I agree this one here is perfect.

Isn't novelty something we want in a niche coin? I admit it does not enhance the technology so from a technologically perspective it's not new (it's just Litecoin with different math), but from a psychological and economic perspective it's very different. You can tweak Litecoin and come up with a better Litecoin and this is still valuable if it's proven to actually be better based on those tweaks. If Mincoin had active development I would be confident in it's long term future, but because of it's tweaks I think it has a niche it's filling which no other Litecoin based coin effectively fills so it's safe for now.

I told you some niche coins are to be collected as a store of value and not as a currency. Gold bars, where do you spend them? You can't spend gold but you can buy it knowing it's value will keep going up over time. So what I'm saying is we need some coins just for that purpose to satisfy long term coin collectors who have an entirely different psychology from the short term speculator types who love Chinacoin and Feathercoin. The long term bulls and long term collectors want more coins like Mincoin while the short term profiteers want more coins like Feathercoin and Chinacoin. The technologists want to see a more secure or an anonymous coin.

I'm of a technologist and long term collector mindset. I'm not into the short term profiteering mindset unless I literally have no other way to make profit. The lack of balance is causing the collector types to contemplate or even go into mining or buying stuff like Feathercoin because when Feathercoin is 400% more profitable than any other coin at the time there is no better option but to mine that. But it doesn't change the fact that no one is going to collect Feathercoins and the niche exists for collectors.

The actual currency which will become mainstream should be Bitcoin, as it's the best technology. The candidates to beat Bitcoin in technology right now would be limited to Netcoin and PPcoin. Litecoin only beats Bitcoin in speed of transaction, but not in security. PPcoin may someday beat Bitcoin in security and Netcoin can improve on PPcoin. I agree more thought has to go into the technology and security side but at the same time the coins have to fill different psychological niches.


And that is the problem I have with Demurrage. I don't see how it can practically work. It's not going to be very fair to the people who don't have many coins to have to be taxed. I'm not against taxes or transaction fees but when those fees get too high people are going to transfer their wealth to another coin.

Freicoin features demurrage which is an anti-hoarding tax. I like the idea but I don't like the fact that there are 100 million coins. Perhaps if it were much more scarce the idea might make sense because I do think if we end up with a Bitcoin elite as some have termed it, where you have people who become Billionaires from mining or buying Bitcoin, those people should ultimately be made to invest or spend. I don't agree with the rate or numbers chosen by Freicoin to do it. I think for instance Demurrage shouldn't take place until we actually have Bitcoin billionaires. I think also the rate has to somehow be adjusted against something else. To just promote GDP just to promote GDP isn't a good idea because there could be situations where there is nothing useful to buy, and to force people to spend when theres nothing reasonable to spend it on isn't good. Also it might encourage short term investments rather than long term, and also how many coins would you need to have before demurrage kicks in?

If you have a total of 21 million coins like with Bitcoin and you have demurrage to that, then perhaps everyone who has over 50,000 coins should pay the hoarding tax? In this case it starts making sense and I would think it's a good idea if the size of the tax increases with the length of time the coins are hoarded in combination with the amount.

Like if someone hoards only 50 coins but hoards it for 10 years that should not trigger demurrage but if they are hoarding 50,000 coins over 5 years it should.

0.003 but I see your point. My point is that new coins have to offer new psychology, new math, new technology, to fit into different niches. People who like to collect coins love limited editions and it's just a niche. Coins will eventually figure out how to fill that niche and these limited edition coins will become incredibly valuable. In my opinion these coins should be treated as the store of value or store of wealth commodities so that other coins can focus more on acting like a currency.

The point is we need coins we can buy or mine which might someday be worth $10 million each if we hold onto them. We also need coins which we can use to make microtransactions really fast. Somehow Mincoin is able to hit the psychology of both these activities by allowing for long term holders to save them hoping they'll be worth more than Bitcoin even though we all know that probably wont happen, but at the same time for actual transactions it's much faster than Bitcoin or even Litecoin. Go and test it out.

The flaw in Mincoin is it does not seem to be under active development. The creator changed the math of Litecoin which altered the psychology drastically and made it more deflationary and I think this is a good thing because we actually needed a deflationary scarce version of Litecoin. But what happens next with it?

