Bitcoin Vs Peercoin Comparison - BTC/PPC Cryptocurrency ...
Bitcoin vs. Litecoin vs. Peercoin vs. Ripple vs. Namecoin ...
What is Peercoin? CCG - CryptoCurrency Guide
Is there a media agenda to kill off altcoins so that Bitcoin can grow?
A couple of days ago on the Dash Nation Discord longtime community member toknormal shared some thoughts about Bitcoin and altcoins. It's shared below in its entirety in the hopes that it'll be thought-provoking to those on this subreddit and may spark some conversation. ------------------------------------------------------------ TL;DR: This post is about an emerging media agenda to "kill off" altcoins so that bitcoin can grow. The (faulty) perception by bitcoin maximalists that altcoins are a deadweight. How they are going to attack us. Why this is a crucial moment to try to kill off alts and how Dash as a community can constructively address it to its advantage. See also #markets [channel in the Dash Nation Discord linked above] where I've posted some observations about the very long range nature of the Dash market VS bitcoin and its prospects. I usually try not to write long posts anymore. But my nerves are getting the better of me and all charts are sending the same message so I decided make this a bit of a ramble. Lately I've been debating (on and off) with the maximalists in the BTC Wall Observer thread (who are very nice people and not trolls) but are convinced that alts are going to get wiped out. I've noticed a common theme in all the conversations that suddenly took me aback - along the lines of "ok - this is it, Bitcoin is now established, we don't need alts any more". Then I saw Max Keiser suddenly declare himself to be a "bitcoin maximalist" out of the blue. This made me think for a bit because whatever one thinks of Max Keiser, he's not a monopolist. I also noticed how consistent his arguments were with those that I'd encountered in the "Wall Observer" thread and other places such as various Twitter feeds. The common mantra was that "Bitcoin can do everything". I'd like to bring this agenda to the community's attention - i.e. that there's some kind of co-ordinated effort afoot to kill off alts going on (even from people who don't believe in monopolies) and offer some tips as to how to address it. Why now ? Without knowing much about the politics, it's easy to see why people like Max Keiser might be - albeit guardedly - positioning themselves as "maximalists" at this particular moment in time. Also why there might be a wider coercive effort to kill off altcoins. You only have to look at the Bitcoin dominance charts. (To find this, go to coinmarketcap.com and find the little "Dominance" link right at the top of the page - quite small). Alts have "eaten" bitcoin's lunch in 3 distinct phases, each of which lasted around 3 years. The first was the "dawn" of alt coins around 2013 when we saw Peercoin, Feathercoin et al emerging and that died off around halfway through the post 2013 bear market. The second was in 2015 when bitcoin was doing basically nothing but consolidating and Dash hit its second ATH on the ratio of 0.02+. The third was the "perfect storm" of ICOs and Bitcoin contentious hard forks when Bitcoin's very existence was in jeopardy. Now we're about to commence a new altcoin dominance rally. https://preview.redd.it/4smbtxd89d031.png?width=1360&format=png&auto=webp&s=583333624bc64cd72c93ca5fc90eeab13794ed97 The "maximalists" are aware of a potentially massive impending "Phase 4" altcoin capitalisation beyond anything that has been seen to date. If you look at that chart you can see we are on the cusp of completing a consolidation which - if sustained - will lead to a new influx of growth. You can also see that the growth profiles of altcoin dominance is asymmetrical - there are very long bear markets but right at the end there's an almost vertical, massively invasive bull market. That's what the monopolists are trying to mitigate. My contention is that this is good for bitcoin. It is natural because bitcoin is a reserve asset that can only capitalise from utility assets that lie above it in "Exter's Pyramid". There is no conflict between bitcoin and other crypto assets and Dash should easily have a 2x to 10x growth against BTC in front of it if BTC functions as a reserve asset in the crypto space. That growth will ultimately find its way into bitcoin, being the reserve. But many maximalists don't see it that way. They see competing assets as draining capital, brainpower and marketcap from bitcoin. This is ridiculous and not true, but it doesn't matter - they are going to start a media war (possibly worse) against alts. So we need to be aware of this and be able to field authentic challenges to their attacks. How to address institutional challenges ? There are 2 core themes IMO:
DIVERSITY (Is an essential component of any market)
ECONOMIC THEORY (Bitcoin is not a natural monopoly)
Most people can understand the idea of "trading pairs". If you don't have a trading pair in the same asset class then you ain't got no market. So from that perspective alone Bitcoin is not a go-er on its own. Side chains, Mimblewinble, whatever technology BTC comes up with, it can't be independently valued as long as it's all pegged to BTC. So that on its own is a dead duck. Then, economic theory has quite a lot to say about whether bitcoin can "kill of all alts" or not. It all depends on whether bitcoin is a natural monopoly:
A natural monopoly is a monopoly in an industry in which high infrastructural costs and other barriers to entry relative to the size of the market give the largest supplier in an industry, often the first supplier in a market, an overwhelming advantage over potential competitors.
Economics What is a "Bitcoin maximalist" ? It is someone who's advocating that cryptocurrencies are a natural monopoly. Natural monopolies are well known and researched phenomena in economics. We can test this thesis against the definition of natural monopolies and compare each aspect of the definition as to how it applies to cryptos. Intuitively, it seems ridiculous that there can only be one crypto but the media war will try to portay it as such. Dash has made huge advances and we must not take our eye off the ball at this crucial time when altcoins are at the cusp of a new growth phase. The monopolists have noticed this "end of phase" period and they think we haven't. Having been engaged in much of this debate lately I've been wondering if I should ditch Dash and go all in Bitcoin as I realised that altcoins in general are at a watershed phase. Is there going to be another bull market against BTC or isn't there ? I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, engaging bitcoin maximalists on other threads and so on. Disclosure - I'm holding BTC as well as Dash. But the truth is I'd rather Dash succeeded and grew against bitcoin. It would be better for bitcoin, better for crypto and better for the world because diversity is a measure of freedom and like it or not, Dash is now one of the significant digital assets. Regarding 1, I will link to one of my posts on the Wall Observer thread. Obviously it is a huge subject and many will have opinions but High Infrastructural Costs Dash has already overcome these as a "barrier to entry". The Dash network hashrate is huge in comparison to what's required to secure a viable cryptocurrency. It has also captured enough of a relative market size to be significantly traded, reviewed and invested in. Over Dash's lifetime, ROI is better then bitcoin. (See Dash/BTC). William Baumol Criteria According to this definition, "multi-firm" production would (and is) making cryptocurrency cheaper. If Bitcoin had been unique in the market it would not have had to compete with other blockchains for miners for example. We would not have had mining profitability ranking that tell miners which coin is most viable for them (almost never bitcoin). We would not have had proof of stake. Therefore Bitcoin does not meet the William Baumol criteria for a natural monopoly as "multi-firm" production has made the bitcoin network more efficient (by demonstrating competitively its inefficiencies) Cost of Production The original concept of a "natural monopoly" was made by John Stuart Mill according to the Wikipedia entry for "natural monopoly". His motivation was that in the absence of a natural monopoly, prices would reflect the cost of production.
1 DOGE is currently valued at $0.00139 or 0.000002196 Bitcoin/DOGE. DOGE has become 5% more valuable vs. the Bitcoin since yesterday, and roughly 5% more valuabe vs. the USD since Bitcoin's price is holding steady around $630/Bitcoin. The DOGE market cap (total value of all DOGE) is $71,123,000 today, with a total of ~52 billion DOGE in existence. The market cap of DOGE is roughly 1% the size of Bitcoin's market cap, which is impressive. DOGE currently has the 5th biggest market cap out of all the digital currencies, behind Bitcoin, Ripple (not really a mineable currency), Litecoin, and Peercoin. DOGE has seen a steady decrease in value this week, losing 40% of its value vs. the USD, and 11% of its value vs. Bitcoin. Alot of this can probably be explained by instability in the Bitcoin market due to Mt. Gox's shutdown. However, in the longer term DOGE is showing strong growth. It has increased in value 315% vs. Bitcoin since it opened 67 days ago. DOGE has strengthened 31% vs. the USD since opening, however since DOGE's weakest point on January 8th DOGE has strengthened 650% vs. the USD! In other news, miners are currently mining around block 108,000. Rewards for blocks won't be halved until 92,000 blocks from now. The current reward is 0-500000 per block.
The intelligent investors guide to Particl (PART): Part 8 - What are the current major criticisms of the Particl Project?
What are the current major criticisms of the Particl project? ... This is the final part of the intelligent investors guide to Particl! The following is not an exhaustive list of criticisms or further areas for exploration when discussing the Particl project but merely an introduction to show that potential problems have been considered at length. I welcome feedback in the comments section and I'll respond to any queries with my own thoughts if requested.
The proposed escrow design feels broken: The particl team with their Buyer risks [100% price of good + 100% escrow deposit] = Seller risks [100% price of goods + actual good] assumes that all sellers and all buyers are honest (200% risk on both sides). In reality though where a scammer is concerned the escrow works out as Buyer risks [100% price of good + 100% escrow deposit] = Seller risks [100% listed price of goods]. The scammer has no goods to sell so the buyer risks losing 200% the value of goods if they do not settle the escrow vs 100% value of goods if they do.
It bothers me this has been discussed with the devs and not understood (they feel the risk of a spite attack would deter scammers although I feel the buyeearly adopter is incentivised to cut their losses and move elsewhere) as so many aspects of Particl's design are otherwise sound.
That said this escrow feature hasn't been implemented yet and changing it requires changing a variable so it's not a complex change to make. This could either be done now in development/pre-launch phase or put to a decentralized on-chain vote for the community. I do think a proliferation of scam transactions will hurt the network and at this early stage this is not what we want to establish credibility for it.
