Quote from: Luckybit on May 04, 2013, 01:57:45 PM

Quote from: erk on May 04, 2013, 09:18:23 AM

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

That has nothing to do with scarcity. That can be solved by simple saying 0.001 is 1 Net dollar. Then as the Net dollar becomes 0.0001 then we call that 1 Net dollar and so on.

Quote from: digicoin on May 04, 2013, 09:29:10 AM

Quote from: erk on May 04, 2013, 09:18:23 AM

Scarcity is BS, people like to think in whole numbers, not fractions. If you make a coin that the average person has do deal with the concept of 0.00000934 to buy a burger, the thing will be a flop. It will only appeal to the exchange geeks like most of the alt coins.

Agreed. Scarcity can make NetCoin price too high in term of USD, which is too risky to everyone for trading and keeping it. It is not good for adoption.

As a novice guy, I like to keep some NetCoins instead of a fraction of it: 0.0001 NetCoin. Also, I feel safe if 1 USD can be exchanged for 2 NetCoins instead of 0.00012 NetCoin. Dealing with floating point is not comfortable at all.

However, I also agree that Scarcity can make NetCoin attractive to early adopters because it makes miners think that they are holding something more valuable. But when it comes to mass market, it is not a nice idea any more.

It wont make the price too high. It's really simple. 1 Bitcoin dollar is 0.001. It might change a little bit but for now that's an approximation. We can easily put the dollar amount next to BTC so when you have 0.2443 BTC it's $3. We could do the same for Netcoin.

The reason this isn't a problem isn't because of scarcity, it's because the exchange developers and others involved in the infrastructure are either lazy, or are nerds who expect everyone to like fractions. This will change as it goes mainstream for many of the reasons you mention and the change doesn't have to be built into the coin design it just requires a small piece of code that I could write or anyone could which fetches the latest exchange rate and then translates it into dollars, cents, etc.

Quote from: FreeBit on May 04, 2013, 11:10:13 AM

Quote from: Luckybit on May 04, 2013, 08:55:26 AM

...

Lots of scarcity is fine when you can just break the currency up infinitely. If Netcoin is worth 2 Bitcoins each then everyone with Bitcoin will trade for Netcoins. This is necessary for the same reason that Bitcoin had to be 21 million so everyone with dollars would trade for Bitcoin. If Bitcoin were 1:1 with dollars why would anyone trade their dollars in? Netcoin has to be more scarce than Bitcoin for the exchange value. If it's worth exactly the same as Bitcoin why not just use Bitcoin? Even if Netcoin is better technology, if it costs a Bitcoin people will go with Bitcoin.

For me the main and most important thing about decentralized crypto currencies - besides they are the next step in evolution and the still applying early adopter bonus in the long run - is, that they could take central banks, traditional banks and govermental ambitions out of the game. Finishing up with being lied straight into the face all the time by Bernanke, Draghi and so on.

And in this context is - IMO - enough space for several crypto currencies with different properties for different uses. Maybe Bitcoin as a wealth storage and transportation medium, PPC for serious day-by-day and investment use and FreiCoin for stubborn idealists, who are willing to pay for that.

One thing to consider is lifespan. A coin is part of an evolutionary process or story. I don't expect any of these coins to be around 100 years from now, not even Bitcoin. If these coins are still used 100 years from now then something went seriously wrong in our society if we didn't advance since then.

How long did Netscape 1.0 last? Until Netscape 2.0. Netscape 2.0 lasted until Internet Explorer. Mozilla came along and gave Internet Explorer competition. The shelflife of new technologies should be expected to shrink as we approach what Kurzweil calls the technological singularity. It is for this reason that I say the time scale that Bitcoin was working with isn't going to work for the next generation of coins and it's for precisely the same reason that the upgrade cycle on browsers had to change and now we are on Chrome 20 and Firefox 10 or 11. The upgrade cycle either increases with the decreasing lifecycle or most of these coins will be dead within 5-6 years. Technology speeds up the rate of change and the rate of evolution, and I agree with you completely that we need to treat it like a coin tournament and try out as many different coins and types of money philosophy as we can until we discover what works best for what. It's about filling different niches, as no coin is perfect for everything. It's also about improving on whatever is out there because that is evolution.

So many things. Um. Ok, you've mentioned that the number of coins should be planned to match the size of the current community that uses them. That's horrible. You want to try for success. Sure, be READY for something to fail, but REACH for success, aka widespread acceptance. It's not about whether 'late' adopters get rich from mining or not. Cryptocurrencies aren't there to give the early adopters the chance to lord it over those who missed the train, they're there to provide a new way to exchange value that isn't dependant on central planners and governments. Sure, early adopters DO have a chance to get rich, if the currency succeeds, but they also have the chance that they'll have wasted their time and computing power for nothing if it fizzles and dies. The point isn't who gets rich. The point is how many people can and do participate.

I DO partially agree with you on your netscape analogy. I am very pleased with the number of 'alt' coins popping up. However, keep in mind that the cryptocurrency universe, while it is certainly very INVOLVED with technology, isn't necessarily BASED on technology. It's based on MATH. They're conceptual in nature. It's about the psychology of both individuals and groups as much as it's about the hashrate you can produce at any given time. It's the free market, it's evolution. The strong coins will survive, and those coins that are unsuitable will fall to the side and be passed by. However, again, you shouldn't EXPECT to fail, even gradually at some point in the far future. Make PLANS in case of failure, have them ready, but TRY to succeed. Put your efforts into a push for success. Laying out a path of failure and following it has a fairly predictable outcome.