eMunie seems more sophisticated in comparison to NxT.
(Announcement of NxT on 28.sep) The announcement was mostly about how to get in on the sale. The idea of NxT was public only for 50 days when investment phase got to an unforeseen end. 7 days later NxT was launched, but without most of the interesting features that were announced. It seems like BCNext just wanted to get NxT out into the wild as fast as possible with the promise of coding and implementing the worthwhile features later on.
(Announcement of eMunie on 30.may) eMunie on the other hand, focused on spreading the idea behind it first. In june the beta phase started which was open to all interested users for a few months, giving them the possibility to help with development of eMunie. 6 months of beta testing and fine tuning later the investing phase starts which will last till the end of Jan 2014. Thats over half a year in which the idea of eMunie could be contemplated by potential investors. In contrast to NxT, there will be worthwhile features(not all of course) implemented in eMunie at launch (e.g. decentralized exchange) Nxt is not officially launched. Never was. Source code release and official launch was always planned to be early Jan 2014. Do your homework. Yes, source code will be released in Jan. But I don't see how NxT hasn't technically launched yet? All NxT are issued to the founders and are already traded on an public exchange.. |
|
|
|
|
eMunie seems more sophisticated in comparison to NxT.
(Announcement of NxT on 28.sep) The announcement was mostly about how to get in on the sale. The idea of NxT was public only for 50 days when investment phase got to an unforeseen end. 7 days later NxT was launched, but without most of the interesting features that were announced. It seems like BCNext just wanted to get NxT out into the wild as fast as possible with the promise of coding and implementing the worthwhile features later on.
(Announcement of eMunie on 30.may) eMunie on the other hand, focused on spreading the idea behind it first. In june the beta phase started which was open to all interested users for a few months, giving them the possibility to help with development of eMunie. 6 months of beta testing and fine tuning later the investing phase starts which will last till the end of Jan 2014. Thats over half a year in which the idea of eMunie could be contemplated by potential investors. In contrast to NxT, there will be worthwhile features(not all of course) implemented in eMunie at launch (e.g. decentralized exchange)
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe it would be a good idea to set up a more detailed "CryptoCurrencyStatistics" page where marketcap is only a little factor in the ranking beside average transaction volume, market depth etc..
|
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that distribution can be faked. Are you able to verify that each address belongs to only 1 individual?
Wouldn't it be smart move for large stakeholders to make it look like the distribution is happening in a healthy manner?
Of course, this issue applies to nearly all coins, but it is a more serious matter in the case of a fully minted digital currency like NxT.
Be cautious.
|
|
|
|
*Chart*
The boom-bust cycles seem to happen really fast now. |
|
|
|
Apparently many people disagree with you that the bitcoin protocol has no meaning without bitcoins because people are willing to pay 40 bucks for litecoins using the same protocol. Bitcoin and Litecoin work on the same protocol? So you mean I can send you LTC to your BTC address? Fact is, the scarcity argument that BTC is limited to 21 million is a complete and utter myth. It can be replicated a gazillion times over with the exact same properties, just called by a different name. BTC is still limited to 21 million even if there are 21 million other altcoins in existence. How absurd would it sound if you applied this false btc scarcity logic to something like gold. If tomorrow, someone invented material that looked and behaved like gold, the exact same properties, etc with an unlimited amount that can be created but called it Koalapuss instead of gold, would gold be scarce anymore ? Obviously not, the price of gold would plummet to zero. If you could produce something with the exact same properties as gold, it would be gold. But you are right in that case the value of gold would likely fall ... If you could produce unlimited bitcoins the same would happen. But that's (currently) not possible, because it would work on a different blockchain an therefore cannot be the "exact" same. I can see value in the bitcoin protocol. Bitcoin itself is worth nothing. Zilch. It is no different then litecoin or quarkcoin or tulipcoin. And all of them are worth nothing because they can all be run on the same bitcoin-like protocol and therefore an unlimited supply of these 'coins' can be created. You are right that all coins are crypto currencies, but they don't have equal properties, therefore are not interchangeable. When this finally dawns on people, watch out. You'll be seeing bitcoin suicides. Whether intentional or not, this has all the makings of a grand pyramid model. In a hundred years, btc might be talked about similar to how tulipmania is mocked now.
We will see what the future holds. It's true that btc could fail, but I wouldn't bet on it... |
|
|
|
|
9 of 10 people I talk to, don't even want to understand the concept of cryptocurrencies and just dismiss it from the beginning.
1 of 10 people I talk to, would like to understand, but can't wrap their head around the concept (yet).
Once in a while someone gets it and join the movement.
2 hours ago I sat in a bar with 2 friends when the topic changed to bitcoin. After 10 min of discussion they said "lets talk about something else, this bitcoin thing is boring." And thats from people who heard about Bitcoin for the first time a year ago.
