rpietila Altcoin Observer

[drawingthemoon]

Are you kidding me? Ask eizh, tacotime and smooth to post here if they mined from launch or not.

You are nothing but a dumb cheerleader who has forced himself onto this coin as a "core" team member. You are not needed. This coin will be better off without dumb propagandists like you and it will really take off then.

You made the accusation, why don't you provide evidence to support your accusation?

The rest of your diatribe is ridiculous vitriol that attempts to invent political issues where there are none, and speaks to events and people you do not know and thus cannot speak of. Ad hominem attacks on people you don't know have never worked in the history of the Internet, so I'm quite unsure why you imagine it's going to work now.

Do you, inside your mind, think that when you post what you posted that people will come flocking out of the woodwork and go "you're right - that fluffypony is a dumb propagandist and needs to go!" Is that what you believe will happen?

And now that I think about it - why hide behind a pseudonym that's barely a pun? What's the harm in using your own account?

I'm done responding to you. This conversation ends now, from my side.

I will provide proof. I want eizh, tacotime and smooth to lie first, which is basically what you are forcing them to do.

Get off your high and mighty horse. I wouldn't be "conversing" with dumb propagandists to begin with if you hadn't invented the lie that "core" team members weren't mining from the beginning. There were  more than 25 of us in the IRC chat from Day 1.  

You are the cancer of Monero. Don't drag others down to your level. You sound better in altcoin threads making a joke out of yourself getting into arguments with others when there is none needed.

Edit: smooth wasn't in IRC on Day 1. eizh and tacotime were there. smooth was mining but offline in IRC and setting up OTC thread.

Which one were you?

Completely irrelevant. eizh, tacotime and smooth will not post that kind of lie here because they aren't liars like this propagandist. End of story.

I just think that the crippled miner story that BBR is using against XMR to be bogus too. Yes maybe some folks from Bytecoin original team had optimized slow_hash (thankful_for_today surely must have) since it seemed like an inside joke. But it wasn't intentional on tacotime's part, he had not even taken over BMR by then. Come on, it was slowly tweaked as time went on. Everyone among the early miners were more or less on the same ground using the slow hash.

Same rules apply to people bashing BBR. Tainting it because of christian developing a private miner? Completely unfair argument. I am glad he was dumping. Makes getting the coins so much easier. If there are any technical disadvantage, I hope we see that in the whitepaper review of BBR.

[1715608584]

1715608584

[1715608584]

1715608584

[illodin]

You're intentionally creating a system where a small number of insiders get an advantage. I'm not saying you can't do it, just don't purport to call such a situation fair. No one forced you to use a crippled hash, a little bit of effort at the start could have prevented this.

I will call such a situation fair.  And I will be correct, because it's 100% organic and natural for a small number of insiders to get an advantage.  Dr. Nakamoto is the prime example of this.  He deserves every Satoshi he mined, not some looting second-hander mewling for more free stuff.

What isn't natural is your utopian idea that everyone can be completely equal, without distinction, and that such an arrangement has sole claim to being "fair."

That doesn't mean that you should purposefully create even more unfair environment. It's about giving the coin a chance to succeed by using a PoW that many people can mine and hold, not just a small insider miner group who has 90% of the net hash because small time miners stop mining. This will just invite a fork that uses an established algo to take over. And, who knows what this 51%+ of total hash in the hands of an insider group can do.

And, regarding the 10 or 20 year mining period and how much the first 6 months or a year matters - well, I doubt anybody really expects any of these coins to exist in 10 or 20 years, the insider mining group is looking to liquidate asap most likely and move on to the next exotic PoW launch.

Thing is, a unfair environment was Not created purposefully, since the issue was fixed within a very short time period. I agree with icebreaker, this is no perfect world, as perfection is impossible.

I was referring to Cryptonite and should've said so, sorry.

[smooth]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

Please quantify this advantage in terms of % of the eventual coin supply of 18.4 million.

Advantage after 20 yrs or so is not relevant to defining a fair launch. Fair launch is used to describe multiple factors during the first few days/week/months of a coins existence.

80% is mined in the first 4 years.  Is that a good place to start?

That is a fair basis.

What percentage of the 4-year coin supply was mined before the crippled hash function was fixed? This is very rough but I think the number is about 2%

So yes, the coin is (arguably) 2% unfair. By the standards of the altcoin space that is pure as the driven snow.

