Talk:Comparison of cryptocurrencies

From Bitcoin Wiki
Revision as of 22:16, 28 May 2020 by JonathanCross (talk | contribs) (Anonymity: Add Monero as "High" privacy?)
Jump to: navigation, search

The order / grouping of these coins are still TBD.

suggestion not to include market cap

market cap changes too often, no point in adding that data to the wiki. Can just link to coinmarketcap or whatever. Nanotube (talk) 22:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ripper234 proposes a grouping of Major, Minor and New by an arbitrary market cap limit. This can be done once the market caps of the alts are known.

  • Using market cap will make Tonal Bitcoin a "Major" despite de facto minor usage. Therefore, I suggest finding a different method of categorizing. --Luke-jr (talk) 05:06, 4 March 2013 (GMT)
    • I have removed all market cap values. Nevertheless, I have ordered the list in two groups: Top 10 by market cap (according to, and the rest ordered alphabetical. I think that this is the best compromise. The "new" category was so old as to be laughable, as every day there are new coins being created. I don't think that it is in our best interest to have a definitive list of all crytpocurrencies, as there are now hundreds, and soon thousands. Lunokhod (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
      • I am going to re-remove the market-cap stuff soon, mostly because the values are meaningless and that there is no such thing as a currency market cap, and secondarily because the market cap value is so trivially manipulable. Midnightmagic (talk) 18:42, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed Tonal bitcoin

I have removed Tonal Bitcoin (TBC) from the list because it is not an alternative currency, it has no market cap, it can not be traded, and it is not accepted for payments anywhere. As far as I can tell, tonal bitcoin is just a way of representing bitcoin amounts using the tonal number system. If this is true, it is part of bitcoin, and is thus not a separate currency. This should be discussed elsewhere in this wiki, not here Lunokhod (talk) 09:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

  • It is an alternative currency, and one of the few legit ones. It shares a market cap with BTC, and can be traded just like any other currency. Sharing a blockchain, or at least values, with BTC is the ideal for altcoins, and necessary to protect against scammer abuses. --Luke-jr (talk) 11:49, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
    • Could you please provide some supporting evidence? Such as a project web page, etc? I can't find any information to back up your claims. Lunokhod (talk) 20:25, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Scamcoin removals

There are quite a number of scamcoins listed on there. Ripple, for example, is pretty much a pure scamcoin. Dash is a scamcoin. Bytecoin is 100% a scamcoin which underwent silent, broken inflation thanks to a cryptonote flaw. It's important that a Bitcoin Wiki not promote coins that have a highly scam-filled history. Midnightmagic (talk) 18:49, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

    • WARNING: User davidhedlund, we can either discuss the contents of this page in here, or I'm going to have to remove your edit rights. Please stop adding back in scamcoins on the comparison page. Midnightmagic (talk) 23:16, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Midnightmagic: I'm sorry, its not my intention to promote scamcoins. Can you please 1) Add comments in the article in the website fields for Bitcoin Cash and DASH why and respectively should not be visible? 2) motivate why you think these cryptocurrencies are scamcoins?:
  • Dash: "Dash is a massive premine with masternodes that are likely dominated by said premine. The preminers thanks to Dash's built-in centralizing reward system are essentially guaranteed to maintain with less hashrate, their dominance due to the 45% forced reward system.
Yep. Pretty much. Midnightmagic (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
PoS has nothing-at-stake. No point in listing scamcoins with PoS. Midnightmagic (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Ripple: ?
Ripple is a massive scamcoin and has no basis whatsoever in reality. It jumped on Ryan Fugger's coattails, and ran off with what would eventually end up being a SEC-fined scamcoin which destroyed even its own P2P stand-in token mechanism. Its market "cap" is a joke because the centralized tokens can simply be issued by the centralized creator of the tokens. Midnightmagic (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

