Bitcoin Forum
March 28, 2024, 09:47:43 PM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 26.0 [Torrent]
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Technology vs. Marketing. Which is more important?  (Read 6382 times)
Halmater
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 630


View Profile
February 06, 2016, 11:54:50 AM
 #121

Marketing is most important. There is no difference in terms of technology between bitcoin and litecoin, but due to the bigger community, bitcoin is worth more than litecoin.
Activity + Trust + Earned Merit == The Most Recognized Users on Bitcointalk
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction.
HeroCat
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 658
Merit: 500


View Profile
February 06, 2016, 01:47:11 PM
 #122

Marketing  is much more important. From marketing you can know the future profit of the project.  Wink
BruceLee007
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 406
Merit: 250


View Profile
February 06, 2016, 03:13:57 PM
 #123

Marketing is very important. I will stay with me opinion,without technology will not be marketing or inventions who can change the future and get job places, change your lifes?
super3
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1094
Merit: 1006


View Profile WWW
February 08, 2016, 05:11:38 PM
 #124

Note that any solutions to the problem of ISPs blocking P2P apps that involve a TURN (when STUN tunneling fails or is blocked), VPN, or other server in the middle, defeat the entire point of extracting the value of the bandwidth allocation of users provided by their ISPs, because then one is paying for the bandwidth of the server to relay the shards.

If Storj and MaidSafe max out the consumption of each user's upload bandwidth (thus leeching off users with higher allocations charging the costs to those users' ISPs), they will also be blocked by ISPs. Additionally STUN tunnelling often fails and thus a TURN relay server has to be employed (or using the other peers as relays thus leeching the upload bandwidth of those ISPs who don't block tunneling).

In short, P2P for bandwidth consumption between ISP hosted user accounts is not going to be reliable. Many users will have frustrations when trying to be a storage provider. It will not be the case that every user in the system can also be a storage provider. And it will probably end up being the case that the most efficient storage providers will be hosted on dedicated servers.

In other words, it is a fantasy to think we can get decentralized file storage without paying for it.

We can try to design decentralized, permissionless file systems that correctly incentivize the storage and bandwidth providers, and the users of the system need to pay for it somehow. Whether or not these can remain permissionless given the need to host these on servers is open to further contemplation and study. Most all hosting providers include in their Terms of Sevice a restriction on hosting illegal copyrighted content, so unless one can provide a mechanism for which illegal content is removed from the system, it seems to me that hosts will be forced to ban the protocol (system).

So where I am headed with this line of thinking is that we ought to just give up on illegal content and illegal uses of anonymity. It isn't going to work. It is a fantasy.

Continuing my analysis, the other advantage of decentralized storage is durability and availability. This is a facet of permissionless in the sense that no one entity has a monopoly on the storage. It is not permissionless in the sense of allowing illegal activity as explained upthread (because the storage will hosted on servers, even those are owned/managed by different entities, they all are regulated by the law reflected in the hosts' Terms of Service).

So I am envisioning the possibility to design a system for decentralized file storage where the users pay the storage providers, but the storage providers are decentralized entities (even though they are all high performance hosted providers and not ISP user clients).

In this case, I think microtransactions is the only way it can be done decentralized. If we instead attempt to aggregate a monthly use plan (or similarly analogous aggregations), then some centralized party will be in charge of paying the decentralized entities, so then it is not decentralized.

So therefor I have just identified a potential market for microtransactions that can't be offered by centrally owned cloud services.

Alternatively, Storj and Maidsafe are paying storage providers coins for proving they are storing data, then data is exchanged in a tit-for-tat[1]. If used with ISP user clients as storage providers, this will have performance weaknesses as well as being economically a theft paradigm in support of Net Neutrality oligarchy and taxation (for the reasons I explained upthread). But a user can't do a tit-for-tax exchange if user is not also a storage provider, thus afaics Storj and Maidsafe are forcing every user to be a storage provider. Otherwise they need to use some form of upload bandwidth theft model such akin to Bittorrent's optimistic unchoking. The only way to fix Storj and Maidsafe is for them to adopt a microtransaction payment model so users can pay for the upload and storage costs to decentralized providers.