An alternative design would be say setting a 25% escrow fee I.e. buyer and seller take on 125%:125% risk equally means less of a hit to the buyer should the seller scam, a decent hit to the scammer and a sufficient incentive for the buyer to penalize the scammer (paying a 25% penalty to negate any all gains the scammer makes + 25% is much easier to do than paying a 100% penalty). I think this could work.
Another alternative solution to me would be to tie risk to reputation. I.e. Use a variable ratio e.g. 150%:200% but flipping it to favour buyer or seller based on whoever has a better reputation.
The point is that the mechanics of the MAD escrow can be adjusted as either determined by feedback and community consensus, made adjustable via tweaks to the UI or ignored entirely (it is optional to use).
The distribution is heavily skewered towards a minority of stakeholders: Granted the Particl network is still small and relatively unheard of but as of writing the top 10 accounts hold 42.5% of token supply (https://chainz.cryptoid.info/part/#!rich). Granted 15% of this was specifically earmarked for distribution in a second crowd fund stage post marketplace beta minimum viable product launch in Q1 2018 but that still means 27.5% of supply is held by the top 10 wallets. I've attributed this in part to the circle-jerk mentality of PoS coins (which I believe encourage concentration of poweownership over time as accumulation is incentivised) rather than PoW (where constant sell pressure of mining leads to diversification of ownership and hoarding and accumulation of mined coins is not incentivised as strongly as PoS).
This means that until the marketplace module is released, promoted and adopted for use in a non-speculative fashion, buying Particl (PART) tokens at this stage risks entering into a circle jerk mentality and being prone to the whims of price manipulation. When the marketplace module is released, non-speculative usage of the network exclusively via the PART token will lead to natural and organic diversification of ownership. I discuss this in detail here: https://np.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/76ot7k/thoughts_about_particle/dohtasm/
It's actually for this reason that many pure PoS currencies have failed (Peercoin, Blackcoin, NXT are striking examples) but unlike currencies, Particl is a platform with primarily non-speculative use driven by the native token and this is why I believe it will succeed (much like I believe PoS Ethereum will succeed) in terms of achieving fair distribution over time once it's non-speculative aspects are released and adopted.
Addendum: In the top 10 Particl wallets at least 3 are foundation or funds held for claims(people who missed the initial SDC swap window) or portal 1 or 2 hedge funds so it's not like the distro will be heavily skewered for very long.
The legal aspects have yet to be defined/clarfied: Although TOR integration and end-to-end encryption into the client software offers some protection against track down and although the intention of Particl is not to be a DNM, I feel it would be naive to assume the private listings will not be abused for that purpose. Where node hosters/stakers stand in terms of legal liability has yet to be defined. It would seem unfair though to penalize the node hosts for verifying transactions and listings that are invisible to them, much like it would be unfair to penalize banks for unknowingly facilitating money laundering; it would make more sense to trace the actual sellers instead.
The current distribution creates potential issues in early governance: Although 15% of total supply is currently off limits (i.e. locked from circulation), 27.5% to 42.5% of token distribution being in the top 10 comprises a potential oligarchy of interests in voting. The top 100 wallets currently hold 77% of the supply so don't assume your vote (in the on-chain governance) in the early stages accounts for much if you fall outside this bracket. You will effectively be needing to appeal to a minority at this stage for decisions to go through which doesn't feel like the fairest democracy (although it certainly resembles most current one's). To be fair these holders are the earliest adopters, took significant risks accumulating at the stages they did and so their stake in any vote is justified by their holdings in the network. The problem is though that if one of them decided to never sell any minted stakes whilst the rest of the group did then with perpetual supply inflation set at 2% (after year 4 onwards), there is an ongoing risk that a single holder could after many, many years acquire 51% of the network, thus compromising it. Although I suspect this would take decades under the current distribution, it is still a risk. The falling inflation rate (from 5% -> 2% PA) was designed specifically to mitigate this risk by the way.
There is competition: If I think about current solutions such as Syscoin, District0x, Openbazaar; firstly the user interface is weak, secondly as the native token isn't essential to use these platform they cannot piggyback off the network effects of rising speculative value in their token's spot price as PART could (as the value of the token is disconnected from the proportional use in the network), thus any rise in the spot price of the token for these networks is less likely to create and retain investors and promoters in those platforms. In the case of openbazaar it has no native token, no anonymity and to me serves no purpose other than being decentralized for the sake of being so.
zkSNARKs on ETH could mean district0x and SWARM marketplaces and listings gain transactional anonymity but then you would have to ensure the client software running any node is integrated into TOR plus you wouldn't also have private listings automatically either. These features would need to be built separately and could be built separately but I don't see this currently on the road maps. Furthermore these services are built on and dependent on the Ethereum network for their scalability and thus their rate of growth is limited by the rate of development in Ethereum; any problems which affect the Ethereum network potentially affect these dApps and more importantly the manner in which zkSNARKs is implemented will be reflected in these products as well; given a trusted setup (and thus potentially backdoors) are involved along with Ethereum's own embracement of corporate and government mainstream adoption and partnerships, I would be weary of completely trusting that the zkSNARKs implementation on any of these services is truly 100% private and/or anonymous.
Likewise places like amazon could accept Bitcoin but that would not confer the additional benefits of being able to transact anonymously or provide any additional stake in the governing or promotion of the network, would confer the increased transaction fee's and the associated risks of reliance on third parties to provide the services of network, settlement (escrow), seller and communications security.
There is currently a potential future competitor in the form of Bitbay: This project recently came to my attention. Although the privacy/anonymity aspects of transactions on the network haven't been fully explained, merely asserted and I could find no white paper explaining the proposed implementation in detail thus I'm uncertain if their anonymity of transactions and private listings is merely pseudo-anonymity inherent to blockchains. In contrast Particl implements a working version of RingCT on it's testnet which will be deployed on main-net once it is third party audited. That said the feature-set and road-map of Bitbay is very similar to Particl so this project is worth keeping an eye on since it may turn out to be better than my initial impressions (lack of community, disorganized, lacking in finer detail) suggest.
Price stability of the token isn't guaranteed: Transactions are not occurring via use of a stable coin; there is no pegging as far as can be understood and we know how volatile cryptocurrencies currently are. While I do anticipate the value of the PART token to increase with non-speculative use meaning that early adopters (especially sellers) can likely sell goods at a significant discount to usual price (accounting for potential tax benefits available via selling goods in PART), that overall the value of PART increasing will lead to much larger profit margins for early adopters e.g. I might sell you $150 of goods via PART at a rate of $10/PART but say in a months time the value of PART doubles to $20/PART (feasible if there is exponential uptake and use of Particl as a marketplace as opposed to just a non-speculative platform) then my true earnings would be $300.
Likewise if the price of PART falls to $8/PART in a month's time (less likely IMO but possible) then as a seller, if I haven't already cashed out to fiat then the earnings are actually $120. Although I think given the design of Particl, this scenario is highly unlikely. I also believe when the Particl network is much more mature developmentally and in terms of adoption, non-speculative use and network effects along with cryptocurrency as a whole maturing, I believe volatility in price will be considerably lowered. Furthermore the development of stablecoins such as the Marker DAI and DGX along with existing one's such as USDT means that sellers could immediately convert to a stablecoin forgoing fiat altogether.
Thus whilst I feel the design of the Particl project isn't perfect, I think it is much more elegant and adaptable than many other systems and present s stronger case overall. I've not gone into detail over potential scalability questions which I feel will be better answered when the marketplace module beta is deployed in Q1 2018. Most of the problems I've outlined here have reasonable solutions in sight (or one's which will likely evolve in the near future anyway) so I'm really not worried. We are entering potentially paradigm shifting territory with regards to international commerce as far as the implications of the Particl project are concerned and this alone is reason enough for me to watch, hold and stake my PART tokens closely.
This also very much brings the series on the Intelligent investors guide to Particl to a close for now (it does not conclude the Intelligent investors guide to cryptocurrency which is still very much ongoing). I haven't discussed cold staking, recent exchange implementations or any of the number of significant UI, hardware, partnership, adoption or extended technology aspects of the Particl project at length; I feel these are better covered elsewhere. I've tried to make the economic case for Particl and in my mind I feel there is a strong one. It's been a pleasure creating this series and I hope you've learnt how I evaluate projects and something about what I believe brings economic, speculative and financial value to a project.
Even if you don't look at Particl further, I hope if you've taken the time to read this guide, that you will look at other projects in a similar way; i.e. What do they provide beyond speculation?, Will they help the entire cryptoeconomy grow as a whole?, Would people actually use these services casually in real life?, Does this product create a new efficiency? and Does this project retain value or keep it within it's system someway?
With that in mind I encourage you to research the Particl project and other decentralised projects like it much further. This is a fascinating area to be involved in and a genuinely paradigm shifting area of research. The next few years are promising so trade well! ...
Full disclosure/Disclaimer: As of posting I am long Particl (PART), Ethereum (ETH), Wetrust (TRST), Augur (REP), OmiseGo (OMG) Factom (FCT) and Iconomi (ICN). All the opinions expressed are my own. I cannot guarantee gains; losses are sustainable; do your own financial research and make your decisions responsibly. All prices and values given are as of time of writing (November 2017).
Greetings everyone. I am posting a draft of some of the sections of the new website. They are a work in progress and any input on this content or anything else you would like to see on the new site is appreciated! The website will be focusing on educating investors of all ability so that they can understand the crypto-currency markets and make wise decisions within them. Without this understanding, our markets will not be able to efficiently, and with confidence, allocate capital to the true pillars of this new economy. Note: Most of my updates can be seen directly here. I expect to have this completed by the weekend so that we can hopefully have the new site up and running. Even once up, there will be lots of work to do to really perfect it.
