I think i'd like the coin better if it didn't have the website stamped onto it.
yeah I feel the same. It actually serves a cool purpose, but I agree. I'd buy one if it weren't for that. Perhaps the coin creator should make a 2nd type of coin without the website branding on it and sell it for more? That way he could lower the price on his existing coins (they'll be subsidized by the higher priced ones) or give them away for free to promote his site (1 per order of the new coins?). A non-numbered coin would also be cheaper to have made, so there would be a much higher profit margin, especially considering he could charge a large premium. Giving 1 of his website branded coins for free with the order of new coins would also get people like myself (and probably the 2 people I quoted) to give his website a try with their free coin. I'd imagine that would be a great help to getting this project off the ground. |
|
|
|
|
I was trading A LOT when the price was bouncing all over the place. The last 2 weeks I've barely been trading. The price movement just isn't providing the opportunities it once was. I think the trading bots stabilized the price a little and ruined my fun.
|
|
|
|
Got my 0.03 BTC! Thank you mc_lovin  +1 |
|
|
|
I would be surprised if we do not hit $100 in September.
I would be happy if it hit $40 by the end of the year. |
|
|
|
|
So...
Has is stabilized or are we going to see 2.5 million sometime in 2011?
|
|
|
|
|
If you don't want to keep the BTC, I say you should spend it to help support the community. Buy lots of stuff off the forum to support fellow members. Donate some to people's sig addresses when they say something useful. Try a few of the gambling websites. Just spread them around, have fun doing it, and get some cool stuff.
|
|
|
|
Then tell me how it is not getting bigger if the number of blocks in the bitcoin blockchain increases every 10 minutes or so?
Obviously I was referring to the belief that the Bitcoin chain will get bloated with Namecoin data. That's because you don't understand the concept of merged mining that's being discussed. |
|
|
|
The miners will decide if they mergemine pussycoins or nutsackcoins depending on profitability. If nobody cares about those chains then nobody will mine them.
It is the pool who decides, not the miners... My understanding of the proposal is that this could be done by the pool without the miner's knowledge. To take that a step further, it's the programers that would be merging the blockchains that decides... It sounds like you don't really understand what is being proposed? Sorry if I'm incorrect. |
|
|
|
|
While I like the idea of 2 for 1 mining, I think merging the 2 projects is a mistake. The only argument I can make in favor of this merge is greed. Bitcoin is something special and starting to gain mainstream acceptance. Don't pollute the project by merging it with anything that will make an extra buck. It will most likely only destroy both projects, or at least devalue them to the point where they're basically worthless. Not to mention, what about when pussycoins come to the market, or nutsackcoins? Who decides what can/can't be merged? It's starting to make bitcoin sound a whole lot less attractive to me. Don't go down that rabbit hole.
|
|
|
|
This has got to be some kind of geek metaphor-stretching record.
I agree. |
|
|
|
|
This would be a good opportunity to teach your child that the world is full of average people and average = dumb. While learning to recognize and discredit misinformation you hear coming out of an average person's mouth is important, you must be respectful and argue your point maturely. That is where your child failed, and the reason he should 'serve his time' as they say.
|
|
|
|
|
Ya, don't blame the brand. I have 2 HIS-6870s and they run fine. Worst thing that ever happened was when the sticker peeled off one of them.
|
|
|
|
Traders go where the volume is. Nuff said.
pffft...lol...spoken like someone who isn't a trader. I'm actually a legitimate stock trader who trades BTC for cheap entertainment. You on the other hand... |
|
|
|
|
High volume is not a measure of miners selling bitcoins, OR of speculators selling/buying... For example...
1 man mines a coin, sells it. This causes price to drop.
A trading bot buys coin, resells it $0.05 higher than buys it again $0.05 cheaper, rinse and repeat. This causes high volume.
Conclusion:
Miners selling coins is what is driving the price down. Trading bots buying and selling coins repeatedly is driving the volume up and stabilizing the price so you can see the nice steady decline that miners liquidating their coins are causing.
I hope that is simple enough.
To make another point, if 7,200 coins are being created daily, it would take an injection of around $100,000 per day just to keep the price stable. Lets say 1/2 of those miners are not selling the coins... That is still $50,000/day that needs to be injected into bitcoins from other currencies. Obviously, we are not seeing that, hence, the price is declining.
*I don't believe early adopters selling coins are causing the price to drop. They are in no hurry to cash out or they already would have and wouldn't be causing a slow motion crash due to them being early adopters and believing in the BTC...
|
|
|
|
I've got a $75 one that I'll sell for 1BTC.  |
|
|
|
|
Traders go where the volume is. Nuff said.
|
|
|
|
|
Oh the money that could have been made...
|
|
|
|
|
Very interesting project. I'm not sure if I should be scared or excited.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
