Vertcoin will go nowhere.
see all it took was 4 words.
Topic: Why Quark is a loser in 2014, Doge is a winner, and how this relates to Vertcoin - page 4. (Read 6858 times)
February 03, 2014, 11:07:10 AM
February 03, 2014, 10:35:36 AM
Your theory is flawed, it assumes that widespread adoption of bitcoin (or any crpyto) would not prompt aqueduct advances in the ease and understanding of private key security. We already have an insured bitcoin vault and hardware wallets are coming soon if they're not here already.
"I will be using my influence on the Vertcoin team to try and adapt to this model. "
Please god no! You are going to be dead long before vert is mined out.
Quark was a failure for numerous reasons not just because it was mined out.
"I will be using my influence on the Vertcoin team to try and adapt to this model. "
Please god no! You are going to be dead long before vert is mined out.
Quark was a failure for numerous reasons not just because it was mined out.
February 03, 2014, 01:31:55 AM
Just make sure your dump these 2 crap coins and buy Litecoin before the dump happens.
I don't see Litecoin as a horrible buy or anything, but it's limited utility puts it in a position to be replaced entirely. The real story behind the scenes is how weak of a coin Bitcoin is. Litecoin has a more ideal network propagation characteristics due to it's block time, it's more secure due to Gambler's ruin, and it's network will be more distributed due to ASICs still being strong in scrypt, but not playing as big of a factor as in SHA.
This is why anyone that mentions an "altcoin" in places like freenode #bitcoin is instantly banned by the current BTC devs. They know they have a walking dinosaur on their hands. They just try and push bit-fascism all day to try and have only one cryptocurrency and block chain on earth, then when BTC gets big, the government can just take it over or destroy it at will. That's why it's extremely important we have at least 5-10 strong currencies to avoid government takeover or destruction.
All the higher up guys in the BTC pecking order I run into, such as the developers, all come across as kind of robots with no personality. It really wouldn't surprise me if Bitcoin has already been co-opted and half these guys are now government employees. Gavin even looks like a CIA poster boy and went to an Ivy League school, a place they're notorious for recruiting from. I don't trust any of them.
Unless one of them wants to step forward claiming to be Satoshi, their hostility towards altcoins, pretending that you're stealing their work by creating one, or talking about one, seems to be completely unfounded when they're all standing on the shoulders of giants themselves.
I'm almost positive Charlie Tuna over at Coinbase has enough pull to get Litecoin/USD pairing added by now. If that doesn't happen in the foreseeable future, maybe we actually do have a Bitcoin conspiracy going on. Unless he just doesn't believe in his own coin.
As for Vertcoin (it's up 50% today), it was created to replace Litecoin and solve the mining distribution problem scrypt ASIC brings, which currently makes Bitcoin a not very secure currency. Maybe Charlie knows ASIC is going to wreck Litecoin like it did BTC, so he doesn't bother to add it.
summary : he spent the whole week mining DOGE and now he's pissed cos its price crashed, while quark is still somehow on the rise (although I agree with him there's nothing to justify the current quark rise)
I was probably one of the first 50 people on the planet to mine Doge, but I currently own 0 of them. I currently own only BTC, LTC, and VTC, then a few other coins on the side.
February 03, 2014, 12:57:37 AM
summary : he spent the whole week mining DOGE and now he's pissed cos its price crashed, while quark is still somehow on the rise (although I agree with him there's nothing to justify the current quark rise)
February 03, 2014, 12:35:48 AM
Just make sure your dump these 2 crap coins and buy Litecoin before the dump happens.
February 03, 2014, 12:11:49 AM
As everyone, or at least some of you know, Doge was stated to have a finite number of coins at release, one hundred billion to be exact. It took a while, but people eventually discovered the source code was set to taper down block rewards until they hit X number of units, and continue there until infinity, possibly through coding error, but nobody really knows. This results in Doge having a 5% annual inflation. The inside story at Dogecoin is supposedly the block times will be changed to around Litecoin levels, and this annual inflation will also be changed to 2.5%.
How does this relate to Quark? Most people are aware that Quark's distribution model was vastly different than Bitcoin and Litecoin. Bitcoin stops giving out block rewards and relies on transaction fees alone somewhere around the year 2140. Quark seems to have accelerated this model by over 100 years and released basically all of their coins already, but with an annual 0.5% inflation for block rewards. As you've probably noticed, there has recently been an enormous push by Quarkcoin bagholders on the forum to tell you how great the currency is, and to try and get you to buy it. This is not a random coincidence, it's a desperate last stand. Quark is currently in a state where it's value isn't that high in comparison to things like Bitcoin, and it's block rewards for mining it are almost non-existent. It either has to go to the moon within a short time span, fail, or possibly rely on some kind of real time check pointing for security..
