Going further back in time to earlier rounds of success we come across this. How long did this last for? Another real model of consistency that, unfortunately was a harbinger of things to come. Oh well. Now we've got round tables? How long will that last for?  

And the list goes on and on. Trouble is that I'm bored. As I've said before to all you newcomers, you've got the entire history of DigiByte in this thread and if you're not taking the time to learn about what you're getting into, you've only got yourselves to blame.

Cheers,

And the "oh, we're so sorry, there are things I can't control and I'm working so hard, poor old me, please believe me" post . . . ignoring the failures that are under DGB's direct control.

BTW, how did that newsletter work out?

So, how did all that globe trotting work out?

I'll give everyone a hint: DGB traded back to 17 SAT.

Already mentioned above, but this? What happened here? Another flop?

What happened to this?

Good to see you post over here iCEBREAKER. Credible, independent thinkers are in short supply here. The problem of insisting on keeping alive half baked, poorly functioning, poorly maintained products in combination with the "sorry we're too busy" excuse that you point out is something that I have also pointed out countless times. It's not just the DigibyteMarket! The gaming wallet, the Android wallet, the attempts at DiguSign (last year is was up for around 6 months in spite of the fact that you could not search and find the "document" you previously uploaded, and now it's looking very polished BUT there is no privacy at all to what you upload - OMG, everything's stored on the DiguSign servers!), DibiBytetip (which now takes you here: http://digibytetip.com/ ) were all embarrassments and it was impossible to get the "team" to address the issues regardless of whether it was to simply depreciate or fix. The only thing I will say that is positive is that the core wallet and coin technologies are sound - but both of those come from other people and are basically copy and paste. There are lots of possible conclusions that can be drawn from this, and I don't think any can be spun positively. The most basic of all conclusions is that the base technology is in place, and that's about it, and maybe that isn't even that special. I made some super human efforts to try and steer the founder in a more positive direction, even offering him many very interesting ideas (all for free, expect one extremely interesting idea that I wasn't interesting in "giving away" to the "unworthy") all extremely well documented and supported with rational arguments, and they were all rejected, most of the time out-of-hand, and it didn't matter whether I was presenting them as a kindly business associate (1st attempts based on what might be a best practice strategy), simulated feedback from an appalled customer (2nd attempts based on how end users would view things), news critic (3rd attempts based on how negative press would impact), knowledgeable authority on the subject (4th attempts, in the hopes of finally breaking through, based on in your face criticism such as asking where his self-respect was and why he allowed so much crap to weigh down the "project"), etc. My final, executive summary, conclusion is that there is no room here for critical analysis and independent thinkers with respect to meeting and satisfying end users' needs - and that could possibly be because they're only concerned with their own self-interests (which ironically are not being served well either, so that's not much of a possibility), incompetence, or who knows. The bottom line are the facts, and the facts are a series of failures that don't seem to bother the founder in the least. 

Keep up the good work my friend. It's not going to be an easy job to bring some self-respect and credibility to crypto, and I admire the example you're setting.

Cheers,

^^
Hope you're right melea!

The market doesn't look too convinced, just yet anyway).


https://i.imgur.com/zfX9XF9.jpg

Efficient information dissemination for me starts with a little coordination. Is it that hard to cut and paste in the half a dozen places where you've got day to day exposure and participation? The cost is nil these days. Why the reluctance? Is there any justifiable reason whatever for not coordinating inportant releases of information? Any reason at all for not doing the rounds and covering the bases? Forgive me for saying so, but I find comments like yours simply incredible.

I did see Charlie on twitter today BTW. I responded to his hug campaign with a big    And I do agree that with that kind of stuff, we can safely say that NOT reposting it in every media available is the correct thing to do . . . but this is not about that kind of social interaction - it's about dealing seriously with the serious. We can tell the difference, right?

You've dealt with the technology rather well. Unfortunately that's only a small part of the story these days. The days of great ideas are long gone. As I see it, we're now in the implementation, do or die phase.

In any event, in order to well advise, you really need to look at all the key fundamental aspects of the coin as possible. Otherwise you're sharing something limited in value - as not being complete - and subject to being seen as biased.

