Is focus on adoption the most important thing?

[Bluestreet]

OP have a look at Guldencoin - NLG and PM me about what you think.

https://timeline.guldencoin.com/

[CoinHoarder]

Warning: TL;DR...

Hi Este,

I am glad that you started this conversation, as I feel it is an important one to be had. I believe that most people in the larger crypto currency community (Bitcoin/Litecoin/??) think like you do in regards to the importance of marketing to attract new users, and pushing for merchant adoption. While I do not disagree that those things help increase the utility of their respective crypto currencies, I see things differently.

This was one of the main reasons why I left the Litecoin community and no longer support it. The Litecoin community and I largely disagreed on this principle, as they mainly want to focus on marketing rather than innovation and improving crypto currencies on a developmental level and in an innovative manner. Basically, they are content blindly following anything that Bitcoin implements with the few developers they have, and the rest of the community is dead set on marketing and merchant adoption as the path to success for Litecoin. I think there are several problems with this line of thinking, and I will try to explain why.

Alternative crypto currencies are supposed to be the testing grounds for improvements upon existing crypto currencies and new features. If they are not doing either of these things, then I do not see the point of their existence and it screams of a get rich quick scheme. Any crypto currency that does neither of these things I consider to be a "pump and dump" and/or "scam coin."

Marketing and merchant adoption are important, but marketing and merchant adoption coupled with no innovation and development is akin to betting that people are sheeple. In Litecoin's case, they are betting that people will look past the lack of innovation and the fact it is pretty much a copy and paste coin. While I do not disagree that the vast majority of people in the world are sheeple in regards to problems with trusted third parties and FIAT, it is not these people that are adopting crypto currencies at this point in time. The sheeple are somewhat ignorant to the extreme need of crypto currencies and decentralized technologies. These people will come eventually when crypto currencies have already blown up, and are a vast improvement over the current financial system. It will happen naturally, not by some marketing scheme with an underlying code base that was copied off of some other crypto currency.

It is the free-thinkers (skeptics/non sheeple) that are in the process of adopting crypto currencies and decentralized technologies. These are the same people that will be doing the marketing and pushing merchant adoption. If the free-thinkers can look past your crypto currency’s marketing strategies and see that the underlying crypto currency is mainly a “pump and dump” and/or “scam coin” with no innovation or improvements over another larger already existing crypto currency, then how can they be expected to support it? How can they be expected to help with marketing and pushing merchant adoption, when they don’t believe in the underlying technology themselves?

I believe there are only two answers to that question in regards to alternative crypto currencies. The first being that the supporters of the alternative crypto currency are sheeple themselves, and the second being that the supporters of that crypto currency are only focused on one thing and that is making a profit by "pumping and dumping" at the expense of sheeple. Both answers to this question make me completely and utterly sick, and I do not think that Satoshi would approve either.

After much analysis and reading user’s opinions and thoughts in such crypto currency communities over the years, I have come to the conclusion that most of their community at this point in time falls under the latter answer to that question, which makes me even sicker when thinking about it. Crypto currencies are still in the early adopter phase. As I said earlier, it is mostly the free-thinkers that are adopting crypto currencies and decentralized technologies at this point in time, and I find it highly unlikely that the majority of these early adopters are sheeple. It is utterly shameful people are praying on sheeple for their own financial gain, and relying on “the greater fool theory” to fatten their wallets.

Again, this is why I left the Litecoin community. I realized that it is an either/or situation, and I was completely disgusted by it. Either I was surrounded by sheeple, or I was surrounded by cut throat free-thinkers preying on sheeple by the use of the “greater fool theory,” and either way I decided I wanted no part in it. There was an “ah ha” moment in which I decided Litecoin needed to be innovative and really focus on improving crypto currencies on a technical and developmental level, or the sad reality is that's just how it’s going to be and how it will always be as long as they continue down the same path.

I am a big believer in an altered quote from a corny 90s movie named “The Field of Dreams” in regards to crypto currency adoption, “if you build it they will come.” If you stop and think about it for a second, this is exactly what Satoshi did with Bitcoin, and look at how far Bitcoin has come today. If a crypto currency is innovative enough and a vast improvement over prior crypto currencies, the users and merchants will come eventually. Now and in the near term future, as a crypto currency community… the free-thinkers and early adopters… we should mostly focus on improving crypto currencies the best way possible through innovation and development.