So therefor I have explained why Storj and Maidsafe are fundamentally flawed. And I have explained why decentralized file storage can ONLY be done with microtransactions.

Next we need to reason about the viability of the markets for decentralized file storage and also the technical viability/tradeoffs. We need to not only think about ability to prove the data has been retained by some provider, but also about how to enforce against the storage of illegal content (otherwise I have argued upthread that the entire plan is flawed since hosts' Terms of Service will likely block protocols/systems which can allow copyrighted material to be stored without recourse by injured parties).

[1] Note Storj also alludes to microtransactions, so perhaps the tit-for-tat exchange only applies to Maidsafe. I will study this more.
Yes you need to add microtransactions for things to scale properly, but it doesn't need to be added day one. User can buy storage tit-for-tat, the don't have to trade if they don't want to.

Bitcoin Dev / Storj - Decentralized Cloud Storage. Winner of Texas Bitcoin Conference Hackathon 2014. / Peercoin Web Lead / Primecoin Web Lead / Armory Guide Author / "Am I the only one that trusts Dogecoin more than the Federal Reserve?"
MickGhee
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1386
Merit: 1000

Fucker of "the system"


View Profile
February 12, 2016, 06:42:12 PM
 #125

Technology vs. Marketing. Which is more important?

This is one of the questions you really cant answer its not really something you can measure.  If this helps I am moving from marketing to technology professionally. As a marketer i can tell you this: U gotta be able to sell the sizze. No sizzle=No sale. if you dont have the right marketing no one will hear or understand your great idea. SO these things are intertwined like lovers creating a baby which is the project. u absolutely need both.

Last night, while you were sleeping. I fucked the system!
Fuserleer
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1050
Merit: 1016



View Profile WWW
February 12, 2016, 07:22:06 PM
 #126

So these things are intertwined like lovers creating a baby which is the project.

Stop, go to the cookie jar, take 1 bonus Friday cookie for reward of your poetic statement Smiley

Radix - DLT x.0

Web - http://radix.global  Forums - http://forum.radix.global Twitter - @radixdlt
gjhiggins
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2254
Merit: 1278



View Profile WWW
February 12, 2016, 09:20:16 PM
Last edit: February 12, 2016, 09:31:29 PM by gjhiggins
 #127

I don't expect a 50+ year old man to understand why Dogecoin was successful, and I'll simply leave it at that.

Oh, I don’t know about that. Back in 69/70, I was in the NE of the UK, pursuing a Business Studies HND at Sunderland Poly. The course had a marketing emphasis and as result I had the inestimable honour of being not-taught marketing by Jim Quigley -- also a successful businessman, the owner of a chain of supermarkets (verging on “magnate” status, that).

First day of term, we're all sat in the big lecture theatre, keyed up for our first Marketing lecture, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed (or at least desperately trying to appear so).

Down at the front, standing beside the lectern was this slightly-built, silver-haired, *very* well-dressed, little elderly guy. In a gentle Irish lilt he introduces himself (as Jim) and kicks off the lecture with a softly-spoken question: “What is marketing?”

Everyone assumed it was a rhetorical question. During the lengthening silence that followed, it started to dawn on us that it was an actual question. A composed Jim waited calmly. Some brief confusion reigned, after some frantic sideways glances a definition was hesitantly ventured: right product, right place, right price? the venturer expecting to be corrected.

“Mmm” said Jim, tilting his head slightly to one side and looking up at us. “Does everyone think that covers it?”

Someone bravely narrowed / broadened the definition. Someone else chipped in, expanding it to include research and over the course of the time allotted for the lecture, with an occasional light supplementary question from Jim, we thrashed out our own definition of marketing.

And that's how the pattern went for the rest of the course; Jim asked a question and the rest of the lecture was spent by us in vigorous debate over the answer, where there could be an answer and whether it could be fitted nasally.

