Bitcoin Forum

Why are coins like Namecoin and Peercoin so cheap compared to Bitcoin? Both coins have a similar amount of existing units and all have great tech and an unique application, especially Namecoin with .bit domain for instance. Why are they so cheap? Consider that one Bitcoin is more than 800 times more valuable than one Namecoin or one Peercoin.

Not enough demand for them.  It's just one of those things, you know?

because there is no user interest in them, namecoin is merged mining with bitcoin so it is stable here else it doesn't have anything special in it to remain alive.

Right, no one's adopted them for anything, really.  I'm sure they have a very small diehard fanbase like most altcoins do, but definitely not enough to boost the price much.  Even in the crypto community, folks just don't use either one of those coins for anything.

Although they are ' old ' cryptocurrency, they do not stand out from all the altcoins. There are very few people buying all these coins which result in them being cheap.

I wonder why were they created when no one is using them. Do you think if a fan can just create a solely dice game for such coins could probably increase its value and at some point my compete with the rest?

I remember someone mentioned namecoin was the first altcoin.

Does this mean that Namecoin is actually an "addon" of Bitcoin?
Well, as I wrote in my OP, Namecoin blockchain stores the .bit domain what is a great feature. I own a .bit domain and I really like this feature.

Wrong order, turn it around! "Why is Bitcoin so expensive ?"

The 800 times could experience a correction onto 400 times, or 200.

really liked namecoin back in the day. decentralized domains are certainly great... but they failed to move on.

I hope ethereum will add domains in the future, they seem to be innovative

because coin pushers stole any redeeming quality from them to push a new coin.
Look at Quark  --  AKA: X11 algo
POS ? stolen..
any other gimmick / novelty etc ? Stolen.

Why ?

People don't have interest in currencies.
What they all want is yet another pyramid scheme digital "token" to profit and dump to move on to the next one.

When the crowd came late 2013 users were quickly confronted with 2 choices..
buy an existing coin or flash mine a new coin..

everyone wants to play Satoshi on day 1 and they don't want to buy Peercoins for $3 each.
They want to buy Shit coin "Block-Chain" Token's for 0.00000001 Sat's
So the cycle will continue..

According to Weekly Update #168 from 12/12/201511/12/2015 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=114994.msg12953187#msg12953187 the Blockchain forked thislast month last time.
So if you own any, please install hot fix v0.4.1 RC1 asap.

Let us agree on calling it still actively maintained, not "solid".

If a coin doesn't have real life purpose, it will eventually die.

Aren't they both coins that can still be withdrawn from Cryptsy?

If so then like other coins whose withdrawals on Cryptsy are still working they might well be having their price suppressed by folk buying them at a premium on Cryptsy as a desperation measure to get the heck out of Cryptsy, and dumping them anywhere else to get actual bitcoins or fiat...

-MarkM-

PPC is a solid product, once the full value of alt coins is appreciated it stands in good position.

Name coin was a good idea.  Correct me if I am wrong but I know of no way to redeem NMC for a .bit domain name ... project fail?

Yes Namecoin is merge mined (MM) so has network security, but suffers high inflation.

Now to push a better product ;)

UNO ... MM on the bitcoin network (what i believe to be the so called sidechain in actuality) so you get massive hash power network protection but just 3.5 coins mined per day ... super uber low inflation (read network cost nearly free @ about $8/day).  Check it out ... UNO is the rightful #1 MM on SHA256 coin not Namecoin. 

(other MM coins iX and i0 have low inflation but lack a fair distribution and have poor exchange market exposure)

Poor market exchange exposure is true, but unfair distribution?

Both I0Coin and IXCoin have had many years with with often very low prices so everyone had years to pick up any of them, it seems unlikely they are "unfairly" distributed, more likely they are distributed more widely than many/most other coins having been around longer and being so easy to mine too so even small miners were able to get some.

UNObtanium on the other had privately mined almost all of its coins before adding merged mining, so that normal miners had no chance (unless they gave up mining the whole merged family including bitcoin itself) to mine UNO until it was basically too late really to mine much at all.

So the cabal who quietly mined it off of the main pools for however long have most of the coins, and probably mostly only opened it up to merged mining in order to make it easier to cash in the coins they mined behind the scenes ahead of time.