Sadly, I think Bitcoin and Litecoin have mainly gotten off the path that Satoshi paved which was focused on innovation and development, and adoption happening naturally instead of forced upon people. A large part of their community has trouble seeing that both of these crypto currencies are not perfect and have flaws. Try bringing up the flaws of Bitcoin in the General Discussion sub forum and see the kind of hostility and ignorance you are met with. This kind of group think is poison, and it affects the improvement of crypto currencies on an innovative and developmental level, and will only slow down the improvement of crypto currencies. They are not in a large way focusing on implementing new features, improving existing features, and openly talking about flaws of their respective crypto currency.

Doubly sadly, I think most of this group thinking stems from greed. They do not want to talk about the flaws of Bitcoin/Litecoin, and they brush everything off as FUD or “scam coins gonna scam coin.” When in reality they are the ones that are doing the scamming, as they are so worried about fattening their pockets, that they stifle innovation and development. In general, they are so worried that if someone reads a genuine concern about a flaw or short coming about Bitcoin/Litecoin and believes it, that that someone will not invest in the crypto currency they have invested in. This affects the size to which their pockets can fatten, they do not like this one bit, and they make every attempt to shut it down and label it as FUD.

In summary, marketing and pushing for merchant adoption is important, but it is equally important to not succumb to greed and ignorance and to push the crypto currency and/or decentralized technology movement forward through innovation and development. Don’t take this as an attack against Bitmark. I have read what you guys are doing and I realize that you guys are being innovative, and truly making an effort to improve crypto currencies as they are today. I applaud crypto currencies like this for paving the path to the future of crypto currencies, a path that Satoshi started and a path that the larger crypto currency community seems to be wandering off of. Once that path is filled with great new useful features and vast improvements over old crypto currency features, the general public will flock to that path once they realize it is so much better than the government built overgrown bumpy pebble path they have been travelling down their entire lives.

[Lauda]

That post is just too big for the average user.  
Well the focus on adoption should be primarily with Bitcoin, not for altcoins. Do you think that a coin like Doge could succeed if the community focused primarly on adoption?
Wouldn't it be the same for any copycat coin then? For the altcoins it's the technical aspect that matters I believe, without it they will not succeed.
I'm surprised that litecoin is holding up but it might just do that for a little longer.

[vuduchyld]

I came up with a litmus test use case this week:

Can I use it to put gas in my car?

If not, your "currency" is going to have limited use in the real world.

Nothing against AeroMe or Nxt or any other coin, but if I have to come to your exchange and buy what's there, that isn't life-changing utility.  It's cool, and, full disclosure, I do own some Nxt.  But it's more like a gift card than currency.  

I can use bitcoin to buy a computer, or maybe book some travel.  But these are not things that I do every day or every week.  I buy gas fairly often and I'd LOVE to use BTC or some alt for it.  Why?  BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.  I've done consulting work with c-stores and I can tell you that their margins for gas are terrible.  They also have to pay credit card processing fees on most purchases.  With BTC, they could save money and pass it along.  (CoinFueled is also like a gift card and the merchant ain't gonna give a discount to get you to use it.)

It could be done.  It wouldn't be easy.  It would certainly require merchant adoption, but it would save merchants money in the long run.  At least, it would IF adoption was wide enough.  Chicken and egg question, really.  Why would they do it if nobody is going to use it?  

Innovation is clearly important (DARPANET => worldwide web), but innovation without adoption is pretty empty.  

[CoinHoarder]

That post is just too big for the average user.  
Well the focus on adoption should be primarily with Bitcoin, not for altcoins. Do you think that a coin like Doge could succeed if the community focused primarly on adoption?
Wouldn't it be the same for any copycat coin then? For the altcoins it's the technical aspect that matters I believe, without it they will not succeed.
I'm surprised that litecoin is holding up but it might just do that for a little longer.

I apologize, that post was quite long, but I think everything said was necessary to get my point across.

Exactly- Bitcoin already has a major focus on both merchant and new user adoption. This goes along with my "if you build it they will come theory," but I believe that there is a trickle down effect in Bitcoin's adoption that other alternative crypto currencies are rewarded from. After learning about Bitcoin, I think they will mostly realize that it is not perfect and how the community largely stifles innovation on the basis that there is nothing that needs to be changed. Once they come to this realization, the innovative alternative crypto currencies will benefit largely from this realization.

