/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>15135792
Shittiest bait of 2K17+2

>>15135826
>Shittiest bait of 2K17+2

i'm guessing you're shilling something super lambo moon like zuckbucks? i'll just assume that. so let's see.

zbux is

1) open: yes [anyone can join]
2) public: no [initially released to a select crew, distribution is fucked]
3) borderless: yes [get it anywhere, it's just erc20]
4) censorship resistant: yes [again, just an erc20 garbage token]
5) neutral: yes

6) pow mined: no [it's garbage memecoins. but at least supply is capped to 1.5MM]

so 4/5 on the basis. not bad but not a cryptocurrency.

but 0/1 on the most important trait of all.

bitcoin has 1, 2, a little bit of 3, definitely not 4 nor 5. and most of these failings are due to 6
pow is necessary until something better is made, but anyone emotionally involved in the status quo is probably watching usd value like a hawk no matter what they pretend. pow cryptos simply aren't usable at scale. gl with your speculative investment opee

>>15135960
>bitcoin has 1, 2, a little bit of 3, definitely not 4 nor 5. and most of these failings are due to 6
>pow is necessary until something better is made, but anyone emotionally involved in the status quo is probably watching usd value like a hawk no matter what they pretend. pow cryptos simply aren't usable at scale. gl with your speculative investment opee

if you think Bitcoin isn't censorship resistant or neutral, you're wrong or you just don't know common definitions.

"censorship resistant" is whether you can make transactions even if someone is trying to prevent it, which you can. compare to libra which can just block your transactions.

"neutral" means that money is money and it doesn't care who is spending it / receiving it.

you need to work on your background knowledge, anon.

>>15135960
>pow is necessary until something better is made

there is nothing that can compete with PoW mining. there is no other solution for provably distributing a coin/token in a completely decentralized way. you consume electricity of a roughly known value, you receive the coins/tokens in exchange. no one can stop you from doing it. no one can cheat it.

>>15135960
Bitcoin cannot be censored and there are no policies to make it non-neutral. It's literally all six of what OP wrote.

>>15136334
>Censorship resistant
>Buy something in a store
>They check that some of you bitcoins come from a hacker's or drug smuggler's wallet.
>Sorry anon, we're confiscating you bitcoins and reporting the authorities.

>>15136458

"censorship resistant" means that i and a second party can do a transaction even if a third party doesn't want it. it doesn't mean it's impossible to get arrested while doing a transaction.

example: i take 1,000 XMR and try to bribe the police commissioner. he has me arrested. therefore Monero isn't censorship resistant.

good logic anon.

>>15136458
>>Censorship resistant

btw, if you actually want to learn, you are thinking about anonymous, not censorship resistant.

DigiByte ist the pure definition of CC according to those rules.
Good to know I have a bag of the right coin.
Thanks for confirming this OP.

>>15136850
>DigiByte ist the pure definition of CC according to those rules.
>Good to know I have a bag of the right coin.
>Thanks for confirming this OP.

Bitcoin was first. but DGB also hits all the criteria as far as i know.

>>15137178
Too bad it came after Doge and LTC who got 2nd and meme mover advantage.
No matter what kind of tech and new stuff they push out.

>>15135792
What exactly do you mean by 1 and 2?

>>15138513
>What exactly do you mean by 1 and 2?

open means anybody can use it. or more like nobody can stop you from using it.

example: wBTC (Wrapped BTC) is not open because you have to do KYC/AML verification with one of the approved companies before you can wrap a Bitcoin

public means everything that happens is verifiable by everyone in the system.

*ahem*
0xbtc

>>15139568
>*ahem*
>0xbtc

why do you think it qualifies as a cryptocurrency according to the criteria listed above

>>15139635
0xbitcoin passes this afaict
>1) open
yes. generate an eth address and start mining or trade on dexes
>2) public
yes, no premine, project announced within hours of contract deployment
>3) borderless
>4) censorship resistant
>5) neutral
3 4 and 5 yes, by virtue of being ethereum, erc20, traded on dexes
in the case of government pressure, i don't even know who they would put pressure on, since there is no company
iirc certain dexes in the US like forkdelta have been pressured
>6) PoW mined
of course. same as bitcoin

bamp because i want to see more currencies evaluated with these criteria

Is link a crypto?

>>15139900

yeah OK.

BTC 6/6
DigiByte 6/6
0xBTC 6/6
zbux 4/6

>>15140509
>Is link a crypto?

1) open: sort of. you can run a node, but can only be a "reviewed node" listed in the docs and in the chainlink explorer if you get permission/audit from the central authority.

2) public: mostly. api data gets written to the ethereum blockchain. but what happens inside the nodes is not public, so maybe some node operators collude to return inaccurate data to your smart contract in order to exploit it. you'll be able to see the bad data, but maybe can't prove it was bogus.

