Topic: What 2.0 Currency will be the most successful? - page 13. (Read 17794 times)

Mijin?  
Good Lord that video looks it was developed by the old Mortal Combat game company.
I can't imagine Jamie Dimon opening that link in any way imaginable.  

Perhaps 3.0 currencies should not be discussed here, but the best one that I have found, has a device that outperforms all promises has instant transfers, and many other features is VNL.

Mijin (built on the nem platform) is also looking to compete in this area and will be out before Emunie.

http://www.coindesk.com/press-releases/mijin-permissioned-blockchain-platform/

You forgot to add Counterparty XCP
This is and will likely continue to be the most successful Crypto/Bitcoin 2.0 project,  it main advantage over rivals is that its secured by Bitcoin blockchain and its miners.  
No messing about, no hardforks, seperate blockchains, restarts or multimillion dollar icos involved, it works and it here. 
http://counterparty.io/

HaH!. NEMM wIl $Ho ItselF 2 B da biggesT $cAmm yet. Ah Hv $een Daaa ReELL whItepApUH. Nwt DAA PHONayyy DeaYyy PosTEd. Nem IZ brOKen.    ... Peace.

For the sake of listing could have put maidsafe and mastercoin as well but I wouldn't have voted for them lol

NXT, BURST, MONERO, CLAM, DASH, NAMECOIN

Any of them can be the next winner. But to not gamble, I own a few of all of them to be prepared.

I wont be adding it to the poll, is someone suggesting i should?
Anyway, technically all 1.0 coins are basically BTC clones, and NXT was considered the first 2.0 along with other platforms that have popped up, but if you want to get real technical, you could argue that only NXT clones are 2.0 currencies and something like NEM, Qora and Ethereum that are even newer could be classed as 3.0.

When you are shooting for scaling ability to 150+ tps, which is Paypal levels currently, and  to have the capability of being an actual currency that is used by Joe Public and not just crypto fans, designs will get trashed.  eMunie has morphed design concepts from a block-chain, to a block-tree and finally to a full parallel partitioned transactional database.  Also, all of the coding has been done by a single person, Dan Hughes.  

The eMunie project has also been self funded by Dan, even though a closed fund raiser occurred, most if not all of those funds have either been refunded do to the delays, to those who have requested there return, or remain untouched from 2.5 years of development costs.

Well, lets take a look at reality at the moment shall we? First of all, Ethereum would be one of the most successful 2.0 currencies out there because it had a great ICO (if I'm not wrong) and good features such as a decentralized platform for applications. And second, Bitshares might be a good player here considering that fact that it has smartchain technology and the ability to own assets pegged to real world values such as Gold, Silver, etc They're all great but still who will be the winner is a matter of time whenever one of these fail or not. So my vote goes to Ethereum and Bitshares. 

i dont think any of these will be a year later.

Good things come to those who wait.

maidsafe

The biggest issue with Emunie is most people stopped following it (myself included) after repeatedly missing deadlines. Literally every single deadline has been pushed back months to years.

None of the above

Satoshi, that you? 

@nzminer

With all due respect - you probably can't enter eMunie in that poll list for 2 reasons:

• It has only been tested in the founder group, and older obsolete versions with a few beta-testers also.
• It is not just a 'coin' - it is a complete, comprehensive package, which you will experience after it goes live, and expanding in the future.

I am no seer into the future, but I would not be surprised if your poll list will become obsolete.
Once eMunie launches it will probably rank more as a 3.0 compared to the rest being 2.0
Again - let's see what the future holds - noone knows yet.

Cause what could go wrong with nations and/or corporations being in controll of the network
I'd like to see consensus being reached like it is in most "fast confirmation" implementations right now (i.e. a set of accounts votes and everyone else accepts that) but I'd like the validating parties to be chosen in some way that doesn't require people having to or even being able to interfere. Pretty much what VNL claims to be doing just maybe backed by a proper whitepaper and not by one of the most shady projects out there right now.

Well seeing as Larimer himself said the solution is to "...keep everything in RAM..."  how much RAM to do think is required to keep up with a sustained 100,000 tps if it is indeed true?

You don't need to know anything about how that system works when these statements have been, 120 bytes per transaction * 100,000 transactions per second * 86400 seconds in a day = 1,036,800,000,000 bytes (almost 1TB) per day of data.  However you cut it that is a lot of data to manage efficiently in a vertically scaled system (which Bitshares is).  

If you have to go to disc even the fastest PCI SSDs will struggle to do 100,000 random reads per second after some moderate use, unless you are doing very aggressive and efficient disc management at a low level to ensure they are stored sequentially.  Even without considering transactions arriving out of order from the network, that in itself is no trivial task.  

Even batch writing large blocks of transactions to reduce the required IOPs might not cut it, as you have no guarantee that the SSD controller is going to (or even can) write them in one consecutive chunk.  If the controller wants to move data around so it can do this, that is additional overhead and your max IOPs will drop anyway.

If the RAM requirements are low, then you will be swapping out those transactions in RAM constantly, so then you are asking an already utilized IO stream to do 100,000 reads AND 100,000 writes each second on top of processing.

My issue isn't that 100,000 transactions can not be processed per second, my issue is that sustaining that processing capability with RAM and IO limitations is not as trivial as is being made out, and anyone with even a basic understanding of IO systems should be able to see it.

I believe this 100,000 tps relates to the systems ability to order match as he mentioned that specifically in the videos relating to this topic, and NOT a sustained network load of new transaction processing capability.

Also this little snippet

 

found here https://bitshares.org/blog/2015/06/08/measuring-performance/

Also makes me question this 100,000 tps in the real world, as their OWN benchmarks could only achieve 2000+   Its still a lot sure, but its not 100,000 tps is it?  So what is going on?  

The real world benchmarks can not have produced much more performance than 2000 tps, because if it had they would say.   For example, if it produced 20,000 tps why claim it only resulted in 2000?  So I conclude from that also, that the 100,000 is either wrong/false or presented in a confusing context.

I also think - none of them  2.0 Currency is in fact the future question of many factors, first of all - popularity