MC2: A cryptocurrency based on a hybrid PoW/PoS system

[alex_fun]

when its approx launch date? Ok yet to be announced.

Heavily scrypt based (scrypt with four different secure hash algorithms and two different stream cipher algorithms for fault tolerance and ASIC resistance in arranged in the blockchain in a randomized order)

Nice

[wizzardTim]

A preliminary, rough, idea sketch, a raster based image which would need to be reproduced as a vector based image for reduction in size for the many different uses a logo for a Crypto Currency alt coin demands ... a rough idea, just a musing if you will, for NETCOIN/NTC.

==================================================================================

[ ... Stacked --->


==================================================================================

See this logo processed by makeappicon as it would appear on a smartphone here: http://makeappicon.com/download/b6f13d46c3ad4a3fa7cb1ef8377d3cc8

Stacked: http://makeappicon.com/download/106d88a4b5404d4ca960ff25f009df5b#

The logo, it's technical demands are, that it be instantly recognized when it is teeny, tiny displayed as the logo in a browser tab, in the miner application, in the taskbar or the system tray, etc ... The coin edge could probably be a little bigger, yes, the bevel should be a bit more pronounced and you tend to lose all of that when it is reduced for use as an icon, (desktop, taskbar, browser tab, etc ...), so the primary component that makes for instant recognition is the math symbol, the greek letter, the Sigma which is used in Tacotime's most recent whitepaper. And then we have a bit of bitcoin color, a "clip" of the coin if you will, and then a greater proportion of silver to gold ratio, pie chart like ... and then the copper edge. So we rally round the family, (of Crypto), pocket fulla' ... Netcoins.

Got a little bit of that Tron thing goin' on, and some of that "ecoin" ...

Nice sketch, but I'd like to see something more appealing to the eye, something better looking. I hold nothing against the Σ symbol, but shouldn't it be N (Netcoin) or an earth surrounded by a net or something similar?

JMTL - Just my two litecoins 

[alex_fun]

Logo could better match attractiveness of the idea

[3Dfilament]

Logo could better match attractiveness of the idea

I appreciate your looking at it, but your response is so general, I just can't do anything with that. How make better, specifically?

[Luckybit]

Crypto currency miners/users aren't coin collectors, they're people who want money and/or believe in the rightness/goodness/whateverness of the crypto currency concept. The value of something, while certainly influenced by its scarcity, is not purely a function of said scarcity. Its functionality is important too, what can be done with it, how useful it is for those functions, are there better things to use for it, etc. For instance, there's a GREAT HUGE amount of ounces of gold in the world, MUCH MUCH more than 21 million, but an ounce of gold is still worth more than a bitcoin, even if bitcoins go to ten times their current value. And the reason for this is that gold is very useful as a store of value. It's easily divisible(as are almost all metals), it's reasonably rare, it's difficult(although not, unfortunately, impossible) to counterfeit, and it DOES have certain real world applications, such as jewelry and electronics.

What you forget is that Netcoin will be years after Bitcoin. By the time Netcoin gets it's chance Bitcoin will already be a success already or not and the infrastructure will already exist. The utility of cryptocurrencies is already becoming obvious to people and will be even more obvious in the future.

What I'm saying is we don't need another Bitcoin. We need something which offers improvements. Being more scarce than Bitcoin by an order of magnitude is in my opinion an improvement and if Netcoin does not do this then it wont compete with Mincoin, Bitbar, or whatever more scarce coin is out there. It's about evolution and to evolve the coin must improve in all areas including scarcity.

A crypto currency doesn't have a lot of things that gold has, but it DOES have some of the things that are most important for a currency. Namely, scarcity and divisibility. However, being ridiculously scarce isn't always a good thing. Sure, it may hold some value, even great value, as a store of wealth. But one thing that a currency NEEDS in order to be successful is widespread acceptance and use. Gold has been used as money by almost every known civilization that has ever existed and had the capability to mine and refine it. But you know, platinum is worth a lot too, and it's very rare. How come no one has ever used THAT as a currency? Because it's TOO rare. All the platinum that has ever been mined in the history of the world could fit in a single cube measuring 25' to a side. That's not ENOUGH for it to be used as a currency in any but the smallest of nations.

