POLL: Which coin should BTC-E add next?

[zackclark70]

SXC should be on btc-e if the current price rise and buy support stays

[1714988378]

1714988378

[1714988378]

1714988378

[1714988378]

1714988378

[1714988378]

1714988378

[flyingcat]

this is a very biased list, how does SBC and Megacoin make the list? make me laugh.

if you want to do a survey seriously, pick the coins according to their market caps.

[porcupine87]

this is a very biased list, how does SBC and Megacoin make the list? make me laugh.

if you want to do a survey seriously, pick the coins according to their market caps.

Megacoin has 20Mio. market cap. Stablecoin has >2Mio. Primecoin, Terracoin and others had less than 2mio.m when they were added to btc-e.

that coin i have you want to see rising and therefore on that exchange. Except of DGC I have a decent amount of all of them. So I vote for all 4 of them

[disclaimer201]

Digitalcoin is doing exactly the same thing as Worldcoin + they have a great developer

Robert, DGC doesn't just do the same thing, it is actually much better:

DGC has much fewer orphans than WDC
DGC was not instamined nor pre-mined
"Digital" is an international word - "world" is world in English only

How can you claim to have a "world"coin, when you can't even make the name sound more international?
The world consists of a few more than just English speaking countries. The name doesn't reflect that.

Furthermore, worldcoin sounds like a coin for old people, it doesn't sound cool (imo).

WDC instamine --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264938.msg2835275#msg2835275

MEC 6 million coins premine --> http://cryptolife.net/in-depth-altcoin-analysis-megacoin/

QRK --> pure instamine scam

SBC --> WTF?

Yet everyone, good luck with your choice!

[qiwoman]

I really like megacoin as the site is very professionally made and I think the name has a lot of value.

[disclaimer201]

I really like megacoin as the site is very professionally made and I think the name has a lot of value.

Not everything that shines is gold. And "Mega" holds mega-potential as a name, seriously? ;-)

[Robert Lewandowski]

Digitalcoin is doing exactly the same thing as Worldcoin + they have a great developer

Robert, DGC doesn't just do the same thing, it is actually much better:

DGC has much fewer orphans than WDC
DGC was not instamined nor pre-mined
"Digital" is an international word - "world" is world in English only

How can you claim to have a "world"coin, when you can't even make the name sound more international?
The world consists of a few more than just English speaking countries. The name doesn't reflect that.

Furthermore, worldcoin sounds like a coin for old people, it doesn't sound cool (imo).

WDC instamine --> https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=264938.msg2835275#msg2835275

MEC 6 million coins premine --> http://cryptolife.net/in-depth-altcoin-analysis-megacoin/

QRK --> pure instamine scam

SBC --> WTF?

Yet everyone, good luck with your choice!

Quark isnt a scam lol



Digitalcoin is solid i agree

[disclaimer201]

QRK will likely fail in a matter of 6 months or less is what I took from this forum, so technically it's not a scam.

http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/1saq3g/i_have_decided_quark_is_not_a_scam_the_bitcoin/cdvrf1f

[–]Koooooj 1 point 4 hours ago

I personally seek to point out the flaws in any Altcoin, especially if it starts to gain a lot of attention. In the case of many of the altcoins there aren't a lot of negatives or a lot of positives, simply because they've just taken Bitcoin and copy/pasted the whole source code with some cosmetic difference. This isn't a scam or a particularly shady practice, but it also isn't a way to make a valuable coin--if there's nothing better about a new altcoin then there's no reason to use it over Bitcoin (or whichever altcoin is being copied). It is for that reason that I think 95% of altcoins are junk--they're an attempt for the developers and early miners to make a quick buck based on zero innovation. These new altcoins are a dime a dozen and aren't worth wasting breath (or keystrokes, as the case may be).

Some coins do make substantial changes, though--they seek to either address fundamental issues with Bitcoin or they challenge some core philosophy of the Bitcoin network. For example, take Peercoin--they noted that mining by proof-of-work is a process that uses huge quantities of resources so they introduced proof-of-stake. This challenges the very core of Bitcoin's design so it's a currency worth investigating; it's worth finding the flaws in such a system and pointing them out.