For the record, no I do not think a coin like Dogecoin can survive if they are primarily focused on adoption. However, I'm not sure this is the case for them, as they seem like open minded free thinkers themselves. They have been largely supportive of Dogeparty, which is focused on innovating on top of the larger crypto currency model, so I do not think they are going away anytime soon. Although it started off as a meme, they are expanding beyond that, which is something that a coin like Litecoin has failed to do.

I think all "copy cat" or "copy and paste" coins are destined to fail eventually. Even the innovative ones, if they don't stay vigilant in innovating and improving their original innovation will fall by the wayside. It is a very competitive market and those that aren't focused on innovating and improving their crypto currency will die a slow death.

[CoinHoarder]

I came up with a litmus test use case this week:

Can I use it to put gas in my car?

If not, your "currency" is going to have limited use in the real world.

Nothing against AeroMe or Nxt or any other coin, but if I have to come to your exchange and buy what's there, that isn't life-changing utility.  It's cool, and, full disclosure, I do own some Nxt.  But it's more like a gift card than currency.  

I can use bitcoin to buy a computer, or maybe book some travel.  But these are not things that I do every day or every week.  I buy gas fairly often and I'd LOVE to use BTC or some alt for it.  Why?  BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.  I've done consulting work with c-stores and I can tell you that their margins for gas are terrible.  They also have to pay credit card processing fees on most purchases.  With BTC, they could save money and pass it along.  (CoinFueled is also like a gift card and the merchant ain't gonna give a discount to get you to use it.)

It could be done.  It wouldn't be easy.  It would certainly require merchant adoption, but it would save merchants money in the long run.  At least, it would IF adoption was wide enough.  Chicken and egg question, really.  Why would they do it if nobody is going to use it?  

Innovation is clearly important (DARPANET => worldwide web), but innovation without adoption is pretty empty.  

If Satoshi thought like this, would Bitcoin and crypto currencies be as ground breaking as they are today? He was focused on creating and improving upon his idea, and realized that adoption would come naturally if Bitcoin was a vast improvement over the current financial system and worked as described.

[valvalis]

IMO adoption is the most important thing for cryptocurrency.
Without adoption It's just for pump/dump really useless.
We should adapt cryptocurrency in dailylife so It'll grow bigger.

[CoinHoarder]

IMO adoption is the most important thing for cryptocurrency.
Without adoption It's just for pump/dump really useless.
We should adapt cryptocurrency in dailylife so It'll grow bigger.

Maybe most people disagree with me on this, I don't know. I admit often there are times I am prone to thinking outside of the box. I just think adoption will come naturally if your crypto currency is a vast improvement over Bitcoin and/or the current financial system, and it is not something that needs to be forced down people's throats as it will be met with skepticism and reluctance if done this way. I believe this kind of promotion is stifling the adoption of Bitcoin itself. The way people talk about it and try to force adoption onto people, it does kind of sound like a scam of some sort until people actually learn what Bitcoin is and how it works.

[rz20]

90% of the alt coins can't be used for anything just for a pump and dump. People won't adopt something that is just a copy of litecoin.

[Lauda]

Maybe most people disagree with me on this, I don't know. I admit often there are times I am prone to thinking outside of the box. I just think adoption will come naturally if your crypto currency is a vast improvement over Bitcoin and/or the current financial system, and it is not something that needs to be forced down people's throats as it will be met with skepticism and reluctance if done this way. I believe this kind of promotion is stifling the adoption of Bitcoin itself. The way people talk about it and try to force adoption onto people, it does kind of sound like a scam of some sort until people actually learn what Bitcoin is and how it works.

You're right actually if you ask me. Bitcoin has pretty much established itself here, there is no need for something that features no or minor improvements over it. People tend to think different. There was no need for LTC and for this reason it shall not gain much traction.
Even these so called 'crypto 2.0 coins' aren't enough. I do not see them being able to gain a wider adoption as they are mostly premined/used to get money out of your pockets.

[PeterFromCA]

I don't think adoption changes anything for altcoins. All they need is promo and hype.

[vuduchyld]

I came up with a litmus test use case this week:

Can I use it to put gas in my car?

If not, your "currency" is going to have limited use in the real world.

Nothing against AeroMe or Nxt or any other coin, but if I have to come to your exchange and buy what's there, that isn't life-changing utility.  It's cool, and, full disclosure, I do own some Nxt.  But it's more like a gift card than currency.  

