3 ms·
Sounds like IPFS. Why do we need an ICO. Can't we just do it like bitcoin and download a client to start 'mining'?
by sschueller 9y ago
Sounds like IPFS.
Why do we need an ICO. Can't we just do it like bitcoin and download a client to start 'mining'?
- wyldfire 9y agoWe don't. But dev teams keep creating them. It's IMO much more appropriate for new coins to make an announcement, provide a whitepaper + source, and start the network at time X. But I can (somewhat) sympathize with their desire to be rewarded. What if someone just aims their ASICs/GPUs/cloud cycles at their new coin for the first months after the announcement and reaps the lion's share of the rewards? While that seems unfair to them, it is traditionally the fairest/most honest method.
- ringaroundthetx 9y agoBecause nobody skilled is going to build this without payment? this thinly veiled criticism of ICOs has that obvious logical flaw. Computational proofs take a long time for the development team to get funded, and this delays go to market strategies. Look at the graveyard of mineable projects before this year's ICO boom, broke underfunded devs with no ability to mobilize a community to fund the tiniest things. Pitiful bounty systems where the payouts can't even motivate the imagined Indian developer. If you don't think current ICOs align economic incentives well ENOUGH, then discuss that particular nuance instead.
- jameskegel 9y agoAlso, mining implies PoW, whereas this is not always guaranteed to be the case. It's my favorite, but it's falling out of fashion, unfortunately.
- pdog 9y agoWhy would they do all that work for free?
- Domenic_S 9y agoWhy wouldn't they just pre-mine a bunch of coins and reap benefits that way?
- joshu 9y ago> Sounds like IPFS Only if you didn't RTFA