Here's 35 for you   http://web.archive.org/web/20131120104851/http://coinmarketcap.com/

ok, I accept your general point though - the market is still young. Today's top 20 possibly have more longevity than the ones in that list.

But as the market gets ever more crowded it becomes increasingly important to understand the exact nature of what you're buying into. Lots of coins have things in common but one thing that is a consistent pattern is that genuine originals do prevail. Look at the top 10 market cap - they're all originals in some respect or another and have held their positions for quite some time. (Despite even that fact, they've all gone through the x10 pump and back down to 20% all-time-high rights of passage phase).

I invested in Bitbay because it had hints of that uniqueness. But its originality is still quite opaque. Technologically it has some new features, a few of which it nicked from Nubits, others planned that are appear to be specific implementations of the smart contracts paradigm aimed at a particular market sector - online auctioning. As a pure technology though I don't really see what stands out but as a package delivered with ready made markets I do see how it could be compelling. Unfortunately it's the "ready made markets" bit which are the most opaque aspect of the package which is why I've been probing in that direction.

A must-read for everyone interested in online marketplaces and cryptocurrency imo:

http://cointelegraph.com/news/112976/ebay-ceo-very-open-to-bitcoin-will-likely-follow-paypal

Quite a lot actually. Easily enough to support the point I'm making and none that endorse your's.



Bitcoin had the market nearly all to itself for 3 years. That allowed it to gain a massive amount of network effect and adoption. No altcoin is within even 1 thirtieth of Bitcoin's marketcap. You cannot use Bitcoin's track record as evidence that a new altcoin will appreciate in the long term. Altcoins depreciate in the long term due to rapid obsolescence and growth of competition.

Bitcoin has the opposite behaviour. It is unique in that regard. The more alts that appear the less impact each successive one has on Bitcoin's relative marketcap. Not since Litecoin November-2013 has anything got so close despite introducing technologies that are way more advanced than what Bitcoin has.


I'd say the opposite is true if you look at the trading evidence of the last 18 months. Those who got out at the first post-launch speculative "pump" profited while those who waited a year lost all their money. This was the case for almost every single alt-coin launch I can think of bar none. Just off the top of my head, PPC, XPM, NXT, AUR, DRK, MOON, QRK, WDC, BLC...I could go on add infinitum.

I'm not saying it's not possible that a project break this trend. I'm saying it's unlikely because even if it's successful, that success will immediately attract enough competition into the market to offset any long term gains that weren't priced into its initial speculative valuation.


ok, I can't disagree with you there, but you've got to see ALL altcoins as almost a single market. The activity, technology and valuations surf from one project to the next. Developers like new stuff. They'll drop a project like a hot brick when something more interesting comes along which right now is every couple of weeks. Same with traders once they've taken profits from the initial pump. Ask any average trader which altcoins they are in at the moment and 99% it won't bear any resemblance to the ones they were in a year ago.

I agree with most of this post but regarding that last statement, when have you ever seen an altcoin that's worth more a year after launch than in the first 2 months of launch ? Anything that's ever shown any promise in this market gets its valuation priced in very quickly - within a month or two if not immediately.

After that it's all downhill.

You're lucky if the price is a quarter of it's speculative early priced-in valuation in a year's time so I wouldn't lead people on with that nonsense. Even Bitshares and Counterparty which are currently enjoying top 5 marketcaps after a year have never traded above their early post-launch prices. Peercoin had massive promise that was priced in out of the gate. The first POS coin. It's currently a quarter of it's highest trading values. Counterparty got near its February price a few weeks ago with its mega "Etherium+Bitcoin all you what in 1 package" announcement and even that didn't push above its post-pump price record.

Lets get real for once. These are experimental markets. Developers try out new things then move onto other stuff. They are at the mercy of commercial dynamics over which they have no control. If a new project hasn't established itself in a couple of months of launch - forget it. There's too much other stuff going on.

Why is FTC worth $1.75M? Why are PND and QRK worth ~$1.2M ea.?  How about the re-launch of Fuelcoin with it's 50% premine... which is worth nearly four times as much?
For that matter, despite definitely having much more 'built out' (as they should considering their age/investment capital) why are LTC and XRP worth ~125X and 275X respectively, as much?

Because that is what the market is willing to pay for them. Period.  Or I guess more to the point, people invest precisely in new ventures because at one time they were all worth almost nothing at all including BTC.  So investing a few hundred or perhaps thousands of dollars into a venture which has a decent potential of becoming a similar valuation in a year or so is a pretty amazing opportunity.

