Trust is a precious commodity and can only be earned with work, time and effort. To put it in simple language we value people that have shown trust in us and hope with time and our work we will win trust of people who still doubt our intentions.
Yep, trust is very precious. So... I see you've now extended the pre-sale price of 0.4 per keyword to 1000 units instead of the 500 it previously was. You had said that after the block total was reached ( 000/500 ) that each block would go down by 10% each time. As an investor, I find the moving of goal posts a touch worrying. Is there some explanation for this? You missed the maybe in that, it was meant to be a broad explanation of our thinking. Anyway we will be releasing slab and pricing soon on the website for all to see. this happened unexpectedly and we have been stretched to our working limits over past 15 days. Honestly, where money and investment are concerned, 'maybe' shouldn't even be a part of your company's vocabulary, and it certainly isn't there on your website: http://searchtrade.news/keywordowner/' The keywords will be sold on a first come first serve basis based on price slabs from 1-100 101-500 etc. Price will be reduced after each slab since first buyers are likely to buy higher performing words.' Now, granted, the slab 000/500 wasn't reached in view of the 500 total (yet), but you did shift the goal post to 1000 total at 0.4btc per keyword. No maybe about it. If you can just randomly change the slab total as you fancy then my confidence is less that other factors of value within my investment won't be randomly changed as you maybe choose. |
|
|
|
Trust is a precious commodity and can only be earned with work, time and effort. To put it in simple language we value people that have shown trust in us and hope with time and our work we will win trust of people who still doubt our intentions.
Yep, trust is very precious. So... I see you've now extended the pre-sale price of 0.4 per keyword to 1000 units instead of the 500 it previously was. You had said that after the block total was reached ( 000/500 ) that each block would go down by 10% each time. As an investor, I find the moving of goal posts a touch worrying. Is there some explanation for this? |
|
|
|
Their aim should be to decrease the fees and or eliminate them completely. With the current fee structure in place there is little incentive for anybody to use their cards compared to the others on offer.
Yep, this. But they can barely reduce the fees because for the most part those are the fees charged by the Visa and Mastercard network, so in other words, using a Bitcoin Visa/Mastercard means nothing about payments changed really. The biggest benefit I have a card for, is that if tomorrow 1 btc spikes to a $1000 or so, then if I want I can lock it in as fiat on the card from btc, before the price goes down. Bitcoin needs its own payment processor, but that's easier said than done and a major undertaking. |
|
|
|
they launched this some time ago. I have one. The really weird thing that I don't understand though, is now in the dashboard of their site the image is branded with 'Mastercard' and not Visa. Yet, I most definitely have a Visa card from them. They have an affiliate program too, here's my one: https://www.e-coin.io/?ref=0859cfb4f69e4c95b4af2be532720320If you use it, you get 25% of purchase of the cards. |
|
|
|
Second problem, you get into car accident and you lose you memory. You are screwed since you forgot your secret word.
I'd be screwed anyway, because I would have forgotten I owned any Bitcoins in the first place. I've often wondered about enabling the secret word option on my Trezor, but I don't think I completely understand it. What's the difference between the passcode and secret word? Is it just like two passwords you have to input instead of one? |
|
|
|
|
I think this is a great idea.
Perhaps have a tag line on the bottom or beside the logo on the physical card, something that will get the main benefits of Bitcoin over fast, perhaps:
'Bitcoin, making payments quicker, easier, cheaper and more secure for everyone.'
|
|
|
|
I believe in montero to be the future because it does follow a strict rule set and has some nice features which the bitcoin developers have aknowledged before.
That's not a bad choice. Although I think Monero will probably one day hold a price very close to Litecoin. Overall I like Monero. |
|
|
|
Litecoin is a backup for bitcoin, as i view it.
If bitcon gets fucked by this blocksize debate, the most likely litecoin will take its place.
All merchants can easily integrate litecoin just like bitcoin, so the transition would be very fast.
that is pretty much it. with the second biggest blockchain and a solid community it has its place. It is like Silver to Bitcoins gold  (price goes up and down all the time. if bitcoin is succesful, Litecoin will be too) It really should have a higher price that is consistent though. It's a shame that it doesn't. hopefully as a Bitcoin hedge it will one day. I've always liked the Gold/Silver analogy... but it does lead to the question, which coin is Bitcoin's copper/bronze??? |
|
|
|
|
Take me to the day when there's a Bitcoin symbol on a key and if you keep pressing it fast enough it mines Bitcoin for you, then I'll be happy. Bearing in mind there aren't many keys to go around, I wonder which key people would be happy to sacrifice?
I'd get rid of the symbol above the six: ^
I barely use it.
|
|
|
|
|
Just to let anyone know, the wallet works for receiving payments that can be verified on the blockchain and the system then ascribes you the keywords you purchased. I purchased several and had no problems at all.
I admit though, that word 'demo' floating about the site is rather disconcerting, but I didn't notice it 'til I'd already got a few keywords so it was too late for me to worry.
|
|
|
|
Hello SearchTrade. I've bought a few of your keywords in the pre-sale and am very into your whole concept/ethos. But can you explain your following sentence? Our expectation is over time payout may decrease but increased searches may help increase income from keywords.