Quick Nav: FAQ | Block Explorer | Paper Wallet | Get CGB Main Nav: Home | About | Getting Started | Investor Brief | Blog | Resources | Contact The main navigation categories may have a submenu. Any sub items of this submenu are page sections. Home About
Papers and Articles
CGB's Life Cycle
Frequently Asked Questions
Storage and Use
CGB Accepted Here
Charts and Data
Embedded Live Data
External Live data (links)
Released in late June 2013, Cryptogenic Bullion was designed primarily with wealth preservation in mind. With its accelerated mining period, and fast declining inflation, Cryptogenic Bullion is now entering it’s final stage as an interest bearing, low inflation, cryptographic digital asset.
Wallet download selection
Quick Information section
What is Cryptogenic Bullion? - Cryptogenic Bullion is a peer-to-peer internet currency that enables instant payments to anyone in the world. Its fundamental specifications enable it to efficiently function as a store of wealth.
Energy and Cost Efficient - Our network requires far less energy than generating hardware-intensive proof-of-work hashes. Proof-of-stake also does away with the ~$1 billion “tax” on the Bitcoin network through proof-of-work blocks.
Higher Security - Maintaining the network through the hybrid proof-of-work/proof-of-stake algorithm reduces the risk of the Selfish-Miner Flaw, 51% attacks, Kimoto Gravity Attack and the block bloating that have been used to exploit other currencies.
Coin Specifications - Cryptogenic Bullion is based on a hybrid Proof of Stake / Proof of Work scrypt algorithm. It has a block interval of 60 seconds and retargets difficulty every 2 blocks. A reward of 1.5% interest is earned by those who maintain a savings of CGB, while 0.5% interest is earned by miners who also help to secure the network.
A Digital Asset - Cryptogenic Bullion is a digital asset with all of the properties of money. Like gold, it is portable, divisible, fungible, scarce, low inflation, durable, non-consumable, and a store of wealth. It can be stored in a private safe and yet transferred across the globe in minutes.
Get Involved - Our community is focused on empowering its members with the knowledge and resources required to quickly spread the benefits of Cryptogenic Bullion to new participants.
Updates and News Latest blog information, twitter feed, etc.
Investor Brief $___ USD/CGB Price $500,000 Market Cap B_____CGB/BTC Price 950,000 CGB Total Supply Last updated: X seconds ago
About CGB: Cryptogenic Bullion is a digital asset with all of the qualities of money. It is a descendant of Bitcoin, but employs an advanced security model which is more efficient and more secure than Bitcoin. The problems of today's debt based fiat currencies find solutions in cutting-edge decentralized cryptographic currencies like Cryptogenic Bullion. Designed to function as a store of wealth, CGB's fundamentals emulate the properties and supply of gold. While Cryptogenic Bullion shares many traits with Bitcoin such as fast global payments, decentralization, pseudo-anonymity, and non-reversible transactions, there are many improvements which allow CGB to more reliably store wealth. A critical requirement for storing wealth is a low inflation rate. Cryptogenic Bullion is a very rare exception in that it has nearly completed its volatile inflationary stage and settled into its maximum yearly inflation rate of 2%. It also allows prudent savers of Cryptogenic Bullion to earn up to 1.5% interest on funds left unspent in their wallets for at least 30 days. Crypto-currencies are finding support among a massive and diverse range of participants. For newcomers, a visit to one of the following pages would be beneficial depending on your current level of understanding and intention. Cryptogenic Bullion emulate the properties of gold, a classic safe-haven asset, and also represents a part of the movement towards a more fair and honest system of money. For more details on why and how, see the Fundamental Knowledge section. To quickly learn more about the crypto-markets, see the Investor Brief section. For analysing market dynamics, see the Market Fundamentals section. Specifications
Proof of Work/Proof of Stake Hybrid
Linear difficulty retarget (every 2 blocks)
60 Second block time
1.5% Annual interest earned
Subsidy halving after every 50k blocks until reward of 0.01
Target ~1,000,000 CGB
0.5% PoW & 1.5% PoS inflation
Based on Peercoin & Novacoin
Team: Fundamental Knowledge: In order to understand the need for cryptographic currencies like Bitcoin and Cryptogenic Bullion, we must consider a number of fundamental challenges with our current financial system, and the solutions that cryptographic currencies provide. The world's currencies are referred to as debt-based fiat currencies because they are not backed by a physical asset like gold, and can burden up to 30 participants with debt for each actual dollar in reserve, creating the potential for bank runs. It helps to realize that when a credit card is used to purchase something, dollars are created , and when you pay it off, dollars are destroyed. This scheme is referred to as fractional reserve banking and can not happen in a digital currency system without the owner's knowledge because the supply is strictly controlled by a decentralized protocol. We are beginning, as a society, to understand the dangers and inefficiencies found in centralized systems as corruptions and self destructive processes manifest themselves with no true remedy. As our society looks for answers, they are being found in technological advances which allow us to connect with each other in more meaningful ways which do not require a third party. Cryptographic currencies provide the convenience of cash, with neither the excessive centralized printing, nor the potential for censorship or sanctions which block the transmission of funds. A new economy is forming with various crypto-currencies attempting to fill different roles within the ecosystem. It is imperative that we capitalize these technologies through careful investment to allow for the necessary development which will enable them to be a major part of modern society. To quickly learn more about the crypto-markets, see the Investor Brief section. Trust in crypto-currencies must begin with a basic understanding of how the system functions and how to use it. Technology has existed for decades now which allow us to verify that a message was signed by an individual. This authentication technology is now used to prove that the holder of a private wallet has sent funds form that wallet to another. Keeping this key secret is the responsibility of each participant and this responsibility is the price for the freedom enabled by cryptographic currencies. Every transaction that has ever occurred is recorded in a distributed ledger which proves the current balance of all wallets in order to validate further transactions. Blocks created every 60 seconds containing all of the new transactions are added to the top of the block chain and further serve to set all previous blocks in "cryptographic" stone. For more details on how CGB's decentralized protocols provide trusted security and honest money, see the Papers and Articles section. In order to get a glimpse of what the future cryptographic currency ecosystem could look like we must accept that there are many different roles to fill, and it is difficult for one currency to efficiently fill all roles. A store of wealth, like Cryptogenic Bullion (CGB), must have a low inflation rate to preserve capital and reduce volatility. Stability can also be encouraged if the bearer is allowed to earn interest on savings stored unspent for a specified length of time. A currency, like Dogecoin (DOGE), must have a higher inflation rate to slightly exceed the adoption rate. This provides liquidity and encourages spending which furthers the expansion of the participant base. A market gateway, like Bitcoin (BTC), must also have a higher inflation rate to match adoption so that liquidity is maintained which enhances the access to each of its markets. The market gateway also insulates the cryptographic currencies and stores of wealth from the market fluctuations caused by volatile shifts in demand for fiat currencies vs. crypto-currencies as a whole. For more information on these dynamics, see the Market Fundamentals section. Frequently Asked Questions: Categories
How to use your GPUs to support bitcoins and hinder altcoins
A few days ago, several community members, including several prominent members, expressed alarm at the recent price rises of altcoins. Litecoins, for example, trade at 0.0387 bitcoins at the time of writing, a value which cannot be explained by merchant acceptance or widespread usage. Regardless of your personal beliefs about the technical specifics of altcoins, it is difficult to argue that having three or five crytocurrencies on equal footing will result in a net benefit to society. The HD DVD vs. Blu-ray format war, for example, delayed the introduction of HD movies into the home for several years, during which HDTV owners had to watch DVDs despite movies being aired in HD over the air. Imagine going to a cash register at a Subway, and people being presented with the option to pay in bitcoins, litecoins, peercoins, and novacoins. Consider the immense investment in making software compatible with all these types of coins. That doesn't count the economic cost of having to train employees to understand all these different coins. Altcoins contribute to confusion and people's thinking that crytocurrency is a joke, given that anyone can start a new coin and call it an altcoin. Perhaps Quarkcoins might even have been a better design than bitcoins had they come first, but that doesn't matter. If there is a protracted battle between bitcoins and some other currency, the adoption of crytocurrencies will be delayed or even killed. Further, any cryptocurrency that is sufficiently better than bitcoins will need to be so different that it doesn't look like any of the current batch of coins. Most of these coins even use copies of the bitcoin-qt wallet with a few cosmetic changes and a different hashing algorithm. If you have GPUs, you can do your part to help bitcoins succeed by using the middlecoin.com pool. Unlike pools that just allow you to mine altcoins, this pool mines altcoins that are pumped up, sells them immediately, and pays out in bitcoins. This forces down the price of altcoins, since the pool operator sells everything he mines, and raises the price of bitcoins. Incidentally, the most profitable algorithm is also the algorithm that is most damaging to altcoins, because if enough people join, it prevents any one coin from rising too high in value. Watching this pool operate, I discovered that it even unintentionally performs 51% attacks on many altcoins by switching to them when prices are high and mining huge numbers of blocks. When the difficulty rises, the pool leaves for a different coin. Yesterday, I saw a coin with difficulty 57 generating blocks every few seconds. When the pool leaves, the difficulty is stranded so high that confirmations take hours for the remaining miners not part of the pool. It's simple to set up - just enter your bitcoin wallet address as username with any password. It is also far more profitable than what the people who spend millions on ASICs are making - I made $26 per Radeon7970 per day this weekend. You don't have to do anything except hash - the operator takes care of selecting coins and selling for you. If enough people join, hopefully this could be a significant drag on altcoin prices. If you agree with my view of how altcoins present a threat to bitcoins, consider donating your GPUs to this cause. Disclaimer: I don't own this pool and I don't know who does.
