I echo Fuse's comments. Cryptsy, or another large/well-known exchange, wouldn't bring NLG true volume, it would bring more instant-awareness to a lot of the trading/mining-pool platforms out there. From there, you'd have an increase in nethash from people looking to get something from the coin. It would be a bubble/hype-inflation of volume, not real-user volume, and as such would eventually crash, and the cycle would repeat.

At the moment, presume that whatever percent of hashrate CM owns, is also the percent of trade volume occurring. A part of that may be genuine NLG users, and another part will be folks just mining to make money. Say 50/50. This means that the real NLG volume is lower than what you see even on Bittrex. We don't need to spread volume among the exchanges any lower, we just need to keep making infrastructure and security improvements to ensure that large hashrate doesn't stall the coin. Hashrate is good, even if it's from a multipool--but pumping and burning the coin isn't. Let them hash with us, but don't encourage the exchange burn.

Remember, after BTC/LTC/FTC, altcoins popped up essentially because people were upset they missed the initial inflation boat which brought many people into riches, so they tried to make their own, and lots of people just pump/dump. Let's not let NLG get caught up in that.

I  ask, why push for a big exchange such as Cryptsy? Get more infrastructure and low-level person-to-person, person-to-market use in place first. Cryptsy access, right now, would just encourage pools to mine and burn.

I would say that they're more popular globally, there's more awareness. However, I would say NLG has a greater depth and potential depth, of marketable/tangible use, right now, particularly for the NL crowd.

There are places in NL where I can walk in and buy food with NLG, but I can't with the other coins. So, NLG is attractive from that standpoint. Make it easier to use in every-day situations via mobile devices and make it easier for merchants to use, and you'll see widespread adoption and growth.

That's basically what happened to Bitcoin.

Popularity is very subjective to a multitude of factors, often hype and opinion. Longevity, stability, and proportional tracking with whatever primary exchange system is being used, is a better indicator for true 'popularity'. NLG reflects these better than many coins. Others have some great points as well.

What coins are more popular in your opinion?

The digishield update, from what I can surmise, was to enhance security and protect assets, not change the value.

What source are you talking about? You mean the federal and state governments? If you actually paid attention to my posts you'd see that, yes, with regard to legality, I'm referring to the US--your original launch market, you know, the place you guys blew up youtube and the forums about 4/20 which was seen as a huge flop. Your launch, and for awhile, core market, was the US; specifically Colorado. Your coin is based on the premise that it's the official coin of the green. You/the team even admitted in the past that it would take awhile to become legal to use specifically for marijuana, and your response came as a result of people wondering why they could only buy trinkets and doodads in the shops and not the actual product.

I've already acknowledged in prior posts that globally it has useful application as some countries allow any method of currency to purchase the actual product, but it has no more or less strength than other competing coins globally. Because, why would anyone outside of the US use potcoin when they could just use cash or 10 other forms of payment?  Any coin at that point would work fine, because they all transport value. This is why I've mentioned that if you could make political strides in the US, you'd actually establish yourself as THE official coin and there'd be more serious supporters. Oh, and about 20 other people have made the same remark.

Instead, all that was ever posted here were links to fluff youtube videos and over-hyped stories about random people which were paid to use the word 'potcoin' or some form of marketable phrase about it. Where has that gotten your movement? Can I walk into a market in Denver and offer potcoin for a bag of weed..legally? Would the PotCoin slippers enable me to do that? Last I checked, I couldn't--but I could be wrong, maybe it's changed.

Exactly. I sound cynical, but I'm simply being critical. I've been around since day 0 and have always supported the coin. I'm simply realistic in my approach. I used to be a large bagholder, but got out when the getting was good. I have a little bit now, but I'm sure it wouldn't buy me anything.

Guess we'll see in the next few years.

Last month they said there were more unexpected delays.

You'd think after so many, they would be expected delays from now on.

It's almost time for their monthly storytelling, where everyone gathers round to hear one of the 1,000 Arabian Nights tales.

I love seeing this thread pop up in my activity list, I'm always excited to see what the next response is.