<fade out>

<fade in>

Some time later, we labbies at HP were encouraged to take the in-house marketing course. I declined but many of my colleagues sensibly took up the offer. I was again impressed with Jim's perspicacity and also mildly amused when they each came back bearing a copy of Philip Kotler’s Marketing Management textbook, 7th edition --- 25 years earlier, Jim had selected Kotler (the 1st edition) as the set book for the marketing course at Sunderland.

I'm quite confident that were he around today, Jim would understand why Dogecoin has been successful. After all, I'm his pedagogical legacy and I understand why.

Cheers

Graham
speaktome
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 462
Merit: 250



View Profile
February 12, 2016, 09:43:28 PM
 #128

Technology vs. Marketing     

Some copy-coins around here dont have any of both. The better could have both.

             ▄██████████▄
           ▄██████████████▄
          █████▀      ▀█████
         ████▀          ▀████
         ▀▀▀   ▄██████▄   ███▌
     ▄▄████   ▐████████▌  ████  ▄▄
   ▄████████   ▀██████▀   ███▌ ████▄
  █████▀▀▀▀▀      ▐█▌     ▀▀▀  ▀█████
 ████▀          ▄█████▄          ▀████
████   ▄█████▄▄█▀     ▀█▄▄█████▄   ███▌
███▌  ▐███████▌   ███   ▐███████▌  ▐██▌
████   ▀█████▀    ▀███   ▀█████▀   ███▌
 ████▄         ▄█▄ ▀███▄         ▄████
  ▀████▄▄▄▄▄▄▄███▀   ▀███▄▄▄▄▄▄▄████▀
    ▀▀████████▀▀       ▀▀████████▀▀
BitCloud  BTDX
A new type of decentralized currency
.
Most  Profitable  Masternode Coin
▬▬▬    • Wallet  • Details  • Exchanges  •Masternode    ▬▬▬
.
.
ANN  Blockexplorer  MN Calculator  ▬▬▬▬▬▬
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬    Twitter  Github  Slack

Sirius receive address:SQusssg3DRrKrEHW26c2skEDYCG7vrj11z
Halmater
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 630


View Profile
February 19, 2016, 08:29:43 AM
 #129

Technology vs. Marketing     

Some copy-coins around here dont have any of both. The better could have both.

For the copy coins, it is the marketing which is more important. For the original coin, both are important.
bearex
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 560
Merit: 501



View Profile
February 19, 2016, 08:52:57 AM
 #130

Both, but in this Altcoin status, i think marketing is even more important than good technology.
Halmater
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 896
Merit: 630


View Profile
April 08, 2016, 04:22:16 PM
 #131

Both, but in this Altcoin status, i think marketing is even more important than good technology.

But only the good coins with good develoments will survive in longer term. The competition is high.
The Sceptical Chymist
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 3290
Merit: 6758


Proudly Cycling Merits for Foxpup


View Profile
April 08, 2016, 06:25:38 PM
 #132

Short term:  marketing.   Long term:  fundamentals.  For me it's about that simple, kind of like penny stocks and probably just about everything else.

..JAMBLER.io..Create Your Bitcoin Mixing
Business Now for   F R E E 
▄█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
████▀████████████████████
███▀█████▄█▀███▀▀▀██████
██▀█████▄█▄██████████████
██▄▄████▀▄▄▄▀▀▀▀▀▄▄██████
█████▄▄▄██████████▀▄████
█████▀▄█▄██████▀█▄█████
███████▀▄█▀█▄██▀█▄███████
█████████▄█▀▄█▀▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
      OUR      
PARTNERS

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
▄█████████████████████████████
████████▀▀█████▀▀████████
█████▀█████████████▀█████
████████████████████████
███████████████▄█████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
███████████████▀█████████
████████████████████████
█████▄█████████████▄█████
████████▄▄█████▄▄████████
▀█████████████████████████████
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
.
   INVEST   
BITCOIN

.
█████████████████████████████████████████████████
████▄
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
██
████▀
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7]  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!