Bits aren't tangible they are information. So comparing it to gold and platinum is irrelevant. We can make cryptocurrencies as scarce as we want. We could make it so scarce that there are only 1000 that ever exist. I'm not saying I would want that but there is nothing in mathematics which says it couldn't happen and so some coins are going to keep pushing those boundaries and guess what? People are going to eventually choose those coins because their money will be worth much more in those coins. My point is that if you introduce a new coin it should be a little bit more scarce than whatever else is out there as a way to market your new coin and to make people trade their old coins for your new coin. Why would I trade my Bitcoin or Mincoin for Netcoins if I know my Bitcoin is already worth more, already used more, I mean come on what incentive do I have to trade?

Crypto currencies are meant to be worldwide currencies. Sure, you can divide them up into smaller and smaller pieces, but even then, it's not very much when you consider the population of the WORLD.
~7,000,000,000 with 21,000,000 bitcoins. Obviously, not everyone will have a whole bitcoin, or even a tenth of a bitcoin. And that's assuming that no bitcoin has ever been lost, and never will be.

Not everyone has a billion dollars either. But some people are billionaires. If we make everyone a billionaire then it's not capitalism anymore. Some people have to get very rich and some not, that is just how markets work. To try to put everyone on the same level provides no incentive for people to play the game.

Personally, I think that the 21 million mark is about as low as you can go and expect to get actual acceptance worldwide as an everyday currency, which should be your goal in a project like this. Honestly, I think Litecoin is much closer to a good mark with their 84 mil.

I disagree. I think 10 million is the lowest right now(21 million was good for 2009 because fewer knew about Bitcoin), and that is not the lowest it could go. I think the lowest it could go and make sense would around the amount of current users of Bitcoin. Let's estimate that 2 million people know about Bitcoin and are using it right now. The lowest we could reasonably go would then be 2 million. I'm saying the lowest we could go should be based on the size of the community where each member of the community could get at least 1 coin. You're thinking about people who don't know about Bitcoin yet and saying in 4 - 5 years when those people stop thinking about it as a ponzi scheme or something to buy drugs with, that they will want coins. Yes they'll want coins then but there is no reason why we should generate coins merely to make the non-believers and late adopters rich. I'm saying the minimum to generate is enough to support the current community. 21 million is way bigger than the current Bitcoin community. 10 million which Mincoin supports is way bigger than the current cryptocurrency community. If it were less than 2 million coins then it's a nonsense because then it's not enough coins for everyone in the community to at least have a coin.

As the community expands, no I don't think that number should grow. I think the number should shrink. Meaning we have 2 million members give or take right now? In a year it could be 10 million, right? Mincoin would still outpace that. In 3 years it could be 50-100 million people and by then because the demand would so outnumber the supply this is when the value would have to shoot way way up, but this is a good thing because it funds the development of alt coins and funds the community. So I agree unlimited scarcity wont work in practice for a currency, neither would unlimited inflation. And I don't think 21 million makes sense because when Bitcoin was made no one knew it would be a success or not and the 21 million was considered good for that time, but if the boundaries are not pushed then evolution doesn't take place. Push the boundaries when you can safely do so and I think 10 million is safe.

tldr; some mild scarcity can be good for a currency, lots of scarcity usually isn't good for a currency that's more than a place to store value until you convert it to something else.

Lots of scarcity is fine when you can just break the currency up infinitely. If Netcoin is worth 2 Bitcoins each then everyone with Bitcoin will trade for Netcoins. This is necessary for the same reason that Bitcoin had to be 21 million so everyone with dollars would trade for Bitcoin. If Bitcoin were 1:1 with dollars why would anyone trade their dollars in? Netcoin has to be more scarce than Bitcoin for the exchange value. If it's worth exactly the same as Bitcoin why not just use Bitcoin? Even if Netcoin is better technology, if it costs a Bitcoin people will go with Bitcoin.

[Impaler]

tacotime:  Have you considered simply alternating between SHA and Scrypt each block?  It would seem to me that you get 90% of the benefits of diversified hardware needed for an attack with much greater predictability and easier to manage difficulty (just run two difficulties each of which is based on half the blocks).  I have yet too see how you can manage difficulty with randomization of hashes and a growing gulf between ASIC and GPU network sizes.

[erk]

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

[Luckybit]

If you're working with Python then list me as someone who may occasionally contribute code. What languages are you working with?

Probably C++, but I'll put you down as a potential dev.

I have two questions, how many coins will there be? If it's 11 million total for instance then I think this would be ideal. If it's more than it wont ever be as valuable as Bitcoin and so how will you get early adopters to support this?

