Do people actually read whitepapers or is that a meme? Every

I always believed most of the "read the white paper" faggots talk shit and have no idea either. Just a lot of people pretending to believe in the tech when really they're just regurgitating shit they read somewhere. When it comes down to it, we're all just hear to make money.

90% of those spending money on coins now don't read them and at least as many coins won't be around two years from now to realize their vaporware.

Within the white paper you find small details which tell you if it's gonna be profitable or not. Specifically in terms of how tokens will be distributed.

File: 13625326280699.jpg (111KB, 1084x720px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1084x720px

I read them.

The good ones tend to be technical and cite numerous scientific journals/papers.

The ones that are crap full all the way with use of colors, marketing to non-experts, pitching their app as meeting some humanitarian need, and spend more time talking about tokens and token distribution rather than describing what their app is and what it does.

And these are the ones that aren't outright plagerized, like how eros.vision copied their white paper from an MIT paper entitled Beaver about decentralized sex marketplaces. And if you download the white paper, it is literally titled "Microsoft Word - Beaver" (though they may have caught on and changed that).

It's amazing. People who don't do due diligence deserve to get robbed.

File: 1474491472040.jpg (14KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 200x200px

Just buy the dip dude

>>2854612
Stop avatarfagging all over the board

>>2854570
All of the white papers I have ever read are poorly written, exceptionally technical, and often laden with marketing blurbs and buzzwords. This isn't necessarily a sign of a scam, though, as the people who write them are technology geeks who haven't developed their writing skills beyond that which is necessary for basic communication.

Still, it makes me cringe whenever a supposedly professional organization, developing a coin that has a lot of promise, makes serious grammatical errors in their white paper. It's very off-putting and makes me question whether I should invest in them.

>>2854622
where anon

I read the white papers. I've also been paid absurd sums of money to consult for these companies.

What I've learned is that every white paper is usually missing huge gaps. So much so, that the story that any white paper tells you is between the lines because that's the place that tells you how badly they've fucked things up. The white paper isn't going to spell out all the horrible fucking trade offs these incompetent morons have made to solve their (often trivial) stated problem, many of which the writers aren't aware of.

Think of it like this. A lot of these white papers are nothing more than ideas and they're being put forwards by a bunch of tech people who have no fucking clue what they're talking about most the time. Almost none of these tech people have prior experience building the systems that they are proposing. They've put forwards their best approach based on their limited understanding, and if you're lucky, the white paper will even manage to tell you what the fuck it is that they're doing (but most don't since they are written by marketing people / shit coin boiling rooms.)

If you get a white paper written by a bunch of neckbeards (ideal case) it will be technically clear but what is usually missing is all the retarded assumptions they've made about business. You can refute most of these white papers just based on common sense. The ones that can't be refused will turn out to be technically flawed based on the authors retarded engineering decisions. On the rare chance you find something that doesn't suffer from any of these issues give the team all your fucking money because its straight going to the moon.

>>2855039
So which White Papers would you consider good ones?

The bitcoin white paper is short and not that technical imo. can't speak on other whitepapers. But yeah btc white paper is not hard to understand.

>>2854570
If you don't read and understand the whitepaper, you're just gambling.
You're looking for a few things:
What problem does this solve?
How does that solution support the price of the coin/token?
Will it actually work? (Can't really know without reading all the source code, but look for obvious flaws in their plan)
Any spelling or grammar errors?
Any slimy-feeling marketing focus? (It should be a technical description of their system, not a hype leaflet screaming to buy the coin)
Often, you need a decent grounding in cryptography and cryptocurrency. You're speculating in crypto, so you're an idiot if you haven't done reading in that area.

I'll admit I skip the really dense math though.

>>2854570
I read the white paper for any coin I am interested in. I've probably read about 10 now all the way through (not just skimming). Although, I've found an easier way to figure things out is just to look at the source code of the project. This tips you off instantly about developer's capabilities.

For example, Sia was something I was interested in but their code is literal shitware/meme-tier spaghetti code hacked together. Lo and behold, a little more research into the developer illuminated why that was. But let's be honest, none of us are in it for the software, we're in it for the money.

>>2854570
>>2855856
You guys should check out the QRL whitepaper kek

https://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Whitepapers/QRL-whitepaper.pdf

>>2857437
QRL is like IOTA but for ultra retards, the naming scheme for their currency is beyond absurd

>>2854612
please keep avatarfagging with good looking anime girls