What is the first thing you look for in a new cryptocurrency?

[americanpegasus]

For me: 
 
1. I immediately check the algorithm.  Is it POS (instant turn off), or some other gobblegook?  If it sounds unique, I'll give it a chance. 
 
2. IPO or even worse: pre-mine??    Do not pass go, do not collect 200 bits.  FOAD. 
 
3. Does it have a healthy community with a professional website, whitepaper, and non-shillbot comments?
 

[patmast3r]

I check if there are annoying shills on the forum trying to shove it down my throa and compare it to the amount of sensivle people talking positively about it. If that works out i might look at the project.

[rally]

For me: 
 
1. I immediately check the algorithm.  Is it POS (instant turn off), or some other gobblegook?  If it sounds unique, I'll give it a chance. 
 
2. IPO or even worse: pre-mine??    Do not pass go, do not collect 200 bits.  FOAD. 
 
3. Does it have a healthy community with a professional website, whitepaper, and non-shillbot comments?
 

The fist thing is mostly how much coins there are and how much go to pre-mine. If the % is too high for the pre-mine, do not risk too much.

[TPTB_need_war]

So first we had Ethereum shills making dozens of threads, and now Monero/Aeon shills.  

You are lowering the reputation of Monero and Aeon, making them appear to be P&D shitcoin scams.

What a shame. And what a marketing dunce you are!

If you want to build the reputation, then you display confidence by accomplishment, not by trying to sell your features because your features can't sell themself.

You could start a thread to enumerate all of Monero's features. That would be a more factual and useful reference.

Stop the crypto wars infighting. Everybody is tired of that shit.

It is not quite clear yet if IPO or donations funding model is superior. You shrill with the assumption that you can force readers to your beliefs, but readers don't like being  hit over the head with a frying pan. I hope Monero has more features than just being a donation funded coin.

What readers want to hear about is the features that will drive adoption and/or investment, but since investment tends to be sustainable due to real adoption then I would suggest the former is the most convincing.

[talkbitcoin]

whenever i see a new altcoin released, first i always check the new coin's developers then check the website and the community of the coin.

pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.

[TPTB_need_war]

pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.

And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias?

Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that.

[patmast3r]

pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.

And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias?

Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that.

You're wasting your time here. You can't get people out of that mentality. If you could we wouldn't have so many shitcoins out there because noone would give a damn anymore.

[generalizethis]

pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.

And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias?

Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that.

Could this bias be what prevents the very scenario you are talking about? I'm fairly certain there is a psychological term for it, but don't feel like looking it up when the example is right here.

[tokeweed]

For me: 
 
1. I immediately check the algorithm.  Is it POS (instant turn off), or some other gobblegook?  If it sounds unique, I'll give it a chance. 
 
2. IPO or even worse: pre-mine??    Do not pass go, do not collect 200 bits.  FOAD. 
 
3. Does it have a healthy community with a professional website, whitepaper, and non-shillbot comments?
 

4.  Anything listed in the Announcement subforum is usually something to avoid.

[TPTB_need_war]

pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.

And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias?

Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that.

Could this bias be what prevents the very scenario you are talking about? I'm fairly certain there is a psychological term for it, but don't feel like looking it up when the example is right here.

I don't think so because speculators are followers not leaders. Adoption can lead speculation, not vice versa.

[generalizethis]

pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.

And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias?

Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that.

Could this bias be what prevents the very scenario you are talking about? I'm fairly certain there is a psychological term for it, but don't feel like looking it up when the example is right here.

I don't think so because speculators are followers not leaders. Adoption can lead speculation, not vice versa.

This assumes that everyone who is speculating is only thinking as (or for) speculators in their equation, some, if not most, might be using their own metrics for use to determine what to invest in--not a "what would someone else use" mindset, but a "what would I use" mindset. It is possible for people to be both user and speculator and simultaneously spur adoption and speculation.

[TPTB_need_war]

pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.

And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias?

Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that.

