Based on pre-crowd-sale price of 8888 for 1 ETH (using 200 as ETH/USD) its a ~USD 36m valuation. Its not cheap but its a nice idea.

Its published now on coinmarketcap, 39.6m "total" supply with 33.6 in circulation. Once the network is live then more tokens can and will be be created, with existing holders voting to set the inflation/creation rate.

[/quote]

And Polo getting crushed for whatever reason is good for Iconomi 

Who knows what could be next biggest exchange. I remember two three years back Polo didn't have the volume that liqui has now.
[/quote]

Polo for all their faults seems pretty decent to me. Fairly fast verification (until tier 4 then slow - still waiting), the few deposits/withdrawals have been quick, they allow you to lend unlike kraken, their platform is pretty clean. Its only been unreliable for maybe 2 hours of the 600 odd used. Cityindex and other "regular market" platforms have just the same issues when vol spikes. 3 weeks after uploading docs to kraken I am still waiting (pre-authorised approval, which allows nothing!). It was under 24 hrs with polo.

The listings/de-listings do seem suspect but are any other exchanges better? Is it just the volume and no. of holders that highlights it?

Basically why the hating on Polo? I am curious.

Hi All,

Thanks for all your posts, been useful to read some of them and enjoyed the tittie pattern.

I invested into ICN today. Like the idea, they likely have some marketing budget ready to deploy once funds go live, polo could pick it up after people tire of this rally and they want to attract some volume and failing all that ICN might actually make a success of it and not have to rely on hype profit! Quite honestly there are not many fairly priced coins out there in my eyes and this one seemed to stand out. Like the lack or correlation with the "alt rally".

What worries is me is the market cap. I guess one can kind of use this to work out the PE ratio? What can they make a year in fees? If they could make 10m a year this would be pretty fairly priced (4.5). Any thoughts on this? Is my thinking off?

Edit last comment: Be interesting to see if it holds its USD value if/when BTC corrects.

If you are low tech style and keep a copy of your keys written down then write a letter to your loved ones with step by step instructions and keys, and keep it in the same place. No greater risk that you are already taking. Of course if the place will not be found when you die, thats a problem ;-)

A more flexible approach could be to give them the password to an encrypted drive which will be found when you die. This has instructions/keys but you dont need to tell them that its BTC related now if you dont want to. They have to steal the drive to rob you of the coins....and if thats a consideration then why leave them anything! Help the BTC community with a little extra price inflation!

I also wouldnt be surprised if some of the secure BTC storage providers like Xapo or the like have a related service? If you have registered the account with ID etc then it should transfer to the heir and you can leave instructions in the will without mentioning too many details or keys etc? Just say I have an account with xxxx and all funds pass to xxxxx?

Hello, here is a question I have been mulling over for a while.

If an exchange is hacked and at that time your bitcoins are lent out, and are "stolen", does this have legal implications and possibly help you because the bitcoins were not in your possession? Would the account you were lending them to have the duty to return them? You had no access to them at the time of the hack. As you may know some exchanges have this lending feature.

Any thoughts on this? Would it be any "safer" for one to have the coins lent out, or create possible advantageous legal avenues to explore?

It may happen sooner than you think, maybe within 10 years, but then ask yourself what you can buy with USD 1m in such a situation. Probably about the same as 1 -2k buys today, maybe 10k if your lucky ;-)

Another important point is that for BTC to flourish it needs liquidity and distribution and to be used as a medium of exchange, so all those saying they will hoard are actually holding yourselves back. 

I agree with most comments, trading can be profitable if you have the right data, know how to use it and are committed. If like most you are not, buy and hold is a safer and more profitable strategy. Just like every tradable investment!

SPEND BITCOIN !!!

But the absolutely key thing is that for bitcoin to really take off, we need to spend it!

I am guilty of wanting horde myself, but if we don't spend it then retailers stop accepting it, eco-system companies go under, investment dries up and bitcoin basically doesn't take off. It becomes gold for IT geeks without the inflationary, historical or physical 'doomsday' value. I'm all for gold investment, but bitcoins value doesn't lie here. Investing in bitcoin is gambling on greater adoption and anyone who wants it to go up in value needs to encourage the adoption.

BTC is still a little volatile, but getting better, so what I do is have one investment account and one spending account. I only use BTC to buy something when I can replenish that bitcoin at a fair price compared to the FIAT cost of the goods I'm buying. You buy the bitcoin and spend it quickly to minimise the currency risk.

First post for me. I have invested modestly in bitcoin and I want it to succeed. I am well read but I am no expert - and a total ignoramus  with IT technical stuff.

I have read that if a large, rich state wanted to, they could 'hack'/break the system, presently and especially in the past . They have the '800m USD' of equipment (or whatever the figure was at that point in time) to do it without massive additional investment. So for ideological purposes and by a major power there may be a threat, but each day makes 'hacking' more difficult technically and more controversial/dangerous for that state. With govt sponsors like Goldman Sachs getting invested in BTC (albeit modestly), a hack gets less likely.

A real cynic may say "they" are interested in the technology and are using bitcoin as a live, wild field test to get people used to electronic currency - then later destroy BTC and replace with a centralised government backed/controlled copy. One thing you can be sure of is that governments would LOVE an electronic only currency only they control. But thats a concern for way further down the road and BTC doesn't threaten the dollar yet - it will be a lot more difficult to break the system by the time it does (if).  

Hacking for profit by criminals is less of a concern I think, not only because of the investment in equipment needed (I believe currently about USD 800m - 20% of bitcoins 'market cap'), but also because if you fuck the system, you are basically tainting your own loot. To plunder in a subtle way would make the investment inefficient and to do so wholeheartedly would fuck the system and probably render the bitcoins useless or a lot less useful.

One commenter mentioned the transaction limits as the major drawback rather than security, and this matches my research. I understand there to be practical ways to fix this if the price of bitcoins gets higher, making the 'mining' more profitable. Obviously with more adoptions/transactions, the price has to rise wight he finite supply. However this is something I'm going to be reading about on here, as I don't really know how solid these 'fixes' are or if my thinking is straight.

Peace and prosperity!