I would suggest AGS donation from bitshares.org
They have done marketing very poorly, but I believe it has the potential to be unbelievably successful.
Agreed, that seems to be the consensus of the best IPO at the moment. Swarm has potential too if you can look past what they pay the developers... People need to be paid for their work, with that developing budget they should be able to hire talented developers, and that could very well translate into a quality project. |
|
|
|
|
This kind of goes against your idea to help new developers out by providing an updated code base, but you could keep it closed source until you actually release bitmark. Certainly the time you spent on the code base already would be worth something to someone creating a new ALT coin as it would save them some time. I guess this would be much easier than creating a service to fund development as you already have it done.
You could also try using indiegogo, kickstarter, or a bitcoin crowd funding website. Just think of ways to provide incentive to people to donate apart from giving them a stake in the currency.. Such as credits, shirts, etc. you aren't looking to raise a huge amount so you might be able to do it this way. I admit shirts are probably a bad idea, so the incentives would need to be thought over.
You could start a raffle where the prizes are worth less than the amount of coins raised, but big enough to where it would be nice to win by donating a small amount.
Giving people incentive is key.
|
|
|
|
Thanks again for the feedback, it's very valuable.
Your comment on a promise of BTC is very wise. Perhaps then I should suggest a get out clause where if the bitmark supplied hasn't reached a valuation exceeding the investment by an agreed date and the donator feels uncomfortable holding them longer, I personally guarantee to pay back USD amount + xx% as a minimum return on that date, in return for the bitmarks back.
I would be keen to avoid creating another altcoin generator, but am very happy to produce a Bitmark-RI cloning guide for those with enough technical ability to do it, and of course keep the RI updated. It's a good suggestion but the goal of the RI is to encourage safe and stable project forks, rather than a plethora of useless clones created by people with limited technical ability who can't additionally support the coin they create.
Understood. I'm not saying that making coins from generators is a good thing, but people do it anyways and it would be a source of funding. Just think outside of the box  |
|
|
|
You could build an ALT coin generator as a source of funding.. (just an idea, not sure if it's a good one.) I think most of the generators are not generating coins with current codebases. Or, give credits like at the end of movies to donators somewhere in the client (in the about screen showing current version etcetra) or on the webpage. People like being famous...  You could build an exchange in which a percentage of the trading fees go towards the development of your coin and the rest goes to maintenance of the service, or any service for that matter could be made and a percentage of the profits sent to the development fund. Creative ways to fund development is something that Litecoin/Bitcoin is lacking IMO. Their development funds pretty much all come from donations, I think both could spend more time thinking of creative ways to fund development. |
|
|
|
Thank you for your reply. I must be honest in what I will have at my disposal: - a) A development fund of the currency from the 0.250% block tax
- b) An amount of personal coins which I will be legitimately mining myself
- c) I'm a working man with an income which varies from month to month, some months it has more disposable income than others
I've calculated the cost of all resources needed to be about 0.6 BTC. In return I could offer a portion of A for an agreed time. Also, If required a percentage of B for an agreed time. In the worst case, should the project have zero value I could recompense from my personal income. Perhaps part of the problem is that this is not a pump and dump with "10000% gains tomorrow!", it's a long term development project who's value will be earned rather than presupposed. Just don't tell people you'll pay them a certain amount of BTC back, it could get you in hot water if BTC value goes up a lot. I learned this lesson the hard way. |
|
|
|
I don't mean to derail the litecoin bashing, but can someone explain the chart in the op? How does the market drop that low and then recover nearly instantly? I've never had a very strong understanding of trading. Thanks
Someone saw a buying opportunity and bought it all up. It was well played IMO- they could slowly sell it off not affecting the market too badly and pretty much have an instant profit. I'm not sure this is their strategy as they could be hodling for a rebound, but someone(s) saw a buying opportunity for one of those two reasons. I think it's anyone's guess as to what the reason was. Whomever sold off that much at once on one exchange didn't really think it through very well. |
|
|
|
|
People like having incentive to donate money, so I'd just make sure there is some upside in it for them, and I'm sure you will find donators.
That's the only thing good about IPOs.. the incentive if the project does well is apparent and people are more likely to "donate".
