Quote from: Solidchance on October 09, 2014, 04:24:36 AM

Quote from: jc12345 on October 09, 2014, 03:50:49 AM

Quote from: Bobsurplus on October 09, 2014, 02:47:33 AM

Quote from: Confirm01 on October 08, 2014, 08:33:30 PM

Quote from: BitSwift on October 08, 2014, 08:15:57 PM

Hello, we are proud to announce that a Bitswift multipool is in the works.

What do you mean in the works? ETA, roadmap, details? You're first days where nice but the last days we only get vague information. Your pdf's also give very little information no details, no eta and no how we will. Undecided

The coin is less then 7 days old..

LMAO.. you're a fool dude.. How much do you expect to be rolled out in the first 100 hours? Dont you get it? This is a long term play with only upside potential. Leave the devs alone to do their shit!

It is a fair question.

Remember that in crypto people's attention span is 2 weeks max aka "honeymoon period". The dev therefore has to maximise price during this period because after 2 weeks people start to look around to other coins and many speculators move their money to fresh coins where most of their money can be made. If the speculators feel that the devs momentum is slowing down, then the chances of volatility and high volume reduces and lower volatility and lower volume means a lower opportunity for profit. A dev therefore has to make a choice - on the one hand he can start a coin with a bang running at 100mph or he can start the coin running at 10mph. The advantage of the first option is that he is seen as a dynamic and committed dev and the price can skyrocket in the beginning. The disadvantage is that all energy is exhausted quickly and a slowdown from 100mph to 50mph is easily noticed and leads to all sorts of questions about the slowdown. The price will also start to taper down after a quick rise, since the price is linked to hype. This can be compared to running a 10 mile race but sprinting during the first 30min until you are tired. Alternatively a dev can start things slower but have good news spread it out a little bit. The second option could perhaps extend the honeymoon period a little and cause less questions about delivery. The second option could be a race winner and have a more gradual price increase. Pump groups would like the first option as it would skyrocket the price on hype for them to take their profit and move on. Long term investors would favour the 2nd option. In the case of Swift the dev played most? of his cards in the first day or two probably hoping for a massive quick price rise. The dev chose to start the race at 100mph and now he has to maintain the pace or face the risk of questions and inevitable FUD about a pace decrease.

In addition, real value is based on delivery and adoption. Any price increase not based on working functionality, rollout, adoption and real life use is pure speculative, fake and empty. Feature delivery is just a temporary factor to maintain investor interest and maintain a level of belief in the dev until the real life use and adoption can kick in. It is during the period after the honeymoon ends until rollout and adoption that most if not all coins fail. Also, when a POS coin is evaluated, compare apples to apples meaning compare it with other POS coins. Many people in here compare Swift to BTCD or DRK. It is completely different because those coins are POW which have different attributes affecting the price.

Yeah speaking about that...Where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto?

When the great man/group developed and rolled out BTC it was the first of its kind and different rules applied at the time. There were no features, bling or anything - just a straight forward protocol to roll out a proof of concept digital/virtual "currency". There was no honeymoon period for BTC and it went straight to market adoption and use. A coin's price is determined by the market forces of supply and demand. Supply and demand is created by several factors including utility, sentiment and earnings. With utility in this context I mean how useful the coin is to people to make their lives easier. With sentiment in this context I mean the view of whether there is a future for the coin in the hostile environment it operates in that is impacted by factors like regulation, bans, public acceptance, potential of future improvement in utility or potential future earnings etc. With earnings in this context I mean loosely combining capital gains and then also income from holding that can be compared to "dividends" or interest. BTC has a good mix of investors/speculators/users/entrepreneurs that can provide a good mix of the factors influencing the price. BTC currently has extremely high utility as a tender instrument, ever increasing adoption, the sentiment is a bit on the low side due to the China and Russia factors as well as several warnings and wait and see government approaches. I am not aware of a virtual bank that takes BTC deposits on which you can earn interest and BTC is not a company that can pay you dividends and does not incorporate something like POS. You can however get some "earnings" from speculation on the market or depending on the sentiment make some capital gains over the longer term if you are an investor. BTC has proven utility and adoption by the public with many entrepreneurs working in the space of improving utility and adoption. Sentiment you can do nothing about directly and few entrepreneurs have worked in the space of how to create earnings with BTC. BTC does not need Satashi Nakamoto becuase his purpose has been served and BTC does not need bling. BTC has already arrived and just needs a team to make sure that the blockchain is working, stays secure, that availability is maintained at all times and perhaps handle regulatory issues.

Alt-coins needs its Satoshi Nakamotos because each coins promises to take on an established BTC by somehow providing a higher utility or provide some kind of earnings. This requires distinguishing factors that needs to be developed through innovation, rolled out and aggressively marketed. Many devs also add lots of bling that is mostly useless other than being pretty. Unscrupulous devs and pump groups focus largely on the sentiment piece by creating hype with the promise of increased utility or earnings in an attempt to positively impact the sentiment of a coin by making investors have a positive future view of the coin. Sentiment is not really fundamentals on its own when created by hype and bling whereas utility AND adoption thereof and real earnings are more fundamental imo for increasing demand and decreasing supply and therefore increasing price in a sustainable way. At this point in alt-coins there are mostly speculators, less investors out of free will, even less entrepreneurs and almost no day to day users and therefore no adoption. When speculators have done their deeds and the remaining bagholders (lets call them investors by force) realise that there is no real improvement in utility of a coin and no adoption and that there are no real earnings and that the features were just bling to pump up sentiment, the artificial demand drops, supply increases and the coin price crashes. The alt-coin that can provide the innovation to adapt Satoshi Nakamoto's work to provide something that tops BTC utility and adoption and as a bonus can provide real earnings without the necessity to artificially pump the sentiment will have a good chance to stand up against BTC and even potentially take it over as even BTC cannot last forever in its current form. The current shambles in alt-coins serves no other purpose but to be a breeding ground for innovators to fulfil the purpose of enhancing Satoshi's work to get to the future digital currency to take the world forward through the next few decades. This breeding ground is fraught with scams but even scams has a place in the bigger picture to learn about vulnerabilities in the system to add to the body of knowledge in order to build something robust.

That is imo why Satoshi Nakamoto is not needed for BTC but similar innovators are needed for alt-coins which hopefully answers your question. Unless your question was just meant to be rhetorical?