Search content
Sort by
Showing 18 of 18 results by Maluridea
-1 on cryptos being a good store of value. Maybe in the future but for today nah.
+1 on a large organization releasing their coin, I was hoping for Wikipedia or Wikileaks though
+1 on a large organization releasing their coin, I was hoping for Wikipedia or Wikileaks though
Re: [ANN] profit switching auto-exchanging pool - www.middlecoin.com
Doing a little test comparing Wafflepool with Middlecoin.
System 1: 888 kH running on wafflepool (818.1 WU/m)
System 2: 1465 kH running on Middlecoin (will update WU/m later today)
Dates: from the 9th until today
Location: EU, both are using closest servers and so far basically no downtime (at least nothing that I've noticed on either) on either pool during this period.
Results so far in daily earnings per MH paid to my BTC wallet:
from the 9th until today
Wafflepool: 0,012400744
Middlecoin: 0,012222466 (forgot to take note of unexchanged)
from the 12th until today
Wafflepool: 0,012275473
Middlecoin: 0,011666822 (took note of unexchanged)
My BTC address so you can compare on your own:
http://www.middlecoin.com/reports/156hqodvbN4ugtnYMMc87c71pjRqBzPxub.html
http://wafflepool.com/miner/156hqodvbN4ugtnYMMc87c71pjRqBzPxub#
I will run this test for another week or so, but so far waffle is showing slightly higher earnings than MC does. If anyone spots anything wrong with my calculations please let me know, the data is there for you to check. This increased earning seems to do with me getting about 8.5% rejects on middlecoin + its higher fee, whereas my rejects on wafflepool is 2% and 1% fee. So it does seem that middlecoin seems better in terms of mining coins during the period I mined, but that its higher reject and fee make the overall profitability lower. The overall difference is very low though, and wafflepool is better looking imo ^^. Basically, it seems that profitability is determined by what works for you.
System 1: 888 kH running on wafflepool (818.1 WU/m)
System 2: 1465 kH running on Middlecoin (will update WU/m later today)
Dates: from the 9th until today
Location: EU, both are using closest servers and so far basically no downtime (at least nothing that I've noticed on either) on either pool during this period.
Results so far in daily earnings per MH paid to my BTC wallet:
from the 9th until today
Wafflepool: 0,012400744
Middlecoin: 0,012222466 (forgot to take note of unexchanged)
from the 12th until today
Wafflepool: 0,012275473
Middlecoin: 0,011666822 (took note of unexchanged
)My BTC address so you can compare on your own:
http://www.middlecoin.com/reports/156hqodvbN4ugtnYMMc87c71pjRqBzPxub.html
http://wafflepool.com/miner/156hqodvbN4ugtnYMMc87c71pjRqBzPxub#
I will run this test for another week or so, but so far waffle is showing slightly higher earnings than MC does. If anyone spots anything wrong with my calculations please let me know, the data is there for you to check. This increased earning seems to do with me getting about 8.5% rejects on middlecoin + its higher fee, whereas my rejects on wafflepool is 2% and 1% fee. So it does seem that middlecoin seems better in terms of mining coins during the period I mined, but that its higher reject and fee make the overall profitability lower. The overall difference is very low though, and wafflepool is better looking imo ^^. Basically, it seems that profitability is determined by what works for you.
I think the success of a coin has more to do with the psychological connection rather than the specific technical aspects. This is why marketing works so well, it relates to the customer on a human level, not with specific boring technical details of a product. While they advertise tech aspects its not their main focus.
Bitcoin was first, it has the name, simple as that. We know theres 100s of "Better and more sophisticated coins" but its has the name. The majority of people who own BTC wouldn't have much of an idea of the inner workings and probably don't care. They just hope to be on the money train and relate to its name and popularity. All the innovations of payment systems and real world use follows.
After watching the ups and downs of the alt coin world over the last year or so, you can see how it works, new coins are printed daily, they are hyped pumped and dumped. Overly technical coins appeal to a certain audience, they buy up early and hype begins then its dumped, there doesnt seem to be a long term uptake.
