BitPay accepts coins, and then enter the real money to the payee's account, so the merchant didn't what not accustomed to, because they still like before the money. NEM also such?  NEM=coins+Payment platform？ Bitpay before the like is to be the false edit with the train. Lannister always pays his debts so the throne of the king is to be considered true with bacon. |
|
|
|
|
Considering the valuation of Darkcoin, It's blatently apparent to me that privacy is a legitimate and real concern across all people who use crypto's - and honestly, it makes perfect sense. Bitcoin after all, has most value on the deep web which likely consists of less then legal use. There's also the entire topic of "decentralization" and breaking free from the prying eyes of governing bodies.
I can't help but wonder if this is something the dev team for NEM have taken into deep consideration, because all the signs point to demand for a more anonymous platform.
|
|
|
|
Who's going to sell their stake for .2. This coin is going to be huge.
No one. That was just some desperate try, I guess. The guy knows very well NEMs value, that is why he wanted 4btc for stake.  One stake must be woth much more.Not 4 BTC... +1, Below 4btc, I would choose to buy not to sell Very Biased statement if you're a stakeholder - and i assume you are. Any potential buyers (With a head on their shoulders) would see through that remark. The market will decide NEM's value, and yes, of course i hope it's a success. However, sitting here disputing what it's worth doesn't accomplish anything. The Dev's can only make the ball, it's down to the initial stakeholders to get it rolling. Get priorities right first by focusing on moving it, not by what it's initial value will be -- this implies you're in it to dump, not to promote and collaborate as it should be. I want to see some good projects for this coin, of which i'm prepared to pledge generously towards if the idea's flourish. |
|
|
|
Any update about the auction? Has it started yet?
not yet, probably won't start until the open Alpha since we want to avoid scam accusation. good idea! any plans on how the auction will be run? will you hold off on auctioning a couple stakes until just prior to nem launch? i think thats when you will get a huge amount of interest and much higher price! edit still looking for pledges towards the multipool! i have a very strong plan but need pledges and a dev still.. it needs to be stand alone nem pool now in order to implement the full plan! only 440k pledged so far 300k from 3 generous people so i think we can do much much better seeing as we have 3k stake holders! We had discussion within NEM core dev, and nem core dev* is almost unanimously against multipool. but as utopianfuture noted, there is possibility, for getting funds from ecosystem and/or promotional funds. I agree here. We are trying to move away from the massive data closets of wasted energy, promoting a multipool that waste energy to get nem is something I am not supportive of. Better that we just allow folks to obtain NEM in a free market. I would support an exchange more then a multipool. But we are all free to support what we believe in. I wish you luck. Very well i wont go ahead with it then... Il have to think of something else i can organise lol For the record, i'm willing to donate to any cause that has reasonable grounds to justify it. I pledged to the multipool idea with an initially small sum to see if the idea came to fruition; and in addition, was prepared to donate more as and when things developed further in a direction i thought of as worthwhile. This is pretty much my stance on anything that i would otherwise pledge something towards. If an idea works, and is gone about in a way i think is successful, i'm happy to put more into it. Even though the multipool idea is now out the window, it's important to really share any idea's that spring to mind and to get the ball rolling, just to see where it goes. Without brainstorming, we won't get anywhere. So if you ever get any thoughts, please share. |
|
|
|
|
My biggest problem with the sale of stakes is it goes against the original principles of the coins IPO. Because odds are a fair number of already existent stakeholders will attempt to buy in more stakes (Say, those who created sockpuppets), making the coin far less distributed. This is not good news and really tarnishes what was otherwise a good start.
it's a pity we didn't have an IPO whereby stakeholders received their coins gradually rather than in one whole lump sum, this way, dumping is a near null concern and it'll also stop any sort of co-ordinated market manipulation. However, this doesn't trouble me much at all mainly because we've already got a vast number of stakeholders already, which suffices enough as far as i'm concerned.
|
|
|
|
In general, I consider a mining - an error of decentralization. All computing capacities once will appear in hands of one mega corporations that conducts to centralization and control from the governments. Satoshi when I created it, I he think knew and guessed to what at the end everything leads it. Freedom is given only in the beginning when everyone can майнить at home on videocards, thereby forming the decentralized network. But here its complexity grows and grows that finally leads to centralization and to total control, up to even before network destruction if supervisory authorities of it want. And most likely they will want because yet time will find as someone sold for BitCoins drugs or sponsored terrorism, and so on. BitCoin for them at present as a splinter which just like that can't be pulled out. But Satoshi created it everything temporary, as a result a ball one will govern mega corporation and sure to appear over it will rule the governments. It will be the beginning of the end of a network BitCoin.