To me Quarkcoin is a coin that isn't just a copy/paste of Bitcoin, even though it's pretty much a parameter change and mining algorithm swap. I feel this way because the parameters are changed to extremes--taking the block reward halving and changing it from 4 years to 3 weeks is pretty major and is more than a tweak--it's a fundamentally different philosophy. In Bitcoin the reward halving was made to be slow and was included, in my opinion, as a way to make the currency supply limited. In Quark it serves as a way to issue all of the currency in a short period of time, such that there is not a substantial incentive for "mining cartels" to form (aside: I don't believe mining cartels exist in Bitcoin, but I accept that there is room for different philosophies and altcoins that support those philosophies).

This design decision has its advantages, perhaps, but it has a fatal flaw: miners can only be expected to expend as much to mine as they are compensated in mining rewards. If the mining reward halves and the price does not rise (or has only lethargic growth) then miners should be expected to leave the network. This would be no problem if the only purpose that miners serve is to issue new currency, but that isn't even their primary purpose--the miners exist to protect the network from a 50% attack. Every 3 weeks Quark should expect half of the miners to leave the network unless those miners start being paid better--either with a higher mining reward (which I doubt would ever be considered--it's contrary to the philosophy on which Quarkcoin was founded) or by transaction fees (which I also doubt--it's the tragedy of the commons: the coin can survive if everyone includes substantial mining fees, but to the individual the better move is to not include a substantial fee since everyone else is).

The current mining reward is 16 QRK/block. In a few months that value will drop to its final value of 1 QRK per block. If the price remains static then that meant the network is paying miners collectively only 6.25% of what they are being paid now. That means that if anyone has 3.125% of the present network then they could reasonably expect to be holding enough computing power to 51% attack the Quark network in about 3 months. The top user at coinmine.pl currently has about 4.47% of the network, and just a few days ago I recall seeing several users with about 3 times that speed (they have dropped out since then, it would appear, since the reward halved).

I am against Quark and I will speak out about it, not because I am jealous of the Quark users nor because I see it as a viable threat that could push out another cryptocurrency. I speak out against Quark because it is structured in a way that is going to make it fail--and it's going to fail soon (i.e. within 6 months, probably sooner). I speak out against Quark because when that happens it will be a lot of bad press for cryptocurrencies in general. I speak out against Quark because I feel that it is a tool that Bill Still and others are using in order to manipulate people for their own profit, and I want to give those people an opportunity to hear a rational and thought-out reasoning for why I believe that. I will not scream "SCAM." I will not yell "PREMINE." But I will criticize and encourage free discussion with an open mind. I think everyone involved in Quark is either being manipulated or is the manipulator pulling the strings to drive an unviable currency to unjustified heights. I would ask anyone here who is invested in Quark to ask himself which one of those they are.

[Catswold]

Does everyone ignore the fact that Stablecoin has 1.2 million premined?

WRONG!

The coins that were previously pre-mined to serve as a mixing pool, were rendered absolutely unspendable.  The code is public and available for anyone to examine to confirm that fact.

Stop spreading FUD and lies.

[darianc]

QRK will likely fail in a matter of 6 months or less is what I took from this forum, so technically it's not a scam.

http://www.reddit.com/r/QuarkCoin/comments/1saq3g/i_have_decided_quark_is_not_a_scam_the_bitcoin/cdvrf1f

[–]Koooooj 1 point 4 hours ago

I personally seek to point out the flaws in any Altcoin, especially if it starts to gain a lot of attention. In the case of many of the altcoins there aren't a lot of negatives or a lot of positives, simply because they've just taken Bitcoin and copy/pasted the whole source code with some cosmetic difference. This isn't a scam or a particularly shady practice, but it also isn't a way to make a valuable coin--if there's nothing better about a new altcoin then there's no reason to use it over Bitcoin (or whichever altcoin is being copied). It is for that reason that I think 95% of altcoins are junk--they're an attempt for the developers and early miners to make a quick buck based on zero innovation. These new altcoins are a dime a dozen and aren't worth wasting breath (or keystrokes, as the case may be).

