Their launch was notably "clean" when compared to either IXCoins or Bitcoins. That's one advantage. If both were valued equal, people would prefer i0coins over actual Bitcoins.

Could you give something alternative for us Europeans? Moneybookers probably, but I doubt it's much better.

That would be misleading though, because we're not discussing about other complementary currencies, but other cryptocurrencies instead... Well, I guess you could discuss other complementary currencies than cryptocurrencies too, but what's the point on a cryptocurrency-based forums...

I think your fork sucks. I can't even spell the name.

Yet Satoshi could more permanent damage to Bitcoin than Gates could do to USD. That's the concern for most people.

This would only make sense if you kept X amount of money over Y period of time (hoarding the currency).

I suspect it's either the one selling the bottle of coke (the price has in fact gone up and they're profiting more) or the one paying you the salary ripping you off (they're actually paying you less than before), not problem of the currency you're using.

The exactly same thing can easily happen with deflation: your salary will decrease, but price of the bottle of coke will remain the same.

It's not necessary, but it does help because it kind of back ups the currency's value when it tends to drop after the initial hype. There should be enough incentive to mine even after the difficulty has gone up a little bit and miners head back to Bitcoin (like current situation of either NMC, IXC or I0C).

If you guys want to collaborate in any way, I'm here. I have done some C(++) programming, but I haven't even looked at the sources yet.

Alternate cryptocurrencies are great, but please refine your ideas long enough and build a solid infrastructure. Don't be late on launch, have executables for all platforms + source code available, have a working block explorer, some currency exchanges (probably from YourCoin <-> USD / EUR), existing services (not necessarily anything big, but something for people to abuse their coins, poker for example) etc.

Have big enough starting difficulty so it will be more equal playground for everyone. Name your currency wisely. Encourage people to mine and test their services / setups on testnet, before launch to find any potential problems etc.

Wow. Let me think a minute... How many merchants there were accepting Bitcoins when it did originate? I mean, there's no-one that did premine huge amount of coins to offer bounties for all that stuff. You do expect people to set all that up in day, for free? That definitely does not make it a pump and dump scheme.

And again, where's the proof? As there even were no premined coins, can you tell me who's the operator of that scheme?

Comments like this undermine the whole Bitcoin movement. You're spreading pure fud with nothing to back up your statements. There's nothing shady with i0coin. If you don't like it, don't use it. But stop spreading lies.

I mean, you're the one who decides which (crypto)currency people does use? Even if something with more advanced features than Bitcoin was developed (encrypted wallet is a REAL improvement for example), of course it can't be used, because your the one saying so. I think it's fair to warn people about scams, but spreading false information, when there's clear proof available that it isn't so... One should be banned for that, you're getting financial gain by exploiting ignorance of the people.

This is the part which I wanted to be elaborated. There was no-one mining "first hundred-thousand coins" in i0coin. You're probably recalling IXcoin, which as far as I can tell is a scam.

I view i0coin as a simply community project by those who were frustrated by the obvious scam (IXC), but liked the concept of faster maturity etc. Regarding the launch, no coins we're premined and there's even proof about that.

This is not i0coins's fault and does not make it a scam.

There's no single reason i0coin would be a scam. Elaborate. No, I don't have significant amount of i0coins myself.

Think the situation other way around. The one being paid prefers bitcoins, but the one paying prefers altcoins. If this makes a currency fail, same could be applied to bitcoins, just the inverse.

Suppose we reached the bitcoin maturity and all the 21 million coins are distributed. Now, the userbase starts growing: more and more people want to get their share of bitcoins too. Everybody wants to get rid of their fiat currencies and exhange them to bitcoins instead. The value of each bitcoin increases and prices will drop, deflation happens.

And I probably used the term "inflative" irresponsibly. Although there is a constant supply of new coins, there's of course nothing assuring that inflation will happen. "Forcing inflation" is something that cannot be done with cryptocurrencies.

