Join our Facebook group. We'll be brainstorming there, too:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/mooncoins
Topic: Mooncoin - what can be done to boost it? (Read 1895 times)
Dogecoin exploded with a great marketing team/tactic.
They funded the Jamaican bobsled team with $25,000 worth of Dogecoin and the entire tech community/internet blogs picked it up. It was front page of yahoo, business insider, gizmodo, etc. They have since increased their value by 5X.
We need to do something that shows the inherent value and potential of Mooncoin. Thoughts and suggestions are welcome! Lets go to the mooooooon!!
They funded the Jamaican bobsled team with $25,000 worth of Dogecoin and the entire tech community/internet blogs picked it up. It was front page of yahoo, business insider, gizmodo, etc. They have since increased their value by 5X.
We need to do something that shows the inherent value and potential of Mooncoin. Thoughts and suggestions are welcome! Lets go to the mooooooon!!
Giveaways, faucets, promotion articles, twitter trends, exchanges, gambling sites, auction sites, website translation to many languages.
Better marketing! And I notice that Giveaways in this forum do a lot to draw attention to the altcoins... let's have some giveaways!
Sorry, I am going a bit off-topic here, but I have seen you post your statement, that any coin that doesn't possess 51% of the world's hashing power (I guess you are going for the actual computing power that every household/company could potentially deliver) is to be treated as potentially highly insecure in several threads by now. While on a hypothetical basis this sounds all neat, dandy and logical, you don't seem to take into account that this kind of percentage will never _actually_ flow into cryptos by a level of even 5% or so. Your argument seems to follow the thesis that everyone that knows about cryptos and is probably even accepting them as a daily feature in the yet-to-be-seen future would actually bother putting a relevant level of personal computing power into it.
Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to say that your point is invalid - 51%-attacks are currently an easy option as the overall hashing power of the whole cryptocurrency scene is still laughable at, but the actual issue to me would be a relevant spreading of the _actual_ hashing power that is currently pointed at cryptos.
TL;DR: My point is that "world's hashing power" is a term that bothers me when you are using it. No offense intended.
Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to say that your point is invalid - 51%-attacks are currently an easy option as the overall hashing power of the whole cryptocurrency scene is still laughable at, but the actual issue to me would be a relevant spreading of the _actual_ hashing power that is currently pointed at cryptos.
TL;DR: My point is that "world's hashing power" is a term that bothers me when you are using it. No offense intended.
You don't seem to realise how much massive advantage ASICs have over general purpose gear.
Try computing how many household GPUs it would take to match the power of just the tiny little amount of ASICs we already have in place.
Then for a laugh check how little difference all the household CPUs would make.
Basically the stuff that is not specifically designed as dedicated crypto mining gear hardly counts, and if it still counts that is only because we have only just a few months ago even started to actually deploy serious "not all that terribly clunky/ancient feature-scale" ASICs.
-MarkM-
You are correct with that, but especially your point about the superiority of ASICs bothers me when talking about a "world's hashing power". We won't be talking about the power of individual PC's or neat little mining rigs, but about professional hardware that is produced and used for the purpose of mining. This exactly isn't the world's hashing power, it's the world's potential hashing power in the form of specialized and thus more potent mining hardware. I am not trying to be a smartass here, your term just doesn't seem to reflect what you seem to be trying to address and creates the impression that you are indeed talking about every single piece of hardware that could be used for the sake of mining.
The second highest hashing power scrypt coin doesn't even have half of the amount litecoin does. Much less than half the miners mining litecoin could pwn more than one of the other chains at once while still leaving litecoin a clear majority of the scrypt hashing power.
Basically they are pathetic toys, they didn't even use a new different hashing method that the equipment used by the litecoin miners would not be as efficient at as the equipment used by the new coin's miners. Instead they from the start deliberately made a chain that even just a tiny fraction of the litecoin miners could PWN just for LULs.
Similarly when the scrypt coins started: they deliberately made a coin that the bitcoin miners could PWN for LULs any time without even buying new gear, the bitcoin miners could PWN it just with leftover obsolete equipment they otherwise would throw out or sell to gamers or whatever fergoshsakes. Oh great lets make a currency that can be PWNed so easily the attackers can put old dead junk to work to PWN it. Brilliant.
Kind of like saying oh lets make a new better armed forces that will serve the common people better than riflemen can, we'll use all those old black powder muskets to arm them, thats the ticket!
-MarkM-
well, it would be best if we can actually send it to the moon with NASA. People around the globe will hear about moon coin. 1st coin in the moon. 
Sorry, I am going a bit off-topic here, but I have seen you post your statement, that any coin that doesn't possess 51% of the world's hashing power (I guess you are going for the actual computing power that every household/company could potentially deliver) is to be treated as potentially highly insecure in several threads by now. While on a hypothetical basis this sounds all neat, dandy and logical, you don't seem to take into account that this kind of percentage will never _actually_ flow into cryptos by a level of even 5% or so. Your argument seems to follow the thesis that everyone that knows about cryptos and is probably even accepting them as a daily feature in the yet-to-be-seen future would actually bother putting a relevant level of personal computing power into it.
Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to say that your point is invalid - 51%-attacks are currently an easy option as the overall hashing power of the whole cryptocurrency scene is still laughable at, but the actual issue to me would be a relevant spreading of the _actual_ hashing power that is currently pointed at cryptos.
TL;DR: My point is that "world's hashing power" is a term that bothers me when you are using it. No offense intended.
Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to say that your point is invalid - 51%-attacks are currently an easy option as the overall hashing power of the whole cryptocurrency scene is still laughable at, but the actual issue to me would be a relevant spreading of the _actual_ hashing power that is currently pointed at cryptos.
TL;DR: My point is that "world's hashing power" is a term that bothers me when you are using it. No offense intended.
You don't seem to realise how much massive advantage ASICs have over general purpose gear.
Try computing how many household GPUs it would take to match the power of just the tiny little amount of ASICs we already have in place.
Then for a laugh check how little difference all the household CPUs would make.
Basically the stuff that is not specifically designed as dedicated crypto mining gear hardly counts, and if it still counts that is only because we have only just a few months ago even started to actually deploy serious "not all that terribly clunky/ancient feature-scale" ASICs.
-MarkM-
You are correct with that, but especially your point about the superiority of ASICs bothers me when talking about a "world's hashing power". We won't be talking about the power of individual PC's or neat little mining rigs, but about professional hardware that is produced and used for the purpose of mining. This exactly isn't the world's hashing power, it's the world's potential hashing power in the form of specialized and thus more potent mining hardware. I am not trying to be a smartass here, your term just doesn't seem to reflect what you seem to be trying to address and creates the impression that you are indeed talking about every single piece of hardware that could be used for the sake of mining.
Sorry, I am going a bit off-topic here, but I have seen you post your statement, that any coin that doesn't possess 51% of the world's hashing power (I guess you are going for the actual computing power that every household/company could potentially deliver) is to be treated as potentially highly insecure in several threads by now. While on a hypothetical basis this sounds all neat, dandy and logical, you don't seem to take into account that this kind of percentage will never _actually_ flow into cryptos by a level of even 5% or so. Your argument seems to follow the thesis that everyone that knows about cryptos and is probably even accepting them as a daily feature in the yet-to-be-seen future would actually bother putting a relevant level of personal computing power into it.
Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to say that your point is invalid - 51%-attacks are currently an easy option as the overall hashing power of the whole cryptocurrency scene is still laughable at, but the actual issue to me would be a relevant spreading of the _actual_ hashing power that is currently pointed at cryptos.
TL;DR: My point is that "world's hashing power" is a term that bothers me when you are using it. No offense intended.
Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to say that your point is invalid - 51%-attacks are currently an easy option as the overall hashing power of the whole cryptocurrency scene is still laughable at, but the actual issue to me would be a relevant spreading of the _actual_ hashing power that is currently pointed at cryptos.
TL;DR: My point is that "world's hashing power" is a term that bothers me when you are using it. No offense intended.
You don't seem to realise how much massive advantage ASICs have over general purpose gear.
Try computing how many household GPUs it would take to match the power of just the tiny little amount of ASICs we already have in place.
Then for a laugh check how little difference all the household CPUs would make.
Basically the stuff that is not specifically designed as dedicated crypto mining gear hardly counts, and if it still counts that is only because we have only just a few months ago even started to actually deploy serious "not all that terribly clunky/ancient feature-scale" ASICs.
-MarkM-
Didn't even pay out on Giveaways - Dead and no one cares!!
The so called development team are a bunch of pie in the sky idiots who have not enough hashing power between them to even match DOGE's hashrate.
They are just scamming everyone like all the others, heck maybe they are even scamming themselves.
It has nothing to do with blocks, it has to do with what percent of the world's hashing power is defending/securing the coin.
Less than 51% of the world's hashing power and pretty much any world power or alliance of world powers could PWN it easily.
Only bitcoin is anywhere near being reasonably secure, and even it might not yet have enough ASICs dispersed among enough different interest-groups / demographics to be secure yet.
-MarkM-
They are just scamming everyone like all the others, heck maybe they are even scamming themselves.
It has nothing to do with blocks, it has to do with what percent of the world's hashing power is defending/securing the coin.
Less than 51% of the world's hashing power and pretty much any world power or alliance of world powers could PWN it easily.
Only bitcoin is anywhere near being reasonably secure, and even it might not yet have enough ASICs dispersed among enough different interest-groups / demographics to be secure yet.
