The first thing Devcoin needs is a way for people to buy them with cash. If I have $100 USD, how do I buy Devcoins directly? When developers solve that then Devcoin will work.

This too.

Accept Litecoin and PPcoin.

It's called "insta-mining" now. When some people get a whole lot of coins in the first few days or the first day and then the difficulty shoots way up, the people who are late to mine accuse them of "insta-mining". Premining is when the developer himself mines it before releasing it to the public and that doesn't happen as often anymore.

I see, any store of value coin or coin which can make people "rich" is a scam.

Bitbar I can agree on because you can't even mine it now that the difficulty is so high, but nothing stops you from mining Mincoin. What you're saying is you don't agree with the early reward structure but that doesn't make it a scam because in the case of Mincoin anyone was free to mine them in the first 3 days and you chose not to. The developer and his friends mining it in advance is premining. Instamining is when it's mined up in one day. 3 days is early bird mining and I suppose you could say it's a case of instamining and I can understand that sentiment but it doesn't make it a scam unless you can't mine and get significant coins still.

You can get 2000 coins a month mining Mincoin. I'm mining Mincoin right now. Some people had a lot of Mincoin early on but most of those people sold them, have a look at the network and you'll see that while it started out unbalanced, a lot has changed as most of the early miners have cashed out and are cashing out as we speak.

The difficulty in my opinion is the issue that matters. A coin can be intended not to be instamined and use SHA256 and one ASIC can ruin the difficulty. Mincoin at least used scrypt and has something like 1 minute block rewards, the difficulty adjusts something like twice a day, what more do you want?

It's a good coin to mine over the long term, and most complaining are just mad that didn't start mining the first 3 days. Some people didn't get a chance to mine BTC in the first 3 years and now there are ASICS, the same argument is being used against BTC making the early adopters rich or making Satoshi rich thus Bitcoin is a ponzi scheme?

Undercover "buzz" marketing? Uh oh, it's getting serious now.

They call that instamining not premining

As of April 15 2013, PPCoin had a market cap of $4 million USD, making it the third largest crypto-currency.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PPCoin


Total PPcoin cap according to Dustcoin 47256
Total Namecoin cap according to Dustcoin 46095
Total Litecoin cap according to Dustcoin 529869
http://dustcoin.com/mining

My theory is that because PPcoins and Namecoins have lower market caps that is the reason why they don't respond to Bitcoins crashes. I see the scarcity acting as some sort of buffer. Namecoins have gone down recently and so have PPcoins and all other coins but not in response to what Bitcoin is doing and more in response to Feathercoin, Chinacoin, Junkcoin etc. These are just my own observational opinions coupled with the facts.


Some additional facts which can change my mind or prove my theory correct would be finding the total number of PPcoins generated, total number of Litecoins generated, total number of Namecoins generated and the rate that they were generated. My theory is that coins which generate lots of coins at a quick rate are pump and dump and those sorts of coins which have generated a lot are much more prone to crashing, this is why I think Litecoin crashes along with Bitcoin but some of the more scarce coins don't. If it turns out somehow that PPcoin has more total coins than Litecoins then it would prove my theory incorrect and I would have to change my mind.

They can't. Litecoins can never be more valuable than Bitcoin and can never divorce their value from Bitcoin because Bitcoins are more scarce than Litecoins. So if Bitcoins fail then so will Litecoins. Namecoins and PPcoins have a chance because they are significantly different and currently as scarce or more scarce than Bitcoins. Mincoin has a chance if it's actively developed, but Litecoin, Chinacoin, Feathercoin and all those coins with double, triple, or x10 as many total cap as Bitcoin will not be able to divorce their value from Bitcoin. The reason for this is when Bitcoin prices crash no one is going to think "yeah let me go buy some of them Litecoins that are worth 0.3 the value of Bitcoins!". What people think is "Let me cash out right now, this is stupid!".

I study the charts all day and when Bitcoin goes down so does Litecoin and all the other coins which follow that style of expanding the total cap. The coins which seem to not be tied to Bitcoin are PPcoin which are scarce, Mincoin which are scarce, etc. Perhaps Namecoin which is significantly different. My point is I need coins to put my money in when Bitcoin is volatile and I don't want to have to sell out.

Because the success of all cryptocurrencies depends on the success of Bitcoin. It's not the ideal situation but as of right now there is only really Bitcoin which is going mainstream. Maybe when Litecoin, Namecoin, PPcoin or some others share the spotlight we can stop worrying about making Bitcoin into a currency but right now if Bitcoin does not become a currency then the whole experiment will fail.

Here is a tweak on your idea to make the coin valuable it has to be psychologically scarce. You have the one coin but are the coin shares going to be scarce? Unless mining it becomes progressively more difficult or the rate of share generation slows down significantly how do you hope to accomplish this?

In summary lets say I mine 0.0000005, how do you make sure that amount is considered "scarce"?  You have to consider how much in BTC the 1 coin could be worth in total and then we'd know how much the individual shares could be worth.

Anyway it's not a bad idea. I view it as a community coin.