PPcoin is also needed because I think long term we all know Proof of Work isn't going to work. Mining isn't going to be profitable for much longer and the writing is on the wall. Transaction fees aren't going to change that either and if Bitcoin tries that route then PPcoin and Proof of Stake coins will be cheaper and will win.

The problem with Feathercoins, Chinacoins and other pump-dump coins is each new coin seems to up the total number of coins making it less and less attractive to long term collectors. Basically the only reason anyone buys these coins is for short term profits because they have no long term profit capability when theres trillions of them.

Go ahead, collect a few hundred out of the trillions upon trillions of grains of sand on the beach and then sell them in exchange for a pile of feces. It's just pump and dump. The way to make it work and I keep advocating it, the supply of these new alt coins has to be rare enough that you can't just go and buy them all up instantly, or mine millions of them in a day. It should be scarce like say 11 million, 10 million, even 5 million, and it should take a while to mine large amounts.

I think Mincoin has it right but thats just one coin. I think Bitbar went too extreme about it but as a concept it's going in the right direction. People will trade their Bitcoins for coins which are worth more. If a Bitbar is worth 10 Bitcoins now it makes perfect sense to trade 10 Bitcoins for a Bitbar so that if the price of Bitcoins collapses you've put your Bitcoin into the Bitbar. It makes sense to trade Bitcoin for Mincoin each Mincoin is worth twice the value of a Bitcoin long term. This makes sense for long term holders and collectors.

It does not make much sense for speculators who make up the vast majority of the people on exchanges. They want Feathercoin and Chinacoin because they have no intention of investing for 2-3 years, they are thinking 2-3 weeks or 2-3 days. That is the difference between scarce coins and the over produced coins. The over produced coins generate immediate profits because they are mined quickly, instamined or premined, and theres if you mine a billion in a few days then hype it up while you DDOS the exchanges so the price of Bitcoin drops, then yeah you can make a major profit doing that several times until people figure out the script.

A genuine coin offers either new technology, increased scarcity, or both. If the mathematics and psychology are not changed due to increased scarcity, or if the technology isn't new, it's probably a scam coin. Mincoin had new mathematics and psychology of scarcity making it superior to Litecoin in many ways. If Litecoin for example has direct competition it will probably be from Mincoin. PPcoin wouldn't compete with Litecoin it would replace it entirely. Litecoin wont be able to replace Bitcoin because the people who have Bitcoins when 1 Bitcoin is worth $100,000 if we get there, will never trade 1:1 for Litecoins when Litecoins are worth $10,000 or $20,000. The difference between $100,000 and $20,000 is so huge psychologically that there is no way Litecoin could ever overcome it and let's be honest. If Bitcoin were $100,000 Litecoin would probably be more like $3000-4000. It simply will not be able to compete with coin collectors who will sell all their Litecoin holdings for Bitcoin the moment it looks like Bitcoin could reach $100,000. This dump will keep the price of Litecoin from ever getting that high but it also means less people will use it because the value of Bitcoin in dollars will be so far beyond it.

So one thing to consider with all this is what value potential does that coin have in USD? The coin has to compete with USD, not just Bitcoin, not just alt-coins. Someday we may have cryptocurrencies where 1 coin is worth $10 million USD, but that cryptocurrency wont be Bitcoin because the math makes it improbable, and it wont be Litecoin because Litecoin moves the math to the opposite direction, so for long term holders and collectors we will need coins which will have value increase over the years if successful. A $10 million dollar coin is possible if there are only 5 million total that exist. These are the kinds of coins that coin collectors would trade BTC for to buy in hopes that they will be worth $10 million. Just as long as the technology is better than BTC I think it's fair.

The only coin that is more scarce than Bitcoin is Mincoin. People will only collect coins if the next generation of coins are more scarce than Bitcoins.

21 Million Bitcoins? There are 10 million Mincoins, plus Mincoins are based around scrypt and have fast transactions. Yet no one mentions Mincoins when they talk about alt-coins. It's always inflated overly produced pump and dump coins like Feathercoins. There are more Litecoins than Bitcoins so Litecoins will never be worth as much and their value is forever tied to the value of Bitcoin. If the price of Bitcoin goes down so goes Litecoin because Litecoin is less scarce than Bitcoin.

