Topic: Why all centralized coins fail - page 2. (Read 2809 times)

Another failure & big risk : Devs too centralized...


http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-extinction-core-development-competition/

The professor replied and I replied again, and I think this discussion is somewhat interesting:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/49a14r/how_the_heck_are_actual_bitcoin_users_who_want_a/d0rwgsr

are you remember about stellar..? all centralized coin will be fail 

I have some posts at Reddit that are relevant to this topic:

https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/49a14r/how_the_heck_are_actual_bitcoin_users_who_want_a/

Also even PoW fairly announced with wide uptake from the start is still a premine in the sense that the end users will not be mining it until the coin is widely adopted.

Indeed, and in both cases that is why the ideal is to have a huge number of users (not miners, not investors) already mining, then flip a switch at genesis block launch. Ah shit, I just revealed my launch plan.

Trust me I don't need your help. Trust me you do not understand well the issues which differentiate my design from Iota (you do seem to understand the Nash equilibrium correctly).

I have bad feelings about LISK and I was Crypti genesis investor and holder for 1 and half year. Ask youself do they promote it so hardly cause they wish you and others to make money or becasuse they want money for themselfs?

I know that Max was holding more then 10'000'000 of Crypti at the end 2015 which he bought at ~ 800 satoshi. He accept Crypti during ICO at 1300 sats. Ok. Then he create 8% LISK premine. Ok. Then he expilcity said that ICO money will go to fund office, salary, different goods, marketing. Litoshi (Crypti foundation member) tell that Max repeatedly ask him (during Crypti days) to raise salary.

Now they fork Crypti after 1,5 years of development paid by ICO money (mine money), and Boris (lead developer) is not a developer in Lisk, but a consultant. Oliver (blockexplorer developer) is now a developer. They plan to make localizations on different languages.

Now concerning POW vs ICO. A single bot master can get majority of all coins during POW phase.
If there is no one, think about it, one can put 10 000 USD in ASICs/hardware and mine majority of coins compared to me (I'm on laptop).

Now let's see on Ethereum. Vitalik Buterin's father Dimitry is USD millionaire (net worth 60 000 000 USD). Now think why Eth has so much trading volume and PR.  


Now you wait and see!

If people are questioning the etherium ipo distribution ...IOTA ipo was a LOT worse. I asked have asked a few other members. Most say they've never noticed the IPO.  Look at LISK everyone on this board has it in their face with signatures, they are making a real effort to push this distribution out there. I can't go one page on here without seeing LISK in bold. This is how you get awareness about your ICO. Rewarded for facebook, twitter etc etc.


After nxt (the same people involved) you would have thought they would have made much more effort to distribute the coins. This is quite insane. I would probably need to create a poll and discussion to find out a rough % of the board that heard of it but  know the % would me magnitudes lower than who were aware of the etherium Ico. Add to this etherium has pow for even more distribution. IOTA ( I Own Tons Assholes) is not even having pow for added distribution. It's simply NXT 2 in terms of distribution ....only NXT holders were actually selling for only 2-3X ICO for quite a while - giving others some opportunity. IOTA are demanding 25-30X.  Same for etherium selling for 2-3x for months.

IOTA 's distribution and greed thereafter is set to be it's main issue. Wait and see!

DASH and NXT - both at the time appeared to be ahead of the curve. Both never look the place of LTC like they may have done because of their initial distribution.

POW and ICO should both have launch protocols to be followed. Insta ICO and Insta mining should be made as difficult as possible.

Think about the problem you had with Iota; it applies to any design with no mining competition, even with a deterministic ordering.

I have no desire to extract your 'secrets', I am trying to help you.

Dear cryptohunter, this prices which you wish were available 2 month ago via nxt asset called KIOTA: https://nxtportal.org/currencies/10176659922964555108

You haven't notice it as you haven't notice original IPO, which were annonced in october 2015
C'mon 

Not if you need your transaction confirmed. The cost can go as high as the opportunity cost, which is unbounded.

In short, the cost is always higher than the cost to do the PoW, otherwise you wouldn't even issue the transaction in the first place. A very high orphan rate could potentially be problematic and drive the PoW redos higher than the value of the transaction, but that is already prevented in the design.

I will not reply to you again in this thread on this topic. This is a waste of my time and I am coding today. And I am giving away my secrets at no benefit to me whatsoever.

Nope. The cost is the cost of the PoW.

Yes but obviously that isn't true. The cost of not mining on the longest chain if your transaction isn't confirmed. That is an infinite cost.

It is also true is there is a higher cost to mining on the longest chain.

That is only true if there is no cost to not mining on the longest chain. Which I have already stated is not the case. I am sorry monsterer you are slow minded.

The LCR doesn't magically lead to convergence; it could quite easily be a randomly changing route through a tree with increasingly divergent branching.

If you don't pay your miners, there is no competition to further the chain of LCR which means there is no measure of the maximum hashrate of the
network - this is especially acute at the beginning of it's life. This in turn says that at it's inception, the probability of a motivated attacker succeeding in a double spend is very high, because the network hashrate landscape will be extremely sparse and patchy - this is why Iota has opted for checkpoints to bootstrap their currency.

I explained how it is accomplished to you before. I am not going to repeat myself. You can go back and re-read our prior discussions in the Decentralization thread, or you can wait for a white paper. But it is really quite simple actually. If you don't do PoW, your transaction isn't valid. No one receives any coins in exchange for doing PoW. You seem to be caught up on details because you incorrectly assume this requires everyone who transacts to run a full node. You also seem to be caught up on assuming that no one has an incentive to do their PoW on the longest chain, but that doesn't make any sense because if so, their transaction wouldn't be confirmed. You may also not have fully appreciated the economics of the 51% attack.

If you don't pay them in currency units, it will be very hard to model transaction acceptability. You need a way to value what you pay them in order for that to be possible, because otherwise you can't measure reversibility cost.

There is a dichotomy at hand in consensus design, which is the nash equilibrium. On the one hand, nodes must behave in favour of the network as a whole for the network to work, but on the other hand, it is always cheaper for them to behave rationally.

This means there must be some incentive which is greater in value than their rational behavior costs, and this incentive must be paid by the network to the nodes such that the cheapest behaviour for the nodes to adopt is in favour of the network as a whole.