Quote from: Nissi on May 01, 2013, 09:28:58 PM

Some food for thought... (Please explore and critique these ideas, they are intended for brainstorming purposes)

- VALUE: Cryptocurrencies are currently linked very strongly to the USD/EU. Many miners simply mine the currency in order to sell it for USD. If these are ever going to have a chance at surviving, the infrastructure needs improvement. That is happening to a point, but really what we want is not 'x coins buys x dollars' but rather 'x coins buys a soda' as a way of thinking. What if the coins, as they gained value against other currencies, actually multiplied by 10's? so if its initial worth was $0.10 US, 10 coins buys a soda. If the value against the USD goes up to $1.00 per coin, everyone coins get multiplied by 10 (sort of like splitting a stock). The purpose would be to keep the purchasing power of a single coin approximately constant so that resellers can set prices in terms of our currency and not risk their prices being way off due to massive market swings like bitcoin has experienced.

You're misunderstanding the psychology of coin collectors. I have collected stuff all my life. My uncle taught me to collect coins, then it was onto baseball and basketball cards, and so on and so forth. The value in whatever you're collecting depends on the condition it's in and how rare it is. How valuable would a limited edition anything be if you decide later on that because the USD moved that now you're going to make it less limited? That is basically what the US banks and federal reserve already do and why would we want to bring that weakness into cryptocurrencies?

I think the total number of coins must be less than Bitcoin to be worth more than Bitcoin. It's not really something you can disprove because the math is the truth. Mincoin is the most valuable coin and I think this coin should copy Mincoin and go with let's say 8 million total coins (Mincoin has 10 million). The only mistake Mincoin made was they had a 3 day IPO launch which most people believe was a bit too quick but beyond that as far as the mathematics behind it go, for a mere fork of Litecoin it has better long term value than Litecoin could ever have. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=165397.0 The math does not lie.

Now am not saying everything about Bitcoin or Mincoin is right but the one thing Bitcoin and Mincoin did get right was to limit the total number of coins. That was one of the best decisions. The volatility isn't going to be an issue once the infrastructure is in place do you're trying to say Netcoin should try to solve a problem which wont be a problem by the time Netcoin becomes mainstream?

Netcoin's problem will be growing fast enough and being valuable enough. The infrastructure will be in place and so a fast-track IPO in my opinion is the best way to do it not just for Netcoin but for future coins where the launches should be faster and faster because there shouldn't be the assumption that there will be time to launch them like there are now. Either the environment will be much more hostile to cryptocurrencies or much more competitive and either way a quick launch is a competitive advantage. Bitcoin was the first so it could take 5 years because there was no infrastructure. The first websites and search engines could take a longer time but the growth rate has to improve.

I'm saying Netcoin could get away with 11 million coins, this is less than Bitcoin and competitive with Mincoin. It cannot get away with 400 million coins or 100 million coins or 60 million coins. It has to be less than Bitcoin to be competitive with Bitcoin because no one is going to buy into Netcoin if Netcoin isn't worth as much (and never will be) as Bitcoin. It should be a decision where Netcoin will eventually be worth double what Bitcoin is worth and then everyone would buy Netcoins as soon as it's useful and they can spend it.