This is not true of Mincoin. When the Price of Bitcoin goes down Mincoin stays the same. PPcoin also stays the same when the Price of Bitcoin goes down. Scarcity does matter for collectors, we want a limited edition coin to collect.

This one is even better.

This is very good.

Who wants to buy some XRP ?

But true equality only exists in theory and has never been practical. Communism was never practical which is why it didn't work out too well. Capitalism also is not practical. I accept that true equality will not exist because it's like hoping for perfect symmetry in a changing environment which constantly makes it harder to maintain it. Instead I think allowing for opportunities, allowing many people who were never rich to get rich is an improvement over the current form of capitalism we have where only celebrities get rich and even then it's probably not entirely based on merit.
Meritocracy is a nice ideal, but I'm more practical and think it's good enough just to have a consistent changing of the guard whether it's done by merit, luck, randomly or not, it doesn't matter. New people have to become rich by whatever means works at the time and at this time the most opportunity is in cryptocurrencies. Just like in the past it was in the Internet and in the PC.

Investing your money wisely includes speculating. That is how the majority of people are making money in Bitcoin. Get a job (what jobs will exist if we don't have rich people who have billions to fuel the job growth?), start a business? How do you start a business if there aren't rich investors? No matter how you look at it, we need some people to become rich to grow the industry. There wont be any money for Bitcoin businesses or for Bitcoin jobs if there are no Bitcoin billionaires. Any other way relies entirely on the generosity and agenda of banks.

I'm saying we need millionaires or billionaires and that we don't have the time to build a perfect meritocracy to generate them. I think honestly the most fair way to do it at this time is to just have random people become millionaires or billionaires so that it feels like a lottery because that will get the maximum amount of people to buy Bitcoins and get involved on the superficial level. Most wont become rich, but most will make a nice profit and learn a lot about cryptocurrencies along the way and this is what I want.
This I agree with you on. I think mining is becoming too expensive and is not distributed enough. I do think there should be elites in terms of how many coins you have, but I think with most cryptocurrencies that isnt an issue because if you look at how most of the coins are distributed in most of the currencies the vast majority aren't elite holders with hundreds of thousands in coins in any cryptocurrency. SHA256 based mining is a completely different story as you cannot make any profit at all without ASICs and only the elite have ASICS. So I agree we have to make it so anyone can profit. In Bitcoin you can profit even if you get in late, but in mining you actually lose money if you get in late and it's not even under your control, that is the problem with it.

I agree with you that premined coins are a problem. I agree that occasional shakeups are good. I agree in theory that a meritocracy is desirable.  But I don't think generating a billion coins solves any of these problems. I don't think we need more than 21 million and still think 11 million is a number to aim for. I do think that the main concern should be growing the industry itself, and benefiting the community as a whole, and if some individual members get lucky and become rich, at least a portion of them will be in the position to fund and invest in many different businesses which benefits us all in the form of potential jobs or just useful utilities. So what I'm saying is even if a person gets Bitcoin rich and becomes a billionaire on pure luck, that person can still and probably will still invest in alt currencies or in the infrastructure etc. That person will now be in a position to start many businesses, provide many jobs, and make more people rich. I see it as a process or sequence where the old guard of Bitcoin makes the Litecoin early adopters rich based on the fact that the Bitcoin old guard built the infrastructure which Litecoin rides on, and the Litecoin old guard will make the next series of cryptocoin holders richer, and so on. It also makes fundraising much easier.

That said I absolutely do support the idea of a perfect meritocracy, or of a coin where wealth generates more evenly for all holders, but I think in order to get to that point we are going to have to make many people rich in the process. The infrastructure costs money to build, businesses cost money to start, jobs cost money, and the people who will have the most incentive to build and pay for that will be people who got rich from Bitcoin.

So people now can learn new ways of viewing currency. I don't see what is so wrong with that. When the WWW and Internet came along a lot of people had to learn a lot in order to use it but somehow we managed. We will manage, and if people need to get training let them pay for it in Bitcoins or write an app. The people who really want or who really need these coins have no problem dealing with this. I could write an app for myself to calculate this is I had to, and so could a million others like me, and it could easily be built into the web itself via the W3C such as Payswarm. Honestly, I don't think we should be concerned with this as a problem because by the time Netcoin arrives this problem will either be solved or people will already have learned to think in Bitcoin.