--Davidhedlund (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello. Thanks for posting in here. Dash is a massive premine with masternodes that are likely dominated by said premine. The preminers thanks to Dash's built-in centralizing reward system are essentially guaranteed to maintain with less hashrate, their dominance due to the 45% forced reward system. Ripple is a centralized non-currency scam which has been fined multiple times, and involved in significant lawsuits with the end effect being its current form is essentially purely a cash grab. NEM is a PoS coin. XEM is just the ticker for NEM isn't it? Midnightmagic (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Yes XEM is the ticker so I removed it from my list in this Talk page. I have a few questions left:
I'm fine with removing them over time. Midnightmagic (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Ripple is a scamcoin. There's no point in driving traffic to a scamcoin. But it's not banned. It's just not a legitimate comparison to make with Bitcoin. Midnightmagic (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
  • Remove Dash from the article or motivate why it should stay there.
I agree. Probably Dash should be removed. Probably all the scamcoins should be removed. Literally the only reason they're still there is you keep editing this page. :-) Midnightmagic (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Can you please remove all scamcoins from the page then (you can add that I agree with you about this in the edit summary)? --Davidhedlund (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
  • Is it ok if I add a ==Blacklisted== section in the article and use the quotes that I updated to my list above?
Probably not. Otherwise the list would stretch into the thousands. It'd be useless. Midnightmagic (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Bcash Symbol

The Bitcoin Cash developers are extremely hostile to Bitcoin, and consist of e.g. deadalnix who is an unapologetic copyright thief. Their attempt to conflate "Bitcoin Cash" with "Bitcoin" includes a mistaken co-opting of another scamcoin's symbol, "BCC" which is already being traded on some exchanges as BCC. The way to disambiguate it from the prior scamcoin is to use BCH, which is the symbol both exchanges, and ticker sites use. They can call it what they want, but given the level of hostility, it really doesn't make sense to contribute to user confusion here. (Note the huge spike in the *scamcoin* BCC around August 1 for an example of this deliberate obfuscation.) Midnightmagic (talk) 00:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)


Midnightmagic: Can you motivate why you added changed these cryptocurrencies from "High" to "Medium" anonymity (they are our best bet in terms of anonymity):

  • Monero: ? (recently introduced "Ring Confidential Transactions" so it is regarded as anonymous by many)
  • Zcash: ?
They are medium anonymity because zcash's anonymity set is very small; Monero's is larger but not impenetrable; besides, listening in on the network provides a great deal of information that a pure analysis of the blockchain itself does not. Midnightmagic (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

--Davidhedlund (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

It's been a few years... Given that "Low", "Medium" and "High" are all relative, it seems like we should consider using the full range. Monero does not offer perfect privacy, but the anonymity set is the largest of the coins listed. "impenetrable" sounds like "perfect" anonymity (which is impossible in practice). If Zcash ever changed to force all transactions to be shielded, we might consider it as "High". Seeing that Monero now uses Dandelion++ (obfuscating originating server) and a fixed ring size (making all transactions look the same), I'd like to nominate it for the "High" position. Thoughts? – JonathanCross (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Conspicuously missing links

Oflameo: Conspicuously missing links look terrible from a wiki perspective. It would look better to add the links back for and and say what you need to say about them on the internal page. "It is a scamcoin" is not appropriate criteria when Big Media is saying just that about Bitcoin. That is why a whole article is necessary to prove the claim.

Big Media is not an authority on cryptocurrencies. That comparison is false. This is the Bitcoin wiki. We can elevate ourselves to a better standard than that. Conspicuously missing links are fine. Midnightmagic (talk) 01:50, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Oflameo: You aren't making an effort to be any better then Big Media talk. What you are doing is going Scamcoin! REEE! CensorZap!. Please define an an explicit criteria for a scamcoin so we can properly flag samcoins. What you said on these talk pages so far aren't very convincing IMO. Your actions are evidently anti-productive. Oflameo (talk) 22:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Use the four-tildes at the end of your note to sign it. A scamcoin is one which has no sound technological advances nor engineering behind it; is a premined coin with a history based in illegal behaviour or law-evading behaviour; is one which incompetent people have built it or are enriching themselves at the expense of innocent victims to whom they are lying to try to get them to dump money into it; or one which makes technical claims about a coin which are not founded in reality; or one which pumps itself endlessly in seminars. Fraud is usually central to a scamcoin. This is the Bitcoin wiki. This is not put-your-favourite-scamcoin-in-here-for-SEO-purposes-wiki. Please stop marking up the Bitcoin wiki with links to coins which are based in scams or I'll simply delete this page to avoid this argument altogether. To be honest, I'm about 45% of the way to deleting this page in its entirety to begin with, since it seems to be attracting angry argumentative people who have bad attitudes and make stupid comparisons between me and whoever they have a beef with. Midnightmagic (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)