Thanks for your considered and patient reply which is appreciated in light of my almost "troll"-like posts.

I'm not actually trying to troll, just trying to dig. When I first came across this coin it did strike me as interesting, mainly for the reasons you mention. But then later I wasn't sure and thought I'd do a bit of challenging, especially since I thought it was damn expensive and I'd quite like to at least justify it to myself.

If miners value the coin highly enough to not dump it early on for a low price then that's as good a reason as any and is in fact what makes a price more than anything.

Thanks again for the replies !

That probably explains the current mad level of the stockmarket then    (Notwithstanding current correction in progress).

Your formula looks interesting. Will have to digest that.

Stockmarket terms and definitions aren't made up on the "hop" in internet chat forums. They have formal definitions and professional traders know how to interpret them. If a company's marketcap is $50 billion, traders are savy enough to know that people haven't actually "spent" $50 billion on that stock.

Cryptocurrency world is a whole lot different. You can see from this thread that people are making literal interpretations of term "market capitalisation". i.e. as if the coin had been "capitalised" to that value which is clearly hasn't. That misunderstanding isn't necessarily a problem in itself, but as you can see, people then go on to create all sorts of derivative metrics based on those wrong assumptions which then get totally out of hand.

This metric is plain bonkers.

The amount of money required to "maintain" the price of anything is a function of the amount of goods supplied **to that market**. Not the amount of goods in existence.

If coins are not reaching the market then their value does not need to be supported by demand, so they can be discounted. You can't just take the number of coins "created" each day and multiply it by the price.

That would be like saying that the "market cap" of Salmon is the price of salmon at my local fish market times the entire amount of salmon on boats, in deepfreezes, etc etc - i.e. "not for sale". If all that extra salmon suddenly arrived at the market and was made available for sale, the price would go down. As far as value is concerned, if it's not for sale it doesn't exist.

Thats why these market cap figures are a bit ridiculous (even the ones on coinmarketcap.com etc). Because the market cap measured in this way goes up even if 1 person buys 1 coin. It suggests that that is the amount of money that's been spent on that coin when that's obviously baloney. Look at Bitcoin - it's got a market cap of 12 billion at the moment which I'm sure suggests to a lot of people that 12 Billion dollars had "gone into" bitcoin.

Whereas in fact, if 2 people bought 2 bitcoins for $1600 each and that was the last traded price, the market cap would suddenly jump to $24 billion ! That's how stupid all these statistics are that are calculated in this way. They are totally misleading toytown doodles that don't tell anyone anything and I really wish folks would take less notice of them.

I mined about 4000 coins in a few hours yesterday with my meagre 200 KHsh core 2 duo. Today I've done about 1000 in 15 hours.

ok, that's true. But lets look at Coino's competitors.

Catcoin is in the same valuation bracket. Its daily supply is ** 6% ** of Coino's !!

The current Catcoin supply is about 273000 while that of Coino's is already 1.3 million !

So if we use Catcoin as a reference, Coino is already overvalued by 400% (factoring in the current price ratio and coin supply) and it's not even on an exchange yet.

So what you're saying is that the 'network effect' value (i.e. community, developers etc) is at least 4 times that of Catcoin and we don't even know any of the people behind it. I sure hope they are geniuses cos otherwise this is going to happen straight out of the gate... http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/period-charts.php?period=alltime&resolution=day&pair=wdc-btc&market=mcxnow

(Those folks had a "great organisation" too )

P.S. I hope I've got my calcs right. Feel free anyone to correct me if I've made wrong assumptions. For coin supply I've taken the block reward x the blocks per day based on a 25 second block time = (3600 x 24 hours) / 25 = 3456 Blocks x 35 con per block = 120960 coins per day.

Yes indeed.

And I was just trying to find out what that "something" was in the case of this coin  

Seems like it's....eh.....eh....  

It's not a "feeling" that's telling me this, it's a calculator 

I don't want to detract from you guys that have been busy mining for weeks (days ?), but if you're going to spend good btc on a coin that comes out of the gate at 4 decimals, with 121,000 being added to the supply each day then there's got to be a reason why, otherwise it's going straight to zero after 2 hours on Crypsy.

Nobody even knows who this "one big german marketing agency" is that has 21 employees and 8 million euro in turnover (b.t.w. that is actually a very 'small' marketing company).