Back for more? Great! Today's article is going to cover What Blockchain is doing in the future.
1. Proof of Stake vs. Proof of Work 2. Pooled Computing 2a. Grid Computing 2b. Blockchain Security 3. Financial Sector Disruption 3b. ERC-20 Tokens 3a. ICO's
A short disclaimer:The following Blockchains are discussed purely at my discretion. I did my best to remain unbiased, but I do own most of the coins that are brought up here. I hold the coins because I believe in them, this belief is not just that they will increase in value, but also that they will accomplish the goals they've set for themselves. I could be wrong.
1. Proof of Stake (POS) vs. Proof of Work (POW). For a Blockchain to be secure it must have measures in place to keep bad folks from changing the digital ledger. When Bitcoin was first created it implemented a solution to this problem called Proof of Work, or POW, which made altering the Bitcoin Blockchain very difficult. Essentially what happens in a POW Blockchain is that all of the Nodes (computers running the Bitcoin client) race each other to solve a cryptographic puzzle. The first Node to solve the puzzle wins the right to chain a new Block onto the Blockchain. Solving this puzzle uses a lot of each Nodes computing power (Time x Electricity), but there is no way to chain a new Block onto the Blockchain without first solving this puzzle. This secures the Blockchain from alterations to its past Blocks, because a malicious Node would have to solve the puzzle for every single past Block AND be the first Node to solve the current Blocks puzzle. Since it obviously takes much more Time x Electricity to solve multiple puzzles instead of just one, the malicious Node will never be able to catch up to the current Block without a massive advantage. So what is this Massive Advantage? For a malicious Node to alter a POW Blockchain, it would need direct control over a 51% majority of the entire Hashing Power being used by the Blockchain. Hashing Power is the amount ofTime x Electricitya computer uses on behalf of the Blockchain (resources spent Validating Requests, solving puzzles, etc). In the case of Bitcoin (and Ethereum), there are literally millions of computer Nodes dedicating their Hashing Power to solving the puzzles. It would take a 51% majority of all Nodes to agree that they wanted to alter the Blockchain before anything could be changed. Proof of Stake, or POS is an alternative to Proof of Work. Despite the terrible acronym, POS is a much more energy efficient method of securing a Blockchain. Rather than winning the right to chain a Block by quickly solving puzzles, in the POS system the Node who wins the right to chain a new Block is chosen at random, with a few caveats. Essentially the process proceeds like this: 1. Each Node that wants to participate in chaining a new Block onto the Blockchain selects an amount of that Blockchains CryptoCurrency toStake. When a CryptoCurrency is Staked it is basically locked in a vault that is untouchable until a certain amount of time passes. 2. A Node with a Stake is chosen by the Blockchain to chain the newest Block onto the Blockchain. 3. The other Nodes with Stakes verify that the winning Node is following the rules. If the winning Node is following the rules, the new Block is chained onto the Blockchain and the process repeats for the next new Block. 4. However, if the winning Node is NOT following the rules, the other Nodes with Stakes tattle on the winning Node. When enough Nodes with Stakes tattle on the winning Node for not following the rules, the winning Nodes entire Stake is burned (deleted) and a new winning Node is chosen to chain the Block. To date, only a few CryptoCurrencies are using a purely Proof of Stake system (Peercoin & NXT). The majority of CryptoCurrencies use Proof of Work (Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum), and a few use a hybrid system of both POS & POW (Decred). Ethereum is trying to make the transition from POW to POS, and their lead developer has cited the enormous amount of energy used for Proof of Work as the reason why. The solving of puzzles for POW is the culprit of this energy use, but Proof of Stake has not been tested on a live Blockchain at the same scale as Proof of Work. Time will tell if Ethereum and the other Proof of Stakers are correct, and I hope they are for the sake of the planet! It is estimated that both Bitcoin and Ethereum burn over $1 Million worth of USD in Electricity and Hardware PER DAY to secure their Blockchains. In my opinion, following the progress of the Casper algorithm for Ethereum is the best way to stay up to speed on the current state of Proof of Stake research, and to better understand the benefits that POS may bring if it goes live on the Ethereum Blockchain. Link to Casper FAQ
2. Pooled Computing. Do you know what the fastest computer in the world is today? It is the Sunway TaihuLight, a Chinese supercomputer that can do 93 Quadrillion floating-point operations per second, also know as FLOPS. This is incredibly impressive, especially because this is the only way we have to perform Molecular Dynamics Simulation, or to simulate what Molecules do under changing situations. All of this computer power being in one place creates an issue though. The issue is that the amount of heat the supercomputer generates while running is enormous, and it is the main factor limiting humanity from building even faster, centralized supercomputers. 2a.Enter Grid Computing! The decentralized solution to a supercomputer has already been achieved with Grid Computing. Grid Computing is the networking of many different devices (Personal computers, smartphones, servers, etc) for the purpose of carrying out computations each device could not accomplish by itself. This idea sounds great, but the issue Grid Computing runs into is that a single malicious computer can ruin the entire Grid of computers that are connected to form the supercomputer, so opening a Grid Computer to allow the public to participate is currently not feasible. 2b.Enter Blockchain! With its cryptographically secured trustless system, any computer can be linked into the grid. And since there is no trust required, anyone who wants to interfere with the Grid Computers harmony should not be able to do so. Currently there are no successful Blockchain based supercomputers that I know of, but Golem and SONM are supposedly getting close. Neither of these CryptoCurrencies has released a working version that you can perform computations on as of yet, but if they do Grid Computing will greatly increase access to powerful computers for everyone the world over.
3. Financial Sector Disruption. In the first Quarter of 2017, crowdfunded Blockchain tokens raised more money for new ideas than the entire amount of capital invested by traditional Venture Capital firms. Sound impressive? This is only the beginning of the disruption that Blockchain is aiming to bring to the traditional Financial Sector of the global economy. From super cheap borderless payments to home mortgages, Blockchain based CryptoCurrencies have already made progress on vastly improving the way these services work. In parts of the under-developed world, services like those mentioned above barely exist or are not even feasible. It is estimated that 2 Billion adults do not have a bank account today. However, with a simple CryptoCurrency wallet installed onto a Smarthphone, an unbanked adult can go from having no way to interact with the global economy to being at the technological cutting edge of global economic participation. The furthest progress being made with the goal of turning unbanked people into banked is probably HumanIQ. Their goal is to allow users to create their own economies locally, and then to tie those economies into the global reach of the Ethereum Blockchain. HumanIQ (and other CryptoCurrencies with a similar goal) has a decent shot at leveling the playing field for folks in under-developed regions. What sets HumanIQ apart from prior attempts to accomplish this same goal though, is that the HumanIQ Coin is an ERC-20 Token. This means they are exclusive to the Ethereum Blockchain. A more thorough explanation of an ERC-20 Token will be given in the next section. 3a.ERC-20 Tokens. In the last article, Part 2. What is Blockchain tech doing Today? it was mentioned that Ethereum supports a Programmable Element in addition to the typical Blockchain function of recording transfer of value transactions. One of the ways this Programmable Element has been used is in the creation of ERC-20 Tokens. These Tokens act like an entirely separate CryptoCurrency, but are able to be secured by the massive amount of users on the Ethereum Blockchain. This allows developers of new CryptoCurrencies to save time and money to get their idea off the ground, as the amount of work to create an entirely new and secure Blockchain is quite intense. This option to use an existing Blockchain as the security for your CryptoCurrency has led to an explosion of new ideas that are all aiming to take advantage of Blockchain Tech. A few of the more notable use cases for ERC-20 Tokens are: The Golem project: With the aim of creating a decentralized supercomputer, Golem uses an ERC-20 Token as a means of rewarding participants for linking their computer into the Golem supercomputer. GigaWatt: Created an ERC-20 Token that will be used to rent Hardware space at their Hydro-powered CryptoCurrency mining farm in Washington state. It is important to note that an ERC-20 Token does not directly gain any monetary value from the price of Ethereum. The advantages that the ERC-20 Token creator receives are: - Anywhere Ethereum is accepted, their ERC-20 Token can also be used. - Their ERC-20 Token is secured by the Hashing Power participating in the Ethereum Blockchain. 3b.ICO's.The ease and advantages of creating an ERC-20 Token have also had the effect of promoting a new type of crowdfunding. The ICO, or Initial Coin Offering is when a CryptoCurrency Team allows a "Pre-sale" of the Coin they are creating for a project. Anyone who likes the goal of the Team can send Bitcoin, Ethereum, or any accepted CryptoCurrency to the Team in exchange for some amount of the Team's new Coin. After the Pre-sale is over the Team opens their Coin to the Public and the people who bought at the Pre-sale can either hold the Coin or sell it. Currently, even though it is not required, a large amount of ICO's are happening with ERC-20 Tokens. This is mostly due to the easier method of creating an ERC-20 Token vs. building a Blockchain from the ground up. As is the case with anything, tons of money being thrown at ICO's without any regulation creates some problems. The biggest issue that many people have with ICO's is accountability. An alarmingly high percentage of ICO's raise millions of dollars and have little to show for it, other than some proof they hired a team of developers and a Whitepaper (paper outlining their goal and how they will accomplish it). Obviously not every great idea succeeds, but when the idea is backed by millions of dollars of other people's money, fiduciary responsibility becomes a central issue. The United States SEC (Securities & Exchange Commission) recently stated that:
"U.S. Securities Laws May Apply to Offers, Sales, and Trading of Interests in Virtual Organizations."