3) borderless: yes, unless the review/audit process excludes some countries. their policy isn't clear. i think they are based in seychelles, so probably trying to be pretty borderless. but they have a literal address where a government could come try to shut them down. in that case the protocol would still exist, but a "reviewed node" from a "bad" country might get its status terminated.

4) censorship resistant: yes. but again, it's all about this "reviewed node" stuff. if there's pressure from a government, maybe they revoke your "reviewed node" status. but your node can still keep running, it just will be hard to find.

5) neutral: for now it's acting neutral. but again, same shit. that could change at any time.

6) PoW mined: no, hahaha. it's a centralized, they did an ICO, and the distribution is truly awful. it's got a very bad whale problem.

so i'd give LINK maybe 2.5/6, which is 2.5/5 for basics plus 0/1 for mining. LINK is not a cryptocurrency but not as bad as libra which would get 0/6.

LINK 2.5/6 (debatable)

>>15140850
thank you for this, this is valuable analysis. i hold link and think it might still moon further. but these criteria are useful for comparing cryptos. badly needed when there is this much hype and marketing going on.

>>15135792
This is the redpill.
If it doesn't meet all 6 of these easily it is a shitcoin, or best case an extreme speculation with very little chance of payoff.
Invest your coinfolio accordingly

>>15135792
Monero.

>>15140888
Look at this kinda cute chick try to reinact a ‘meme’. Adorable.

>>15140888
Checked trips of truth.

>>15140879

this crypto space is ridiculous. Shit like Link moons while worthwile projects die out in sub #200Mcap.

Just look at top 10 cryptos: BCH, LTC, BNB, USDT, EOS, BSV

Ultimately BTC is king shitcoin. It does absolutely nothing as described by Satoshi:
>everyday internet money
NOPE
>private
NOPE
>decentralized
NOPE

>>15141048
>>everyday internet money
>NOPE
>>private
>NOPE
>>decentralized
>NOPE

remember that he was aiming for digital gold. it is expensive to transact, yes, but people are using it for big transactions only. the more popular and valuable it gets, the bigger the fees need to be and therefore the larger the transactions. so maybe in 5 years you would only want to use it to buy a house. still extremely useful.

there are other options for everyday internet money. we already looked at 0xBTC and DGB which score 6/6.

there's libra but that's 0/6 centralized money. it's not digital gold, it's just digital newdollar.

bitcoin is just pseudonymous, not private. if you want some anonymity, you have to mix it somehow. but nobody can stop you (i.e., "censorship resistant").

bitcoin is decentralized. you might disagree because of either:

- "there are big mining pools." but they are incentivized not to get too big and/or not to exercise their power because their holdings and future earnings would go to zero if they tried a 51% attack.
- "there is a core dev team." but votes belong to the miners. those miners are incentivized to maximize bitcoin's value. that's why BCH split off and became mostly irrelevant but Bitcoin still went to the moon afterwards.

>>15135792
Reminds me of coinbase's listing guidelines before they spread their legs for any coin whatsoever (e.g. wtf is golem or maker)

Pre mined tokens are a joke.

Buy 0xbtc

>>15141253
>because their holdings and future earnings would go to zero if they tried a 51% attack.

That's not good enough. We can't build a reliable monetary system with something easily susceptible to kamikaze attacks like that. Besides, what if someone hacks a mining pool

so is monero 6/6?

The ONE, the only. Harmony ONE.

Buy it.

>>15141253
>remember that he was aiming for digital gold.

No he wasnt. This "store of value" and "digital gold" meme was invented by Bitcoin maximalists to cover up the fact that BTC isn't what Satoshi wanted it to be.

It isn't private because FBI can track you by your BTC wallet adress as was demonstrated by Silk Road crashdown.

It isn't decentralized, It would have to be ASIC resistant. Normal dude with a PC can't become a miner nowdays. Its just big mining pools and miners with dozens of ASIC miners that count. Everyone else doesn't count.

Satoshi wanted for you to buy your groceries with Bitcoin not Lambos. I think that if he is alive he is quite surprised how far his thought experiment evolved.

>>15141454
i will consider it if you evaluate harmony one according to the 6 criteria given in this thread.

>>15141438
This thread might as well be a paid advertisement for Monero.

>>15141376
>That's not good enough. We can't build a reliable monetary system with something easily susceptible to kamikaze attacks like that. Besides, what if someone hacks a mining pool

it's not "easily susceptible". even today, still in its infancy, a 51% attack on bitcoin costs like $1m per hour. and the 51% attack just lets you build a longer chain where you double spend, not steal all the btc. what would happen is that during the 51% attack exchanges would hit the emergency kill switch, the rest of the community would also realize there was a problem. it would be a big news day for bitcoin, then things would resume. it might affect the price a lot, might not. we've already had forks and bugs.

http://bitcoinuptime.com/
https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures

someone could hack a mining pool and it wouldn't give them a 51% attack. check pool sizes:

https://btc.com/stats/pool

>>15141577
is there a 6/6 coin that had an ICO?