I can use bitcoin to buy a computer, or maybe book some travel.  But these are not things that I do every day or every week.  I buy gas fairly often and I'd LOVE to use BTC or some alt for it.  Why?  BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.  I've done consulting work with c-stores and I can tell you that their margins for gas are terrible.  They also have to pay credit card processing fees on most purchases.  With BTC, they could save money and pass it along.  (CoinFueled is also like a gift card and the merchant ain't gonna give a discount to get you to use it.)

It could be done.  It wouldn't be easy.  It would certainly require merchant adoption, but it would save merchants money in the long run.  At least, it would IF adoption was wide enough.  Chicken and egg question, really.  Why would they do it if nobody is going to use it?  

Innovation is clearly important (DARPANET => worldwide web), but innovation without adoption is pretty empty.  

If Satoshi thought like this, would Bitcoin and crypto currencies be as ground breaking as they are today? He was focused on creating and improving upon his idea, and realized that adoption would come naturally if Bitcoin was a vast improvement over the current financial system and worked as described.

I am absolutely sure that the world needs innovators.  The world needs people who will be single-minded and focused on improvements and innovation.  I'm glad that there are people who will focus on these things.

But BTC has already achieved a certain level of adoption.  In order for crypto to take the next steps, whatever they might be, adoption is actually important.  You can have the best technology sitting on a shelf and if that's where it stays, it doesn't change the world.

In other words, we need BOTH creative innovators AND adopters in order to reach the highest heights.

[CoinHoarder]

I came up with a litmus test use case this week:

Can I use it to put gas in my car?

If not, your "currency" is going to have limited use in the real world.

Nothing against AeroMe or Nxt or any other coin, but if I have to come to your exchange and buy what's there, that isn't life-changing utility.  It's cool, and, full disclosure, I do own some Nxt.  But it's more like a gift card than currency.  

I can use bitcoin to buy a computer, or maybe book some travel.  But these are not things that I do every day or every week.  I buy gas fairly often and I'd LOVE to use BTC or some alt for it.  Why?  BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.  I've done consulting work with c-stores and I can tell you that their margins for gas are terrible.  They also have to pay credit card processing fees on most purchases.  With BTC, they could save money and pass it along.  (CoinFueled is also like a gift card and the merchant ain't gonna give a discount to get you to use it.)

It could be done.  It wouldn't be easy.  It would certainly require merchant adoption, but it would save merchants money in the long run.  At least, it would IF adoption was wide enough.  Chicken and egg question, really.  Why would they do it if nobody is going to use it?  

Innovation is clearly important (DARPANET => worldwide web), but innovation without adoption is pretty empty.  

If Satoshi thought like this, would Bitcoin and crypto currencies be as ground breaking as they are today? He was focused on creating and improving upon his idea, and realized that adoption would come naturally if Bitcoin was a vast improvement over the current financial system and worked as described.

I am absolutely sure that the world needs innovators.  The world needs people who will be single-minded and focused on improvements and innovation.  I'm glad that there are people who will focus on these things.

But BTC has already achieved a certain level of adoption.  In order for crypto to take the next steps, whatever they might be, adoption is actually important.  You can have the best technology sitting on a shelf and if that's where it stays, it doesn't change the world.

In other words, we need BOTH creative innovators AND adopters in order to reach the highest heights.

I think I partly agree with you here after thinking it over a while longer. I may of come across as very anti-marketing in that post, but I didn't mean it quite that way. Mainly my problem is not necessarily with the marketing of crypto currencies, it is with the marketing of crypto currencies that are not innovating and improving upon Bitcoin. I liken the marketing of "copy and paste" coins to scamming via the greater fool theory.

As long as your crypto currency is innovative, is in the process of innovating, and as long as you continue to do this, then I don't really see any problem with marketing yourselves. Just don't try to shove it down people's throats, as then it is met with skepticism and reluctance, as it will seem like some sort of scam at first glance until they make the effort to learn what your crypto currency is all about.

[Este Nuno]

Warning: TL;DR...

Hi Este,

I am glad that you started this conversation, as I feel it is an important one to be had. I believe that most people in the larger crypto currency community (Bitcoin/Litecoin/??) think like you do in regards to the importance of marketing to attract new users, and pushing for merchant adoption. While I do not disagree that those things help increase the utility of their respective crypto currencies, I see things differently.

