Topic: worldcoin undervalued? (Read 2357 times)

I'm new to all this so I may well be wrong, BUT

I don't think he was saying that WDC is a joke compared to Doge, he was saying that if your hashrate can be halved so quickly then you are a joke.

When Doge came along I believe the hashrate halved for WDC as all the miners went and mined Doge. This could leave the coin open to attack by anyone with enough power, therefore making the coin unstable for long term adoption.

I have a few WDC and I'm hoping for it to succeed, but I find it more likely that it will crash out as it just isn't being adopted at the moment.

The whole WDC thing seems to based around Scharmbeck and making it easy to invest in WDC, but aren't coinbase doing this exact same thing for Bitcoin? Surely your average person that WDC is being aimed at are far more likely to use Bitcoin.

Just my 2 cents - hopefully WDC takes off.

What cracks me up Mark is that you actually use DOGE as your example of a superior coin.

That's downright funny.

Hows the comparison to DOGE looking now?  A whopping week later?

DOGE is dead.  It was a gimmick.  A fly-by-night coin that had absolutely nothing of value behind it whatsoever.

Yet you stated WDC was a joke in comparison, because DOGE got wildly popular for four days. 

This is why people said your argument isn't good.  You don't value a cryptocurrency by its hashing power. 

The very example you used to prove yourself right last week has now proved your point wrong this week.

DOGE is dissolving into nothing.   WDC remains.

Bitcoin of course, beyond that mostly what has been learned is what does not work.

For example we tried to find the lowest time-between-blocks that would be practical, since many people seemed to think that Satoshi's choice of ten minutes was too slow.

Not adjusting difficulty was tried too, and that was a disaster.

One thing that still seems pretty clear is that if a coin does not have over 50% of the hash rate that is a very bad situation to be in, so bad that until Bitcoin had massively more SHA256 hashing power than all the supercomputers in the world it was scarily insecure and even then was still way too vulnerable because of all the GPUs out there that were not hashing for Bitcoin and because it would be ridiculously cheap for a hostile government or corporation or terrorist group or whatever to overpower it simply by making themselves some ASICs. Only now that Bitcoin is starting to get ASICs itself is it starting to look like it might realistically manage to adequately secure itself.

Because of the insanely high cost of securing a blockchain I have tended mostly to figure the merged mined coins have looked like they might have the best chance of maybe being able to be secured, and only if the majority of bitcoin miners merge them.

Since so far none of the fast coins other than GeistGeld are able to be merged mined it is not yet known how fast is too fast to be practical, nor whether being faster than some particular speed bars a coin from being able to be merged mined effectively thus forces it to absorb the entire cost of securing a blockchain, which as we have seen is many many millions of dollars for hardware plus a whole lot for electricity too. Those costs seem almost prohibitive even when sharing them among many chains...

-MarkM-

Earthcoin dates back to before GeistGeld? That sounds unlikely.

Or is fast being used as a technical term here dividing up the many less than a minute per block coins so that fast refers to some specific number of seconds target and each second or five seconds or somesuch gets a different label, like under ten seconds is hyperfast, ten to 19 is superfast, 20 to 29 is extrafast, 30 to 39 is ... etc?

How many seconds is it, anyway? Presumably less than five (Liquidcoin, possibly among others, is five, isn't it?)

I do not recall GeistGeld's exact number of seconds either off-hand, but it is so crazy fast that it is possibly maybe even too fast to really be practical in realistic network situations. How fast exactly is WorldCoin and how much actual load has it been tested with?

Has it even been tested long enough to ensure that a year or few of blocks all reasonably full works fine on normal people's normal home nodes, or is it aimed at dedicated server machines in datacentres on high speed internet feeds?

I am interested because some people have reported that GeistGeld's blocks are too fast; doublec for example has suggested that it should be slowed down, its sheer speed is a big part of why it is on so few pools, and why doublec dropped it from his.

-MarkM-

So, Which coin do u believe in ?

EarthCoin really doesn't bring up anything new.
It is a cheap copy of the real thing - WorldCoin.
WorldCoin is the original fast coin and it shall stand like that.

