it does in fact do well

i am the one holding it - if i don't talk about it nobody will ...

how's balls doing? Does it have committed longterm bagholders too?

sirsmokesalot is missing too ... people vanish all the time  

(hope they will be back one day)

there are people here that are critical and call a scam a scam - it's for these people you come here.

Bitshares now spamming the forum won't help a lot. It didn't ann here - i won't buy it.

Coins exclusively using the own forum is a good way to control the conversation. I really save myself the headache. 

coins avoiding this forum normally have a reason to do so ...

just change your strategy and trade opposite what you normally would 

lol

trollcoin trolling bitcoin with 200$ 

sure

add Uno to the list



no premine , and no ipo ico SHIT!! Fair launch. Actually darn perfect coin. More than a year old.
Established stuff and minable forever  (pow only)

it's managed by the community but original dev still on it - was community managed from day 1

go check it out, you'll love it.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=527500.0

original crypto - very low inflation

can be held longterm with no problem

Uno didn't loose today - and how is that more risky? It's around for more than a year - it's not risky at all.

OP possibly doubled his BTC on that one  today.

Why does it rise? Because it just does it right.

1 year long bearmarket like Bitcoin would just not be possible with Uno - it doesn't bleed enough for that. The coin is scarce, real scarce.  

Was rising from July to October straight. Then 2 months bearmarket (profittakers). Took a jump up today.
I'd recommend: keep an eye out for it. Can go nuts any day now.

CMC RED

winner of the day:

low inflation alts is certainly not a mistake.

Hope you were able to grab some uno before it went nuts

well, there was a winner today ... and it is known for NOT bleeding a lot




what i don't get is why people torture themselves with the long halvings and high inflation - so i bought uno - and i'm a happy camper  

halving only every 4 years is a mistake imo

uno rising

no more sellers for Litecoin - next offer: 500 LTC for 1 Uno on bleutrade

i thought this one was rather interesting:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=912190.0


what i do not understand: why is Uno not at multimillion dollars valuation right now?

breaking news:

more bitcoin dumps

i think it's getting old.

no, uno wouldn't hardfork for this i hope.
Zet will run out of steam long before uno does so they will be the one of course. Maybe they need more time to see this.

Uno network is very healthy right now - we want super-healthy network.
Zetacoin on the other hand has a hard time to stay above water right now. Maybe they want later ...
... or maybe there are options that don't require any of the coin to fork? I don't know.

I think time for me to shut up and let others talk

Giskard welcomes the idea:


i think maybe this could end up with a vote in zet-community about it later? Devs need to communicate on that too. Watching discussion.

what google gives me:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/273/how-does-merged-mining-work

... i see. A downside could be a slightly bigger blockchain. Need some expert speaking on this, i think.


Uno chain right now is extremely compact. Only 380 MB on my HD - this is actually pretty amazing for 1 year of transactions!

The best solution would be to quadruple the price of UNO (it's worth it) and not have to mess with all this stuff at all but in case price doesn't rise quickly enough we'd have to consider these options to keep the chain secure from 51% attacks very likely.

Is there ways to merge other coins with uno without bloating the uno chain? I mean it's so small, it's really amazing. Would be great if we could keep it as small as possible of course.

Certainly needs some input from people with more knowledge than i have.

Merged mining is second best option. Best option is higher price. Right?  

Or in case merging without bloating uno-chain is possible there's no downside at all, correct?

I agree, cragv - we shouldn't rush things and consider all options thoroughly.

I'd expect if you merge Uno, ZET, xjo to get more hash for each of the networks.

Do we have reason to believe otherwise?
I could even imagine bitcoin hashpower switch over maybe in case mining zet, xjo, uno is more profitable to them than mining btc, nmc, ixc.

Correct assumption? Experts give your opinion please  
Am i correct with this?

i don't know of any risks that would come with it. If there were some please someone mention them.

@craigv

look at Namecoin, Ixcoin and Iocoin for example. These are all merge mined with bitcoin. Hashrates are as follows (in Gh/s):

Bitcoin: 412 million
Namecoin: 145 million
Ixcoin: 122 million
Iocoin: 58 million

If you look at it: iocoin is a nearly forgotten coin with low interest. Nobody is actually concerned about it - low volume and interest. It still has a very strong network because it's not much extra effort for miners to mine the coins. They still get the same amount of BTC, NMC, Ixc. If they choose to mine ioc or not does not make a difference to the hash on btc and the others as far as i know. So naturally many opt to mine ioc too just because it's at no extra cost to them and they can do it. So IOC is secured with bitcoin hashpower but doesn't take away hash from btc.

it's not like there was a choice to be made if one coin or another gets the hash in case of merged mining. They all do get the same hash.
Merged mining just means the skilled miners get an easy way to mine two or more coins with the same hash. So let's say a miner mines Bitcoin and Namecoin with 1 Th/s
- both networks get 1Th/s added - they do not share chains - they only share work - a very skilled miner can mine even ixc, btc, nmc and ioc at once. All coins get the same hash from it.
From what i understand the miner can opt to mine more coins at the same time and thus mine more profitable - so enabling merged mining is likely to draw in even additional new hashpower.

Someone correct me if i'm wrong on that one.  
My education on merged mining is it should be a win-win for the coins.
Some experienced miner confirm or correct me please.

are there downsides to it i don't know about?

now let's see what's the reaction.

I also made a comment on xjo-thread.

@craigv, imz

merging means giving miners the option to mine many coins at once - basically hashrates of networks 'merge'. It's expected to be a win-win situation for miners, coins and investors of the coins. Actually i can't see a downside to it as long the merging coins have some basic quality to them.

zet network is not very strong right now.
Uno is looking for coins to merge. Zet is being discussed on the uno thread. Is merging ZET with UNO an option for ZET-community? Would probably need to sacrifice the 30s-blocks but would ensure survival and increase network security.

I thought i start a little discussion. What's your take on it?



haha - same moment