Gold collapsing. Bitcoin UP.

[Melbustus]

By my reading altcoins are much lower than they used to be, maybe 3-5% of Bitcoin's value at most. It's just that there are more premines and instamines in the top spots now, vastly inflating the result.

1

Bitcoin LEGIT
2

Ethereum PREMINED
3

Ripple PREMINED
4

Litecoin LEGIT
5

Dogecoin LEGIT, fast inflation (opposite of premine)
6

Dash INSTAMINED (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=999886.0)
7

MaidSafeCoin ???
8

BitShares ???
9

Factom PREMINED
10

Peercoin LEGIT(?)
11

Stellar PREMINED
12

Nxt PREMINED
13

VPNCoin ???
14

Emercoin ???
15

YbCoin ???
16

Bytecoin ???
17

Monero LEGIT, fast inflation (opposite of premine)
18

Namecoin LEGIT

There have been more non-legit minings recently, since they have proven more profitable for founders, so I'm almost ready to assume the ranking in terms of actual investment is Litecoin/Doge nearly tied for No. 2, followed by Monero, then Peercoin and Namecoin. Besides Monero a long time ago, not much has really changed over the years.

I doubt you'd find Ripple or Dash in the proper top 20. It seems like most of the investment happened in 2013 during the boom in Bitcoin, not surprisingly. Ethereum is a bit of wild card. Seems like it could be in the top ten or even top five already, but it's hard to tell without more disclosure.

I almost didn't include Ripple when I made that rough calc because it's not really decentralized. In my book, when we talk about crypto-currencies, we're discussing the set of all decentralized digital currencies, no matter how the coin supply came into existence and achieved initial distribution. So of the top 10, that leaves only Ripple in question (I think - don't know much about a couple of the current top-10).

 

[albin]

Dash (then known as Darkcoin) allegedly had some shady circumstances surrounding launch that people accuse of being a de facto premine.

 

[cypherdoc]

@VeritasSapere

should i ban you?

 

[VeritasSapere]

I am very off topic aren't I.

In my defense I was responding to another post in this thread, sometimes I get a bit carried away when someone asks me to explain something. Like I said, maybe this discussion is best suited for another thread. I am totally coming across like an altcoin evangelist right now I know, though I am still a Bitcoin evangelist as well I promise.

Here is a good thread for some altcoin chats: https://bitco.in/forum/threads/alternative-cryptocurrency-discussion.882/

 

[cypherdoc]

@VeritasSapere

no worries. just kidding you. we here on bitco.in are not so insecure and immature to not be able to tolerate alternative opinions on altcoins.

esp when i think you're wrong!

 

[awemany]

As someone owning a few BTC and nothing else, I have to say that Altcoins are unfortunately pretty on-topic lately...

 

[Bagatell]

@Bagatell, yes please. It was overwhelmingly accepted as valid, so if you have a good and clear description why it is not, that would be appreciated.

The post everyone is talking about, a Medium account with one post.
https://medium.com/@bitcoinroundtable/a-call-for-consensus-d96d5560d8d6#.huly48pzh
note "bitcoinrountable" NOT http://satoshiroundtable.org/ which has a longer, more impressive list of names.

The Twitter account that spammed the above post, created today?, with 4 Tweets last time I looked.
https://twitter.com/btcroundtable
note "btcroundtable"

Samson Mows Twitter:

Jihan Wus Twitter:
https://twitter.com/JihanWu

It's FUD or I'm Satoshis uncle.

 

[AdrianX]

If miners were more sophisticated, it's pretty darn clear to me that they'd force larger blocks now. So frustrating. The entire thesis of Bitcoin rests on miners collectively acting in their own long-term self-interest. This needs to get resolved *now*.

Self-interest is more complicated than you are giving credit.

Miners depend on the inflation subsidy, as they are weaned off the subsidy they have to complete for transaction fees. At the moment they just complete for the subsidy. Core mini blockests are saying a competitive fee market is a race to the bottom and total collapse (bitcoin is broken). But it’s not. It's an unpleasant gruelling competitive race to eke out a marginal profit on text fees orders of magnitude above today’s subsidy with many unknown risks.

As unpleasant and uncertain as this reality is it's the only way given how the incentive system is designed. It's counter intuitive to want to choose the option of an exponential diminishing reward and steep competition to increase fee income by many orders of magnitude. - Hence the huge support for Bip100

Core is painting a picture for miners of a Utopia where demand for bitcoin is steady state growth and transaction fees just manically increase with demand as limited block space is sold at a premium (just don’t change the block size is what they say). While this is a fallacy, and not how bitcoin was designed, it's in the interests of the miners to believe in the increasing demand (after-all that belief is one we all hold, justified or not) and so it’s still in their self interest to choose the path of least resistance.

