Okay, danke! Den Beitrag hatte ich übersehen obwohl ich eigentlich dachte den Thread durchgelesen zu haben.

Nüchtern gesagt ist Lisk ja dann im Grunde ein Overtake plus Rebranding inklusive neuem ICO. Das ist weniger kritisch gemeint als es sich vielleicht anhört, da ein großer Pluspunkt natürlich gerade der sein, kann dass sie nicht bei Null beginnen und gleichzeitig offensichtlich, wie Du schon bezüglich Öffentlichkeitsarbeit sagst, mit viel neuer Energie (auch finanzieller) die gewünschte Richtung ansteuern können. Eigentlich ist das eine ziemlich perfekte Ausgangsposition.

Wenn ich es richtig sehe wird die relevanteste Frage sein inwiefern möglichst viele gute Dev's möglichst viele gute DAPP's entwickeln und inwiefern damit dann echter Umsatz generiert wird. Crypti ist ehrlich gesagt total an mir vorbeigegangen, was mich selbst am meisten wundert da ich in deren Startphase eigentlich ziemlich viele Projekte kannte und in ne Menge Müll investiert habe. Crypti hätte ich damals vermutlich als sehr vielversprechend wahrgenommen und mal abgesehen davon dass das Projekt irgendwie im Sande verlaufen zu sein scheint, ist es offensichtlich ja grundlegend nicht schlecht.

Mein bisheriges Fazit ist, dass das hier wirklich interessant aber für mich bisher auch schwer einzuschätzen ist.

Was ich übrigens perfekter gefunden hätte wäre wenn die Ökonomie etwas in die Richtung ginge wie der von Factom, also das der Erzeugung neuer Coins auch ein Verbrauch gegenüber steht, was der preislichen Bewertung dann eine objektivere Basis geben würde. Bei Factom ist es so dass die Nutzung des Systems einer Umwandlung von Factoids zu Entry Credits entspricht, womit die eigentliche Währung (Factoids) den Kreislauf verlässt während die partizipierenden Server pro Monat 73k (entspricht 10% Inflation pro Jahr) neue FCT's erzeugen. Ich weiß nicht genau ob so etwas für Lisk Sinn machen könnte und ob es überhaupt umsetzbar wäre, aber grundlegend glaube ich dass viele zukünftige Projekte in so eine Richtung gehen könnten weil es eine verdammt elegante Ökonomie ist.

Aber... so oder so ist das hier definitiv eines der interessantesten Projekte in meinen Augen.

Problem könnte sein, dass soweit ich das richtig sehe, Crypti-Investoren mit gutem Plus ins Trading starten und möglicherweise relativ schnell verkaufen werden. Denkbar ist auch, dass gerade jene die viel Crypti halten nicht besonders gut über Lisk denken und den Kurs dann ganz gerne schrotten werden um ein bisschen für Bad PR zu sorgen. Aber, ist alles sehr spekulativ. Bisher vermute ich aber, dass der Kurs nach dem Start nicht besonders viel kurzfristiges Potential hat und möglicherweise unter ICO-Preis fallen könnte. Habe daher zwar etwas im ICO gekauft, war aber zurückhaltend.

Ein paar grundsätzliche Fragen habe ich: 

1. Inwiefern unterscheiden sich die beiden Projekte, Crypti und Lisk, technisch und von der Idee? Gibt es deutliche Vorteile von Lisk gegenüber dem vorherigen Crypti-Design?

2. Welche Zwecke haben die Lisk-Token genau? Sie sind Bezahlung für das DPoS-System und Währung zum Kauf der DAPP's?

3. Welche Vor- und Nachteile haben DAPP's insgesamt gegenüber dem was wir von dezentralen App's kennen?


Insgesamt würde ich gerne ein paar Ansichten lesen wie hier das Potential insgesamt eingeschätzt wird, möglichst ohne Hype oder FUD. 

BUY HIGH!

