Topic: MINTCOIN vs VERTCOIN **investment decision** (Read 2829 times)

NXT was closed source and then they released the code with errors. You had to invest on blind faith. MINT is much more transparent and way more evenly distributed.

I would buy mint it will be interesting when pos kicks in

I mined mintcoin from block 100 something and the diff was already pretty high. I only mined a million or so mint with 860 kh/s. I had to buy the rest.

You have to admit CoinHoarder... hundreds of miners (thousands now) and the MintPal exchange immediately launching MintCoin made it VERY easy for anyone with some BTC to get in on MintCoin at the 3/4 Satoshi range.. I don't see how it could get much fairer than that.


The problem is that NXT was only available on one or two exchanges for a long time, and many people did not know those exchanges or properly understand NXT.  Those who were closer to the development and had more knowledge of cryptocurrencies probably got in at the right time, but the vast majority of NXT holders have a very minor stake in NXT.  

NXT is a great concept, and it has future, but as far as scrypt altcoins go, I don't see much potential beyond Mint.  It is about as fair as one can get in a PoW/PoS hybrid.

The developers have been very generous in giving out the premined coins on Reddit and mintcointalk

But I am biased because I did invest in Mintcoin.

I looked into NXT but I did not care for the lack of open-source from the beginning and the http interface seemed rather sketchy, but maybe that is just me

I'm glad you brought up the forging, because I was about to    This is what keeps me from getting NXT. I don't want to leave my computer online 24/7. Hopefully Mint will stay as it is and I'll only have to open my wallet once in a while to get coins.

- All coins used to be cheaper than Nxt, what is your point? Just because a coin is cheaper than Nxt doesn't mean it's going to become a success...

- My initial response wasn't directed towards the OP, it was directed toward you. IT is natural that Nxt would be brought up in the same conversation as Mintcoin because they are both similar.

- I do not own any Nxt, I'm just tired of Mintcoin cheerleaders claiming it has more fair initial distribution than Nxt based on faulty logic.

I will admit after looking into the forging of both coins, that Mintcoin's forging seems to be more fair than Nxt's as it exists today. I'm not sure if I understand the forgings of both coins completely yet though.

EDIT: mixing my train of thought on different threads  

I will again go to your original statement of "20% return on any coins held for the first year. Then 15% year following, then 10%, then 5% where it will stay. This will keep the market active but not too active." The point I was trying to make is that 20% PoS doesn't mean you will make 20%. You will have 20% more Mintcoins yes, but the price will be upheld by supply and demand, and there's nothing to stop the price from going down 20% in a year (or more). On the flip side, Nxt has a smaller % PoS reward, however they are actively developing and adding features to their coin that will add value on the exchanges. I think it is better to add value through development and improving your coin rather than printing money.

Bitcoin is another coin that used to be cheaper than next. OP never even mentioned next. You did, presumably because you own a lot.

Unless you intend to just do a bit of day trading to make some money, please don't invest in either of them for long term growth – you will lose your money. You have definitely missed the boat on both of these - they have had their initial mining booms and are now in the inevitable slow decline experienced by all altcoins.

Vertcoin - Is ASIC resistant, meaning what? That the tiny global community of altcoin miners, won't have to compete with expensive ASIC rigs, for a coin that has no demand, and that no ASICS are mining anyway? Useless.

Mintcoin - The mining period ends in a week or so, at which point miners will point their rigs elsewhere and all the interest in the coin will die. The smart people have already sold out, and most of the remaining people will try to sell near or after this date, and the price will plummet. When the minting period starts, those left with the coin will watch happily as their stash of coin increases, but seemingly unaware that the value of each coin is decreasing in direct proportion, thanks to a little economic principle known as inflation. In order for the value of their holding to actually increase, the coin will need considerable outside investment. But who would by an inflationary coin that no one in the real world has heard of?

All these “innovative features” are fine, but they absolutely have no impact on the long term value of a coin. Neither do “strong community”, “good devs”, or any of the other things that people claim as to why their coin is going to be the next Bitcoin. The *only* thing that matters is whether people going to actually use the coins, and pay real money for them. The only coin in this category at the moment is Bitcoin, and the only other coin to have remotely made an impact in  terms of popular penetration and adoption is Dogecoin. Neither of these coins has any especially distinguishing “features”, and that doesn’t matter at all. That’s not to say that a coin with some innovative features won’t one day be created and become successful. It’s just that those features have to address directly, that one question that matters– will regular people actually use and pay money for this coin.

