ppcoin market crash

[Vitalicus]

For market correction it's need 10 BTC

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

IMHO, the best way to build a new alt-coin would be to build all the infrastructure first - block explorer, mining pools, exchanges, store plugins, online wallets, etc. Then restart the chain at a high enough difficulty to give everyone a fair shot at getting coins from the beginning. I think it would be quite difficult to get the required level of buy-in unless the current primary cryptocoin, Bitcoin, is subverted or fails in some spectacular way.

I agree with this.

In my opinion the only chance of a successful alt-coin taking off is if it fixes real immediate problems and enables commerce and privacy scenarios not possible or diffficult with Bitcoin.  Whether any pre-mine is a deterrent would probably depend on the value added.  The reason most of us aren't turned off by Satoshi and other early adopters becoming filthy rich is because of the gigantic value they delivered to all of us.  Satoshi didn't just tweak constants or address theoretical future problems, he delivered a working system that is a quantum improvement over what was there previously.

As D&T pointed out there are real problems in Bitcoin today that, if solved, could successfully bootstrap a new currency.  For instance, if a "Bitcoin 2.0" came out which did everything that Bitcoin does plus elegantly supported microtransactions and true anonymity, I bet you the incentive would be there for at least some segments of the population to start using it.

[smoothie]

Curious, how does bitcoin not support micro transactions?

[n8rwJeTt8TrrLKPa55eU]

Curious, how does bitcoin not support micro transactions?

It's a point of debate, there are also proposed workarounds, check this thread out:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3689/will-transaction-fees-eventually-make-microtransactions-not-worthwhile

Or if you prefer the Tl;DR:

I doubt that micropayments will be possible and sustainable long-term through the Bitcoin network, so long as every node must learn about every transaction.  There's just not enough bandwidth on a typical internet connection to receive 100 bytes each time anybody anywhere in the world buys a snack or a sword in a game or seeds for their farm.  Micropayments are feasible now while there is unused capacity for free transactions, but as soon as Bitcoin's user base grows to fill that, the transaction fees needed to balance supply and demand of network resources will make micropayments from stand-alone clients infeasible, if for nothing else, the transaction fee will be too high.

Services like Mybitcoin.com are about the only way micropayments are going to be possible long term.  Such services would aggregate them and complete micropayments "off the block chain", and standalone Bitcoin protocol would be left as the backbone for large transfers of money - and the digital equivalent of the "gold in the vault".

[meebs]

Curious, how does bitcoin not support micro transactions?

It's a point of debate, there are also proposed workarounds, check this thread out:
http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/3689/will-transaction-fees-eventually-make-microtransactions-not-worthwhile

Or if you prefer the Tl;DR:

I doubt that micropayments will be possible and sustainable long-term through the Bitcoin network, so long as every node must learn about every transaction.  There's just not enough bandwidth on a typical internet connection to receive 100 bytes each time anybody anywhere in the world buys a snack or a sword in a game or seeds for their farm.  Micropayments are feasible now while there is unused capacity for free transactions, but as soon as Bitcoin's user base grows to fill that, the transaction fees needed to balance supply and demand of network resources will make micropayments from stand-alone clients infeasible, if for nothing else, the transaction fee will be too high.

Services like Mybitcoin.com are about the only way micropayments are going to be possible long term.  Such services would aggregate them and complete micropayments "off the block chain", and standalone Bitcoin protocol would be left as the backbone for large transfers of money - and the digital equivalent of the "gold in the vault".

I agree with what Casascius said in the quote. First we would need a decent sized name.. trusted company to setup a system like that. There is still a bit of work to be done before bitcoin can truely become more mainstream for internet payments.

That said.. once the infrastructure is in place and protocols setup, I think it would be a lot easier for companies wishing to get into the game to do so.

[mem]

litecoin is to expensive to transfer small amounts of value.

Bitcoin: 1 coin sent =~ 0.0005 BTC tx fee.
Litecoin: 1 coin sent =~ 0.1 LTC tx fee.

its poor economics to do small  transfers of value in litecoin and given litecoin is worth less than bitcoin it is sort of self defeating.

I see none of the litecoin fanboys dared address this directly, its more true now than ever. This Silver to Gold argument is fundamentally flawed, solely due to litecoin having higher fees than bitcoin.

Lets use the fabled "buy a can of coke with LTC", Current LTC price is ~$4.10 USD and a can of coke here costs ~$1.30.
That becomes: 0.3170731707317073 LTC or 0.318 LTC. Now depending on your coins age and the current network congestion to buy that can of coke its going to cost you to 0.01 LTC 0.1 LTC in fees, usually 0.1 in my experience.

So does a 41c to 4.1c USD fee or  fee seem at all reasonable for buying a can of coke ?
A> No of course its not.

Another issue facing LTC right now is botnets, thanks to ASIC's pushing bitcoin difficulty out of their reach with CPU miners we are seeing mass migrations to LTC mining, while good for network security do you really want the bulk of future LTC funds being owned by simple thieves ?

Im still a litecoin fan despite my criticisms but I don't see it lasting much longer in its current form.