Topic: Theymos's list of altcoins with some technical merit - page 7. (Read 33303 times)

IOTA can prove it doesn’t work at any time by removing the centralized servers known as the Coordinator which is otherwise enforcing the convergence of the chain.

So why would they risk it? Wiser to continue the deception until some other technology comes along that they can copy and transition to.
Those holding IOTA are motivated to help shill and perpetuate the scam. The easy way to corrupt men is to entice them to profit on selling lies. The sad state of humanity.


The only reason it did not blow up is because the stake in Nxt is centralized.
PoS does not converge if 51% of the stake is not controlled by an oligarchy to enforce that the “nothing-at-stake” converges on a single chain.

I regurgitate this from a rough draft of an upcoming document not written by myself (publicly available on the Internet) where this is explained in more detail.
That document also seems to discredit PoS and PoW convincingly, at least in my non-expert interpretation.

The methodology of this scam evident in both IOTA and Nxt is create some technobabble BS that n00bs don’t realize is irrelevant because the system is centralized.
The functioning of those systems demonstrates nothing about the correctness of said technobabble.
The technobabble is a marketing gimmick.
The marketing side is to entice many men to spread the lies by selling them 1% of the tokens cheap, while keeping 99% for the originators of the scam.


NEM was evidently a scam where the insiders pretended that there were 1000s of users who they distributed the NEM tokens in an air drop.
Those who argue there is no proof of the scam, take note that the insiders refused to use Facebook and other verification, and instead required only a BCT account.
So they were just distributing tokens to themselves via their 1000s of sock puppet accounts.

PoI is just another variant of PoS. It only works because the stake of NEM is centralized.
All of these cryptocurrencies exist to extract money from greater fools to the insiders.
None of these cryptocurrencies are real in any way.

Again I am regurgitating what I have read in a document written by another.


Pegging is never stable long-term because there is always leakage against any such paradigm via externalities such as shorting. This was explained in a Pastebin.


These result in the worst attributes of each, combining to make something less secure than either alone.

As I recall, Theymos’ prior forays into analogous ideas for merging PoS and PoW were handily rebuked with detailed technical explanation. Perhaps he could revisit those threads to read posts.


Public ICOs are a scam, because the insiders buy the ICO from themselves pretending there is more interest and buyers than there really are.
With an ongoing scam ICO such as EOS and perhaps Nxt’s 3 month ICO, the insiders recycle the same ETH or BTC and buy the ICO from themselves over and over again.
Even if BTC didn’t move from Nxt address during the ICO period (and it may have, I have not checked), an insider with sufficient BTC can buy it from themselves.


73 people who control all the money supply is not a cryptocurrency.
I would characterize that as a private club, except that when it sells on on an exchange, then it is a manipulated system for milking greater fools.
And then @kLee who was supposed to be holding a large portion of the money supply claims it was stolen.
In addition to selling ICOs to oneself, one can also steal funds from himself.
Ask Bitfinex how that works.

The announcement thread of Nxt which you provided a link to, has no technical or specifications in the first several pages.
No one in their right mind would have bought that obviously premeditated sneaky ICO:



Who when reading that thread will come to the conclusion that Come-from-Beyond is not (or not an accomplice to) BCNext, as evident showing up in the thread from the very start pretending to be a different person offering server resources.
Coincidentally it was a Java program when no one else was coding altcoins in Java, which is the programming language CfB codes in.

http://archive.is/VCka0#selection-277.0-285.316

EDIT (09/05):
David Sønstebø confirmed that CfB was BCNext.

Seems to me that a trustless, governmentless, unregulatable, peer 2 peer, highly resilient, decentralised method of moving digital cash anywhere in the world has a lot of very real use cases both now and the future.

technical merit/innovation   you know its all about being a currency, not a mission to Mars, but that's been lost on the out of touch with reality nerdy types behind crypto for the longest time; hell you know shells are still used my more people today on the planet then Bitcoin is  

Bitcoin (and the rest of crypto) has almost zero value as a currency, the sole 'success' of Bitcoin todate is its 'price' increase not its value., and the mechanism for the price increase is nothing more then the Greater Fool Theory;

The Greater Fool Theory states that the price of an object is determined not by its intrinsic value, but rather by irrational beliefs and expectations of market participants. A price can be justified by a rational buyer under the belief that another party is willing to pay an even higher price. In other words, one may pay a price that seems "foolishly" high because one may rationally have the expectation that the item can be resold to a "greater fool" later.

So lets all be honest here for a change.

(no bitterness here by the way, just being honest, i've been very lucky as a trader to be in crypto when bitcoin was single digit price, and tis been a amazing run that's dwarfed my real world earnings longtime back, but i still have a dream that p2p currency could have been something).

This thread is useless.

There's vague info, very few coins, the ratings are ridiculous at best.

It was made by a dude who clearly favors Bitcoin. Let the thread die.

