Now that bitcoin is dying of its own success, what coin would a hardcore, don't-tread-on-me, sweat-of-your-brow...

NXS

youtube.com/watch?v=NNiuRcl14Yw

they're clearly too fucking dumb to get it to work properly. after it works and starts being widely adopted it will probably have some security exploit.

their track record is absolute incompetence

Skycoin's team is legit full of hardcore ancap and darknet guys.

I don't disagree but the normies trading that shit won't care. So long as one were to offload after the moon mission but prior to the security flaw release it will net great gains and all private.

I didn't know that Bcash was moving ahead so well. Hopefully they will address the centralization problems too.
Zcoin does seems like a good option: community ran z-snarks, they need some website improvements, not convinced they are so hard working yet but will need to look deeper.

Depends what kind of community and governance pops up around it. I like the decentralization of mobile miners though as long as it can be enforced (i.e. bitmain can't just buy up 100000 mobile chips and centralize the mining in north china)

now THAT is decentralization

Great, I like the way he talks, haven't look into skycoin yet, assumed it was a pump n dump

Clif High believes it will be an important darknet coin. His predictions tend to be fairly accurate (although his time periods are often off).

Dollar is perfect for a retard like you.

I'm always interested in ideas which could increase decentralisation. Biggest centralising issue for example I see with BTC is they have exactly one dev team, and their work is actually *defined* as what BTC is by virtue of being the accepted reference client. Huge advantage on BCH front as they have eight competing dev teams. The mining infrastructure in both instances is exactly the same, except because of the fee situation in BTC smaller miners can't even afford to pool mine it without risking significant earnings periods because it's impractical to transfer their earnings daily with fees being what they are. That's not a problem on the BCH side.
About the only thing you could legitimately potentially claim as centralising on the BCH side would be the whole on chain block throughput is implicitly centralising line of argumentation, which only BTC actually sticks to, so if you wanted to follow that philosophy, you'd be left as a BTC maximalist by default. And that's not even actually addressing the simple fact that the argument that itself is flatly unproven and doesn't have any kind of reasonable justification whatsoever, and whenever it is debated openly the core side invariably fails, to the extent they have to censor those debates just to make it seem like there is even any kind of dispute at all.

I see, perhaps I am mistaken about BCH, I had though it was going to incentivize huge Chinese mining warehouses full of asics.
Not that the situation is any better for BTC, but other Alt coins are genuinely trying to keep tyranny from developing by dis-incentivizing centralized mining

If you think that the SHA256 POW situation is a problem, you really have to move out of coins that are backed by SHA256 POW. Ideally also out of coins that are backed by Scrypt and X11 POW, seeing as the exact same manufacturer who produces the majority of SHA256 POW also produces the majority of those as well. In short, if your theory is that they're the bad guy and their influence must be avoided, you want to remove your stake from anything that they have the ability to wield their negative influence against.
There is no question that such a move is rational if you are genuinely convinced that is the case, but I would encourage you to be absolutely certain of it before acting upon it, because of course, in acting upon it, you would be divesting yourself of the many of the most promising large cap coins. And there is absolutely no reason at all to advance the theory that the SHA256 POW manufacturer is evil and wants to destroy everything, but only on this SHA256 POW chain, not this one over here which he doesn't approve of. Proof of work is proof of work, and it works just the same no matter which chain it's staking for.
In my humble opinion, the status quo appears to be simply that many people, a great majority of miners amongst them, do not approve of the direction in which BTC has gone, and in order to protect their investment both in mining hardware as well as the stake they have in the ecosystem, they have provided an alternative that they view as superior to that direction. Whether they are right or not is completely a different question, but I see no reasonable interpretation of the facts where they're somehow "evil" and acting against their rational self interest. They even still mine majority of BTC because of the massively outsized block rewards denominated in BTC vs BCH, meaning they're willing to "keep working for a boss they strongly disagree with" if they're compensated well enough to do so.

>"which is beyond the current scope of the software"
Kek.

My issue with privacy coins is that when regulation comes, they will be fucked the hardest. The taxman destroys what he cannot tax - short of living entirely in crypto and abandoning fiat, moving between the two may become very hard with privacy coins that resist big daddy govt.

Monero!

>muh anonymous crypto gold
bitinfocharts.com/comparison/monero-transactionfees.html

Ethereum obviously.
So many people don't get what being anonymous means. Using monero is like going to a shop wearing a balaclava.
Real anonymity means hiding in the crowd of 'normal' activity.