I don't even remember now why it got moved to devtome.com, I control the devtome.org domain and at some point was instructed to make that a redirect to the dot com, and who-ever controlled the mchine that was hosted on changed which type of wiki software to use for it, I had originally set it up as a mediawiki I believe.

Maybe part of the issue was people not wanting me to have control of so much of the project or some political thing like that.

If someone clones the thing on some other host, someone who we can actually expect to stick around available for the long haul, I can point devtome.org at it.

But the thing is still online so someone is presumably still paying for hosting or is hosting it on a server they already have online anyway for some reason, who the heck is that? As who-ever that is should be able to change the password of the user the wiki runs as, then that user should be able to fix up the member records for who gets admin powers within the wiki system, and update the wiki software or whatever it is that needs doing at that level.

-MarkM-

When Open Transactions finally settles on its data and contract formats and we move all the data over to the new format there are now enough IXCoins available that we can easily "freeze" 580k IXCoins to back 580k digiIXC on the Open Transactions server. In fact it is getting to the point already where we may well be able to do that while still also leaving UNfrozen 580k of liquid IXCoins that can be used to "cash out" the digiIXC tokens without unfreezing the frozen coins the tokens represent.

So to worry about the ancient 580k IXC that Thomas pre-mined is relatively silly, considering we will be looking at at least two stashes of that magnitude existing right in plain sight.

In turn, having 580k digiIXC in existence will mean the bandwidth of the pipeline for IXC/digiIXC will be 580k coins wide, that is, people will be able to conduct transactions of up to 580k in a single transaction, which will probably be larger than the bandwidth provided for any other coin except maybe DeVCoin.

(Though so far there have been 250 or 300 millions of digiDVC created, so unless more DVC are "frozen" so as to issue more digiDVC alongside the issuing of more digiIXC, or DeVCoins go up a lot in value, yes digiIXC will be the largest by value even if not in sheer number of digicoin tokens.)

-MarkM-

Burning it is crazy, given we can actually get our hands on it at all we should spend it on bounties as was intended.

All these things you or who-ever it was) have been asking for donations for are what the pre-mine should be spent on.

If we cannot get hold of the pre-mine to spend as intended we are surely not going to be handed it to burn?

We need the person who controls its private keys in order to do anything with it at all, unless we make a new core code that re-allocates it or invalidates it or somesuch.

Do we even know how much of it has gone to bounties and such already?

Personally I am not even convinced that being on lots of exchanges is a good thing, as the more exchanges it is on the more chance there is that one of them will screw around such as by threatening to drop it, creating bad press; the more exchanges there are the more of the other coin in the trading pair we need to tie up sitting on exchanges on the buy-side of the order-books. How many bitcoins are you willing to tie up sitting on exchanges in the form of buy offers providing depth and liquidity to IXCoin? I am finding it much easier to provide good buy-sides for coins when they are only on one exchange, having IXCoin be on CEX as well as on Cryptsy is why we had the huge price-implosion lately, CEX decided to screw around trying to convince people the coin was dying and so on, all of which could have been avoided by not being on their exchange in the first place, though maybe being on their pool had not been such a bad thing.

-MarkM-

IXCoin had a pre-mine that was supposed to be used for bounties and such to get things done for the coin.

Apparently some of it was spent on that but apparently there is also some remaining.

Because of the pre-mine. a coin called I0Coin (with a zero not an O) was created with zero pre-mine, and maybe Cryptopia is aware of that because they do list I0Coin.

Poloniex though still has not listed I0Coin, so maybe that is the coin you should be asking them to list, explain that its reason for creation was precisely because IXCoin had a pre-mine.

Both are merged mined coins so miners mining at the right pools were able to acquire both coins, and other foks were free for all these years to choose whether the pre-mine boths them and if it does to choose I0Coin instead of IXCoin.

The dropping of IXCoin price at CEX to 1000 satoshis or lower was in the last moments before they de-listed it, anyone who could not be bothered to move their IXCoins elsehwere to get better prices for them dumped them at insanely low prices, to people who then moved them over to Cryptsy and dumped them there driving the price down at Cryptsy.

Both coins would probably be doing a lot better if Open Transactions had not decided to change their data formats to be incompatible with the existing formats they had used all along, and heopfully will do better again once Open Transactions reaches a final format that will not keep changing, so that we can migrate all existing balances contracts and so on to a new format that will be stable. Of course having "Open Transactions for grandmothers" easy to use Open Transactions clients will also be important.

IXCoin used to be 16 to 18 thousand satishis, 14,000 is still not a full recovery to historic prices. But it has been hit with so much FUD that for a while recently it was even cheaper than I0Coin.

Basically for both coins we are finally starting to come back out of a long extended period of excellent buying opportunity, where for I guess maybe about a couple of years or more one could pick them both up at crazy-low prices. Expect people dumping coins they got at crazy-low prices to suppress the price still for a while maybe but there is NO INFLATION in IXCoin and almost none in I0Coin so both are excellently positioned so still a good buy even when their prices do get back to normal.

-MarkM-

They suspended all withdrawals and the actual trade engine itself too for a while in an attempt to figure out where all the lag they were experiencing was coming from, but that didn't last long.

Once the trade engine started up again I started withdrawing AXIOM again, again with no problems nor delays. Have not tried IXCoin withdrawals as I still have only level 2 clearance so limited total monthly withdrawal dollar-value, which I could easily exceed trying to with IXCoin or BiTCoin.

-MarkM-

We should try to find out what level of access is needed to address the Devtome problems, as in do we need the domain pointed somewhere else we control, or can the controller of the machine the domain currently points to do something, or is it merely a matter of a username on the machine needing to be controlled by someone new who will actually fix the problems, or what?

-MarkM-

DeVCoins are still merged mined at MMpool, I am not sure about Luke Jr's pool which used to include it in its merge.

Whose server is Devtome hosted on, and I guess maybe I should also ask why, if they aren't maintaining it?

I originally set up Devtome then for some probably "political" reason it got moved over to someone else, they changed the wiki software it was run on and added some mods and such, I don't know what happened to it after that.

Maybe such essential services should be hosted on machines controlled by more-reliable folks, if the basic problem here is that there is no machine-admin we can appeal to to change the passwords of user-accounts on the machine that control various software applications or websites, or the passwords of users of a particular software package if all that we really need to get e.g. Devtome working is someone to change the wiki-admin-user to someone else due to current wiki-admins not doing their jobs?

I guess I am asking what level of password needs to be changed to fix Devtome, do we need to change who has wiki-admin privs or change who has the password of the unix-user the wiki runs as, or change what machine it is run on to a machine whose root or machine-admin user is more reliable, or change who controls the domain or the domain's nameservers or what?

My three main servers dvcstable01.dvcnode.org, dvcstable02.dvcnode.org and dvcstable06.dvcnode.org are not running webservers nor MySQL servers because they are so busy running other things, but if I have to I guess I can work something out to put the wiki onto one or more of those machines or maybe even rent a fourth server.

So what level is the problem at, first off?

-MarkM-

The hacking problem is why all along I had always assumed I would be using an Open Transactions server, and also had always planned to in effect have it be more than 100% reserve rather than fractional reserve or merely 100% reserve.

Basically the idea is that once tokens are created representing coins, the coins those tokens represent will never move until the tokens are destroyed, and the server will not be creating and destroying tokens on demand, sending out coins from hot warm or cold wallets when tokens are destroyed.

Instead, coins would be frozen "forever", that is, until such time as the system is to be closed down or is going to no longer trade in a particular coin.

Ideally centuries could go by with the system becoming an ancient institution, still with the same original coins in super-cold wallets, never moving.

The more than 100% reserve concept comes in to it due to the desire people might have to cash tokens out for actual on-blockchain coins.

The idea is that that function would be a third party function, a distinct thing, a service that buys and sells tokens. The coins represented by the tokens would not move, only the tokens would change hands. So if someone for example bought up all the dBTC (digiBiTCoin) tokens that represent actual bitcoins frozen in a supercold wallet cryptographically diffused across several Fortresses of Solitude, there would need to be that many actual bitcoins available to "cash them out" with over and above the supercold-wallet coins those tokens actually represent.

We would not destroy tokens to release bitcoins back into circulation, rather the tokens would be bought and sold using other, additional bitcoins.

This of course meant that I was not able to enter more than half as many coins of each type into the Open Transactions system as I actually had, because I held onto as many coins as I put in so that I could be the bailer-out-of-funds of last resort in the event third parties did not materialise to take on the "bailer in and out of the system" functions.

So in theory the coins ought not to be able to be hacked, because they would be in wallets in safe-deposit boxes or buried or whatever, wallets there is no plan and hopefully no need to ever actually go and dig up.

Remember that tribe that made stone wheels as money? And the King had a huge such wheel behind his throne? And it rolled into the sea one day? They were able to keep on using it as money because all that they needed was to know who owned it currently, regardless of the fact it was on the sea-bed and they could not go get it from there.

It'd be like that: the tokens represent coins, but ideally we never need touch those coins because we just buy and sell ownership of them and always have on hand enough additional coins to cash out all the tokens.

Unfortunately this does mean that for each million of a coin we have on the server, an additional million need to be somewhere ready to buy the tokens that represent the million coins bailed-in to the system. But it did seem to me that at least for using the markets to trade all the coins and other assets against each other this should be a system reasonably immune to hacking.

(Note that in Open Transactions all balances are cryptographically signed, your balance cannot be changed without your private key being used to sign the new receipt-aka-balance.)

-MarkM-

When did IXCoin start getting stuck? I took out 50,000 easy and fast just a few days ago. I have also never had any trouble withdrawing AXIOM.

Which reminds me, I am thinking it could be useful to form an asset somewhere that basically takes in merged mined SHA256 altcoins and never lets them go (well at least until someone buys up over half of the shares to have a controlling interest and changes that policy), as a way of being able to trade in such coins and store value in them without the bulk of them ever hitting the exchanges directly.

Since obviously such a Corp would need a method of continuing to grow its holdings, I figure it should also hold large piles of staking coins, so that periodically it can use some of the coins it gained by staking to buy up IXCoin, I0Coin and so on (merged mined SHA256 coins, starting with IXCoin and I0Coin).

To help the Corp initially accrue the coins it wants, I am thinking it should sell its initial shares offering for such coins.

Hundreds of thousands of such coins are already sitting around waiting to go into such a Corp, but rather than again leave out the forum users who are not members of in-game clans, guilds, associations, parties and such whose officers are already looking to form such a Corp I figured I might as well check whether forum-denizens might be interested in such an asset / such a Corp.

As usual, because roleplaying game players/characters are unlikely to sell any item that just keeps creating treasure for them, it would not be a dividend-paying asset, as players could be expected never to part with such an asset. Rather, it would be a growth asset, that is, realising the profits would require selling the shares, thus creating motivation for players to actually sell some sometimes instead of just holding them forever creating a monopoly on them.

Also of course paying dividends would result in coins hitting exchanges, which is precisely what the Corp aims to prevent. Once it gets a non-staking coin it plans to hold it forever, using proceeds of stake to buy more such coins while also allowing its staking capital to grow.

-MarkM-

For me that is a blank page, it does not even trigger a "you cannot run this because it uses flash" warning or anything.

-MarkM-

That still sounds a bit risky, guess I will wait until things stabilise and a stable version is set up as the default.

(It seems like you are saying the development branch is what people currently get at the main URL?)

-MarkM-

And thus does git suddenly become a complicated mess.

The way I tell whether I need to update is simple cycle through all the coin sourcegode directories doing a git pull in each one; those where the pull got somehing are the ones that need to be re-built and re-distributed to all the machines running them. As one certainly cannot count on seeing any announcements on bitcointalk, everythign scrolls out of sight way to fast to have a reasonable chance of catching sight of something while it happens momentarily to be on the first page of posts.

How the heck would one even go about pulling from a specific tag? For all I know ome of the coin sourcecode dirs already might do that, unfortunately; I don't think git indicates that, at least not very out in your face obviously, so maybe some things already are only being updated when the specific tag that I pulled is updated, and might have entirely new tags in place by now that the old tag I am pulling is not telling me to to pull instead.

Thus usually it is much better if a given repository simple always has whatever it wants passers-by to download be right there as the default thing that anyone not trying to study up on how tags work and re-learn all over again whatever stuff they had to learn way back when they last were forced to resort to tags wil just simply get so that is all just works...

I have pulled tags before, gosh knows how though, I inevitably forget all that complexity that should in any event be avoided.

-MarkM-

If I do a git clone of https://github.com/domob1812/i0coin.git will that give me the correct/latest version? Then go git pull periodically to stay up to date?

-MarkM-

Stake coins tend to mint new coins though, whereas IXCoins main claim to fame is that it already minted all its coins thus it shows us what happens when minting runs out.

IXCoin needs to keep going despite minting no new coins, in order to show that coins that over time mint less and less coins are able to kep on going beyond the point where the minting stops entirely.

This might mean we need more actual transactions, so that there will be plenty of transaction fees for miners, and of course the higher the price per coin the more actual vlue those transactions fes will add up to.

It also might be the case that in order for merged mined coins to work well once they reach the end of their minting period the folks who actually use the things will need to be running mining hardware themselves, al doing their little part toward securing the coins they use. Weren't there rumours that higher-efficiency mining chips were coming along someday, maybe with solar power too, so mining could become more distributed again?

-MarkM-

Which would be a great way to destroy mobile devices.

Even laptops are typically not robust enough to make reasonable mining devices.

The kind of coin to use for something like that would be ones that do not use Proof of Work, since such devices cannot reasonably be expected to do any serious work.

-MarkM-

Bagholders, oh yes! You could maybe say that the Brits, Canucks, Martians, (Galactic) United Nations, General Mining Corp and General Retirement Fund are all professional bagholders, because their contention from the outset was that the big problem with the normal run of cryptocoins - before the IPO-coin era anyway as these folks started up way back after NaMeCoin but before or alongside DeVCoin - is that there is no-one "backing" the coins and, instead of an issuer, they have swarms of issuers, known as miners, who cannot be relied upon to "back" the coins they issue.

Thus by design UKB, CDN, MBC, UNS, GMC, GRF, NKL and such ( see http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/digitalisassets.html ) all started out as one big "bag" each. They thus could be used as a kind of "I Owe yoU" by their issuers, who are expected to "back" them by buying them back when they come up for sale.

The "standard type of cryptocoins" in which they are most interested are those they feel there is some chance they could acquire a huge proportion of, so that they could reasonably hope to eventually be able to "back" them, or more likely form a Corp to back each such coin so that eventually one could look at the Corp's holdings/reserves and divide by the total number of the coin in existence to compute the value of the coin from a possibly more confident form of "market cap" than that which is obtained by multiplying today's single-coin price by the number of coins in existence.

That in turn of course means they prefer coins that are not still minting large numbers of coins. IXCoin is the classic example of course, because its minting stopped a long time ago now but because of merged mining it can still in principle be secured (meaning rendered secure by high hash rate, rather than meaning acquired) at relatively low cost. Their theory is that eventually one would be able to add up the assets of some kind of "IXCorp", divide those by the number of IXCoins in existence, and thereby compute the value per IXCoin...

-MarkM-

Last time I updated the (Freeciv) Galactic Ruleset I think 2.4 was the usual FreeCiv that came with Ubuntu 14.04, with 2.5 being a development version. Maybe it is even numbers are production, odd are development or something? Can't remember exactly but I think it was 2.4 I used. I guess the DevTome needs updating.

-MarkM-

My view is probably influenced by the way stuff has tended to happen in the Galactic Milieu, where most of the time most of the currency doesn't hit the markets at all.  Most currency conversion happens like the way it happens at gas stations along the U.S. / Canada border or at a local branch of your bank when you go in to buy a bit of foreign currency to take with you on vacation or whatever. You look on a currency conversion chart or even watch the news or a newspaper to see what today's price is, add a service fee markup and pow it is done.

Every few months or so though some of the Nations or Corps find they have accumulated more of some of the currencies of the other Nations or Corps than they want to hold in their treasury as backing with which to back their own currency so they approach the issuing Nation about selling it back to them, usually preferably for some of the approaching Nation or Corp's own currency. Or they find their reserves getting low so they approach an issuer to see about stocking up a little.

So volume tends to be sporadic. But also the Open Transactions system supports scales in powers of ten, so typically there will be at least three scales of market available for those who do choose to use the market system instead of directly approaching someone to do an over the counter exchange. So large volume would probably usually happen on large scale markets; if you want to trade job-lots of 100,000 of an asset at a time, in whole lots of 100,000, you would use the 100,000-scale market. Arbitragers would presumably buy at one scale to get "wholesale" type prices then break up the lot to sell on smaller scale markets. This tendency to get better prices when buying in bulk also provides incentive to do sporadic huge transactions rather than constantly running to and from the markets.

Nations and Corps used to run scripts that, knowing from a price conversion table how much each thing was "worth" relative to each other thing, would place orders to buy and sell on three different scales of market at three different premiums, so that the markets for any given asset would always have offers on at least three scales with less premium the larger the scale.

Because the potential traders were all basically huge whales, no trades tended to happen until a large enough overstock or understock of a particular currency accumulated to make it necessary or desirable to do an exchange.

That approach did have some troubling characteristics though. For example as one of the developers who originally created DeVCoin I had kind of hoped that having massive amounts of DeVCoin-based economy in the game would help make DeVCoins valuable, but this tendency of the Nations and Corps and players in general to simply consult price charts rather than actually move coins through markets has led to DeVCoin sitting with low volume and low price on the exchanges even while millions or billions of DeVCoin-denominated economy is going on in the game.

What has been happening is someone whose debts are nominally denominated in DeVCoin will show up at, say, a General Mining Corp depot with fifty million units of Deuterium worth, according to the prices shown at http://galaxies.mygamesonline.org/deuterium.html , many many millions of DeVCoins. General Mining Corp would, of course, normally pay in their own currency, known as GMC, but by consulting tables they can look up how much of various other currencies is supposedly equivalent today and pay out in whichever currency they and the party delivering the Deuterium find mutually convenient.

DeVCoins, of course, are seldom convenient because their market cap is so low that it would be hard to keep on hand enough to pay for even one such shipment, but since the miner's debts are denominated in DeVCoin General Mining Corp can, for a small consideration, take care of sending the creditor the requisite number of DeVCoins worth of something that is mutually convenient to General Mining Corp and the creditor, so DeVCoin-denominated credit is applied against the Deuterium-deliverer's DeVCoin-denominated debt with no actual DeVCoins moving at all.

This all works out to a huge amount of "volume" without  "the usual web-based crypto-exchanges the crypto crowd is used to" seeing any of it.

It is a circular problem too because where are the makers of the currency-conversion charts going to go to figure out how much DeVCoin is worth? If all DeVCoins had been issued ab initio by one Nation or Corp as its own National or Corporate currency one could simply add up the Nation or Corp's worth or treasury or reserves, its "full faith and confidence" or its on file somewhere collateral or whatever it is relied upon to use to "back" its currency, divide by the number of coins, and presto, you know what each coin is supposedly "worth". But DeVCoin, and most crypto coins such as bitcoin itself even, are not like that. You never know whether anyone at all is going to back them nor who it is that is going to. So you look at the exchanges. Where DeVCoin price remains untouched by all this massive DeVCoin-denominated activity.

So, I guess, yet another case of volume not being anti-liquidity!

-MarkM-

Yeah but those high volume markets are probably high volume because of high liquidity. I think the usual thing folks look at for liquidity is "depth" although what you would want to see for a highly liquid market is a large amount of shallow depth, since the depth way way down at the bottom of the order-books would take a lot of activity to become day to day relevant. You want lots of depth at the current price if you want to move a large volume without moving the price.

Also consider that in day to day affairs a dollar is a dollar whether you are buying something with it or selling something for it, so in a way it'd be nice if the sell price and the buy price are the same; markets try to approach that by allowing finer-grained prices, such as by having a market on which "job lots" of 10,000 dollars at a time are bought and sold instead of individual dollars, so the difference in price per individual dollar or cent can be a small fraction of a cent.

So the smoothest high-volume efficient markets tend toward having massive liquidity at the current price, the more liquidity at or near the current price the better so as to maximise the amount of value that can be moved through the system without moving the prices.

However, volume is measured in both directions, right? So high volume need not mean lots of offers on one side of the order-book being eaten up, it could in fact largely involve market-makers who are putting what they buy and sell back onto the order-books as fast as they buy or sell it, so the same small amount of liquidity can be recycled over and over and over again in the course of a high-volume day if the volume is not one-directional.

-MarkM-

Volume is evidence of liquidity having existed at least sufficient to have enabled that volume to happen.

But if for example there are a billion coins for sale and an offer to buy a billion of them, that is a billion of liquidity only until the billion coins are sold, whereupon there is no liquidity remaining but a volume of a billion in the past.

That billion of volume ate the billion of liquidity.

Another clue is seen in exchanges that mention "liquidity providers"; what they mean is people who put sell offers onto the sell side of the order-book or put buy offers onto the buy side of the order-book instead of buying from the sell-side offers or selling to the buy-side offers.

When you look at the order books you have a choice; to buy you can buy from the lowest price offer on the sell side, or you can place a buy offer on the buy side, that is, an offer even lower than the lowest sell offer. Similarly in selling you have a choice between selling to the highest buy offer or placing a sell offer (at an even higher price) on the sell-side of the order-book.

Those offers sitting on the order-books are the liquidity.

If you buy directly from the sell side offers instead of placing a buy offer on the buy side and waiting for a seller to choose to sell to your offer, you are consuming liquidity. Some exchanges charge you higher fees for that because they want liquidity, which is to say, they want offers sitting on the order-books. If you buy from an existing offer ro sell to an existing offer you are consuming that offer, or at least part of it, thus lowering the remaining liquidity.

Volume is a measure of how much liquidity has been consumed. More interesting to folks who weren't there at the time to consume it, surely, ought to be how much liquidity is still there. What does it matter that someone else bought a bilion coins yesterday if that leaves none left for you to buy?

Generally of course a lot of volume tends to attract liquidity-providers, because high volume means a lot of liquidity is being consumed that that surely there must be a demand for liquidity.

But one of the big consequences of the difference between volume and liquidity is the way coins get dropped from exchanges for low volume regardless of how much liquidity they have.

A coin can have billions for sale at the perfect sell price, which is to say, the price below which someone would surely buy them, and billions of buy offers at the perfect buy price, which is to say the price above which someone would surely sell to them, and yet have no volume because everyone already bought all they want (at current prices) to buy and sold all that (at current prices) they want to sell. Vast sums could change hands at any moment. In fiat markets exchanges could be making interest on deposits so might not need to care so much buying and selling happens as long as the interest they make on deposits is enough to cover their expenses, but with crypto typically the exchanges need volume to happen in order to earn the fees they use to pay their operating-expenses. So they drop coins based on volume, not necessarily on liquidity.

A community can spend vast sums of money and vast numbers of keystrokes and hours of key-pressing labour trying to build up huge piles of liquidity in a coin, only have exchanges drop the coin, throwing away all those keystrokes and all those hours of labour typing in offers, before the liquidity accumulation reaches critical levels where, finally, the bagholders hope, it will trigger some actual volume.



When I spend 16 hours a day day after day typing in an offer at every satoshi of price trying to build a solid column of liquidity all the way up to the "spread" (the gap between the buy side and the sell side of the order-book), I do not want volume, I want liquidity.

Here is a specific example with numbers: look at I0Coin on Cryptopia. At every satoshi of price all the way up from the bottom (price of one satoshi) I have placed a buy offer.

That is thousands of offers!

I do not want to see a huge volume happen, I want to see huge increase in liquidity happen!

THAT IS BECAUSE every hundred coins of sell volume selling to my buy offers is one buy offer of mine I will have to re-enter into the system.

Sell me many thousands of coins directly to my buy offers and I have to sit here for hours typing back in the buy offers that you liquidated.

IF YOU PUT IN LIQUIDITY INSTEAD OF VOLUME, that is, if you place a sell offer on the sell side instead of dumping it onto my buy offers, I will see it there and go like ah, wow, awesome, I can buy thousands of coins in just one entry of an offer! No need for me to re-type all the offers I was up all last night typing in! PLUS, you get your wad of coins sold at one price, a price better than any of my sell offers! WIN-WIN! We both win!

(But dumpers slow that down too, because naturally I want to build back up my liquidity pile of offers all the way up to where your sell offer is sitting before taking you up on your sel offer, otherwise you might turn out to be a robot that is just goin to take what I pay for those coins and start mixing in with me way down low in the buy side where I am busy re-typing my offers. So I like to get my offers pile way up near the sell price before buying from the seller directly.)

Still, place a sell offer of thousands of coins a satoshi higher in price than my highest buy offer and of course I will snap it up when I get back to typing in my offers, it wil be in the way of my pile's growth toward the target price I am still for months - actually for years - trying to build my buy offers up to.

It can take weeks to input those buy offers to build a solid column of liquidity, when you trash the whole column way down in price so far that it takes weeks to build back up, that means it can be weeks before enough typing has been done for the column to climb back up to the prices at which folk actually want to sell at. So they sit there waiting for the pile of offers on the buy side to slowly slowly day by day get typed in, meanwhile the exchange sees no volume because the column/pile of buy-side liquidity takes so long to type back in, so the coin gets dropped from the exchange for lack of volume despite thousands upon thousands upon thousands of offers with more being typed in each day.


ANOTHER EXAMPLE-WITH-NUMBERS:

Look at DeVCoin (DVC) on Cryptsy. Massive liquidity: you could buy hundreds of millions or sell a billion without moving the price. But almost no volume, as it happens, yesterday/today. The liquidity is there to allow massive volume to happen, it just hasn't happened yesterday/today... So far...


-MarkM-