Some coins do make substantial changes, though--they seek to either address fundamental issues with Bitcoin or they challenge some core philosophy of the Bitcoin network. For example, take Peercoin--they noted that mining by proof-of-work is a process that uses huge quantities of resources so they introduced proof-of-stake. This challenges the very core of Bitcoin's design so it's a currency worth investigating; it's worth finding the flaws in such a system and pointing them out.

To me Quarkcoin is a coin that isn't just a copy/paste of Bitcoin, even though it's pretty much a parameter change and mining algorithm swap. I feel this way because the parameters are changed to extremes--taking the block reward halving and changing it from 4 years to 3 weeks is pretty major and is more than a tweak--it's a fundamentally different philosophy. In Bitcoin the reward halving was made to be slow and was included, in my opinion, as a way to make the currency supply limited. In Quark it serves as a way to issue all of the currency in a short period of time, such that there is not a substantial incentive for "mining cartels" to form (aside: I don't believe mining cartels exist in Bitcoin, but I accept that there is room for different philosophies and altcoins that support those philosophies).

This design decision has its advantages, perhaps, but it has a fatal flaw: miners can only be expected to expend as much to mine as they are compensated in mining rewards. If the mining reward halves and the price does not rise (or has only lethargic growth) then miners should be expected to leave the network. This would be no problem if the only purpose that miners serve is to issue new currency, but that isn't even their primary purpose--the miners exist to protect the network from a 50% attack. Every 3 weeks Quark should expect half of the miners to leave the network unless those miners start being paid better--either with a higher mining reward (which I doubt would ever be considered--it's contrary to the philosophy on which Quarkcoin was founded) or by transaction fees (which I also doubt--it's the tragedy of the commons: the coin can survive if everyone includes substantial mining fees, but to the individual the better move is to not include a substantial fee since everyone else is).

The current mining reward is 16 QRK/block. In a few months that value will drop to its final value of 1 QRK per block. If the price remains static then that meant the network is paying miners collectively only 6.25% of what they are being paid now. That means that if anyone has 3.125% of the present network then they could reasonably expect to be holding enough computing power to 51% attack the Quark network in about 3 months. The top user at coinmine.pl currently has about 4.47% of the network, and just a few days ago I recall seeing several users with about 3 times that speed (they have dropped out since then, it would appear, since the reward halved).

I am against Quark and I will speak out about it, not because I am jealous of the Quark users nor because I see it as a viable threat that could push out another cryptocurrency. I speak out against Quark because it is structured in a way that is going to make it fail--and it's going to fail soon (i.e. within 6 months, probably sooner). I speak out against Quark because when that happens it will be a lot of bad press for cryptocurrencies in general. I speak out against Quark because I feel that it is a tool that Bill Still and others are using in order to manipulate people for their own profit, and I want to give those people an opportunity to hear a rational and thought-out reasoning for why I believe that. I will not scream "SCAM." I will not yell "PREMINE." But I will criticize and encourage free discussion with an open mind. I think everyone involved in Quark is either being manipulated or is the manipulator pulling the strings to drive an unviable currency to unjustified heights. I would ask anyone here who is invested in Quark to ask himself which one of those they are.

+1 -- upvoted on reddit.

---

I vote for Megacoin because of the developers qualified and effective response to the multipool problem shortly after it was needed.
I see competence and involvement in the developer. I'm expecting a competent implementation of an anonymity protocol.

Also, I vote Megacoin for the audience exposure created by the native Chinese client, website, and forums.
And, for the fifteen languages the website supports. I expect a very internationalized ecosystem of tools and support.

Fifty percent of the coins are being traded now, just over forty-nine left to mine now. (50.7%/49.3%)
This ratio of mined to undiscovered is comparable to where Bitcoin was a little over a year ago. (Today, bitcoin is 57.7%/42.3%)
This liquidity can support a large market. Megacoin can also afford larger block rewards as mining incentive with its shorter schedule of 66 years (2079).

I don't claim coins are better or worse. Features, liquidity, market space, community, and developer involvement are better or worse.
Having seen the effort put into this coin so far, I believe that any feature needed for the success of this coin will be implemented.

Now, I hope visibility will encourage the market space to grow.

[Alienwalkerx]

I vote for Megacoin because of the developers qualified and effective response to the multipool problem shortly after it was needed.
I see competence and involvement in the developer. I'm expecting a competent implementation of an anonymity protocol.