There are many variables to how crypto works, and many of these issues were already forecast by design of Bitcoin. Bitcoin gives the world decades to develop a robust economy around the crypto unit before transaction fees actually need to do anything to incentivize miners. Quark gives the world basically zero time to build a crypto infrastructure, and just dumps 250 million Quark on your face. Anyone examining these facts can come to the conclusion that Quark is not a valid distribution model for a PoW coin, and you can see why there are so many complaints of it being a pump and dump scam.
The dead, American politican, Ted Stevens, does a good job of explaining it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs
Now that we've covered why Quark is screwed, and why people like Freetrade are either high on bath salts, or just flat out scam artists telling you it's a good buy, let's move on to Doge. And by the way, I refuse to believe that Freetrade doesn't know these issues exist. He's a coin dev himself focused entirely on CPU coins and probably mined Quark with a botnet and is trying to pump a coin he owns stake in.
So, back to Dogecoin. Doge distribution is more front loaded than BTC, but not nearly as front loaded as Quark. Doge inflation is also higher than Quark, but this is where it gets interesting. Due to the many ways coins can be lost in Crypto, I refer to it as hyper deflationary in nature. Most people are familiar with stories about people losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on a laptop somehow, but that's just a small aspect of it.
What happens when BTC has more penetration in society? Coins will be rendered unspendable staggeringly often. Rich people crashing their Lamborghinis or yachts into a parked car and having their private keys stored on USB stick going up in a fireball will happen on a daily basis. I call this, "The Paul Walker Effect". If BTC was more widespread at the moment, he probably would have taken out at least $10,000 in BTC with him. Anyone with a few million in the bank is going to be carrying that amount around just in case they need to buy a $500 pair of sunglasses.
You don't need to be famous to lose massive amounts of BTC in a kamikaze, fireball attack though. Plenty of normal businessmen will be carrying around unsecured private keys with no backup and drop it in a toilet or other misfortune. What about when a Tsunami hits Japan? How much BTC do you think will be lost in one of those? What about when a computer illiterate person dies, who for some reason owns BTC, which is then inherited by their computer illiterate relatives? What about when a Russian criminal (redundant term) steals millions of BTC from an exchange and gets himself killed evading police? Welp, those BTC are gone too.
Some people seem to believe that Bitcoin's main strength is it's deflationary aspect. This is not true at all. It's main strength is it's decentralized aspect and the security it brings. You can also notice the deflationary and security aspect are an inverse function of each other as long as you can keep miners distributed. Does it make sense to sacrifice Bitcoin's most important aspect in order to see just how deflationary of a currency you can create?
Most people who know how Bitcoin works will agree the system is deflationary enough to satisfy anyone's needs. Most will also agree that it does have many security issues, especially with end of life block rewards, or relying solely on transaction fees in a PoW system. We're already seeing this with Quark now because it's an outlier, extreme example of how to do things wrong.
The main conclusion someone can draw from all these facts is, PoW block rewards don't have to go to 0 to be deflationary. They can be set to a non-zero number infinitely, solve many block chain security problems in the process, and still maintain a coin that's either deflationary in nature, or sitting at equilibrium at the very least. I believe all PoW coins in the future will be forced to adapt to this model, even if they don't want to for whatever reason.
It's very hard to pinpoint just what percent can be used and still maintain a deflationary model, but when you have to weigh the option of having a coin that's very deflationary, but collapses to worthless, or having a coin that's only slightly deflationary, and very secure, it's pretty obvious what the choice should be. Instead of 0.5% like Quark uses, I would personally say 1% is an extremely safe number to use, and I will be pushing for Vertcoin to try and adapt to this model even though it really won't matter for a long long time.
As for Dogecoin's role in all this, they'll be testing the upper limits of end of life currency supply before you can be labeled as "helicopter Bernankedoge". I'd prefer they used an absolute maximum of 2%, but whatever happens, they'll still be in a far better off position than something like Quark is currently in. Contrary to what the topic might look like, I'm not saying Doge is a good buy, it gets pumped above real market value too much. What I am saying is, Doge as a currency will survive because they're actually rewarding miners to keep the thing up. Even if Doge lost 75% of it's value overnight somehow, a year from now it will still be around, and probably more valuable than it is currently. If a coin like NXT lost 75% of it's value in a flash crash (which probably will happen due to horrendous distribution), you would probably never see the coin again after a week.
- The dread shibe r0ach
Only non-scam artist on the entire forum
How does this relate to Quark? Most people are aware that Quark's distribution model was vastly different than Bitcoin and Litecoin. Bitcoin stops giving out block rewards and relies on transaction fees alone somewhere around the year 2140. Quark seems to have accelerated this model by over 100 years and released basically all of their coins already, but with an annual 0.5% inflation for block rewards. As you've probably noticed, there has recently been an enormous push by Quarkcoin bagholders on the forum to tell you how great the currency is, and to try and get you to buy it. This is not a random coincidence, it's a desperate last stand. Quark is currently in a state where it's value isn't that high in comparison to things like Bitcoin, and it's block rewards for mining it are almost non-existent. It either has to go to the moon within a short time span, fail, or possibly rely on some kind of real time check pointing for security..