I like your idea of funneling the development transaction fee tax to people whom fund the project early on.
|
|
|
|
Thanks. I love the idea of Gateways making it easier to pay with alt coins. Also, there are so many coins coming out that are focused on data storage that I need to comb through them and pick out the best of the best. It is getting to the point where that is no longer innovative IMO. If you see the list to be added, a large part of them have to do with decentralized data storage. There are testers trying to break the soon to be released MGW, as i write. They welcome more testers, if anyone is interested. I see what you mean re no longer innovative. I guess the innovation will be the subtle ways their own code works and gets implemented.  There isn't really a working solution yet apart from MGW, so I guess I'd still consider it innovative.. but it is losing its edge. I think there are already enough projects focused on p2p data storage, and I hope new coins focus on other areas that are lacking. |
|
|
|
One of the biggest grudges people have with purely PoS coins are that the coins are unfairly distributed. Side note: I don't agree with this line of thinking, as everyone has a chance to invest in IPOs if they'd like. This same argument could also be applied to early adopters of Bitcoin... but I am getting sidetracked. I think it is a shame something as silly as this could hold back purely PoS coins, as I feel they are a step up from purely PoW coins which consume much more energy to secure their block chains and waste processing power.
Right from the start your premise is false. The problem with a PoS coin as a global currency is that you cannot guarantee that a central authority cannot gain and hold majority stake permanently. With that power, they can discretely and secretly reverse transactions. This is fine for a local currency, because nobody trusts their local governments anyway and they can be replaced. You would not want a PoS coin as a store of value. That doesn't sound much different from someone performing a 51% attack on Bitcoin.. Anyways, as I stated I'm not here to debate... I'm already busy debating the Litecoin worshipers as to why their coin is becoming irrelevant.  I suppose I'll look elsewhere for an answer, thanks anyways. |
|
|
|
I understand there are a lot of fees involved when buying that many Bitcoins, but $274 worth of fees per Bitcoin?  That would mean they paid $39,549,708 over market value..... It doesn't make any sense. I expected them to go higher than market value due to fees of buying that much Bitcoin, but $274 per Bitcoin is a little much. I could of bought them that many Bitcoins and only taken a $100 per Bitcoin cut ($14,434,200.) I guess you need to take into account of how buying this much Bitcoin would affect the market, but damn that seems like a lot. |
|
|
|
How about sticking to Bitcoin?
Using a power hungry electronic currency doesn't make sense to me, unless you want to kill planet earth at an accelerated rate. If you insist on it, then why not make it do something useful like Primecoin? Not saying finding prime numbers is going to change the world, but that's only the first use case. Can you not see the benefits of PoW alternatives? Bitcoin is not perfect and there is room for alternatives for many reasons to focus on Bitcoin's shortcomings. Such as anonymity, electrical efficiency, transaction speeds, adding features that are not possible with Bitcoin, etcetra.. Anyways... this isn't meant to be a debate. It is meant to be a conversation about how to improve distribution of purely PoS coins. I guess maybe this is the wrong subforum, but I figured there would be more developers here than in the alt subforum. |
|
|
|
|
One of the biggest grudges people have with purely PoS coins are that the coins are unfairly distributed. Side note: I don't agree with this line of thinking, as everyone has a chance to invest in IPOs if they'd like. This same argument could also be applied to early adopters of Bitcoin... but I am getting sidetracked. I think it is a shame something as silly as this could hold back purely PoS coins, as I feel they are a step up from purely PoW coins which consume much more energy to secure their block chains and waste processing power.
Now that "Oracles" can confirm real world data, would it be possible to do a recurring IPO for a purely PoS coin? I feel like this would solve the problems people have with "unfair" distribution. The way I envision it there would be an initial IPO, and then one every year after that as determined by the oracles. The amount of IPO coins should be slowly reduced like Bitcoin's block reward. Using something like Oracles, the current price of the coin could be determined to figure out how much the IPO coins should cost in the recurring IPOs, or they could be sold at the original price (this may affect the market negatively and I'm not sure of the best approach.)
So, it'd go something like this:
1st IPO = 5,000,000,000 coins @ .0001
2nd IPO 1 yr later = 2,500,000,000 @ current market price or original price
3rd IPO 1 yr later = 1,250,000,000 @ current market price or original price
4th IPO 1 yr later = 625,000,000 @ current market price or original price
... so on so forth ...
I have a few questions.
I am not a developer, so would something like this be possible or is it just a pipe dream?
Would this idea even make sense to due to market variables? I'm thinking maybe it would be more fair to just keep the recurring IPOs at the original price of 0.0001, but it would affect the market.
Are recurring IPOs even possible?
