Topic: Second most valueable cryptocurrency? (Read 1887 times)

I l doge coins is at 60 sat to 65sat only i am watching this price from last year it doest no change but its mostly used alt coin

How are ring signatures done without interaction?
Both 'ring signatures in Monero' and 'Coinjoin in Bitcoin' are methods for anonymity, requiring people to interact but not cooperate, i.e, can be done without trusting each other.
Please correct me if I am wrong.

hey


what do you think about dogecoin

its market is also huge but i think that no one got notices like what other litecoin or darkcoin got it

its market dept is also high but only that its price are not going high.

any sujjestion for this post welcome

I can add arbitrary "signers" to ring signatures without their cooperation/collaboration. I can do this locally.
With coinjoin we need interaction.

For me, it is Stellar. Ask why ? Because, apart from Bitcoin, I only have some Stellar, which I could manage for free with FB profiles

I think, third most valuable will be CLAM. Ask why ? Because, I have some old bitcoin addresses, which I can use to claim some CLAM in future for free

The vision is very very cool but to be honest for the past 2 years I have been thinking about this very vision.
I definitely want it to exist but I don't think Ethereum is there yet.
But code being shipped is always good and well, baby steps...

So. for the mouse and drone to interact, the real question is 'what' do they want to exchange?
If it is information, we have a decentralised protocol for it - email.
If it is value, we have bitcoin.

The ability to remotely execute a contract to control a hardware, like the mouse in our case, is not possible with ethereum; because, think about it, if the code on ethereum-network can control the mouse, it can control your computer too. Ethereum executes in a virtual environment, especially to avoid this.



I would have looked at it that way had it been an abstraction on an existing crypto. They have literally created a new cryptocurrency - ether.

Gonna agree with this. Even am not 100% sure of this as yet.
But something about the high-level direction of this tech is very cool.


Am not really taking inspiration from their marketing on the skynet thing. Have tried to understand it as best as I can and the shoe kinda fits.
Have been using your example of the mouse and the drone, to understand and explain it a bit.

So, wouldn't decentralized IOT still need a protocol that is executing competitive/priority and non-competitive/priority contracts?
The mouse provider, for example, sets up some instructions like : {fee: Long, proximity: Long, priority: Long, xyz: {Some Complex instruction...}}
Same with the drone provider and as the mouse loses path or gets stuck it sends out a ping which gets the drone to match the contract and execute as per the best request. Way better than having each provider write individual contracts and then match them to each others api's.
With Bitcoin used as a settlement tool, the contract itself is executed with the abundant ether. The drone and the mouse can either get onto a parallel chain to follow fixed standards or could be programmed by individuals, which does not matter as there no centralized transactions occurring and there is no incentive for deviating from a contract as there is blockchain governance.

Do they have the tech for this? Not sure, but I did see some actual code being fired and it kinda lifted my spirits .

Am looking at this more as crypto-tech rather than a crypto currency thb.

Serious question.. Can you explain why ring signatures provide more value than a coinjoin?

Yes they can be consensus based but that does not eliminate them being trusted third-parties. Trusting third-parties is all the problem there is.


Exactly! Since we are trusting the oracles anyways, why not let them host the code too?! Its not like that they can alter transactions, which is impossible as we know.
We simply need an oracle website using bitcoin and we will be able to provide everything Ethereum can.


I am highly skeptical and disagree here. Ethereum is projecting itself as the skynet but does not have the technology to backup the claim.
I could be totally wrong, but shouldn't we wait to see at least one DAO on the network?

Right now I believe that it's LTC but Moreno will probably take over soon.

Ethereum is just a clever wordplay and here I am explaining why.

    Suppose I place a restriction on a written piece of text that you can only show the reader one line at a time & whenever a new line will appear the reader will forget the previous line. Now, if I ask you to explain any theory it would be really difficult with this serious handicap on language where you can't continue from the previous sentence. Each sentence is independent & even a mildly complex theory would be very difficult to explain.

Only by allowing referencing sentences mentioned previously in the text, can you have any meaningful discussion. This non-restriction on a language is a called Turing-completeness. This is the power of non-restricted language.

Now bitcoin transactions are scripts that are restricted; many things are not allowed, for example looping to the code written previously. Everything is executed line-by-line sequentially. This seriously limits what is allowed. Ethereum's selling point is why place restrictions on the script? Let us allow a whole computer language in there which is turing complete and thus gives us the power to embed & execute any kind of code in there! Seems good right? There are problems with absolute power.

With no restriction on language, if I am allowed to write any kind of prose of a text-piece, I have the power to embed any complex idea in my writings. But this not always a good thing. If I have such a power to influence my readers I can even convince them against the very medium I am typing that text-piece on. For example, since normal language, without any restriction, is allowed on this forum, I have the power to make a convincing argument driving the readers against this forum itself - the medium that hosts that very text!