And my posting of the google search link was not flippant: it leads to real issues that are difficult, if not impossible to explain away. That should not ruffle your feathers too much though - look at how the DASH crowd so easily deals with theirs by simply saying it's not important to them. Not sure where that leaves the rest of their analysis in terms of credibility though.

Very encouraging I will admit.  

But, is it the community's responsibility to search these things out? Is efficient information dissemination too much to ask for? And doesn't that responsibility really lie with the dev team?

Just sayin'. Thanks for the link. Made for a nice lift of spirits.

You know what they say, you snooze, you lose. If the devs don't know by now everything you just said and aren't willing and/or able, then we know where this will end. It's not like it's just a couple of us here on BCT saying this - the market doesn't like what it's seeing either, although it has finally started to move. Nevertheless, when everything else is going up and your product is just sitting there flatlined, you'd better take notice. It's easy to brush off one person's opinion, it's quite another to ignore the market. And to think that LTC has its foot already in the door to becoming the real #2 #1 crypto saver AND payment coin! Can you imagine the embarrassment if they don't make that a reality? Can you imagine being asked everywhere you go "what happened?"

Some really good company to have with you, don't you think? How that hurts to be grouped with the likes of that! Ouch!

What would be its BTC ratio adjusted value? The technology being used? Product implementation? Dev team composition? Reputation? And how do you think all that affects its current pricing?

One thing I see that severely affects its appreciation potential can be investigated using this google search as a jumping off point.

https://www.google.com/?gfe_rd=cr&ei=84fcVezNLceDUNSdq-AM&gws_rd=ssl,cr&fg=1#q=bytecoin+scam

Can you give us some well thought out and balanced analysis for BCN?

Nice to know your favorites, but they do us no good if you don't tell us why.

Your posts remain as good examples for future posts, and from now on be forewarned, if the word BECAUSE (or synonym) isn't used and followed by logical reasoning, the post will be deleted.

Also, if by chance I delete something unfairly, send me a PM. TIA

Have you ever gone about trying to figure out what your favorite cryptocurrency is really worth? You know, the Bitcoin is worth X, and Ethereum is worth Y, so my crypto must be worth Z exercise? My hopes are that this thread will help us all with that simple, yet not so simple, task. You know what they say, two heads are better than one!

I suggest that the fundamental starting point is determining a relative “peg” to what almost all crypto is traded in (for all intents and purposes), that is to say, Bitcoin itself. For example, on the most rudimentary of levels, if your favorite coin has an eventual cap of say 84 million coins, like Litecoin for example, then you would simply divide the eventual number of Bitcoin by the eventual number of Litecoin, or 21 million by 84 million, respectively, and you’d have your valuation estimate of Litecoin relative to Bitcoin in 25,000,000 Satoshi.

The fact that almost all altcoin trading is done in Bitcoin is only one reason for using it as a relative base number. It is also a mature cryptocurrency with mature markets with hundreds of millions of daily trading volume and billions in capitalization. The free market is clearly setting reliable daily prices that not only serve to value Bitcoin, but also as a solid reference point for alts.

With this kind of a relative assessment basic reference point we can begin to get a bit more objective with our estimates of value that we give our favorite cryptos. Of course, this “objectivity” ends with the basic ratio adjusted valuation itself, and, just as one would expect from such simplicity, there is no explanation for why something is overvalued or undervalued, but at least we’ve got a starting point to begin that discussion.

Overvalued and undervalued should not be confused with overbought and oversold – they are very different constructs with the first belonging to the fundamental analysis of the object being traded and the second belonging to technical analysis of the actions of market participants. When we ask the question why something is undervalued (which will be the key question for us at this time since there still are no examples of truly overvalued with respect to ratio pegged fair value) we are immediately concerned with product and product perception, and management, which in this case we generally call Development Teams.

If the product itself is based on newer, less well known, perhaps even experimental technology, then there would be an obvious reason for why the crypto in question would trade at a discount to fair value, or, as it were, be considered to be undervalued. We might even refer to this as a risk premium and expect a similar crypto based on Bitcoin core technology, all other things being equal, to trade relatively higher.

