3 ms·
That doesn't discount the fact you are involved in yet another ICO. Cryptocurency integration and identity within IPFS could have been done without a new coin.
by throwawayico 9y ago
That doesn't discount the fact you are involved in yet another ICO. Cryptocurency integration and identity within IPFS could have been done without a new coin. I know you know this, yet you choose to do it anyway. That means we should question your intentions, across all your projects.
And, just for the record, a cryptocurrency fund raise is simply selling access to given private/public key pairs which contain values, like a database. Even hardened by mining, these values and keys are intrinsically worthless until they are used widely for something valuable. It's when convincing someone it's "valuable because you think it is" that it gets "tricky".
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- whyrusleeping 9y ago> Cryptocurency integration and identity within IPFS could have been done without a new coin I don't think thats a fair claim to make. There are many attacks on 'pay for distributed storage' that Filecoin addresses. Take a look at [the paper](https://filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf https://filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf), in particular section 3.1 where we discuss sybil attacks, Outsourcing attacks, and generation attacks. We cover a lot of cases, and build in incentives to continually increase the amount of available storage and push down the price-per-byte. If we thought it was possible to properly incentivize data storage on ipfs without building a blockchain, we would have done so.
- rklaehn 9y agoI don't get all the hatred for ICOs. Nobody is forcing anybody to invest in them, and for something like filecoin there is at least a chance of something extremely useful coming out of it. Many other ICOs seem pretty strange to me, but as long as I am not forced to invest in them, what's the problem?
- nileshtrivedi 9y agoCan't say so if it is a Ponzi scheme.