Quote from: r0ach on February 03, 2014, 04:54:20 PM

Quote from: physalis on February 03, 2014, 04:49:46 PM

There's a reason coins like Peercoin didn't go for 100% initial distribution: because it's completely retarded. Roll Eyes

Exactly. Hybrid PoW/PoS is actually legitimate. A 100% IPO PoS coin is just a money grab scam. There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to use the latter.

wrong. as a former peercoin supporter I can tell you that PoW was not introduced cos it is fair to give the coins to asic miners ( i can think of a million fairer ways to give coins out lol) ....but cos it needed PoW to secure the network especially in its early stages. why do u think it has been all checkpointed? the PoS algo of PPC was not robust enough to last a week if it started out as 100% PoS. i still like peercoin but its asic mining is everything but an example of fairness in distribution. it excludes just about 7 billion ppl in this world lol.

Nxt has been the first 100% PoS . the first to prove that a cryptocurrency can support itself without any mining/hashing (and believe me it withstood some insane ddos attacks) . only for this it deserves respect....from a technology point of view Bcnext deserves the 21 btc he got for it. and you call that money grabbing? it's nothing compared to the money grabbing i see from some of other developers who just copy&paste bitcoin or all the miners who just watch machines burn electricity and then pump and dump on an exchange (and i did this for an year so I have a clue of what i'm talking about). ProofOfinvesting is a more legitimate ProofOfwork imo. (as i consider good investors a more worthwhile category than miners). if the IPo is conducted transaparently I'm all in favour for it isneatd of PoW.

btw mining is not even decentralized in bitcoin (not yet anyway) or any other current PoW...so miners/ mining coporations have become your central issuers right there.
but that is ok with you to be "the closest to the money supply and who benefits the most."
i prefer to support the developers than the miners.that is for sure. and it is even more fair imo.

and may I remind you that satoshi released bitcoin on an underground crypto mailing list and for months only 20 people mined it (including satoshi who mined a ton)....and only after an year he started adevertising it on gaming forums ......basically once he and his friends from the mailing list had mined enough to secure a big stake in their venture they unleashed it to the wolrd, again everything but "fair".

there is simply no fair way to distribute coins unless you make a global announcement and give equal mining equipment or equal stakes to everyone in the world on date of release.
probably only the NWO would be able to organize something like that....and good luck with their fairness lol.

i think the distribution of Nxt was more than fair...he distributed the coins to those who helped him make Nxt a reality (the investors who paid his bills ).
in his protocol miners would have been of no help...so why reward them? there's no point. why reward you? for what? entitlement? fairness?
satoshi needed miners to secure the network and conduct transactions, Bcnext didn't need them as with his algo the stakes themselfs act as "miners"..
..and bitcointalk miners went up in arms and started spamming the forums and calling it a scam. when the real big scam in crypto is infact mining.