Topic: Stop making scamcoins FFS (Read 1532 times)

Most of what you have right now are miners and people waiting to rent miners salivating at each new coin hoping they can dump on later buyers before the coin dies. Pretty much every coin this month could have been made by the exact same person who copy/pasted your typical coin from last month.
This scene is dying quickly, it has turned into nothing more than a trap for noobs looking at past price charts from XC, Aur, Vrt, etc with their mouths dropped to the floor. 100x+ price increase over a few days - where the hell else can you find that? not here again unless professional coders and fresh ideas come. That's the only reason I'm watching, hoping things turn around. My btc will stay on the sidelines in the meantime.

I applaud the CfDaDofAI for the accuracy of their assessment as to where might be the right area to start and the soundness of their assessment that there is a fair chance that the domain might benefit significantly if its practitioners could successfully be motivated to adhere to an agreed set of standards.

The Committee's effort may be well-intentioned but it is also unfortunately profoundly and fatally flawed; it provides none of the crucial operational definitions that would enable the scheme actually to be implemented. The consequences of this omission are fundamentally destructive to the intention --- in essence it guarantees that all of the quality assertions stated in the document will reduce to purely personal subjective opinion.

The recent Poloniex/Supercoin kerfuffle was an entirely predictable result of Poloniex neglecting to provide even themselves with a reliable operational definition of the software standards they are attempting to impose.

I can't seem to find evidence in the draft that the CfDaDofAI did any desk research whatsoever before attempting to set forth what is, in essence, a software engineering standards proposal. The end result suggests that they omitted to inform themselves of even a sliver of the vast amount of existing work on standards in software engineering, their construction, validation and implementation.

I would hope that it is very clear to most that the only feasible starting point for such an effort is: “what is the nature of the problem?” That stance has at least a chance of avoiding the ineffectual cargo-culting that currently characterises all the efforts I'm aware of.

I find it enormously instructive and, I hope, eventually modestly profitable that the entire industry is apparently oblivious to the fact that the primary issue is not technologic in origin but actually mostly psycho-social and any mooted solution that arises from a single domain can trivially be rejected as insufficiently broad-based to be demonstrably effective.

As yet, I've not come across any public manifestation of the problem that doesn't essentially boil down to some people hurling imprecations of “Scaaaaaam!!!” at some other people. (As far as I can make out, the only agreed convention seems to be that periodically they change ends.)

Whilst this in itself is unremarkable, unsurprising and quintessentially human, it does leave a lot to be desired in terms of characterising the different factors involved and their interrelationships --- a necessary (but not sufficient) precondition for the identification of a set of candidate solutions, one of which might even include some software standards ... if we're lucky.

Agreed, I could have chosen to couch this response in a more gentle auctorial voice but the signal-to-noise ratio of bct rarely rises above the proportion of gold in seawater and experience informs me that mild == ignored. This Committee of apparently anonymous people is potentially in the right position to exert some positive influence but it will need to raise its game substantially if that potential is to have a significant chance of being realised.

My idiosyncratic definition of “constructive criticism” in this context is: i) draw attention to a fundamental omission and its logical implications, ii) maybe help people to avoid wasting time pursuing an activity that can be objectively and cogently argued as futile and ii) gesture vaguely in a direction where a remedy might be found.

Cheers,

Graham

It's true many of Bitcoin's early adopters accumulated a disproportionate amount of coins through the PoW distribution method, but that was a result of being a pioneering technology and the timeframe it was developed under, not a failure of the distribution method.

BTC was publicly released fairly through several forums including this one. Everyone that wanted to could have participated and it was mined on personal computers for YEARS before ASIC took over and centralized mining. BTC early adopters also had to wait YEARS before they were able to cash in their holdings for untold riches. Many, many years that took not selling when their holdings were worth $1 each, as many did and multiple spikes and crashes along the way.

That is completely different than an unfair implementation of PoW distribution by design that many of the shitcoin scams use to deliberately concentrate the mining to enrich the 'devs' and early adopters with large block rewards upfront, insta-nimes, fast-mines, delaying the wallet release, etc.