While this is not outright regulation, in my opinion it hints at some type of future restriction for ICO's. I am not a fan of the Guv'ment telling me what to do, but I have to admit if the Crypto-sphere doesn't regulate itself to a higher standard the long, fat, uninformed hand of bureaucracy is going to do it for us.
Thats all for today, hope you enjoyed the article! Thanks again for reading, and please comment below. Parts 1-4 can be found here. ~Matt www.DenverCryptoGroup.com
Debunking exaggerations of the security of Cosmos peg zones. Copy of tendermint.slack.com #cosmos debate between rilly and ashgreen
https://tendermint.slack.com/archives/C1ER2AN4C/p1493093698914392 rilly 4:14 AM (I'm trying to migrate a conversation from the ourchain.slack) @ebuchman I wanted to ask about how Cosmos peg zones compare with BTC Relay. Here is what tendermint said on reddit. "Cosmos keeps the Bitcoin bridge as a separate zone because we want to keep the Cosmos Hub a simple blockchain agnostic to PoW verification logic. If you have Ethereum act as a hub ala BTC Relay, how do you deal with future forks where e.g. Dogecoin change the PoW/consensus algorithm? Also, AFAIK there are functional limitations to BTCRelay as compare to Cosmos Bitcoin pegs." https://www.reddit.com/Synereo/comments/5v00k5/cosmostendermintethermint_might_have_the_fastest/ddztrms/ (edited) rilly 4:21 AM I'm not sure how you would deal with a hard fork. Maybe this would mean you would have to "hard fork" (reissue and recreate) every token and contract that depends on BTC Rely? That is the price you pay for making things "read-only". For these sorts of things you need an alert system to let everyone know to upgrade. Bonded messaging is a decentralized alert system where bonds are used to ensure the receiver appreciates the message (if enough of them disapprove the bond is taken). 4:23 Who does a Cosmos zone trust to decide which forks to follow? ebuchman 4:31 AM i dont think btc relay provides a peg, its just a light client for bitcoin (edited) 4:31 the cosmos bitcoin pegzone will actually be a peg to bitcoin 4:32 handling forks is somewhat unresolved/unspecified. it will depend on the conditions 4:32 eg if bitcoin hard forks, the peg zone will need to upgrade the mechanics of the peg to keep up - its effectively a bitcoin client like anyone else (edited) rilly 4:42 AM Will Cosmos Hub validators all be signatories of a Bitcoin multisig wallet to hold the Bitcoins to back the pegs? (edited) 4:46 Or are these the sorts of pegs that aren't actually backed by Bitcoins, ie they use ATOM or something and hope the price stays in a certain range? (edited) krzysiekj 10:05 AM joined #cosmos. Also, @gxinterest joined, @dthn joined. ashgreen 12:30 PM @rilly Bitcoins on Cosmos Hub will be backed by actual Bitcoins on the main chain 12:31 it is really important to make the software in a way that people even can not tell which one is which 12:32 Once btc on both of the chains feels the same, the whole blockchain industry is ready to integrate into the Cosmos ecosystem starting from any services using btc. (edited) rilly 1:55 PM @ashgreen I'm such an idiot I believed that the "bitcoins" were so pricey at Mt Gox because they were the most trusted exchange. Now I understand what I was seeing. The BTC-IOUs became more valuable than the USD-IOUs because Gox was redeeming more of the BTC-IOUs than the USD-IOUs but eventually they stopped redeeming both. Therefore I think it really important to make a very clear distinction between IOUs and the actual bitcoin in your own wallet. Thus my solution is bonded messaging alerting people to upgrade. ashgreen 1:58 PM @rilly Cosmos btc peg is more than just an IOU. It is technical guarantee that btc on Cosmos represents the ownership of btc on the main chain 1:59 but yes your concern is very important and that is why Cosmos also wants to build a hybrid style distributed exchange 1:59 so that MT.Gox won’t happen again rilly 2:17 PM @ashgreen If you tell us how it works will it undermine the sacred trust? Maybe we need to write "In God We Trust" on these tokens LOL AFAIK bitcoin scripts cannot hold bitcoin in contracts to be released when an IOU is redeemed on a "sidechain" so I believe this "technical guarantee" you speak of is not as strong as BTC Relay. Here you can find a list of less secure "technical guarantees" for redeeming IOU tokens on "sidechains" https://www.reddit.com/Synereo/comments/5hm7xn/rchain_will_not_require_amps_to_function/db36lzy/ (edited) ashgreen 2:22 PM I think we are considering a bunch of ways and you can join the discussion on Reddit. Not a certain solution Cosmos team can tell at this moment. 2:22 How are they different? Pegging by sidechain and btc relay? don’t they both use multi sig? rilly 2:30 PM The problem is that you can't put a light client for a "sidechain" on Bitcoin. You can't make scripts/contracts on bitcoin that execute when your BTC IOUs are redeemed on the sidechain. But with BTC Relay you can have a decentralized exchange with half an order book. The ETH seller can put ETH on the order book, go offline, and people can buy the ETH with BTC, only trusting the contracts. You can't put BTC-IOU on the order book and go offline without trusting the signatories of a multisig. If you have a multisig that is as large as your validator set you have similar security. Thus I asked whether Cosmos Hub validators would all be a part of a BTC multisig wallet. I believe the answer is, "no". ebuchman i dont think btc relay provides a peg, its just a light client for bitcoin Posted in #cosmosApril 25th at 4:31 AM rilly 2:45 PM @ashgreen "Pegging by sidechain and btc relay? don’t they both use multi sig?" BTC Relay might be used by someone claiming to peg an IOU to actual BTC but the closest thing to a "technical guarantee" for a BTC IOU is a token backed by far more ETH/ATOM than the value of the BTC that is to be redeemed. That is probably more expensive that it is worth and it only guarantees the IOU until the price of ETH vs BTC hits a certain value. You cannot guarantee that (during a TheDAO hack, for example) the ETH can be automatically traded for BTC on a decentralized exchange, to force redemption of the IOU before the orders can be taken off the exchange. (edited) krzysiekj 2:58 PM left #cosmos ashgreen 3:26 PM @rilly 1) you only need to go through the signatories when you pull out btc onto the mainnet, the transfer between blockchains, not when you trade and the signatories are supposed to run the nodes 24hours. If the ecosystem including the PG companies move over to Cosmos, the IOU wouldn’t be IOU anymore, which I don’t think is IOU in the first place. It will have its own value. 2) maybe you are mentioning about Atomic swap but Cosmos Dex is hybrid. The trade can get settlement finality in realtime using the hybrid feature (see the github note for the detail). (edited) rilly 4:12 PM @ashgreen PG = peg? Mainnet = Bitcoin blockchain? "If the ecosystem including the PG companies move over to Cosmos" Are you assuming major exchanges will choose to run on Cosmos zones (like Open Transactions was/is hoping for with voting pools) (if you offer them enough ATOM)? How many are interested thus far? "the IOU wouldn’t be IOU anymore, which I don’t think is IOU in the first place. It will have its own value" Yes these "non-mainnet bitcoins" could have a radically different price from actual bitcoins so I suggest we not call them "bitcoins" nor create any illusions or exaggerations of a "technical guarantee" to maintain a peg without a way to enforce this via blockchain contract. Of the two blockchain pegging mechanisms I am aware they both have been broken already and this is with a stable asset unlike BTC. BitUSD on Bitshares and NuBits which I think is on the Peercoin blochain. rilly 4:21 PM "2) maybe you are mentioning about Atomic swap but Cosmos Dex is hybrid. The trade can get settlement finality in realtime using the hybrid feature (see the github note for the detail)." I barely understand atomic swaps or state channels. I'm reading up on that. subtillion 4:43 PM joined #cosmos. Also, @akibabu left. ashgreen 6:48 PM @rilly PG = Payment Gateways such as Bitpay or Circle, the major Bitcoin users or service makers. Mainnet = Yes, Bitcooin main blockchain. 1) If there are enough and clear incentives for the service providers, it is possible that they immigrate to Cosmos. I think faster transaction speed, smart contract availability for BTC using smart contract zone, way cheaper transaction fee, and unlimited scalability should be the incentives strong enough to convince them to join. They are not individuals. They are business operators. If something proves to maximize the profit and streamline the processes, they will take a proper managerial decisions. 2) Yes. You can say that btc on mainnet and Cosmos Hub are different. If a right tech and safe pegging architecture is implemented, the difference between those two should be only a “location” where btc is getting confirmed. In that case, it is not IOU, it is btc itself. If it is not the case, yes it is something different and will have different names with a proper explanation about risks and how it works which I don’t deem as a good thing to use. If btc on Cosmos Hub is just an IOU, I personally don’t put much value on even creating it. 3) Pegging solutions that use a reserve fund such as BitUSD(bitshares), Steem dollar(Steem), Tether(with HongKong bank reserve), Labor Hour(Chronobank), and other stable currencies, these are NOT IOU nor the pegging subject itself. They merely back a certain token’s value pegged to a subject with a reserve fund. This value pegging system using reserve funds can always break down when facing high degree of fluctuations and steady price trend that goes only one way(mostly trend going downwards). 