We have to remember the real world success of a coin depends on mass adoption, what do the masses want? They want something that can use and that they relate to. The name of a coin is 80% of its success, 20% technical, to the masses that is. Look at Bitcoin, very outdated on a technical level, but hugely successful on its fame level.
Many will disagree with me on this, as this is primarily a technical forum, but this is why I'm leaning on coins like Digitalcoin and netcoin etc, the name fits the purpose. Long term I think this will win out.
I think there will be a point where we will all turn around and see coins like DGC take off like a rocket, not based on the tech aspects but the name and fame, along with good security and development community, you still need the 20% technical aspect.
Just my two cents after a year in the game.
Bitcoin was first, it has the name, simple as that. We know theres 100s of "Better and more sophisticated coins" but its has the name. The majority of people who own BTC wouldn't have much of an idea of the inner workings and probably don't care. They just hope to be on the money train and relate to its name and popularity. All the innovations of payment systems and real world use follows.
After watching the ups and downs of the alt coin world over the last year or so, you can see how it works, new coins are printed daily, they are hyped pumped and dumped. Overly technical coins appeal to a certain audience, they buy up early and hype begins then its dumped, there doesnt seem to be a long term uptake.
We have to remember the real world success of a coin depends on mass adoption, what do the masses want? They want something that can use and that they relate to. The name of a coin is 80% of its success, 20% technical, to the masses that is. Look at Bitcoin, very outdated on a technical level, but hugely successful on its fame level.
Many will disagree with me on this, as this is primarily a technical forum, but this is why I'm leaning on coins like Digitalcoin and netcoin etc, the name fits the purpose. Long term I think this will win out.
I think there will be a point where we will all turn around and see coins like DGC take off like a rocket, not based on the tech aspects but the name and fame, along with good security and development community, you still need the 20% technical aspect.
Just my two cents after a year in the game.
I agree, short term you are totally correct from a user diffusion perspective. But there is also the next step, i.e. the diffusion outside this current user base. For any coin to succeed long term, it either has to rely on payment processors and have a huge fanbase (hard imo), or be able to seriously attract people outside of the current definition of the market. The latter may suffer from actions during the former.
Re: [**OMG**] Welfare Coin [**stupid eye catching spam title CLICK ME! BEST TOPIC!*]
I don't mean make everyone absolutely equal because then there'd be no incentive for anyone to work or innovate
An assumption that has been proven time and time again to be questionable. It sits well with neoclassic economics to think that monetary incentives or incentives linked to gaining favorable position over others is a main motivator. But today we know that this view isn't true. There are loads of incentives that are non monetary or self-beneficial in nature. Many are altruistic, social, ideological etc in nature.
Check for instance evolutionary economics, social entrepreneurship etc.
Not that it changes your idea, but as a innovation management and business development person that dislikes the notions of neoclassical economics I got offended ^^.
I've been thinking some more about the development of cryptocurrencies. Now, having that said I see two things that I believe will impact the continued development (the first wave being technological development and variations of technology to ensure its feasibility and functionality) of this technology: 1) The role of "bridgers", and 2) the creation of ecosystems.
I define 'bridgers' are functions, actors, entities and/or activities that aim to create a 'bridge' between the old ecosystem and the new technology that is otherwise disruptive of old ecosystems. The bridgers can be for instance technological (payment processors, exchanges etc), institutional (tax laws including cryptos, or regulations around how they can or cannot function), social (memes, user diffusion etc.). The bridgers play a crucial role in the short term viability of a crypto (by this I do not mean launch day+2 ... but rather refer to them being able to used in trade).
'Ecosystem' creation is basically the creation of systems centered around the new technology that does not rely on existing systems to function. These can be technological use of the underlying technology to ensure various user needed functions (domains, anonymity, communication, data etc.). But more importantly from a business diffusion perspective, they also need to create ecosystems that businesses find attractive, such as platforms for trade (e.g. eBay like platforms, or online stores), salary systems, tax and regulatory systems, DACs etc.