Personally I wouldn't bother buying EarthCoins I stick to WDC.

hi i have used WDC to wallet is oke now i am on EAC's   Earthcoin !!

if your looking for a fast coin  and with fast i mean transactions time take EarthCoin i haven see any coin being that fast !
a wallet who starts pritty fast , connect and sync fast :

EarthCoin the best and fast there is !!





http://earthcoin.biz and many other websites concerning EarthCoin ..............





feel this whas a bit helpfull send some earthcoins EAC : eY4WcL4tfDmyCeu5Y4SJ3ztHEiJeVRHS6H





important :  Pre mining is used for promotions give away's invesntments like all coins have done !!!

So they aren't even deploying enough seed nodes?

Worser and worser...

It is obviously over-valued, dump some to buy some dedicated servers to act as seed nodes.

If that drives the price down well then maybe that will be bringing it closer toward a reasonable value.

If it is worth what its price shows then dumping some to buy seed nodes ought not suppress the price much, right?

-MarkM-

Devs have to fix the issue with the wallet, many coins just open the wallet and sincronize, but for some funny reason WDC it doesnt.

I see it as Feathercoin, but feathercoin has a lot of support much more than wdc. But anyway I really like it, very promising.

Which is why those con-men / scammers are running around trying to convince people it is a good coin.

It is cheaper to have a bunch of spammers and sockpuppets post bullshit PR on forums than to actually sit down and build and deploy enough hashing power to secure it.

-MarkM-

you can't value a coin with only its supply basis
a coin value rise with people trust on it also

Look if you open a bank and it sits depositor's money out on a windowsill with a big sign saying "steal this money" that makes it a bank that it would be stupid to put a lot of money into. Encouraging people to put money into a financial application or system that is not secure is irresponsible at least, maybe even deliberate criminal negligence or something along those lines.

I am not saying that a highly secure currency should be worth a lot, I am saying that an insecure one should NOT be worth a lot and hopefully not worth much if anything until it has been adequately secured. People should be urged to withdraw until the vault has been repaired, kind of idea. Warn everyone to stay away, close the thing until its security has been upgraded or whatever but do NOT deliberately try to cause people to lose money by deliberately urging them to put it into insecure systems.

-MarkM-

That mathematics and logic makes a F grade mathematics student look like a genius.. you do realise other factors affect price, as Bitcoin is heavily adopted by organisations and long time investors. Does this mean Mastercoin should be ~$2500 then and Franko should be $5000 or whatever. This logic makes me cringe so hard.

I've been following World Coin for a while now. It looks very promising. I hope they succeed.

Then secure the damn thing already dammit. Buy yourselves some GPUs, order some FPGAs or ASICs and get hashing to secure it.

-MarkM-

+1

Nice to see all the arguments by the fools that call WDC a scam.
It is not a scam and it is a very good coin. I believe USD to WDC is going to be a game changer. 

It is not bitcoin you should be comparing it to but to scrypt hashing power in general.

Does it have less than half of the scrypt hashing power?

Look at the prices of, for example, IXCoin and I0Coin and DeVCoin and GRouPcoin, what fraction of the SHA256 hashing power does each have?

Then compare their prices to each other and to the highest-hashpower (thus most secure) SHA coin (bitcoin).

As long as you have less than half of the hashing-power you are easier to PWN than other coins of your type (such as Litecoin and DOGE).

If totally out of the blue your entire hashing-power can be dwarfed (as happened to Worldcoin with the appearance of DOGE out of the blue) you are a joke, a train wreck waiting to happen, a bunch of money sitting on a window-sill - the outside sill not the inside sill, or the window is open - with a big sign saying "STEAL THIS MONEY".

If there are three scrypt coins in existence at least one of them has to have less than half of the hashing-power.

Even if there were only two and they momentarily each had half that would be a very fragile situation with either one of them likely to end up with more than half or less than half at any particular moment.

As it is, it maybe would have made sense that Vircurex listed DOGE if it had de-listed you at the same time; or de-listed whichever scrypt coin was lowest hashpower at the time. I am kind of disappointed that DOGE was added without dropping one so that it would be coming in to replace the least secure one with a more-secure one rather than creating a worry that maybe it might end up adding more that momentarily get a high hash rate while failing to drop another, leading to an accumulation of more and more insecure coins likely to be more and more insecure as time goes on.

-MarkM-

do not listen to anyone, just join the community and hear it and see it for yourself.

will see