Another of the key considerations is the Dev Team behind the project. Obviously, a single developer “team” would trade at a notable discount. Take two equally designed coins and put a team of known experts alongside a “team” made up of one anonymous dev, and simple common sense tells us that there ought to be a huge difference in the value of the crypto being considered.

Then there is the issue of delivery, or performance, as it were. This is management related - after, of course, we’ve determined there is a real team at the helm with the minimum prerequisite competence. Is the team constantly improving the product and are issues dealt with in a timely and acceptable manner? Are deadlines met? Or is there overpromising with a lack of real results? Or, worse yet, are there unsatisfactory results in the form of partially working products or even complete failures? Product delivery, when lacking or nonexistent, can be a major reason for undervaluation, just as the opposite is true when great products are delivered as promised like Apple has become accustomed to doing.

Ideas are also critical, but the main idea is already there - it’s called blockchain. As such, we’re really not dealing with new ideas that can cause premium or discount trading, but there are sub-categories of ideas, or niches as I refer to them, that everyone is scrambling for. I’m not sure how much any given niche idea itself can influence in actual valuations – this is more of a delivery issue in my thinking as anyone can shoot for any particular market and it’s the first to get there that will capitalize type of scenario – but it’s certainly something to be aware of and to try and keep in appropriate context within this discussion. Who is delivering best in each target niche?

What about things that taint the image of a particular crypto? Scams? Inexplicable instamines and/or premines? Any shady dealings what-so-ever are most certainly going to cause something to be undervalued, at least long term anyway once the wool is no longer pulled over people’s eyes (it often takes a very unforgiving market to teach market participants that lesson). This is also management related: is the dev team trustworthy?

These are all good questions to be asked when speculating about what our favorite crypto might one day be worth, and to also help keep us from selling way too soon. When putting your favorites to this “stress test”, how do they come out? With shining marks? Is your favorite coin a “5 star” coin but severely undervalued? Or have you found that you are involved in something a bit more suspect? I think the standard advice for the latter is the easiest: get out while you can. However, advice on what you should do with your theoretical outperformers that are currently underperforming is more complicated.

I believe that first and foremost you should share your conclusions – rationally presented objective data based conclusions – with everyone you can. You will be doing everyone involved a huge favor as the better everyone understands the prospects, the less everyone will sell, and, as logic would have it, price, in turn will continue to rise in direct relation to everyone’s knowledge and trend towards fair value.

A slightly more delicate additional action to employ would be that of informing others involved in possible scams about the competition that is doing things right, but you need a strong stomach and real dedication for that. Nonetheless, in spite of the perceived negatives, the person that does this effectively is doing us all a great public service.

Finally, as we move forward educating ourselves and fellow “community” members and others outside our current circles about the real possibilities our favorite cryptos have, let us do so in the positive – there’s nothing that will hurt you more than the internet pissing match the shameful con man will try to lure you into. Take the high road and don’t even go there. Think of it as a word to the wise, and rest assured, the wise will hear you. (To that end this thread will also be a moderated thread with negativity zero.)

With determination, persistence, perseverance and resolve, let the world know about your cryptocurrency’s real prospects! And don’t forget to calmly, yet enthusiastically, TELL THEM WHY! If you’re a real early adopter and not a scammer, you deserve all the rewards you will receive!

And be sure to share it here! OMG, and if you forgot to do that, then where would we be?!?!  

Okay, will the mods forgive me for violating the best practice of not quoting images? I hope so because this is a deserving exception!

That was then and this is now. Segwit's been activated since April. What's happened since? One hell of a spring break in Florida?

Resting on your laurels will get you killed in this business.

You can bet that someone, somewhere, is busting their butt to take your market away, and we all know just how nasty folks are in this space - the more it hurts you, the more they'll laugh.

Good move with the new thread. Being THE most important crypto forum on the internet, it's not to be treated casually.

Or is there anyone who still hasn't noticed that BCT is always at the top of any Google search done? 

This is without a doubt one of the major information gateways to crypto.

This is a short to intermediate term basket trade, and from here on out the strategy will be to ride them out (if we get any - for anyone not yet positioned, I would view them as buying opportunities until things turn bearish) until I get short to intermediate term sell signals, and then it'll still only be a matter of calm portfolio re-balancing, perhaps even to fiat, but we'll have to see what conditions warrant.