Looks like a pure pump & dump exercise to me. Doesn't mean it's not hanging on to it for 24 hours after opening, but I'd be interested to hear if anyone has anything to add to my analysis or if I've basically covered everything.

There was only 1 cryptocurrency when that guy bought his pizza.

Now there are hundreds.

Something else has to make it stand out other than that fact that it's "here' and a couple of German companies "said" they'd take it". They could just as easily take another coin with a "fast" transaction time like Litecoin, Quark, Worldcoin...ad infinitum. Who cares if it's 20 seconds or 50 seconds when it's a web payment. It can take 50 seconds for a page to refresh.

Julian -

Thanks for your input. The thing is, I'm never convinced by transaction time being a reason for a coin's success.

Have you ever bought anything on a Cryptocurrency exchange ? (Like other coins). Is blockchain transaction time ever a factor in the trade ? No - because blockchain transactions are ridiculously slow for point of sale purposes whether they're 20 seconds or 20 minutes.

If and when cryptocurrencies "take off", we won't be doing blockchain transactions. It will be handled like the exchanges, where you are trading from an account managed by a payment processor. That's not the only reason - blockchain can't do half the stuff that's needed for proper merchant support like reversing transactions, refunds, marchant-added surcharges and all sorts of stuff. Thats what Visa and Mastercard do well and why they're probably not scared of cryptos - because they know they'll be needed even if the world financial system ends up being based around cryptocurrencies.

Worldcoin thought they were going to take over the world cos they had a fast transaction time but now it's "just another coin".

ok, I've tried to answer some of this myself. Seems there are about 1.3 million coins mined so far. Only a miniscule amount are for sale. Like 0.00001%.

There are 121,000 coins being mined per day so that's 3.6 million per month. That means it will reach Peercoin's current supply in only 6 months and yet it's already within a decimal place of Peercoin's value.

This coin seems grossly overvalued to me with huge pent up supply. Please someone tell me why I shouldn't dump my holdings immediately before it shrinks to nothing 2 days after going on Crypsy (like Mooncoin did). (And don't let the reason be "marketing"    )

Thanks. It would be useful if they'd specify that.

b.t.w. I've bought some coino cos it looks potentially interesting. But is it a pump & dump or a long term hold ? I can't decide.

What's so great about a 20 second transaction time ? Isn't that just a simple case of tweaking the parameters in the cloned source code ? Who are these Berlin marketing guys that have been doing online marketing for 8 years ? Why are they launching coino ? Is it a get rich quick for them or is there some longer term agenda of technical / marketing interest ?

Why is coino so expensive so early on ? The max supply is quite huge - what happens when the reward increases and miners start dumping loads on markets ? The price is only a decimal place away from PPC and XPM !!?

Cheers if anyone wants to chime in on any of those.

The Mac wallet seems totally bust.

Doesn't even launch, it just crashes immediately. (Mac OS/X 10.6)

No. it is not "pish" as well and I am genuinely sorry you lost your coins. It's not a pleasant experience to be robbed.

At the same time, there is a huge amount of fearmongering drama surrounding the whole security issues of bitcoin and for that matter other cryptocurrencies. It leaves everyone paranoid, convinced that they have been victims of whatever security "hole" is currently under discussion. You've just been caught up in the crossfire of this and I didn't mean to patronise you, even in jest, so for that I apologise.

Regarding the security "fearmongering" though, it's a bit like everyone being paranoid about terrorism when they've actually got nil chance - practically - of ever being a terrosism victim, while at the same time not caring 2 hoots about thousands of road deaths that go on all around them every day.

We need to separate things out. First of all, Nils Schneider's post (http://www.nilsschneider.net/2013/01/28/recovering-bitcoin-private-keys.html ) is dealing with a very different phenomenon than Evil Keneivil's.  The Schneider phenomenon is basically to do with wallets that don't comply fully with the address generation specification (by repeatedly using the same random number to generate addresses). So it's a problem of the wallet, not the mathematics. It's basically leaving the door unlocked and can be put down to "faulty wallet" design.

On the other hand, EK is claiming that there are certain "legitimate" addresses that are somehow "weak" or "more hackable" than others.

