Topic: Is Gulden a good investment? - page 177. (Read 250186 times)
Wow Gulden
Investing in the Gulden can be good and I think that we can make some good profit on it too, I see some people holding it for a long term and making profit so that is pretty good news right ?
If I make profit that is oke, but I want with Gulden pay at merchants
I'm not trading Gulden, I only buy Gulden
Investing in the Gulden can be good and I think that we can make some good profit on it too, I see some people holding it for a long term and making profit so that is pretty good news right ?
Did the OP say if he bought coins or not? He or she missed out huge gains. The price is stable at these levels too.
This price is still cheap
The price of Gulden is rising gradually...
I think that we can invest in it but that I think we also should take a good look at it before we will do this.
Most likely investing on this coin is good but I do not know if it really will be profitable.
you can try playing buy low and sell high for this time if you just like to observed how you can make a good profits from itMost likely investing on this coin is good but I do not know if it really will be profitable.
me personally before i invest in a long term alt i play first and check every ann page and here it seems that the project is for long
term and price still cheap i guess.
OH MY HAT!
That will teach me to listen to negative posters, I only bought 27k in the 400s.
What happened with this coin that the price grew like this?
Has a time machine been invented yet?
That will teach me to listen to negative posters, I only bought 27k in the 400s.
What happened with this coin that the price grew like this?
Has a time machine been invented yet?
go to https://coinmarketcap.com/
look for the line with Gulden, NLG
click on the Volume(24h) colomn amount
you wil get the exchange where it is traded sorted by volume: Bittrex and Nocks
look for the line with Gulden, NLG
click on the Volume(24h) colomn amount
you wil get the exchange where it is traded sorted by volume: Bittrex and Nocks
Gulden is good and we should invest in it, I think that we can hold it for a pretty long time and still make some good profit with this altcoin.
It has a good future and can also rise more these days.
which exchanges is it on? It has a good future and can also rise more these days.
Gulden is good and we should invest in it, I think that we can hold it for a pretty long time and still make some good profit with this altcoin.
It has a good future and can also rise more these days.
It has a good future and can also rise more these days.
I think that we can invest in it but that I think we also should take a good look at it before we will do this.
Most likely investing on this coin is good but I do not know if it really will be profitable.
Most likely investing on this coin is good but I do not know if it really will be profitable.
Did the OP say if he bought coins or not? He or she missed out huge gains. The price is stable at these levels too.
This price is still cheap
Indeed and due to that I think it stays a pretty okay investment, lets hope it will rise more and more in the future.
It would be great right ?
i'm a long holder for the future I wil not sell this year and still buy NLG
Did the OP say if he bought coins or not? He or she missed out huge gains. The price is stable at these levels too.
This price is still cheap
Indeed and due to that I think it stays a pretty okay investment, lets hope it will rise more and more in the future.
It would be great right ?
Did the OP say if he bought coins or not? He or she missed out huge gains. The price is stable at these levels too.
This price is still cheap
Did the OP say if he bought coins or not? He or she missed out huge gains. The price is stable at these levels too.
The issue is that there was no point for Gulden to even be created - we have Bitcoin and Litecoin is the altcoin, that's enough. Too many alts will destroy crypto.
I only partially agree with that way of thinking. Altcoins are a good idea if it is to improve upon the technology. Bitcoin being the first, it also has the least developed technology. Because there's something to crypto that is different from all other forms of technology: because the principal value proposition of a crypto is immutability, essentially the principles are "frozen in" at launch. One can still tweak the tech a bit without breaking the immutability of principle, but that's about it. A crypto cannot evolve fundamentally. Bitcoin will remain with its limitations and shortcomings forever. Most cryptos will. There are cryptos like monero who have in their "immutability principles" also "regular hard forking", or who have evolved some kind of other state-like gouvernance like DASH, but I consider these cryptos more like interesting prototype development boards than actual immutable cryptos. "evolving" cryptos are, I would say, by definition, not immutable - but as long as they stick to their basic principles, one could still accept that. "voting coins" like ETH have essentially totally lost their immutability.
All this to say that, contrary to most technology, where the first mover also has most experience in evolving and improving, crypto is crippled that way. So the way to invent new crypto tech is not to try to implement it on an existing system and fight the "immutability inertia" (which is on the other hand the essence of crypto), but to make a new coin.
So no, altcoins will not destroy crypto, on the contrary. It is the only way to go forward. I see it actually as a continuous abandoning old crypto for newer ones. That time scale can be long (exactly because it takes time to build up the monetary belief system and because of immutability), and old successful coins like bitcoin will probably take ages to die, but when they are REALLY technically totally and economically backwards and surpassed for tens of years, I cannot imagine, apart from a bunch of nostalgics, that people keep the old stuff running forever. I see it rather that new generations of altcoins overtake old generations, if they really are much better technically and economically.
But new altcoins have to make technical/economical propositions that are really groundbreaking, and are not just tweaks of old stuff.
The ability to update on old tech is more important then starting a coin on new tech. This is what Gulden does well and why there is more confidence in them each passing day. Gulden was first to update to 0.11 codebase, for instance Dash is still on 0.10.