As long as you aren't investing money which you cannot afford to risk, and have confidence in the devs and the concept/goals of the coin - is anything else (especially in the first week or so) really all that critical?  God knows there's been billions of investment capital funneled into projects/businesses that had far less to go on... at least anyone that was investing in the late 1990's should know of a few thousand.  Basically, anything that was web-centric got a $50M+ IPO... and most of them turned into Pets.com, WebMD, or MarketWatch.com... seeing a surge of 200%-500% in their first few weeks... only to be bankrupt or worth a tiny fraction of that amount 1-2 years later.  Many had an IPO with little more than a Powerpoint presentation and an MBA or two on their boards - no customers, no stores, no inventory... nothing but a concept.

However, some of those investors throwing money at a number of totally unknown IPOs in those days bought Amazon, Ebay or Priceline at less than $20 per share each.  If they held even a decent amount through the "I told you so..." crash in 2000... they've seen 2,000% to 10,000% gains from those holdings over the past 10 years.  That's the whole point in investing and speculation in general.  If you want a proven commodity prior to investing anything - then just invest in the index itself and hopefully get 5-10% gains per year on average (after all it's not without risk either... it's just mitigated by diversity and volume).  In crypto terms that would mean just buying BTC and holding only it - don't even bother looking at anything else.

On the other hand, since BTC already went from pennies to ~$370/BTC (still a massive gain for early adopters, back when it had nothing but a concept to go on).  Despite losing close to 75% of it's value from the top, I still consider my BTC to be the best "random chance" I've ever thrown pocket-change at.  I doubt there's much of a chance of it hitting $37K per BTC anytime in the next 2-3 years (or likely ever for that matter).  It's more likely that something with a great idea and some dedicated talent behind it can go from $0.001 to $0.1 or even $1.00 - which will get you every bit as much or more of a return if it happens.

The bottom line is this: If you believe in the coin/concept/venture then invest what you can afford to risk.  If it seems interesting but you're suspicious/hesitant, then check back in a few months.  If you're positive it's just another scam/fraud then move along and don't look back.

Only time will tell who is right and who is wrong - but debating it over and over in the thread is not terribly productive either way IMO.

Guys calm down, I'm 100% sure we will see a pump this week. Smart contracts will bring a lot of value to this coin.

Classic price supression. First put a FUD story out. Then you put in a big sell and loads of tiny sells. Then what normally happens is the buy wall receives scared dumpers and the manipulator picks up cheap coins. It should give people confidence that someone is desperately trying to accumulate this coin cheap.

Thanks for this Wall of Shame. Another case is investigated thoroughly by BitSecCom.
https://bitcomsec.true.io/bitcomsec/tracking-a-bitcoin-thief-cryptorush-hack/ and https://bitcomsec.true.io/bitcomsec/tracking-a-bitcoin-thief-part-ii/

Zimbeck is up to here in personal debts and is more than probably selling his Black Halo ideas to Pump&Dump groups (probably the Black Hand; possibly several) to get access to quick cash. Everything is vaporware there, nothing at all is new and when and if it is and works, it will be first in BlackCoin. IF, being the operative word. In any case, none of it is of any real value for regulation will be implemented in crypto long before any real decentralized market place or decentralized form of payment really takes effect. Mind you, no one has come even remotely close to DarkSend and no one uses it either.

But, above all, please pay attention to all the flashing red flags, ok?
1.- Self moderated thread. Don't believe the crap: Only reason for it is to avoid posts like this one you are reading to be posted there. Because they have a lot to hide and that is the only way they can pretend no one knows their trick.

2.- Read the thread. How come all of a sudden such an amount of "enthusiasts" of the project, post again and again, them all being either newbies or juniors? Draw your own conclusions... ok, I'll do it for you: They are sock puppets; accounts that are operated by a very small amount of people probably working for the likes of Bobsurplus Prometheous, Black Hand, others or a combination of several.

3.- They pretend to have sold a lot in the ICO... Thousands of BTC. Let me tell you this: Even if you would be selling $100 bills in crypto for 90% of its value in today's alts, you wouldn't sell "thousands of BTC". There's simply no money left in crypto. It's all gone to the P&D groups and the crooked devs. Gonzo. I don't care what you offer, you won't get an ico going over 200BTC no matter if you invent something that is better than sliced bread. There's simply no cash, period. How they do it you ask? Well, not discounting than the exchanges could do anything for money, misrepresent figures included, let's assume that BTER did not and they really "sold" thousands of BTC in BAY. If that was the case, they sold it to themselves. You know the old trick? The right hand pays the left hand and everything goes to the same pocket. Trust nothing but what you can see. And what is that? 20-30 BTC per 24-hour volume in Bittrex. You don't need to look anywhere else. That tells you that roughly 10BTC was invested and another 10BTC was divested. Or dumped. Use your brain, ok?

Yep, you are going to read a lot of answers to this post, you'll see. Pay attention and you'll see the same newbie accounst and a host of new ones, pretending its FUD. Use your brain. Or throw your money away. Your call.

ok. I will do that. For my own part I've weighed up the risks based on what little information is available.