So much of this. The only real winners are manufacturer's and those with deep pockets to buy asic's and other specialist mining hardware. PoW is no more decentralized than FIAT, in fact it's worse because those with the influence are more anonymous and just as powerful. PoS has the capacity to be just as centralized - poor distributed IPO, or other such tatics seen with the MaidSafe IPO. NEM so far has been a step in the right direction. I must say though the concept of releasing stakeholders coins periodically (Rather than in an immediate lump sum) to discourage dumping and more dedication to the cause - an idea i saw mentioned a few pages ago - intrigued me. Food for thought. |
|
|
|
I'm not sure a multi pool is in NEMs interest. The value of this technology should be derived from the underlying technology. The value should not be derived from an influx of BTC/NEM buys at the onset. To me this screams pump.
Be involved in cryptos, I thought we are all capitalists here. Let's let the markets decide price and value.
Why ? hes a big fat cat miner and doesnt want pow to die lol 220k nem pledged. anyone else want to pledge toward the pool?possible dev on board! will inform when more is known! 220k is not enough we need more! Lets not be too hasty now, i think they make perfectly valid points. However, in light of what you said, a multipool really has more pro's than cons, at least when used for a PoS coin like NEM. I'm eager to see how NXT handles using the same idea. Also, i'd be happy to pledge to this cause - I'll pm you with what i'd intend to pledge. I'd also be happy to put forth more as and when more information becomes available, such as who will be organizing this multipool, managing it and running it. I'll be watching this idea develop, assuming it does. I would personally support NEM multi pool since as I understand it would give miners automatous access to NEM without paying for NEM directly via an an exchange. That is a valuable service to NEM making it accessible to everyone with different tastes since I think some people are averse to the idea of buying a cypto directly.
Green marketing ploy started with Peercoin people and continued by Nxt people but never actually caught on. imho, the issue should be rephrased better under the term of network efficiency. NEM network is more efficient than Bitcoin because it takes less power to maintain and still have the same level of security. The efficiency gain comes from utilizing POS/ POI foraging algorithm instead POW algorithm which consumes much more power at the same time gives rise to a computational arm-race whenever bitcoin price is increasing. So we can say the "green" aspect comes from the algorithm each network utilizes not really related to the method how an individual choose to obtain the coin.
.......
Couldn't agree more. Although buying directly is also a good option to have - keeping options open is pretty important. |
|
|
|
I'm more inclined to lean towards no multipool i'm afraid. I'm also not fond of the idea of pushing nem as an "Eco friendly" coin.
Although it is greener, i don't think that should be the primary focus point in advertising - the green argument is a tired, cliched one, and if anything, environmentalists and other such movements have more of a stigma than anything else, which, for the most part, is largely justified.
yes you have a good point there.. but if you dont think the whole green marketing thing should be a big thing then i dont see the issue in running a multipool.. the only argument against it iv seen is that it would make nem non-green.. or is there another reason you are against it..? I've a very vague understanding of multipool, but my preference is it's probably best we don't tamper with something we've not even got out the door yet. This is just my stance - yet i'm open minded enough to reconsider my stance the more I understand how multipool works. ok you have conventional mining of proof of work coins to generate coins from blocks which uses allot of energy but energy usage varies from coin to coin.. bitcoins uses an astonishing amount of power and really it does nothing usefull other then mining coins by doing pointless math problems.. pos doesnt mine as such... every transaction pays a small fee.. all transactions with in a certain amount of time get collected in a block which a forger the confirms the transactions same as pow but they get the transaction fees instead of creating new coins. and because you dont have to do pointless math problems its far greener and any one can forge on any computer and their wont be hashing power wars like their are in pow... what a multipool does is mine pow coins the same as it you were mining it directly but when they mine they collect up all the coins that they have mined(normally the most profitable) and then sell those coins on an exchange and then buy the proof of stake coin which they are realy "mining" for.. in our case nem.. so basically its just mining other coins, selling them and buying the pos coin(nem) but in our case nem isnt launched.. so what im suggesting is to run the pool mining other coins and selling for btc.. but nem is launched.. so stock pile the btc earned and keep track of how much btc each person has mined and come launch we will have a huge amount of btc buying power to drop a mega amount of buying power on nem. what i suspect will happen is the pool will get allot of notice from people and articles written because we launched a pool so early before coins launch thus bring in more people to nem. everyone who follows this sort of thing will know we are guna have mega buying power so they will want to buy in before the pool buys all its coins and sends the price through the roof! You make a compelling argument. As far as i understand, multipools make up the majority of hashing power across PoW. From my experience, it was the multipools that in often cases caused sudden difficulty/hashing rate spikes in new coins once the multipools adopted them. As far as I could see, multipools were both PoW's strength, but more a weakness. A PoS coin like NEM could take advantage of them, at a lesser risk. I see what you're saying now, and honestly, i understand where you're coming from. It does sound like a decent idea to me; I would like to know what UP thinks of this along with the rest of the devs. What i do want to ask (To anyone who has an answer); has this been done before? If so, what (PoS) coin, and what was the outcome? If it hasn't been done before, this might be a very good idea indeed. Yeah, i admit during the brief period i was focused on PoW related coins, the idea of multipools was an ominous one, especially in light of the 51% attacks and such. |
|
|
|
I'm more inclined to lean towards no multipool i'm afraid. I'm also not fond of the idea of pushing nem as an "Eco friendly" coin.
Although it is greener, i don't think that should be the primary focus point in advertising - the green argument is a tired, cliched one, and if anything, environmentalists and other such movements have more of a stigma than anything else, which, for the most part, is largely justified.
yes you have a good point there.. but if you dont think the whole green marketing thing should be a big thing then i dont see the issue in running a multipool.. the only argument against it iv seen is that it would make nem non-green.. or is there another reason you are against it..? I've a very vague understanding of multipool, but my preference is it's probably best we don't tamper with something we've not even got out the door yet. This is just my stance - yet i'm open minded enough to reconsider my stance the more I understand how multipool works. |
|
|
|
Do multipools kill the coins being mined?
A large pool can jump into a small coin, raise the difficulty level really high, and then jump out. The remaining miners at that point have a hard time forming new blocks because the difficulty is so high. Recently a trend has started that some mulitpools will not only get a lot of coins while raising the difficulty, but then they will buy out the whole buy wall, in effect "dumping" what they earned. These people then buy a POS coin that they are supporting. It hurts the regular bitcoin and litecoin clones while helping the POS coins. The POS coins can't be mined back so they aren't vulnerable. Now while this trend has started, it is still very small and hasn't had an effect yet, but if it gets large enough, it will reach a tipping point and any miner that wants to make money will have to join in the multipools mining indirectly for POS coins. So basically people that are pro POS could buy miners and then in theory ban together and kill POW coins. It hasn't happened though. but it will.. and the sooner we kill off pow coins the better! (less energy usage) if we dont and let them run their course.. they will be running for far longer and use allot more energy.. i see this getting really big and multipools popping up everywhere.. the coins that can will change to pos to save them selves and whats left are the larger ones like btc and ltc that cannot change.. all the multipools will be aimed at those and will slowly take them down.. and their wont be anything they can do about it.. it will take a while to get to that stage but i honestly think it is in the best interest of every pos coin to make a multipool and help crush the pow coins.. imagine the energy we would save if all pow coins were gone and only btc and ltc were left.. which will happen! more so if btc goes through another massive boom! there are only benefits to running multipools.. the only negative iv herd is that it would make nem non-green.. not true.. if anything we are helping kill off the non-green coins before they get to mine all their coins and put an end to them before they use all the power needed to mine them... which actually makes nem an eco worrior(not just green.. but fighting to put and end to non-green coins)! you should market the pool as being an eco worrior helping to rid the crypto world of all the energy hungry coins so that ALL cryptos can be energy efficient.. the pool slogan: NemPool: putting an end to power hungry PoW for a better tomorrow. imagine what will happen when the multipools crush most the smaller coins and turn towards bitcoin.. by then they will have massive hashing power and could be able to compete with the big time btc miners! and once the big boys see what we are doing they will then see that ltc/btc are doomed due to this and jump ship over to pos(more then likely the most inovative ones at the time being nem/nxt) meaning ltc and btc value gets transfered to us! the more people that move to multipool the more power we have the more we crush pow then more miners will come and keep going until we completely distroy all pow coins! ending with nem nxt being top 1 and 2 on coin market cap! now you tell me that isnt more green then not doing it and letting these pow coins happily mine away using insane amounts of power for years and years.. its by far in our best interest to crush them with everything we got and multipools are our most powerfull weapons! use them! or someone else will! pat i know you are against the idea but is their any way we can sway you to the pro multipool side? we can get the pool running now and it will get allot of attention.. a coin running a pool before its even launched. that will get allot of attention.. but market it as an eco worrior.. the gains it will give to nem is a side effect!  its a win win! and pat it would look allot better if we have the devs on board with this.. the community wont look divided on the matter.. i think the support of the devs on this matter is important! and it will show how much faith people have in the devs ability to actualy release nem and all its features! further solidifying the idea that nem is the next big thing! I'm more inclined to lean towards no multipool i'm afraid. I'm also not fond of the idea of pushing nem as an "Eco friendly" coin. Although it is greener, i don't think that should be the primary focus point in advertising - the green argument is a tired, cliched one, and if anything, environmentalists and other such movements have more of a stigma than anything else, which, for the most part, is largely justified. (When you consider their aggressive/facist tatics of getting their political agenda across) Environmentalists are as bad as the liberal, left wing movements who, in the UK, are becoming more and more despised the more people uncover how much they've dominated the political and corporal scene. Anywhoo, thats another subject entirely; what I will say is though, yes, NEM is much greener, PoW is unsustainable due to it's energy requirements (This is why i invest in PoS), but i don't think pushing NEM as a "green alternative" is in any way beneficial for itself in the long run. People are sick of that argument. |
|
|
|
Frankly saying I don't worry much if someone attacks NEM using this attack vector, I hoped that I could steal borrow ur solution, hehe...
BAM!  The most hopeful thing I've read in weeks. I have read CfB's post going back more than a year (and there are a lot). I highly respect him in this field. I'm so excited to hear him say that NEM might have something in common with Qubic in a distant cousin way. I for one have been really excited about POI. Since the third year of bitcoin there has been a mining problem. I'll some up his posts so you don't have to read them. CfB knew about bitcoin's mining problem and was working on a solution before bitcoin was $1. I really hope and am really excited to hear any feedback post white paper. I agree. Nonetheless i do have alot of Faith in NEM - NEM is by far the best thing to come along since NXT. When you consider the Gox mess and other PoW related woes, i believe cryptocurrency in general needs a radical new approach to coins rather than your typical PoW/Litecoin/BTC clone. |
|
|
|
There's no solid evidence that PoS is the way to go. PoS has been out for ages and NxT & Peercoin never dethrone LTC.
I think PoS is the better alternative over Proof of work, for a number of reasons. Firstly, Bitcoin is in some respects, reasonably popular - yet ridiculously difficult to mine. If it ever achieved more widespread adoption, mining would be pointless for the average individual; and mostly in the hands of large corporations who mine or manufacturer's who make mining hardware. This hardly backs up it's "Decentralized" claim. Nevermind that, but as difficulty increases, so does electricity consumption. Even now we see huge farms mining Bitcoin that consume vast amounts of electricity. On a wider scale, Bitcoin would consume vast sums of energy - this to me, makes PoW unsustainable, especially in the long term if it's ever to have wider aspirations (ie; worldwide adoption). As a result, i went to PoS. I see more of a future in PoS than PoW. The difference is PoS needs to have the right start, i believe NEM has. |
|
|
|
@ all :
This is NEM-thread. There is no room for other coins! Especially not for NAS-coiners which want to harm the reputation of NEM!
One last thing before I shut up about NAS on this thread. The creator is chinese and wanted to say the following: NAS: It is no scam, and it is also not still in developement like NEM or NEXX and will be launched soon. what he said was: NAS: No scam! No another NEM or Nxx! Don't bash him for not speaking english fluently.... Sorry, he deserves every bash he gets. If it's truely a misunderstanding, he'd quickly correct it. Has this happend? No. The NAS thread has been in existence since march 19th - nearly 4 weeks, so he'd had plenty of time to change it regardless of being banned. This underlines the true nature of this NAS coin - a deception, and deceptions stink of scam. A good coin/project doesn't go around declaring FUD, it knuckles down and does it's own thing. If people fall for scams, this is their choice. Let him spread FUD if that's what he chooses, but that sort of conduct hardly casts his own project in a good light - at least by those who invest wisely. |
|
|
|
NAS is total shit clone, badly distributed, no innovation, advertised only by big stakeholders of NAS, trying to experience what original NXt stakeholders did. Knowing this, it is not even morally right to support such a coin, that is my personal view.
They just want to create liquidity, so they could dump, nothing else, they want to make you bagholders.
This. I saw nothing appealing whatsoever about NAS. It really offers absolutely nothing new at all. NEM by far is the most interesting of the lot out of all the coins i've invested in. |
|
|
|
I have seen stake holders talking about getting our website set up for general info about cryptocurrency.
I checked and there are thousands of searches per month being conducted for terms related to cryptos for beginners. We need to have NEM be on the first page of the results.
We need new people coming into cryptos to find out about NEM when they are learning. If our website is a resource for information about cryptos in general it will bring newbies to NEM.
I will be more than happy to write the content and organize other writers to help.
Absolutely, positively spot on. This has to be looked into further - it's an opportunity that should NOT be missed. |
|
|
|
This is the Nem thread. Please stop spamming and trolling with stuff that is of no interest to Nem community.
It is the exchange your coin will launch first I was under the impression a few exchanges have offered to take NEM. I know The Binary Fund was one of them. |
|
|
|
What's the obsession with charity? We are not a charity fund. If someone want to spend his money for charity - then go for it, but don't use money that belong to others for it. We need a strong coin and we should spend all available money for development and marketing. I'd better give all money to dev team so they could quit their day jobs and focus on Nem. After all $40-50K spent on development and marketing may increase coin capitalization 10 times and everybody can spend 10 times more money on charity if they're so obsessed with it.
Agreed. Focus on NEM's strengths, and how it can differentiate from Nxt, NAS, etc. Allocate those funds to development. Charity won't drive adoption, a stable, feature-rich platform will drive adoption. I dont know but i guess that charities cuold be created on nem exchange ,where anyone could donate when ewer they want .It could attract big publicity In the UK, where public expenses are highly scrutinized by the general population, there's a growing mistrust with charities which is rightly deserved in many cases. I, for one, do not think a charity driven plan is going to do a thing for anyone other than make the charities richer - who may or may not even give it to the people originally intended for (Nevermind the fact some charities clearly have a political agenda). No, I say keep well clear of charities. Use the funds for the development of the currency, and encourage adoption through retailers; especially if it involves the deep web, because we all know, Bitcoins main value comes from black market trade. A coin needs to be feature rich to differentiate from the ongoing horde of clones. But more importantly, a coin needs to be resilient to promote trust and faith in it as a currency -- something that Bitcoin has due to it's demand on more "lucrative" markets. If anyone wants to push for charities once NEM has reached some solid ground, i'm all ears...otherwise, it's far too early to be even considering it. NEM has a good start facing it. 3000 stakeholders is a far fairer distribution and it's a one of a kind in that regard, but the start isn't what makes a coin big, It's resilience; an ability to weather the ups and downs of exchange value that the crypto scene entails. |
|
|
|
As it was said before, whatever we do with the wallet and app, our most important filters should be simplicity and ease of use. I am convinced this will be one of the important things that make or break Nem in the long run.
In other words a one click install client would be just great to begin with.
I also think maybe it would be interesting for the Nem client to have 2 skins. Meaning one simple and very user friendly interface with just a few basic options and another interface for the more advanced Nem guys where all the interesting options and features are included. This is just a thought.
As i said before, i think this is vitally important. I think it's very, very important we give people CHOICE - if they wish to have more advanced features, this option should be within the same client; not involve them having to download another client in order to get additional functionality because they're an advanced user. It's this exact thing that makes Crypto's more complicated thna they need to be. Sure, on the surface this is no big deal, but couple this with other hoops people need to jump through, the entire process gets complicated very, very quickly. A simple option in a menu to enable or disable "Advanced user options" is all that's necessary. This sort of reminds me of my stance between Firefox and Chrome - i find Chrome a more dumbed down experience and therefore prefer the additional options Firefox offers me (I especially dislike the fact Chrome doesn't even give you the option of choosing an install path - very patronizing, very frustrating) In order to not piss off either party (Advanced users, casual users) we need to give them CHOICE. |
|
|
|
|
This is my take on the whole wallet/client:
1. It needs to be an offline wallet. Not like NXT. At the very least make it a hybrid of the two.
2. It absolutely, positively, has to be idiot proof. The biggest issue right now with crypto's is most people have no idea how they work, and if they attempt to get involved, give up due to not understanding how it works - this confusion puts people off becuase they naturally deem it a risk. The vast bulk of untapped users potentially are in this catagory and right now, any coin that appeals to them is going to be successful.
It's vitally important we get a coin that appeals to the wider market, and fill a cap Bitcoin just doesn't fill.
3. Quick, easy, streamlined installation, up and running in moments with a clean UI - not overly complex. Added features could be enabled under an "advanced user" option, perhaps. Don't overburden new users with many features. Keep it clean, keep it simple. If they want more advanced stuff, just give them the option of enabling it.
Either way, I know if all goes to plan and I get my stake, i'm going to be investing a large portion to efforts that make NEM fill a void most crypto's fail to do. I'd also like to see some promotion on the deep web too, because we all know the black market is where bitcoin gets the vast bulk of it's value/demand.
|
|
|
|
Here's the poll results I spoke about concerning everyone's preference for GUI or Web clients:  A desktop client/wallet was hugely preferred. Admittedly a sample size of 16 people isn't statistically significant, but it's something to think about. There's a discussion about it in the thread on the forum. I quoted this because frankly, common sense tells you its what people would prefer. Online based wallets gives people less control, plus there's more risk. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
