When will the madness end?

[worldinacoin]

The easiest way, dun chase any of the alt coins if you are too busy.  For me I go for one or two once in a while for interest and fun.

[erk]

Most people have common sense and won't launch a me too coin in to an already saturated market, but all it takes is one idiot in say a thousand to get several new coins per day. I see no end until people make a conscious effort to ignore new coins. When we actually need a important new feature, then we discuss it for several weeks and decide if it needs a new coin or just altering an existing one.

[laris2]

The insanity will never end  ))))

[namzycad3]

demand and supply

btw other than BTC LTC NMC. ( or may be DGC due to fast confirmation but might have security issue ) all other coin is there for people to manipulate/P&D 

[Impaler]

Most people have common sense and won't launch a me too coin in to an already saturated market, but all it takes is one idiot in say a thousand to get several new coins per day. I see no end until people make a conscious effort to ignore new coins. When we actually need a important new feature, then we discuss it for several weeks and decide if it needs a new coin or just altering an existing one.

This is an important point, most new features can be added to existing coins.  And people with new ideas or new code should be shopping them around around to the developers of existing coins, running some test net and generally look to minimize the number of coin-chains, anyone who is seeking to maximize the number of chains is in my opinion at best being irresponsible.  Only after an idea is rejected by existing coins, vetted as reliable and desired by the community is it appropriate to start a new chain.

[digitalindustry]

I've said a few times that chasing these new coins or whichever coin is "King of the Day" on coinchoose is a waste of time.  My primary interest in crypto is mining (though I'm not a big time miner)...but I have stopped checking for new coin releases and even stopped checking coinchoose.  The last new coin launch I bothered to mine was Nibble, because I thought it was a fair launch and the coin has more potential than most of the others.  Other than some part time Nibble mining I stick to Novacoin (difficulty isn't astronomical and stable price) or Litecoin.

good plan mate - point is you can get plenty of nibble now , then move back to NVC for your stable return, but I’d mine nibble now , it may not be this diff ever again.

then again it may be , and the price is great, i hope it stay right here for a while longer, i want the most people with the lowest # to be able to get this currency while it is not the target of any large operations.

That’s the point, this is the free market at work.

no fancy IPO needed no "Syndicate" no control vector , no us deciding who gets what, simple and clear.

what is helping us is all this noise, we love all the "coin" floating around. keep releasing we say !

the more the better ! - the longer time our currency stays down here the more distributed it will be - we want everyone to have some nibble love !

[sor.rge]

This is an important point, most new features can be added to existing coins.  And people with new ideas or new code should be shopping them around around to the developers of existing coins, running some test net and generally look to minimize the number of coin-chains, anyone who is seeking to maximize the number of chains is in my opinion at best being irresponsible.  Only after an idea is rejected by existing coins, vetted as reliable and desired by the community is it appropriate to start a new chain.

I don't see how most new features can be added to existing coins. Say I want to test ultra-short blocks, an idea that is very popular now, mainly because it's trivial to implement in the current code. How exactly do you propose it to be integrated in bitcoin, for example?
Why should I be bothered with the developers of existing coins? I don't even know who they are. Even if an idea is compatible with some coin's current implementation (can you give an example of this?), how is it possible to persuade its developers to work on it? How a rejected idea can be vetted as reliable?
Also the community in this forum is extremely biased, because the majority are miners. They are not an indication of a coin's success, unless the coin is released specifically for forum members. Which seems to be the case for all recent coins, but a serious developer should not be influenced by this.

[erk]

This is an important point, most new features can be added to existing coins.  And people with new ideas or new code should be shopping them around around to the developers of existing coins, running some test net and generally look to minimize the number of coin-chains, anyone who is seeking to maximize the number of chains is in my opinion at best being irresponsible.  Only after an idea is rejected by existing coins, vetted as reliable and desired by the community is it appropriate to start a new chain.

I don't see how most new features can be added to existing coins. Say I want to test ultra-short blocks, an idea that is very popular now, mainly because it's trivial to implement in the current code. How exactly do you propose it to be integrated in bitcoin, for example?
Why should I be bothered with the developers of existing coins? I don't even know who they are. Even if an idea is compatible with some coin's current implementation (can you give an example of this?), how is it possible to persuade its developers to work on it? How a rejected idea can be vetted as reliable?
Also the community in this forum is extremely biased, because the majority are miners. They are not an indication of a coin's success, unless the coin is released specifically for forum members. Which seems to be the case for all recent coins, but a serious developer should not be influenced by this.

Keep thinking like that and alt coins will simply fade away into obscurity. Adjusting a couple of variables is not innovation, most of the time it's note even improvement.This lie that you can make a better coin without writing any new code has to be exposed.

[whitedragon]

This is an important point, most new features can be added to existing coins.  And people with new ideas or new code should be shopping them around around to the developers of existing coins, running some test net and generally look to minimize the number of coin-chains, anyone who is seeking to maximize the number of chains is in my opinion at best being irresponsible.  Only after an idea is rejected by existing coins, vetted as reliable and desired by the community is it appropriate to start a new chain.

I don't see how most new features can be added to existing coins. Say I want to test ultra-short blocks, an idea that is very popular now, mainly because it's trivial to implement in the current code. How exactly do you propose it to be integrated in bitcoin, for example?
Why should I be bothered with the developers of existing coins? I don't even know who they are. Even if an idea is compatible with some coin's current implementation (can you give an example of this?), how is it possible to persuade its developers to work on it? How a rejected idea can be vetted as reliable?
Also the community in this forum is extremely biased, because the majority are miners. They are not an indication of a coin's success, unless the coin is released specifically for forum members. Which seems to be the case for all recent coins, but a serious developer should not be influenced by this.

Keep thinking like that and alt coins will simply fade away into obscurity. Adjusting a couple of variables is not innovation, most of the time it's note even improvement.This lie that you can make a better coin without writing any new code has to be exposed.

You would think this would go without saying...unfortunately not.  I'd agree that you could tweak a coin by changing some settings...but you can't re-invent the wheel and call it revolutionary (no pun intended).

[BladeRunner]

Innovation - Irrelevant.
Number of coins - Irrelevant.
Name of coin - Irrelevant.
Fair launch - Irrelevant.
Poor Launch - Irrelevant.
Total number of alts - Irrelevant.
If they are around in two weeks - Irrelevant.
sha256/script/whatever - Irrelevant.
Trade like a boss and pay .01 BTC for first listing - Irrelevant.



Missing out on just one of them becoming as big as bitcoins did after you missed the boat 3 years ago?

Well, there my friends, Is what NOBODY wants to miss out on. Its like trying to win the lottery.

[digitalindustry]

    
"When will the madness end? "

According to the documentation about two to three hours after you stop taking the medication  .

[bitdwarf]

It does feel like this bubble is wearing off and you can start to see the winners that'll stay for the long term...

[Peter Lambert]

It does feel like this bubble is wearing off and you can start to see the winners that'll stay for the long term...

Winners: Bitcoin, Namecoin, Litecoin, ripples(maybe).

Did I miss any?