Topic: [ANN][EMC2] Einsteinium | FUNDING THE FUTURE WITH THE FUTURE OF CURRENCY - page 340. (Read 1076411 times)

still this coin has nice community and good group of people mining it

"Patience"? ... for what? ... Tuesday's press release? ... the good news about 'x', 'y', or 'z'?  

As loyal as many may be, there is always another cryptocurrency out there somewhere performing NOW, no need to wait, no need for patience -- up to 2 weeks ago EMC2 was such a CC, now it is becoming old and stale.

When you look at the week's results for the daily volume, and average daily value  individually or together it says that many people have focused their eyes and attention elsewhere.  My guess is because nothing financially productive is currently occurring at EMC2.

When they move their eyes and attention elsewhere eventually they will find other opportunities opportunities like XBC (see one of the above posts).   Notice that the poster/investor didn't want to leave EMC2 but did want to participate in XBC, take a look at XBC's performance since that post was made.  Had he divested at that time, he could have enjoyed at least 500% profit with the new CC.

That's just one example of the opportunity costs people are paying to remain loyal and/or patience.

Currently there is no voiced plan to increase the value of the CC, the only well articulated and ongoing plan is to raise more funds for particular projects.  The projects are clearly the goal of the foundation but went that goal conflicts with the stability of the CC the CC is the priority.

If the CC is not performing it becomes less attractive to the CC community as a whole at which point it becomes stagnate (where it is now) until the core community does something to inspire others outside of it to invest in the CC -- no plan no profit.

As for the ASIC matter, if your vacuum is more powerful than my vacuum it will collect more of the limited dirt than your weaker vac; when the time comes to dump, my dumps are larger than your dumps which might effect the CC market value especially a fragile one.   The most simple fact is "everything counts".



btw - hitting 300 zone 2x in 2wks is an indication the CC is getting comfortable there, like it got cozy with 400 for a full week.

people with asic are stupid if they dump fast everybody makes less profit

I believe part of the point of the previous poster was that people who are mining with ASICs have less of an inclination to hold, rather than dump all of their coins mined. Correct me if I'm wrong there. I agree only to some extent though. They may be dumping to make a quick profit to pay off their ASICs, not to pay off electricity like for GPUs, but if they were I do not think that they would be mining EMC2 just to dump it based on profitability.

Unofficially speaking...

Let me be very clear about this because many people do not understand this.
1. ASICs do not mine more coins total. The coins per block is set, and set by the halving schedule, and the halving sechedule is set by the epoch timeline (every epoch is 25 days). The same number of coins get mined during a given time period one way or another based on that set schedule. The method of how they are mined does not make a bit of difference in terms of the number of coins mined. This means the number of coins on the market is not going to change much one way or another.
2. It doesn't matter if people are mining with GPUs or ASICs, if they are selling them on the market they still end up in the same place.

What ASIC do is they mine more efficiently in terms of power. This was not some huge ASIC farm mining and dumping. We have been paying attention to the network to see whether or not this would be the case, and one has not showed up at all. The network hashrate has kept in a pretty consistent range with a clearly identifiable pools. There has been no large asic farms that have shown up, just the normal set of miners, and one identifiable multipool that occasionally mines EMC2.  When the blocks become smaller this efficiency of ASICs eventually becomes a necessity to maintain the network, but they will also likely be mining smaller blocks.

 There is a complete lack of understanding by some on this issue. They think that ASICs magically produce more coins within the given schedule, they don't. They think that more coins go on the market, that is not necessarily true at all either. So the irrational conclusion to think this is ASIC mining and dumping causing the drop. Which is not the case at all. Then again, people are not necessarily rational, especially in the crypto community.

The reality is, it is people buying and selling the coin. In this case it might be somebody who bought coins and is now selling at a loss. With that being said, I am going to be putting in a buy order. If they are selling this low, it is time for me to take advantage of their lack of patience.  The only way somebody acquired that number of coins is not through mining, but buying them, I should know, I am on the top ten list myself.

This does not justify a change in algorithm at all, and if anything it is people misidentifying the issue.

ASIC already mining this coin. That's why people selling cheap easily.

Changing algo is what we need.

massive sell, very hard to see such a thing need to do something to the price has risen to at least 600-700

Maybe merged mining with VTC?
And change algo to scrypt-n?

The site is being a bit weird and not always loading. With that being said I finally got to read it, and it is much appreciated.

Still no go!

Try it now, site was being weird

Sweet, but the link seems to be broken.

I put up a post on my new measly crypto-blog on EMC2. http://crypto-cartel.com/einsteinium-emc2/

The function where the security vulnerability is, is not utilized by the EMC2 wallet. Our developer already evaluated this. (This is not to say there won't be a new wallet in the future.)

When will a new wallet that includes a fix for the OpenSSL heartbleed bug be available?

@armis.

Speaking personally here..

You don't know what you're talking about! First of all, both donations were made by selling the coins to the team at higher then market value, causing no dumping. Were all strong believers of our coin and would never dump and hurt the coin!!!

Second, I don't see any conflict of interest, I'm a coin holder, one of the largest might I add and I see no issues with running a fundraiser, asking for help, or supporting a cause.

I for one am proud of the way the team has been moving along, there's always something new happening and I'm never disappointed.

See statement in red.