This was one of the main reasons why I left the Litecoin community and no longer support it. The Litecoin community and I largely disagreed on this principle, as they mainly want to focus on marketing rather than innovation and improving crypto currencies on a developmental level and in an innovative manner. Basically, they are content blindly following anything that Bitcoin implements with the few developers they have, and the rest of the community is dead set on marketing and merchant adoption as the path to success for Litecoin. I think there are several problems with this line of thinking, and I will try to explain why.

Alternative crypto currencies are supposed to be the testing grounds for improvements upon existing crypto currencies and new features. If they are not doing either of these things, then I do not see the point of their existence and it screams of a get rich quick scheme. Any crypto currency that does neither of these things I consider to be a "pump and dump" and/or "scam coin."

Marketing and merchant adoption are important, but marketing and merchant adoption coupled with no innovation and development is akin to betting that people are sheeple. In Litecoin's case, they are betting that people will look past the lack of innovation and the fact it is pretty much a copy and paste coin. While I do not disagree that the vast majority of people in the world are sheeple in regards to problems with trusted third parties and FIAT, it is not these people that are adopting crypto currencies at this point in time. The sheeple are somewhat ignorant to the extreme need of crypto currencies and decentralized technologies. These people will come eventually when crypto currencies have already blown up, and are a vast improvement over the current financial system. It will happen naturally, not by some marketing scheme with an underlying code base that was copied off of some other crypto currency.

It is the free-thinkers (skeptics/non sheeple) that are in the process of adopting crypto currencies and decentralized technologies. These are the same people that will be doing the marketing and pushing merchant adoption. If the free-thinkers can look past your crypto currency’s marketing strategies and see that the underlying crypto currency is mainly a “pump and dump” and/or “scam coin” with no innovation or improvements over another larger already existing crypto currency, then how can they be expected to support it? How can they be expected to help with marketing and pushing merchant adoption, when they don’t believe in the underlying technology themselves?

I believe there are only two answers to that question in regards to alternative crypto currencies. The first being that the supporters of the alternative crypto currency are sheeple themselves, and the second being that the supporters of that crypto currency are only focused on one thing and that is making a profit by "pumping and dumping" at the expense of sheeple. Both answers to this question make me completely and utterly sick, and I do not think that Satoshi would approve either.

After much analysis and reading user’s opinions and thoughts in such crypto currency communities over the years, I have come to the conclusion that most of their community at this point in time falls under the latter answer to that question, which makes me even sicker when thinking about it. Crypto currencies are still in the early adopter phase. As I said earlier, it is mostly the free-thinkers that are adopting crypto currencies and decentralized technologies at this point in time, and I find it highly unlikely that the majority of these early adopters are sheeple. It is utterly shameful people are praying on sheeple for their own financial gain, and relying on “the greater fool theory” to fatten their wallets.

Again, this is why I left the Litecoin community. I realized that it is an either/or situation, and I was completely disgusted by it. Either I was surrounded by sheeple, or I was surrounded by cut throat free-thinkers preying on sheeple by the use of the “greater fool theory,” and either way I decided I wanted no part in it. There was an “ah ha” moment in which I decided Litecoin needed to be innovative and really focus on improving crypto currencies on a technical and developmental level, or the sad reality is that's just how it’s going to be and how it will always be as long as they continue down the same path.

I am a big believer in an altered quote from a corny 90s movie named “The Field of Dreams” in regards to crypto currency adoption, “if you build it they will come.” If you stop and think about it for a second, this is exactly what Satoshi did with Bitcoin, and look at how far Bitcoin has come today. If a crypto currency is innovative enough and a vast improvement over prior crypto currencies, the users and merchants will come eventually. Now and in the near term future, as a crypto currency community… the free-thinkers and early adopters… we should mostly focus on improving crypto currencies the best way possible through innovation and development.

Sadly, I think Bitcoin and Litecoin have mainly gotten off the path that Satoshi paved which was focused on innovation and development, and adoption happening naturally instead of forced upon people. A large part of their community has trouble seeing that both of these crypto currencies are not perfect and have flaws. Try bringing up the flaws of Bitcoin in the General Discussion sub forum and see the kind of hostility and ignorance you are met with. This kind of group think is poison, and it affects the improvement of crypto currencies on an innovative and developmental level, and will only slow down the improvement of crypto currencies. They are not in a large way focusing on implementing new features, improving existing features, and openly talking about flaws of their respective crypto currency.