SELL DRUNK!

 

My prediction: Everybody with some patience won't be disappointed. That was the case in the last months and I'm pretty sure it will be the same for the next months, maybe just weeks or even just days.

Bittrex is not relevant in this game. They were too late. And please, keep cool. After such a rise it's totally normal that the price goes down a little bit. No reason to panic.

So, unreal numbers say a lot? How is that possible?



I doubt that, because there are no solutions for initial problems like the economical-design. Coin-destruction can be hardly called an elegant solution. And there is no real sign that Neucoin really grows. I mean, you say the numbers are exaggerated for the purpose of marketing and there is no way to find out the real numbers. But it's easy to figure out if there is user-growth or not in general. If the number of followers doesn't increase, if the number of FB-likes stays the same and at a low level, if the google-searches even decrease... where should the user-growth be? Take a look here, an interesting comparison:




Factom and Neucoin started (nearly) at the same time. Both had an ICO and while Neucoin claim they would have captured > 4000 BTC, Factom captured just 2.278 BTC. The first time Neucoin had more searches than Factom and Factom doesn't have 8000 new users per day. But obviously the google-trend shows an explosion, while Neucoin decreases. And that shouldn't be possible if there is any real user-growth. It's that simple.

And if you compare it with other projects, projects without money-backing and "big names"... you'll see: A lot of those projects have more user-interaction, more followers, more community-communication, higher volume, and so on.

And I know that it's seen as FUD if I write those things, but besides the obvious problems with the tech and the design and the lack of communication, it's quiet hard to believe anything what comes from the team, if independent/objective informations are that much in conflict with team-infos. All together adds up to the biggest problem: Credibility.

Das könnte die Ursache für den Kurs-Rückgang sein:


Earlier today, NewsBTC.com published an article 1 announcing Counterparty’s intention to bring Ethereum smart contracts to Bitcoin by leveraging the Ethereum Virtual Machine. Counterparty noted that it spent the past year polishing this software on a test network, but that they are now ready to go live with Ethereum-style smart contract support on the main Bitcoin network.
http://www.bitcoinerrorlog.com/2016/03/17/counterparty-eats-ethereums-lunch-xcp-moons-eth-goes-bearish/

The strategy was this in my opinion:

They wanted the price (near) to be stable. They believed/thought/hoped, that there would be increasing demand on the exchanges and they would meet that demand, sell into it but with price-stability in mind. Let's say if the price goes above the ICO they would sell a little and it would go back to ICO-price and so forth. That's not very interesting for Investors but they say: "Keep your coins off from the exchange, stake it, and you make 100% per year."

So, the high reward has three reasons:

1. Kind of compensation that there wouldn't be much profit because of the price.
2. Incentive not to hold it on the exchange, to lower the risk that Investors would bring pressure on the price
3. They, as a "central-bank", could sell if there is demand.

If you think about it as if it would be successful: There is a constant growing user-base, constant demand on exchanges and they just would have to meet that demand at 0.00005 for example. If there is more buy-pressure they sell more. If there isn't much they don't sell. In best case that would be pretty constant money over years. And they wouldn't even have to touch the billions they hold. They just would need the staking-reward.

Let's say 5 Mio Neucoin everyday: At 0.00004 that would be 200 BTC! Every day! And they stake more every day!

And if you think about a project like Ethereum, with it's 30k BTC - Volume per 24 hours: It could be (theoretically) possible.


But: What would that be? A money-machine for the team, right? Of course, they would say: It's all for the project and they give a lot away for free, for promotion and sponsor jango-tipping etc., but they would make a lot of money. I mean, if you calculate it just with 500k per day it's still 20 BTC per day and 600 BTC per month = $250k at the current BTC-price.

And again: They stake millions every day. If I remember it right it was about 7 Mio in the first time after launch.


That's the reason why I call it a greed-project, because it wouldn't make any sense to have such a premine with such a staking-reward if they have no plan to distribute it. And besides the nice talking about paying Devs and for PR with Neucoin and so on, distribution happens on exchanges. With other words: In case of success they already made sure that they would become more than just rich out of it.

And to cover that up, they call the foundations "non-profit-foundations" and so on. But again: They wouldn't have to touch the billions, just the staking reward would be enough. Just their private holdings would be enough.


And what would it need to become successful? A hype. That's it. People have doubts about the premine, their intentions, the project in general? They show their faces and some "big names". They do all to impress the public, to seem professional, legit, big, skilled in what they do and so on. They pay for articles, they focus on the non-educated (in Crypto). They said "You missed Bitcoin in the early days? Now we are here! We will replicate that and you can be an early adopter!".

That all makes some sense on first sight - if you trust them. And some bought into it not because they believed in it themselves, but they believed it would have potential to hype. So it could have been a good buy - to sell in short term right after the launch because it was obvious that they would make some noise, get some attention.

But facts are facts and they've planned a best-case scenario which is naive and ignores all what we know about collective psychology and dynamics - regarding communication (this thread is one example) and the markets. They were not able to think about the complexity regarding the eco-system in combination with collective dynamics. They were never able to answer the real tough questions, like "why such a high marketcap right from the start? Where is room to grow with that?" Most likely they would have said something like "it's about the future, the premine is just potential to pay the future" and so on, but again: It's as if an Investor would give them a loan if he buys to that prices. And that's not smart.

And: The biggest problem they had was that the price went down right after launch. Because if the price goes down nearly nobody will buy it. Everybody has in mind that they have to distribute, that it could be possible that they would sell into the buy-walls if there are buy-walls. So there are no buywalls.


Just btw: Regarding their claim that there would be 8000 new users every day. I already said that I don't believe that because it's not visible on Bittrex, it's not visible on the official forum, it's not visible on google-trends-search, it's not visible here.

Most revealing are maybe Twitter and Facebook. I mean, it would be easy just to click on follow or "like", right? But since the launch (end of september) it's just a plus of about 200 followers on Twitter. That's not even 2 new follower per day. If you look at Facebook: It should be easy to click on the like-button and with 8000 new users per day, which would be 240k per month I would expect some thousand likes per week. But they have only 1,505 likes since day one on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/neucoin

Two scenarios:

1. The number is simply a lie. There are not 8000 new users per day and most likely not even 100 new users per day.

2. There are new users because there are accounts with NEU-tips, but they don't care. 99,9999% are not interested.


Both would say the same.

 

I understand the idea behind in general. The problem I see, and that's also the reason why I don't think that Neucoin is legit, is this:

They've started with a total supply of 3 billion and they've sold 100 Mio to the public. That's just 3.3% of the total supply. They've made 4,012 BTC with that 100 Mio which means: 0.00004 per Neucoin which was about 0.018 Dollar at that time (end of April).

That means, that they somehow believed, the total supply would be worth more than 50 Mio Dollar while just the three foundations were sitting on 2.4 billion = 43 Mio Dollar in Neucoin!

The thing about this is: There are just to possibilities.

1. They really believed in the ICO-price which would mean that they believed, Neucoin would be worth more than 50 Mio Dollar
2. They did not believe that Neucoin is worth so much, but maybe "one day in the future"... which would mean, that everybody who bought into the ICO bought to a future price, while it was very unlikely that this future would ever come.


To be more precise: If they really believed Neucoin would be worth 50 Mio and the three foundations should be worth > 40 Mio, that's a totally hubris. And if they did not believe that, it's kind of fraud to sell at those prices. It doesn't make any other sense.

Plus: It never was just about the distribution of those Coins they hold. They also stake, and they stake that much each and every day that it's totally impossible to distribute it. I mean, since it went live the market had an inflation of more than just 100%! In not even 6 months! What the hell did they believe how it would be possible to get that much new money into the market just to hold the ICO-price? It's simply impossible. The staking of just 1 day would crash the market to nearly 0 Dollar per Neucoin. That's the reality and that was the reality for every day since launch.

The whole concept is stupid, or it's fraud. I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. A mix of greed and a totally lack of knowledge and hubris and ignorance of simplest economic laws.

And if you think back to April, if you think about it that way, you would stay away from buying into the ICO. You would be totally sure that the price is way too high. And you would ask yourself if it's just naive to sell at those prices or if it's fraud. And I've said that months before the ICO. It was predictable.

And that's the next problem: Those who thought about it did not buy! Only those who were unexperienced, who did not know enough about Crypto, who believed in the hype and promises around, bought into the ICO. And if a project needs the stupidity of the public to get traction... it's not worth a single satoshi.

And I don't mean that disrespectful to those who bought into it. I've made some bad decisions in Crypto as well. In 2014 I bought into two stupid Scams and lost some money. I see that as education-money... you lose but you learn. And what I've learned is to focus on the facts, on how the team acts, how they communicate, if they are able to reply on tough questions in all aspects and so on. The Neucoin-Team never showed qualities besides some talent to blind some people.

And what I still believe is: Everybody regrets this, also the team. I believe that nobody really made money with this because I'm sure that the ICO was mostly self-buying (nearly all of the 100 Mio Coins were in the top 100 in the early days after launch and before they came up with the official explorer).



First: Of course, Jango can be part of an economy. For it's own it's not an economy. And the problem is: Think about what would happen if the Neucoins on Jango would leave it to Bittrex. With other words: The supply on Jango shouldn't leave Jango because otherwise it would hurt the price. If I would be a musician there and let's say everybody loves me and all the 200,000 "Users" send me some Neucoins I would crash the market. And I don't say that Jango is a bad idea. It's the same problem I've mention again and again: The supply doesn't fit in any way to reality. The price reflects that and it's still too high.

Second: It's right not to expect that everything will be accomplished at once. But then again: Why start with a supply that would be worth over 50 Mio Dollar and monster-inflation and just 3.3% on the market while 97% sitting in the back, staking, and buying a project that is totally overvalued for years. It's as if you would give them a loan. You say: "Okay, I know it's not worth that much now but maybe in 2 or 3 years, so I hope you will deliver. Please take my money and make decisions I would agree with!". In fact that's what every Investor said who bought into the ICO. And if you take a look on the process since the ICO: Did they deliver? What I see is that they don't even really communicate! They don't do just the basic-work. They took the money and the biggest decisions they've made is to switch to full PoS (who is staking?) and to cut the total supply to increase the value (who wants to sell billions of Coins?).


And if we think about the future: The problem stays the same. Everybody who thinks about buying this but not impulsive but doing some research and analysis will still see a monster-premine and a monster-inflation. He doesn't see much communication, more arrogance and ignorance. It's very likely that if the price should go up 30% they will sell into it, so it hasn't much chance to rise. It's also very likely that they will run out of money (maybe they are already out of money) so the risk is very high that they will abandon the project. And I believe: It's already abandoned. Not totally, but if I ask myself if there is a team constantly working on this every day... nope. I don't believe that.

The question is how you define "user". Let's say I buy some Neu and make an account on Jango and I tip some others there. Do I make them to "users"? I wouldn't agree with that. They just have an account with some Neucoins and most likely the majority won't care about it. And even if it's widely used on Jango... what would that mean? It's like a thump-up-button but without any real usecase that would give real value. If just 5 persons would try to collect as many coins on jango like they could and dump it on Bittrex the price would be at 1 sat. The only reason why that doesn't happen is because it has no value.

And what we don't see is that hundreds of new users, or at least 10 of those claimed 8000 new users per day make an account on the official forum or tweet how great Neucoin is. What does that mean? 8000 new users every day but nobody cares? And why should they? You could tip every account on Jango and it wouldn't change anything.

And the comparison with Poloniex is because that are real users! Just a little bit more than 100k but that's an economy. Jango is no economy and if the Coins on Jango would flow to Bittrex the price would crash even more.



Not sure if I understand what you mean with "The innovation is exactly the stuff you don't like, which means you overlook it as innovation.". Maybe you want to say that there is innovation but I don't recognize it as innovation? If yes, the question is where is the innovation? I mean, tipping and micro-transactions will definitely be a use case in crypto. But it won't be the way like Neucoin tries it. I believe it will be part of a project like Ethereum, maybe with a special Ethereum-micro-Coin but backed with the whole protocol. It needs an economy around it instead a monster-premine with a monster-inflation.

And no, my thoughts are not about altruism. And of course, it needs financial intentions or at least it would be naive to believe it would go without that. But if greed is the only real intention without any further philosophy it won't work. And what I try to say with that is already proven. The fact that they have to switch to full PoS (which has even a more intensive centralizing-effect on the eco-system) and to destroy half of the total supply is the admission that it wasn't well thought through. How is it possible that we here could easily predict what would happen and make calculations about it while the team behind planned it for more than a year with totally naive assumptions? I don't think they are stupid. I believe what I've said: Blinded by greed. Not thinking in scenarios to find the best way for the project, just believing in what they hope what would make them rich quick.

We don't need to talk about PoW or PoS. I'm not convinced about PoS-Systems and that's also a concern regarding ETH, because they want to switch to a PoS-model (but it's also different).

The real question is: Why this huge premine and why this high inflation rate? And they could destroy the whole premine but it wouldn't rescue Neucoin, just because of the high inflation. The market can't even handle the 200 Mio.


The problem in all eco-systems is that it all has a centralizing effect. But PoS even more/faster, while it has a lot more risks at the same time. I don't believe that any PoS-project will survive in longterm. Ethereum maybe, but it's a different design, not the usual PoS.



I see no reason to be optimistic that this project will survive the next 12 months. The reason is very simple: They've raised money in the ICO = 4,012 BTC. About 78 BTC are left.
https://blockchain.info/address/3MrNuksZ1VePU3dGiSQFiouWerJUJgDkfH

I don't know what they did with the money but it doesn't look as if they would spend it for the development. But if they have such a monthly burning rate, how will they move on? There are just two scenarios:

1. They've used it for Neucoin, which would mean that it's way too expensive and than they won't be able to pay the next months.
2. They've used it for different purposes - not the project. Than it's..... hmm....

And who makes good work for free? Will they pay the Developers with Neucoin? And they have dump it on the market because they need money to pay their bills?

In fact there is a third scenario:

3. They still have the money, just not on that address and they will be able to pay the next months. But: Where is the development? What are they doing? Sometimes I showed the github of Factom with their daily updates. They have to pay a big team of Devs, advertising, they have to travel and so on... I don't see anything like that in Neucoin.

So, under the line that's just one reason why I'm sure that this project has no chance. The other is the economical-design. And there are a lot of projects with really innovative approaches and Neucoin is like a dinosaur in comparison.

The problem stays the same. Cutting the total supply seems like a huge change, but in fact it's not really a change. The reason is very simple: The market can't handle the supply that is on the market right now, which is already > 100% more than 6 months ago. I've always said that it's about the inflation rate of the market and while they claim that it would be 100% inflation per year, which is ridiculous high, for the market the inflations is even higher! Ethereum, just for example, has 20% per year which is already high. Factom has zero inflation but "Coin-consumption" (Factoids are burned if they are used to record data into Factom) until the full protocol gets traction and than it will be 10% per year.

And the altcoin-market already gets more attention. The increase of volume is really noticeably, also on Bittrex. Volume last 24 hours: 2688 BTC. Some months ago there were a lot of days with not even 500 BTC. But that doesn't mean that all projects get more volume.

Regarding Scam or no Scam: I've never said that it was a Scam right from the beginning. I also wouldn't say it was started with good intentions. I believe that it was planned with a lot greed in mind but without any professionalism, no knowledge about economics etc. My personal question always was and still is: Who was the "mastermind" of it? Who was able to make such a plan and convince so many others that it would be a good plan while it was so obvious that it's naive? It doesn't really matter, but I really would like to know how that was possible and if nobody was there to say "are you out of your mind???".

And what I see as kind of scam is the attempt to get people into buying with all the hype-promises,

And another problem if we speak about the question if it's a scam or not: I can imagine that professionals who have to make a decision (add it to an exchange or not, add it to a platform or not - just for example) don't see it as legit. If I would be the CEO of an exchange or whatever I would ask myself: Why should I implement it? To make the team behind rich? I would see it as risk for my own credibility. And under the line that's also the problem when it comes to investing. There is no scenario that ppl buy it who really think about it because of multiple reasons.

As a basic idea, I agree. If we, just as a theory, use a time-machine in the past and think about a project like Neucoin, it really could be interesting:

Easy to use for everybody, easy to "adopt", something like a "fun-way" to learn about and to get in touch with Crypto, micro-tipping, communication and education to involve unexperienced user, transparency, and so on.

It's nothing I would call very special or innovative but I wouldn't ever criticize a project with such a focus if it's done right. What would be needed for that? A stable base. The code and the economical-design must be stable, it needs a skilled and hardworking team and a lot of communication. And it would need decentralization! A project like that would only have the chance to reach real value as a community-project, with very low barriers to participate for everybody and also other Developers. It would not and should not be about greed, not all about the price. The price should reflect adoption, but shouldn't be the focus. It would be more an "education-fun-project". In fact there already is/was this kind of project: Doge. And just by the way: Neucoin wanted to repeat the success of Doge regarding adoption but with the intention to make big money out of it. The intention behind the squirrel is to establish a branding, something that is appealing in a simple way... it's the attempt to use simple advertising-mechanism. Nothing wrong with that, but if there is not more than some advertising-methods, there is still nothing.

And the problem is: Neucoin is bad for Crypto. Because for those who are really new to Crypto, Neucoin is a bad experience. Not just because of the money. It's simply not what they claimed it would be. It's not open and decentralized and fun and communication and education. It's a dictatorship, the team shows nothing but ignorance and arrogance and incompetence. And why? Because they acted out of greed! That was the focus since day one.

It's visible everywhere. Especially the economical-design is obvious. I mean, it's not just obvious, it's ridiculous. It is as if greed has lowered the IQ of those who are responsible for that. And it's a simple fact that greed makes people stupid. They develop stupid ideas blinded by greed. And some buy stupid projects blinded by stupid promises which are totally in contrast to the facts. It's not meant as critique to those who invested because some were just unexperienced but it's kind of stupid to feel married to a project that's not just totally flawed by design but also without any respect for those who gave there money.

And greed is also the reason for the lack of communication because it's too easy to reveal. It's easy to ask questions in a way that both, the answer or the silence, would be revealing. So they have to avoid communication and they have control communication. And both is obvious: They avoid communication in this thread because they can't control it. They control communication (and also avoid it) on their own forum. And isn't it paradox that they are not even able to make a better forum? I mean, a lot of little shitcoins have at least good communication-platforms. But they don't care about that because they don't like communication! It's kind of a psychological problem, because if I have something to hide I fear questions and if I fear questions I fear communications. That's why the communication is always "one-way". They say what they have to say but they don't discuss things. It's not that it would be too much work. They just can't do that because open discussions are a risk.

But, they are not even really aware about all those dynamics. They believed to be super-smart while they were blinded by greed.

That's the big red line and it's still visible. I mean, all the talking about Jango... Jango was only possible because of relationships. The same guy behind Neucoin is behind Jango. So what. It's just another advertising-attempt and not a sign of progress. And there is no natural way to grow because the design is totally flawed. Now they destroy coins which seems to make sense for the exchanges but a professional who thinks about adding Neucoin to his platform (if there would be anybody) will rethink that. The same with the switch to full PoS. It raises some questions but at the same time it also gives answers. It's all about the price and they still want to sell a product they make out of nothing because they hold nearly all of it, but without quality or a real philosophy behind.

My advice to those who invested in this is simple: Don't feel married to a project if the team behind doesn't show at least a little respect for your concerns. If I read in the official forum it's obvious for me that people have questions but also fear to ask those questions and to be critical. And it's understandable... they don't want to damage anything. But ask yourself if that atmosphere is in line with all the claims what Neucoin should stand for.

Wow, that's awesome!


Edit: I like this part:

"Unlike these traditional software implementations, which are backed by a purely centralized data store, Epigraph’s platform records its data using Factom, an open source, decentralized ledger secured by the Bitcoin blockchain. Factom’s immutable ledger allows Epigraph to write property registry information, which once written, cannot be erased. Guaranteed immutability opens the door to a software architecture that enables and ensure auditability, as data that cannot be modified can safely be made accessible without the risk of illicit changes. Epigraph then delivers this solution via a mobile­friendly, SaaS (Software as a Service) architecture, eliminating the costly capital expenditures typically required to launch and operate a property registry, while putting the application quite literally in the hands of those who need it. Game changed."

I thought that they would do that ("burning coins") but it won't help because it doesn't show anything else than desperation and under the line it's a nice admission that they were wrong while we here were right from the beginning.


There are some points that should be considered:

1.

If we calculate just what's on the market it's this:
212,956,147

Marketcap: about 880k Dollar

And that's still too much in my eyes for a project with that many flaws, without any transparency or just communication, and without any innovation. But the thing is: Even if they destroy 70% of their holdings there are still billions in the background and there is still a too high inflation-rate.


2.

They say: "Three months after launch of its first consumer apps, NeuCoin has reached over 275,000 users and is growing at over 8,000 users a day, on track to acquire 2 million users by year-end 2016."

And sorry, but I absolutely don't believe that this is more than a blatant lie.

Think about this: The Poloniex-Exchange has about 120,000 Users (they don't show it anymore but it was about 100k by end of the last year). And the Neucoin-Team wants everybody to believe they have 275,000 and that they grow with 8000 Users a day? That would be another 240,000 per month!  

Everybody who thinks about that must come to the conclusion that this is a ridiculous lie. Poloniex has a 60,000 BTC-volume today in 24 hours, with their 120k Users and multiple projects on the exchange, mainly it's about Ethereum. Neucoin usually has a volume of not more than 1 BTC per day (today it's more because of the announcement, but not sure how much is real and how much is fake).

Or the forum: Every day 8000 new User but it's all the Superman-guy who tries his best to get ppl excited. Or here in this thread... no new users who would like to know what this is about? I mean, there should be at least 100 users of 8000 everyday who make an account on Bittrex or the official forum or here to speak about it, if they are so excited about Neucoin, right?



So, what is this (still) about? It's greed like it always was. Just 78 BTC left: https://blockchain.info/address/3MrNuksZ1VePU3dGiSQFiouWerJUJgDkfH

All what they want is to give incentives for buy-support and they still give a shit about their investors. They focus on the "value" of their own supply.


And a big problem won't ever change: There is too much proof for a totally lack of professionalism and integrity and transparency and innovation. I mean, every professional who would think 5 minutes about implementing Neucoin wherever, won't see the "coin-destruction" as "wow, great decision!". It will be seen as what it is: An admission that this project was doomed since day one because of greed. And it still shows nothing else but greed what they do now. And nobody with some experience and an IQ above room-temperature will believe in their 8000-new-user-per-day-claim. Count those who are active in the forum... maybe ten. Buy-support on Bittrex: 6.7 BTC.

So, I would be carefully with buying because of their newest idea to destroy coins. ;-)

From the AMA with Paul Snow for example:


Factom released the protocol in September of 2015, running on a few servers that we manage. This was the first milestone, and it allows applications to write their own applications that rely on data secured by the Bitcoin blockchain, and organized by the Factom protocol.

Milestone 2 will have a couple of major components. First will be the deployment of a Entry Credit store, where users can buy Entry Credits (basically access to the protocol) without touching any sort of tradable token. The second will be the release of the consensus algorithm, the software supporting distributed processing of the Factom protocol. We are working to have the first release candidate of the consensus algorithm by the end of the year. We fully expect to release a few release candidates prior to going into production with the consensus algorithm early in 2016.

Milestone 3 is the last milestone. It will release the election protocol, which places the control of the federated servers in the hands of those purchasing Entry Credits. We intend to reach this milestone in the first half of 2016. In addition to implementation, it also relies on having enough diversity of use of the protocol to make the election process meaningful.

https://forum.bitcoin.com/ama-ask-me-anything/i-am-paul-snow-the-architect-of-factom-and-chair-of-the-texas-bitcoin-conference-ask-me-anything-t4026.html


Review of Milestone 1:
http://factom.org/downloads/factomreview.pdf


On Koinify was a good overview but the site is off now.

The use of Factom is tied to the Milestones. After M2 it will be much easier to use it, to develop on top of it and so on. So, of course the next Milestone is an important step and I'm not sure about the price. You're right that all price-talking is just guessing. But the coming release will have impact on the whole dynamic.  

You can ignore the Presale-Import.

Just type in the amount you want to withdrawal in "Amount".

Than copy your address into the "Address". Double check it to be sure it's correct. If correct click on Withdraw FCT.

If you have enabled 2FA you have to type in the code and than you'll receive a Mail to confirm the withdrawal (just a click on the link in the mail).

Bei Block 1.150.000 gibt es einen Hardfork und, wenn ich es richtig verstanden habe, den Switch zu Homestead. Aktueller Block ist 1.147.458 und Blockzeit ist 16.8s. Wird also heute soweit sein. Man kann aber annehmen dass das problemlos passiert weil es Teil des Protokolls und lange geplant ist.

Ich vermute, der Kurs zeigt gerade eine gewisse Sorge wegen des Hard-Forks (der in etwa 17 Stunden eintreten wird). Läuft das problemlos wird er sich vermutlich wieder etwas erholen, falls es Probleme geben sollte wird es mehr Dumping geben. Aber generell sind die Hände natürlich zittrig, da man sicherlich eher von überkauft als vom Gegenteil sprechen kann.

Ich würde nicht sagen dass so ein extremer Anstieg ungerechtfertigt ist, weil man das eigentlich erst zukünftig herausfinden wird. Der Preis zeigt ja nicht den aktuellen Stand sondern eine Erwartungshaltung für die Zukunft - was normal ist. Allerdings gibt es deutliche Zeichen dass es jetzt am Limit ist, denn normalerweise  würde der Kurs explodieren wenn eine Börse wie Bitfinex ein Projekt listet, und ETH ist auf Grund dessen auch gestiegen. Nur... nicht besonders stark. Nach extremen Anstiegen kommt häufig eine Phase in der selbst wirklich gute Nachrichten nicht mehr viel neues Kapital reinbringen da im Grunde schon alles Mögliche im Preis enthalten ist und eine Marketcap von > 1 Milliarde ist schon ne Hausnummer. Ich vermute, dass das Limit erreicht ist und jetzt eine Phase der Preisstabilisierung einsetzt, was aber nicht heißen muss das er sich so weit oben stabilisiert. Allerdings habe ich das auch schon früher gedacht und war dann überrascht das es doch noch weiter nach oben ging. Insofern... meine Nostradamus-Fähigkeiten sind da noch ausbaufähig. ;-)