The first is crucial for short term viability. The second is about 10-15 years down the line (if the story of the internet will repeat itself). Those who feel that they may be too late to board the ship should probably stop looking for the ships that have sailed and instead focus on the ones that will undoubtedly emerge over the years to come.
Share your thoughts!
I define 'bridgers' are functions, actors, entities and/or activities that aim to create a 'bridge' between the old ecosystem and the new technology that is otherwise disruptive of old ecosystems. The bridgers can be for instance technological (payment processors, exchanges etc), institutional (tax laws including cryptos, or regulations around how they can or cannot function), social (memes, user diffusion etc.). The bridgers play a crucial role in the short term viability of a crypto (by this I do not mean launch day+2 ... but rather refer to them being able to used in trade).
'Ecosystem' creation is basically the creation of systems centered around the new technology that does not rely on existing systems to function. These can be technological use of the underlying technology to ensure various user needed functions (domains, anonymity, communication, data etc.). But more importantly from a business diffusion perspective, they also need to create ecosystems that businesses find attractive, such as platforms for trade (e.g. eBay like platforms, or online stores), salary systems, tax and regulatory systems, DACs etc.
The first is crucial for short term viability. The second is about 10-15 years down the line (if the story of the internet will repeat itself). Those who feel that they may be too late to board the ship should probably stop looking for the ships that have sailed and instead focus on the ones that will undoubtedly emerge over the years to come.
Share your thoughts!
Anything that has an appeal outside the mining/forum community and that makes sense from a business perspective ...
I do not get the "store of value" coins as cryptos do not adhere to basic principles that makes a medium a suitable store of value.
I do not see any longevity for "memecoins" if they target a market that is the miners/user community
I do not see any future for any coin basically that does not have a business model behind it that will support the long term growth of the coin with a stable developer support, exchangeable value tied to the coin and things that promote its circulation.
I want to see ecosystems evolved around it
I want to see it make sense in the current economic system
Also, Id very much not like to see it premined/instamined etc. [insert basic qualifiers here]
My 2 cents!
I do not get the "store of value" coins as cryptos do not adhere to basic principles that makes a medium a suitable store of value.
I do not see any longevity for "memecoins" if they target a market that is the miners/user community
I do not see any future for any coin basically that does not have a business model behind it that will support the long term growth of the coin with a stable developer support, exchangeable value tied to the coin and things that promote its circulation.
I want to see ecosystems evolved around it
I want to see it make sense in the current economic system
Also, Id very much not like to see it premined/instamined etc. [insert basic qualifiers here]
My 2 cents!
Re: [ANN] profit switching auto-exchanging pool - middlecoin.com
Ok. Who the FUCK has that 700+ MH/s farm?
I mean Christ, that's ridiculous. And the hash power has been increasing over the last week. Is this a botnet or something? How else would it be possible to have that much power, AND a steady increase?
I mean Christ, that's ridiculous. And the hash power has been increasing over the last week. Is this a botnet or something? How else would it be possible to have that much power, AND a steady increase?
It's a chinese "mining plant". They're using super-powerful chips which can mine BTC and LTC at same time. One chip can perfrom 84 KH/s peak performance and price is 65 USD.
If all 700 MH/s is coming from these computer chips it means this group of people has over 10 000+ and slowly increasing.
so, making some calculations, these people paid probably around 650,000.00 USD for 10,000 units "Gridseed GC3355" (plus PCB engineering and assembling costs ) for having 600 Mh/s for LTC mining, and 22.5 Th/s for mining BTC ...
the famous chip --> Gridseed GC3355 -Hybrid Scrypt/SHA256 ASIC https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=355268.0
data sheets --> https://github.com/gridseed
65 USD ist the price for evaluation samples. They probably got them a lot cheaper in bulk.
Then again, they might not be a customer but Gridseed themselves "testing". Gridseed = sfire?FUD for thought.
I could have sworn that sfire said their mining farm was actually GPUs and not the Gridseed chips. They were just posting about Gridseed and the debut of the chip in China. Gotta look back in the thread and search... He mentioned they actually have over 2000 Mhs and he argued with his partner over using Middlecoin so only moved 500 Mhs at the time and slowly switched over more (which is why you see them still growing at over 700 now). So they're not really adding that much more new miners daily, just switching mining rigs from whatever they were mining before (maybe solo LTC) to Middlecoin. Maybe sfire can post again and clarify.
