MarkM,    
if PoW coins are so insecure, why then altcoin exchanges, Cryptsy, Bittrex still exist?   
If they are just "in a wet paper bag on a windowsill of an open window with a big sign saying "steal me!" on it."   

Scams, scams... but what about a floating point number?

This topic has surprised me, because 99,999,999 MOON transactions are quite usual (the current worth of 100 mln is $65).
It works fine. I know it works fine for Karmacoin, too, and regarding some other bln coins.

If you want to test it with Dogecoin, 100 mln DOGE = 64 BTC, unfortunately currently I have not this amount of available bitcoins to buy DOGE and test it.
 


I've googled the subject and have found this information:

https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Proper_Money_Handling_(JSON-RPC)
"If you are writing software that uses the JSON-RPC interface you need to be aware of possible floating-point conversion issues. You, or the JSON library you are using, should convert amounts to either a fixed-point Decimal representation (with 8 digits after the decimal point) or ideally a 64-bit integer representation. In either case, rounding values is required."

http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/04/06/numbers-are-a-leaky-abstraction/
"Most explanations I’ve heard for the limitations of machine numbers are pedantic. “There are only a finite number of floating point numbers so they can’t represent real numbers well.” That’s not much help. It doesn’t explain why floating point numbers actually do represent real numbers sufficiently well for most applications, and it doesn’t suggest where the abstraction might leak.

A standard floating point number has roughly 16 decimal places of precision and a maximum value on the order of 10^308, a 1 followed by 308 zeros. (According to IEEE standard 754, the typical floating point implementation.)"

http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/04/06/anatomy-of-a-floating-point-number/
"A floating point number has 64 bits that encode a number of the form ± p × 2e. The first bit encodes the sign, 0 for positive numbers and 1 for negative numbers. The next 11 bits encode the exponent e, and the last 52 bits encode the precision p. The encoding of the exponent and precision require some explanation.

The exponent is stored with a bias of 1023. That is, positive and negative exponents are all stored in a single positive number by storing e + 1023 rather than storing e directly. Eleven bits can represent integers from 0 up to 2047. Subtracting the bias, this corresponds to values of e from -1023 to +1024. Define e min = -1022 and e max = +1023. The values e min – 1 and e max + 1 are reserved for special use.

Since the largest exponent is 1023 and the largest significant is 1.f where f has 52 ones, the largest floating point number is 2^1023≈ 1.8 × 10^308. In C, this constant is defined as DBL_MAX, defined in ."


If you don't agree, please argue.

I don't say that you must know anyone who exclusively uses Dogecoins.
The question is will altcoiners spend their coins to buy goods or services, or will they sell their altcoins, get bitcoins and use them exclusively?

I don't understand what your point is. Are you from Dogecoin community?

If a business, that has issued stocks, has a very good and promising innovation, patented technology, investors usually arrive.
But if it is a crypto innovation (open source, decentralized), it is available for everyone usually.
In the same time crypto innovation is narrow-specialized in comparison with business innovations.

That is an example why we cannot compare investing in cryptocurrency with investing in stocks.
If we think cryptocurrencies=stocks, we don't understand why non-innovative Doge has $18 mln market capitalization, and we miss the boat of other good "non-innovative" currencies.

Not sure. Not always. We don't know in fact.
"The earliest recognized joint-stock company in modern times was the English (later British) East India Company, one of the most famous joint-stock companies. It was granted an English Royal Charter by Elizabeth I on December 31, 1600."
Stock market is well-studied since 1600. Cryptocurrency market is not, it is very young.

Why do you think innovations can be technical only?
In the U.S or Japan you can patent not only technical solutions as innovations.
And why do you think that technical innovations cannot be implemented later?
Why do you think that innovations is the most important thing?
Huntercoin (HUC) is completely innovative, it is a pioneer of Human-proof, with market capitalization $17,000.
Dogecoin is not innovative with market capitalization $18 million.

Following your logic and your "sh*t argument",  Dogecoin is "sh*t" coin?

Btw Dogecoin was based on a code of one of current Mooncoin's developers.

