The best initial distribution of an alt is to take the snapshot of bitcoin blockchain at a particular point of time and enable holders of these bitcoins to receive this altcoins, in proportion to their bitcoin holdings.
No ICO is good, but what is the initial distribution proposed?

I don't believe the insiders didn't get a lot of tokens. Prove it with math and/or the block chain. How were these "stakeholders" selected? Why were they able to coins but not others? How do we know these "stakeholders" are not Sybils identities for the insiders?

Almost always there is some deception that enriches the insiders and always the market to manipulated (which may explain NEM's rising price if the supply was largely concentrated into a few hands). Not an accusation, but I will assume it is true until shown otherwise, because every single altcoin launch has had some deception.


Which I had explained in the past is just Proof-of-Stake under an obfuscation.

Someone else seems to have figured it out also:

XEM's 'Proof of Importance' is Pagerank Fused With Proof-of-Stake


Proof-of-Stake is inherently a voting system.


Please don't gloat. I was aware of NEM since last year. jabo38 used to be in my inner circle in 2014. He already knows that I refuted a lot of the bogus claims about Proof-of-Importance. He and I agreed to not argue about it. But since you seem to want to claim that PoI is a panacea for everything, then I guess I am going to have to deal with this now.

Edit: I will redo/refresh my study of Proof-of-Importance, then expound on this.

Edit#2: Proof-of-Importance is just Proof-of-Stake. Sorry BigSirko, but you have no technical knowledge about what you are writing. NEW hasn't solved the IDEALs in this thread. Not even close.

I have such technology under development.

so you wanna be funded?
you may wanna just join a team instead and with their existing coin if possible, you wouldn't need more funds but just an update to the coin. and you still have the legacy still.

Well this thread is not supposed to be just about my plans, instead in general.

In general, joining any existing coin would take on all their already flawed distribution (ICOs and deceptions) or lack of developer funding (e.g. fair launch proof-of-work).

Besides, who ever solves these ideals has achieved the Holy Grail of block chains, and can expect to raise a lot of funds on their own. If that were not the case, then there is no hope for block chains to ever achieve the ideals we originally had.

I am not offended as much as frustrated. I don't know how to teach all of you what I know. I try but it seems there is a never ending stream of newbies or misunderstandings.

Also I did thank you and I did apologize in advance if I was overreacting.

It is really just about us being able to understand each other. If we can articulate coherently any disagreement and if it makes sense for us to have two opinions, then I am okay with that. What frustrates me is when I perceive that readers lack the background understanding of the issues and so thus we are unable to communicate to each other.

Hopefully we can rectify that now in this instance between us.


Yes I did realize the value, which is why I thanked you.


I admit I wrote the OP as the tersest possible summary for myself to refer back to and used the links off to prior discussion as the means by which the reader should become familiar. I realize readers need a tldr; up front.



No Satoshi says in his white paper what his ideals and objectives are where he criticizes existing financial systems and credit card methods of payment.

He made it clear that he was removing the need to trust any corporation. He says it. Go read the white paper. That is required Bitcoin 101 education.

Ok, fair enough. You pursue the ideal that is described in the bitcoin whitepaper and consider that the current bitcoin failed to deliver on that because of the list of you already supplied.

Thanks for understanding.

Contrary to Satohi's ideals in the Bitcoin white paper, Satoshi sort of admitted in mailing list discussion that mining would become centralized by corporations. So it is as if the Bitcoin white paper pitched the ideal as a goal or marketing gimick (or both?).

I am not so sure of the no-fork thing. Yes ok, in the todays sense, but to achieve decentralization it means to have a choice. So maybe 'forks' should actually be part of it, a protocol of many coins. The interpretation of value outside of the system that manages it. Freedom to move my value elsewhere at any point along those that think alike.