Could this bias be what prevents the very scenario you are talking about? I'm fairly certain there is a psychological term for it, but don't feel like looking it up when the example is right here.

I don't think so because speculators are followers not leaders. Adoption can lead speculation, not vice versa.

This assumes that everyone who is speculating is only thinking as (or for) speculators in their equation, some, if not most, might be using their own metrics for use to determine what to invest in--not a "what would someone else use" mindset, but a "what would I use" mindset. It is possible for people to be both user and speculator and simultaneously spur adoption and speculation.

But I don't think speculators make wise decisions as to how to invest for adoption, because they are not close enough to the technology and marketing. The creators are the leaders. That is why I have often said that I don't think open source can create/tap a new market.

I intend to prove that and say, "I told you so" to smooth, rpietila, and all the Monero crowd.

Open source is a refinement and shared investment in quality assurance mechanism, not a creative one.

[crazyjack]

For me: 
 
1. I immediately check the algorithm.  Is it POS (instant turn off), or some other gobblegook?  If it sounds unique, I'll give it a chance. 
 
2. IPO or even worse: pre-mine??    Do not pass go, do not collect 200 bits.  FOAD. 
 
3. Does it have a healthy community with a professional website, whitepaper, and non-shillbot comments?
 

Well for me only the last thing matters, good community and (realistic) future planned projects counts. I never look at the newcomers. I like the old ones. Like DOGE for example, although I don't have any coins in possession.

[BitcoinHodler]

i am only looking for price in an altcoin, i don't care how it is i only want an altcoin which can grow and double my investment.

[generalizethis]

pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.

And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias?

Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that.

Could this bias be what prevents the very scenario you are talking about? I'm fairly certain there is a psychological term for it, but don't feel like looking it up when the example is right here.

I don't think so because speculators are followers not leaders. Adoption can lead speculation, not vice versa.

This assumes that everyone who is speculating is only thinking as (or for) speculators in their equation, some, if not most, might be using their own metrics for use to determine what to invest in--not a "what would someone else use" mindset, but a "what would I use" mindset. It is possible for people to be both user and speculator and simultaneously spur adoption and speculation.

But I don't think speculators make wise decisions as to how to invest for adoption, because they are not close enough to the technology and marketing. The creators are the leaders. That is why I have often said that I don't think open source can create/tap a new market.

I intend to prove that and say, "I told you so" to smooth, rpietila, and all the Monero crowd.

Open source is a refinement and shared investment in quality assurance mechanism, not a creative one.

My guess is you are talking about a coin that is premined, but doesn't suffer from the centralization of power that we've been raised to believe in the crypto universe is the enemy of all that is decentralized and good, correct? So now, if you invent it and that's the model you chose, you will have to convince early adopters that what they've been led to believe by everyone relevant in the community is not true for your coin, which is the exception to this "rule". I hope you see the chalenge you are building for yourself-- the early adopters are the ones who determine which turn the speculators take in the maze.

This, usually along with shoddy tech, is why premined coins can't get enough traction. You can educate, but ignoring the problem will only get you a bunch of stubborn speculators who can't see the limitations of their greed.

[patmast3r]

pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.

And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias?

Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that.

Could this bias be what prevents the very scenario you are talking about? I'm fairly certain there is a psychological term for it, but don't feel like looking it up when the example is right here.

I don't think so because speculators are followers not leaders. Adoption can lead speculation, not vice versa.

This assumes that everyone who is speculating is only thinking as (or for) speculators in their equation, some, if not most, might be using their own metrics for use to determine what to invest in--not a "what would someone else use" mindset, but a "what would I use" mindset. It is possible for people to be both user and speculator and simultaneously spur adoption and speculation.

But I don't think speculators make wise decisions as to how to invest for adoption, because they are not close enough to the technology and marketing. The creators are the leaders. That is why I have often said that I don't think open source can create/tap a new market.

I intend to prove that and say, "I told you so" to smooth, rpietila, and all the Monero crowd.

Open source is a refinement and shared investment in quality assurance mechanism, not a creative one.

