One of the current unfortunate realities is there is bittrex and polo ... and then nobody else before the big leagues of MP/Cryptsy.  If you can't get on polo, that means you need to cobble together a group of the smaller exchanges and hope it brings in some extra volume.

MP voting is nice to boost morale and get people active, but you have to be realists too. The coin is just so far away, with very few people voting, it'd take forever to get voted up, even with .05 x10 people paying for votes. You'd need to spend about 10-15 btc to boost it up into the top 10 coins, and then, maybe, you could get more people voting.  There is little point to doing so right now, as there isn't a whole lot of infrastructure or demand behind the coin yet.

The coin has a total of 224 votes. It's crazy to think you can vote this coin up like this, or .05 towards voting will even matter. The only way to currently get the coin listed is for ipo money to be used, but the real time for that was during the coin's earlier days.

Instead pick a smaller exchange, and go for voting there (or bounties if they take them for listing). It'd be a better use of that .05.

That is the one way I could see Litecoin being worthwhile; basically innovating off its differences with bitcoin. The problem is, I haven't seen any real innovation, nor plans for anything in the near future that makes me think litecoin should go up in value.

Of course it may, and perhaps there are things planned that are quite unique. But, again, it does appear to be more a 'stay the course' type of coin, even if that course has been leading downward. I wouldn't tell anyone to invest or not invest in any coin, but I simply don't see a reason for myself to invest in it.

You must have edited this in, or I missed it.

Popular coins probably can handle it. That gocoin thingy that supports ltc and gift card purchases, for instance, also accept dogecoin. And I believe they have nxt planned soon too.

So you are right in the sense that no, not every alt will be accepted. But it will be more than just ltc. It already is.

I think since bitcoin is the one crypto that the general public has heard of, if it falls apart in a dump, that there really won't be a safe haven in any crypto at all. For other cryptos to survive if btc dies, I think their overall acceptance will have to be much greater than it currently is. To the general public, they have heard of btc... and, umm.. .maybe that funny looking coin they saw in a nascar race.

But even I'm wrong here, and ltc would thrive if btc got dumped to smithereens, I wouldn't say that's a good reason to invest in ltc. That means you are placing a bet that btc will get knocked not only from the #1 spot, but get killed in a dump. Yeah, sure, it could happen ... but I wouldn't want to bet that it will happen.

I'm not entirely sure people are saying that. Bitcoin has its spot due to being first... if it came out today, I expect it'd get passed over for a lack of innovation.

As for widespread adoption, again, multi coin processors probably will handle that in the end. Which means it's a level playing field for all popular coins. And if we all had to be perfectly honest here, one of the reasons btc rose like it did was due to somewhat shady transactions, so I wouldn't rule out anon coins based on that fact alone.

As for the idea that ltc is safer than btc, due to the risk of a dump -- I'd argue that if btc crashes due to Satoshi dumping, that he takes everyone with him. That means ltc, alts, crypto in general. If btc dies, ltc and friends go too. Consumer confidence in cryptos would be gone forever.

Other checks should help get around the puppet issue, and requiring a NXT account and doing IP checks should stop many of them. I'm just thinking of those who, for lack of a better word, are sort of evil here... there is a greater proportion of hackers + those with pc knowledge than other places, so obtaining multiple IPs, multiple NXT accts, probably won't be the most difficult thing for them. If you have other checks which you haven't made public (which would be wise), maybe it'll stop those too.

And yeah, if you make the post requirement too high, it may be harder for new people to get coin, so I get that. A middle ground may be best, in my opinion ... something like 50-100 posts, or more coin for those with 100+ posts, etc. Again, besides hindering sockpuppets, ideally distribution would hinder dumpers as well. Too many freebie coins get dumped to smithereens almost immediately. The coins that actually handled that best so far probably was com and itc (at least they lasted long enough to hit the big exchanges)... com's distribution was iffy, but itc did the tiered post thing.

Well, with the multi coin processor stuff, I expect ltc to be accepted at the same number of places as any other coin. So that's a plus in the sense that ltc then will be usable almost anywhere cryptos are... but so will every other crypto (or popular ones) too. It levels the playing field.

Interesting read. Litecoin is actually the coin I first read about that got me interested in cryptos back in Jan (read some article somewhere on it). Before then, I had no idea that alt coins even existed and a very rudimentary knowledge of bitcoin. I thought I'd play around with this crypto stuff and maybe I could get a free litecoin out of it, just for fun.

I never bothered really going past that 1 ltc (and have since sold it) and now have a small chunk of btc instead (and various alts). The problem I saw, and still see, is a lack of innovation and the fact that there really is no reason for the value of ltc to rise a whole lot anymore.