Sure, miners can get a tiny amount of UNO now, but it is a tiny amount compared to what they should have been making if it had been able to be merged mined "back in the day".

Basically its miners could hardly mine any coins anymore so they threw it open to the rest of the mining community by making it merged mined, after they already owned most of the coins.

-MarkM-

That's a well-needed point about the unfair-distribution controversy* The perfect cure for "unfair distribution" is free-market exchange combined with time. Some folks 'round here natter on as if a distribution they pegged as unfair were fixed for all time, which simply isn't true unless exchanging them is not feasible.

* Yes, this word is diplomat-speak.

.bit is only one of many possible use cases of Namecoin, and it is the one with the biggest hurdles set up by the increasingly restricted closed-source world (MS-Windows, Android, iOS, OSX). Some of the other use case ideas have just started to emerge, e.g.:

• Proof-of-existence with built-in timestamp of documents or digital content
• Notary services
• Decentralized update information for IoT devices

and more to come. ;)

Because they don't have a huge adoption base like bitcoin does.

Also they copy the concept of BTC so people would value BTC over the altcoins.

Look at 42coin, there's only 42 coins compared to BTC's 21 million and yet the price is still 2 BTC/coin. That's only 84 BTC worth of coins in the entire circulation.

Because people don't actually use those coins as a transaction method. They only trade it and make profit off it.

Also because bitcoin was here since the beginning. Altcoins came only recently.

I'd second third Fourth the above information... Altcoins generally don't have enough application, which causes them to have reduced liquidity, which in turn can make them virtually useless.

Bitcoin is currently around $600 AUD.  But with Dashcoin and Peercoin both above $1AUD, either of these could be the next big currency... if they find a real use:
I have seen litecoin p2p lenders, casinos, auction sites, ad networks, etc all trading with litecoin.  I understand litecoin is faster than bitcoin, it's also one of the oldest alts.  So I can see a real use for litecoin.
Another aspect which you may not have thought of is this - bitcoin's popularity partly comes down to the amount of drug-dealers who accept it for payment.  Massive amounts of $ get pumped into bitcoin from all different currencies thanks to Dr.ugs.  If a currency can improve on anonymity, and thus security for dealers, the currency may experience extra patronage from this factor alone.


 

??? there was some astonishing detail about 42, there are more than 42 "42 coins" in existance. About 25% moar, which kinda dillutes the original idea.
Does anyone know what's going on with 42coin? (Showing 52 current supply) https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1258583.0

Not safe to invest even a halve cheeseburger on that one.

Peercoin is undervaluated actually, but i think it have the same problem with initial distribution like bitcoin, there are a few of big whales doin almost all the staking, but still i think is probably the best pos to invest actually

re: Proof of Existence

as far as I remember onename used to use namecoin as blockchain. but they moved away to bitcoin for some reason

The reason is IMO that they are trying to attract even more investor's money. "bitcoin-based" is the ultra-hip marketing expression at the moment, whereas nobody in the VC industry ever heard of "Namecoin". With this move from Namecoin to Bitcoin, however, they lost the opportunity to create secure SPV clients (e.g. for mobile devices). Greed before need, I'd say.

Peercoin and namecoin are both solid coins. When altcoins come out of the dark both will be in a good position to compete with bitcoin.

These two coins are barely have any real life purpose, there are no meaningful marketing therefore no demand. However because of the small but die hard user base, both coins are doing relative well if you compare them to other coins. So there are still hope :).

Agree! This is what I am thinking, too. Both, Namecoin and Peercoin are very solid coin. I build a stake since a couple of months and I have not regret it yet.

Yet another in a long string of altcoins with real tech looking for real-world use cases....

In a weird way, this altcoin jungle has acted like a think-tank connected to a school of computer engineering. Lots of new tech, lots of neat widgets, but hardly any of them have gained real-world traction. Funny how that's turned out.

Because they are not that much people using it I think.
Also is just a copy of bitcoin just another name and another thinks.

Peercoin (https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/peercoin), Namecoin (https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/namecoin) they were new ideas 2 years ago, these days they couldnt keep up to differentiate and carve a niche.

No, they are not just copies of Bitcoin. Yes, the basic code was took from Bitcoin but both coins added something new what makes them somehow unique and they have their place in the cryptocurrency universe.

People don't like buying cheap products like PPC and NMC. People will rush to buy PPC and NMC when their prices go up.