Any other ways you guys can think of to improve distribution of IPO/purely PoS coins?
|
|
|
|
And those "obvious" reasons are what? I believe this has everything to do with sentiment, that is how prices of crypto currencies are established, supply and demand. The demand has gone down over the past 6 months and you can't deny it as the supply stays the same.. that is the point of difficulty. Supply hasn't stayed the same. You currently have over 30% of the entire network hashrate accounted for by just FIVE wallet addresses (solo miners). Over on Coinotron there are two miners with over 6 GH/s in hashrate each, and the next two on the list each have over 3 GH/s. Supply stays more or less the same no matter who has control of the hash power or how many hashes they throw at it. That is the whole purpose of adjusting difficulty. To debate this point is dumb, just go look at the block frequency chart: http://cryptometer.org/litecoin_60_month_charts.htmlWhat you mean to say is that the supply is more centralized towards big players with deep pockets and/or hardware manufacturers than it used to be. That has concentrated an abnormally gigantic amount of the block rewards into a very few hands and they are all making a mad dash toward ROI, before the even larger hardware starts shipping this month and next, reducing their percentage of the network to a fraction of what it is today.
You don't like me making inferences, so why are you allowed to make them? Do you know these large miners personally? How can you be sure it is them that are selling Litecoins and not someone that already owned Litecoins who has recently changed their mind about it? But it is an abnormal condition for so few miners to have so much of the new coin production...and it won't remain the case as the network is taken over by ASICs and the hashrate redistributes to something approximating normal.
We'll agree to disagree on that one, ASICs brings centralization. Why would people buy mining equipment if it won't break even due to people with deep pockets and/or the mark up from mining hardware manufacturers? The idea that it's going to magically fix itself over time doesn't make sense to me. If it doesn't make sense to buy mining hardware (in terms of profit), then what is the point? There are very few people that mine just "to protect the network". This isn't even as centralized as I am expecting Bitcoin/Litecoin to become. It will get much worse as old money, old money crypto, bankers, and VCs go full throttle on the mining landscape. Due to economies of scale, massive institutions with deep pockets can make a lot of mining hardware much cheaper than what the average miner can buy them for at retail prices. The only other coin to have ever gone through this transition is Bitcoin...and it did it at a time when there were a LOT fewer eyes on it and a whole hell of a lot less money involved.
That is not true. Litecoin is at about a $252 million market cap right now.. I wouldn't exactly say that's "a whole hell of a lot less money" compared to Bitcoin's Feb 2013 market cap of $228 million. Look at February 2013 forward: http://www.quandl.com/BCHAIN/MKTCP-Bitcoin-Market-CapitalizationThe arrival of Bitcoin ASICs also made it more centralized, but they did not see a similar dip in price. Go from February 2013 forward: http://www.quandl.com/BAVERAGE/USD-USD-BITCOIN-Weighted-PriceI agree that there are more people around now than in Feb. 2013, but I'm not sure how this makes a difference in the topic at hand. More people are around to buy Litecoin and Litecoin mining hardware, yet the price is falling and the network is becoming more centralized. How does that support your argument? Realistically, no other coin in existence could hold up under these conditions...but Litecoin has not failed. It has lost some ground in price denominated in dollars, but not nearly as much as one would expect, considering the rampant dumping.
It has also lost some ground denominated in Bitcoins. You are also making an assumption that no other coin could hold up, as it hasn't happened yet so know one knows what would happen. Again you assume all the dumping is ASIC miners... I think I heard Smoothie himself say he didn't currently have a stake in Litecoin... this is another large assumption as well that it is only ASIC miners dumping. I think personally it is both ASIC miners dumping and market sentiment is shifting. I'd like to state again, Bitcoin's price didn't slip when their ASICs came out, why should Litecoin be given a free pass as to this being the reason for the price falling? |
|
|
|
what happened to you CoinHoarder why did you become such a troll ?
I'm trying to have an earnest debate. The definition of trolling should not be anyone that has a difference of opinion and speaks it.. As though its price relative to Bitcoin is an all-encompassing measure of its success? Not necessarily, but it is evidence that people are cashing out of Litecoin and see the problems with it that I see. Good thing we aren't measuring Bitcoin's success that way (relative to the dollar), it's still almost 50% off its high in November...yet I see a LOT of reasons to be bullish on Bitcoin.
The difference is Bitcoin is rebounding and Litecoin is not. These are the USD charts for each the past 3 months: http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/period-charts.php?period=3-months&resolution=day&pair=btc-usd&market=btc-ehttp://www.cryptocoincharts.info/period-charts.php?period=3-months&resolution=day&pair=ltc-usd&market=btc-eThis must be a coincidence? There are obvious and well-documented reasons for the drop relative to Bitcoin that have nothing to do with sentiment.
