with something else to secure the most recent few blocks.

And I really object to the "lock your coins up for a month to get a chance to form a block" algorithms, because P&D operators can take advantage to "squeeze the market" and then leave, while most others have their coins locked up and can't sell, leaving their stakers flat. Maybe I'm just inherently suspicious, but I expect that when somebody does something that gives another person an opportunity to profit at their expense, they will most likely lose.

Finally, any kind of proof-of-stake requires distribution among a lot of different actors to help stabilize the market.  If you create few whales, rather than many goldfish, then everything depends on individual circumstances rather than generalized and more predictable stable laws of economics.  And so far we haven't seen a PoS launch that really did  that very effectively. 

Lots of people have given up on PoS. I'm not technical enough to know if proof of stake is doomed, but I'm keeping my mind open. It's possible that BitShares or Ethereum or some of these other talented dev teams will keep improving upon proof-of-stake to the point where it's "secure-enough" and much more efficient than PoW. And that's a worthy endeavor.

The consensus algorithm topic interest me very much. I am of the opinion that PoW is a massive wastage of energy and leads to dangerous centralization of mining. Nevertheless, I see many posters, I respect (e.g. in this thread), who prefer PoW. So I made a thread in the Tech Discussion section, about the topic.

See https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/why-do-most-known-experts-and-widly-respected-posters-prefer-pow-over-pos-poi-1011906, topic: "Why do most known experts and widly-respected posters prefer PoW over PoS & PoI?". Myself am very curious about your answers, because I think the most respected posters on this boards, post in this thread.

Thank you very much.

I wanted both GBTC and Gemini to launch during the same week when BTC was 288+ and for the momentum to just blast us right through 300. Attacking it on a rally starting from 245 or even the 260s just seems really lame.

Monkey thinks it has already started, at 236, with a 300 resistance to come.

No one, can say for sure or with any accuracy.

The exchanger wallet model is extremely insecure because they can be hacked or abused by the exchange operator, or even just knocked offline with a DoS to create an attack window. It's the PoS version of centralized mining.


Monero will have a minimum mix factor. Already there is a default mix of 3 in the wallet.

No one really knows when BTC will start rising.  Maybe when the ETFs come online?  Who really knows.  Don't overlook the possibility of Monero gaining enough adoption where it decouples from BTC and has its own organic rise in dollar terms.

1) Exchanger Wallets are sufficient.
2) Monero doesn't. Mixing factor dependant.

CKG (Crypto Kingdom Gold) is not a crypto, but it has an interesting distribution model. The initial 1,000,000 units were premined to me, although over 5 months. Half of them are distributed (mostly sold, but some gifted) to the players of the game and Monero supporters. The proceeds were used in development. Most of the rest will stay in the game perpetually as a Royal Stash, which will never be completely depleted, and can buy and sell smaller amounts and act as a liquidity provider in both directions. After the 1,000,000 coins are generated (already) and the Online Version 4 of the game is released (soon), every hour played will generate CKG to the players, regardless of the player level, or wealth, or computing power, or existing CKG position. We call this Proof-of-Play, and the CKG generated thereof is a fixed value per playing hour expressed in the purchasing power of a USD in 2014.

ANN thread for the listing to Poloniex. (Prior to listing, the marketcap of CKG is 500,000 XMR = 1,600 BTC = 380,000 USD.)

The rise in alt:btc exchange rates is nice, but it's negated by BTC's continued fall. The people who bought Monero at $2 or Darkcoin at $15 last year are still suffering. When do you guys think that bitcoin will start going up?

I still find this funny, 2 days after I first read it and I was LOL then.
I was also pissed for not having realized the obvious in Triple Encryption. I gave that some thought and then glanced at the idea Quadruple Encryption and backed away.


A man enters a shop:
- Hey, I'd like to buy a wallet.
- Which color would you like it, sir?
- Red, please.
- 1GCAfZdNjU4ZjQuUKosZ1xcR2SZJK3uCBe

Funny thing, I just checked that address and there are 190 transactions, with a balance of 0.39396638 BTC. Looks like this is a way to earn a profit by integrating a BTC public key in... a joke in this case. I just get the feeling Crypto is not going anywhere and it will explode in ways most can't imagine. https://blockchain.info/address/1GCAfZdNjU4ZjQuUKosZ1xcR2SZJK3uCBe

Sure, here you have 2:

Hello, can someone put a sum up about Shadowcash ? I don't like POS distribution but from technology wise, what is its advantages and disadvantages compared to Monero ? I heard it has ring signature and ZK in bitcoin codebase which seems serious.

Hey, I'm far, far from being a cryptographer, but I noticed your sig says "NavajoCoin Asynchronous Encryption Technology". That's kind of like someone advertising that they're selling a car with wheels I think. Maybe someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

OK.

Yes, until even more successful coin XYZ comes along, and then the most important part is the part which XYZ happens to mess up.

Extending TrueCryptonaires point a little... The most important part about the coin release is the transparency and honesty part.  The style of release might be favored differently by miners, investors, developers, etc. But if you are releasing the coin in any way that is shadowy and especially if you DEFEND that release or justify it then you turn over your hand.

I think of a coin that is currently in the spotlight as one which will never be able to live down it's semi nefarious roots release wise.  The coin formerly known as...

And also Monero, which arguably had a few bumps early in its release (de-optimized hashing) is interesting.  But the different between the two is the Monero release was transparent and the dev team that took over the project shone light on everything they found very quickly.

Honesty makes a huge difference.

If crypto is "being your own bank", then at first we need to be able to trust the people building the bank.

Depends on what are your motives/what kind of people are the devs.
Also depends on what you want from a coin - if it is a speculative way of making money most likely coins that have IPO type of release might be good, if you want fair coin, then your alternatives are different. Since I am not a miner myself I am not so much concerned on how the coin is released.
The problem with premine is obviously the lack of interest to develope a coin after the premine is dumped. Those devs are considered "bad ones" in my language despite they act rationally and as persons might not be more evil than any other human being.
If the devs are "good guys" (like Ripple or fiat-money) also IPO type of coin release is worth of considering.

[ANN] NavajocoinDark: Triple Encryption Technology