This is a toxic meme that you're generating for the purpose of portraying Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies as a Ponzi scheme(Ponzi meme). It's within the nature of capitalism to have people get rich. If some people are going to get rich why shouldn't it be people we know? People from our community? People who share our values and principles? The people associated with Bitcoin right now want to get rich just like anyone in any industry. People don't work real hard for free, that is slavery and I don't support that. I support the financial liberation of the Bitcoin community and making as many smart people rich as is necessary to make Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies a success.

When the Internet was booming and people were getting rich I didn't hear this kind of preaching about the Internet being a Ponzi scheme, or about how people on the Internet are only making websites in hopes to get rich and ride the Dot Com bubble. Were we this critical of Bill Gates? Steve Jobs or the lucky few who got rich in previous eras under similar circumstances?


It's good for any currency if people believe they can get rich. The only reason capitalism was so much of a success over communism, or that the USA was such a success, is because people believed in the American dream, the streets of gold, and a lot of other BS which was used to convince immigrants to come to the USA. The people who were already here for hundreds of years got "first adopter" benefits, got to own slaves to build fortunes, got land when land was very cheap and so on. The situation with cryptocurrencies is actually a standard gold rush and it's nothing different from what has happened in the past. This era should be described as the digital gold rush era. The last era was the dot com era.
So what you're saying is that some people win and you're mad and so you want to change cryptocurrencies so no one wins and everyone is relatively equal? But like I said before, if no one wins, even if everyone uses it, no one wins. I'd rather see people win even if it's not me.

And why is this bad? There will be many different coins with different properties, some rare, some not rare. You don't want any possibility for anyone to get lucky and be rich? But every industry was like that. Oil, gold, the personal computer, dot coms, it's all about who got there first. Many other businesses may have had better code, better plans, better designs, but they didn't get to the oil first, they didn't get to the gold first, they didn't built it (whatever it is) first. Like I said I'd rather a world where we have some winners, than a world where no one can win because it's all flat.

Socialism is fine, I don't mind if you introduce a coin which redistributes later down the line or which has a way to open things up at certain times so that there are enough opportunities for multiple generations. I do however think it's a mistake to not include opportunities for everyone and that includes the opportunity to get rich. Some people are going to get rich, some may even become very rich, and I'm not against this idea in theory.

I do understand your argument, that the Bitcoin elite or cryptocurrency elite may go on to become just like the old money elite but there is a huge difference. The old money elite is elite from inherited wealth and do not have to ever do anything.

The Bitcoin or cryptocurrency elite had to do a lot to get there and while some people might just get lucky and have stumbled upon Bitcoin at the right time, the vast majority of people have been following cryptocurrencies, cryptography, technology and certain subjects for many years and knew that at some point a cryptocurrency was going to happen because it was theoretically possible. If the worst that could happen is Satoshi, and some others become billionaires, I don't see it as a problem when you have celebrities in Hollywood becoming millionaires. I don't see it as a problem because for the vast majority of people who become rich from Bitcoin or cryptocurrencies, they were not born rich and that is a major difference. It also means that if some of them do become rich it will open up many doors and opportunities and grow the industry, how is this exactly a bad thing?

Inflationary vs Deflationary arguments:

The psychology argument for unlimited inflation is that if we make everyone feel like millionaires or billionaires when they really aren't, they'll spend more. This may be true in psychology but this is also the cause of debt. Credit helps people feel like millionaires when they are not, people borrow money to feel like they have money they don't actually have so that they'll spend money they cannot afford to spend. This produces a credit society and debt slavery which I'm vehemently against.

The psychology argument for deflation is that everyone feels poorer, but at the same time money is a lot more precious, a lot less wasteful spending, a lot less credit. Yes it is true the size of the GDP may be smaller in this scenario but the actual health of the economy is much better as if anyone really wants to go to college, or buy a house, or buy something, it becomes realistic that people can save for a while and buy it.

The difference is under inflation people buy on credit. Buying on credit introduces the possibility of long term debt. People are also more likely to take and receive loans because theres so much cheap money floating around. But there aren't enough jobs for people to pay those loans back and theres actually too much money in the system for too little value.

My views:
I think a good idea mentioned by Tacotime is to make it deflationary for 30 years and then put a very low inflation. This could actually work well if it were done as some kind of Proof of Stake. Miners have to make money, and some inflation if it's very limited isn't so bad. The problem is when we open the door to that we can end up with out of control inflation. This is something I would hope can be voted on in some way.