And those "obvious" reasons are what? I believe this has everything to do with sentiment, that is how prices of crypto currencies are established, supply and demand. The demand has gone down over the past 6 months and you can't deny it as the supply stays the same.. that is the point of difficulty. Anyways, if you aren't happy with me using BTC/LTC charts.. the USD/LTC chart looks pretty much the same: http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/period-charts.php?period=6-months&resolution=day&pair=ltc-usd&market=btc-eThe newsmedia declared Bitcoin dead numerous times in 2013 based on price. They were wrong, too.
The reason why I believe Litecoin is no longer a good investment is not because the price has gone down, it is because of the arguments I've discussed in this thread. The price is just a good indicator that there are others that agree with me. Also, the difference there is that the news media mostly has no idea what they're talking about, and I have studied crypto currencies hours (sometimes days) at a time for about 2 years now. |
|
|
|
you hate that I am pointing out why Litecoin is a crap coin, and you have a personal vendetta against me since I called your physical Litecoins overpriced. Just admit it bro, everyone can tell.
Okay so we have established a few things: 1. You think Litecoin is a crap coin. Although I don't hate it at all that you call it a crap coin but you were just supporting it not long ago. I think it is rather funny. PRESUMPTUOUS ARE WE that I hate it when you do that? Compared to some of the newer coins (and ones in development) with the same features, as fair a release, more features, and innovative approaches, YES! A million times over yes, Litecoin is a crap coin compared to those coins. This is what I mean by the dynamics have changed. You are silly to believe that someone's opinion can't change on something due to developments over the past couple years. You are being stubborn in your support of Litecoin, I am simply looking at the big picture with no bias.. I don't own any coins. Purely PoS and truly innovative coins did not really exist when I got into Litecoin, and I saw oppurtunity from GPU miners switching from Bitcoin to Litecoin. SHORT TERM opportunity that has sense passed. 2. You think I have a personal vendetta against you because you called my physical Litecoins overpriced.
lol that is funny. To be clear no I am not mad about that. You can have your opinion of what you think about my coins. I'm thick skinned unlike you who runs and whines at the first sign of opposition.
My whole entire motto on this forum from day 1 has been to call out people's bullshit. Coinhoarder you have made so many claims and promises that you never fulfilled and that is the bullshit I call out. Not to mention how you presume to claim you know that "smart money" isn't smart (or that smart) despite you being dumb money yourself by your own track record.
Remember this where you made a claim and it couldn't have been further from the truth?
Tell me what this has to do with Litecoin and why it's better than everything else?  I don't deny some of what you're saying, it's the fact that you're repeating it over and over instead of talking about the thread's topic. You think anyone that cares hasn't seen all that? This is why I think you have some kind of vendetta against me, because you try to make me look as bad as possible when I'm here trying to have an earnest debate about Litecoin. You are an asshole... an asshole in denial about Litecoin. Well we both know how that statement turned out. I just laughed at you when you made that comment and that sentence never materialized.
For the millionth time, I have the right to defend myself and not let you walk all over me Smoothie the asshole. Why don't you take your Lealana coins out of your ass for a second? Much of your arguments in this thread are so generalized that you have so much wiggle room to get out of what you really are saying or claiming. Not to mention that some of your claims are with one foot in the door and one out of the door as if you are riding the fence. If you had a track record of being correct and had proof of risk you took to support your claims in the past predictions you made (and were successful with proof) I would be more inclined to listen to your arguments but that is not the case. You are just a guy on a forum who needs an ego boost given all of your recent failures in crypto and in your personal life.
My track record (asided from being the "troll" that calls people's bullshit out) is clear on this forum.
My arguments are valid, if they are not then show me how they aren't valid. I will continue to believe and tell people otherwise until you do. All you can say is that I am wrong, but you can't put to words as to why I am wrong. So that leads me (and anyone else that's following this discourse) to believe that you can't. All you have on me is that I am a horrible person and that I don't know what I'm talking about, both of which couldn't be further from the truth. You can't say why as to not me as a horrible idiot of a person, but the arguments I've laid out in this thread. If the arguments I've laid out are so idiotic, then they should be easy to refute, no? |
|
|
|
Go back 10 months to August 2013 where difficulty kept rising and rising for 3 months straight which in turn pulled the price up in is own way.
Your theory doesn't always hold true. If you were around as long as I have you would know that your bolded statement isn't 100% true.
