I agree with most of the sentiment on this thread. In particular, switching out from scrypt mining and going to a different algorithm.

If you're hoping to get a head start on an anticipated growth in value that could happen when more and more miners switch their rigs back on when it becomes winter again, you should just buy coins instead of trying to squeeze pennies of profitability.

In either case, with sCrypt ASICs, a different algorithm is the way to go. But even those new algorithms are quickly losing daily profitability.

One common approach, and one that I adhere to, is a percentage/target based amount. So I have a pegged fund value that I have as a target for my current amount of bitcoins (in terms of USD since most of my investments are in USD). So when there is a rally, I will sell a portion so that my fiat value doesn't exceed my target amount (after factoring for accumulation and current short-term growth rates). It's worked well for me in the past and I don't plan on changing my approach any time soon.

My conversion is roughly around 5% of what I make. Even though bitcoin has shown tremendous growth potential, especially these last few months, I'm still fairly cautious on going overboard with bitcoin.

[Just for perspective, I put around 30% of my income into various investment vehicles.]

Uh...XRP is Ripple.
XPM (what the OP is writing about) is PrimeCoin.

Anyhow, I think XPM isn't as appealing as other coins because it's backbone for mining is with cloud computing. I think it still has some future viability, but as a long-term "asset" it falls short on my radar.

Regarding this, I like the fourth one the best. Definitely agree, determining a consensus for bitcoins along with its various subunits is a pretty important issue.

If I remember correctly, the bottom one is the typeset that was being proposed for ASCII right?

Anyhow, I like the classic logo way more.

It'd be awesome if they could display the fact that you can donate in bitcoin more prominently. Other than that, it's definitely welcome news.

It's funny that it took this long though. There was such a push for this before.

Although the price doesn't show any signs of pushing to $1000 again, there are still 5 more months left in the year. Oddly enough, I don't think it'll be a directly bitcoin-related issue that will be the catalyst for another rally.

But stability is nice after having so much crazy activity in 2013.

Its only similarity is in the shared idea of victim blaming, other than that, the analogy is completely off-base. It's fundamental tenets are vastly different and the prior argument requires implicit information in order to be taken at full-value. There are both formal and informal fallacies with the analogy. And the comparison is simply offensive.

Here's another difference: the expectation of outcome.

The woman does not directly have any expectation of a physical encounter (she could just be returning home from a day out with friends).
The investor does have an expectation of trading (and in particular for a profit).

There are so many better analogies that exist, so don't bring that weak sauce in here.

Regarding scams though, although I feel for those who lose, cryptocurrency is a place where free market ideals are taken to a significant extreme. People assume that they can make easy money here, but they also need to face the fact that they can lose that money just as easily. It comes with the territory. If you're looking for a safer way to make money off an investment, you're looking at the wrong place. Go find a place with regulation or insurance as protection.

No. However, the cryptocurrency scene is relatively new and unproven. And accordingly you will get results that will match.

Secondly, casinos are part of a regulated scene and function within that type of purview. These exchanges do not fall remotely within the same scope or oversight as a casino. The gambling is more akin to a gamble between unverfied/untrusted parties. It comes with the territory of dealing with unregulated trading in a "free" market.

No it is not. That is a horribly insensitive, untactful, and insulting comparison to make. One involves personal freedoms and the ability to go where ever one pleases to go. This incident on Bittrex is people going of their own volition for a profit scheme motive.

People have the right to go to most places with the expectation to be safe and secure. People do not have the right to gamble and expect a return. One is a right and the other is a privilege. Huge difference.

Yes, this actually does sound like a good deal. Get me the sand first and I'll give you one bitcoin.

[I'm not sure you actually took the trouble to calculate this out.]

I think more than anything, an audit of their systems, along with records of these audits is what many of these exchanges need to start adopting in order to gain true legitimacy and establish a pattern of protection of the customer. An audit would ensure further accountability, which in a lot of these cases is what is missing from these alt-exchanges.

If the big dogs (i.e. Coinbase and Bitpay) are establishing auditing methods, then so should the legitimate exchanges.

Well, it looks like the trendline has decided to go in the opposite direction...

Please keep saying that bitcoin will crash and never, ever say that bitcoin will have a huge rally (I shiver at what could happen if you say that).

Really? If that's the case, I have a Nigerian Prince I would like you to meet.

Personal accountability and due-diligence should always be practiced when dealing in financial matters. Should people who invest willy-nilly into all sorts of endeavors have a safety net to protect them? No.

It's the investor's fault that they either believed a wildly crazy valuation for a coin or for looking for a quick buck. If you're going to try finding a quick buck, you have to live with the consequences when things don't go as planned.

I do agree that exchanges should have more protective policies implemented, especially regarding ICOs (such as holding the developer's funds for a extended period of time based on market performance; or disbursing the funds on some sort of time schedule so that continuous work is made). But, those ICOs wouldn't exist if people weren't so eager to part with their money for the chance at a quick buck.

As mentioned, payment processors is the way to settle this. Payment processors "solve" two of the "traditional problems" that I see with only relying on the blockchain: Point-of-Sale "speed" (i.e. a check to see sufficient funds or credit in order to process a sale), and the more pressing issue of "volume" (it'd be a continuous cycle of expansion to modify the blockchain to accept the amount of transactions that are done in credit/debit form).

However, the idea of having an intermediary processing a majority of the funds and in essence functioning as a bank of some sort is a vast decry from the tenets of bitcoin.

[I honestly feel that as bitcoin gains further traction and usage, some places will need to mitigate the risk of micro-transactions. And this will involve more places adopting a model in which you will need to keep your funds in an online wallet in order for them to be readily accessible. Could you imagine Coinbase being the next "Visa/Mastercard" and having the supporting infrastructure and risk mitigation to support the amount of transactions that are currently performed on a daily basis?]

A while back I made a suggestion in Meta but it didn't get much feedback. I suggested putting viewing ability limits on threads made in the Alternate Cryptocurrencies sub-forum; with the restriction that only people who are logged in and are at least member level status being able to view it.

So if a newbie opens a new thread in the Alternate Cryptocurrencies sub-forum only member and higher who are logged in can view the post and discuss the new coin that is created. It might be a bit draconian, but I felt that something draconian was needed to stem this ridiculous influx.

Oh bother. Well then...



Hehe. 

DOGE is simply approaching the value of its natural function...

Maybe they should make DOGE an umbrella coin and have a whole family of meme coins branched underneath it.  That might help its "value." [Dear God, please don't let this actually happen...]

Based on the way the crypto world works, the risk on this is significantly high. But in terms of a more mainstream investment, it's actually more in-line with the "crazy" things that have already happened.

Fortunately the test clients that they have had available seem pretty solid in form.

This may be very risky, but I'd rather throw something at a company that could have far-reaching impact in the entire crypto realm (and not just via ethereum, but also in terms of future IPOs in terms of crypto and other similar regulatory issues) than at some of the ridiculous things that have had wildly inflated valuations. [Example: the "Yo" app raised over $1.5M and is valued at $10M.]