I asked the same question to SunnyKing about PPcoin. But yes I'm definitely interested in contributing to the project whether with code or in other ways depending on what you decide to do. Right now I'm familiarizing myself with the Bitcoin code but it's fairly straightforward from what I've seen of the Python implementations.

∞ expanding at an extremely low rate 30 years after introduction.  You don't want to have no new introduction of coins later on, as you need some method to redistribute wealth even if only slightly.  Fees are not really the answer (in my opinion) because of how unpredictable they will likely be.

You're absolutely right. This should be on Kickstarter. Why not?

As far as Kickstarter,
I will consider crowd-sourcing this.  I will not use a premine to fund it, though.  The method I would consider to be the most desirable would be to rout the fee to a series of addresses (a new one every 3 or 6 coin months or so) and then pay the kickstarter contributors dividends extending directly from the network fees.  This could continue for a few years, then the fees would be given to miners.

If it's crowd sourced I will support it with funding if I can. This decision you have made to consider this will definitely get you community support if implemented, you wont have to worry about paying for development.

At the same time I don't think it would hurt the coin too much either.

[digicoin]

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

Agreed. Scarcity can make NetCoin price too high in term of USD, which is too risky to everyone for trading and keeping it. It is not good for adoption.

As a novice guy, I like to keep some NetCoins instead of a fraction of it: 0.0001 NetCoin. Also, I feel safe if 1 USD can be exchanged for 2 NetCoins instead of 0.00012 NetCoin. Dealing with floating point is not comfortable at all.

However, I also agree that Scarcity can make NetCoin attractive to early adopters because it makes miners think that they are holding something more valuable. But when it comes to mass market, it is not a nice idea any more.

[FreeBit]

...

Lots of scarcity is fine when you can just break the currency up infinitely. If Netcoin is worth 2 Bitcoins each then everyone with Bitcoin will trade for Netcoins. This is necessary for the same reason that Bitcoin had to be 21 million so everyone with dollars would trade for Bitcoin. If Bitcoin were 1:1 with dollars why would anyone trade their dollars in? Netcoin has to be more scarce than Bitcoin for the exchange value. If it's worth exactly the same as Bitcoin why not just use Bitcoin? Even if Netcoin is better technology, if it costs a Bitcoin people will go with Bitcoin.

For me the main and most important thing about decentralized crypto currencies - besides they are the next step in evolution and the still applying early adopter bonus in the long run - is, that they could take central banks, traditional banks and govermental ambitions out of the game. Finishing up with being lied straight into the face all the time by Bernanke, Draghi and so on.


And in this context is - IMO - enough space for several crypto currencies with different properties for different uses. Maybe Bitcoin as a wealth storage and transportation medium, PPC for serious day-by-day and investment use and FreiCoin for stubborn idealists, who are willing to pay for that.

[anti-scam]

Does anyone in this thread suggesting using mining for independently useful computations like Folding@Home have an actual plan on how to implement that? This was discussed pretty early in the history of Bitcoin and thoroughly debunked as infeasible. Some people are going a bit crazy with their wishlists in this thread.

[bitdwarf]

tacotime:  Have you considered simply alternating between SHA and Scrypt each block?

That makes SHA rigs only half effective, which is still a lot. And some people will have by then rigs both for scrypt coins and SHA coins, so they'll just switch which one they use for mining NetCoins.

[Luckybit]

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

That has nothing to do with scarcity. That can be solved by simple saying 0.001 is 1 Net dollar. Then as the Net dollar becomes 0.0001 then we call that 1 Net dollar and so on.

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

Agreed. Scarcity can make NetCoin price too high in term of USD, which is too risky to everyone for trading and keeping it. It is not good for adoption.

As a novice guy, I like to keep some NetCoins instead of a fraction of it: 0.0001 NetCoin. Also, I feel safe if 1 USD can be exchanged for 2 NetCoins instead of 0.00012 NetCoin. Dealing with floating point is not comfortable at all.

However, I also agree that Scarcity can make NetCoin attractive to early adopters because it makes miners think that they are holding something more valuable. But when it comes to mass market, it is not a nice idea any more.

It wont make the price too high. It's really simple. 1 Bitcoin dollar is 0.001. It might change a little bit but for now that's an approximation.  We can easily put the dollar amount next to BTC so when you have 0.2443 BTC it's $3. We could do the same for Netcoin.