Or at least put into place an accountability system, as I suggested 6+ months ago.

Didn't realize the android wallets partially download the chains, there's always something new to learn Phones today are amazing. Quad Core 2.7ghz / 3gb ram / 192gb storage on mine, far more powerful than the systems I work with at work lol

Yes, let's actually examine the value of potcoin. Afterall, 1 day of trading sure gives you the accurate picture does it not? Here's a more holistic viewpoint on the matter, the graphic is a bit cludgy but it's all I can do right now. Examining from start to present, we can see several key events on the life of the coin.

Inception -> Feb-2014: The initial value went up, as most coins did, because of interest and hype.
Feb-2014 -> March-2014: Value begins to lower, pump/dump runups are dying, people panic and call for halving
March-2014 -> April-2014: Halving work begins; partial runups and dumps over the 4/20 hype; 4/20 was perceived as a flop, panic selling ensues
May-2014 -> June-2014: Halving schedule announced, more panic selling
June-2014 -> July-2014: Pump/Runs/Dumps, market use actually dies at this time, multipools had a field day
July-2014 -> October-2014: Some  normalization, stagnant market
October-2014 -> Novermber-2014: Someone hits the net and bumps difficulty, a run/dump for a couple of days spiked the price
November-2014 -> January-2015: Continued stagnation, trades continue to die out
January-2015: Second Halving, 2/3rds of the network drops off (likely multipools and heavy supporters) long enough for difficulty to dip, and then they return with additional multipools to take advantage of the dip. This begins another synthetic run-up and sell-off.

I also included a very scaled value graph to illustrate just how the value looks in reality over time. 250% increase? Yeah, if you only examine 1 day of trading difference after people run the price up. Also, notice that the first halving is when things basically just tip out of the canoe. You would've had less trouble from multipools if you hadn't halved, just let the thing crash and they would've left, leaving just the hardcore supporters of the coin to keep it alive. But, this is all in the past.



Expanded charts of recent 3 months, highlighting an example of a pump/run-up/dump. A spike followed by sudden dropoff (chart 2) forced the difficulty to hop up (chart 3), which allowed the perpetrators to stimulate a brief market run for profit, which ended at the beginning of November. This is what's going on now more than likely.



At the same time, I believe the longevity of this coin is truly in a lower value, which is why I say (up above) that it's normalizing itself somewhat. My thoughts on this stem from the fairly steady hashrate. Historically, this coin has never sustained above 10gh for long periods, the fact it hovers between 2 and 7 is good. Bitcoin did this for years until it became tangible. It's still going to need political affluence to gain much ground in the legal market, at which point the value would gain traction.

This is why coins which establish market use prior to launch have faired far better than ones like this which hope market use comes after inception. NLG comes to mind, they've done fairly well over the long term and had market use right from the start.

Still haven't read that link the other person posted, this is just a post in reference to the synthetic hype of a "250%" increase. This is a good time to make short-term profit, but it won't last. Buy on the next dip.

The reason I mention politics is because it's illegal at the federal and state level to use any non-approved method to pay for the legalized schedule substance. Essentially the only approved methods are credit cards and certain medical supplementary pay. Crypto is definitely on the ban list. Potcoin's original purpose was to pay for the substance, and they spoke heavily in the beginning of making this happen. This is why there was a big hype to 4-20 last year in Colorado, which largely was a flop IMO. I think it's great that you can get some related items (bongs, shirts, etc) with it, that's cool, but a lot of the original intent has deflated the morale in the coin. With a dead purpose in its founding locality, it has to overcome that somehow, or find mobility in another tangible way.

I can't reach the potcoiner website from where I'm at now, I'll see if I can read it later.

IIRC theoretically there's no limit, except physical and logical storage limits. I think 16TB is a typical limit for NTFS, not sure for other storage types.

I'm fully aware of what occurred, and the issues could've been resolved instantly before initiating change. I find it underwhelming that the team couldn't simply agree to deploy the temporary solution, having been tweaked. What happened is what's been happening, the ongoing delay.