[smooth]

Same rules apply to people bashing BBR. Tainting it because of christian developing a private miner?

I think they likely to be quite different. My last post estimated that roughly 2% of XMR coins were mined before the public miner was un-de-optimzied. What is corresponding percentage of BBR coins? Since the emission curve is reasonable I still don't think the number is that large (compared to absurdly instamined coins -- and shills for these coins on this thread you know who you are) but it still may be higher than XMR. Or perhaps not. I haven't really been following it so I don't know.

[btc-mike]

I just think that the crippled miner story that BBR is using against XMR to be bogus too. Yes maybe some folks from Bytecoin original team had optimized slow_hash (thankful_for_today surely must have) since it seemed like an inside joke. But it wasn't intentional on tacotime's part, he had not even taken over BMR by then. Come on, it will slowly tweaked as time went on. Everyone among the early miners were more or less on the same ground using the slow hash.

Same rules apply to people bashing BBR. Tainting it because of christian developing a private miner? Completely unfair argument. I am glad he was dumping. Makes getting the coins so much easier. If there are any technical disadvantage, I hope we see that in the whitepaper review of BBR.

Somewhere my question about fair launch morphed into something else. I did not say the current dev team used it to their advantage.

My question is this - Can fair launch be used to describe Monero?

Same rules apply to people bashing BBR. Tainting it because of christian developing a private miner?

I think they likely to be quite different. My last post estimated that roughly 2% of XMR coins were mined before the public miner was un-de-optimzied. What is corresponding percentage of BBR coins? Since the emission curve is reasonable I still don't think the number is that large (compared to absurdly instamined coins -- and shills for these coins on this thread you know who you are) but it still may be higher than XMR. Or perhaps not. I haven't really been following it so I don't know.

Agreed. Saner heads say both coins have had minor issues in the beginning and corrected them as soon as as possible.

[smooth]

I was referring to Cryptonite and should've said so, sorry.

As with my previous two posts I think you can again look at XCN and say that the percentage of coins mined before the public and private miners get into rough alignment won't be that high. Even if we limit it to the 5 year supply, or even the 2 year supply.

This is speculation though since there are no good public miners yet AFAIK.

All of these coins have reasonable emissions curves and difficulty adjustments where not that many coins are mined in the first few days/weeks/months. So startup issues being a bit of a mess (and they always are) is not really that bad. The worst cases have coins where many times the usual amount is mined at the very beginning, or the emissions curve is so insanely fast that the very beginning is all that matters.

[vuduchyld]

What do you guys think of just using volume as a way of gauging public interest in alts?

Problem is it's hard to watch volume since the data differs. I watch volume on these four sites:
https://coinmarketcap.com/
http://www.cryptocoinrank.com/
http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/coins/info
http://cryptmarketcap.com/
If you research thoroughly, you'll see that much data is misleading since each of them don't include all exchange data. Some coins have only one (or two) exchanges that are relevant for their trading, and data from other exchanges just muddies the water. I've starting building my own tool to watch emerging coins, but it's just such a hard work to do it properly, and for the time being I'm still doing it manually, believe it or not it's just easier.

Do you have any way of looking at 20 day or 30 day volume statistics?  It's damn near impossible to find anything in table form other than 24 hour stats, which only gauge interest RIGHT NOW. 

I'd like to be able to sort by market cap and 20 or 30 day average volume.  That would, to me, be FAR more valuable in gauging public interest over a period of time.  Those 24 hour spikes and valleys are ridiculous.

Here are a few more to add to your tool chest.

The front page of BitcoinWisdom (https://bitcoinwisdom.com/) has aggregated daily, 7 day, and 30 day volume information for the 35 most widely traded coins on the major exchanges. It's far from ideal, but it does have an active developer.

Another interesting site, which I've just recently run across, is Coin Gecko (https://coingecko.com). It tracks various social media & Github statistics and also assigns each coin a (less useful, IMO) liquidity score and an overall score based on all of the metrics tracked.

Finally, Bit Info Charts (http://bitinfocharts.com) offers a wealth of information about major coins, and is the only one I've found that shows coin emission stats (rewards per block, rewards last 24hr).

Cheers!

These three are excellent sites, wealth of information. However, I think vuduchyld was asking for a simple plot of volume data per coin, like we have for low/high/open/close for a selected period. I don't think that such graphs exist, at least not in public.

