So do traders, I still do not see how a trader and a miner are in fundamentally different circumstances. 
One buys bitcoins from an exchange in hopes of selling them for a profit. 
The other buys bitcoins through a combination of a mining equipment company and the electric company, in hopes of selling them for a profit. 

The responses I am getting so far seem to imply that miners live paycheck to paycheck (or bitcoin to bitcoin) and cannot afford to sit on even a single mined satoshi, but instead must immediately sell each one to pay their bills instead of waiting for a better price when a better price is likely to come.  Do traders not have bills to pay as well? Their investment capital didn't come from nowhere either, and has to be replaced as well.   

Also there are, what, like 60% of all mined bitcoins in the blockchain that have as of yet, no unspent outputs?  Wouldn't this seem to be, in large part, the result of miners who are clearly not selling coins they mine right away?  I don't think Satoshi and a few people who lost or forgot about their Bitcoin account for such a large figure.

"-Miners typically need to sell their coin immediately as they have invested in equipment that expects a return"

Can someone please clarify for me, in layman's terms, how the investment a miner makes to acquire a coin is any more at risk than the investment a trader makes to acquire a coin?   Once the coin is in your wallet, the relative return on that coin, once sold, is identical for both cases isn't it?

Miner:  Spent $10 on equipment costs, $90 on power and cooling, received one Bitcoin worth $100

Speculator:  Spent $90 on some exchange, $10 on fees,  received one Bitcoin worth $100

Why are these two individuals in any different situation once they have turned their non-coin assets into coin?  Up until the moment the coin landed in their wallet, their pre-coin assets could have performed wildly different to each other.  But once they have been converted to coin, they perform the same?  Or am I making the mistake of thinking miners do not see themselves as speculators but as something like 'manufacturers' and are thus not using disposable risk capital to set up their operations? 

As a semi-casual observer in the crypto world I have noticed a palpable upswing in the number of prominently-featured women being used to put a pretty face (or so they think) on various groups trying to promote this or that. 

There might be a few genuinely interested crypto-fan females among them, but I suspect the vast majority are just someone's sister or girlfriend or roomate's girlfriend or favorite stripper or what have you, pressed into service as a decoration to grab a few extra eyeballs. 

The telltale sign is that these women are never fat, or older than their 30's, or overtly unattractive - and this just doesn't represent a typical slice of the female population, let alone the kind of geeky population that is into crypto.   As things get more desperate with the dwindling pool of people to sell to and the balooning pool of coins and services to choose from, I expect to see a lot more of these booth babe-ism tactics.

"gypsy gangsters taking offence on twitter and making a revenge pact to destroy the coin"

Anonymous romanian gypsy gangters, using a social media broadcasting platform on the world wide web, are trying to manipulate the exchange rate of a virtual cryptographic currency in a virtual market, because they were offended by other anonymous users' comments about the avatar image they chose for their crypto currency propaganda channel on that social network. 

We are living in a Neal Stephenson novel.

  LTCD  should not have taken the ice bucket challenge 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aopdD9Cu-So#t=0m30s

Suddenly, I understand how MySpace got so popular (for a while)...

Thanks for showing up.  Taking care of a newborn is a 24 hour job, that's just how it goes.  But after all that, it's your baby and you get to see it grow up and thrive as a reward.  And i assume make a buck for your efforts as this isn't supposed to be a charity.

Where's the dev been in the middle of all this, anyway?  Reminds me of WhiteCoin's fiasco,  dev MIA during minor meltdown which helped turn it into a major one. Communication matters most when the coin's trust and reputation are in a vulnerable state.  

Let's just say i am very glad I passed on 1900 sats.  and 1800.. and 1700.. and so on.    3 figure sat was nice to see.

So if I understand correctly, this just shuffles things around so that the premine is now 3.8% and the remaining 6.2% is an instamine, right?  Bottom line being there are 10% of the LTCD supply in hands that acquired it for far below even current market value, and we should price this in to our expectations.  In that case 1900 sats feels expensive to me. I think I'll pass on buying any more until this blows over.

It is nice, different than most other coin logos (although there is some value in having a coin logo that bears some family resemblance to "minted currency" aesthetics).  But it's actually not that unique when it comes to logos for technology companies that have some sort of "distributed" or "network effect" component central to their business.  In fact here's a logo from a company I started in 2003 and sold off long ago, back when the whole "distribute ALL THE THINGS!" trend hadn't really off yet (indeed it still is just beginning to get significant momentum).



I have since seen many other logos that use this "concentric rings of dots to represent distributed nodes"

i guess this is supposed to go in this thread?

Don't know where the logo thread is, so i'll just drop this here.  Extremely quick and dirty  concept,  didn't stick it on a coin circle because i think logo glyphs should stand on their own, functionally, with or without a shiny coin background to dress them up. Of course it can go on a coin as well but someone else can do that.  If you like the general idea, it's yours.  Do with it what you want, rip off the design, change the colors, whatever. I don't ask for any credit or prize if its used.  Just thought these logos posted so far could use some different directions or ideas. 

The fewer exchanges a coin is on, the easier it is for whales to control the price.   Especially if they have bots helping them, fewer APIs and less randomness to worry about.  More exchanges usually means a somewhat fairer-traded coin (as well as the occasional arb opportunity when one of the exchanges falls out sync with the rest). 

To see where this kind of conduct leads, need only check out the fate of Fluttercoin, another piece of unique and innovative tech (proof of transaction) that is sitting on the crypto scrap pile primarily because the dev had the same kind of attitude.   

perhaps buying/selling selling BTC itself on OneMarket could help kickstart this? 

CB is that you??   LOL  if yes

What comments were deleted?   This is not a self moderated thread so kidcoin cannot delete comments, only Bitcointalk's main admins can. 

It might have been an oversight, but note that this thread is not self-moderated, which is one of the things that usually signifies much more legitimacy than otherwise. 

FYI self-moderated threads (where the OP can delete posts they don't like) = major flashing red sign that says "stay away."  The fact that this thread is not one of these is a good sign in general.

I think if the dev hasn't made money from their coin, they screwed up bigtime. A successful coin is self-funding, and that includes development costs.  Nobody is going to begrudge a dev who gets rewarded for a successful coin system that is useful or at least, potentially useful.