In computer science, certain places are purposefully kept restrictive because if you can write a powerful program, you can also write a powerful virus that will eat away the medium it is running on itself! Consider this thought experiment - Your OS runs all the software on your system, right? Even the anti-virus software. But what if the virus has the power to penetrate the OS itself and infect it? Can an OS scan itself? A paradox, like pulling on your shoelaces to lift yourself off the ground.

Thus absolute power is not a good thing. Ethereum allows turing-complete language to be hosted and executed in a transaction but theoretically you could also write a code on the ethereum's blockchain that could alter the blockchain or the nodes itself! Thus bitcoin not being turing-complete is not actually a restriction but a feature. A clever hacker will hack ethereum by sending a transaction on it.

---

Let us assume that Ethereum has been able to solve this problem. It now allows you to execute any contract on there. But computers are not intelligent yet, they need an input. For example, suppose we have a code on ethereum that says if Team America wins send money to A else send money to B. But who is to decide that Team America actually won? Computers need this input from somewhere. Some external source. These are known as 'Oracles' in ethereum. For example, we will consider espn.com's result source (a.k.a api) to determine if Team America won or not. Thus, a piece of all powerful turing complete code is still powerless to execute itself until the oracle flags it to go ahead in one direction or the other. Now let us reverse this..

Suppose there is a server, that needs to display a red or a green button on your browser, but cannot decide which without an external source. So what it does is, it loads the code for both red & green buttons on your browser but keeps it hidden, waiting for the external stimuli & then flags a signal to your browser to display the color of button accordingly. Isn't this wasteful? The website can keep the code with itself, decide which color button needs to be sent and then send only the relevant code.

So to implement Ethereum on Bitcoin (lol?) instead of waiting on a third-party espn api, you could wait an another third-party api that will monitor espn's result and then send money to A or B accordingly. We are trusting third-parties anyway. Ethereum could have had value if there were no oracles, but that is more of an AI problem.

Effectively, thus, all Ethereum features can be implemented in bitcoin by making an oracle website that hosts decision code (ya ya turing complete) rather than hosting pressurizing the blockchain to hold that code. You could say that we are trusting a third-party here but so are you in case of oracles.

In fact Ethereum admits to this problem on the front page where it says, "Without the requirement of payment of ether for every computational step and storage operation within the system, infinite loops or excessive storage demands could bog down Ethereum and effectively destroy it."

As you can see, a geek's eyes sparkle when they hear the word 'turing-complete' because it is THE barrier in human-computer language and in fact a basis of the most famous unsolved computer science problem, "whether P=NP or not". In my opinion, for the reasons stated above (and some unstated because I am tired) Ethereum just played on the buzzword or maybe Vitalik being a geeky kid just understood that being turing-complete makes something very powerful, tried to club it with bitcoin without actually thinking it through.

Bitcoin NOT being turing-complete is a feature, people!

---

'Transaction' is the only type of event that can be verified by code executing on ethereum, since it is inherent in the network.
For everything else we need third party oracles to be trusted which is wasteful, since it is just an abstraction on bitcoin itself.


With all this pomp and show, where are decentralised companies on Ethereum yet? I would wait to read their code & you should do...

I would personally side with Ethereum!

There hasn't been one "second most valuable crypto" . Keep changing. A lot of the altcoins are just hyped enough and each one of them has this different impressive feature which is good and makes the coin grow in market cap, but every other coin comes down in price sometime later.
 Right now isn't Ethereum considered to be the next most popular alternative to btc .

It should be Monero, but most people are unconscious with respect to privacy

lol  ...  In fact

The market cap of trestor  >number of stars in the universe

Litecoin doesn't even come close. 

http://www.dnaindia.com/money/report-bitcoin-competitor-trests-offer-money-worth-2000-euros-to-greeks-as-banks-remain-shut-2101961

The market cap of Bitcoin as of June 1 this year was $3.7 billion, while Trest market cap on the same day was $1 billion, the company has said.

You must admit, the promoters are pretty audacious. And when people read such crap in the newspapers, they tend to believe it.

If you go by marketcap its clearly Litecoin (Ripple doesn't count).

If you're talking about new tech/innovation then it can be any of those new ones like Maidsafe, Bitshares, NXT. Ethereum is now ready too. It will be clearer in 2016 when all these projects reach some sort of maturity.

Do you mean some new innovation? Because in my eyes all cryptocurrencies are valuable, even exact copies of bitcoin.

Bitcoin is undoubtedly the king of the cryptoworld.
But what would be the second most valuable cryptocurrency?

Please think out of the box.