I'll give all you guys one other way, don't buy or mine it?  If lemmings keep supporting the garbage, the garbage will keep coming, doesn't make sense not too.  (I know, I get it I made a ton of shit on absolute trash, but if people really want it to stop then don't support it in any way). 

majority have a new icon and name so.. what good will that do ?

how about if any coin is put out that is scrypt we ban it ?
or how about banning the next batch of so called "x11" coins ?

That's what the proposal BinaryClock from Dedicated Pools is working on is about:

Committee for Development and Sustainability of the Altcoin Industry

http://dedicatedpool.com/draft1.pdf

it is a scam if they have no intention of supporting it as a currency long term.

and how many are intended from the start to be pumped and dumped short term ?

the simplest proof is time and also if we had the ability to track who is putting them out.
when a coin cloner puts out 60 coins that vary slightly is he trying to start a currency or just
capitalizing on dumping the premine the first hour it hits Bittrex or MintPal etc ?

Most of you guys need to see what a REAL scam coin is.. you seem to think they are rare
when most are scams from the start !
Problem is you guys don't see that 1 guy adding 90 coins..

Here is one way to prevent scam coins with the community, offer a bounty for coin inspection from newly made coins, to check if the code is legit or not

+1, very true. Scamcoins are always pump and dumps, they can never maintain a constant price without falling downwards. That's what seperates real, innovative coins like Namecoin, Peercoin, Darkcoin etc, from scamcoins like XC, Whitecoin, Cinni and hundreds of others.

and what coin is there that isnt scamcoin ?!
it definetly is stupid that its even allowed to make sh*tcoins.
this is why you need regulations by 3rd parity, even if most of the comunity thinks bad of that form, calling it centralised.

The problem is there's an influx of new suckers every day, some who have never traded anything online before.

Free advice to newbies. Here are some telltale signs of a scamcoin (and a corresponding example or two):

1. Price does nothing but go down, or never develops a consistent uptrend (longer than 1-2 weeks) (BURN, SHIBE, hundreds of others). Historical price analysis is the #1 indicator of a coin's future potential.

2. Community is overconfident and extremely vocal in a lazy or unintelligent manner, often resorting to tactics like incessantly chanting "BUY _X_COIN NOW!! I DID AND IT MADE ME RICH" in trollboxes and forums worldwide. My rule of thumb is, any time there are 4 or more people all chatting about the benefits of the same coin in a trollbox, that coin is likely a scamcoin. Why? Because good coins sell themselves and don't need cheerleading squads. Shitcoins do (XC, MON, XBC).

3. Was created by a dev with a reputation for scammy behavior (CLOAK, XLB, WC).

4. Has no innovative features, no convincing community support and no plans for real-world application (YC, BLU, arguably hundreds more).

5. Lots of other personal evidence suggesting a coin is a scamcoin, as researched and verified by yourself on bitcointalk and the rest of the web.

u do not have philosophical reasoning right now. i did not advocate anything. i falsified ur weak argument that "anything premined is inevitably resulting in a pyramid-like distribution". PoW is no guarantee for good distribution at all. 100% PoS coins can be distributed just as bad or well.  bitcoin is worst possible example to underpin argument for pow my friend.

So you're going to say PoW distribution is bad, then advocate a system with even worse distribution?  IPO?  How is that a logical sentence?

The IPO issuer is also free to create as many fake accounts as he wants, send 10btc with all of them, but he's spending 0 because all the money comes back to him anyway.  NXT 70 initial accounts could have been just 2 guys.  Worst system ever.

bitcoin (oh "so so glorious pow"!) has one of the worst distributions of all cryptocurrencies and this is where discussion ends. what u are saying comes from the mouth of a hardcore hypocrite playing with "what is scam/unfair and what isnt". a joke for anyone with well functioning brain. thank u for ur post, best example for delusion.

NXT, just like every other IPO coin is nothing but a scam.  See my quote on that below:

Cryptocoins are all about the buying and the selling. more coins mean more opportunity.

we are all here for the money currency. why not make good money for u and ur family?

Totally agree with you there. And paid voting should be strongly discouraged.

Just not to add them so fast.
And payment votes is not a good criteria.

Insta-mine, then pump & dump?

Make more coins. I need more money.