My guess is you are talking about a coin that is premined, but doesn't suffer from the centralization of power that we've been raised to believe in the crypto universe is the enemy of all that is decentralized and good, correct? So now, if you invent it and that's the model you chose, you will have to convince early adopters that what they've been led to believe by everyone relevant in the community is not true for your coin, which is the exception to this "rule". I hope you see the chalenge you are building for yourself-- the early adopters are the ones who determine which turn the speculators take in the maze.

This, usually along with shoddy tech, is why premined coins can't get enough traction. You can educate, but ignoring the problem will only get you a bunch of stubborn speculators who can't see the limitations of their greed.

this sounds like you're saying mining doesn't lead to centralization which is complteely untrue. If centralization is your concern then you might as well go with a premine.

[generalizethis]

pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.

And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias?

Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that.

Could this bias be what prevents the very scenario you are talking about? I'm fairly certain there is a psychological term for it, but don't feel like looking it up when the example is right here.

I don't think so because speculators are followers not leaders. Adoption can lead speculation, not vice versa.

This assumes that everyone who is speculating is only thinking as (or for) speculators in their equation, some, if not most, might be using their own metrics for use to determine what to invest in--not a "what would someone else use" mindset, but a "what would I use" mindset. It is possible for people to be both user and speculator and simultaneously spur adoption and speculation.

But I don't think speculators make wise decisions as to how to invest for adoption, because they are not close enough to the technology and marketing. The creators are the leaders. That is why I have often said that I don't think open source can create/tap a new market.

I intend to prove that and say, "I told you so" to smooth, rpietila, and all the Monero crowd.

Open source is a refinement and shared investment in quality assurance mechanism, not a creative one.

My guess is you are talking about a coin that is premined, but doesn't suffer from the centralization of power that we've been raised to believe in the crypto universe is the enemy of all that is decentralized and good, correct? So now, if you invent it and that's the model you chose, you will have to convince early adopters that what they've been led to believe by everyone relevant in the community is not true for your coin, which is the exception to this "rule". I hope you see the chalenge you are building for yourself-- the early adopters are the ones who determine which turn the speculators take in the maze.

This, usually along with shoddy tech, is why premined coins can't get enough traction. You can educate, but ignoring the problem will only get you a bunch of stubborn speculators who can't see the limitations of their greed.

this sounds like you're saying mining doesn't lead to centralization which is complteely untrue. If centralization is your concern then you might as well go with a premine.

I'm saying mining centralization is one of the problems that may be solved (I didn't actually touch on the subject), but a premine is guaranteeing centralization (at least with the current crop of coins), BUT what I'm really pointing out is that anyone who wants to launch a coin with a premine will have to overcome this obstacle/bias--even if their coin has solved the problem.

[TPTB_need_war]

Legal funding options.

Profitable proof-of-work mining will always lead to centralization.

Happy Valentines Day. My gf said put hearts so here you go: ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥

[generalizethis]

Legal funding options.

Profitable proof-of-work mining will always lead to centralization.

Happy Valentines Day. My gf said put hearts so here you go: ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥

I could counter that a continual release of bots could create a self-replicating virus used to secure a coin's decentralization--think of it as Delueze's idea of capitalism as parasite taken to its logical conclusion.

Remember, when little shit countries defeat juggernaut empires, it's because they play by their rules

  ❤

[TPTB_need_war]

Legal funding options.

Profitable proof-of-work mining will always lead to centralization.

Happy Valentines Day. My gf said put hearts so here you go: ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥ ❤ ❥

I could counter that a continual release of bots could create a self-replicating virus used to secure a coin's decentralization--think of it as Delueze's idea of capitalism as parasite taken to its logical conclusion.

Remember, when little shit countries defeat juggernaut empires, it's because they play by their rules

  ❤

If there is profit in PoW mining, then the one who is best at bots will make the most profit. It is still centralization.

Sorry you can't win this argument. I thought it about it deeply. It is an inviolable and unarguable point.