Thanks, Pale Phoenix and itod!  I appreciate the help.

You're right, Pale Phoenix.  That's what I am searching for...and I agree that it probably doesn't exist.  I've been searching high and low for a couple of days, aka an eternity in the age of Google.  

It might sound crazy, but what I'm trying to do, philosophically anyway, is create an alt index.  I want to create mechanical rules for a passively-managed basket of alts that would serve as a proxy for the 1000 or so coins out there that are NOT bitcoin (and I'd probably exclude litecoin, as well).  I've experimented with a price-weighted model (as opposed to a market cap weighted model--think Dow instead of S&P).  The rules are based on market cap and volume, but 24 hour volume is such that this damn thing has to be re-balanced practically hourly.  I'd rather be able to re-balance monthly or at most bi-weekly.

There may be no practical application, in fact, but I'm curious to back-test and figure out:
1)  Can a constructed index gauge the health of the entire alt market?
2)  Could this basket of alts trade as an open-end fund somewhere (Nxt exchange, perhaps, though I'm not sure if open-end would work)
3)  Most importantly, could this kind of index fund allow investors the opportunity that comes with alt coins and simultaneously remove the burden (and, frankly, losers' game) of trying to pick winners.  If one could hold a basket of 23 alts, maybe so.

But volume is critical to this, and it can't be 24 hour volume.

[rpietila]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

Please quantify this advantage in terms of % of the eventual coin supply of 18.4 million.

Advantage after 20 yrs or so is not relevant to defining a fair launch. Fair launch is used to describe multiple factors during the first few days/week/months of a coins existence.

Please answer the question. I am not here to argue, but to quantify the unfairness against that of other coins.

Fluffy demonstrated already that none of the current dev team were even involved with the coin when it was already trading in an organized way in the OTC. So any unfairness in mining can be quantified by:

%reduction of cost * %of network * daily supply * #of days.

This works out to a meager percentage of total coins, with even more meager value. The value is important because the coin was trading when all (supposed) unfairness happened, so to gain an equal footing with the unfair person, you only needed to buy the coins at the then (low) price.

Is it also unfair that I have bought a large stash of coins with the money that I unfairly earned with BTC, and prior to that, silver, and prior to that, working hard in the fields?

I will answer your questions once we are done discussing fair launch.

To their credit, the Monero devs found and released the fix to crippled hash function early. But it was there at launch.

Even though the amount involved is small in the big picture, and the current devs were unaware, the crippled hash function does effect fari-launch status.  

If we take a step back, you said your definition of fair launch is:

1. No premine, instamine or ninjamine.
2. Exchange as soon as possible.
3. Marketing as soon as possible.

Do we agree that intentionally crippled hash functions do not belong on your list?

That was a lame and repetitious reply. qfp.

It seems that I must quantify the damage done by the unintentional, and promptly corrected, hash function:

0.5 * 0.3 * 25k * 20 = 75,000 XMR == 75 BTC.

=> I have to say that I have seen larger unfairness in my life.  

[drawingthemoon]

Same rules apply to people bashing BBR. Tainting it because of christian developing a private miner?

I think they likely to be quite different. My last post estimated that roughly 2% of XMR coins were mined before the public miner was un-de-optimzied. What is corresponding percentage of BBR coins? Since the emission curve is reasonable I still don't think the number is that large (compared to absurdly instamined coins -- and shills for these coins on this thread you know who you are) but it still may be higher than XMR. Or perhaps not. I haven't really been following it so I don't know.

I don't know either, smooth. I didn't take BBR seriously because of the name. Sounds silly, but I started noticing progress technically and sort of didn't care about the private miner. I think the advantage he had was long gone and glad to see GPU miner opencl developments. It is fun to see projects come along like that, just like Noodle and Wolf's work with XMR. I made a mistake of not taking LTC seriously back in the day because of private GPU miners. Not going to make the same mistake again and I know I am not the only one who conducted BBR valuation this way.

[iCEBREAKER]

Can fair launch be used to describe Monero?

Yes.  Monero had one of the most fair launches of any coin.  A fair launch was one of the coin's design goals.  The launch was announced and discussed plenty of time ahead of the release.

What you are trying to ask is if 'equitable launch can be used to describe Monero.'

But no coin will or can ever have an equitable launch, unless they are airdropped en mass to all humans at once via our Google implants.