Sounds good. I'll mine it. This reminds me of Obama's platinum coin http://gawker.com/5973717/your-guide-to-the-trillion+dollar-platinum-coin-that-obama-can-mint-to-save-the-world

People think the idea is unheard of but this was proposed as a solution to the deficit before it got blocked by expert economics who thought that it was too crazy.

Okay what about mining? is it going to have a 3 day rule where the difficulty is low and then on the third day a spike or is it going to be fair to mine over a period of weeks?

And we are on the same side here. What I'm promoting is virtual commodity coins which take on the role of default store of value so Bitcoins can evolve into a currency. Bitcoins will never evolve into a currency when there are no coins worth more than Bitcoins to put our savings into.

When I want to put my savings somewhere right now Bitcoin is a better place than the banks, maybe even could be better than gold someday, but that is not what Bitcoin was designed for and that is not going to be good for the long term viability of Bitcoin. Bitcoin has to transition into becoming a currency and the way to speed this up is to create virtual commodities so people can take their Bitcoins and buy these commodities and let these commodities go way up in $ value so that if Bitcoin goes down then through diversification our life savings, retirement, etc are safe. The idea of buying gold bars is silly, but the idea of buying virtual gold bars makes a lot of sense if you buy them with Bitcoins and who knows maybe something like Bitplatinum could come along and we can buy that when the price of Bitcoins is sinking and protect our selves knowing the value of Bitplatinum will never really lose it's $ value.

The niche exists, fill it and Bitcoin and Litecoin can become currencies. This would mean the price of Bitcoin and Litecoin would have to be around $60-70 not $100+. Eventually the Bitcoin price would even go down as people buy the virtual commodities for their long term investment purchases.

Bitcoin already is acceptable and useful. We need coins to store our wealth also. Where do we put our money when Bitcoin crashes? Cash out into USD? Hell no. We need store of value coins for the same reason we need gold bars so the concept behind Bitbar or Bitgold or whatever is sound.

You're looking for a currency, nothing stops you from just buying Bitcoins and trading them since they are clearly the most useful coins. But when those coins crash due to volatility then tell me the worth of each coin doesn't matter. When people buy Bitcoins and they find out their $260 purchase is now worth $50 you tell me it doesn't actually matter how much each coin is worth. It does matter when people start putting life savings into it. And yes we need coins for people to put their live savings into and clearly it's not Bitcoin.

I would mine your coin because I like deflationary coins from a collectors point of view but One coin kind of extreme don't you think?  That said I'll mine if and only if you actually intend on providing long term development support. If you're going to release this coin and walk away why should we bother with it? I like collecting coins, but not coins which developers don't support.


It's just numbers. I support deflationary instead of inflationary but not necessary to this extreme at this time. It would be like going from Bitcoin with 21 million to 2100 trillion the next coin. That is very very bad because the change is too significant. Going double the amount or half the amount of Bitcoin is safer.

That said it's all psychological. It's numbers. I'll support any coin which the developers take seriously and which provides a novel feature and this coin does provide a novel feature. It's worth collecting some portion of it just to see what happens with it so I'll mine a bit of it just to see, if the mining is fair and not premined garbage or set up so it's instamined.

I'm one of the supporters of coins with smaller and smaller caps because coins with larger and larger caps just end up being pump and dump coins.

Prove otherwise. Make a coin worth more than Bitcoin or Litecoin with a higher cap.

That said Onecoin takes it too far to the extreme. I support SLIGHTLY less than Bitcoin. 10 million coins is half of Bitcoin. 5 million is half of 10. But 1 coin is too much less. That's like if I make a coin called cloud coin and I say the cap is 500 trillion. This would be fine right?

Newbies are gonna buy this coin up like Pacman pellets. It's not good for the ecosystem but this is the trend. There will be much worse malware coins and scam coins in the future, we gotta filter.

Jobs should pay in Bitcoins not dollars so push for that. Ray Kroc? That was a different era. Starting a business in a global economy in the technology industry does require startup costs. Look at how difficult it is to create an ASIC mining company. Look at how difficult it is to start a company merely to instantly deliver Bitcoins to whoever purchases them. Look at how difficult it is to build a distributed exchange protocol. Research has to be funded, businesses take a lot of money in the tech industry because tech workers aren't cheap like retail workers or hot dog stands.
No I'm saying in order for Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies to flourish it has to have powerful rich people. If all the powerful rich people have dollars then Bitcoin will never survive. Yes a middle class is important but so are the millionaires who can lobby politicians and organize political parties. Don't forget that Bitcoin is heavily political, it's a peer to peer currency and just like Napster it could eventually face political opposition. That opposition will have a lot of dollars and political power and a large middle class will not save Bitcoin if no one in that large middle class has any networking, political power, or social power to protect the important projects.

So yeah I do think it's better to have a large middle class, in our society it's unrealistic to bring that about through Bitcoin. As far as how people work and the like, until you have enough millionaires and billionaires to change the nature of what it means to work, to monetize the entire Internet so that stuff we do online is considered work, a large global middle class is not going to be created from Bitcoin. I'm saying there isn't nearly enough infrastructure for cryptocurrencies and that in order to build that infrastructure a lot of people will have to be rich long before there will be a big middle global middle class if such a concept is even politically possible.

History is history and I don't deny it. But I also don't see any better way to do it. I'm saying nitpicking on who gets rich this early in the game is going to make you lose. It is very much like a lottery because it's still early in the game and the infrastructure doesn't exist to make it anything other than like a lottery. When you can work and be paid in Bitcoin then we will have a bigger middle class. When all your online activities earn you Bitcoin then we will have a larger middle class. But let's be realistic, Bitcoin is global and middle class in US dollars will be totally rich in countries in Africa and South America so talking about "middle class" as if everyone is from America is a moot concept right now. It should be about growing the infrastructure and filling niches. This means many different coins to fill different niches, it means very valuable commodity coins like Mincoin or Bitbar, it means technologically abstract coins like Namecoin, it means microtansaction coins like Litecoin and it means the standard bearing Bitcoin.
Explain what you mean by "easy". Are you talking about low difficulty? Because if it's hard it's not going to be very profitable. ASICs raise the difficulty and so it becomes hard and no longer profitable. CPU mining is easy but it's also no longer profitable. So basically mining is becoming as a whole not very profitable at least with Bitcoin which is fueling the pump and dump coins. My solution is to fill these niche markets with commodity coins, such as Mincoin or even more scarce which can function as both a commodity and a currency but more scarce commodity than currency so people are encouraged to buy, mind and collect many alt-coins.


That is what is happening now with Bitcoin. Mining shouldn't be necessary for the currency to be used. A currency which depends on people mining it is a flawed design. This is the flaw in Proof of Work. Maybe Proof of Stake or something better can resolve it. The purpose of mining is to defend against a 51% attack and strengthen the network. You want people to mine new coins? Fill the psychological niche.


So why not just make the coin 1:1 with the dollar so that there is no psychological block? I'm not against developing coins to fill this psychological niche but it's also a psychological niche to want to collect valuable scarce objects which gain in value over time. These are both psychological niche markets and neither are actually critical for a currency but both are important if you want mass adoption. I think making a coin 1:1 with the dollar means there would have to be many trillions of these coins just like there are many trillions of dollars. You're proposing quantitative easing. It hasn't made big businesses spend more, they still hoard but the buying power is lower for the middle class.

Basically your argument is like saying we need to make it more like the dollar or the pound because using the metric system is too foreign for most people. This isn't true in countries which aren't using dollars or pounds. This is an niche psychological argument and while I understand your argument it's really no different from my niche psychological argument for scarcity.


This in my opinion is not true. Prove me wrong. Show me a game or online RPG where there is excessive deflation which ruined the economy because I've only seen it ruined by excessive inflation. In MMORPGs with excessive deflation the items are really cheap but money is hard to get so you have to kill lots and lots and lots of monsters but that is the only difference. You psychologically don't feel as rich with 1000 coins in your pocket even if items in the game cost between 1 and 20 coins total. You'd rather have a million or a billion coins in your pocket to feel like you're rich but it doesn't make you any richer because your buying power is the same.

This is why the common person will probably never be able to save long enough for it to be worth that much nor would the common person probably even care. But it is important that the value of Bitcoins reach those insane heights not for the sake of the common person but for the sake of the Bitcoin community itself who isn't necessarily made up of common persons but of early adopters introducing something as new to the world as the Internet. Just as it was argued that the Internet shouldn't be taxed, it's not all that different to want Bitcoin to remain free and that means it should be valued as much as the free market allows. That could mean $100,000 a coin or 1 million a coin or more.

I wouldn't ask my family. I would simply create a new wallet when the time comes which has the Bitcoin amount on the left side and the value in USD on the right side. When they look on the right side and see $10,000 for 0.36 Bitcoins they aren't going to care about all that Bitcoin number stuff. All that'll need to know is the $10,000 in their wallet. It's the volatility which is the problem not the psychology. The fact that it can be $10,000 in their wallet today but $5000 or $1000 hours later. That in my opinion is the big problem preventing mass adoption.

I disagree. Why would I collect long term FTC or CNC when theres probably billions of them and one coin will never be worth $10,000 so unless I have millions or billions of coins it's not going to make sense. And also I don't see how having a 643,225,342 coins worth $10,000 is any different than having 1 coin or 0.36 coins. Neither are 1:1 to the dollar so neither make sense psychologically. It's just if you want the illusion of being rich then you'd rather have a large number next to the $10,000 in your wallet but to me I'm only concerned about the $10,000 becoming $50,000.
And with that you ruin any incentive for any long term collector types to want to collect them. Miners might benefit from having lots and lots of coins to sell, but without enough suckers to sell to then what? And really if everyone is already using Bitcoins and Bitcoins are worth $1000 each, where are you going to find these people? You'll be selling these coins in countries like Zimbabwe perhaps?


You're basically saying the coin should focus almost exclusively to the psychology of miners but miners already have Feathercoin and Chinacoin and Yet Another Coin and so many coins already which are doing exactly what you propose. What coin do coin collectors have to choose from? Mincoin or BTC, maybe PPC. Different psychological niches have to be considered.