This was one scam, and the mods are working out the details right now but it is looking like John's email account was hacked.

Not sure why this is pushing you to trash talk NXT though. Every successful project will unfortunately attract unsavory types, we just have to be more diligent in the future. You wouldn't consider BCT "unusable" with all the IPO scams around, would you? No, people (hopefully) adapt and learn.

I also don't see the connection between John and Virtual Corporations.

Pandaisftw

Actually, I saw 5 double spends yesterday, each roughly 6 blocks apart. Right now, there is one double spend within the last 500k transactions: https://blockchain.info/double-spends

No one cares if double spends happen to small transactions... but shit will hit the fan when a large transaction is double spent.

I'm not convinced that even if you gave every human in the world (or a country) "free" coins, the coin would succeed. Here is my post when Auroracoin was nearing $1bil marketcap:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=497736.0

And we all know where Auroracoin is now. Regardless of any other problems Auroracoin had, the basic supply-and-demand economic principles apply. Additionally, people don't "hold" what they don't perceive as valuable, hence the huge dump. This means that with any "perfectly fair" distribution, the moment the currency is traded, the distribution is suddenly skewed to those who are: a) smarter and b) have the money to buy it up.

A coin cannot succeed on distribution alone (or community, if you want to call it that) - this has been proven again and again. There may be short-term hypes like dogecoin, but people eventually get bored if there is absolutely zero development.

I would like to hear your side of why you think *initial* distribution is all-important. What if initial distribution was not great, but now the distribution is better than Bitcoin (in the case of NXT)? Why does initial distribution matter anyways - other than jealousy? Is there any evidence that a a large initial distribution = long term success? (I cannot find any) Bitcoin and litecoin both have terrible distributions (worse than NXT), yet they are #1 and #2, respectively.

Pandaisftw

Then let it be enabled by default in the client?

All I'm saying is that encryption doesn't have to be built-in to the protocol itself.

This is easy enough to include in clients. In fact, I'll eat my hat if there isn't a client that let's users check a little box (or equivalent) to encrypt their message.

It's not news? Not sure why everyone thinks this is a big deal. I don't think it's mentioned anywhere that NXT messages are encrypted, and in fact, they are purposefully (by default) made to be non-encrypted so people can choose use to use their own encryption. As an example, the internet is not encrypted by default as well - encryption is built on-top of it.

Pandaisftw

Well, I bring up intrinsic value because I believe that that needs to be accounted for when you make investment analysis. If anything, the initial distribution is just one factor in the outcome (X + Y = Z) - basing any conclusions purely off of this one variable *might* give you the right answer (Y happens to = Z), but more than not, it'll be wrong because you didn't account for the other known variables.

So there's nothing wrong with providing this "data", but, as I said, making investment conclusions based off incomplete data is more often wrong than not.

Perhaps I should do an analysis, but I feel that it would be redundant (well, at least to me) because the cryptos on the top of my analysis would basically be all the 2nd gen coins (Ethereum, NXT, maidsafe, etc.) Are there people who don't actually believe these types of crypto are the future? 

Pandaisftw

Yes, they do happen, but you cannot predict them. At least, TA (which is what you're doing) is used to analyze what happened after, any other claim is really trying to read a crystal ball. So it's nonsense when you say "I expect a pullback", because it really may or may not happen. What time scale is "too long" or "too short" in the cryptoworld? These are subjective arguments that anyone can make, and are equally as meaningless. Look at the rise of Bitcoin's value in November - do you see all of those sell orders? Why would *anyone* sell during that period at 300, 400, 500, 600, 700... crazy, right? Oh, wait, it's because they expected a "pullback", which really did not happen until the coin went up all the way over $1000.

Isn't this whole topic about distribution? "Instantmines" and "fastmines" are direct complaints of perceived "unfairness", because "early adopters" get too much "advantage". When you used words like "absurd profit margin" in your wiki, it's clear as day you're letting your emotions argue for you. There really is no factual basis behind your argument.

Also, I hope you can see the irony of this particular statement (in relation to your arguments) in particular:


Yes, so you're saying Bitcoin has intrinsic value (because it has other uses than just speculative value), and it would be silly to apply this simple analysis to it. I really do hope you know a lot is going on these days, and there will be a paradigm shift from shit-coins to actually-useful coins within the next few years - that's just the trend lately. Thus, yes, as I stated in an earliest post, this analysis probably applies to copycat shit-coins, but does not apply to any coin that has any particular intrinsic value. Just like Bitcoin.

As I said, you ignoring this intrinsic value in every single coin (except Bitcoin, apparently) is doing everyone a disservice. A more solid "analysis", IMO, would be to determine whether or not a particular coin has any intrinsic value, and whether or not that coin is undervalued or overvalued based on that. Statements like "it rose X, so it can't possibly rise Y" are meaningless. Statements like "it will rise X, because of Y" actually provide some insight.

