Readers please note that I don't have anything against Monero as an open source experiment in crypto-currency. I support their experimentation. I don't like (bordering on hate although I don't allow myself be consumed by hate
) the community of Monero. And I don't support when someone writes that Monero is the only altcoin that is serious or worthy. They have not yet earned that, and if ever they do earn that, they won't need to state it because such truths are self-evident.
There is something foul smell in the community of Monero. I'd rather not try to explain what that smell is, as others have already explored that. Ethereum has its idolizing fanboiz and Monero has its delusion-of-superiority, pack-dog-attacking bagboiz. Something like that. ...
Incorrect. The point is that no matter what proof-of-work algorithm an altcoin employs, those who are protecting Bitcoin will rent enough mining hash rate to fuck your coin forever. They only have to rent it for a short period of time, and your difficulty will be so high that it will never produce a block again. And all the money in the chain will be unspendable for a very, very, very long time.
The "attacker" has the resources to do that to any proof-of-work altcoin which doesn't have the level of hashrate of Bitcoin.
Of course the altcoin can then manually reset the difficulty lower using a fork, but then the attacker can repeat again. It will quickly become clear that the altcoin is fucked.
If Monero starts to approach $1 billion market cap (or perhaps much less if the liquidity is very high, which it is for Monero), this attacker will destroy Monero and profit by shorting.
Dude you need to read tardlema a little longer before reposting the derpage here. (I've been reading for years as you can tell by my fluent orcish).
Otherwise, go ahead and rent some SHA256 asics and attack litecoin and monero with them. I'll wait.
Four pages of shred, just to come to the conclusion that yes indeed altcoins with $million mcaps and declining block rewards, are probably insecure against an adversary with the resources of a billionaire, or more so when their hashrate has so declined already.
It shouldn't require 4 pages of bagging, to be intellectually honest and cordial and arrive at an amicable understanding that yes indeed altcoins need to be able to gain millions of users as Bitcoin has, so they become secure against all hashrate attacks. Then again Bitcoin has the subsequent problem which is then how do you stop the mining from becoming centralized control as the adoption scales up.
No non-vaporware block chain has yet solved this conundrum.
So again instead of attacking me (which is not an accomplishment), how about you just get in touch with reality, roll up your sleeves, get to work, and stop pumping your shitcoin down everyone's throat.
I realize you Munderotards are jealous with Ethereum and others making 100X gains, and you need to find some bagholders to dump your bags on, but taking your frustration out on me is not an accomplishment. Really, slaying AnonyMint is not worth even a single fuck. Find a more productive vocation.
(in short, STFU Munderotard*)
*Munderotard
noun
Often confused with a decentralized crypto-currency, it rather refers to a constituent in the community of bagholders and bagboiz whose sole vocation in life is to
convince force down the throats of everyone else that bagging users is an adoption marketing plan for a future-shock coin with regularly scheduled "community" forks leading the way away from centralization to that Holy Banal Grail (HBG).