You can still make money mining a new coin early, then getting out as soon as you can, or by day-trading and making small gains as prices go up and down. But don’t get caught up in the hype.  

There's no incentive for most small investors to forge NXT and maintain the network because forging doesn't work unless you happen to have a very large stake. The NXT devs were even discussing about charging a penalty to small holders who don't forge and support the network.

How is something like that ever going to work?

So now it's more fair because it is cheaper?

Ok, I will make a clone of BTC and sell you my BTC-Clone coins at $200 each.

Sound fair to you?

You guys underestimate the network effect and the head start nxt has in developing features on top of their coin. Even though the coins are cheaper it doesn't mean it's a better deal.

Listen... I'm not saying Mintcoin is a bad idea, nor am I saying it will fail. It might take off and be wildly successful for all I know, but to call it more fair than Nxt is a sham.

Mint was and still is cheaper to buy than Next will ever be*ever was

I'd go with mintcoin.  The attractive thing about MINT is that you earn 20% interest your first year ...

Can vertcoin do this:



There's more room for another POS coin than another POW coin IMO. 

You can always split your investment if you really cant decide...

I don't think Nxt is more fair than Mintcoin, nor do I think Mintcoin is more fair than Nxt. It is just driving me crazy to see people keep saying that Mintcoin is more fair than Nxt, or that Nxt was unfair. Everyone had their chance and they didn't invest. Whose fault is that?

And no, that is not what I meant.. mining rigs produce cryptocoins. Those coins could of been traded for BTC and invested in the Nxt IPO. Therefore, you could of used your mining farm to invest in the Nxt IPO.

I feel like Mintcoin was made by and for people that are upset to have missed the Nxt IPO train, and are trying to recreate it based on a flawed premise that Mintcoin's distribution is more fair than Nxt.

What so your saying people could of sold their home PC's that they were mining with to go and buy NXT so that makes it fairer>?

I fail to see the difference. Both require capital investment either in BTC or mining hardware.

IF you have mining hardware, you could of used the coins you were mining to buy into the Nxt IPO, no?

MINT is being distributed to both miners and buyers for 5 weeks.
NEXT on the other hand, sorry, solely for buyers only. Nuff said.

I feel like I debunked the myth that Mintcoin has a more fair distribution earlier today with this post: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.5416647

Mintcoin differs from POS coins like Peercoin because it's 100% proof of stake in two weeks, making it much more energy efficient.

It's like a bitcoin style version of NXT in that regard, but with a fairer distribution.

Market cap of mint now is 4 million. It will easily get to 15 million once the mining stops in 2 weeks pretty much by which point that will be 20 billion coins on the market.

This is assuming that Mintcoin holds its value. A 20% return on something worth zero equals zero. Or possibly.. say Mintcoin is incredibly hyped (which I believe it is somewhat... a lot of threads on it lately) and it sells for a lot when it first comes out and slowly declines 20% in value over the course of the first year. You are still left in the same exact place you were the year before.

It is certainly not a sure thing, and IMO I think it is possible that Mintcoin goes down 20% from its inception, due to Mintcoin being a copy cat of Nxt with a different distribution method. Not to mention they are far behind Nxt due to the network effect... the best doesn't always win, it helps to be first. Also Nxt got a head start so they are further along in development of neat features. It seems like their distributed exchange is coming along nicely... I think all it needs is a GUI.

I've made a couple posts in a row on this topic... for the record, I own 0 Nxt this is just my honest assessment of the situation.

50 billion Mintcoins have yet to be produced! If you could go back in time and buy Doge at 39 sat would you not? Of course you would. Imagine Mintcoin being like Doge that magically produces new coins.

Mintcoin differs from other PoW coins by releasing so many at once. 20 Billion in 5 weeks.

Mintcoin differs from PoS coins,...again by releasing so many at once, albeit at a much slower rate than initial mining. 20% return on any coins held for the first year. Then 15% year following, then 10%, then 5% where it will stay. This will keep the market active but not too active.