Core is offering to help them grow total transaction volume in exchange for shared fees that go to their Lightening Network. (problem being they can’t guarantee growth in a free market.)

Self interest then depends on faith. If you believe in an increased demand in bitcoin because the bearded wizard said so, or is there some fundamental underlying value that created demand.

Self interest is determined by the substance behind the belief that bitcoin will grow; I had to lose a lot of bitcoin before I understood what made it grow and how money's value was derived.

If you don’t understand it’s related to Metcalfe's law and fees based on scales of magnitude, your self interest compass is very likely pointing the wrong way.

 

[VeritasSapere]

@VeritasSapere

no worries. just kidding you. we here on bitco.in are not so insecure and immature to not be able to tolerate alternative opinions on altcoins.

esp when i think you're wrong!

All good, I know freedom lives here, I love it. Created a new thread anyway, started it off with that list of cryptos I modified by @Zangelbert Bingledack. That list was just to cool, with all the symbols and everything I could not help myself appropriating it with a modified message.

 

[AdrianX]

It has seemed strange to me that ETH has benefited the most in the recent alt run up because ETH is not necessarily positioned as P2P money and is thus not a direct replacement.

What is the argument for Dash or Bitshares to replace bitcoin and how are full nodes incentivized and what are the governance mechanisms?

It seems strange to me that I cant celebrate this fact as most of my Alts are locked up in Cryptsy, with no way to withdraw and an unresponsive technical support team.

 

[awemany]

@Bagatell: Thanks!

Jihan Wu is not on the round table list with BITMAIN/Antpool, so it isn't surprising that he's still pro Classic, or is it?

The only one thing that I find pretty strange is "BitmainWarranty" on this list. Who the heck is that? A subcompany of Bitmain for recalls and warranty questions?!?!

Neither the BitFury Group nor CEO Valery Vavilov https://twitter.com/valeryvavilov officially retweeted this round table. However, they are on the list and had ample time now to say that this letter is bogus. And they didn't.

And BTCC did confirm on twitter:

So I think that means it is valid?
[doublepost=1455221918][/doublepost]

Where in the letter did it ask for a 3 week deadline? I must have missed that.

Also it seems insane to be able to get that many signatories so quickly. I'm not sure to believe this or what.

If miners are able to demand a HF and core caves, then that is at least something. Although if miners do not switch to Classic or force core to HF, then there is a major problem.

Edit: OK I missed this part on the first read (was too taken aback by it)
"In the next 3 weeks, we need the Bitcoin Core developers to work with us and clarify the roadmap with respect to a future hard-fork which includes an increase of the block size."

It seems the letter is both demanding a plan that includes a HF and is expressing a strong view that all client code should follow the same HF direction to keep everything aligned.

As much as I want a miner community that fights core, I can also see how this makes sense. To me they are in a sense rejecting both Classic and Core, they are rejecting Classic's HF approach but also rejecting Core's no HF approach.

Again it all comes down to whether or not the market can force growth or not. Once that precedent is set it will be set and easier next time.

Yeah. But.

Didn't we have an 8MB letter with some prestigious stamps on it first? And then, lower, lower lower.
And now this? All of it essentially trying to give Core more time to come up with a solution? While the solution is right there in their face?

 

[Melbustus]

@AdrianX - yeah, good post. Agreed.

My annoyance with miners is due to the fact that they apparently have NOT thought all this through, and they're the ones with the most incentive to do so! If they believe the fantasy that bitcoin can become a high-fee low-tx-throughput settlement system just because they want to, then that's very much the problem, and again, it's very unfortunate that we're having this blocksize/governance crisis before the mining ecosystem has become sufficiently sophisticated to easily make the right long-run decision.

We need the Bitcoin Unlimited Mining Pool (bottom of: http://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/articles)

 

[cypherdoc]

this looks pretty bad to me. isn't Bitshares called Stellar nowadays?:

 

[Bagatell]

DRK, BTS, and Stellar are three different things as far as I know.

 

[cypherdoc]

anybody have a Bitshares/BTC comparison chart?

 

[sickpig]

@awemany look at my last few post and you'll fond out a link to a tweet made buy a bitfury official representative.

sorry for the brevity but I'm on my mobile with limited connectivity

 

[Bagatell]

@cypherdoc

 

[Aquent]

Guys, this is a difficult situation where miners have to make a supremely difficult decision because there are threats on both sides of selling their coins to 0, so of course hurting the product of the miners. Therefore, they don't really know where to turn, that's why they change their mind by the day.

