Quote from: pac on August 06, 2014, 07:32:06 PM

You are asking an exchange to make an adaption to their markets. Are you going to ask all exchanges to do so? Asking one is tough by itself, asking all is even harder and it could even be a reason for exchanges not to add karma in the future. Not asking everyone could lead to confusion, people are idiots after all.

Price is steady at the 2 satoshi btc wall, the ltc markets are the ones that are moving. Btc only follows and offers an opportunity for big investors to by a large sum at once if they want to. With this move you could make the btc market the leading market again, but that can just as easily work against us. Almost no one is willing to sell at 2 satoshi, they might still try to bring the price down from lets say 2100 to 1750.

No more tricks is imho a very good reason not to ask for this change. Behind this proposition lies no added value and investors, both current and future, could see this as a weak move.

How do I feel about this possible move? There is a high reward, a possibility for karma to get back to the volume figures on the btc market where we want to be. Its not difficult for karma development, but we would need help/consent from our exchanges and that might pose some problems. I would say the likelihood of us getting more volume is low, and this move would most likely be viewed as weak, similar though not as bad as lowering our total numbers. I dont see it doing much for us, good nor bad, but if I had to vote it would be a no.

I suggest it would be the standard request that goes with a new coin listing. We can not and would not make it mandatory in any way, just recommended to increase volume.

If changes and other announcements are not made I predict that 2 Satoshi "wall" will be gone by the end of next week if not sooner. Making this change is unlikely to stop that, that isn't the purpose of this change. It will help the price recover because it will stop a sell wall forming at exactly 2 Satoshi.

This is a strong move because it is bold not weak. Weak is not implementing a change because you can't predict what it will do. We can't hide behind flimsy walls for ever in the vague hope that they won't fall.

Quote from: Alphi on August 06, 2014, 09:13:23 PM

Quote from: kosmost on August 06, 2014, 06:49:24 PM

Can anyone provide a detailed reason not to implement this plan, other than "no more tricks, Irish!" or "just because"?

1) it will have little to no effect on volume.
2) it creates fractions which cannot be sold easily. having a coin that can be broken down to 8 decimal places but can only be traded in lots of 1000 is a contradiction.
EDIT: I understand that the pricing is in 1000 lots and it wont be mandatory but I still believe that by pricing it this way it will have a similar effect because if you list the BUYS with 1000 unit pricing you also have to list the SELLS with 1000 unit pricing.
e.g. someone wants to sell 99 karma how do they do that? if they type 99 they might end up selling 99,000 Karma. so they have to type 0.0099 to sell 99 Karma? Huh

3) inconsistent market pricing creates buyer confusion.
4) it sends a message to the market that despite all the talk about building real value for Karma.. the primary focus is trying to use smoke and mirrors to suck in more buyers.
5) coin developers who tell exchanges how they should conduct their business are likely to not be welcomed with open arms.

to sum up.. I am not against the plan.. I just think it is pointless and a waste of time and energy.

1. No impact on volume is ok. I think it will more likely increase volume, there are people that trade exclusively in the Bitcoin market. When the price is stuck between two points there is less volume, even in the LTC market because they know their gains have a glass ceiling.
2. If you type in 99 you will only sell 99. Please have a look at the graphic and the sentence just under it.
3/4. It isn't that confusing when you look at how it would work on an exchange. It is building real value for Karma because currently Karma's major use IS trading on exchanges, anything that can be done to increase the ability for this to occur is beneficial. There are probably people that hold KARM that don't even know it is really called Karma.
5. A consumer is making a mutually beneficial request to a business. I don't think they will mind too much.

It is never a waste of time and energy discussing something as important as this. I will be able to move onto the things I think are the second and third most important things for Karma's future once this is progressing.

I have only quoted the comments I have disagreed with, as far as I can tell more people are in favour of the change than there are people that disagree with it. I have already made too much of an argument for it for people to really write more thoughts in favour of it.

Chargin.