Doubly sadly, I think most of this group thinking stems from greed. They do not want to talk about the flaws of Bitcoin/Litecoin, and they brush everything off as FUD or “scam coins gonna scam coin.” When in reality they are the ones that are doing the scamming, as they are so worried about fattening their pockets, that they stifle innovation and development. In general, they are so worried that if someone reads a genuine concern about a flaw or short coming about Bitcoin/Litecoin and believes it, that that someone will not invest in the crypto currency they have invested in. This affects the size to which their pockets can fatten, they do not like this one bit, and they make every attempt to shut it down and label it as FUD.

In summary, marketing and pushing for merchant adoption is important, but it is equally important to not succumb to greed and ignorance and to push the crypto currency and/or decentralized technology movement forward through innovation and development. Don’t take this as an attack against Bitmark. I have read what you guys are doing and I realize that you guys are being innovative, and truly making an effort to improve crypto currencies as they are today. I applaud crypto currencies like this for paving the path to the future of crypto currencies, a path that Satoshi started and a path that the larger crypto currency community seems to be wandering off of. Once that path is filled with great new useful features and vast improvements over old crypto currency features, the general public will flock to that path once they realize it is so much better than the government built overgrown bumpy pebble path they have been travelling down their entire lives.

Yes, I agree with you about Litecoin. Very few people in Litecoin seem to want to progress and integrate things that will improve usage. Even now Litecoin is still on Bitcoin's 0.8.x version, and has been for a long time with no signs of any desire to upgrade it. I have no idea why there is such little enthusiasm in that community for improvement.

I don't think marketing itself is a good path to adoption. I think coming up with new and innovative ways to make crypto easier to use and more convenient is what matters most for average people. The main goal of Bitmark is to provide innovations and improvements on how people can use crypto in their lives as a daily use currency. In a lot of cases it's not very convenient, or it's hard to use. Instead of marketing things that already exist in a new package(Bitcoin, Litecoin) I think it's better to take them and improve upon then and provide new value on top of what they already are by developing new ways they can be used.

The biggest question is what innovations actually provide value, and to whom? Anonymity definitely provides value to a certain part of the population who demands anonymous transactions. Bitshares is aiming at providing value to business. Lots of different currencies are innovating in many different ways, and that's great. For us we want to see which innovations will provide value in a daily use currency, and once they are proven stable and useful, integrate them in to Bitmark. Right now there are many implementations of PoS and anonymity, but which one is going to turn out to be the best? And which one will go through rigorous testing? Bitcoin development is deadlocked, and Litecoin seemingly has no desire to ever change anything. So surprisingly there are very few actual alternative currencies that are attempting to improve on the traditional formula of creating an actual currency that people can use on a daily basis.

People are developing all kinds of new and exciting technologies, and they get rewarded for it through people speculating on their currency. But in the long term without adoption it's likely their market share will erode. Especially considering the open source nature of all these technologies and the fact that other forward thinking projects can implement technology that they feel will benefit them. Imagine if there was a schism in Bitcoin and new a development team took over that was free of petty politics and had a clear agenda of improving Bitcoin. A year from now they could implement all of these innovations and drastically improve Bitcoin, but as we know, that's almost certainly not going to happen. Thus we are left with a big hole in the market for someone to come along and take the best of both worlds, focus on adoption and adopting proven innovations.

The general crypto scene is disgusting, I agree. How many projects actually focus on building something that intends to be a long term project that provides real value? Not many. Some definitely, but only a handful out of hundreds, if not thousands. I think in the short term innovators are rewarded for their innovations by the market, but in the long term I suspect it will take more than that to sustain a market cap. The demand has to be there to keep up with the inflation. Something like a good anonymous currency might have enough utility in itself to sustain demand for a long time. There is lots of utility to anonymous transactions. But one example of an impressive innovation that I feel has little chance of growing is the miniblockchain tech from Cryptonite(XCN). Unless they either continue to innovate, or focus on creating new ways for people to use the currency(like Marking or something similar) I doubt they will see sustained growth even though they've developed novel tech.

[Este Nuno]

Maybe most people disagree with me on this, I don't know. I admit often there are times I am prone to thinking outside of the box. I just think adoption will come naturally if your crypto currency is a vast improvement over Bitcoin and/or the current financial system, and it is not something that needs to be forced down people's throats as it will be met with skepticism and reluctance if done this way. I believe this kind of promotion is stifling the adoption of Bitcoin itself. The way people talk about it and try to force adoption onto people, it does kind of sound like a scam of some sort until people actually learn what Bitcoin is and how it works.

