Quote from: nikster on April 16, 2016, 08:18:11 AM

enforcing worldwide spread is not easy, and perhaps not doable.
They tried doing it with porn in the 90's, file sharing in 2000's and so on...
and servers kept over heating and got fried up

As I explained the key distinction upthread, those are free markets because they are decentralized and there is no significant asymmetry of information which makes it otherwise.

It pisses me off when readers waste my expensive time by ignoring what I already wrote twice in this thread. This makes three times. Please readers don't make me teach this again by writing another post which ignores my prior points.

Quote from: nikster on April 16, 2016, 08:18:11 AM

I still dont understand why your'e calling waves a scam only cuz it made an ico (like everyone now).
Its devs are legit, real names with real work behind them.
So they thought charles and kushti are friends which will support them, and were wrong, apologized and moved on.
everyone got their asses covered legaly ofc..
so if you think all ico's are scams, you got lots of work now not just on waves bro

Please clearify. tnx

1. I already provided the link to the thread two or three times in this thread, which explains that ICOs sold to non-accredited USA investors are ostensibly illegal.

I hate ICOs by now for other reasons:

2. They contribute to the mainstream thinking that crypto-currency is a scam and thus we will have great difficulty getting CC widely adopted if don't put a stop to these scams.

3. They extract capital to a few scammers, which could be better used to build our real ecosystems which are not vaporware and have real decentralized designs, such as Bitcoin and Monero.

4. They prey on the ignorance of n00b speculators, thus can never be a free market.

5. They can never attain adoption because they destroy the Nash equilibrium and decentralization of the ecosystem:

Quote from: generalizethis on April 16, 2016, 09:26:39 AM

As an example: I can show that dash is an oligarchy, whether intentional or not, due to the way their paynode scheme works. These systems are designed to work trustlessly, so any hiccups (intentional or not) should be invalidated by the design, not left-up to the good or bad intentions of those who are engaged with it.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 15, 2016, 07:06:12 AM

Quote from: noobtrader on April 15, 2016, 06:54:37 AM

did the monero wrote that fact about infinite supply in their ann Huh if i was an investard in monero i would feel cheated if it isnt

No one can fork Monero without the support of the decentralized miners. The distinction from the Dash masternode scam, is that a masternode is staked only once with DRK (Dash tokens) and earns 50+% ROI per annum forever after for the largest holders of Dash tokens, thus further centralizing the coin meaning there is a centralized oligarchy which the investors are relying on for their future expecation of profits which afaics fulfills the Howey test for what is an investment security that is regulated by the Securities Act. A decentralized PoW miner is constantly expending on electricity in a competitive free market. Owning a lot of Monero doesn't give you any leverage as a miner.

Quote from: r0ach on April 16, 2016, 12:09:11 AM

New post to better articulate why permissioned ledger, closed entopy systems likely have no value:

Quote from: r0ach on April 15, 2016, 11:47:19 PM

The problem with Emunie, as I talked about in the IOTA thread, is that any system that doesn't have permanent coin turnover via mining, removes mining completely, or puts some type of abstraction layer between mining and block reward (as in the case of IOTA), is a permissioned ledger. People got too caught up in trying to improve on consensus mechanisms and forgot what actually constitutes a decentralized currency in the first place.

When Maxwell said he "proved mathematically that Bitcoin couldn't exist" and then it did exist, it was because he didn't take open entropy systems into account. He already knew stuff like NXT or Emunie could exist, but nobody actually considered them to be decentralized. They're distributed but not decentralized. Basically stocks that come from a central authority and then the shareholders attempt to form a nash equilibrium to...siphon fees from other shareholders in a zero sum game because there is no nash equilibrium to be had by outsiders adopting a closed entropy system in the first place...

Take for example the real world use case of a nash equilbrium in finance. There's many rival nations on earth and they're all competing in currency wars, manipulating, devaluing, etc. They would all be better off with an undisputed unit of account that the other can't tamper with for trade. In order to adopt said unit, it would have to be a permissionless system that each nation has access to where one of the group isn't suspected to have an enormous advantage over the others, otherwise they would all just say no.

This is why gold was utilized at all. Yea, some territories had more than others, but nobody actually knew what was under the ground at the time. Everyone just agreed it was scarce, valuable, and nobody really had a monopoly on it. There are really no circumstances where people on an individual level or nation-state level can come together to form any kind of nash equilibrium in a closed entropy system. The market is cornered by design, and for value to increase, others need to willingly submit to the equivalent of an extortion scheme. The only time systems like that have value at all is when governments use coercion to force them onto people.

6. Because they are not decentralized and rely on expectation of profits based on the performance of a core group, ICOs turn what should be a competition for creating the best technology into a fist fucking fest of ad hominem and political games:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 16, 2016, 09:48:46 AM

Let's psychoanalyze those want to troll me with a thread like this. Actually I have no censorship motivated objection about making a thread about me (I wish so much, it was possible to do something great without attaining any personal fame), it just feels really stupid because I (the idealist in me) think the technology is more important than the person, which is one of the main reasons I hate vaporware ICOs.

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 16, 2016, 09:42:27 AM

Quote from: smoothie on April 16, 2016, 06:49:51 AM

This thread serves mainly to deflect attention away from Dash's instamine scam.

+1 for conscious reason.

The subconscious reason this thread exists is the psychological phenomenon that it is better to destroy everyone, than to fail alone.

"I dropped my ice cream in the mud, so now I am throwing mud on your ice cream so we are the same, because God hates us equally".

This is what socialism built. Equality is prosperity, because fairness is the uniformity of nature's Gaussian distribution. Equality is a human right! Didn't you know that!

They would rather waste the time of important coders whose time would be better spent coding a solution for humanity, so as to satisfy their inability to accept their mistakes and jealousy.

7. ICOs have less liquidity because they are not widely distributed and due to #5:

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on April 16, 2016, 12:09:12 PM

Quote from: smooth on April 16, 2016, 11:20:31 AM

Quote from: TheKoziTwo on April 16, 2016, 11:00:32 AM

you can read my observations here.

Interesting post.

The salient quote is of course:

Quote from: TheKoziTwo on July 03, 2014, 07:39:32 PM

Why litecoin? Liquidity. These guys own 5 and 6 digits amount of BTC. They need massive liquidity to increase their holdings by any significant degree. And as such litecoin has been a blessing. Will history repeat itself?

I've had that in my mind for a loooong time. Liquidity is absolutely necessary for the design, marketing, and distribution of crypto-currency, if you want to succeed.