Simulators are wonderful, I've dealt with them in the past, I'm very familiar with difficulty projection. They are long-term goals however. You need a short-term solution right now, and the fact I even have to emphasize this is unfortunate, because it shows lacking foresight on part of whoever is claiming to lead this. This should never have been an issue from the start.

I believe this is why there's mounting frustration, because the need to take action has long passed, and yet, there is no action. I don't mine this coin and have never bought into it, but have been keeping an analysis on it. I believe it has great capability, but things are taking a swift turn for the worse lately.

I'm merely trying to say, from a non-invested analytical point of view, you are in a very dangerous spot right now, and ignoring the need for immediate action by focusing on a long term goal, is quite possibly the worst thing that could be done.

Ok, I've been pretty quiet, just watching from the sidelines for many months. After seeing what's begun to happen, I can't just sit down any longer, and I have to wonder what's going on, because something doesn't add up. I'm not sure what it is, but something is starting to smell foul in the kitchen.

There's this never-ending mantra that it's up to the community to decide where things are going to go. You have apt people, from within the community--several of which are heavily invested, and several of which are purely doing it to support the coin--taking it upon themselves to expel resources to determine what is possibly the best path to go down. They then provide the results for the community to examine, and like all results, it just needs a little polishing to really be a great product.

What then happens is someone from on high searches through a haystack to find a needle, and point out how this is a huge issue and isn't worthwhile. Others from the community then pop up and point out how it just needs a little tweak, but is otherwise a good idea, and if nothing else is more effort than has been put forth by anyone else--including the official development team.

If things aren't bad enough, now--despite the community being told they're in control of NLG destiny--the topic is forcibly moved to a non-English speaking forum, a very damning approach. It seems to me that someone doesn't want the community as involved as they claim--the reasons for this are unknown, and I won't speculate on them.

This is a crucial period in time for NLG, whether anyone likes it or not there's a fork in the road coming up and you're going to have to go one way or the other. It appears that things are starting to slowly creep down the same path of coins in the past, where critical indications are ignored and crucial decisions are poorly made, usually too late. Once this coin becomes more popular, hits more coin-presence-tracking websites, you're going to wish you had something in place to handle the ten or fifty-fold increase in hashrate.

These recent developments do not bode well in the eyes of investors who are keeping watch.

Your explanation is definitely more thorough, but I would argue that halving isn't the same as reducing sales price or overhead, it's the opposite: You're increasing overhead, requiring the prospective buyers to have less buying power, and still expecting some part of this to increase appeal of the product, in some fashion.

I understand what you're saying, I simply disagree based on numerous indicators. Concurrently, I'm not saying that it has no hope to go up down the road, but that it will have nothing to do with supply, just like it has nothing to do with it now. There are endless-supply coins out there which are healthy, whose price/nethash hasn't plummeted, and whose value now is higher than 6 months ago, losing less than half of the value since the Dec-Jan market shock last year.

What's the big difference? Marketability. They're being used, there's tangible value across the web, and their purpose is being fulfilled.

There's still hope, and perhaps with the nethash dropping off of Potcoin (~60% loss since the halving), it will be more valuable in the near-term. The potcoin team, as I've said before, is going to have to make significan political strides in the US to truly make the coin into what it was designed for.

If people believe in a coin and the value is low, I always say there's nothing wrong with holding and seeing what happens long-term, especially if it's realistically worth more to hold for hopes than to sell at a slamming loss. I have several coins I hold for that reason.

It just boggles my mind, though, when people use hype for hope and declare it (through action) as logical reasoning behind something.

When you reduce supply, you're not stimulating or increasing demand, even synthetically. You're simply making it worth less in the current form, which makes it more expensive to support. Sometimes visuals help people: If you walk past a store that has 10,000 electronic widgets, but you have no interest in them, you don't buy them. If, a month later, half the widgets are gone--but there's still a pile of dust on all of them--has your desire for them increased? No, because you still have no reason to buy them. If you're hyped into buying them based on a mysterious disappearance, then it's likely the snake oil which helped you slide into that hole.