Drink analogy was not my original point. That is your idea.

I didn't assume to discuss comparisons and analogies, it was not the point of this topic.



Just following your logic, if you believe that some coins are simple clones, is it not safer to use them instead of "innovative" imitations of wannabe colas?

Innovations can be different. In the U.S. or Japan you can patent not only technical solutions.


Huntercoin (HUC) is completely innovative, it is a pioneer of Human-proof, with market capitalization $17,000.
Dogecoin is not innovative with market capitalization $18 million, but it is the gate to cryptos for many people, and has contributed a lot in generally increasing the acceptance and publicity of cryptos.

If we just use analogies, comparisons to discuss some FEATURES we can use ANY analogy which can help to understand us.
We can say that cryptocurrencies are trees. They have some similar features.

But if we consider that A=B when A=1 and B=2 and C=2, we can be completely wrong later, thinking that A=C.

For example, "the long cold winter of the far north is unsuitable for plant growth and trees must grow rapidly in the short summer season when the temperature rises and the days are long".
If we think that cryptocurrencies are like trees, we will expect that they cannot be implemented into market when it is very cold, and that they will rise when it is summer or spring.

That is true for Ripple maybe.

But classic cryptocurrency 1) is not incorporated 2) has no debts 3) has no accounting 4) has no assets 5) has no real profits or dividends
6) cannot be bankrupted 7) doesn't produce any product.
You usually cannot buy goods or services for stocks, etc. etc. etc.

Why should we use "stocks" analogy instead of just calling it "currencies" which they really are.
Let's call a spade a spade. 

Yes, the best and wrong. If cryptoCURRENCIES are stocks, what are cryptoSTOCKS then?
Cryptostocks.com or NXT Asset Exchange are places where anyone who owns a computer can buy "stocks".
Currencies have different features.

I agree, good summary.


DR. ALBAN LYRICS

 Enemy's gathering rumours ignorant spread
 Fools accept them without confirmation
 Hey, you'd better surrender

 Stop spreading these rumours, oh
 Enemy's gathering rumours, oh yeah

 Enemies are gathering rumour ignorant spread
 Enemies are gathering rumour ignorant spread
 Fools take it and accept it.
 Fools take it and accept it.

 Enemy's gathering rumours ignorant spread
 Fools accept them without confirmation
 Hey, you'd better surrender

You don't understand me. I'm speaking about "the experience economy" theory and about consumer choice, not about coffee or hamburgers.
Altcoins are created for many different reasons and things. But we are talking not about for which reasons their original devs have created them,
but will people use them, or not, will people spend them, or not, will people buy goods or services with them.

I don't mean altcoins like altcoin of runners, altcoin of aquarium fans, altcoin of coffee lovers etc.

An example: DOGE was created for fun. The question is will DOGE lovers use Dogecoin to buy goods or services, or they will use BTC alone.
My answer is yes, they will use DOGE.

Unfortunately, if you want to make a successful investment I think it will be too late to invest in Doge when it gets larger than Bitcoin,
if you trust it, better invest now.



Glad to hear that! You're right. Blockchain is the idea!



Have you ever tried to convince people to use Bitcoin, not here?
I've tried. People are afraid to be hyiped, because they understand Bitcoin is not cheap already.
People are different. Some people want to risk with more cheap version (LTC, DOGE), some people want to risk with the small coin.
That is their choice. Higher risk, higher profit. Financial markets work in the same way.

Bitcoin looks more solid, and crypto ecosystem looks more healthy, when there are good altcoins implemented into market, not BTC alone.

Have you ever spent bitcoins to buy something (not altcoins?) I've spent altcoins and it works, I'll continue buying things with them.



What if there are other 100 "dreamers"? 1000? 100,000?
Will the coin market capitalization still be $0.00000000000001 or 0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 BTC?



Are you joking? Since 2011 and you have 1 BTC only and don't have more money to invest?   

I understand that Satoshi Nakamoto's ideas of decentralization are often being transformed now.
Centralization, incorporations... I don't think he meant that. Not security and transparency alone we need, but fairness and freedom.
If you want less "bad experiences" and more centralization, why not to buy on NYSE shares of Visa, Mastercard, Western Union, or small companies of industry, centralized and controlled? Why to deal with cryptocurrency? Again, different experiences...