I sat there just thinking "WTF?" I tried to explain to them, why cryptocurrencies may be important for the financial future of humankind and that it's worth to take the time trying to understand the possibilities and consequences.
They brushed it off like the financial system we live in right now is Ok and there is no need to question it at all.
We have still a long way to go...
|
|
|
|
Thank you for the link. That really looks like a good distribution, but how do you know that each wallet represents only 1 holder? Couldn't it be possible, that for example 1 holder has the top 10 wallets?
There is always possibility for this and sadly it can never be answered, but it is not Quark specific issue. This can happen with every coin  Yes of course this is a possibility with all coins. But with the amount of mined coins in such a short time, it would have more of an impact, than with a coin, were even after 1 year an average guy could mine a fair amount of coins compared to the guy who mined at the beginning With quarkcoin it seems like the guy who mined in the first half year will get on average around ~240x more coins for the same work than the one who mine after 1 year. Don't get me wrong, I do like the security concept and the CPU only mining. But I still can't wrap my head around the stated argument, that this distribution is fair. |
|
|
|
THERE IS MORE TO FAIR DISTRIBUTION THAN MINING. Do some homework then come back to discuss. You are crying because you did not mine and worse still you did not by at 37 lol. Stop spreading misinformation and buy some before you cry harder.
Care to explain? I am genuinely interested in quarkcoin, but first I wanna understand the concept before I buy in on the hype. |
|
|
|
Quarkcoin labels itself as "fair" mining coin, cause of "CPU only", but the distribution doesn't seem fair at all. Did the developers mention somewhere why they decided to give most of the coins to the first miners? It seems like a way to give the developers the advantage of a premine without it being technically premined. Would really appreciate if someone could point me to the reason for this decision  You are exactly correct and they did this for two reasons: 1. They own almost all the coins which they hope will become valuable. 2. By only having a small fraction of the coin available for other traders the value and marketcap is kept artificially high, making the coin appear popular, it also enables them to cheaply inflate the price themselves. And what is the reasoning of the developers? The only possible fair explanation that would make some sense to me is, that the devs are for the most part politically motivated and don't intend to pump and dump, but want to help the market grow in a healthy way. In this case they would take the position of guardians (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=363559.0) But since we can't be sure only people with good intentions in mind have mined in the first 6 month, I am a bit skeptical about this scenario... EDIT: Thank you for the link. That really looks like a good distribution, but how do you know that each wallet represents only 1 holder? Couldn't it be possible, that for example 1 holder has the top 10 wallets? |
|
|
|
Quarkcoin labels itself as "fair" mining coin, cause of "CPU only", but the distribution doesn't seem fair at all. Did the developers mention somewhere why they decided to give most of the coins to the first miners? It seems like a way to give the developers the advantage of a premine without it being technically premined. Would really appreciate if someone could explain the reason of the devs for this decision |
|
|
|
How does choosing a low-risk strategy like buy-and-hold make someone greedy?
+1 Sell High - Buy low to gain more BTC from weak hands is being greedy. |
|
|
|
|
6fnicXF8rTTyAwJQr2vsqocH8fFSNE1yJg
Thx!
|
|
|
|
|
I am surprised eMunie wasn't mentioned already. It seems to integrate a lot of ideas that other promising altcoins are based on, into a single digital currency.
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree, that bitcoin has dynamics which resemble a pyramid scheme. But that would change, as soon as you are able to pay all your bills and taxes with bitcoin and earn them directly without the need to convert to fiat somewhere along the transaction chain.
For this there needs to be mainstream adoption, so IMO the only possibility for BTC to survive as currency is that all participants follow the mentality "One for all, all for one".
Honestly, I would like to believe it, if there wasn't so much greed in human nature....
|
|
|
|
Don't forget that all the newcomers need time to wrap their mind around the concept. If we enter a bear market, they may be cautious and want to wait till the bottom is clearly behind us, before buying in. That would delay the rise for a few weeks into December or even the next year. Considering the chart posted in rpietila's thread, 500 around new year seems reasonable to me. I think we may visit 400 again this year. |
|
|
|
|
not really my biggest fuckup but my most recent one.
lost 0,5btc yesterday by sell high and buying lower cause I was caught off guard by my emotions and sold into the little panic at the beginning of the hearing... was holding for months before that and thought I had the Buy&Hold mentality integrated.
Today for the first time, I made profit seeing the beginning of a flashcrash - 0,55btc but instead of be happy about making up my loss of yesterday, i tried again and lost 1btc.
i guess that's life... greed is not good for me, only bad things happen to me when I take action rooted in greed.... YMMV...
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