Yes that's silly indeed and that's what I meant, by saying it has +100 no matter what. We are stuck with bitcoin being the best and hyped no matter what other better technologies emerge out there. Actually I don't even have a clue what has to happen to bitcoin to be overthrown. And I wonder how many of these altcoins mentioned here will ever break out of this underground shadow and there will be other people than ICO holders and few enthusiasts to buy them. It came to that ridiculous point that even if there is a topic here where someone asks what is a good and promising coin to hold, everyone is answering bitcoin like it's already predetermined to succeed.

I sincerely appreciate Theymos going this far to make a kind of merit summary with altcoins. My worry is that it might not cover all or majority of altcoins as we are already reaching almost a thousand altcoins.

I think it would be enough to make this kind of assessment to the top 100 or 200 altcoins. This will be enough basis already whether to invest on it or not. Reaching the top 100 or 200 is already a kind of merit, after all, to be subjected to a more careful scrutiny.

Overall, I agree partly with the list - I also think IOTA is interesting but still has to prove if it really works, and Monero may be one of the few interesting innovations, but not really revolutionary. I would maybe add Burst (first coin with working turing complete smart contracts after Ripple, and first one with atomic cross chain trading), Nxt (first working Proof of Stake implementation without centralized checkpoints), Nem (improved PoS algorithm called "Proof of importance", not a big deal but may be OK for 0.1 points as it's a very good option for small coins, already in the second list), Bitshares (pegged assets), maybe also Slimcoin (Proof of Burn as distribution method), Decred (interesting PoS/PoW combination) and Sia (smart contract-driven storage management).

The NXT "scam" was open to everyone, the "founders' list" was not limited to insiders. If you want, you can call me a shill, but please read the original announcement thread from 2013 before you make accusations. This "ICO" (one of the first of all) was running about 2 months and everyone could participate, only that it had only limited success. These weren't ERC20 times where even insignificant projects can get easily tens of thousands of dollars.

Alright, who hacked Theymos account?

He's never been this friendly toward Altcoins!


~BCX~

Research in 2016 has modelled that PoW (on Bitcoin and any other) diverges into chaos when the block reward declines to insignificant relative to the revenue from transaction fees. Thus no PoW cryptocurrency will be able to survive without perpetual inflation unless it is controlled by an oligarchy. Monero’s tail reward is insufficient because eventually revenue from transaction fees will be significantly higher than the tail reward. There is a new document coming out soon which will explain this in irrefutable detail.

PoW is dying or must become an oligarchy in order to survive. But a new design is coming which will be perpetually deflationary (money supply perpetually decreases) and fixes this problem (without PoW nor PoS), but with some tradeoffs in security-model that some may find objectionable. Yet after we see what happens to the security of Bitcoin over the coming months, minds will be opened as to what is plausible and optimum.


Agreed. Your original summary seemed to lack this detail, which I think most readers would not have known if we had not delved into it as we have.

Whether Monero is far better than Bitcoin mixers is also perhaps irrelevant. For the time being since there is no rigorous math model to give us assurance, is an 80% risk of honeypot better than 20% of the transactions deanonymized honeypot? Even if the mixin levels of Monero are increased to insane levels (after some rigorous math to better model what those levels should be), we’ll probably still have a risk of a few tenths or hundredths of a percent of being deanonymized, which is entirely unacceptable for many use cases to depend on.

You only gave it a 4, which seemed large in comparison to the scores you assigned to other altcoin technologies, but I guess relative to the 106 you’ve assigned to Bitcoin, that puts into perspective your extremely low valuation of Monero’s innovation.


Why are simulations necessary? They’ve been challenged to remove the centralized server Coordinator, so as to find out if it blows up or not when decentralized. They refuse to do so, because the experts know it will blow up.

The onus is on them. They are running a centralized cryptocurrency, thus they have shown no innovation whatsoever. Anyone can write some technobabble BS in a whitepaper and then create a centralized server driven system and claim they created something. But all they did was reinvent Visa with some BS deception on top.

As for the scam aspect of it, isn’t it well documented already what they did with the ICO, Jinn Labs, and besides everyone knows that Come-from-Beyond originates from the Nxt scam wherein the entire money supply was awarded to 73 founders. IOTA is in the same breed of scams being perpetuated over and over again here. We had Steem with its sneaky mine awarding the new created money supply to a few insiders and then a system where whales can control where the ongoing money supply goes (for the most part). And then masternode scheme (Dash and PIVX) wherein the instamine or ICO buying from themselves so that the masternodes are held mostly by the insiders (which no one can prove or disprove because of ability to Sybil attack the identities of who owns them) who then award most of the newly created money supply to themselves. When doing the math of financial compounding, it is reasonably inarguable that the masternodes of Dash (also probably PIVX) are not predominately owned by the insiders.

Any way, I appreciate your clarification.

A hackneyed example:

Archie = Score 100
Google = Score 0.1

Which one had been better for longterm investment?