When you ask about fairness while fully intending to move the goalposts towards equality, no matter how reasonable our answers, it is dishonest.

[btc-mike]

Monero was released with an intentionally crippled hash function. Whether the Monero devs realized it or not, the crippled hash was included to give someone an unfair advantage.

Please quantify this advantage in terms of % of the eventual coin supply of 18.4 million.

Advantage after 20 yrs or so is not relevant to defining a fair launch. Fair launch is used to describe multiple factors during the first few days/week/months of a coins existence.

Please answer the question. I am not here to argue, but to quantify the unfairness against that of other coins.

Fluffy demonstrated already that none of the current dev team were even involved with the coin when it was already trading in an organized way in the OTC. So any unfairness in mining can be quantified by:

%reduction of cost * %of network * daily supply * #of days.

This works out to a meager percentage of total coins, with even more meager value. The value is important because the coin was trading when all (supposed) unfairness happened, so to gain an equal footing with the unfair person, you only needed to buy the coins at the then (low) price.

Is it also unfair that I have bought a large stash of coins with the money that I unfairly earned with BTC, and prior to that, silver, and prior to that, working hard in the fields?

I will answer your questions once we are done discussing fair launch.

To their credit, the Monero devs found and released the fix to crippled hash function early. But it was there at launch.

Even though the amount involved is small in the big picture, and the current devs were unaware, the crippled hash function does effect fari-launch status.  

If we take a step back, you said your definition of fair launch is:

1. No premine, instamine or ninjamine.
2. Exchange as soon as possible.
3. Marketing as soon as possible.

Do we agree that intentionally crippled hash functions do not belong on your list?

That was a lame and repetitious reply. qfp.

It seems that I must quantify the damage done by the unintentional, and promptly corrected, hash function:

0.5 * 0.3 * 25k * 20 = 75,000 XMR == 75 BTC.

=> I have to say that I have seen larger unfairness in my life.  

What period of time are you considering for fair launch? I am only considering launch day.

 

[Roy Badami]

I was thinking the same thing and then I read the recent posts.  It got me thinking of a wonderful book I read a very long time ago, "All I Really Need to Know I Learned in Kindergarten".

Cripes are you a female? Can we all hold hands, say a prayer, and the technology will magically get done correctly. That is the way females and emasculated western males think.

I really don't care what point you think you're trying to make, that's a pretty misogynistic way to express it.

roy

[rpietila]

What period of time are you considering for fair launch? I am only considering launch day.

In that case we are talking like $500 in damages...

1. I am very much for a fair launch, unfair launch is a dealbreaker when I invest.
2. $500 is the least unfair launch in all of history.

[statdude]

What do you guys think of just using volume as a way of gauging public interest in alts?

Problem is it's hard to watch volume since the data differs. I watch volume on these four sites:
https://coinmarketcap.com/
http://www.cryptocoinrank.com/
http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/coins/info
http://cryptmarketcap.com/
If you research thoroughly, you'll see that much data is misleading since each of them don't include all exchange data. Some coins have only one (or two) exchanges that are relevant for their trading, and data from other exchanges just muddies the water. I've starting building my own tool to watch emerging coins, but it's just such a hard work to do it properly, and for the time being I'm still doing it manually, believe it or not it's just easier.

Do you have any way of looking at 20 day or 30 day volume statistics?  It's damn near impossible to find anything in table form other than 24 hour stats, which only gauge interest RIGHT NOW.  

I'd like to be able to sort by market cap and 20 or 30 day average volume.  That would, to me, be FAR more valuable in gauging public interest over a period of time.  Those 24 hour spikes and valleys are ridiculous.

Here are a few more to add to your tool chest.

The front page of BitcoinWisdom (https://bitcoinwisdom.com/) has aggregated daily, 7 day, and 30 day volume information for the 35 most widely traded coins on the major exchanges. It's far from ideal, but it does have an active developer.

Another interesting site, which I've just recently run across, is Coin Gecko (https://coingecko.com). It tracks various social media & Github statistics and also assigns each coin a (less useful, IMO) liquidity score and an overall score based on all of the metrics tracked.

Finally, Bit Info Charts (http://bitinfocharts.com) offers a wealth of information about major coins, and is the only one I've found that shows coin emission stats (rewards per block, rewards last 24hr).

Cheers!