I think the OP touched on one really important fact, multi coin processors for purchases. They already exist, and I think they will become the standard if cryptos make any headway into being used as a currency by the general public at all. And that means there will be no difference between ltc, doge, nxt, or whatevercoin, when ConsumerX decides to use crypto to buy something.

The only coins then that could stand out a bit are those that have unique features (nxt flavors, ethereum, maidsafe, anon coins, etc). And I'm not saying any of them will even take the #2 spot, but that #2-#6 spot may end up being somewhat bunched up close to one another.

Looks interesting.

I think the best way to avoid sockpuppets is to have an even more stringent requirement in regard to posts. I mean, if someone has been here at least a couple of months, they should probably have around several hundred posts if they have been active here. That way you not only get around the puppet issue, but those getting the coin may be less likely to dump seeing as they didn't simply make an account to get freebies. These 20-40 post requirements some freebie coins use as a requirement is absolutely nothing really.

Alternatively go with tiered amounts given out based on number of posts + member status, or something like that. In the long run it may be better, as again it should lead to less dumping.

A 4K wall is doable, although I wonder if they'd be better off just renting machines with their ipo money and mining on the multipool instead. It'd then create buy support, yet not just be a way for people to dump coins into a wall. Maybe at this point they should do a bit of both.

I disagree with the other poster regarding ditching the merchant plans. I may be in the minority, but I like to see a coin at least potentially have a use as a currency. The problem, as stated, is creating an incentive for people to use that crypto as a currency.

The devs here said they were working on ideas, but as of yet hasn't mentioned what their plan was.

There are ways to do it  --

Offer a discount for purchases using DCM over BTC or cash. To do this, they'd need to cover the costs or convince the vendors to cover the cost. They do have a lot of ipo money that could be used to offer discounts with, if they so choose.

There is an obvious volume problem, so right now I think if they do the merchant thing, they'd have to limit daily sales, or they'll crash volume if they sell DCM as soon as purchases are made. Again, the ipo money can get around this somewhat, by simply having the devs hold whatever DCM they get in, and using ipo money to cover costs.

And something I suggested to the Noble dev a while ago for their marketplace, is I think it would be interesting for a coin to set up a discount on a marketplace based on the number of coins held. Think of it like POS, but instead of extra coin, the person gets an extra market discount. It's not only an incentive to use the marketplace, but an incentive for people not to dump their coins.

This is the time when the dev team needs to be the most active.

The coin should be around #4 today on MP, assuming Monero gets added.

It'd be a 5 horse race then with Zim/Aiden/Jackpot/XBC/Stability.  Voting contests, multipool, whitepapers, whatever else the team has planned... should be done now. The way coins shoot up so fast (besides buying votes) are those vote contests ... numerous sites you can run them on, and besides extra votes, it's a form of marketing. Someone out there buy votes, or get some contests going, and the coin could even sneak in next week ... but if the team does things properly, at the least we'd be looking at is 2-4 weeks. It's very doable.

That's the spirit. Post some more negative fork stuff (before it's fixed, please), or maybe make up something. Lies always seem to work well in this forum. More cheap Drks before the fix would be nice.

Price has actually gone up since the OP started this thread... wrong direction.

I wouldn't even ask that much. But they should try to get it in the 5-7K range. If it's stable there, then it can move up naturally as they release merchant/coin stuff. And ideally other exchanges too.

I didn't suggest buy support so people who bought in at ipo prices can get out, but simply just to keep losses to a min, and have a stable price to work from.

Nice to see a thread up again.

Anyway, don't mean to start the new thread off on a sour note, but have the devs given any thought to renting machines to mine on the multipool? Or offering buy support directly?

I recall more than once they stated they would protect investors from a catastrophic loss. I think it may be time to press that emergency button.

They should start their own moderated thread, or we will just get DCM spillover here, which isn't so good. I also suggest the dev team sign up someone to handle forum duties over the weekends, as it seems they are always with family or busy at that time. Assuming they are adults, that is understandable, but that also seems to be when people here are the most active.

I had to check the price, thought someone dumped a ton or something... was hoping to pick up some extra Drk at what I assumed was a nice price. It's mid/upper-15s, so not really a whole lot different than it has been the last day or two.

Guess your goal is to spread FUD to lower the price, and I assume pick up some extra Drk too? You need to do a better job at it, as the price has hardly moved.

Apologies if this has been mentioned already (assume it has), but what date has the dev stated they will attempt the hardfork/fix for node payments? 2 weeks or so from now?

I may pick up some spare drk during the lull, depending on what the price does. Just wondering how long I may have.

I believe several of the things being developed for DCM will be shared with XBC (thread here about it somewhere). Different lead developers, different teams, so I wouldn't look at it like priority has gone to one coin or another.

I'd suspect it's due to our friend Bob. His last post veered from trolling into the somewhat gray area of criminal harassment.

They really should start a moderated thread for DCM. Although at this point it may not even matter.