Quote from: patmast3r on February 14, 2016, 10:05:28 AM

Quote from: generalizethis on February 14, 2016, 09:57:53 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 14, 2016, 09:50:39 AM

Quote from: generalizethis on February 14, 2016, 09:39:30 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 14, 2016, 09:32:34 AM

Quote from: generalizethis on February 14, 2016, 09:28:07 AM

Quote from: TPTB_need_war on February 14, 2016, 08:41:00 AM

Quote from: talkbitcoin on February 14, 2016, 08:37:33 AM

pre mine is a big no, but i don't care if it is POS or anything else as long as it can survive and its price goes up.

And if there is a premined coin with 1 millions users and growing faster than Bitcoin, then you are just going to let the train leave the station with you left behind because of your irrational bias?

Do you really think you can fork an inertia like that.

Could this bias be what prevents the very scenario you are talking about? I'm fairly certain there is a psychological term for it, but don't feel like looking it up when the example is right here.

I don't think so because speculators are followers not leaders. Adoption can lead speculation, not vice versa.

This assumes that everyone who is speculating is only thinking as (or for) speculators in their equation, some, if not most, might be using their own metrics for use to determine what to invest in--not a "what would someone else use" mindset, but a "what would I use" mindset. It is possible for people to be both user and speculator and simultaneously spur adoption and speculation.

But I don't think speculators make wise decisions as to how to invest for adoption, because they are not close enough to the technology and marketing. The creators are the leaders. That is why I have often said that I don't think open source can create/tap a new market.

I intend to prove that and say, "I told you so" to smooth, rpietila, and all the Monero crowd.

Open source is a refinement and shared investment in quality assurance mechanism, not a creative one.

My guess is you are talking about a coin that is premined, but doesn't suffer from the centralization of power that we've been raised to believe in the crypto universe is the enemy of all that is decentralized and good, correct? So now, if you invent it and that's the model you chose, you will have to convince early adopters that what they've been led to believe by everyone relevant in the community is not true for your coin, which is the exception to this "rule". I hope you see the chalenge you are building for yourself-- the early adopters are the ones who determine which turn the speculators take in the maze.

This, usually along with shoddy tech, is why premined coins can't get enough traction. You can educate, but ignoring the problem will only get you a bunch of stubborn speculators who can't see the limitations of their greed.

this sounds like you're saying mining doesn't lead to centralization which is complteely untrue. If centralization is your concern then you might as well go with a premine.

I'm saying mining centralization is one of the problems that may be solved (I didn't actually touch on the subject), but a premine is guaranteeing centralization (at least with the current crop of coins), BUT what I'm really pointing out is that anyone who wants to launch a coin with a premine will have to overcome this obstacle/bias--even if their coin has solved the problem.