The reason this isn't a problem isn't because of scarcity, it's because the exchange developers and others involved in the infrastructure are either lazy, or are nerds who expect everyone to like fractions. This will change as it goes mainstream for many of the reasons you mention and the change doesn't have to be built into the coin design it just requires a small piece of code that I could write or anyone could which fetches the latest exchange rate and then translates it into dollars, cents, etc.

...

Lots of scarcity is fine when you can just break the currency up infinitely. If Netcoin is worth 2 Bitcoins each then everyone with Bitcoin will trade for Netcoins. This is necessary for the same reason that Bitcoin had to be 21 million so everyone with dollars would trade for Bitcoin. If Bitcoin were 1:1 with dollars why would anyone trade their dollars in? Netcoin has to be more scarce than Bitcoin for the exchange value. If it's worth exactly the same as Bitcoin why not just use Bitcoin? Even if Netcoin is better technology, if it costs a Bitcoin people will go with Bitcoin.

For me the main and most important thing about decentralized crypto currencies - besides they are the next step in evolution and the still applying early adopter bonus in the long run - is, that they could take central banks, traditional banks and govermental ambitions out of the game. Finishing up with being lied straight into the face all the time by Bernanke, Draghi and so on.


And in this context is - IMO - enough space for several crypto currencies with different properties for different uses. Maybe Bitcoin as a wealth storage and transportation medium, PPC for serious day-by-day and investment use and FreiCoin for stubborn idealists, who are willing to pay for that.

One thing to consider is lifespan. A coin is part of an evolutionary process or story. I don't expect any of these coins to be around 100 years from now, not even Bitcoin. If these coins are still used 100 years from now then something went seriously wrong in our society if we didn't advance since then.

How long did Netscape 1.0 last? Until Netscape 2.0. Netscape 2.0 lasted until Internet Explorer. Mozilla came along and gave Internet Explorer competition. The shelflife of new technologies should be expected to shrink as we approach what Kurzweil calls the technological singularity. It is for this reason that I say the time scale that Bitcoin was working with isn't going to work for the next generation of coins and it's for precisely the same reason that the upgrade cycle on browsers had to change and now we are on Chrome 20 and Firefox 10 or 11. The upgrade cycle either increases with the decreasing lifecycle or most of these coins will be dead within 5-6 years. Technology speeds up the rate of change and the rate of evolution, and I agree with you completely that we need to treat it like a coin tournament and try out as many different coins and types of money philosophy as we can until we discover what works best for what. It's about filling different niches, as no coin is perfect for everything. It's also about improving on whatever is out there because that is evolution.

[JessicaMILFson]

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

That has nothing to do with scarcity. That can be solved by simple saying 0.001 is 1 Net dollar. Then as the Net dollar becomes 0.0001 then we call that 1 Net dollar and so on.

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

Agreed. Scarcity can make NetCoin price too high in term of USD, which is too risky to everyone for trading and keeping it. It is not good for adoption
As a novice guy, I like to keep some NetCoins instead of a fraction of it: 0.0001 NetCoin. Also, I feel safe if 1 USD can be exchanged for 2 NetCoins instead of 0.00012 NetCoin. Dealing with floating point is not comfortable at all.

However, I also agree that Scarcity can make NetCoin attractive to early adopters because it makes miners think that they are holding something more valuable. But when it comes to mass market, it is not a nice idea any more.

It wont make the price too high. It's really simple. 1 Bitcoin dollar is 0.001. It might change a little bit but for now that's an approximation.  We can easily put the dollar amount next to BTC so when you have 0.2443 BTC it's $3. We could do the same for Netcoin.

The reason this isn't a problem isn't because of scarcity, it's because the exchange developers and others involved in the infrastructure are either lazy, or are nerds who expect everyone to like fractions. This will change as it goes mainstream for many of the reasons you mention and the change doesn't have to be built into the coin design it just requires a small piece of code that I could write or anyone could which fetches the latest exchange rate and then translates it into dollars, cents, etc.

TacoTimer please incorporate Luckybits suggestion. Improvements to BTC and half the currency will really propel netcoin forward

[thesnoo23]

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

That has nothing to do with scarcity. That can be solved by simple saying 0.001 is 1 Net dollar. Then as the Net dollar becomes 0.0001 then we call that 1 Net dollar and so on.

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

Agreed. Scarcity can make NetCoin price too high in term of USD, which is too risky to everyone for trading and keeping it. It is not good for adoption.

As a novice guy, I like to keep some NetCoins instead of a fraction of it: 0.0001 NetCoin. Also, I feel safe if 1 USD can be exchanged for 2 NetCoins instead of 0.00012 NetCoin. Dealing with floating point is not comfortable at all.