4) Unlike the value pegging system with reserve funds, Cosmos Hub pegs the token itself on the main blockchain physically and technically. If the peg is not guaranteed technically in a safe way and the way people agree to come onboard, I don’t see any improvements Cosmos brings to this decentralized world, at least in that sector. However, if it does, I think it will be strong enough to reconstruct the whole industry. (edited) https://tendermint.slack.com/archives/C1ER2AN4C/p1493420204022785 rilly 10:56 PM @ashgreen @faddat @eudu @asmodat https://tendermint.slack.com/archives/C1ER2AN4C/p1493146086530837 "4) Unlike the value pegging system with reserve funds, Cosmos Hub pegs the token itself on the main blockchain physically and technically." That appears to be nonsense. On Ethereum you can write a contract that is a Cosmos client just like BTC Relay is a Bitcoin client. The Cosmos client contract can trigger an IOU contract release actual ETH when the ETH IOUs are sent to the corresponding contract on the Cosmos exchange. Bitcoin scripts can't run a Cosmos client, so you have to hold Bitcoin in multisig wallets. Am I wrong so far? Who are the signatories? I don't fully understand atomic swaps or state/payment channels but I don't think that matters because I think these still require someone to hold bitcoins if they are to be backing for a token on another blockchain. Atomic swaps require both parties to be online at the time of the swap and state/payment channels mitigate this somehow with a third party. I thought I saw a video of Buterin arguing that state channels were insecure from network failure, but maybe I have it confused. (edited) ashgreen 11:05 PM @rilly you are right. Bitcoin has to have signatories since it doesn't support smart contracts. Think in this way. Smart contracts on Ethereum rely on Ethereum miners, the signatories. So basically every blockchain model has to put a trust in the native validator set. Of course they will act exactly on the protocols written in advance but they still can influence the system. Having signatory doesn't mean it is any bad but rather means the operation of signatories has to be put in an agreed and safe way. Cosmos is working on how to empower the signatories in a way that secures trust and safe. I believe that Jae will write something about it and then we can discuss further about the methodologies. rilly 11:33 PM "Having signatory doesn't mean it is any bad but rather means the operation of signatories has to be put in an agreed and safe way." It is not bad unless you are pretending it is more secure and trustless than it is. 11:33 If the DEX is deployed according to the projected timeline, Tendermint will only have been tested for 4 months on a public blockchain, and DEX will be completely untested in this reality. So you have all the possible vulnerabilities of Bitcoin plus the unknown vulnerabilities of Cosmos. You decided to put a cap on the fundraiser presumably because you didn't want to take on too much responsibility but here you are hyping this thing like it can't fail. Bitcoins are more secure than a peg/IOU token but these tokens can be put on order books and traded faster and cheaper. It can distribute trust for making instant exchanges in comparison with Shapeshift or Changelly (at the cost of privacy?). (edited) 11:33 "Cosmos is working on how to empower the signatories in a way that secures trust and safe. I believe that Jae will write something about it and then we can discuss further about the methodologies." Maybe you haven't decided who the signatories would be. If it is just exchanges that may be less secure than if it is all the Hub validators. But either way exchanges may not trust anyone else to hold their bitcoins. It doesn't necessarily give you better security if your security is better than the others in the multisig. Having many independent exchanges means that many can get hacked without jeopardizing the most secure ones. The more Bitcoins you put in a single multisig the higher the bounty for hacking it. Some of what I was reading sounded like anyone could make a peg zone so couldn't they have one signatory or pick whoever they want? (edited) ashgreen 11:43 PM @rilly nobody is pretending anything. It is just an obvious and simple thing that we need to make it secure and trustless to the level that we can actually commercialize and open up to public with all risks clarified. (edited) balibalo 11:46 PM joined #cosmos rilly 11:51 PM https://tendermint.slack.com/archives/C1ER2AN4C/p1493146086530837 "In that case, it is not IOU, it is btc itself." They should be called pegs, IOUs, or something other than bitcoins. (edited) ashgreen 11:52 PM @rilly right 11:54 pegs sound good rilly 3:36 AM Someone should make a proposal to the on-chain gov to use the validator's atom bonds to back the multisig wallets.
Which coins compete against each other? Is it ultimately a battle that will result in 1, 2 or 3 coins?
So, the way I look at it, there is not room for 20, 30, or 40 cryptocurrencies. It doesn't make sense that people would have that many wallets any more than it would make sense to have that many fiat currencies in your wallet. You'd have to go to a currency exchange every time unless you knew a specific place that accepted your preferred currency, whether it's /dogecoin or /worldcoin or /BBQcoin (i picked these at random from the sidebar, btw). There seem to be several different groups that exist (while some of these are overlapping): improvements on bitcoin, improvements on litecoin, clones of either one, proof of stake vs proof of work, pre-mined, easily mined, etc. (by the way, it would be great if there were a chart denoting the differences). Some of these have real benefits, some are quirky, some have been successful, some haven't. There are debates going on and people involved with each one anxiously promote it in its respective subreddit, suggesting ideas to help with its public relations and adoption. So, while it's great to have these coins with innovative features, each one arguably valuable in its own right for those features, some of them have to come out on top, right? It seems that lately, there is this idea that every coin should be nice to one another, but it's really passive aggressive. Some people hate on /dogecoin in their own subs, labeling it just a /litcoin with more coins available while /bitcoin is describe as elitist and not respecting /altcoins. Maybe all of this is justified if only a couple coins can remain. And which will those be? It /bitcoin just serving as the stepping stone for everything else, OR will it be the imperfect coin that lasts because it was there first (IMO - it would severely hurt other cryptos, especially those not tradeable for fiat currency if it died, so I think we are stuck with it)? Likewise with /litecoin and /dogecoin. Will these 3 rule because they became media favorites so quickly? Or will a coin with something different like /peercoin win out with its proof of stake? Or a coin designed with a specific activity in mind, like /Devcoin the ethical cryptocurrency? As my opinion here implies, I think it is a competition. I think /bitcoin needs to be around and rejecting it is a mistake for the community. I think /litecoin passed the tipping point in terms of price and /dogecoin hit the tipping point in terms of wide adoption. While I don't have any in-depth quantitative analysis, I think that will keep those 3 alive for the time being. I think there is only room for many 1 or possibly 2 other coins to make a name for themselves. Most other coins will fail. Pump and dump obviously hurts the community. /coinye was particularly bad and attempts to make joke coins like that make me sad because I read so many promotional posts. I feel bad saying it, but /franko and /worldcoin seem too similar while /primecoin and/megacoin and /feathercoin are just names people read in the sidebar and won't ever deal with, despite the enthusiasm of the people who do trade/mine it. That brings me to my final point, people who mine each of these coins have a huge stake in advocating for their specific coin. I'm glad people saw potential and uniqueness, but most of you will lose out and your mining rigs are giving you coins that won't be worth anything soon. Thanks for reading! I hope to hear real opinions!
What the h3ll is happening? Kind of what I suspected would be happening: http://www.reddit.com/PeercoinMarkets/comments/2blh0y/140606_broken_support_analysis/ What about peercoins vs other coins? Peercoins come in at fifth place on coinmarketcap. It's a well known fact that both Ripple and NXT have huge "bag holders", which means that a few people are withholding a whole lot of supply from circulating which skews the metrics somewhat. Looking at the exchange rate of PPCUSD, one would have guessed that peercoins were going down the drain, but compared to other crypto currencies actually that much haven't changed. Peercoins vs bitcoins? It's fairly obvious that people prefer to hold bitcoins over all other crypto currencies. This is also true for PPCBTC, which have been trending down since December. Before then peercoins was gaining on bitcoins. This uptick in PPCBTC coincided with bitcoins first exploding on the upside and then crashing. Why? I think it works like this. 1) People buy BTCUSD and make an insane amount of money. 2) Eager to repeat the "smart investment" they sell some of their BTC to buy the next big AltCoin. Checking sites such as coinmarketcap gives a hint of which the next big coin is going to be. 3) They buy XXXcoin. 4) Price of XXXCoin goes up which creates a gold rush, euphoria and pump-n-dumpers of course latch on to this to make a quick buck. What happens next? I think its very likely that people will sell whatever they have to buy bitcoins, when price starts to break out on the upside. Then I suspect to see the same thing happens as happened last time; people making truckloads of money will diversify into other crypto currencies. Peercoin being the first PoS coin, high ranked in coinmarketcap and a lot of happening (peer4commit, Peershares, NuBits, etc) I think will get its fair share of the next gold rush. I suspect it will go up because of speculative money rushing into the currency. Future of Peercoin Peercoin was created to improve on some of the properties of Bitcoin. While these improvements are great for the long term value of peercoins, I suspect it will only be used as one of the arguments for the next goldrush into peercoins and not the actual reason. I should probably elaborate more on this, but I'll save that for another post. The point here was only to share my view that the fundamentals have probably little to do with the price of peercoins right now. I think it's only price speculation that is driving price up and down.
How do you handle being alone for the whole trading day if you are in front of your screen ask day? - Well, I talk to a lot of other traders on Skype and/or Google chat, and I try to get out of the house and trade in different locations to keep things interesting. It can get lonely, but I have a lot of friends and have no problem inviting people over to chill while I trade and it benefits them too cause a lot of people want to learn it and sitting here w/ someone doing it full time is a really cool and fun way to learn!
I'm curious as after the last 4 years or so where I've been studying and watching, I feel I've got a nice KISS method. I did 2 months of full time paper trading to see how I did. However by the end I couldn't handle being alone and stuck in my chair all day. Did you have to cope with any of that? - Yes it is definitely an adjustment. I worked in IT so I was pretty much glued to a computer all day anyway, so it wasn't AS much of a change for me, but I do read a lot and hear a lot that day traders start to go crazy after a while just from the lonliness/lack of human interaction. That's why I do things like this Reddit, and my courses that are taught via live webinar though. Keeps me from goin nuts and going postal ... on myself!
What's your P&L ? - I try to shoot for a $500-1k gain per day and keep my loss days when they do occur to $250-500. Per trade, I try to risk no more than $200-300 depending on market conditions, and during certain markets I will increase or decrease risk if I feel it is worth it. I also have a detailed risk management plan that I use to make sure if I have a string of losses they are cut to $0 within 3-5 days so I can re-evaluate, and if I have a string of wins, risk increases based on my wins so that I can capitalize when I'm on fire and minimize losses when I am in a slump.
