I added a list of coins that I've investigated and given a score of 0 to, and a list of coins that I haven't investigated yet. I'll look into the uninvestigated ones as I have time.
Would be interesting to have a score for BTC. Do you dare to give one?
These scores are basically how much I think that the coin has advanced the field of cryptocurrency through its innovations. Therefore, the scores don't decay over time. When Bitcoin was first created, I define it as having a score of 100. Now, it has advanced even more, so I'll give it a current score of 106.
I'm not trying to give an "overall technical quality" score here. I don't think that such a score would be all that useful, since anyone can create a "high-quality" altcoin by just cloning Bitcoin (probably with a few minor tweaks). Maybe such coins could survive, and in some cases you might even make money from them, but I don't find them interesting.
agree on all points except monero would get .1 for unlimited supply
That's not a factor that I'm evaluating here.
Incorrect. It has a horrible
historical record
as proven by Andrew Miller a widely respected cryptographer.
As for the increase in minimum ring signature mixin level, the Cryptonote upgrade to RingCT, and the 2014 MNL-001 Monero labs research report, that was all rebutted
in great detail.
I am aware of all of those potential attacks, and I mentioned in my post that Monero is not the black box that it is often assumed to be. (And I went into more detail
here.) But despite those issues, Monero is typically far better than any Bitcoin mixer, for example.
I mentioned that zcash is theoretically more anonymous than Monero, but its software is basically unusable for most people right now.
I'm surprised to see you promoting such a scam:
That criticism of IOTA may ultimately be correct, but it's not clear to me. It mentions facts about IOTA which I already know, and then claims that this obviously makes IOTA broken. I am
not convinced that IOTA is convergent, which is why I only gave it a score of 0.1, but it strikes me as
possible, and a good area for research.
Someone should create an IOTA simulation where there's double-spending attempts, latency, etc. with no coordinators and a large volume of transactions.
And yet can someone explain to me why doge received zero in this ranking?
It's just a clone of Bitcoin with slightly different parameters. Possibly useful in some cases, but it lacks any new tech.
What is the reason you are suddenly putting so much effort into investigating multiple altcoins?
I was thinking of creating a cryptocoin index based on my scores, and see how it'd compare to equal-weight / market-cap-weight / BTC-only indexes. Equal-weight or market-cap-weight indexes massively underweight BTC IMO due to treating no-innovation pump-and-dump coins too seriously. I don't know at this point whether technical merit actually helps the price at all, but it might; personally, I would be very reluctant to invest long-term in something with no real innovation like Dogecoin.