As far Netcoin must have a value greater than Bitcoin? Okay look at Chinacoin and Feathercoin, these two coins have in my opinion messed up the alt-coin market by greatly inflating the total amount of coins. What I'm saying is let's say I decide to create a coin tomorrow which has 100 trillion total coins and which produces a trillion new coins a year. This way everyone mining it feels rich, and let's say people are stupid enough to trade their Bitcoins in for these mass produced coins. After 6 months to a year of this when the bobble pops these people are going to find out that these coins are totally worthless because the value of these coins in relation to the dollar is going to drop when enough people have these coins.

So my argument in favor of deflation is not to say that deflationary policy has to last FOREVER, but that this coin has to compete with other coins and it has to be of greater value than the US dollar., In specific cryptocurrencies in general should limit their total inflationary output (meaning the total amount of cryptocoins being created including all alt coins and mainstream coins) has to be reigned in because the psychological effect I'm seeing is people are reaching conclusions that the alt coins are worthless due to losing money on Feathercoins, Chinacoin and many pump and dump scam coins which offer no technological advance other than theres a lot of them produced very quickly and sold for a very high price. This wealth transfer benefits whoever happened to mine these coins but these coins don't offer any innovation which benefits anything long term. Inflationary pump and dump coins produce short term profits while deflationary coins produce long term profits.

Both types of coins are going to make early adopters rich, but I think part of the success of Bitcoin is you can look at it now and you can know if it reaches 0.5-1% of the global economy it's going to be worth $70,000-100,000 each coin. This is actually desirable, what I'm saying is it's a good thing for Netcoin if those people who hold it are encouraged to hold it for years in hopes that each Netcoin could be worth millions. This turns people into long term stake holders and proof of stake encourages this even further. If Netcoin produced 11 million instead of 21 million then we would know that at some point if it's technology really is better than Bitcoin it's going to go head to head with Bitcoin. It's not going to aim for 2nd place like Litecoin, but instead aim for 1st place.

What I'm saying is you're not going to have any long term holders of a coin like Feathercoin, Chinacoin, or any of those coins with billions of coins being created or trillions of coins being created because there is no incentive to save these coins. And as far as spending goes, you don't have to give people an incentive to spend money. When the infrastructure exists to make it easy for people to get exactly what they want the moment they want it with these coins then people will start spending them.

We don't need to have a billion coins and be tricked into feeling rich when we can have millions of coins and actually live rich. The dollar already has trillions, and there will be no reason why we should make it cheap for billionaires and millionaires to buy into these reserved slots. 11 million coins will make it twice as expensive to buy into these reserved slots as before which would mean you'd still have the potential that some billionaire could buy a bunch of coins while they are cheap, but I don't see why we should make that easy. I see it where you have a limited supply you have limited slots,  just like not everyone can have a billion dollars, and no one has a trillion dollars,  not everyone should have a Bitcoin or a Netcoin. If we let everyone have one then the value of each wont be as high because a millionaire isn't going to pay a million dollars a coin when we'll give him a coin for 10 cent.

These opinions are mine only, anyone is free to disagree and now is the time to debate. I've made my position known, I do not support the Chinacoin/Feathercoin/Litecoin (cheapcoin) model. I support the idea of diversity where you have some cheap coins for certain purposes such as pump and dump but then you have some coins where we might want to save them for 10 years because they are so rare, and then some coins which are in the middle. Bitcoin is the center of the bellcurve and is the normal coin and normal is 21 million. Rare would be less than 21 million, and inflationary would be more than 21 million and despite the sentiments of others on this forum when I see a coin based on Litecoin with greater than 21 million total, the higher the total number of coins and the faster the generation of these coins the less likely I am to buy them and the more likely I am to see it as a pure speculation sport coin for pump and dumps or a coin so miners who premined or who got in early can make a quick profit.

Okay I will give Bitinstant a benefit of doubt because you do seem to be trying to resolve the issue. If it gets resolved I'll delete my post about Bitinstant.

I am finally convinced, Bitinstant is a scam.