Are you interested in HFT ? - Not really. As an IT geek I do find it fascinating that there are applications that can scalp all day long and consistently make money over the long term, but I just do not believe that in such a dynamic environment that anything like that is really sustainable. It would just be way too much work for me to try to develop something to trade for me, plus it would take all the fun and challenge out of it!
With how much money did you start ? - I originally started investing with only $1k. I swung that very slowly (up and down) while saving from my job(s) up to about $5k. I then injected another $5k of savings and started getting very serious with trading with around $10k. Then I lost about 50% of that in like 2 months (lol). The whole time I worked full time and saved every penny I could until I had saved up enough to open a PDT (pattern day trading) account with $25k and also became fully immersed in trading talking to other traders and taking a few trading courses here and there to tweak my strategy. Now I trade that account (I keep $26.5k in it and build it up as much as I can each month then withdraw back to $26.5k and that is how I get paid) and I have a small $5k account that I use for swing trades and experimental strategies.
Are you interested in working for big firms (GS, JP, City...) - Not really. I have debated it in the past but I think it is just way more satisfying to do it on my own. Also, I don't want to be part of the firms that everyone complains are corrupt/evil/etc. For me it is more fun and exciting to just trade on my own, and it is more rewarding because if I decide I want a raise I just work harder and trade better and boom! I get a raise!
That's actually a very valid question. My method of picking stocks or buying/selling really is not different at all. What is different is that I have the emotional discipline to cut losses quickly and let my winners run. Most traders that fail, and I have seen many come and go even across the very few years I've been doing this, fail because they do not cut losses quickly and they are not good risk managers. I have always been frugal and very cautious with my money, and I am the same when I trade.
I trade very systematically, and analyze everything I do with statistical analysis so I always know the stats between each type of pattern I trade. For example, if you look on my tradervue link in the OP, you'll see tags like IFB (intraday flag break), IBD (intraday breakdown), TTB (triple tap breakout) identifying the patterns I am trading so that I can go back and find all those tags and see how profitable they are, by tag. I also very systematically trade with a 2:1 reward to risk ratio at a minimum, so if I am risking 10 cents on a trade I will always be able to make at least 20, 50 cents for a buck, 1 buck for 2 bucks, etc. It takes a lot of self control to actually cut those losses where they cross that level of risk, but if you can do that there is no reason 98% of people could not be profitable in this profession.
Obviously there are a ton of other factors that go into it, and I am still very new so who knows, maybe I will blow up and go insane and fail and go broke, but for now I'm doing ok, so I can only speak to what I currently know.
BTW, my blog is very reminiscent of my overall strategy and trading philosophy if you want to check it out (it's free). I just recently rolled it from Blogger to Wordpress so some of the links might point back to my old blog but all the info is at both places: Link to www.greenbartrading.com
Consistency does not equal wealth. I live comfortably on what I make but I am not trading to become rich, really. I trade for a living because I like the freedom it offers me, being able to work for myself and go wherever I want and take my work with me (for example spending more time w/ family/friends, traveling, etc)
To answer your question, I am very new in this game so it would be foolish to assume I should be rich already. My strategy works so that I can pay my bills and have money to spend on the things I like and the things I want to do, but I am still limited to the money I have in my account and the buying power that it gives me. If I had millions of dollars in capital and $20m in buying power, sure I could use similar strategies and probably make $100k a day but it takes a long, long time to build up that kind of power in a trading account.
It is a common misconception in trading that as soon as you have a consistent strategy you will instantly be able to scale it to become super-wealthy. That theory leaves out the obvious aspects of being able to handle the swings in P/L emotionally and especially the issue of liquidity. I can identify a pattern on a chart and say I'm going to buy 100k shares and make $10,000 in 5 minutes, but actually getting filled on that 100k shares is a totally different story. It is much harder to execute strategies like mine when you are playing with huge sizes. That is why I try to rack up small gains with a consistent win rate vs just trying to home-run every trade and get rich quick.
I don't know much about that field so I don't want to say too much, but in general I think that like many people in this business they are just out to make a quick buck, by selling something to others who are trying to make a quick buck.
Not at all. Margin is only dangerous if you don't know how to use it. If you understand that trading a $5k account on 2:1 margin means you're trading with $10k, but you still need to manage the risk as if you have $5k, you'll be fine. When I first started getting really serious with trading, I actually traded a $10k account with 10:1 margin but I never used more than 2:1 or 3:1 because I just didn't want to risk that much.
The margin is only bad if you let it get out of control. Also, it is impossible to short without margin and shorting is vital if you are going to be consistently profitable in the long term. Most people say shorting is more risky but if you short properly, managing risk with stop losses just like when you go long, then there is absolutely no difference between shorting and longing in terms of risk. I don't generally recommend swing shorting for beginners, only because news releases can make things really ugly, but in general, trading on margin and shorting is fine as long as you are smart about it and you understand it (which is not that hard with a little reading).
Edit: To clarify, most of the risk associated with margin comes when people get greedy. If you have a $10k account with 10:1 margin on it and you dump $100k into a stock and risk $2,000 to make $4,000 sure you could make 40% on your account but you could also lose 20%. It makes much more sense, especially with a small account, to trade w/ a reasonable amount of margin so that you can maximize your gains without destroying your account w/ too much risk. This is also just personal opinion. Whether or not trading on margin is a bad idea really depends on the person. I know people who have 50:1 margin and trade 100% in cash, and people who have like $5k and trade as if they have $100k cash rather than $95k of it being margin, lol. It all depends on your personality and how well you understand the risk you're taking.
Fair enough. That is true. In my experience though I have only in very, very rare cases seen a stock double in an overnight session unless it was a penny stock or something very thin being pumped. In the stocks I generally trade I almost never see that. While I do see large gaps I don't really trade stuff that tends to gap more than 100%.
Edit: BTW, it's worth noting that nothing in the market is guaranteed. I believe that if you trade with the fear of losing 100% on an investment overnight you are, in general, being a bit too paranoid. Yes it happens, and it blows bigtime when/if it does, but it is not common enough to really worry about IMO. Just something to be aware of.
Usually the broker. If you lose too much, they will do a margin call, which basically means they can protect themselves by forcing you to sell your positions to protect their money if you're investing with it.
This risk is generally mitigated though. I trade on margin every day but I am still only risking a very small percentage of my capital on each trade. If I were to hold trades for longer term timeframes, I might worry more about margin calls but still, in most situations you are going to be pretty well protected by stop losses unless the stock is making huge moves of 40%, 50%, 100% etc which is not all that common in the names I generally trade. In my experience I have not seen margin calls until people have lost like 70-80-90% of their account values on a single trade already. If you can't cut your losses before that point you probably should not even be trading :)
ZGNX is a great trader. I actually recently bought 2500 shares at $3.59 average (building on a 500 share swing I held from $3.35 the day before) but like a fool I sold it flat after it didn't immediately take off. I caught the top of that recent GIANT 5m share block buy and it killed my average price so since I did not want to risk $800-1000 on the trade I opted to exit flat when it didn't go right away. I don't really know anything about the company itself but I have traded it several times over the last couple years and it usually behaves pretty predictably, so I like it for day/swing trading.
When I got serious about day trading I started with $10k and traded through a prop firm (as an independent contractor so I was working on my own and only received whatever money I made, no paycheck or boss). I did that because it offered me 10:1 leverage and good trading software (DAS Trader Pro). Once I had the cash built up from that I opened a $25k ameritrade account and now I use that ... I bailed on the prop firm because their software was $125 a month and thinkorsim through TDA is free.
Yes to both questions. I generally get up around 8:00am EST and do a quick breakfast and shower, maybe go for a run or get outside to do something active. Then I will go through Yahoo Finance inPlay (finance.yahoo.com/mp) and scan for any major news headlines (earnings misses/beats, FDA news, etc). I go through the stockmarketwatch.com premarket section (Link to thestockmarketwatch.com and look at anything that is gapping up or down and use finviz.com to determine why they are gapping. This gives me a bunch of ideas for the day. Also, I usually have a small watchlist prepared from the night before, which is prepared with a scanner I use called StockFetcher (www.stockfetcher.com). I pay 8 bucks a month for that (super cheap actually for how powerful it is!)
Right at 9:30 I am mostly just watching stuff. I seldom trade the first 15 minutes only because it is way too volatile and it is difficult to determine a pattern in only 15 minutes. After 9:45 I will look to see if any of the morning gappers held their gaps and perhaps find a couple trades in those ideas. I also have alerts set at various prices from the night before which will be triggering the whole time giving me ideas.
After the trading day, I usually just shut down and forget about trading for a while and then later at night I go back and upload all my stuff to tradervue.com and put in comments/details about why I took the trade, where I bought/sold, if it was a gain/loss, etc and post it publicly on twittefacebook. This keeps me honest and makes sure I am always on my game.
Also, each morning I am usually watching my open swing trades to make sure there is nothing crazy going on with them and I will usually sell into morning spikes to book profit on those and possibly re-enter later on to add back to my full position size.
Finally, every once in a while (maybe once a month) I will just wipe the slate clean, eliminate my entire watchlist, and build a totally new one just to keep my mind fresh and eliminate any bias I have developed toward individual stocks.
I always check to see when earnings are, and make sure that there are no major catalysts coming up (FDA panels, upcoming contract renewals, etc). I also go back on the chart for a year and look at all the major moves (gap ups, gap downs and big spikes/drops in price) and research why they moved, so that I can react quickly if I happen to see something similar happen. For most of my swing trades I don't tend to care much about fundamental stuff (PE Ratio, income, etc) because they are not long-term enough for that stuff to make a difference. I am a 98% technical trader, but definitely do pay attention to fundamental catalysts like earnings and things of the like.