My point is that it is irrelevant because his definition of "weakness" is pre-biased to fit his test of hackability. A bit like if I write down a number between 1 and 10, then ask you do guess it. Then you guess the correct number, I can then retrospectively define my chosen number as having been "weak". The reality is that any other number would have been equally secure by probability.

That's why I say that the only test that matters regarding EK's software is to crack an arbitrary, specification compliant bitcoin public key, which he will not be able to do.

(By the way could you point me to your thread where you discuss your coin loss ?)

You're interested in cryptography "weaknesses" ? R.O.T.F.W.L. !

Well, you've come to the right place. Don't bother with the worlds greatest computer science labs, PHD research or reading military grade specifications - those folks are clueless. Bitcointalk is the bleeding edge and any new developments will ONLY appear on here !! (Specially when it's supplied by a raving Youtube researcher who thinks he's cracked Elliptic Curve DSA cryptography and can't get hs point across for swearing at his telly   )

Seriously though, EK's software is PISH. It couldn't crack an egg without being given the answer to start with.

It's main design objective is not to create history but to create 2 bitcoins from unsuspecting wide eyed victims *.


(Small Print)
* although I'm having a bit of fun with EK and don't wish him any genuine malice, he is fair game since a) he's trying to claim that he's discovered a phenomenon called "weak address space" which actually only exists within the definitions of his own software and b) he's trying to scam people out of 2 bitcoins for a piece of PISH software and that's actually quite a lot of money these days

Folks.

This whole argument is purely theoretical nonsense.

The practical reality is that there is not one single 3rd party generated key that Evil can crack with his software. The flaw in the hypothesis is the point that "it has to be a weak address".

The word "weak" here does not mean "weak" as in "not strong". It is a misnomer. By deliberately generating a "weak" address you are basically telling the software what the private key is (relatively to feeding the hacking software a random address).

Public private key encryption security is based on ** probabilities **. Please put the word "weak" out of your heads and instead consider the fact that you are drastically modifying the solution domain for the address generation algorithm. This changes the nature of the key because it impacts on the probability of solution.

The correct measure of whether a weakness has been found is being able to crack *any* address with a significant probability, not "pre selected" addresses that happen to suit your particular hack algorithm. As Evil said himself in response to my analogy with sandgrains, it's like sending 100,000 people to all the beaches looking for a blue ball. Well that works if you know they have to go to a beach, but the fact is that you don't. Evil's algorithm **assumes** this by arbitrarily picking the rendezvous points.

Watch Evil's video at 0:20. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TC43aOdsf4g&hd=1

He says:

my random address generator is... "just generating bitcoin addresses that are potentially weak". The word "weak" here is used as if those addresses have some kind of hackability about them. Whereas what in fact has happened is that Evil has generated addresses deliberately close to the rendezvous points, thereby "telling" the hacking software where the solution domain is. It's a bit like me telling my password cracker that my password contains the letters "t, e, w, y, s, a and r" and then saying - "hey look - it cracked it" ! Well obviously because I basically told the hacking software what the password was, it just had to re-arrange the letters.

i.e. What evil is doing is modifying the data to fit the required result. He is not finding weaknesses in bitcoin addresses, he is creating a set of locks and then creating a set of keys that fit those locks.

To put this into perspective:

[1] - imagine the bitcoin address space is ALL the sand grains on planet earth (it's actually much bigger than that I think but this is easier to visualise)

[2] - imagine going to a particular spot in some country with a magnifying glass and identifying a particular sand grain

[3] - now move out from that sandgrain and identify the 5 sand grains **touching** the one you spotted with your magnifying glass. These are the "weak address" sandgrains

[4] - now imagine an astronaut orbiting the planet who lands at some random location and picks themselves a random sandgrain at their landing spot

Now you can see that the chance of collision with one of the 'weak addresses' is almost the same as the chance of collision with the primary address = no weakness at all.

Forget about it. The issue is of theoretical interest only.

I think coino has a big future.

It has a rare combination of being lightning fast, very low block reward early on and is hardly known yet. (In fact you have to dig to find an exchange still).

That won't last long I don't think because it's gaining in popularity amongst miners.

So stick me down for coino. (and NxT or course !)

NxT <--> BTC definitely !

+ 9999999999

Absolutely. Technology projects go nowhere without a full time dedicated team. At least spend some of it right now on consolidating the development effort.