They claimed to have resolved my issue on April 27th, and sent my coins apparently to an address on blockchain (which wasn't mine) but which blockchain claims is some sort of forwarding shared address for privacy reasons. Long story short, I never received the coins or a refund. I don't expect to ever receive the coins from Bitinstant and regretfully I have reached the conclusion that Bitinstant is a scam company.

Blockchain.info has a feature called oa shared wallet privacy. Do not use this feature. If you lose this feature the same situation that happened to me will happen to you. If Bitinstant forgets or due to technical reasons cannot send you your coins at the time it's expected and you used the shared wallet feature you will not receive your coins. Instead it will go to a random address.

In my case the coins went to that random forwarding address and probably was sent to someone else or got lost in the block chain. The lesson here is and which should be spread is that this feature is broken when used in combination with Bitinstant. In fact, I would say this feature doesn't work period as there is very little detail on how it works and on how secure it actually is and in my case it is now proven that its technically possible that your transactions can be lost.

Here is a copy of the emails I sent to Blockchain.info ---

https://blockchain.info/address/1CghGBzMDPVqPGb63Vyf9uWAh3JGwco9Un
In this most recent blockchain.info it's saying the Bitcoins 3.69843968
BTC were sent to that address.
1JQ4eo82X9YQW3Mu1TbHADCpSAmWwYutUT --> 1Hh54JkZRbSCom3ddsbJuVgACpy4dwbTXg
Which are supposed to be forwarded to my address at -->
1D71ihfwJdY99AxGPdtQd1Zu2L6szUMZTj
were instead forwarded to 1CghGBzMDPVqPGb63Vyf9uWAh3JGwco9Un ??
Can you tell me whats going on here? Does the oa shared wallet feature
even work?

------

I received no response after sending several emails to their Zendesk support. It's safe to say that oa shared wallet does not work as I received no response and merely a "closed".  See it for yourselves
But they never sent me my coins, never responded to me, and solved nothing, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. It's safer to buy your coins from localbitcoins. Dealing with corporations at this point is more of a risk than dealing with individuals in the community.

Payswarm is better than Ripple.

Sounds exactly like the idea I proposed here  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=190856.msg1993197#msg1993197

Let's collab and form a team of like minded individuals who would like to go in this direction. Vote in favor and make your voice heard.

That has nothing to do with scarcity. That can be solved by simple saying 0.001 is 1 Net dollar. Then as the Net dollar becomes 0.0001 then we call that 1 Net dollar and so on.


It wont make the price too high. It's really simple. 1 Bitcoin dollar is 0.001. It might change a little bit but for now that's an approximation.  We can easily put the dollar amount next to BTC so when you have 0.2443 BTC it's $3. We could do the same for Netcoin.

The reason this isn't a problem isn't because of scarcity, it's because the exchange developers and others involved in the infrastructure are either lazy, or are nerds who expect everyone to like fractions. This will change as it goes mainstream for many of the reasons you mention and the change doesn't have to be built into the coin design it just requires a small piece of code that I could write or anyone could which fetches the latest exchange rate and then translates it into dollars, cents, etc.


One thing to consider is lifespan. A coin is part of an evolutionary process or story. I don't expect any of these coins to be around 100 years from now, not even Bitcoin. If these coins are still used 100 years from now then something went seriously wrong in our society if we didn't advance since then.

How long did Netscape 1.0 last? Until Netscape 2.0. Netscape 2.0 lasted until Internet Explorer. Mozilla came along and gave Internet Explorer competition. The shelflife of new technologies should be expected to shrink as we approach what Kurzweil calls the technological singularity. It is for this reason that I say the time scale that Bitcoin was working with isn't going to work for the next generation of coins and it's for precisely the same reason that the upgrade cycle on browsers had to change and now we are on Chrome 20 and Firefox 10 or 11. The upgrade cycle either increases with the decreasing lifecycle or most of these coins will be dead within 5-6 years. Technology speeds up the rate of change and the rate of evolution, and I agree with you completely that we need to treat it like a coin tournament and try out as many different coins and types of money philosophy as we can until we discover what works best for what. It's about filling different niches, as no coin is perfect for everything. It's also about improving on whatever is out there because that is evolution.

If it's crowd sourced I will support it with funding if I can. This decision you have made to consider this will definitely get you community support if implemented, you wont have to worry about paying for development.

At the same time I don't think it would hurt the coin too much either.

