Other Coins - Price & Trading topic

If there is no economic incentive by the node operators to cheat the network even if they are not getting supplemented with rewards then it should be fine.
Coin holders by default have economic incentive to secure the network and so a voting weight by token holders that delegates reps to secure the network I believe is a fine solution. Check out ORV consensus model.

1 Like

Any link where I can read about it?

1 Like

The danger in this type of system comes from the concept of ‘coin holders’ which doesn’t distinguish between owning a coin and controlling a coin, so funds, exchanges, institutions, etc, borrow other peoples coins then cast the votes on behalf of those coins for some form of theft, maybe non competitive fees, maybe inflation, or whatever else, and have the proceeds paid to the current holders (themselves) rather than the coins true owners, when this is possible the ‘coin holders’ model of incentives is broken.

3 Likes

artworks-000539258607-ryaqts-t500x500

2 Likes

@drehb Sorry, that went over my ignorant head, i even heard the whoosh.

Can you elaborate please

Sorry. It is Andreas’ #1 rule in crypto. I posted it because the previous post was talking about issues with proof of stake due to institutions (exchanges etc) controlling people’s coins. So, seemed like a good opportunity to repeat this mantra because if it was followed the “problem” wouldn’t really exist.
By the way, did everybody do proof of keys last week?

3 Likes
3 Likes

So the solution is to buy it anonymously. In fact, it is basic good behavior, to pay for everything you do in cash and have as low digital purchase history as possible.

4 Likes

Exchanges are coin holders and also have economic incentive to keep the network secure. Even if they do not “own” the coins. They have a business to run and require proper management of the ecosystem. Exchanges also do not hold the majority of other peoples funds, I would say a maximum of 30% is what it will be and eventually decrease as easier non-cusodial methods are developed. The ORV model does not allow reps with huge voting weight to double spend or steal funds, it only allows them to add or not add transactions to the network. If that happens then coin holders simply switch there voting weight to another rep.

The problem you have stated is no different to the idea of giving trust to someone else to hold your funds like an Exchange does.

NOTE: Every Holder can choose there own rep, if one decides to not process tx’s then they can choose another one.

1 Like

The Open Representative Voting (ORV) model does nothing to solve the problem that results from conflating ‘owners’ and ‘controllers’ and calling them all ‘holders’, whoever controls the coins at any given moment gets to choose the representative. The problem is not double spends but rather that a concentrated group can change the rules such that they gain at the expense of the more numerous but less organised users. There is a limit to how much time the average small coin owner is willing to spend keeping track of network politics and security, so such a group can borrow a lot of coins by offering to pay interest, then use those coins votes to change the rules and inflate the coin supply which they then pay to themselves.

In a ‘proof of work’ system placing coins on an exchange puts you at risk of having those coins stolen but it doesn’t enable the exchange to change the networks rules like it does in a PoS or ORV system.

Yes everything has trade offs.

ORV is my preference and there has been no successful attack on changing the network rules in 3-4 years of its existence. Yes we can all play theoretical s, but reality is reality and what works today works for me.

You could think of it in a positive way, If there is to much concentration of wealth in the hands of a few the network implodes, like a self destruct mechanism to maintain equality. (POS or ORV)

By the way, if you try and purchase lets says 30% of the nano supply on the market you will be paying at exponential amounts as its limited/no inflation.

So the risk is custodial storage yes I agree! Its basically a network rule to keep the network from becoming a bank.

ORV + POW for tx preferences is simple and beautiful in my eyes. no fees, instant confirms, no inflation Its not just a marketing gimmick because it actually is real.

Value Transfer - Nano
Highly programmable money - ethereum
Private transfer Monero
Liquidity and infrastructure support - BTC

That is all, choose one of those for your needs and you can’t go wrong.

Up for grabs 0.75 NANO voucher first come first serve to try out (Around 50 cents )
https://heytip.me/?claim=fetsb9949 Test it.

Update: Redeemed

1 Like

Just for fun.

Will this run break 10K within the next 7 days.

  • Yes
  • No
  • It’s going to crumble

0 voters

4 Likes

My head says No but my heart says Yes Yes Yes

5 Likes

21 posts were split to a new topic: Is Craig Wright Satoshi?


crap, this could get nasty …

2 Likes

Yeh dang. First time I’ve seen maid drop below rank 100. Super rough.

1 Like

It fell to about 125 in 2017/2018, IIRC.

7 Likes

Yeah and around PARSEC announcement it shot right up. Just wait till the network is live and has been around a couple years. There are crypto OG’s invested in this project and once Safecoin is live I think they will have more interest in seeing it reach widespread adoption like they have with bitcoin.

15 Likes

And even that is probably not true.
From here:

Cloudcroft, Wright’s company, also claimed to have partnered with Silicon Graphics International, a high-performance computing firm that was subsequently acquired by Hewlett-Packard, to develop two supercomputers which are listed among the world’s top 500. But SGI denied that Cloudcroft was a customer and said it had no record of the C01N supercomputer.

Also not mentioned here:

2 Likes

You never know, its up to 9,100 in 4 days. Approx 10% rise from here needed.

It looks like it’ll break by months end, but you could see it break 10K in 3 days even if it drops back

4 Likes