These three are excellent sites, wealth of information. However, I think vuduchyld was asking for a simple plot of volume data per coin, like we have for low/high/open/close for a selected period. I don't think that such graphs exist, at least not in public.

Thanks, Pale Phoenix and itod!  I appreciate the help.

You're right, Pale Phoenix.  That's what I am searching for...and I agree that it probably doesn't exist.  I've been searching high and low for a couple of days, aka an eternity in the age of Google.  

It might sound crazy, but what I'm trying to do, philosophically anyway, is create an alt index.  I want to create mechanical rules for a passively-managed basket of alts that would serve as a proxy for the 1000 or so coins out there that are NOT bitcoin (and I'd probably exclude litecoin, as well).  I've experimented with a price-weighted model (as opposed to a market cap weighted model--think Dow instead of S&P).  The rules are based on market cap and volume, but 24 hour volume is such that this damn thing has to be re-balanced practically hourly.  I'd rather be able to re-balance monthly or at most bi-weekly.

There may be no practical application, in fact, but I'm curious to back-test and figure out:
1)  Can a constructed index gauge the health of the entire alt market?
2)  Could this basket of alts trade as an open-end fund somewhere (Nxt exchange, perhaps, though I'm not sure if open-end would work)
3)  Most importantly, could this kind of index fund allow investors the opportunity that comes with alt coins and simultaneously remove the burden (and, frankly, losers' game) of trying to pick winners.  If one could hold a basket of 23 alts, maybe so.

But volume is critical to this, and it can't be 24 hour volume.

I realize it isn't exactly what you describe here, but I have been doing this in a way manually to track RSI (includes LTC - I had found a site that does this, damnit, but never could find it again despite days of googling!):

[nakaone]

it is getting somewhat rediculous regarding unfair launch - afaik the whole team of developers are holding together an amount of around 50k xmr; the otc started immediately; cryptonote shortly after then poloniex. I followed the project from the very beginning, maybe I am dead wrong but I do not think that there are miners who a) mined huge amount and b) hold them for the entire time.

same holds true for bbr, but in that case there was a miner with an unfair advantage, but he stated to dump anything above 10k bbr.

[iCEBREAKER]

Opinions on Cryptonite, the first coin implementing mini-blockchain? Whitepaper here.

Interesting that someone is trying to create something new for a change, but I feel like the PoW algo selection will make it BCN2 or BBR2 as there is/will be a private mining group with GPU miners whereas there's no hope of mining with a high-end desktop CPU. Maybe this won't be an issue as only half of the coins will be mined within the first 10 years, and you can't really mine with a 1 video card desktop anything anyway these days? Another coin forking from Cryptonite with an established PoW algo and miners and pools ready at launch could steal its thunder though, similar to BCN vs XMR.

Who happens to mine these fungible coins is irrelevant.  If other people want them, they simply buy them from those who specialize in optimizing and running miners, or trading.

Cryptonite is a Very Big Deal, representing the third great innovation in cryptocash (minichains) after Bitcoin's blockchain and CryptoNote's ring signatures.  Vertcoin's private addresses come close to making the list, in a distant fourth place.  Proof-of-work may have been a candidate for fifth, but is made obsolete by minichains, so it loses to Primecoin's cool/trippy factor.

Forget those other trash coins.  All that matter right now are Bitcoin, Monero, and Cryptonite. 

(Litecoin is also valuable as a hot-swappable replacement in case Bitcoin breaks, ditto Namecoin and DNS.)

It's fascinating how Monero and Cryptonite are fundamentally incompatible and splitting Bitcoin into private Monero and public Cryptonite niches, like a speciation event!

Economically it makes perfect sense to remove Bitcoin's blockchain bloat to be more efficient for public transactions, while simultaneously putting other bloat to work by ensuring privacy for Monero.

As I finish this post CN is nearing an ATH.  Nice. 

Now just wait until all the kids realize they've been conned by their closed source and/or kludgey CLOAK/DARK/BLACK/XC FailCoins.  See ya'll on the moon...

[smooth]

Who happens to mine these fungible coins is irrelevant.  If other people want them, they simply buy them from those who specialize in optimizing and running miners, or trading.

Mining does serve as a sort of recruiting, to bring people into the network when the network otherwise consists of basically no one other than the original developer.

Trading servies likewise to bring in investors who can't or don't want to mine.

They are not full substitutes, though. The populations are somewhat distinct (perhaps largely distinct).