However, I also agree that Scarcity can make NetCoin attractive to early adopters because it makes miners think that they are holding something more valuable. But when it comes to mass market, it is not a nice idea any more.

It wont make the price too high. It's really simple. 1 Bitcoin dollar is 0.001. It might change a little bit but for now that's an approximation.  We can easily put the dollar amount next to BTC so when you have 0.2443 BTC it's $3. We could do the same for Netcoin.

The reason this isn't a problem isn't because of scarcity, it's because the exchange developers and others involved in the infrastructure are either lazy, or are nerds who expect everyone to like fractions. This will change as it goes mainstream for many of the reasons you mention and the change doesn't have to be built into the coin design it just requires a small piece of code that I could write or anyone could which fetches the latest exchange rate and then translates it into dollars, cents, etc.

...

Lots of scarcity is fine when you can just break the currency up infinitely. If Netcoin is worth 2 Bitcoins each then everyone with Bitcoin will trade for Netcoins. This is necessary for the same reason that Bitcoin had to be 21 million so everyone with dollars would trade for Bitcoin. If Bitcoin were 1:1 with dollars why would anyone trade their dollars in? Netcoin has to be more scarce than Bitcoin for the exchange value. If it's worth exactly the same as Bitcoin why not just use Bitcoin? Even if Netcoin is better technology, if it costs a Bitcoin people will go with Bitcoin.

For me the main and most important thing about decentralized crypto currencies - besides they are the next step in evolution and the still applying early adopter bonus in the long run - is, that they could take central banks, traditional banks and govermental ambitions out of the game. Finishing up with being lied straight into the face all the time by Bernanke, Draghi and so on.


And in this context is - IMO - enough space for several crypto currencies with different properties for different uses. Maybe Bitcoin as a wealth storage and transportation medium, PPC for serious day-by-day and investment use and FreiCoin for stubborn idealists, who are willing to pay for that.

One thing to consider is lifespan. A coin is part of an evolutionary process or story. I don't expect any of these coins to be around 100 years from now, not even Bitcoin. If these coins are still used 100 years from now then something went seriously wrong in our society if we didn't advance since then.

How long did Netscape 1.0 last? Until Netscape 2.0. Netscape 2.0 lasted until Internet Explorer. Mozilla came along and gave Internet Explorer competition. The shelflife of new technologies should be expected to shrink as we approach what Kurzweil calls the technological singularity. It is for this reason that I say the time scale that Bitcoin was working with isn't going to work for the next generation of coins and it's for precisely the same reason that the upgrade cycle on browsers had to change and now we are on Chrome 20 and Firefox 10 or 11. The upgrade cycle either increases with the decreasing lifecycle or most of these coins will be dead within 5-6 years. Technology speeds up the rate of change and the rate of evolution, and I agree with you completely that we need to treat it like a coin tournament and try out as many different coins and types of money philosophy as we can until we discover what works best for what. It's about filling different niches, as no coin is perfect for everything. It's also about improving on whatever is out there because that is evolution.

So many things. Um. Ok, you've mentioned that the number of coins should be planned to match the size of the current community that uses them. That's horrible. You want to try for success. Sure, be READY for something to fail, but REACH for success, aka widespread acceptance. It's not about whether 'late' adopters get rich from mining or not. Cryptocurrencies aren't there to give the early adopters the chance to lord it over those who missed the train, they're there to provide a new way to exchange value that isn't dependant on central planners and governments. Sure, early adopters DO have a chance to get rich, if the currency succeeds, but they also have the chance that they'll have wasted their time and computing power for nothing if it fizzles and dies. The point isn't who gets rich. The point is how many people can and do participate.

I DO partially agree with you on your netscape analogy. I am very pleased with the number of 'alt' coins popping up. However, keep in mind that the cryptocurrency universe, while it is certainly very INVOLVED with technology, isn't necessarily BASED on technology. It's based on MATH. They're conceptual in nature. It's about the psychology of both individuals and groups as much as it's about the hashrate you can produce at any given time. It's the free market, it's evolution. The strong coins will survive, and those coins that are unsuitable will fall to the side and be passed by. However, again, you shouldn't EXPECT to fail, even gradually at some point in the far future. Make PLANS in case of failure, have them ready, but TRY to succeed. Put your efforts into a push for success. Laying out a path of failure and following it has a fairly predictable outcome.