As for the companies like Tiger and Overstock, they are facilitators of sorts they immediately convert BTC to USD however the people (Coinbase) they sell the BTC to  hold the BTC for others who eventually want to buy the BTC -- that's the good ending.

You have highlighted the conflicting interests by solving a perceived problem for the recipient of the award at the expense of the CC.  The NP isn't going to give the recipient physical cash is it, no you are more likely to write a check, a check that the receiver must negotiate (process) in order to get the cash (USD, CAD, EUR, or visa/MC card).  To collect EMC2, convert to BTC (by dumping EMC2), convert to CAD (by dumping BTC), then exchange for USD (by dumping CAD) is very costly.  Not just in fees and time by in the devaluation of the dumped currencies.

There are ways for the recipient to receive Paypal cash, Visa/MC debit card, or a check for his or her EMC2, as an Einstein award winner they could figure it out, but you could also offer to vet such resources.   

If you give someone a check they get to use the funds as they wish, if you give them a gift card they use it within the limits of the card (store GC or visa type card) neverthe less, it's for them to figure out how to Well if the end purpose is to receive cash here is a solution.  Give them the EMC2 then provide a vehicle for them to cash the EMC2. 

The conflicting interest is the NP bending over backwards for the project, not for the CC funding the project.  It's all well and fine to deliver a perfect meal for first class passengers, but the higher priority is fuel for the plane.   

Figure out how to dump responsibly, when the market is at highs not when they are at lows.





There's an ongoing fundraiser, requesting funds over and above that which is already set aside for grants, apparently it is that aspect of the fundraising that is causing the prolonged market depression.  If you decide to put more resources into a project than the fund can support, then see the CC starting to suffer, that is the time to provide critical care to the CC, not demand more out of it.

Remember the CC is suppose to fund the projects, and the pumps (marketing) are supposed to help fund the CC; given that the press release (magic memo) probably didn't provide the anticipated bounce all NP dumps/cash-outs should cease.






In whatever way you departmentalize the foundation, if the foundation is the body, the CC would be the heart and the individual projects would be the receptors that are filled with the life blood (EMC2) provided by the CC.   When the CC is weak it should rest not be pumped harder.

http://coinjoint.info/einsteiniums-second-epoch-funds-diabetic-wound-treatment/

The two cannot be in competition, they are both an integral part of this project. One could not exist without the other. They are two sides of the same coin.

Yes, as stated in the OP and reiterated over the past two months, 2% of each mined block goes to a central fund, then the community decides what science project to sponsor at the end of each month.

That is impossible for the same reason bitcoin grants are impossible in the currency technological and economical situation. One cannot buy real world assets with bitcoin (beyond a small and growing network of companies that have little to do with science related elements) thus they cannot buy with EMC2. Beyond this, those major retailers you see accepting bitcoin, they don't store it, they convert it to USD, because USD is a globally accepted currency that can provide more than fractured services. It can do that because it is a globally recognized currency endorsed by the U.S. Government.

We always suggest to and encourage our grant winners to accept it in EMC2 if not the total sum at least some partial amount. However, until the social, economic and technological impairments are removed and CC are accepted and recognized in important markets not only in small ones, we are forced by need to provide it in USD.

Grants always come from available funds, the available funds are represented by the total amount of coins mined into existence, be it EMC2/LTC/DOGE/BTC. What you're describing is the basic mechanism of profit in the CC scene. It's not related to Einsteinium in any way, it's related to the whole digital currency scene everyone here is part of.


This does not make sense, the coin and the foundation are the same part of a bigger structure, they are mutually dependent.

It should also be noted that fundraisers are critical to marketing and the very concept behind the Einsteinium foundation.

Edit: Here's a short update, CoinJoint wrote an article about us! Show them your appreciation by reading it and/or sharing it. http://coinjoint.info/einsteiniums-second-epoch-funds-diabetic-wound-treatment/

As structured and implemented the plan creates conflicting interests.

If you want the cryptocurrency (CC) fund the non-profit (NP) the two should not be put in a position where they overlap or compete for attention.

My understanding of how the CC was to fund the NP was essentially via a 2% mining tax of sorts, and from that fund the grants would be funded.  In such a case, there is no conflict because there is no overlap.  However, if the NP desires to raise funds via the CC over and above the way indicated, interests begin to compete.

Here are some conflicting interests:

1)  Currency Conflict - Grant should be paid in EMC2; if provide a grant in USD, CAD or anything other than EMC2 you decreased the value of the CC from the very start. If the recipient wants to dump it (cash the check) it's up to them. if so it will be immediately reflected in the market as a dip instead of a permanent market depression.

2)  Liquidity Conflict - Grant should be from available funds; if only X EMC2 is available, yet the 'goal' for a particular project is 10X EMC2, the project goal should not impact the extent of the original funding plan otherwise the likely way it will be gathered via CC is accepting more CC donations to immediately dump for cash (btc, USD, CAD, etc).  Protracted cash-outs result in a strangulation of the CC   If the specific purpose of the donation is to cash it out, ask for the end purpose currency or make the request of all CCs (not just EMC2) in this way the CC damage is mitigated.  

3)  Attention Conflict- At this point in the fundraiser the focal subject is the specific project funded by the CC, not the health of the CC funding the project and future projects.   The cash-cow is ill, it needs to recuperate, you've got to stop milking it for a while.