While not trek coins, FFC and QBT are HSA256 and will be on the exchange.
If we make a SHA256 it will need to retarget diff quickly as large miners and pools can make the network hashrate swing several orders of magnitude.
Blakecoin can be done on FPGA which means it could become a new kind of ASIC someday but will not need to worry about that until UFC becomes very big and profitable.
Most SHA256 coins are very low value because they can be so massively mined.
Most SHA256 coins are just a profitable as BTC to mine. Not necessarily a bad thing. Plus look at the marketcaps of these SHA256 coins.
4 Peercoin $ 122,912,581 $ 5.84 21,063,728 PPC
18 Zetacoin $ 3,926,489 $ 0.025 159,747,221 ZET
24 Terracoin $ 2,148,788 $ 0.43 4,967,550 TRC
26 Freicoin $ 1,780,970 $ 0.05 35,888,382 FRC
41 AsicCoin $ 498,117 $ 0.0012 405,190,402 ASC
43 Unobtanium $ 446,390 $ 3.39 131,578 UNO
53 Bytecoin $ 250,249 $ 0.14 1,844,078 BTE
56 Deutsche eMark $ 221,875 $ 0.062 3,583,550 DEM
59 BetaCoin $ 147,983 $ 0.026 5,628,298 BET
62 Tigercoin $ 126,963 $ 0.005 25,286,184 TGC
72 Joulecoin $ 55,717 $ 0.016 3,547,120 XJO
According to this thread here
http://scificointalk.com/index.php/topic,147.0.html 70k UFC is equal to 1 btc. This gives us a market cap of 110 BTC. 110 x 826 USD (BTC-E) = $90,000 USD market cap.
So even with scrypt mining, UFC has a low market when compared to these SHA256 coins and even other scryptcoins. I am sure that UFC is more marketable than betacoin and asiccoin. I understand that by going to SHA256 it excludes most miners because of the cost barrier to enter the mining game is high. But in the end, the network still gets secured, and those that want to acquire UFC will have to go to the exchange to buy it. If coins are being created only for miners, and the only thing that miners do is sell coins to convert to BTC, then where are the buyers? SHA256 creates a market of buyers for the coin, just like BTC, its much better to buy the coin then to buy hardware to mine it.
Poll