When you'll already have the 21 million bitcoins, but the userbase is still growing or the mined coins are lost, happens deflation. The prices of the goods and services will drop, because each of us will have less coins to spend in the long run.


Slightly because there are factors that can't be 100% predicted. If there are only a handful of early adopters, the prices of goods'n'services will be high because the coins are valued so low. Even if the implementation was meant to be inflative, deflation could happen if the userbase grows exponentially compared to the coins currently available.


It will take effect with Bitcoin too.


I believe that the main problem with currently available fiat currencies is that they're controlled by the governments. Yes, they're inflative just like Altcoin, but they are also very unpredictable. It's better to invest on gold, silver, shares etc. because there's no way to know whether your USD will be 95%, 75% or 50% of it's value after X years. Right, there's no way to know for sure with Bitcoin or Altcoin either, but they can only be manipulated by the market, not by some shady entity somewhere we don't even know.

E: Also, someone asked what do I have against Bitcoins. Nothing really. I do use them and I do believe they can succeed.

But there exists some problems too and forks are trying to solve them. How long it takes to maturity for example and also that the early adopters are holding huge amounts of BTC, but no-one knows exactly how much. They can manipulate the market to huge extent. As time goes by, not to mention coin loss that's constantly happening, the early adopters will actually become even richer. And even richer. And have even more power. The inherent problems that can come with deflative implementation: your coins are now worth 10USD, but tomorrow they are worth 20USD. Why on earth you would spend your coins today if you could just hold them back until tomorrow? But you really have no idea to buy anything tomorrow either, they're worth twice the next day etc.

Again, these are nothing that are impossible to overcome, but they can prove to be difficult obstacles and probably too unfair for some (like, making the rich ever richer and the poor even poorer) preventing widespread Bitcoin adoption. And I view a large(ish) userbase as a crucial thing.

There will always be inflation or deflation with bitcoins too. And the inflation being slightly predictable helps a lot.


That's what people are doing with fiat currencies too. I don't oppose people who are spending their coins for gold and silver, but those aren't that widely accepted, be it b&m store or an online shop.

It's only a proposal. You might draw some design ideas from here too. It's not my goal to create a new cryptocurrency whatever it is. If you (or probably, we as a community) can pull off a good enough implementation, there's really no reason for me to create my own. I'm just trying to initiate the discussion and development here, not to do all of it myself.

And to add something concerning the launch date, it needs to be set far away enough so that the project can gain as much publicity as it can. Although it would be more profitable for us miners when we could get a headstart, in order to the currency to succeed, we must get as much early adopters as possible. Bitcoin helps a lot in that, because there have been lots of people that have become familiar with the cryptocurrency concept and if we get a new blockchain rolling now, there will be much larger userbase ("wanna-be-rich-early-adopters") than there was when Bitcoin was launched. We definitely don't want majority of the coints to be held by minority of the users.

I definitely am. If people are interested in this, I would like to make this more of a community project where everyone could voice their suggestions or even actual code / implementation / web pages / foundations, than just me arguing against the rest of the bitcoin community

Your idea about the fixed inflation rate sounds very interesting. In that case, the block reward will become bigger instead of being fixed. Although, the value of the block reward will stay fixed, so that probably would really be a better idea. Would eliminate the need for transaction fees.

Something that needs polishing is how the coins are put into circulation though. I'm not exactly fond of the idea of a Altcoin foundation, because I want the launch of this blockchain to be as transparent as possible. Even more transparent than Bitcoin's was. And compared to Bitcoin's, the coins would be more even spread. I'm not saying that the early adopters don't deserve those benefits they got with Bitcoin, but more even coin spread would make the currency more stable (at the beginning). Also, the project founder's should not mint any coins themselves before the launch of the project (IXCoin being the worst example).

Faster maturity (until the fixed inflation% phase) would be generally better, but also has it's cons.