Also, I vote Megacoin for the audience exposure created by the native Chinese client, website, and forums.
And, for the fifteen languages the website supports. I expect a very internationalized ecosystem of tools and support.

Fifty percent of the coins are being traded now, just over forty-nine left to mine now. (50.7%/49.3%)
This ratio of mined to undiscovered is comparable to where Bitcoin was a little over a year ago. (Today, bitcoin is 57.7%/42.3%)
This liquidity can support a large market. Megacoin can also afford larger block rewards as mining incentive with its shorter schedule of 66 years (2079).

I don't claim coins are better or worse. Features, liquidity, market space, community, and developer involvement are better or worse.
Having seen the effort put into this coin so far, I believe that any feature needed for the success of this coin will be implemented.

Now, I hope visibility will encourage the market space to grow.

Nice to see someone offer their opinion instead of linking to Hazard's blog for once

[FiniteRed]

I vote for Megacoin because of the developers qualified and effective response to the multipool problem shortly after it was needed.
I see competence and involvement in the developer. I'm expecting a competent implementation of an anonymity protocol.

Also, I vote Megacoin for the audience exposure created by the native Chinese client, website, and forums.
And, for the fifteen languages the website supports. I expect a very internationalized ecosystem of tools and support.

Fifty percent of the coins are being traded now, just over forty-nine left to mine now. (50.7%/49.3%)
This ratio of mined to undiscovered is comparable to where Bitcoin was a little over a year ago. (Today, bitcoin is 57.7%/42.3%)
This liquidity can support a large market. Megacoin can also afford larger block rewards as mining incentive with its shorter schedule of 66 years (2079).

I don't claim coins are better or worse. Features, liquidity, market space, community, and developer involvement are better or worse.
Having seen the effort put into this coin so far, I believe that any feature needed for the success of this coin will be implemented.

Now, I hope visibility will encourage the market space to grow.

Nicely put, Megacoin is one of the strongest contenders for an every day usage currency and belongs on BTC-e 

[LightningFury]

dogecoin

• not listed

[BlueDragon747]

what no Blakecoin

Why Blakecoin beats other coins in the long run:

• The reward for mining Blakecoin does Not decrease over time it only increases with block height and difficulty
• No restriction on any platform as Blakecoin does not include artificial *Security* that slows down possible mining hash rate and reduces power efficiency
• Already has planned use for Blakecoin as a currency storage between MMO systems with prototypes in development
• The modified blake-256 algorithm hash rate is just under 3x faster on the GPU and just over 2x on the FPGA compared with Bitcoin

Blakecoin is the fastest !

• 5.1GH/s on a AMD ATI Radeon 7990
• 2.2GH/s on a AMD ATI Radeon 7970
• 1.4GH/s on a AMD ATI Radeon 6970
• 1.3GH/s on a AMD ATI Radeon 5870
• 1.6GH/s on a ZTEX USB-FPGA 1.15y Quad Spartan-6 LX150 Development Board

[instacalm]

BTC-E will add what they feel like, they've never even slightly listened to the community before and they're not going to do it in the future

[BrujoFC]

qrk

[noedelx]

tobad that lottocoin got added like super late on https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359521.0
it woulth defo had over 50 votes = /

[pineapples]

qrk

is an interesting paradigm in that it is a finished product, mining has turned into a quick buck making scam.
not really being able to mine for quark means that the coins kind of exist in their own right now, and their value should be reasonably constant .. once all the dust clears some time . . some ..... time .......

[e521]

You look at btc-e like a good exchange, like they only add "good"/"legit" coins. I just want to remember you, or to inform you if you are new, that chinacoin was traded there for a few months until abandoned, feathercoin is still there, no comment.
I am actually shocked they have not added dogecoin yet, it seemed the most appropriate for the target audience

[UnevenDRalffy]

In this post shitclone apocalypse my mind, mouth and money is on Quark. Will hold atleast 90% of all my QRK for years to come. Proven to be the most decentralized coin there is, this should attract investors looking for safety and stability in the long run. Now all we need is a bigger and stronger community and development for adoption.