Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

talk:why_alt_coin_attacks_hurt_everyone [2018/07/29 01:22] (current)
Line 1: Line 1:
 +I'm not sure this is the appropriate page for this, but I disagree with this article for several reasons. ​
  
 +First, alt coins that are attacked are insecure, and SHOULD be attacked as soon as possible. This is a form of natural selection. If someone can 51% attack or double spend a coin, that means that no one should be using it as a store of value or as a currency, because if someone doesn'​t attack it just because they can, someone else will attack it later on for profit.
 +
 +Second, I agree that coin hatred for the sake of it needs to stop, but in many cases, people have very valid reasons for calling a coin a scam. There are plenty of coins that do nothing innovative and exist simply to make their creators money, there are coins with massive premines that are dumped as soon as the coin gets to an exchange, and there are coins that have superblocks at the beginning, effectively enabling a super-instamine.
 +
 +The less clonecoins we have, the better. In my opinion, there should be a pool dedicated to 51% attacking them on their launch, so that we can discourage the creators of said clonecoins. If they know they won't profit from their scamcoin, they'​ll likely not even bother creating it.

QR Code
QR Code talk:why_alt_coin_attacks_hurt_everyone (generated for current page)