Not every lottery is for millions. People spend a lot of money on daily drawings for smaller amounts, scratch off tickets with $500-$10000 max prizes, etc. Go into a casino and most slot machines don't have million dollar payoffs (thousands are common) and you see lots and lots of people playing them.

Peter R have you looked at my idea of pruning claims? In your example above, if 4efe wants to make a claim after 018f has done so, I don't another proof is needed. The first proof also serves as a proof that the second claim is valid. This can occur at any branch. I haven't really thought this through though.

Every coin with mining has inflation and the problem is that none of these new coins (including BBR, XMR, and virtually every single other altcoin if not all of them) has absolutely no use outside speculation so no population of natural buyers. The miners can either hold (i.e. speculation) or sell, but who are they going to sell to? Only other speculators.

Comments about "too much inflation" and miners "dumping" such are missing the mark. As long as there is mining in any amount whatsoever and as long as there are miners who are not full-out speculators who want to hold all of their coins forever, there are natural sellers (miners) and no natural buyers. That imbalance will cause the price to tend to go down unless speculators want to buy enough to push it up, or at least hold it up.

+1

What is different about this coin is the 10 year mining cycle. There will be more inflation for a longer period of time than any other coin I can think of. I'm not saying that is bad, just different.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a coin as a testbed for a new algorithm. It is a case where the mining incentivizes something useful (testing and optimizing the algorithm), not unlike other coins where the mining process is intended to produce some useful scientific or mathematical result.

Where this ends up being bad is when the developer makes either dishonest or unsupported claims about the algorithm (e.g. "this won't be feasible to mine on a GPU") as opposed to being up front about the algorithm being experimental and unknown and seeing where it ends up.

Better to approach this from the opposite direction. The least efficient miners (and only the least efficient miners) will approximately break even, meaning they are spending their share of the rewards on electricity. As long as there is a range of efficiencies of miners, then electricity usage does not equal block rewards.

The simplistic model of electricity usage equal to rewards implies a cessation of ASIC R&D. That is not happening any time soon.

EDIT: Two additional points

1. If we use a simple model of most efficient miners using zero electricity and the least efficient using all of the block reward, and further assume that the distribution is linear, then approximately half the block rewards to go electricity. In reality the least efficient do not use zero, but the distribution is probably biased toward more efficient miners, so these two assumptions cancel out to some extent. Half may be a reasonable estimate. That does not substantially impair the argument that $500K bitcoin is implausible until the reward is lower.

2. Where the argument does break down is if the dollar drops in value as BTC increases relative to the dollar (i.e. $/kwh significantly increases).

If you forget just one or two characters it is easy to brute force it.

nevertheless...

http://minichain.info/address/CNCzEBdvxzKSsGGdeqdGv17zuyWLeyAFvw

You will need to upgrade to 64 bit unless you can make the 32 bit Wallet work. I still think that booting with /3GB should work but no one has demonstrated that.

Answered in the FAQ

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=721045.msg8148615#msg8148615

Yes that tends to happen a lot. Easier to write a story from a press release than to actually find one.

I agree there is no logical explanation for mentioning XC, Cloakcoin, etc. and not mentioning Monero.




 

Some actual numbers since I happened to look at this recently. Slightly less than 10 BTC/day was being mined during the first month of trading on Poloniex. Some of that gets sold right away by miners, but it can't be 100%. Yet during that month 10-30 BTC per day was being traded. One day near the beginning (I think the second day but I'm not sure) over 60 BTC traded. That doesn't not include the trading that was also happening at the cryptonote exchange, which at times was similar in volume.

So it is pretty clear that many older coins were being dumped, and that is probably still happening.

Coins currently immediately above and below XMR on coinmarket cap are blackcoin and XCurrency. Blackcoin has various mentions on coindesk (usually as part of a list along with dogecoin for some reason), but XCurrency has only one. Cloakcoin is right below XC and has been somewhat hot recently, but that's not mentioned either.

So I think it is fairly normal for them to not cover alts below the top 10.

That does not explain removing your comments though.

Objectively speaking DRK is #5 on coinmarketcap and has a $25m market cap. Monero is currently #13 (though it has been in the top ten on occasion) with a market cap of $6 million, roughly 25% of DRK.

So it is not all that strange that DRK would get much more coverage.

I could certainly come up with reasons it might get covered though (for example the higher rating on CoinGecko), distinctly new and different technology, community focus, etc.

It is interesting that they remove your comments and also interesting that they didn't cover Poloniex switching from LTC to XMR. That seemed significant, and I'm fairly sure Poloniex put out a press release on it.

Since you comment on the site I presume you are a regular reader (I'm not, although I do occasionally follow a link to the site if it looks interesting).

Do you have any idea what is their motivation for not covering Monero? Do they generally cover other altcoins?

 

I was one of the people who pushed on a refund policy. I was repeatedly told it was not necessary because it was going to ship on time and on spec. In other words, unethical and misleading statements meant to bring orders, which not only seemed so at the time, but which we now know in hindsight have been proven to be misleading.

I don't troll on other manufacturer's threads. I mostly ignore them because I already consider them untrustworthy and disreputable already. This one seemed like it might be different, but it really isn't. Same pre-order promises and shifting of risk to the customer, and same result (customer screwed).

Yes they messed up and these things happen, but all I can say is, if you trust them again, shame on you. If anyone buys a miner from these guys that doesn't ship from stock with a tested and third-party reviewed design, you get what you deserve.

Likely my last word on the subject, as Spondoolies now gets grouped in with all the rest of the untrustworthy manufacturers pitching pre-order deals that I largely ignore.

Dude, at least keep track of which account you're using. About the same reg date though, so I guess it's all good.

ROFLMAO

Post history speaks for itself, as does account registration date right around the time BCN was "discovered" after its widespread use for two years on the deep web.

Lame.

BTW, thanks for the thread bump Suzuki. We appreciate it!

They are both likely bots/shills/trolls. Check both of their histories.

I fear the strategy is now to bury us under a flood bot spam, or perhaps create the appearance of fraudulent "pumping."

Since the trolling didn't accomplish anything I guess they decided to try something else.