One other thing is I will use sites like tickerspy.com to check the performance of the overall sector, and keep the general market (SPY) in mind as there are good and bad times to swing trade so I don't want to be swinging long when the market is going down and vice versa, in general.
The "I'm cheap and don't wanna spend any money" (aka me) answer is to hit up investopedia.com. Everything you should need to know to get started is there, you'll just need to find it all yourself. You need to learn (at a minimum) order types, commissions, different types of trading, margin, and risk management. I teach all this stuff in my course and it's super cheap relative to the other crap that's on the market so feel free to hit me up via my website and I will hook you up w/ a discount code if you want. Let me know if you have any other questions!
Funny you should ask that - you are one of many who has asked me that very same question and the short answer is I have no idea, because I don't like anyone else touching my money, lol.
I believe through any retail broker (scottrade, etrade, ameritrade, optionshouse, etc) you can probably get a dedicated licensed broker to invest for you while you do nothing but your returns in that situation are probably going to be minimal after the broker takes their cut and also all the commissions/fees and probably a service fee for the service itself. I really don't know though, so that's something you could ask a local branch or call one of the retail brokers and see if that is a service they offer.
I just have never done it because I always wanted to do things on my own so I understood exactly where my money was going and knew that I wasn't being ripped off.
Thanks Joewith! It is definitely not for the faint of heart. I have had many people tell me I swear at my computer a lot when I'm trading, haha, as if that's going to make a difference. For me it is all about the challenge though. I love the challenge and the fact that if I fuck up it is 100% on me, and I can't blame anyone else!
To answer your question: It is not my plan but I do believe it is possible. I actually, right now, make less money than I did when I worked full time, but I am a lot happier because I have the freedom to do whatever I want whenever I want. In the future I do anticipate being able to far surpass my old level of income but I don't expect to be filthy rich. I would like to see my business grow to $1m+ within a few years and see annual trading profits in the $250-500k range on average, but I have a long way to go to get there. Before I left my job, my best month was September of 2013 in which I made $19.5k on a $25k account which was pretty awesome, so I know it is possible to do amazing things with this profession if we just work hard and manage our risks well.
First, make sure that you REALLY can afford to lose that money. If you can that's great! The best way to get your feet wet is to just dive right in. Risk management is key. You can learn technical analysis pretty easily and use it to identify support/resistance levels on the chart. Always make sure that your risk is at a maximum, 1/2 your potential reward. This will make sure that if you take 100 trades, you lose $50 50 times and make $100 50 times, you have $2500 in loss against $5,000 in reward or a net profit of $2500 (less commissions).
Basically, do not assume that trading is a get rich quick scheme. If you do you will blow up your account faster than you can blink. Trading is a numbers game. Manage your risk and understand what you're investing in and always have a plan to enter AND exit the trade. If you trade with no plan you are doomed.
It's great you're starting to invest as young as you are. If you're a disciplined, controlled individual you will find this is a fantastic way to make extra money and possibly even make a living. Check out my website and look into the Fundamentals of Active Trading course...it might be perfect for you for right now. Email me from the contact page if you decide you're interested and I'll hook you up w/ a discount code.
I use index funds as a guideline for what to do in my day trades and swing trades. Most of the professional, full time and well-managed day traders I know are significantly outperforming the index funds. Personally, I don't know if I am because I have not been doing this professionally long enough to have the data to decide. I would say that most of the traders I know are definitely not inline with the market, but are proportionately in-line. For example, if they generally outperform the market, they will outperform it even more when the market rips, and if they generally underperform the market it will get even worse when the market starts to tank. I personally specialize in high-momentum stocks (stuff that is moving on earnings, news, fundamental catalysts), and many of those stocks simply do not care what the market does. They are going to go up (or down) regardless of the market because the volume and the feagreed/euphoria surrounding the news/catalyst outweighs general market sentiment.
I assume you're referring to things like bitcoin. If not, I don't even know what a cryptocurrency is, lol. If so, I don't know anything about trading them nor do I care to. Like you said, they are extremely volatile and way too risky. I stay away from very risky investments like penny stocks and bitcoin and try to trade only things that have decent liquidity, are easy to get into and out of, and that are not going to be too susceptible to manipulation by people with way more money than me.
Yeah it is fascinating. I actually have a buddy who recently randomly threw $1k at bitcoin on the news that Congress was planning to make it a real currency (or something like that?) and tripled his money in three hours, haha. Fun stuff, but way too crazy for me.
Haha! Actually, I only have one monitor :) That setup that you see in the link in the main post is all I use. I flip between the trade tab where I actually click buy/sell and the charts tab which has three different charts on it (a daily, a 30 min and a 5 min chart) as needed. Generally, since I am day trading and not investing, I only care about the 5 minute chart for snap decisions. I will look at the 30 min and daily to find ideas and identify support/resistance levels on the chart but when I trade, probably about 75% of my time is spent on the screen you see which can all fit on a 15" laptop!
I do have a 24" external monitor which is usually what I'm using, and occasionally I'll open my laptop to throw up my google chats w/ other traders so I don't have to hit alt+tab 8 million times throughout the day. lol if I did have a fancy monitor setup though, I would definitely show it off!
I rebuild my watchlist every night and mark stuff that I think is ready the next day. For any given day I usually only have 5-6 stocks that I am watching very closely. The rest are just kind of there as "back of my mind" ideas for later. At the end of the day if something didn't go then I will keep it on the list to stalk for a while and use those items if I run out of ideas during the day, to see if there are any opportunities in stuff I had been watching a couple days earlier. Then I usually wipe the whole thing clean and start over about once a month as it crosses 40-50 symbols because that just gets annoying and too much to manage. Interesting question about the wifi - yeah slippage can be annoying if I don't have a good connection, but I usually account for slippage in my position sizes so that if it slips a few cents it won't break me. If I have a slow connection I will usually scale back my risk and be more selective due to the added risk of disconnections, slippage, etc. That used to happen to me all the time at work: I worked in a lab where I couldn't have my cell phone and I'd be in a trade with no stop loss set (since I didn't want to get wicked out!) and the internet connection would randomly drop and I'd have to run out of the lab to get my phone and put in my stop loss or sell from my phone, lol. It cost me a bunch a couple times, so I started to take that into account when trading.
I also know traders who only trade 1-2 stocks and just know them so well that they can hit them over and over and make money for years. Those are a special breed of trader, IMO, and I would probably get bored out of my mind trading the same symbol every day lol.
I do find technical analysis to be reliable. It is a self fulfilling prophecy in a large way so it doesn't really provide any sound long term strategy but for short term strategy it works great. I use probably 98% technical analysis in my trading. EDIT: To clarify I mean that technical analysis is not a reason to make a long term investment in any one stock or financial instrument. However technical analysis can be used to make consistent short term gains over the long term.
I've never traded options. I hear they are great for reducing risk and capitalizing with a small account but my philosophy in the market is to do what works until it doesn't work anymore. For me, trading equities has worked well so I'll keep doing that until it doesn't. Maybe someday I will get into options, but I have no plan to do that currently.
Haha it's a personal thing I guess! I guess it could be nice to trade the same company over and over again but I like the excitement of finding new ideas all the time and the challenge of learning about different companies and how they behave in the market. I have even traded some companies that turned out to be total frauds and it's funny to me because I look back and see that almost all my trades in them were shorts and when they finally get crushed I am like HA! I KNEW IT!
Really interesting stuff. Perhaps in 30 years I will lose faith in technical analysis as well. Really though, I am pretty confident because more than I trust technical analysis I trust my risk management skills, and they, not technical analysis or fundamental analysis or economic analysis or anything else, are what ultimately make me my money.
Last updated: 2014-01-23 23:41 UTC This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
Litecoin – 84 Million Coins Faster Than Bitcoin Capitalization: 734 Million Dollars. Price as of 12/2/12: ~$30 . Pros: • At .5 billion dollars, it has the second or third biggest market cap ... Compare the two cryptocurrencies Peercoin (PPC) and VeChain (VET). Algorithm, price, market cap, volume, supply, consensus method, links and more. Peercoin Or Bitcoin: a Comparison of Peercoin (PPC) and Bitcoin (BTC). Which one is a better investment? - 1 day Bitcoin Or Peercoin: a Comparison of Bitcoin (BTC) and Peercoin (PPC). Which one is a better investment? - 1 day Peercoin vs Litecoin. Saved by Cryptocredits. 19. Digital Coin Work System Bitcoin Business Bitcoin Cryptocurrency Cryptocurrency Trading Blockchain Technology Crypto Currencies Science And Technology Technology News. More information... People also love these ideas Pinterest ...
Bitcoin is great vary to store value and preform large peer to peer transactions. It is very valuable because, its security was never compromised. Risk it’s ... Why Peercoin is better than Bitcoin. For the Love of Physics - Walter Lewin - May 16, 2011 - Duration: 1:01:26. Lectures by Walter Lewin. If you found our videos helpful in finding more freedom in your health, wealth and relationships, please subscribe to our YouTube channel to show us your support. We also invite you to visit our ... Peercoin vs Bitcoin - A comparison - Duration: 1:45. TheCryptoGuy 14,493 views. 1:45. How To Tell When A Market Is Tradable - Duration: 9:26. Technical FX 37,602 views. 9:26. The person you really ... A comparison of peercoin and bitcoin. This video highlights the positives and negatives of each coin. Donations welcome! Bitcoin:16nw52qCMdL1PrnQVZn6iKT5SoZG...