4 ms·

How difficult is it to actually create a new cryptocurrency? With 14 cryptocurrencies currently floating around, isnt the value of one over the other simply a b

How difficult is it to actually create a new cryptocurrency? With 14 cryptocurrencies currently floating around, isnt the value of one over the other simply a branding problem? Edit: I had no idea there were >150. That's astounding.

higherpurpose 12y ago
Once Ethereum takes off, there will probably be millions of "cryptocurrencies" - o rather "crypto-stock" for start-ups that crowdfund themselves through Ethereum with their own "coin". Think Kickstarter, but where you actually own part of the company, by owning their coins. When the company gets bought for $2 billion like Oculus did, the value of their coin should go way up, too, making the backers' investment worth it, too.
mrb 12y ago
14? Try 450+ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/all/ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/all/ And this list is not even exhaustive. It is dead easy to create one: fork and change a few identifiers in the source code. But to make it successful is another problem.
simcop2387 12y ago
This probably answers your question and corrects something. There are far more than 14 crypto currencies out there: https://coinmarketcap.com/ https://coinmarketcap.com/
nullc 12y ago
A lot of the things raising headline generating amounts of money have not even created a new cryptocurrency. E.g. Look at "Bitshares" by some of the same people behind ethereum— raised money on a whitepaper. When its "investors" later needed liquidity to cash out their investments they did some search and replace on a a copy of Bitcoin to create a "cryptocurrency" which implemented none of their whitepaper features but which would be redeemable for shares in the future system (if it ever comes into existence)... It's in some ways optimal to _not_ create a cryptocurrency for these investment stunts: if they create something then there is something concrete, something with flaws and limitations, something which (hopefully!) is constrained by internal consistency, security considerations, implementability, etc. But if it exists primarily as marketing then there is no limit to the qualities which it can be claimed to have...
- woah 12y ago
  Unfortunately for Ethereum, they have already coded 3 reference clients.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - b1db77d2 12y ago
    Which for something that's meant to be maintaining consensus is a fairly stupid move.
    - aaron-lebo 12y ago
      What you mean by this? Why would having multiple implementations, each having some input by core devs, be a bad thing?
      - b1db77d2 12y ago
        In a decentralized consensus every single node must have the same behavior, handle errors the same way, make the same decisions based on the same core rules. Experience with Bitcoin has taught us that nobody is currently capable of duplicating the Bitcoin behavior perfectly. Many have tried such as bitcoin-ruby (ruby) and btcd (go), but they are plagued by almost constant issues of them having different states and getting forked off the network. Starting with three different languages, three different codebases is absolute madness.
        obscuren 12y ago
        Madness? Tackling problems (consensus, protocol, etc) early on a "stupid move"? You believe that copying bugs (as something you'll have to do if you want to create a new btc node from scratch) is something we should strive for? Having another client to fall back to if there's a bug in one of the others is, again, "a stupid move"? "Many have tried such as bitcoin-ruby (ruby) and btcd (go), but they are plagued by almost constant issues of them having different states and getting forked off the network." This is _exactly_ why you should have multiple, clean room implementation from the start. Oh btw, we've already got consensus with 3 full nodes for quite a while.
kordless 12y ago
Ethereum isn't just another alt coin. It's a bit...different.
thefreeman 12y ago
It's incredibly easy. There are open source projects to create your own.
facepalm 12y ago
It's very easy to clone an existing currency. Not so easy to come up with a genuinely new concept for a cryptocurrency.
VMG 12y ago
> With 14 cryptocurrencies currently floating around, isnt the value of one over the other simply a branding problem? One of the most important aspect of a crypto-currency is the establishment of trust in the distributed database, most commonly by a proof-of-work algorithm. One can estimate the cost of changing the transaction history. The hashrate devoted to the Bitcoin blockchain is 130 Peta-Hashes/second, so to execute a 51% attach you'd need a lot Hashes/second and a lot of money. You can very easily clone Bitcoin, change the branding and start from scratch, but you'd have to either convince the miners who currently work on the Bitcoin proof-of-work to switch, or come up with a new proof-of-work system that is incompatible with the one used in Bitcoin. Unless you can convince all Bitcoin miners to switch at once, your alternative cryptocurrency will have less devoted hashing power and therefore a lower cost of attack. So it's more than a branding problem.
IkmoIkmo 12y ago
It's fairly easy. In fact there's a website where you pay $50 and plug in some numbers (like annual inflation, block mining times, which hashing algorithm you want etc) and they generate the code for you, which is just a github fork with some of the numbers changed. Then you literally run the code on your computer and you've started your own cryptocurrency. No joke that's it. It's the reason why people think crypto will be so resilient because it's just code anyone can run, distributed like torrent technology and hard to take down. What gives it value are network effects, mostly. If you created a superior facebook today, it just wouldn't take off. Look at Google+, perhaps not superior but, the network effects just aren't there even when they on-boarded hundreds of millions of users semi-automatically. There's just no reason to go to a platform where you have 0-3 friends and leave a platform where you have 250 friends. Similarly with currency, there's no reason to buy a currency that only 250 merchants accept worldwide (the closest one being 80 miles away), over e.g. the dollar. Bitcoin is the first big exception but it's clear it's struggling with adoption, there's maybe 2m users at most because there's only about 100k merchants taking it, less than 1%. But that's a million times better than any other cryptocurrency.