It is a nice idea, to build up a ranking of innovation. And I hope, that you'll share your insights, if you'll find correlations to the market-weight. I believe: There are some. You can see them everywhere. But what you can also see: Two coins of the same kind, with the same idea and the same solving problems. One of them is going to the stars, the other one drowns. Innovation is a good basement for a start. But no guarantee for a take off. And definitely not a reason for a long and relaxing flight.

A new car is faster, saver, needs less gas, more comfortable. It serves demands.
Don't forget these desires. Don't forget marketing. Both can change quicker, than innovation can follow. The most usefull things are nothing, when noone likes to use them.

I added a list of coins that I've investigated and given a score of 0 to, and a list of coins that I haven't investigated yet. I'll look into the uninvestigated ones as I have time.


These scores are basically how much I think that the coin has advanced the field of cryptocurrency through its innovations. Therefore, the scores don't decay over time. When Bitcoin was first created, I define it as having a score of 100. Now, it has advanced even more, so I'll give it a current score of 106.

I'm not trying to give an "overall technical quality" score here. I don't think that such a score would be all that useful, since anyone can create a "high-quality" altcoin by just cloning Bitcoin (probably with a few minor tweaks). Maybe such coins could survive, and in some cases you might even make money from them, but I don't find them interesting.


That's not a factor that I'm evaluating here.


I am aware of all of those potential attacks, and I mentioned in my post that Monero is not the black box that it is often assumed to be. (And I went into more detail here.) But despite those issues, Monero is typically far better than any Bitcoin mixer, for example.

I mentioned that zcash is theoretically more anonymous than Monero, but its software is basically unusable for most people right now.


That criticism of IOTA may ultimately be correct, but it's not clear to me. It mentions facts about IOTA which I already know, and then claims that this obviously makes IOTA broken. I am not convinced that IOTA is convergent, which is why I only gave it a score of 0.1, but it strikes me as possible, and a good area for research.

Someone should create an IOTA simulation where there's double-spending attempts, latency, etc. with no coordinators and a large volume of transactions.


It's just a clone of Bitcoin with slightly different parameters. Possibly useful in some cases, but it lacks any new tech.


I was thinking of creating a cryptocoin index based on my scores, and see how it'd compare to equal-weight / market-cap-weight / BTC-only indexes. Equal-weight or market-cap-weight indexes massively underweight BTC IMO due to treating no-innovation pump-and-dump coins too seriously. I don't know at this point whether technical merit actually helps the price at all, but it might; personally, I would be very reluctant to invest long-term in something with no real innovation like Dogecoin.

It's not immediately clear.

One take regards the ETH/ETC debacle. Let's forget for the moment that ETC itself is a hard fork of the original Ethereum protocol. Versus ETH, it is the original protocol. So what makes ETH the real Ethereum? Is it support from the vast majority of developers (comparable to Core)? Is it majority hashpower (I hope not)? Is it majority economic activity? Is it some composite of these things?

These aren't easy questions to answer...

Which is Bitcoin: BTC w/SegWit fork, the 2MB hardfork of BTC+SegWit coming, Bitcoin Cash fork, Satoshi’s protocol original Bitcoin?

Seems Bitcoin became an altcoin.

It is silly.
First, I have no idea why you would give 100 to BTC?
I'd rather give 100 to LTC, because my transaction passed in under 2 minutes, I wait 2 hours for BTC.

Yes, when BTC was alone, of course it was 100, because there were no others.

Let's see:

Zuse Z3 = Score 100
Quantum Computer = Score 0.4

Really... ?

Or:

Telephone with hand-cranked magneto generator = Score 100
Smartphone = Score 0.01
(because hackable and using old computer and telephone technology)

Sounds a little bit silly to me...

I think if I found a way to produce the best technical yanag in Theymos then they will give you a maximum results for some of the altcoin that you have, perhaps this would make a good future and deserve. this way would facilitate us in the movement of the coins because they provide interesting surprises

The tail emission is less than 1% when it kicks in, and given that there is natural coin loss it'll tend towards zero or even be deflationary in nature.

More importantly, the tail emission is REQUIRED to prevent out-of-band payments to miners, which can be used to attack the dynamic block size limiter. I have yet to hear a sound argument for why deflation is required for a good MONEY, although I'm sure it's required for a good INVESTMENT. Monero's stated goal is to be the former, not the latter.

Ive seen some reviews on these but would like to see more. Sadly we have nobody with the required skill level who is willing any longer.

Byteball
pivX vs dash
zcoin
Mrai
xtrabytes

cloak
Blocknet
Bitbay

aeon and bbr -


these to me are the the most interesting designs or twists on old designs.

I really needed to this kind of list from veterans. Thank you so much! I hope this list is gonna be extended by time for further information on different coins as well.

I was asking theymos...but

according to you LTC = 0 and

BTH 100 ? therefore we have 2 100s

BTC and BTH ? there is a difference between those two....