1. It's not a theory 2. Yes it is true If price does not always follow difficulty, that means price doesn't follow difficulty. IF price goes down while difficulty goes up, how can you say price follows difficulty? Answer: You can't unless you want to ignore all the times that it doesn't. To state otherwise is blasphemy. Perhaps you could say "sometimes price follows difficulty", but the statement "price follows difficulty" is not true. There are many other factors at play than simply difficulty as I stated, funny how you ignore that. You guys just cherry pick things that suite your argument, and I address every point you bring up. I have brought up a lot of good points ITT that you guys continually ignore. I gave you one of a few actual instances where Price followed difficulty. Nice try refuting that and saying "Yes it is true and not a theory". Your theory equates to "100% of the time Price does not follow Difficulty" or "100% of the time Difficulty Follows Price". My example breaks your claim. It is funny that you ignore that. The more you post it appears it seems this entire thread is an attempt to ego boost yourself out of your own failures in life and in the crypto world. Just like now when I gave you a specific example of where your flawed theory is incorrect you try to justify why you are "right". lol You are truly pathetic. If price doesn't follow difficulty once (it has happened many times,) then it is a true statement that price doesn't follow difficulty. Sure, price can coincidentally follow difficulty or not follow difficulty, however price is completely separate from difficulty: - Price is determined by many factors - Difficulty is determined by how many hashes are thrown at the network How hard is that to understand? |
|
|
|
In case anyone here missed the original post where Coinhoarder decided to leave Litecoin because of his own reasoning. Here it is for others to dissect if they wish: LINK: https://litecointalk.org/index.php?topic=1940.msg157795#msg157795Hi all, Due to a conflict of interest I will no longer be making physical Litecoins and am abandoning my plans to make future editions of physical Litecoins. I am planning on continuing this venture, but I will no longer be minting physical Litecoins.. it will be for other cryptocoins. The main reason for this is that I have lost all interest in Litecoin and no longer see it as a good investment. It has taken me a while to get to this point and there is really no one reason in particular, but a few things stand out above the rest. I brought up some ideas to the community and the Litecoin developers about building a protocol on top of Litecoin, and was largely ignored and patronized. There is a very dangerously lethargic mindset that seems to be a common way of thinking that exists in Litecoiner's heads, or at least the ones that visit these forums. I think sitting at number 2 atop of the cryptocoin leader board has gone to most of their heads and most of them think (I actually saw someone type this today) that Litecoin is too big to fail. The idea that all Litecoin needs to do is promote itself and doesn't need to innovate and add new features is deeply flawed. While Litecoiners are too busy worried about promoting themselves, other cryptocoins are developing massive innovations that will rock the foundation of cryptocoins as we know them today. While Litecoin sits back and makes mostly insignificant improvements along with security updates, there are some new players in the industry that are doing really amazing things that add true intrinsic value to the cryptocoin space. Simply put, a faster block speed (which is basically the only useful thing about Litecoin) is starting to look less like a good selling point and more like every other copy cat coin in existence. When I got involved with Litecoin almost two years ago, I was certain it would become more popular and valuable as a safe haven for GPU miners, and I was proven to be correct. However that effect has come and gone with ASICs being released this year and the GPU miners are jumping ship to other coins. There is really no reason or use for Litecoin anymore, and I can no longer say that I am certain it will grow in popularity and value. Other coins have fairer launches now and other coins have faster or similar block speeds. There is nothing that sets Litecoin apart from the other ALT coins as being a sure bet any more, and I am very worried for its future. Especially with the current development team that doesn't see innovation as being important, along with the community that shares that sentiment. It is for these reasons I will no longer support Litecoin. I have thought very hard and long about this and I feel bad about doing this, however I cannot support what I don't believe in... that's just not me. Thanks for the few people that supported my endeavors here with CryptoVest, it will always be appreciated. Thanks to those of you that I had very good conversations with over the years on these forums. Thanks to Litecoin for helping me get my feet wet in the cryptocoin space, and coincidentally helping me meet new friends that I will have for the rest of my life I'm sure. Feel free to contact me through Bitcointalk or my personal email willconnatser007@gmail.com -> Replace 007 with 87 though I am very excited about the future of cryptos and I will stay heavily involved with the cryptocoin community as I have in the past, but I will no longer spend most of my time and energy on Litecoin. Thanks again to you all and take care, Will Yes, that sums up my opinion pretty well. That post isn't nearly as thorough as I'm being here though, the gloves are off. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