higherpurpose 12y ago

Once Ethereum takes off, there will probably be millions of "cryptocurrencies" - o rather "crypto-stock" for start-ups that crowdfund themselves through Ethereum with their own "coin". Think Kickstarter, but where you actually own part of the company, by owning their coins. When the company gets bought for $2 billion like Oculus did, the value of their coin should go way up, too, making the backers' investment worth it, too.

mrb 12y ago

14? Try 450+ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/all/ https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/views/all/ And this list is not even exhaustive. It is dead easy to create one: fork and change a few identifiers in the source code. But to make it successful is another problem.

simcop2387 12y ago

This probably answers your question and corrects something. There are far more than 14 crypto currencies out there: https://coinmarketcap.com/ https://coinmarketcap.com/

nullc 12y ago

A lot of the things raising headline generating amounts of money have not even created a new cryptocurrency. E.g. Look at "Bitshares" by some of the same people behind ethereum— raised money on a whitepaper. When its "investors" later needed liquidity to cash out their investments they did some search and replace on a a copy of Bitcoin to create a "cryptocurrency" which implemented none of their whitepaper features but which would be redeemable for shares in the future system (if it ever comes into existence)... It's in some ways optimal to _not_ create a cryptocurrency for these investment stunts: if they create something then there is something concrete, something with flaws and limitations, something which (hopefully!) is constrained by internal consistency, security considerations, implementability, etc. But if it exists primarily as marketing then there is no limit to the qualities which it can be claimed to have...

woah 12y ago
Unfortunately for Ethereum, they have already coded 3 reference clients.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- b1db77d2 12y ago
  Which for something that's meant to be maintaining consensus is a fairly stupid move.
  - aaron-lebo 12y ago
    What you mean by this? Why would having multiple implementations, each having some input by core devs, be a bad thing?
    - b1db77d2 12y ago
      In a decentralized consensus every single node must have the same behavior, handle errors the same way, make the same decisions based on the same core rules. Experience with Bitcoin has taught us that nobody is currently capable of duplicating the Bitcoin behavior perfectly. Many have tried such as bitcoin-ruby (ruby) and btcd (go), but they are plagued by almost constant issues of them having different states and getting forked off the network. Starting with three different languages, three different codebases is absolute madness.
      - obscuren 12y ago
        Madness? Tackling problems (consensus, protocol, etc) early on a "stupid move"? You believe that copying bugs (as something you'll have to do if you want to create a new btc node from scratch) is something we should strive for? Having another client to fall back to if there's a bug in one of the others is, again, "a stupid move"? "Many have tried such as bitcoin-ruby (ruby) and btcd (go), but they are plagued by almost constant issues of them having different states and getting forked off the network." This is _exactly_ why you should have multiple, clean room implementation from the start. Oh btw, we've already got consensus with 3 full nodes for quite a while.

kordless 12y ago

Ethereum isn't just another alt coin. It's a bit...different.

thefreeman 12y ago

It's incredibly easy. There are open source projects to create your own.

facepalm 12y ago

It's very easy to clone an existing currency. Not so easy to come up with a genuinely new concept for a cryptocurrency.

VMG 12y ago

> With 14 cryptocurrencies currently floating around, isnt the value of one over the other simply a branding problem? One of the most important aspect of a crypto-currency is the establishment of trust in the distributed database, most commonly by a proof-of-work algorithm. One can estimate the cost of changing the transaction history. The hashrate devoted to the Bitcoin blockchain is 130 Peta-Hashes/second, so to execute a 51% attach you'd need a lot Hashes/second and a lot of money. You can very easily clone Bitcoin, change the branding and start from scratch, but you'd have to either convince the miners who currently work on the Bitcoin proof-of-work to switch, or come up with a new proof-of-work system that is incompatible with the one used in Bitcoin. Unless you can convince all Bitcoin miners to switch at once, your alternative cryptocurrency will have less devoted hashing power and therefore a lower cost of attack. So it's more than a branding problem.

IkmoIkmo 12y ago

It's fairly easy. In fact there's a website where you pay $50 and plug in some numbers (like annual inflation, block mining times, which hashing algorithm you want etc) and they generate the code for you, which is just a github fork with some of the numbers changed. Then you literally run the code on your computer and you've started your own cryptocurrency. No joke that's it. It's the reason why people think crypto will be so resilient because it's just code anyone can run, distributed like torrent technology and hard to take down. What gives it value are network effects, mostly. If you created a superior facebook today, it just wouldn't take off. Look at Google+, perhaps not superior but, the network effects just aren't there even when they on-boarded hundreds of millions of users semi-automatically. There's just no reason to go to a platform where you have 0-3 friends and leave a platform where you have 250 friends. Similarly with currency, there's no reason to buy a currency that only 250 merchants accept worldwide (the closest one being 80 miles away), over e.g. the dollar. Bitcoin is the first big exception but it's clear it's struggling with adoption, there's maybe 2m users at most because there's only about 100k merchants taking it, less than 1%. But that's a million times better than any other cryptocurrency.