Possibly a coin with highly concentrated or perhaps close to monopolized early mining can still succeed though. Litecoin and Bitcoin are possible examples of that. If anything they are worse in this respect than many of the shitcoins launched with existing PoW (especially Scrypt pre-ASIC), which probably did have more decentralized mining.

[vuduchyld]

What do you guys think of just using volume as a way of gauging public interest in alts?

Problem is it's hard to watch volume since the data differs. I watch volume on these four sites:
https://coinmarketcap.com/
http://www.cryptocoinrank.com/
http://www.cryptocoincharts.info/v2/coins/info
http://cryptmarketcap.com/
If you research thoroughly, you'll see that much data is misleading since each of them don't include all exchange data. Some coins have only one (or two) exchanges that are relevant for their trading, and data from other exchanges just muddies the water. I've starting building my own tool to watch emerging coins, but it's just such a hard work to do it properly, and for the time being I'm still doing it manually, believe it or not it's just easier.

Do you have any way of looking at 20 day or 30 day volume statistics?  It's damn near impossible to find anything in table form other than 24 hour stats, which only gauge interest RIGHT NOW.  

I'd like to be able to sort by market cap and 20 or 30 day average volume.  That would, to me, be FAR more valuable in gauging public interest over a period of time.  Those 24 hour spikes and valleys are ridiculous.

Here are a few more to add to your tool chest.

The front page of BitcoinWisdom (https://bitcoinwisdom.com/) has aggregated daily, 7 day, and 30 day volume information for the 35 most widely traded coins on the major exchanges. It's far from ideal, but it does have an active developer.

Another interesting site, which I've just recently run across, is Coin Gecko (https://coingecko.com). It tracks various social media & Github statistics and also assigns each coin a (less useful, IMO) liquidity score and an overall score based on all of the metrics tracked.

Finally, Bit Info Charts (http://bitinfocharts.com) offers a wealth of information about major coins, and is the only one I've found that shows coin emission stats (rewards per block, rewards last 24hr).

Cheers!

These three are excellent sites, wealth of information. However, I think vuduchyld was asking for a simple plot of volume data per coin, like we have for low/high/open/close for a selected period. I don't think that such graphs exist, at least not in public.

Thanks, Pale Phoenix and itod!  I appreciate the help.

You're right, Pale Phoenix.  That's what I am searching for...and I agree that it probably doesn't exist.  I've been searching high and low for a couple of days, aka an eternity in the age of Google.  

It might sound crazy, but what I'm trying to do, philosophically anyway, is create an alt index.  I want to create mechanical rules for a passively-managed basket of alts that would serve as a proxy for the 1000 or so coins out there that are NOT bitcoin (and I'd probably exclude litecoin, as well).  I've experimented with a price-weighted model (as opposed to a market cap weighted model--think Dow instead of S&P).  The rules are based on market cap and volume, but 24 hour volume is such that this damn thing has to be re-balanced practically hourly.  I'd rather be able to re-balance monthly or at most bi-weekly.

There may be no practical application, in fact, but I'm curious to back-test and figure out:
1)  Can a constructed index gauge the health of the entire alt market?
2)  Could this basket of alts trade as an open-end fund somewhere (Nxt exchange, perhaps, though I'm not sure if open-end would work)
3)  Most importantly, could this kind of index fund allow investors the opportunity that comes with alt coins and simultaneously remove the burden (and, frankly, losers' game) of trying to pick winners.  If one could hold a basket of 23 alts, maybe so.

But volume is critical to this, and it can't be 24 hour volume.

I realize it isn't exactly what you describe here, but I have been doing this in a way manually to track RSI (includes LTC - I had found a site that does this, damnit, but never could find it again despite days of googling!):

Figures it would be a guy named statdude!!!

Where do you get the figures?

[statdude]

Heh 

It's Pure "CoinMarketCap" API feed.

However, I'm not smart enough to make it work automatically. I copy paste the values to my table daily. Mostly just an experiment!

Anyways, PM or Skype me to discuss further. I KNOW there is a site doing this already but can't find it.

[vuduchyld]

Heh 

It's Pure "CoinMarketCap" API feed.

However, I'm not smart enough to make it work automatically. I copy paste the values to my table daily. Mostly just an experiment!

Anyways, PM or Skype me to discuss further. I KNOW there is a site doing this already but can't find it.

Thanks! Will do!