I do not understand why you expect payout over time to decrease, and I certainly didn't expect payout to decrease when I spent 0.4 BTC for one keyword You mention searches 'may' help increase income, yet as far as I can work out, a search won't help anything, advertisers that pay SearchTrade and are targeting specific keywords on the other hand, will. Is this correct? If not, why not? Which leads me onto my next question, If person A has the keyword 'Hotel' yet person B has the keyword 'Five' and person C has 'Star', and the person searching writes 'Five star hotel', yet the advertiser has purchased to show hotel ads on the 'Hotel' keyword search, will person A, B & C both receive equal revenue? You mention a yearly fee for keyword renewal, what is your ballpark estimate for that yearly cost? This is an important question as there's little point, investment wise, in purchasing a keyword that will not make back it's purchase price let alone yearly fee. I'd like to buy more of the keywords, but I have to know it's a financially sound decision. And lastly, Will there be a higher payout rate for those keyword owners that own desirable ad keywords which advertisers pay for ad placement, rather than to those who own keywords where advertising revenue generated from it is unlikely. For example: 'Discount' may generate good advertising revenue... But, 'Strange' will likely generate minimal (if any) ad revenue. Can you give an example of potential payout rates for each (ballpark is fine.) Thanks |
|
|
|
The question is a red herring. No-one is asking anyone here for permission to sell anything for BTC, so our opinions on the matter make no difference at all.
This^ 'Do you want human body parts and organs to be bought and sold with Bitcoin?' My want or don't want is irrelevant, you may as well ask me if I want Mrs. Miggins to buy pies with pound coins. |
|
|
|
|
I think it comes down to - or will come down to - what the uses of the alt coin actually is. If it's just an alt that has no special features than a more well established coin has, then no, I think those alts will die a death.
I think alts with utility have some type of future, but the truth is, if that utility can be paid for with Bitcoin (and in most cases it can) then what's the point of the alt in the case of the utility?
|
|
|
|
http://themerkle.com/market-analysis/ripple-price-analysisdiscussion-952015/The prices of ripple coin are currently on the incline as investors and users alike one again delve into the updated technology behind the Ripple Coin. Whilst thios ghas come as a timely rise it may not have come soon enough for those who had initially invested only to find values dip in a matter of months. However the current stable but rapid growth propagated by the markets has allowed Ripple Coin to once again climb the ranks coming in only second to Bitcoin in terms of market cap. If you call Ripple going back to the price it was previously at progress of sorts, then I suppose so. But as someone who bought in pretty much exactly at this price, it's nothing special. Ripple has been dragging its fit for ages. Let me know when it hits $0.01 and then I'll be slightly impressed/enthused. Otherwise, it's just another one of my heavy alt coin bags. |
|
|
|
I think the problem with 1) is that we need a consensus building process to arrive at consensus as to which consensus building process we are going to choose. It's a chicken or the egg kind of problem. And I think with 2) we need a genius to come up with a solution that allows that all people have a fair say somehow.
As I brought up the last time you started a thread asking this very same question not a month ago, the Counterparty protocol on the Bitcoin blockchain has a token voting system that can be used and is transparent on the blockchain. Create a named Counterparty asset, distribute asset for a nominal Satoshi (proof of Bitcoin ownership/usage) then distribute voting tokens. It's not rocket science. |
|
|
|
|
I always like to imagine the day when we look at 1000 Satoshi in the same way we now look at this 1.00000000 in BTC value. If/when BTC does get mass adoption, then small faucet money now may be worth a fair bit more.
Faucets are a safe way to begin using BTC without any potential loss.
|
|
|
|
And that is exactly what I meant. The difference being that the corwdfunding platforms that exist now are businesses in their own right that take a cut, plus those payment processors too. Cryptocurrency lets the artist set up their own website, and crowdfund completely independently. The whole show can be independent, for the first time in the history of the recording industry. Taking the money was the last obstacle.
I don't disagree that cryptocurrency crowdfunding is a good thing that gives autonomy to artists. But that wasn't the point I was speaking to in my initial reply. It was the whole analog/digital/piracy angle you mentioned. |
|
|
|
What do you think might happen if people followed the logic I am presenting? New digital goods producers/artists would not be able charge anything, no-one will buy/fund a product blindly.
Why would any artist follow the logic you are presenting if there are people willing to pay for it? I know I wouldn't. I'm not sure if I'm entirely understanding what you are suggesting though Carlton, are you suggesting we all go back to hard analog products or simply allow all digital work to be completely free and never charge for it?
But once they are established, what do you think they could get as a single "release fund" for each product they produce? Could it be a similar total figure to what they might achieve selling it as individual copies, or perhaps more?
How long is a piece of string Carlton? It would depend on the popularity of the artist and the potential/actual popularity of the product. If you're suggesting crowdfunding as a better model, then there are artists in various fields already doing that, but then they also charge for their product from the general public when they release it afterward.
I say all this because I believe it fits reality best. Artists funding their work like that cannot have their hard work undermined, because it's impossible to reproduce something that no-one else has a copy of.
Well, there's the curve ball right there Carlton. It's never been proven that piracy actually harms an artist in the long run. There is in fact some weight to the argument that exposure wins more fans/customers. The arbitrary figure of billions of dollars of loss from large corps due to piracy is based on the false assumption that everyone would pay to download if they couldn't get it free, which has never really been proven to be true. You can hear Rihanna on the radio, or on Youtube for free, yet people keep buying. |
|
|
|
There will always be piracy, but I think you'd be surprised at how many people are willing to pay as long as it's an easy process. Piracy of intellectual property as a concept has only existed for a short period of time, less than a couple of hundred years. Are you totally sure the concept will remain legitimate in future? I can't be sure of anything Carlton. As you know. But regardless, a lot of people earn money from selling digital products right now, which is my point, I'm one of those people too and have been for a few years now. Will there be a drive to the bottom? There is, that's true. Amazon, Netflix, Spotify, but they are also receiving push back from artists. It's not the consumers who are unwilling to pay a decent price, it's the corps that are trying to undercut each other for a better bottom line. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