In this case, the situation is somewhat unique, because some mistaken theology, based on the belief that bitcoin does not actually work, was developed in 2013, a theology that was not at the time addressed, and has not been forcefully addressed until recently. Moreover, there are all these allusions of appeal to authority, of some guy doing something 20 years ago so listen to him, etc. Dispelling all these spells and superstition necessarily takes time.

Mr Back, sometimes in the company of bluematt and other core devs, has been speaking to the miners for some time now, in private. I thought it was the miners pressuring him, but obviously it seems to have gone both ways. Nonetheless, Rome was not built in one day. Decentralizing Mt Gox did not instantly occur.

This is just growing pains. The miners don't even have a settlement system to judge. They don't yet know what fully full blocks with unreliable confirmations means. No lightning exists and they don't yet really know what lightning means. If we are right about all these things, even if it gets to that point, the truth will become self evident to all just as it is self evident to us right now.

That is why, in many ways, their decision right now does not fully matter, not to the point of leaving the system fully anyway. The miners are just emotionally being spellbounded, thinking this is some sort of game of who can scaremonger most, but when reality hits in, the spells won't work anymore.

You know, the miners almost have no clue about all of the debate and the facts we know. To them this is like asking us, non miners, to choose between s3 or s4 antminer, which to many of us is a completely black box question we have no clue about. So have some patience and focus on educating in a rational, objective, non emotional way, because the economics will necessarily kick in.

Bitcoin works. It works based on maths and science and genious we can not fully comprehend. There is no real choice here. The question is only of timing. Whether we have the future today, or tomorrow.

 

[cypherdoc]

i believe the conflicting opinions coming out of Bitfury are related to it's desire to try and promote themselves as the mining industry standard/leader probably by transforming their Roundtable into the Consortium they've said they like to see this year.

the reason i say this is that they have supported Classic & 2MB HF several times in public via the sysman Slack channel account that i identified for you guys a few weeks back and at the very beginning of their Roundtable in Miami. listen to Petrov go on about Classic support here at the beginning and this was just a coupla weeks ago:


also, Valery Vavilov here:

“World Wide Web consortium was created; it’s the consortium that creates the standards. I think bitcoin blockchain consortium should be created this year to provide the standardization to the industry.”

https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/bitfurys-vavilov-solution-block-size-challenge-rebuts-bitcoin-naysayers/

i believe they want bigger blocks and that they need bigger blocks but also are postering to becoming the de facto leaders of the mining industry first with bigger blocks soon thereafter.

 

[luigi1111]

By my reading altcoins are much lower than they used to be, maybe 3-5% of Bitcoin's value at most. It's just that there are more premines and instamines in the top spots now, vastly inflating the result.

1

Bitcoin LEGIT
2

Ethereum PREMINED
3

Ripple PREMINED
4

Litecoin LEGIT
5

Dogecoin LEGIT, fast inflation (opposite of premine)
6

Dash INSTAMINED (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=999886.0)
7

MaidSafeCoin ???
8

BitShares ???
9

Factom PREMINED
10

Peercoin LEGIT(?)
11

Stellar PREMINED
12

Nxt PREMINED
13

VPNCoin ???
14

Emercoin ???
15

YbCoin ???
16

Bytecoin ???
17

Monero LEGIT, fast inflation (opposite of premine)
18

Namecoin LEGIT

There have been more non-legit minings recently, since they have proven more profitable for founders, so I'm almost ready to assume the ranking in terms of actual investment is Litecoin/Doge nearly tied for No. 2, followed by Monero, then Peercoin and Namecoin. Besides Monero a long time ago, not much has really changed over the years.

I doubt you'd find Ripple or Dash in the proper top 20. It seems like most of the investment happened in 2013 during the boom in Bitcoin, not surprisingly. Ethereum is a bit of wild card. Seems like it could be in the top ten or even top five already, but it's hard to tell without more disclosure.

Not a bad list. BitShares is kinda all over the place (some was distributed via PoW, some ICO-style, who knows the rest), plus they keep changing things. Bytemaster seems to never run out of ideas.

The only other one I have a comment on is Bytecoin, which is the original Cryptonote coin. It is a premine fraud for sure, with 80-something % mined before public release (they claim it was out there on the "dark web" for around 2 years before it showed up on Bitcointalk).