For something like potcoin to become valuable down the road, requires constant efforts. The Potcoin team has done better than most in sticking around, but until it's past the trinket stage it's still very much a gamble for everyone. It's not proper to say "it's halved now, so I bet the value will just magically grow", short of saying you're purely speculating with 0 logic or math to
support the idea. Folks usually do that to try and induce a selling spike (and, I get that).

Until that form of silliness disappears, the crypto world will continue to be crippled by the seas of snake oil and the salesmen who take money from folks who are floating helpless without lifejackets. This, again, is why the rich continue to make money, and the poor have no idea how to save a dime. I'd rather just see a coin take off or flop than to keep it on life support, it's better for the whole.

And, for anyone who wasn't doing the math, this is an example of just how much lost effort there is when coins halve dramatically like potcoin has:

If you take the long-term average value of potcoin (it was around 0.00022000), and today's value, it's a difference of 65. You have to have 65 as much hash now as you did back then, in order to make the same number of potcoins. This isn't even evaluating conversion value to the dollar, which is how it's handled by the merchant. It's far worse for the merchants, because it's 117 times less valuable based on BTC/USD back then vs now. So for you to buy the same t-shirt and bong back then, you have to have 117 times as many potcoins.

10,000pot/day * 2200satoshis = 2.2btc * 450 USD = $990
10,000pot/day * 338 satoshis = 0.338btc * 250 USD = $8.45

(I'm being nice and generous, because in this example you're able to get the same amount of potcoins now as you were back then--mathematically this isn't possible, without adding an additional effort, because the block size is 1/4th of what it was back then. I'm simply excluding this for simplicity)

Another way to look at it: You work 40 hours a week for 800 potcoin. Then, it goes through 2 halvings. Now, you work 40 hours a week for 200 potcoins--you're taking a 600potcoin loss for your donated time. Your paycheck is also worth half of what it used to be, which means you're being paid 8 times less for the same amount of work.

If anything, the cost of mining it at such a tremendous loss, is the one reason people should buy it instead of mining it. It takes 65 times as much power now, to mine the same amount as it did back then. For anyone keeping track, difficulty has hardly changed much between now and then.

Oh, wait, what's that? Difficulty? Wait a second, it has in fact changed. Lots of people stopped mining it when it recently halved again, so now it's more susceptible to forks and takeovers. Sure, it means it's a little easier to pickup some coins, but it's also worth noting that a coin whose nethash drops over time with a correlating loss in value and blocksize, is usually a death-sentence, not a reason for hope.

The only exception to that is Bitcoin, and only because of 2 things: Merchant use for many, many products, and blackmarket use. Potcoin can be used for the same, but it's less secure due to nethash loss, and isn't accepted at nearly as many places as bitcoin.

Again, not knocking the efforts put into the coin--just tired of the same old "halving causes increased value" silliness. As always, best of luck.

I've been here since day 0. You're missing the point of my post. You also don't fully understand a key requirement in supply/demand, and that's the tangibility factor. There's hardly any tangible demand because Potcoin isn't capable of providing its primary market with the ability to legally be used for pot.

Let me summarize it this way:

Potcoin is launched mid January of 2014
On January 20 2014, its first exchange comes online. Beginning value is 0.00008000
Around mid-April 2014, its highest peak ever is reached on Bittrex, at 0.00041000
In May it dropped, but had another "hype" peak around 0.00003500
Presently its highest value is 0.00000338

So 0.00041000 prior to its first major halving....
... and 0.00000338 currently, after 2 halvings.

But yeah, it's totally going to rise exponentially in value despite the fact that the only thing that has changed in the potcoin marketplace is a couple of extra gambling sites, and you can buy lighters and matches with it now.

Contrast that to a couple of other very tangible coins that I follow, whose use and value have only grown...

Why would you expect that? Can you make your presumption tangible, and tie it to something financially and mathematically?

Historically over the long run, the value has only decreased. Temporary spikes do not count, examine the historical value from beginning until now. It's about 1/8th of what it was, not counting the cost of mining, if you factor in halvings and original value.