What you forget is that Netcoin will be years after Bitcoin. By the time Netcoin gets it's chance Bitcoin will already be a success already or not and the infrastructure will already exist. The utility of cryptocurrencies is already becoming obvious to people and will be even more obvious in the future.

What I'm saying is we don't need another Bitcoin. We need something which offers improvements. Being more scarce than Bitcoin by an order of magnitude is in my opinion an improvement and if Netcoin does not do this then it wont compete with Mincoin, Bitbar, or whatever more scarce coin is out there. It's about evolution and to evolve the coin must improve in all areas including scarcity.

Bits aren't tangible they are information. So comparing it to gold and platinum is irrelevant. We can make cryptocurrencies as scarce as we want. We could make it so scarce that there are only 1000 that ever exist. I'm not saying I would want that but there is nothing in mathematics which says it couldn't happen and so some coins are going to keep pushing those boundaries and guess what? People are going to eventually choose those coins because their money will be worth much more in those coins. My point is that if you introduce a new coin it should be a little bit more scarce than whatever else is out there as a way to market your new coin and to make people trade their old coins for your new coin. Why would I trade my Bitcoin or Mincoin for Netcoins if I know my Bitcoin is already worth more, already used more, I mean come on what incentive do I have to trade?
Not everyone has a billion dollars either. But some people are billionaires. If we make everyone a billionaire then it's not capitalism anymore. Some people have to get very rich and some not, that is just how markets work. To try to put everyone on the same level provides no incentive for people to play the game.
I disagree. I think 10 million is the lowest right now(21 million was good for 2009 because fewer knew about Bitcoin), and that is not the lowest it could go. I think the lowest it could go and make sense would around the amount of current users of Bitcoin. Let's estimate that 2 million people know about Bitcoin and are using it right now. The lowest we could reasonably go would then be 2 million. I'm saying the lowest we could go should be based on the size of the community where each member of the community could get at least 1 coin. You're thinking about people who don't know about Bitcoin yet and saying in 4 - 5 years when those people stop thinking about it as a ponzi scheme or something to buy drugs with, that they will want coins. Yes they'll want coins then but there is no reason why we should generate coins merely to make the non-believers and late adopters rich. I'm saying the minimum to generate is enough to support the current community. 21 million is way bigger than the current Bitcoin community. 10 million which Mincoin supports is way bigger than the current cryptocurrency community. If it were less than 2 million coins then it's a nonsense because then it's not enough coins for everyone in the community to at least have a coin.

As the community expands, no I don't think that number should grow. I think the number should shrink. Meaning we have 2 million members give or take right now? In a year it could be 10 million, right? Mincoin would still outpace that. In 3 years it could be 50-100 million people and by then because the demand would so outnumber the supply this is when the value would have to shoot way way up, but this is a good thing because it funds the development of alt coins and funds the community. So I agree unlimited scarcity wont work in practice for a currency, neither would unlimited inflation. And I don't think 21 million makes sense because when Bitcoin was made no one knew it would be a success or not and the 21 million was considered good for that time, but if the boundaries are not pushed then evolution doesn't take place. Push the boundaries when you can safely do so and I think 10 million is safe.

Lots of scarcity is fine when you can just break the currency up infinitely. If Netcoin is worth 2 Bitcoins each then everyone with Bitcoin will trade for Netcoins. This is necessary for the same reason that Bitcoin had to be 21 million so everyone with dollars would trade for Bitcoin. If Bitcoin were 1:1 with dollars why would anyone trade their dollars in? Netcoin has to be more scarce than Bitcoin for the exchange value. If it's worth exactly the same as Bitcoin why not just use Bitcoin? Even if Netcoin is better technology, if it costs a Bitcoin people will go with Bitcoin.

What about random interval schedules? If the miners don't know exactly how many coins they'll get or when, they'll mine forever and it will be random just who gets how much of what. This would create a maximization of mining resources while discouraging the ASICs.

Think of it like an RPG where if you use the best weapon in the game (ASICS) it might not work on every monster which spawns. Since you wont know which monster will spawn, you wont want to use just any weapon but have them all. And since you don't know when that rare monster will spawn, you'll have to hunt in that area for as long as it takes until it spawns. Think of Dragonquest with the metal slime. Think of Final Fantasy with cactrot.