3 ms·
Sounds like most ICOs: the founders can buy their own supply at no cost, making all cryptocurrencies that ICO'd (Ethereum, EOS, etc.) inherently insecure and ce
by throwawaylolx 8y ago
Sounds like most ICOs: the founders can buy their own supply at no cost, making all cryptocurrencies that ICO'd (Ethereum, EOS, etc.) inherently insecure and centralized.
This is why blockchains that distributed their supply via PoW work: you cannot buy your supply without proving you put in the work. The founder cannot fake hash power, so the distribution is "fair."
Despite everyone trying to "improve Bitcoin," I can count on one hand coins that didn't have a significantly worse distribution than Bitcoin, which makes them dead-on-arrival. This applies to coins such as Cardano and Nano as well whose distribution was insecure, making them inherently unsafe.
- TeMPOraL 8y agoTrue. And because I haven't seen any proof that cryptocurrencies based on something else than PoW can work, I believe they all need to be burned to the ground. PoW cryptocurrencies are an environmental hazard.
- throwawaylolx 8y agoThat doesn't necessarily follow from what I said: my comment was strictly about the distribution of incentives. A PoS-based cryptocurrency can bootstrap a fair distribution through airdrops over PoW-distributed cryptocurrencies, sidestepping both the shortcomings of ICO distribution and the environmental impact of PoW coins.