But if you have studied '08 crisis, you know that even scrupulously regulated and audited giant companies are not insured against very bad experiences.
An example: American International Group with more than 88 million customers in 130 countries.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=AIG&a=08&b=7&c=2007&d=05&e=1&f=2009&g=m
Jan 2, 2008  Price: $ 58.59
Mar 2, 2009  Price: $ 0.52

I don't think these ideas are getting so much pushback, as you said, but altcoins are not mainstream now, and people are pretty worried or afraid to show any support, not "to be crucified".  We'll live and we'll see.

Exactly. Struggling sales and beating small competitors.

I think most of coffee houses were created for earning money, but not ONLY for earning money, there are many different and more profitable ways. 
But we're talking about consumer choice.
Yes, many devs have left development (maybe some of them wanted instant profits with premined and instamined coins, but not all of them).
People continue using some coins, love, try to develop them, currently some altcoins are just like hobbies, and so are some coffee houses.
Some of them have changed owners and managers, but have the same brand and signboard that people get used to.

PoS is derived from Sunny King's code and advanced checkpoints were there since the beginning.
Any coin which has implemented advanced checkpoints is not completely decentralized, checkpoints control can be hacked, or misused by devs.
With staking you get additional coins if you keep your wallet online. It helps network, but in the same time if you are just an investor, or don't keep your wallet online and unlocked because of any reason, you are out of game.
Some PoS coins are accused to be unfair with big staking percent at the beginning.

Please argue if you dont't agree.

This discussion is interesting:

It is your own experience, your feeling, and look how it supports "the experience economy" theory.
Obviously LTC is very popular with the second or third market cap rank, but you don't want to use it, and prefer another coin, it is OK.
You may love BTC, you may love LTC, you may prefer other coins...


A better analogy would be: underlying blockchain technology is water, and drinks are based on water, be it Cola, tea, coffee, or alcoholic beverages.

I regret that people usually tell their opinions that they believe altcoins are "sh*t" and have no future, but almost never try to argue it.
Maybe they have no reliable arguments, or maybe people are tired of new altcoins.
In the same time I see intelligent people here Nxtblg, for example, who are providing real argumentation in favor of good altcoins.

Again one word.
ALONE is boring. When you have no choice, it is boring.
I understand that you love Bitcoin, but why you cannot understand one simple thing:
people will buy Bitcoin to buy altcoins, and Bitcoin will profit from it.
If it is alone, if it is like monopoly which beats small competitors, it is not good.


I've told you already that it is not true and gave you an example, and there is a link in my signature.
But some altcoins are implemented into market a way better, than a coin in my signature.

Interesting analogy, but why wannabe-colas?
Not everybody loves Cola, coca or pepsi. It's a drink derived from the U.S, which is really implemented into world market (McDonald's has made it very popular), but there are many other drinks which some consumers prefer: juices, beer, national drinks.
Coca-Cola is the ruler, but when you want to drink you can choose.
And now imagine that you have nothing but Coca-Cola or Pepsi. Would you like it?

Maybe this analogy is not completely good because McDonald's is often attacked by mass media and fans of healthy living,
but I'm talking about functionality and feelings of customers, not about hamburgers.

In short: people have feelings, Bitcoin alone can be boring, you can get different experiences with different coins and communities.
You know, altcoin magic...

Coins are being implemented into market, payment gateways, gift cards, exchange services, multi wallets, some shops accept coins straight from your hands.
Technically for altcoin holders there is no difference to buy with Bitcoin or with some altcoins, even through payment gateway.
You must send coins to an address and that is all. If you hold altcoins, it is easier to send altcoins than to exchange them to BTC first.

Even if everybody can buy coffee or dessert in McDonald's, it does not mean that McDonald's will supersede other restaurants, cafes, coffee houses completely, Starbucks will not supersede other coffee houses.


Thank you.

It is easy to hate and it is difficult to love. Confucius.