There are many variables to how crypto works, and many of these issues were already forecast by design of Bitcoin. Bitcoin gives the world decades to develop a robust economy around the crypto unit before transaction fees actually need to do anything to incentivize miners. Quark gives the world basically zero time to build a crypto infrastructure, and just dumps 250 million Quark on your face. Anyone examining these facts can come to the conclusion that Quark is not a valid distribution model for a PoW coin, and you can see why there are so many complaints of it being a pump and dump scam.
The dead, American politican, Ted Stevens, does a good job of explaining it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cZC67wXUTs
Now that we've covered why Quark is screwed, and why people like Freetrade are either high on bath salts, or just flat out scam artists telling you it's a good buy, let's move on to Doge. And by the way, I refuse to believe that Freetrade doesn't know these issues exist. He's a coin dev himself focused entirely on CPU coins and probably mined Quark with a botnet and is trying to pump a coin he owns stake in.
So, back to Dogecoin. Doge distribution is more front loaded than BTC, but not nearly as front loaded as Quark. Doge inflation is also higher than Quark, but this is where it gets interesting. Due to the many ways coins can be lost in Crypto, I refer to it as hyper deflationary in nature. Most people are familiar with stories about people losing hundreds of thousands of dollars on a laptop somehow, but that's just a small aspect of it.
What happens when BTC has more penetration in society? Coins will be rendered unspendable staggeringly often. Rich people crashing their Lamborghinis or yachts into a parked car and having their private keys stored on USB stick going up in a fireball will happen on a daily basis. I call this, "The Paul Walker Effect". If BTC was more widespread at the moment, he probably would have taken out at least $10,000 in BTC with him. Anyone with a few million in the bank is going to be carrying that amount around just in case they need to buy a $500 pair of sunglasses.
You don't need to be famous to lose massive amounts of BTC in a kamikaze, fireball attack though. Plenty of normal businessmen will be carrying around unsecured private keys with no backup and drop it in a toilet or other misfortune. What about when a Tsunami hits Japan? How much BTC do you think will be lost in one of those? What about when a computer illiterate person dies, who for some reason owns BTC, which is then inherited by their computer illiterate relatives? What about when a Russian criminal (redundant term) steals millions of BTC from an exchange and gets himself killed evading police? Welp, those BTC are gone too.
Some people seem to believe that Bitcoin's main strength is it's deflationary aspect. This is not true at all. It's main strength is it's decentralized aspect and the security it brings. You can also notice the deflationary and security aspect are an inverse function of each other as long as you can keep miners distributed. Does it make sense to sacrifice Bitcoin's most important aspect in order to see just how deflationary of a currency you can create?
Most people who know how Bitcoin works will agree the system is deflationary enough to satisfy anyone's needs. Most will also agree that it does have many security issues, especially with end of life block rewards, or relying solely on transaction fees in a PoW system. We're already seeing this with Quark now because it's an outlier, extreme example of how to do things wrong.
The main conclusion someone can draw from all these facts is, PoW block rewards don't have to go to 0 to be deflationary. They can be set to a non-zero number infinitely, solve many block chain security problems in the process, and still maintain a coin that's either deflationary in nature, or sitting at equilibrium at the very least. I believe all PoW coins in the future will be forced to adapt to this model, even if they don't want to for whatever reason.
It's very hard to pinpoint just what percent can be used and still maintain a deflationary model, but when you have to weigh the option of having a coin that's very deflationary, but collapses to worthless, or having a coin that's only slightly deflationary, and very secure, it's pretty obvious what the choice should be. Instead of 0.5% like Quark uses, I would personally say 1% is an extremely safe number to use, and I will be pushing for Vertcoin to try and adapt to this model even though it really won't matter for a long long time.
As for Dogecoin's role in all this, they'll be testing the upper limits of end of life currency supply before you can be labeled as "helicopter Bernankedoge". I'd prefer they used an absolute maximum of 2%, but whatever happens, they'll still be in a far better off position than something like Quark is currently in. Contrary to what the topic might look like, I'm not saying Doge is a good buy, it gets pumped above real market value too much. What I am saying is, Doge as a currency will survive because they're actually rewarding miners to keep the thing up. Even if Doge lost 75% of it's value overnight somehow, a year from now it will still be around, and probably more valuable than it is currently. If a coin like NXT lost 75% of it's value in a flash crash (which probably will happen due to horrendous distribution), you would probably never see the coin again after a week.
- The dread shibe r0ach
Only non-scam artist on the entire forum
Jump to: