Acknowledged. Technical difficulties :/

Selling shares of a new tech to the market at whatever price the market will bear, is not scamming. I don't have any evidence that NXT is scamming anyone. I have also sold shares of my companies to the public.

What I don't believe is that these things will become currency. At least my shares have never succeeded on that

The Zeitgeist would like to have a debt-free pure fiat currency. I think it is slightly better than the current system (due to moral grounds - I believe the govt is more entitled to the seigniorage that the banking cartel) but still many better systems exist.

Bitcoin is unique in that in the course of its existence, $600M is burned in mining, which has at each time been the full payment for the new coins at market value (the "value added" or "profit" to the miners in general has been very low), yet the coins are now worth $8000M, so we have been able to monetize the network value up to $7400M while ensuring that nobody gets a free ride. In more than 90% of the altcoins, this is not the case.

I have the memory that ruble and yuan would not be issued through debt issuance but as "pure paper" like Finnish Markka used to be some decades ago.

JFK got killed after proposing that the U.S. moved to debt-free U.S. Notes and scrapped FED-currency.

Be the first to claim it from them with the exact sum and details, and wait a week and hope that no one else tries the same!

I don't believe at all that bitcoin's rise means gold's demise. When bitcoin rises and holders diversify, a disproportionate amount is going to physical gold. I think this offsets the (also large) percentage of gold hoarders dishoarding gold to buy BTC.

Fiat is the thing I don't see anyone is interested in this scenario. It is also an instrument of slavery, because for every dollar you own, someone else is in debt the equal amount. It is shameful to have balances in most national fiats for this reason (ruble, yuan perhaps exception).

NXT was IPO'ed, which is the same as 100% premine. It is not, and cannot be a currency. It is a share of the company. Shares are rather liquid instruments whose value may go up and down, but they are still not money. There are other threads that concentrate on this rather contested topic.

It is centralized, because the IPO was conducted in haste with <100 participants owning the whole stock.

Forging may be == PoS, but in my understanding PoS itself is a faulty concept.

I am sure it's a terrible blow to you but during the aftermath of that discussion about a bet, I said I put you on ignore, I did put you on ignore, and I never once checked what you have written, until now, because I can only delete a post that I "show" first.

As for the bad behaviour, I clearly said I have zero tolerance for idiots who don't understand the importance of security when dealing with large sums of bitcoins. That meant you.

Go away, don't post here again. I already reported you to moderator.

In my analysis, no.

Dogecoin is failing in its coin emission schedule making it prone to 51% attack. That can be repaired by making it ever-inflationary though. But the network effects favor that there can only be one all-purpose crypto, and clearly that is Bitcoin, and this is evident from the constant price erosion of DOGE - the holders are slowly returning to BTC.

I have found only one coin except BTC, which has a good enough potential to even be around in 3 years, to warrant an investment. And that one is Monero, MRO.

Second generation coins like NXT, fail very big time in that all the coins are premined. I can never believe that 100% fiat "coins" could ever become voluntarily used. And I have 1000 years of monetary history behind me showing that at times people have rather died than used the state-mandated fiat. Good luck trying it without having the monopoly of coercion behind you!

The majority of people hold the mistaken notion that gold is valuable because it is scarce. In fact, the complete opposite is true:

Gold is valuable because it is the element that has the highest stocks:flows ratio (basically: it is the most plentiful)


Because gold is so abundant already, making more gold is very difficult and does not materially change the balance of the existing stocks (only about 1.2% per year). This guaranteed low inflation is what makes gold a savings medium.

I am happy that I don't see a short-term pump&dump coming in MRO price, rather I envision that the userbase grows exponentially and the number of new mintage comes down exponentially. Even if the exponent is not that big, over time it works out to nice gains.

If more people share my perception that MRO is the #2 coin, it will become that also pricewise (currently #23). If 0.1BTC (currently 0.003BTC) wasn't possible, I would not be investing. I am not stupid.

ANN: I have bought into MRO (yes, daring to use that acronym) and rank perhaps between 10-30 largest owners. Reason is that I see it as the #2 coin with most potential second only to Bitcoin. It is my first and only alt investment.

Here is a thread with mostly very good general discussion on altcoins.

I am very interested in getting to know the community, so feel free to PM or otherwise contact me

It is admirable that some go all-in but at this point with most of us having 1000% or more gains behind, starting to diversify is generally a prudent strategy. It develops you as a person when you have to deal with the outside world

I have been advocating selling 65-90% of what your top stash has been, methodically in our way to $1,000,000. After that there is no reason to "sell" any more as BTC will be a world currency. I believe that this is still the reasonable approach for most:

- Buy as many bitcoins as you want
- Wait 3 months
- Start selling a set percentage of the stash every time the price goes up X%, set the schedule such that you will still have a lot at $1M
- Do not sell or buy at the dips (<- traders can do what they want but most people do better by my method)

More discussion in the SSS thread
.

I believe that in the nomadic times (such as some part of the Old Testament), the liquid wealth (money) of the world was far in excess to the physical wealth. Land did not have much value then, and people could not have much stuff b/c they carried them all with them. So in that kind of society the value of all money >> the value of "real wealth".

Some have argued that in the heyday of industrialism, both the factories and land had much value, so the money ~== real wealth (or even real wealth > money).

Now I would say that real estate is quite expensive, possibly overvalued. Corporations perhaps more so. We may be entering new "nomadic era" as evidenced by the minimalist tendencies of many people who are rich in liquid assets. Even I personally own much more liquid assets (mainly BTC) than the value of my physical assets (mainly castle). It is not inconceivable that the value of all bitcoins goes north of the value of everything else. I am looking at a conservative 25-50% myself but Stephen Reed has argued that bitcoin's holding is so easy that they might be just held and everything else goes into permanent price deflation.

If the price goes up really fast, the big holders are not able to utilize the alternative opportunities and will have to just hold the majority of their stash, creating the very cycle described by Stephen.

My own experience from buying the castle is that it has made me really busy (and will in the coming years), and curtail my interest in any further bitcoin sales, since I can only handle so much real wealth, but hold any number of bitcoins.

This is barring any coercive intervention of course.

The higher corporate profits, the less functional the economy. In a frictionless economy, the corporate profits would be in rapid tending towards zero. What we currently see is the opposite. The guardians of liberty have failed big time.

Thanks! I feel this is really important and confirms my OP. An important thing is that to find a subset of coins that fulfil the following two criteria:
- Fair launch ("economical" would be another word, because that is what matters, not "fairness" per se, but they are essentially the same thing)
- Relevant new features not implementable in Bitcoin

the set consists of exactly one coin: monero.

I could even go so far as to declare that I will buy the next alt that has actual relevant, new features not implementable in Bitcoin and Monero, and has a fair launch. By fair I mean that it must be less than 1% mined when brought to my attention, in addition to the other factors examined in your link. I promise to buy a minimum the same percentage of the eventual coins in circulation that I have of BTC.

I believe a big part in Bitcoin's success, the reason why it can consistently make higher highs, is the fact that all holders have paid the market price for their coins (scams notwithstanding). This ensures that the coin distribution is always optimal and the market action is the process by which it is tending towards more optimality.

It is notable that no coin can survive unless there are both large holders and small holders. But if the large holders have not paid the market price for their coins, their effectiveness is curtailed, "too big boots". If only a fraction of the market cap is actually valued by the market, there are also risks for disturbing and counterproductive market action (pump & especially dump).

I have paid the market price for all of my bitcoins (between $3 and $650) and also for my MROs (BTC0.0018...BTC0.0050). Therefore I am an example of a holder that is responsible, and will only dump the coins if there are declining fundamentals or the price clearly overshoots the level that I believe is medium-term supported by the market.


In a weekly or monthly scale, yes. But I am investing only in coins that have actual staying power. BTC is currently 99%+ of my holdings but even that 1%- is a significant holding.

Yes, I bought it with the profits afforded by the following of the trendline model last winter

This coincides with my thinking. I actually went bearish and sold at the Nov 18 peak last year, which was premature but excusable in light of the doubling principle. This time I will try to follow the Log10 delta more closely and also try to trade the volatility should that happen. I think now that 3000 is a realistic lower limit for any selling, and I don't intend to trade the uptrend from here on.

My earlier bold prediction (when we were at 420) was 650 by the end of June. Considering that we are only in the beginning of June and that level is already tested, I don't think it does any harm to the uptrend if we stay here for several more weeks. Breaching 500 in anything except a flashcrash would be worrying, but I regard the chances for that happening as low (20%).

Tomorrow, son, tomorrow