Quote from: mining1 on January 05, 2017, 09:31:02 AM

~~No, he doesn't.~~ Nowadays a bitcoin killer would have to scale and go mainstream, to become a bitcoin killer. He's just about talks, for years now. The only project currently that really aims to solve the scaling problem is ethereum, all other projects have some sort of very limited scaling.

Agreed.

Quote from: mining1 on January 05, 2017, 09:31:02 AM

The only project currently that really aims to solve the scaling problem is ethereum, all other projects have some sort of very limited scaling.

Casper is fundamentally flawed and Vitalik and Vlad don't seem to understand that blame can't be made in Byzantine agreement, thus there can't be bonded validators (my whitepaper explains this in detail). Casper, Tendermint, Cosmos, and Rchain are all DOA. Can't ever work. They've been wasting all their time and your BTC. But please don't listen to me. Give them moar BTC please. And let others partake of my project and you stay with the age 20-something V&V, because you deserve to reap what you sow.

As for Ethereum's current PoW algorithm it is fundamentally insecure (as has allegedly been under continuous attack, i.e. there is someone who is getting most of the coins which is the why the market is manipulated and not an aggregate market). This is covered in my whitepaper.

Quote from: TaunSew on January 04, 2017, 11:49:18 PM

"Bitcoin killer" is another way of saying "innovative coin" and innovation doesn't cut it anymore. The biggest gains I saw in 2016 were all coins who networked in some capacity, whether it was legal networking or illegal networking. The technological side of Monero and PotCoin are pretty weak and yet they saw some of the most ROI in 2016.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1732516.0

Monero got into the dark net markets. Potcoin got users from the cannabis industry. NEM networked around in Malaysia and Japan and some businesses / banks took them on.

Iamnotback's "Bitcoin killer" is pretty useless and doomed to fail if it's just him trying to push his coin on Bitcointalkers. Other innovative projects, who don't have networking, are also having hard times and I doubt that'll ever reverse.

Ah the NEM boys. I still need to add some analysis of Proof-of-Importance to my whitepaper. Thanks for reminding me.

I totally agree that without an ecosystem, a coin is DOA. One of the critical aspects of my plan is that there is a massive incentive for others to build apps on my blockchain design.

I will let you explain to yourself how I managed to produce a million user product in 2001 when the Internet was 10X smaller, and yet somehow you think I am totally incapable of understanding the importance of driving adoption. It is critical to work with others, but why would anyone want to work with me (except to use my reputation to steal from you all) until I have demonstrated leadership. My health is what has been retarding that process. Simple as that.

Also I think you need to distinguish between innovation that is a selling point to this small microcosm here on this forum, and innovation which actually causes a million users to signup. My past record of success (before 2006) was creating the latter form of innovation. All we've seen from NEM and others is the former form of "innovation" (i.e. useless hype bullshit such as Proof-of-Importance, DAO, Casper, etc).

Btw, your jabo38 was on my inner circle of communication back in 2014 before he left to join NEM. I didn't fault him for moving on to something that was moving faster. He knows I was suffering from health ailment in 2014.

Monero seemed to build critical mass of volume of trading. It is really the only solid alternative to Bitcoin that isn't just a clone. Ethereum doesn't really count as a pure crypto-currency alternative but there is enough interest/belief/hope/hype in it as a radical alternative of the future to keep it in the top 4. Litecoin is just a clone with a few parameter changes. Basically you have the best developers on Bitcoin. The next best developers are on Monero. After that, you have some reasonably good developers on Steem, but they make some of weirdest design decisions (as r0ach and I have said, Dan builds Rube Goldberg machines).

I haven't really investigated the developers of other coins. But it seems like pretty much all the other coins have at most one solid developer on them. So they haven't yet gained the critical mass of developers to compete with those top 4 (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, Monero). Steem would be up there if they hadn't botched the design. Their devs are good.

Dash is a mixed bag. Had a couple of reasonably good devs work on it, but the thing is really a mix of poor design decisions and muddled identity. They were DarkCoin and then SodaPopCoin and now what?

I am not really following NEM closely. I don't think it has credibility. But I will look again more closely when I do the analysis of PoI. Apparently you have one solid dev who is a younger Japanese dude.