What a lot of developers do is abandon the old coins leaving the investors with worthless junk and then copy new coins with the latest and greatest features and then fall behind again in a year but they not skilled enough to update.
MaNI and Waterloodown are very underrated but they also humble and this is why you haven't seen the hype like you get with other coins.
I have never see a new coin with Algorithm: scrypt PoW DELTA
2300 will be top for a few months to a year.
I still think that Gulden just started his way up despite that some people are laughing in my face when I say this. Of course, it is possible to go down after update release. We know examples that updates sometimes are negative for crypto.
After 1.6.0 comes the huge project called PRIME with it's own whitepaper. 1.6.0 is only taken 4 months from last Android release. This is very fast development if they release 1.6.0 this month.
I still think that Gulden just started his way up despite that some people are laughing in my face when I say this. Of course, it is possible to go down after update release. We know examples that updates sometimes are negative for crypto.
The issue is that there was no point for Gulden to even be created - we have Bitcoin and Litecoin is the altcoin, that's enough. Too many alts will destroy crypto.
I only partially agree with that way of thinking. Altcoins are a good idea if it is to improve upon the technology. Bitcoin being the first, it also has the least developed technology. Because there's something to crypto that is different from all other forms of technology: because the principal value proposition of a crypto is immutability, essentially the principles are "frozen in" at launch. One can still tweak the tech a bit without breaking the immutability of principle, but that's about it. A crypto cannot evolve fundamentally. Bitcoin will remain with its limitations and shortcomings forever. Most cryptos will. There are cryptos like monero who have in their "immutability principles" also "regular hard forking", or who have evolved some kind of other state-like gouvernance like DASH, but I consider these cryptos more like interesting prototype development boards than actual immutable cryptos. "evolving" cryptos are, I would say, by definition, not immutable - but as long as they stick to their basic principles, one could still accept that. "voting coins" like ETH have essentially totally lost their immutability.
All this to say that, contrary to most technology, where the first mover also has most experience in evolving and improving, crypto is crippled that way. So the way to invent new crypto tech is not to try to implement it on an existing system and fight the "immutability inertia" (which is on the other hand the essence of crypto), but to make a new coin.
So no, altcoins will not destroy crypto, on the contrary. It is the only way to go forward. I see it actually as a continuous abandoning old crypto for newer ones. That time scale can be long (exactly because it takes time to build up the monetary belief system and because of immutability), and old successful coins like bitcoin will probably take ages to die, but when they are REALLY technically totally and economically backwards and surpassed for tens of years, I cannot imagine, apart from a bunch of nostalgics, that people keep the old stuff running forever. I see it rather that new generations of altcoins overtake old generations, if they really are much better technically and economically.
But new altcoins have to make technical/economical propositions that are really groundbreaking, and are not just tweaks of old stuff.
The ability to update on old tech is more important then starting a coin on new tech. This is what Gulden does well and why there is more confidence in them each passing day. Gulden was first to update to 0.11 codebase, for instance Dash is still on 0.10.
What a lot of developers do is abandon the old coins leaving the investors with worthless junk and then copy new coins with the latest and greatest features and then fall behind again in a year but they not skilled enough to update.
MaNI and Waterloodown are very underrated but they also humble and this is why you haven't seen the hype like you get with other coins.
The issue is that there was no point for Gulden to even be created - we have Bitcoin and Litecoin is the altcoin, that's enough. Too many alts will destroy crypto.
I only partially agree with that way of thinking. Altcoins are a good idea if it is to improve upon the technology. Bitcoin being the first, it also has the least developed technology. Because there's something to crypto that is different from all other forms of technology: because the principal value proposition of a crypto is immutability, essentially the principles are "frozen in" at launch. One can still tweak the tech a bit without breaking the immutability of principle, but that's about it. A crypto cannot evolve fundamentally. Bitcoin will remain with its limitations and shortcomings forever. Most cryptos will. There are cryptos like monero who have in their "immutability principles" also "regular hard forking", or who have evolved some kind of other state-like gouvernance like DASH, but I consider these cryptos more like interesting prototype development boards than actual immutable cryptos. "evolving" cryptos are, I would say, by definition, not immutable - but as long as they stick to their basic principles, one could still accept that. "voting coins" like ETH have essentially totally lost their immutability.
All this to say that, contrary to most technology, where the first mover also has most experience in evolving and improving, crypto is crippled that way. So the way to invent new crypto tech is not to try to implement it on an existing system and fight the "immutability inertia" (which is on the other hand the essence of crypto), but to make a new coin.
So no, altcoins will not destroy crypto, on the contrary. It is the only way to go forward. I see it actually as a continuous abandoning old crypto for newer ones. That time scale can be long (exactly because it takes time to build up the monetary belief system and because of immutability), and old successful coins like bitcoin will probably take ages to die, but when they are REALLY technically totally and economically backwards and surpassed for tens of years, I cannot imagine, apart from a bunch of nostalgics, that people keep the old stuff running forever. I see it rather that new generations of altcoins overtake old generations, if they really are much better technically and economically.
But new altcoins have to make technical/economical propositions that are really groundbreaking, and are not just tweaks of old stuff.
Jump to: