I've mined, bought, traded a few times and now I hold. I have not contributed anything to VTC except criticism, in the hopes it gets "better" (per my definition of better) so that I can increase the value of what I hold.

If that's bad, crucify me.

This is more than "prices fall too low for our liking". This is about the future of the coin and the perception of dying which creates a self-fulfilled prophecy through waves of dumping.


One way to look at it... another is that if a miner doesn't sell for BTC he's sure to make a loss (opportunity cost), so why wouldn't a miner want to convert to BTC? He's not interested in steady USD value if the BTC is rising.

Same for holders. If I know tomorrow it's going down to 0.001, why not sell today and rebuy later? (actually I've done that two times when I felt that it's gonna go even deeper)

As I see it the bitcoin reward formula cannot be successfuly emulated by other coins unless they desire to spend 4 years into irrelevancy. By that time people will say "ok, this hasn't make a break for what? 3-4 years? Why would it suddenly do anything now?" It's not inspiring (to put it mildly).

Bitcoin could afford to do it because it was the first and there was simply no initial price worthy of mention and hence that initial price could not be eroded. It was USELESS / costed nothing, so the only way was up.

Here we start with initial speculation that gives value - let's say 1$ per coin in the first month with 1mn coins. However this value cannot be preserved if we issue another 9mn coins - as there has to be another 9mn injected in cash (or 4.5mn injected for half supply of coins assuming miners keep the rest). The prospect for much higher prices is almost out of the question. And why would one keep something that precludes the possibility of much higher prices due to an embedded inflation mechanism?

I knew the inflation problem when I bought, so I can't complain. The market was full of shitcoins after the doge-aftermath so there weren't many options of legit coins except vtc and drk.

If you conduct a poll you can see how the community feels on this matter. The arguments for not changing the game or changing the game if it threatens the coins future both have some strong + and -'s and I'm not one to discard either easily. If not now, you can examine it further down the line. Just have it in the back of your mind.

Over and out.

=> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg7063848#msg7063848
=> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg7064008#msg7064008
=> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=421615.msg7064610#msg7064610

Yeah, too excited with the 666s I forgot the zero.

Look around you on who are complaining of death.

Alts have gone down a very wrong route with massive inflation / debasement. This is unsustainable.

As inflation requires money to preserve price, the price goes down. The perception is then formulated that the coin is failing. This perception is then reinforced by all those who cut their losses with the "dying coin" and dump in waves. After a few months there's pretty much the sensation of stagnation and that the coin has no future. "If it had, it would have already made its mark".

This is cryptoland. The attention-deficit-disorder place in which people want the next new thing otherwise you are slipping into irrelevancy.

Give people features, store of value, low inflation etc and go for the kill. There is no reason why someone would buy today and have his investment debased by 50% in a few months due to double coins in circulation. There is simply no point.

Even the goal of becoming the next LTC is now fading, with LTC itself being dumped by the 10k's. Coins must be more cutting-edge than LTC, not only deliver ASIC resistance.

My 2c.

It depends whether the whale is a bagholder seeing his other XCs getting depreciated.

There was too much bagholding to begin with with people here having 300-400k coins and price suddenly spiking and becoming very tempting to dump a lot and fast, knowing that if you don't dump first, another bagholder might do it - so it's a competitive game of who dumps first while not getting excessively greedy.

Indeed...

BTC 666.69
LTC 0.01666

wtf

If someone wants to hedge or diversify BTC with the 2nd coin, they don't have the luxury to wait for DRK to climb to #2. They must buy (cheap) now that it's in #3. Otherwise they'll have to buy it back later, being quite more expensive (0.05 - 0.08).

Make a community poll*, reduce daily inflation to 1/4th and the coin will be (more) ok. Implement it along with the stealth addresses in the same hardfork.

* Ask for extended majority of 2/3rds to take the decision - like 66.6% required to make any change, not just 50%.

Yep... I also said that it's either LTC (&DOGE) is overpriced or we are way underpriced... The market is adjusting us both (DRK on the rise, LTC and DOGE falling).

I betcha there will be news articles (mainly on the crypto press) on how the DRK consumed the Li(gh)te and the "battle" between the Darkness and the Light...

Massive LTC dump: https://bitcoinwisdom.com/markets/btce/ltcbtc

...going for 0.016 (0.01705 now)

A few days ago I wrote:

It's losing control of it because all BTC-related money centers go outside of the US.

They say the same for BTC too.

Actual money laundering goes through banks:

"HSBC was accused of failing to monitor more than $670 billion in wire transfers and more than $9.4 billion in purchases of U.S. currency from HSBC Mexico, allowing for money laundering, prosecutors said. The bank also violated U.S. economic sanctions against Iran, Libya, Sudan, Burma and Cuba, according to a criminal information filed in the case."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-02/hsbc-judge-approves-1-9b-drug-money-laundering-accord.html

...cryptocurrencies are a very small market for any meaningful money laundering. The entire marketcap of BTC is 7-8bn, Darkcoin just 50mn... Mafiozos have more than that in personal networth. Yet HSBC, one bank alone, was responsible for "untracked" 670 billion USD, enabling large scale money laundering.

Dumped them at 0.027 when the x11-litecoin fiasco was making litecoin people panic.

I wonder who will buy the next 10mn LTCs of next year's supply at something like 100mn USD... yeah right. Nobody.

Let'em do what they want. Otherwise DarkSend is a trusted instead of trustless solution. You don't want to trust ...xnodes to not steal the money, but neither do you want to implicitly trust closed source code. The cloners inability to produce an anonymous solution on their own (for other coins except Bytecoin / BCN which made a breakthrough with an alternative blockchain + ring signatures) is a testament of their incompetence and why one wouldn't want to trust them except for a quick pump & dump.

As DarkSend is setup right now with the MN dis-incentive of high price per node to prevent bad actors it would be difficult to replicate for a clone which issues new coins for 0.00000x BTC and most nodes can be acquired for nothing. It would be a DOA implementation due to low cost for bad actors. Just as BTC has high security due to all the hashpower behind it, it's a similar way to think against the bad actor scenario when masternodes are expensive. Expensive coin = safer coin from bad actors.

With newly launched coins being raped by massive cpu/gpu/whatever farms and them getting all the coins => it's also a problem.

We are discussing the unsuitability of gold and silver as currency and I say they are not unsuitable. If tomorrow the government decided they want to use gold and silver they would be OK for currency as they have always been for millenia.

Right now, gold and silver would be more than accepted in ~70% of the planet where local currency is considered very inflationary.

Even if DRK wasn't anonymous, it's inflation model beats LTC's flat curve hands down. It's simply a better and scarcer store of value.

1. You don't get it. If gold and silver ARE currency, they do not need an exchange rate. They are the currency.

2. As for the machines and tools, there are plastic testers like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohKdBJzwlYY

Pretty effective for diameter/weight/thickness... if the composition is correct, all parameters are checked.

3. Change = silver and copper, as it has been historically.

Pre-1933:

20$ = gold coin
10$ = gold coin
5$ = gold coin
2.5$ = gold coin
1$ = silver coin
0.5$ = silver coin
0.25$ = silver coin
0.1$ = silver coin
0.05 / 0.01 = non-silver (copper/nickel).

This has been that way for more time than the opposite (paper currency backed by nothing).

There are machines or tools that are pretty easy to use for that.


Eeehhh? The world has been working with gold and silver coins for millenia.

It's not a poor medium of exchange. It's suitable for high worth transactions. Silver for low worth.

In the same sense, fiat currency coins are for low worth, paper notes for high worth. Each one for a different task.