Just a fun thought ... what if there is a Chinese multipool site where the multipool owner forwards their traffic to middlecoin? That would also be consistent with the growth pattern, also it would make sense given the general lack of English skills in China. Gradually moving over hashing is also consistent with that almost linear pattern ... but ... well
. Expanding a farm would be more chunk wise no? I wouldn't know anything though since I do not have a farm, nor do I have any idea of how it looks like . But perhaps someone can do a quick search for "dragonpool" "tigerpool" "maopool" or something ^^.6.- What will you do to ensure the commercial viability of your coin? What is the plan of ensuring diffusion? How will you convince businesses to adopt your coin?
The primary value in any of these coins is as a store of value. Expecting random businesses to accept any of these myriads of coins is a pipe-dream, IMHO.
As this is the only point I am interested in ... the whole store of value concept worries me a bit. I am perplexed by the concept of using cryptocurrencies as a store of value. Of course this depends on how long you are planning to hold them (but short term gain I would rather call as investment and speculation rather than short term value), but store of value bit is hard since it needs to be linked to something that offers security against devaluation from an increased production or supply. I have a very hard time seeing this in open source software, but feel free to convince me otherwise.
Also, why would it be a pipe-dream to have a wide spread diffusion of a cryptocurrency used in everyday trade? Their intrinsic benefits are way more supportive of this usage than long term store of value. I believe we have only just begun to see the diffusion of these coins and that there is much that can be done to support their diffusion.
How far have you looked?
Google Ventures, Andreessen Horowitz, IDG Capital Partners, FF Angel, Lightspeed Venture Partners, The Bitcoin Opportunity Fund and Vast Ventures all found Ripple: https://ripple.com/
They emphasize support of all currencies (thereby mitigating price instability issues of single currency systems), payments, and decentralized exchange.
Ripple is indeed an extremely interesting system and I believe that one reason it is attracting so much interest is because it does not disrupt the whole financial eco-system. Ripples are as I understand it more akin to a payment network/system rather than a cryptocurrency. Unlike cryptocurrencies like BTC LTC etc. Ripple does not offer an alternate currency as much as it addresses a need to transfer currencies. As such it is extremely important for the long term viability of cryptos given how it allows for a merchant to take payment in local fiat whilst the buyer can pay with e.g. BTC.
The way I see it, cryptos will not "revolutionize" the world by having actors switching currencies left and right. The switching costs are too high, it breaks established ecosystems controlled by VERY powerful players, and uncertainty is still too high for mainstream businesses to adopt cryptos of any kind. However, payment processing systems such as ripple, bitpay etc. will pave the way for their adoption.
This is why I would like to see a crypto putting way more emphasis on business aspects. Two reasons stand out:
1) Technological aspects are pretty much qualifiers by now. Business models and business aspects become ever more important if a crypto wants diffusion outside miners and the user community.
2) For payment systems to adopt a crypto, the crypto has to show that it is a viable trading currency that is used in trade.
As I see it, there are still a plethora of possibilities to encourage diffusion of cryptos, and many different business models can be applied. Technology will not sell itself. What I am interested in is discussing these options, and by what viable means they can be incorporated into cryptos. I am by no means claiming that coins such as Doge/CAT/moon etc. will not succeed in the future, as previously said many other factors than business related and diffusion related play a central role. I am however saying that they make very little sense from those perspectives, as does the majority of cryptos today, but they do not necessarily need to.
I suspect that Mircea Popescu, as in Mircea Popescu's Options Emporium (MPOE) might suggest that the fluctuations in price aka volatility of exchange rate thing is actually a finance thing rather than purely a business thing.
Aren't options supposed to be the financial world's answer to such "problems" ?
Isn't being caught out by a change of price aka exchange-rate really just a symptom of a failure to properly hedge oneself with an appropriate array of options?
Oughtn't payment processors and such be able to offer a stable price across a span of time by proper employment of options?
