Quote
sanity ? lmao selling coins of some unclear protocol that is at odds with the BTC devs ...yes BUY BUY BUY!! 
LOL
Well you say the same thing as me, but with opposition mark LOL
Disclaimer: I sold 90% of my coins 
But if dacoinminster's neutrality and passiveness do not kill his own project, I believe the real price (WHEN AND IF ALL THE FEATURES ARE IMPLEMENTED) is about to land and stay around the 1 BTC horizon.
Some kids are excited and spamming these threads reasoning about why it will be 20-30 BTC per MSC by two or three years, I invite them to do a simple multiplication (~600K MSC*30 BTC). God bless btt community!
Have someone from Forbes, Huff Post, etc. pick up a story on Mastercoin, and see how long it takes it to get to the 1-2 BTC point. That's all that will be necessary.
I think once a basic distributed exchange is in place and being used (as per the current bounty) that could end up happening. The way it rides on top of the bitcoin blockchain is very interesting and I would think worth writing about, once you have something you can share with it in the article (i.e. working distributed exchange, etc)
I'm the one who said Mastercoin could someday be worth 20-30BTC each.
That is 18,000,000 Bitcoins if you're doing 600,000*30. This number is irrelevant though because you don't have to buy Mastercoins with Bitcoins so it's not really known how much it could be worth. A Mastercoin could go for way more than that too.
Honestly I don't know how much Mastercoin will ultimately be worth, but I expect 1-2 BTC per Mastercoin at some point. 20-30 BTC per Mastercoin depends on too many factors which no one can predict and is years away from happening if it happens at all. Kind of like how Bitcoin will probably go to $1000 but $100,000 we just don't know.
I would say don't buy Mastercoin under the certainty that the protocol will work. It's an experiment, it's high risk, and if it fails then the Mastercoins could be worth 0. If it succeeds then the sky is the limit.
If it succeeds, the value goes to 0 as well, since it can be copied, and someone creates their system using Mastercoin2. The best hope is the project never gets enough traction to prove failure or success, and random speculators keep trading value, and you get out before it's too late.
If that happened then you can't say it succeeds. The truth is the value cannot go to zero and it be a success. If anyone copies it, I expect the value of the copy to be even higher than Mastercoin or at least higher than Bitcoin. The real question is why would anyone need or use the copy?
If we already have Mastercoin there is no incentive to buy another Mastercoin2 and start over. There is no incentive to build another Mastercoin if we can do everything we need to do with this protocol.
It may be a case where you have competitor products and they all are going for 2-3 BTC each and that could be what keeps Mastercoin from reaching 20-30 BTC each but so what? Just making a clone doesn't mean people will download your clone.
If I want to issue a currency or make a bet what incentive do I have to use Mastercoin2 if it offers no increased functionality and no economic incentive for me to switch?
Why would you need to use the copy? The alt-coins would be cheaper to acquire to use for the same effect.
You don't build Mastercoin2, you simply fork Mastercoin1 and there you go. There is no advantage from network effect, everything can be cloned, and you have useless tokens.
https://e33ec872-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/2ndbtcwpaper/MasterCoin%20Specification%201.1.pdf
Obviously you don't understand how Mastercoin works. Silver is cheaper than gold but we still use gold. Why?
No one would prefer silver over gold, but it's so much cheaper so why wouldn't they?
Mastercoin acts as a unit of measurement. The Mastercoin protocol is a formula which functions as a value unit for the user currencies. It's value is not dependent upon it's scarcity because it's not like gold. It's actually more important than gold.
Mastercoin if it works
Once I have a working Mastercoin, I can create any currency I'll ever need and issue it. So why would I need an alt currency to do exactly what I can already do? "Cheaper" and "Expensive" assume Mastercoin is a unit of account when it's actually a unit of measurement, while the user generated currencies are the units of account. Bitcoin is a unit of account and functions as a currency, but you can easily create Bitcoins from Mastercoins so why would I care about the Bitcoin price if I have Mastercoins? I can also use Mastercoins to create currencies with far higher prices than Bitcoins so how exactly would Bitcoin somehow be more expensive than a working Mastercoin?
Let me give you an example here, let's say I'm an airline company JetBlue and I decide to create Jet Blue credits using the Mastercoin protocol. Those credits represent the goods and services offered by Jet Blue. So now Jet Blue credits are issued on the Mastercoin protocol backed by Mastercoins purchased by JetBlue which act as a unit of measurement of the goods and services JetBlue has to offer. Mastercoin is not money, and it's not credit, it's a unit of measurement which allows for the creation of money and credit. Money is a unit of account to give you a cost of goods and services, so Bitcoin is money.
Yes you can build a clone of Mastercoin and call it Mastercoin2 but if it has all the exact same features and I can do all the exact same things then it wouldn't even be worth my time to download it. And if you say "you'll download it because it's cheaper", you're missing the point. Mastercoin is useful because of what we can do with it and that is where it gets it's value from. If Jet Blue is offering credits backed by the goods and services of the Jet Blue company, those goods and services are going to be worth a lot to a lot of people. It will not make any sense for those people to go to some fake Mastercoin which isn't issuing JetBlue credits. Jet Blue isn't going to need to go to Mastercoin2 to issue their credits after they issue it over Mastercoin because they'd have to pay twice for the same functionality.
Mastercoin is not a stock. It's not a currency. The purpose of Mastercoin is to act as a unit of measurement, for instance in an escrow. It becomes valuable because people will be using it to do all kinds of trades. A clone isn't going to stop me from using it because I already have Mastercoins. It isn't going to stop the majority of people who have Mastercoins from using it because once you have Mastercoins at any price you have already purchased a stake and if it works you'll be able to use the protocol and it's functionality. Ideally you want to get them for cheap and most of us are at this point in time the earliest of early adopters.
The only way a Bitcoin will be worth the same as a Mastercoin would be if the Bitcoin developers themselves found a way to put all the functionality of Mastercoin into Bitcoin but if they did that it would cripple Bitcoin as a currency because the majority of people would be hoarding Bitcoins to use as escrow or to use in exotic derivative schemes which would affect the people who want to use Bitcoins to do micropayments or small purchases. Mastercoin frees Bitcoin users and developers from having to make that particular choice, at least not for the same reasons.
The Max_Block_Size issue may still cause problems of scalability. Micropayments may still ultimately be a problem if off-chain transactions aren't utilized.
Anyway to end this debate the only change to the specification JR would have to make to promote "brand loyalty" would be to allow the escrow to generate interest for the issuer and it's game over. If the issuer has an incentive to actually put their Mastercoins to use then whoever has Mastercoin owners will be virtually guaranteed to use them. The only way the price could crash down would be if the people who have them don't understand the protocol enough to know how to use them, or if there is no incentive to get people to use them, or if there is another better technology (possibly Bitshares?) which allows for the same properties.
Colored Coin is a technology but it's design in my opinion is ugly and unnecessarily complicated. Maybe it will work but I don't see how it can work without the value going somewhere. If someone is issuing credit or currencies then it's got to be backed by something somewhere and represented somewhere. If it's backed by Mastercoins then you'd say it's represented by Mastercoins which act as the unit of measurement. If I wanted to issue a currency or credits through Colored Coin then perhaps it's possible but I don't know what their specification is or how they intend to do it. I'll believe it when I see a prototype.
Free markets baby!!!
