I would say Networking, P2P networks and cryptography. From a non-programming standpoint, a basic understanding of trade markets and economics, but they're not essential. A lot of the copycoins being released seem to be based on a basic knowledge of code compiling.

It's all right. I'm done. My intention wasn't to promote the coin by getting into a debate over semantics. People are free to say/do/mine what they want.

So basically centralised?

I don't think so. I think what's happening is the early miners who have a lot of coins have a lot of control over the market price, but as the coins change hands they'll have less and less of a stake. Once the difficulty is recalculated the coin will surge in price again, the initial early miners who are manipulating the price will have less of a hold, and eventually the market will become fairer and be allowed to grow.

In theory.

Fair enough. I know coins have a miner drop off point after launch, I just didn't expect the pool I'm on to die.

Guess I'm just on a dead pool, then. Just my luck.

http://mona.bitcrush.info/

Is this right? Am I the only person left on this pool?

What's happening to this coin? Has it died already?

Reminds me of that guy a few days ago who posted the pic of the car he bought after investing into Doge.

I'd much rather a house. 

Is Racism a buzzword as well, then? You can't just dismiss something that is a driving force for hatred as a buzzword because it doesn't tie into your notion of what you consider to be offensive or not. Again, this does not offend me. I'm just making an obvious point. Only because you say something isn't offensive doesn't mean it is. The onus is the offended to decide, not the offender.

If this has any premine at all it is potentially worthless. Low circulation means a high probably value per coin due to rarity.

Maybe get away for 2% at most.

Oh, I'm not PC. I'm all for freedom of expression. I'm not speaking against anyone's right to say what they please. It was simply a semantical point. Stereotypes, while offensive, are widely used. You don't hear many comedians beinf racist or anti-semetic these days because general consensus says it's worse than stereotyping. If I was offended at all I wouldn't even be posting about it. It was just an observation and I found it interesting.


A tactic often employed by a group who has been targeted by a particular joke is to embrace it and make it their own, thereby pointing out the ridicule of the joke's very existence. Not going to happen here, but it does happen.

Holy mother of Cats. Quite a nest egg there.

Sounds interesting. Something new.

Any confirmations of winner payouts? 

If the Media picked up on this coin now I'd be toast. I would like to get a few more CAT while I have the chance.  

Are you? You think an American stereotype is on par with Anti Semitism? I'm not arguing against the existence of this coin. I won't be mining it after all. It's just interesting that the two are being equated. I don't condone bashing Americans either, but that's like saying a racial slur against a black person is as bad as if someone called me a "cracka". Which is nonsense. A little context goes a long way.

Nice! I hope in the coming months I'll have that sort of BTC to invest.

That guy is nuts, but he does seem to hold some clout.

Anti Semitism and Stereotypes aren't really on the same level. If I call an American stupid, or fat, that's a stereotype. If I call a Jew greedy, that's Anti Semitism. I would hope people could see a distinction. I admit there is some level of hypocrisy, but not all insults are equal.

I think there's a very important distinction to be made here - A miner's risk in mining coins is extremely low. If his coins are worthless, all he has lost is the power consumption and time that went into generating the coins. The miner can simply move to another coin, and hold onto his coins and sell them at a later date if they become profitable.

This is more like buying shares in a company. A company that doesn't even exist yet. Its value solely determined by its investors, and whatever that company does in the future. If the worth of the shares bought by the early adopters is paid for by the worth generated by the later adopters, this is a false economic model, and one of the oldest tricks in the book; a ponzi scheme. Looks extremely attractive as the gains are large for a short space of time, but eventually the holdings will be worthless.

But I could be entirely wrong. I think the lack of information makes this risky, but perhaps I just don't understand investment.