-MarkM-
Aren't options supposed to be the financial world's answer to such "problems" ?
Isn't being caught out by a change of price aka exchange-rate really just a symptom of a failure to properly hedge oneself with an appropriate array of options?
Oughtn't payment processors and such be able to offer a stable price across a span of time by proper employment of options?
-MarkM-
I do not know enough to give an informed opinion
. Financial factors are undoubtedly having a huge impact on the development of cryptocurrencies. As stated in my original post, I see cryptocurrencies as any other technological innovation and apply that perspective. Price stabilization mechanisms that are of financial nature are very interesting and a must for a long term viable currency, but it is also not a necessity at the current state we are in. Being in the early stages of the development I would argue that diffusion to merchants is enough by simply being able to accept cryptos that are traded into fiat currency using the exchange rate at that moment.My 2 cents on the business aspects of crypto-currencies.
Who am I? I research innovation management and business development and teach strategy and innovation at a Swedish university. Thus the perspective I employ is very much influenced by this. This is not to say that other aspects are not important, on the contrary; as dogecoin and numerous other successful launches have shown.
My personal belief is that cryptocurrencies have the potential to change the world in a way that the internet did. This technology presents an opportunity whose limits we have not even begin to test. It might just be one of the biggest threats that the current financial and control establishment has seen, and one of the biggest opportunity for global development we have ever seen.
However, the long term survival of a coin will not be guaranteed by technological aspects, nor by your 12 year old sibling going AWWW when they see the coin. It may guarantee early diffusion amongst miners and users, but it does not offer anything that will guarantee the long term survival of the coin. I therefore urge the community as a whole to start considering business aspects to a far greater extent than what is currently evident. Bitcoin already has a fair share of services that are basically required before a wider scale diffusion, which is a good thing since a lot can be learned from it.
By that I do not mean fast transaction times and cold wallets. Technological aspects are by now mere qualifiers that a potential adopter will consider as given. Consider the technological superiority of cryptocurrencies, and then take a moment to think about what may hinder their adoption. In order to ensure diffusion there are a few other aspects that are important. I will here only mention those that are relevant for businesses.
There are more aspects but these are the three major ones I see as most crucial. In time, technological advancements such as payment processors (e.g. BitPay) will be crucial to address number one and three above. As for the second part, I have great faith in the ability of developers to wage that war against centralized control.
Now, I see great potential in many coins and great enthusiasm. However, I have so far lacked any true business sense in any. If I have offended anyone by saying this then by all means present yourself here. Alts today seem more eager to ensure a launch that either benefits the community by being fair, or the developer by being unfairly skewed or pre-mined.
What I would like to offer the community is a discussion around the business aspects. Feel free to discuss whatever you like that concerns business aspects and technological innovations with me. I have my ideas on what I believe may result in a significant boost in the sustainability of a coin, so if you are interested feel free to PM me. I am up for any serious discussion on business diffusion and adoption, and am interested in contributing to the development of such.
Given that I just recently got on this community I would like to give you the possibility to get to know me a bit better:
http://se.linkedin.com/pub/peter-altmann/28/96a/73b/
Who am I? I research innovation management and business development and teach strategy and innovation at a Swedish university. Thus the perspective I employ is very much influenced by this. This is not to say that other aspects are not important, on the contrary; as dogecoin and numerous other successful launches have shown.
My personal belief is that cryptocurrencies have the potential to change the world in a way that the internet did. This technology presents an opportunity whose limits we have not even begin to test. It might just be one of the biggest threats that the current financial and control establishment has seen, and one of the biggest opportunity for global development we have ever seen.
However, the long term survival of a coin will not be guaranteed by technological aspects, nor by your 12 year old sibling going AWWW when they see the coin. It may guarantee early diffusion amongst miners and users, but it does not offer anything that will guarantee the long term survival of the coin. I therefore urge the community as a whole to start considering business aspects to a far greater extent than what is currently evident. Bitcoin already has a fair share of services that are basically required before a wider scale diffusion, which is a good thing since a lot can be learned from it.