[Mangalica]

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

As a novice guy, I like to keep some NetCoins instead of a fraction of it: 0.0001 NetCoin. Also, I feel safe if 1 USD can be exchanged for 2 NetCoins instead of 0.00012 NetCoin. Dealing with floating point is not comfortable at all.

However, I also agree that Scarcity can make NetCoin attractive to early adopters because it makes miners think that they are holding something more valuable. But when it comes to mass market, it is not a nice idea any more.

I wholeheartedly agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2isSJKntbg

Besides, looking at the prospects in tech and interest behind it, I have no doubt that this coin will have a fantastic start, and people do jump into anything new anyway, therefore short-term spread and hashing power is not an issue. There is no evidence of people being put off by alt-coins that are abundant either.
There is absolutely no need to make it scarce in order to play mind-games on treasure hunters.

In the stock market you can have splits and reverse splits if your share price gets out of your desired, or limited, range. As far as i know, we cannot revalue a decentralized currency if the valuation gets inconvenient, we cannot suddenly double the coins in everyone's pockets and have the merchants immediately adjust prices as well.
We can play games of calling 0.001 an "x" and then later 0.00001 an "x" but this would create problems due to imperfect communication. Obsolete prices will come into contact with people already thinking in new values.
As far as simply going down the metric prefix ladder for the coin and switching the prefix in the wallets and advertisements for the sake of convenience and legibility, while probably unavoidable in the long term, is still less than desirable and needs to be delayed as much as possible.
We really should be planning long term with the cap in mind, and have to build on the assumption of success.

[thesnoo23]

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

As a novice guy, I like to keep some NetCoins instead of a fraction of it: 0.0001 NetCoin. Also, I feel safe if 1 USD can be exchanged for 2 NetCoins instead of 0.00012 NetCoin. Dealing with floating point is not comfortable at all.

However, I also agree that Scarcity can make NetCoin attractive to early adopters because it makes miners think that they are holding something more valuable. But when it comes to mass market, it is not a nice idea any more.

I wholeheartedly agree.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2isSJKntbg

Besides, looking at the prospects in tech and interest behind it, I have no doubt that this coin will have a fantastic start, and people do jump into anything new anyway, therefore short-term spread and hashing power is not an issue. There is no evidence of people being put off by alt-coins that are abundant either.
There is absolutely no need to make it scarce in order to play mind-games on treasure hunters.

In the stock market you can have splits and reverse splits if your share price gets out of your desired, or limited, range. As far as i know, we cannot revalue a decentralized currency if the valuation gets inconvenient, we cannot suddenly double the coins in everyone's pockets and have the merchants immediately adjust prices as well.
We can play games of calling 0.001 an "x" and then later 0.00001 an "x" but this would create problems due to imperfect communication. Obsolete prices will come into contact with people already thinking in new values.
As far as simply going down the metric prefix ladder for the coin and switching the prefix in the wallets and advertisements for the sake of convenience and legibility, while probably unavoidable in the long term, is still less than desirable and needs to be delayed as much as possible.
We really should be planning long term with the cap in mind, and have to build on the assumption of success.

Yes. This. This to infinity

[digitalindustry]

I'll be in for the pump and dump -

then if its a success I'll help with the marketing psychological aspects as to how it can leave this forum and the few exchanges and perhaps go somewhere else, that's true of all these.

Math doesn't get you a success , this is not just about Math.

[vonross2012]

Is there a launch date?  Is it being mined now?
I got ripped off on a feathercoin pool.
I would like to be ready this time.

Thanks,

[thesnoo23]

I'll be in for the pump and dump -

then if its a success I'll help with the marketing psychological aspects as to how it can leave this forum and the few exchanges and perhaps go somewhere else, that's true of all these.

Math doesn't get you a success , this is not just about Math.

Correct. This is not just about math. It's about math, the psychology of both individuals and groups, economic theory and the demonstrated tendency of those in positions of power to try and consolidate more power. That's what cryptocurrencies are about. They're built on math and economic theory, in order to prevent people from easily gaining and consolidating power within the currency, and the only common issue they have to deal with once the network is in place and reasonably large is the psychology of groups and individuals which may push them into avoiding or adopting the currency.

Also, I touched on this earlier, success of any currency, cryptocurrencies included, isn't about who does or doesn't get rich, it's about adoption of the currency by a large segment of the population, which is increased by both the availability of the currency and how long it's likely to be viable.