The problem is, others won't do that. Specially not if little teases like Alibaba are dangled right at the start of the [ANN] thread without any qualification. That's the kind of thing that can blow right up in your face in no time if people start to push for answers and it turns out to be nothing.

Just sayin. I'll shut up for now and let you have your clubby thread back. It isn't my intention to create a disruptive, antagonistic atmosphere. At the same time, I think people should think about these things and start doing some due diligence before this coin has to book its place in one of the two biggest categories of this league: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=134179.0

I'm dealing with it.

You're dismissing it.

If you're trying to scare serious investors away from this your going the right way about it.

If all you want is a whoo-ha thread with feel good factor where most of a coin's valuation derives from mutually induced hysteria then I suggest you go and take a stroll through the graveyards of bitcointalk.org [ANN] threads and feast your eyes on the associated mind boggling projections for valuations.

I think crypto has moved on from there myself.

We've had over a year and a half of significant alt launches reaching huge marketcaps and then dying without ever gaining any significant adoption. It's been an exercise in fiat accumulation for the most part fed by a willing supply of clowns who jump on bandwagons as soon as a few buzzwords are waved in front of their face.

Projects like this one do actually stand a chance of breaking that duck and it does posses some promising qualities. But it won't go anywhere if it's just a spectator sport - a day at the races where your horse either came in or didn't. That's why I asked you how many of these ventures you've been involved in (which I noticed you didn't answer) because there is now quite a large population of investors with a good track record of watching how cryptocurrency projects grow, blossom and die. They don't need to see another "feel good factor" [ANN] thread. They know the scams, have ridden the highs and been dumped in the moat enough times now to do more than scratch the surface of an investment prospect before they sink their hard earned BTC into it.

If this is to go even to a cap of $5m then many of those will have to be interested. They'll also be "whale pumpers" who will jump on significant bits of news and pump the thing to kingdom come only to take profits at the top and dump it to oblivion.

The only resistance to that kind of thing killing the coin is long term fundamental commercial viability, so I suggest you support in any efforts to start establishing what that viability is.

You sure do make a meal out of a simple point while at the same time not addressing it.

I don't think it's unreasonable to pursue clarification about what this "Alibaba" stuff is about. Everybody's in now so you can't argue that a speculative valuation is needed to capitalise the project any longer. The million dollars has been paid.

The Bitpay team are at liberty to give out as much or as little information as they want. It wasn't a condition of investing that material details of their business plan or commercial roadmap be divulged. This has deliberately been left to speculation.

But at the same time many people value their investments to the extent that they want to do as much due diligence as possible. There is a lot to find out about this project because it's not just a technical venture but a commercial one as well. The fortunes of one are bound up in the other. Another complexity arises from the nature of cryptocurrency - you're not actually investing in shares of a company, just a currency which you "hope" will get used in the markets that arise from success of the project. So there's no corporate accountability there which makes such due diligence all the more useful in making your own valuation.

I'd like to know how many of these ventures you've invested in that makes you comfortable about challenging due diligence themes so dismissively in the thread. I'm not demanding this information - I'm suggesting it's important. The response can be "shut up, it's a lottery" and that will be fine - I'll make an appropriate valuation and might still stay invested to some extent. On the other hand it might awaken a more instructive discussion amongst both investors and project stakeholders that actually leads to some useful dialog rather than "it's a pump" or "it's a dump"type dialog.

By "spamming" I mean the sending of unsolicited marketing messages using a "contact list" as opposed to having established specific working agreements with said party.

$1.2 million may sound like a lot of money to you and yes - it can pay a few salaries for a year - but it's a drop in the ocean in broader terms and will quickly disappear if the business plan doesn't deliver the next $1.2 million fairly readily.

The reason I made that post is that if you're going to name drop a $6.5 Billion capitalised entity as being an "associate" of the project I think it's only fair to qualify whether the nature of that association is co-operative or unilateral. i.e. is Bitbay team just going to "lobby" these types of companies in the hope that they become interested in the offering or is there a pre-existing relationship with already open doors, albeit with conditional locks.

I realise that we're not buying shares in a company here, so "suck it and see" rules apply. All the same, you're still putting real money into that will be paid to real people it and if it *was* a regular type startup operation you can bet your bottom dollar that no VC would touch it with a bargepole without those kind of little teases being ripped out of the promotional detail, turned inside out and upside down so as to discover their exact nature and whether the use of that name is justified in attracting investment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tauI0GdKcTc

So they will just say to these vendors, hey put your stuff on our site and Alibaba wont have any problem with that? How many vendors? Variety? A bunch of chinese laptops wont cut it.

I want to know more about how this will happen. Bitbay Team?

How can contacts from Alibaba just be put into the system? How do these contacts exist, won't Alibaba be against this? Who in the Staff bios have this kind of power and contacts?