You're right actually if you ask me. Bitcoin has pretty much established itself here, there is no need for something that features no or minor improvements over it. People tend to think different. There was no need for LTC and for this reason it shall not gain much traction.
Even these so called 'crypto 2.0 coins' aren't enough. I do not see them being able to gain a wider adoption as they are mostly premined/used to get money out of your pockets.

I think when Litecoin came out back in 2011 I think it was fair to say we needed a fair Bitcoin alternative on a different PoW algorithm in case something happened to Bitcoin. At the time we were plagued by scamcoins like Solidcoin and Tenebrix. There really was no alternative at that point. So Litecoin was lucky in the sense that it was in the right place at the right time.

Overtime the Litecoin community degraded to the point that it's at today, but I think that three years ago it was reasonable to expect it to keep a marketshare of 2-5% of Bitcoin, just on the fact that there was no real alternative.

[TaunSew]

I came up with a litmus test use case this week:

Can I use it to put gas in my car?

If not, your "currency" is going to have limited use in the real world.

Nothing against AeroMe or Nxt or any other coin, but if I have to come to your exchange and buy what's there, that isn't life-changing utility.  It's cool, and, full disclosure, I do own some Nxt.  But it's more like a gift card than currency.  

I can use bitcoin to buy a computer, or maybe book some travel.  But these are not things that I do every day or every week.  I buy gas fairly often and I'd LOVE to use BTC or some alt for it.  Why?  BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.  I've done consulting work with c-stores and I can tell you that their margins for gas are terrible.  They also have to pay credit card processing fees on most purchases.  With BTC, they could save money and pass it along.  (CoinFueled is also like a gift card and the merchant ain't gonna give a discount to get you to use it.)

It could be done.  It wouldn't be easy.  It would certainly require merchant adoption, but it would save merchants money in the long run.  At least, it would IF adoption was wide enough.  Chicken and egg question, really.  Why would they do it if nobody is going to use it?  

Innovation is clearly important (DARPANET => worldwide web), but innovation without adoption is pretty empty.  

 You can use BTC to put gasoline into your car.  There's blogs of people traveling across the United States and Europe with just BTC, using intermediary services to purchase things when BTC itself is not accepted.

[Brangdon]

Can I use it to put gas in my car?

If not, your "currency" is going to have limited use in the real world.

Expecting to be able to do that on the day a new currency is launched is unrealistic. Adoption takes time. It goes in stages. Even Bitcoin is still in the early stages, after 5 years.

I'm a fan of Nxt. I think the biggest single thing they could do to help adoption is reduce the fees. They can't do it, because the technology isn't there. So they are working on the technology, and they'll probably have it done by Christmas. It's a race, not a sprint.

[Este Nuno]

I am really new to the cryptocurrency world. It seems to me quite funny that new altcoins are appreciated for the method of their mining. It is like to debate if a new fiat currency can be printed on the ink jet or laser jet... And pumping and dumping at the exchanges is another crazy thing.

So, I agree 100% cryptocurrencies must focus on their usability for everydaylife. On the other hand I am not able to understand the concept of Bitmark (I read this http://bitcoinbarbie.com/project-bitmark/ and I am confused). Is there any explanation of this idea for idiots like me? :-) Some example: I like some article on the web and I want to like or "mark" him somehow with Bitmark. What should I do and what is the sense of it for me, for the publisher of the article and for the cryptocurrencies?

Marking is the first major adoption initiative of Bitmark. What you will be able to do is use marks(0.001 BTM) in different ways, here are some examples:

• Using marks to mark posts you like on a message board. The posts that have more marks are more visible. Think karma on Reddit, but customization for any particular community who integrates Marking. People who post good content and contribute can be rewarded with currency and there is less incentive to mark content is merely average. Posts that are bad or considered spam could be marked that way, and if enough people mark it as spam as well or when a moderator checks it, the post could be deleted and people would receive their marks back and possibly a small incentive reward from the site. You risk your own value to keep it honest.
• Reading an article on a blog, you'll be able to tip the author in marks if you wish. It will be an easy way to tip in general, but that's probably the most basic usage of marking.
• A website that integrates marking could raise money for a charity by allocating a percentage of all marks used on the site for donations to their charity of choice.
• Micro-transactions on a website that integrates marking will be simple and easy. Buy digital media, order a t-shirt. Play a game that requires many small transactions worth pennies that would be eaten up by transaction fees otherwise.
• You'll eventually be able to mark things like restaurants which in effect acts as a review, or their reputation. It will be a simple and impartial way for people to share their opinions.
• Building on that last point, in general eventually you should be able to mark almost anything by marking it's GPS coordinates. That could be used for much more than just restaurant reviews. There's a lot of possibility there.
  