For some reason, you're focusing very heavily on NXT, as if that is all I am talking about. NXT is not my only investment, but I digress. What Bitcoin is doing now is paving the way for other coins, you don't actually think alt-coins will have to go through the same process as Bitcoin did, right? (Besides adoption) Once the legal framework is in place, more people are familiar with crypto, etc. - that does not need to be done again. I believe in cryptocurrency in general, but this "analysis" is clearly an agenda to promote certain coins because you refuse to take into account of all the factors even when it's shown that your model is too simple.

But just to scratch an itch - have you seen the recent developments of NXT at all? Or are you just using what you've heard or perceived from other people? I encourage everyone to actually take a close look at what NXT is doing and not believe what FUD-sters promote, because all of these arguments ("instantmine", "distribution", etc.) are really distractions from the real point - what the ecosystem can actually do (and is doing).

Pandaisftw

When you're an investor, you look at the utility and the future value based on that. When you're a speculator, you just look at price, and try to guess your gains based on that. You're clearly a speculator ("healthy bull markets... expect 20-25% pull back... " "Can you reasonably expect..." -- Who knows?) Again, your analysis too simple, and I'm afraid that actually a lot of people may think this way.

What correlation does any coin's value going up 10x have with it's value going up X% in the past? (Hint: Zero.) The current "market price" is exactly that, the balance between information, speculation and risk.

Also, I would like to point out that "a long time ago" is completely relative. If I were investing in the stock market, I'd say Bitcoin was a scam (according to your definition), because no way someone could make 500-5000x in 5 years. And if you're going to bring the distribution up...

http://bitcoinrichlist.com/charts/bitcoin-distribution-by-address?atblock=295000

~2000 accounts hold 50% of all bitcoins (valued at ~$3bil USD). That's 0.1% of accounts (not counting <0.0001 balance) holding 50% of all bitcoins. So I don't think the distribution argument is particularly valid to begin with.

I see, in addition to ignoring my previous post, your main motivation for "dislliking" PoS coins is because you missed the boat on all of them? (Or perhaps invested in the wrong ones?)

Otherwise, I can't see why you're bringing up the % the initial investors made... In fact, it's irrelevant now (if not, tell me how it's relevant, I'm interested in hearing your excuse).

Of course I/we take issue with your "analysis" because we (mainly those involved with PoS projects) understand that not-instantmine/instantmine is too simplistic. I'm sure this works perfectly for copycat PoW coins, because all you can do on these coins is basically mine them, and that's it. What was the last "slow-mined" PoW coin that did something revolutionary Bitcoin has not done? Looking at the top 20 on CMK... that list is basically zero - maybe namecoin, but it's already outdated.

You're talking about "investments", which includes both minable and non-minable coins. If you're going to lump all PoS coins into the "instantmine" section (when in reality, there is no "mining" in PoS), you're doing everyone who follows your analysis a disservice. Understandably, this is what the topic is about, but IMO, it's flawed, and that will become apparent in the future. I would say that people are getting tired of buying coins whose only feature is that they can be slowly mined and do nothing else but generate profit for the miners. The market will be shifting to doing useful work (and already is, look at maidsafe) and more efficient work. Distribution is important, but it's no longer the sole determining factor in a coin's success.

Anyways, not hating on your analysis, but again, IMO it's too simplistic to take seriously.

Pandaisftw

The issue is that the OP's "good/bad investment" is based off of a single variable - initial distribution. Obviously, this assumes that the coin is only ever used for a store of value and/or to trade, and never for any other purpose (ie. colored coins). The OP assumes that these coins have pretty much zero intrinsic value - because if they had some intrinsic value then initial distribution cannot be the sole determining factor in whether it is a good investment or not.

Not gonna lie, it seems that you are extremely jaded (perhaps from being scammed one too many times?)

That's why I only invest in people who have a reputation, otherwise you take that 99% risk of being scammed.

I was hesitant to comment, because sussex scaring off other investors is good for my investment, but this made me laugh

Hah, that's actually pretty funny

Keep up the good work!

Pandaisftw

Interesting, I really like this idea. Useful work instead of performing wasted computations is definitely going in the right direction.

What are some use-cases for this? For example, if I owned a company, I would still want internal data storage within my company, if anything, to save costs on bandwidth. The only applications I can think of (right now) for this kind of distributed storage is similar to what I would upload to dropbox, which is free up to a certain point. And, I suppose, for those concerned about censorship.

Pandaisftw

I should also mention, do not send NXT to that address from an account that has a considerable sum because NXT and Nxn pass phrases are the same. If anything, make new NXT account, send funds to it, then send funds to the IPO...

I really appreciated the "soft" deadline for the IPO. Now no one can complain the IPO wasn't long enough, because they can still invest today.

Very nice, I like the 10% bonus

http://thesaurus.com/browse/simple

Cakecoin?