By that I do not mean fast transaction times and cold wallets. Technological aspects are by now mere qualifiers that a potential adopter will consider as given. Consider the technological superiority of cryptocurrencies, and then take a moment to think about what may hinder their adoption. In order to ensure diffusion there are a few other aspects that are important. I will here only mention those that are relevant for businesses.
- First, I believe that the dominant logic of payment methods today are disrupted by cryptocurrencies. It does not matter if they payment method is superior if it disrupts the whole eco-system.
- Second, I believe that there will be a lot of forces acting against the diffusion of cryptocurrencies. The attack will be direct in countries like China, but in “democratic” countries the approach will probably rely on the every so trustworthy terrorism or war on drugs or something. This complicates diffusion especially on the crucial industry level. This probably already spurs the development of decentralized exchanges and etc.
- Third, I believe that fluctuations in price poses a serious problem for a payment system solely based on cryptocurrencies.
There are more aspects but these are the three major ones I see as most crucial. In time, technological advancements such as payment processors (e.g. BitPay) will be crucial to address number one and three above. As for the second part, I have great faith in the ability of developers to wage that war against centralized control.
Now, I see great potential in many coins and great enthusiasm. However, I have so far lacked any true business sense in any. If I have offended anyone by saying this then by all means present yourself here
. Alts today seem more eager to ensure a launch that either benefits the community by being fair, or the developer by being unfairly skewed or pre-mined. What I would like to offer the community is a discussion around the business aspects. Feel free to discuss whatever you like that concerns business aspects and technological innovations with me. I have my ideas on what I believe may result in a significant boost in the sustainability of a coin, so if you are interested feel free to PM me. I am up for any serious discussion on business diffusion and adoption, and am interested in contributing to the development of such.
Given that I just recently got on this community I would like to give you the possibility to get to know me a bit better:
http://se.linkedin.com/pub/peter-altmann/28/96a/73b/
Re: New ALT-COINS: some rules from the community (open proposal to talk about)
Good incentive. I would like to add something that I feel is lacking in basically all coins today: business aspects.
I research innovation management and business development and teach strategy and innovation at a university. As such I understand the need for technological innovations early on. The myriad of new altcoins, coupled with early adoption of businesses, suggest to me that we are now moving fast into the early growth phases where a few of these coins will emerge as dominant. Therefore I would urge coin developers to consider the business aspects of their coins to a far greater extent than what is being done now. Technical aspects do not interest me anymore (unless revolutionary), those are qualifiers. I want to know what will make your coin an order winner, and that information is found within the business aspects of the coin.
So ... a) what will you do to ensure the commercial viability of your coin? b) what is the plan of ensuring diffusion? c) how will you convince businesses to adopt your coin?
My 2 cents.
NB: If any coin developer wants to talk to me, send me a PM.
I research innovation management and business development and teach strategy and innovation at a university. As such I understand the need for technological innovations early on. The myriad of new altcoins, coupled with early adoption of businesses, suggest to me that we are now moving fast into the early growth phases where a few of these coins will emerge as dominant. Therefore I would urge coin developers to consider the business aspects of their coins to a far greater extent than what is being done now. Technical aspects do not interest me anymore (unless revolutionary), those are qualifiers. I want to know what will make your coin an order winner, and that information is found within the business aspects of the coin.
So ... a) what will you do to ensure the commercial viability of your coin? b) what is the plan of ensuring diffusion? c) how will you convince businesses to adopt your coin?
My 2 cents.
NB: If any coin developer wants to talk to me, send me a PM.
Re: [ANN] profit switching auto-exchanging pool - middlecoin.com
Do you think average profit per day will remain the same the coming months?
Don`t think so, shit coins gona just fail...
As I see it there are two things that may support profitability: 1) There will probably be a stream of people moving into cryptocurrencies for the foreseeable future and the hardware reliant bitcoin mining may not be their first choice. 2) New innovations. My own background has made me very cautious when it comes to accepting the first technology as the dominant one. History has proven over and over again that this may not be the case, and cryptocurrencies so far show no reason why they would be exempt from this general rule.