>>15141463
>No he wasnt. This "store of value" and "digital gold" meme was invented by Bitcoin maximalists to cover up the fact that BTC isn't what Satoshi wanted it to be.

if you believe that, then you never read the whitepaper. also you never read nick szabo's bit gold posts which satoshi was familiar with.

>This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.

go read it. it's required knowledge. doesn't matter if you skim the technical parts. (unless you are technical, then do study the technical parts.)

>>15141690
>>This adds an incentive for nodes to support the network, and provides a way to initially distribute coins into circulation, since there is no central authority to issue them. The steady addition of a constant of amount of new coins is analogous to gold miners expending resources to add gold to circulation. In our case, it is CPU time and electricity that is expended.

this was a direct satoshi quote from the whitepaper, btw. here if your'e lazy:

https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf

>>15141627
I'm not aware of any PoW coins that had an ICO. Maybe Komodo, but that uses dPoW with BTC, not its own PoW algo.

>>15141463
>No he wasnt. This "store of value" and "digital gold" meme was invented by Bitcoin maximalists to cover up the fact that BTC isn't what Satoshi wanted it to be.

>"bitcoin is not gold", blah blah blah

more stuff for your education bro. no excuse not to get at least a bit familiar with satoshi's writings if you're going to pretend to know what you're talking about.

https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/327/

>>15141723
>>15141690
The whitepaper is a good resource but not without imperfections. The "Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System" isn't even truly fungible so although Bitcoin's base layer is probably better suited now to being a store of value, it's also apparent that Satoshi did intend for individuals to be able to use bitcoin as a cash substitute, or he probably wouldn't have given it that subtitle.

Bitcoin has a much larger issue which is that its protocol doesn't scale like Monero's does with an adaptive blocksize. Bitcoin is limited at the protocol level while something like Monero is only limited at the technological level (due to the potential for rapidly increasing blockchain size with additional usage.) The scaling debate is not that interesting to me though since I don't think many people are ever going to use crypto as anything other than a store of value anyway.

>>15141463
>No he wasnt. This "store of value" and "digital gold" meme was invented by Bitcoin maximalists to cover up the fact that BTC isn't what Satoshi wanted it to be.

more required reading if you want to do anything with actual cryptocurrencies, this background from nick szabo:

(you might not know who that is, but he was an influence on nakamoto via wei dai's b-money ... if nick szabo isn't satoshi of course, which he could be)

https://nakamotoinstitute.org/bit-gold/#nick_szabo_bit_gold

>>15141946
>The whitepaper is a good resource but not without imperfections. The "Peer to Peer Electronic Cash System" isn't even truly fungible so although Bitcoin's base layer is probably better suited now to being a store of value, it's also apparent that Satoshi did intend for individuals to be able to use bitcoin as a cash substitute, or he probably wouldn't have given it that subtitle.

yeah, it's completely true. in the old forum posts he would say he wanted bitcoin to be used for not for microtransactions but for normal transactions like people do on a daily basis. so he was maybe about an order of magnitude wrong on that. it will only get more expensive if bitcoin gets more popular. during crazy volatility ppl are doing a mad scramble, so blocks fill up and txfees do a mini moon.

today i wouldn't want to pay for something less than $10-100 with bitcoin. but 1.5 years ago it was like $1000-10000. plus it's super slow.

https://bitcoinfees.info/

>>15136351
PoW is also energy derived and we can produce new hardware to keep up with the production costs. The problem is when Moore's Law comes to an end and hardware might not be able to keep up with producing new Bitcoins. Would a Bitcoin be worth the fiat to produce less coins per block through each halvening event? The one solution was raising the blocksize and consensus for that was dropped due to Blockstream developers not agreeing to raise the limit. That's when Bitcoin Cash was born.

>>15137178
0xBTC also checks off all the boxes for being a CC. What makes it so enticing to buy is mining only distributes the coins while the difficulty gets higher due to the demand of miners setting up shop. Ethereum will be hard to attack after they change the protocol to Proof of Stake. It doesn't matter if Ethereum was pre-mined and had an ICO because the Ethereum Foundation puts funds towards development of projects on its blockchain and because the tech is simply brand new. Ethereum has much more to offer than being a currency of some sorts. It's a platform for all kinds of ideas to be built.

>>15142263
>hardware might not be able to keep up with producing new Bitcoins
Hashrate and difficulty will always be in flux with the market price of whatever is being mined. If the technology to make faster ASICs is too expensive or not available then there will be less coins being dumped on the market, a spike in price due to less sell pressure, and a re-evaluation of whether or not it's "too expensive" to mine new BTC. It's an endless cycle.