  

There's lots more ways marking can be used, and there's still more ways that people will figure out over time. It's something that's going to grow over the next few years. What makes it special is the fact that marks will be universal. You'll be able to transfer them between websites that have adopted marking, you'll also be able to instantly convert them back in to Bitmark by getting them back on the blockchain if you wanted to. There's also the possibility of sidechaining the marking system with the Bitmark blockchain, which will be evaluated as time goes on. And if it's deemed to be benefiical or necessary at a later date, it will be integrated. It's one of the things that need to be decided over time.

https://github.com/project-bitmark/marking/wiki is an overview of the concept that's still in development. There's still a lot of documentation that needs to be written as development takes shape.

The big thing is that there will be a lot of opportunity for people to either integrate marking in to their existing business if it provides value to them(which to start with, would clearly benefit lots of different websites), and there will also be a lot of opportunity for people to be new business that take advantage of marking. Think web 3.0, the semantic web. By interacting with meaningful tokens that actually have value(unlike facebook 'likes') much more meaning can be gleaned about what users actually like and how they can interact on the web with the services they use. It's not about tracking people all over the web, it's about improving the services people have already decided to use.

[Lauda]

I think when Litecoin came out back in 2011 I think it was fair to say we needed a fair Bitcoin alternative on a different PoW algorithm in case something happened to Bitcoin. At the time we were plagued by scamcoins like Solidcoin and Tenebrix. There really was no alternative at that point. So Litecoin was lucky in the sense that it was in the right place at the right time.

Overtime the Litecoin community degraded to the point that it's at today, but I think that three years ago it was reasonable to expect it to keep a marketshare of 2-5% of Bitcoin, just on the fact that there was no real alternative.

I was not around this back in '11, but I've read up what happened in the past. Indeed back in the past there was a need for a second solution and Litecoin was enough. Now there isn't such a huge need for more currencies yet they keep surfacing. It's good that some did, because LTC obviously isn't improving much if not at all. If all coins focused on adoption this would create an even bigger mess. You would see random coins being accepted at random places. If the technical features behind the coin have proven themselves enough, adoption will come with time.
But Bitcoin will always stay the kind of adoption.

[Este Nuno]

I think when Litecoin came out back in 2011 I think it was fair to say we needed a fair Bitcoin alternative on a different PoW algorithm in case something happened to Bitcoin. At the time we were plagued by scamcoins like Solidcoin and Tenebrix. There really was no alternative at that point. So Litecoin was lucky in the sense that it was in the right place at the right time.

Overtime the Litecoin community degraded to the point that it's at today, but I think that three years ago it was reasonable to expect it to keep a marketshare of 2-5% of Bitcoin, just on the fact that there was no real alternative.

I was not around this back in '11, but I've read up what happened in the past. Indeed back in the past there was a need for a second solution and Litecoin was enough. Now there isn't such a huge need for more currencies yet they keep surfacing. It's good that some did, because LTC obviously isn't improving much if not at all. If all coins focused on adoption this would create an even bigger mess. You would see random coins being accepted at random places. If the technical features behind the coin have proven themselves enough, adoption will come with time.
But Bitcoin will always stay the kind of adoption.

Bitcoin has a lot of good companies like Bitpay and Coinbase pushing for adoption. But they are on their own in the sense that it's unlikely Bitcoin development is going to make any special modifications to the protocol like faster transactions or allowing sidechains. The fact that no one is really thinking about innovative ways to increase adoption outside of Bitcoin and developing the technology to do so means that there is room for a competitor. There are still lots of people in this world who know nothing about Bitcoin, but imagine if instead of Bitcoin, their first interaction with cryptocurrency was easy to use and actually provided them value over their normal ways of transaction. And what if it wasn't Bitcoin, but another currency that was directly focused on this type of person and building infrastructure that made crypto easier to use for regular people. Seems like there is still a huge market out there for whoever steps up.

Our internal market, the one were all in now, is obviously over-saturated. But there's still a blue ocean of people who can benefit from this new technology. Only if it's presented well enough that they would actually want to use it though. It has to provide value for them.