-MarkM-
Sorry, I am going a bit off-topic here, but I have seen you post your statement, that any coin that doesn't possess 51% of the world's hashing power (I guess you are going for the actual computing power that every household/company could potentially deliver) is to be treated as potentially highly insecure in several threads by now. While on a hypothetical basis this sounds all neat, dandy and logical, you don't seem to take into account that this kind of percentage will never _actually_ flow into cryptos by a level of even 5% or so. Your argument seems to follow the thesis that everyone that knows about cryptos and is probably even accepting them as a daily feature in the yet-to-be-seen future would actually bother putting a relevant level of personal computing power into it.
Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to say that your point is invalid - 51%-attacks are currently an easy option as the overall hashing power of the whole cryptocurrency scene is still laughable at, but the actual issue to me would be a relevant spreading of the _actual_ hashing power that is currently pointed at cryptos.
TL;DR: My point is that "world's hashing power" is a term that bothers me when you are using it. No offense intended.
The so called development team are a bunch of pie in the sky idiots who have not enough hashing power between them to even match DOGE's hashrate.
They are just scamming everyone like all the others, heck maybe they are even scamming themselves.
It has nothing to do with blocks, it has to do with what percent of the world's hashing power is defending/securing the coin.
Less than 51% of the world's hashing power and pretty much any world power or alliance of world powers could PWN it easily.
Only bitcoin is anywhere near being reasonably secure, and even it might not yet have enough ASICs dispersed among enough different interest-groups / demographics to be secure yet.
-MarkM-
They are just scamming everyone like all the others, heck maybe they are even scamming themselves.
It has nothing to do with blocks, it has to do with what percent of the world's hashing power is defending/securing the coin.
Less than 51% of the world's hashing power and pretty much any world power or alliance of world powers could PWN it easily.
Only bitcoin is anywhere near being reasonably secure, and even it might not yet have enough ASICs dispersed among enough different interest-groups / demographics to be secure yet.
-MarkM-
If it is an scrypt coin it is just a honeypot for suckers, waiting to be PWNed if some idiots ever do pile enough value into it to make it worth PWNing.
The number two hashrate scrypt coin is still DOGE I think and even it is pathetic compared to litecoin and the nearest contenders even more pathetic than DOGE are way the heck lower still so even just the tiny few miners mining DOGE could PWN any other scrypt coin except litecoin.
Basically all the scrypt coins except litecoin are total garbage, most having less than half the pathetic hashrate that DOGE has, which in turn is way less than half what litecoin has. While even litecoin is still pathetically vulnerable itself until scrypt ASICs become widely available and widely deployed.
If it is a SHA256 coin then even if it is merged mined it likely has only an insanely pathetically low hashrate but at least with merged mining you can mine it almost for free while still mining all the serious coins that actually have not so insanely pathetic hashrates.
If for some idiotic "reason" you actually imagine it is worth your while to set up merged mining for this "moon" piece of crap, by all means go ahead and implement merged mining in it, then maybe at least a few lone miners might add it to their merge. Stranger things have happened.
-MarkM-
The number two hashrate scrypt coin is still DOGE I think and even it is pathetic compared to litecoin and the nearest contenders even more pathetic than DOGE are way the heck lower still so even just the tiny few miners mining DOGE could PWN any other scrypt coin except litecoin.
Basically all the scrypt coins except litecoin are total garbage, most having less than half the pathetic hashrate that DOGE has, which in turn is way less than half what litecoin has. While even litecoin is still pathetically vulnerable itself until scrypt ASICs become widely available and widely deployed.
If it is a SHA256 coin then even if it is merged mined it likely has only an insanely pathetically low hashrate but at least with merged mining you can mine it almost for free while still mining all the serious coins that actually have not so insanely pathetic hashrates.
If for some idiotic "reason" you actually imagine it is worth your while to set up merged mining for this "moon" piece of crap, by all means go ahead and implement merged mining in it, then maybe at least a few lone miners might add it to their merge. Stranger things have happened.
-MarkM-
I totally disagree, i believe that you didn't notice KDC!!!! Scrypt, increasing hashrate and NO EXCHANGE YET!!! So those are all miners that believe in that development team. KDC is run like a little company!!! I'm pretty sure that KDC can be next to LTC. Not all scrypts coins are garbage, infact it is a based on blocks. BTC is also simple block, the same blocks as those garbage coins...
If it is an scrypt coin it is just a honeypot for suckers, waiting to be PWNed if some idiots ever do pile enough value into it to make it worth PWNing.
The number two hashrate scrypt coin is still DOGE I think and even it is pathetic compared to litecoin and the nearest contenders even more pathetic than DOGE are way the heck lower still so even just the tiny few miners mining DOGE could PWN any other scrypt coin except litecoin.
Basically all the scrypt coins except litecoin are total garbage, most having less than half the pathetic hashrate that DOGE has, which in turn is way less than half what litecoin has. While even litecoin is still pathetically vulnerable itself until scrypt ASICs become widely available and widely deployed.
If it is a SHA256 coin then even if it is merged mined it likely has only an insanely pathetically low hashrate but at least with merged mining you can mine it almost for free while still mining all the serious coins that actually have not so insanely pathetic hashrates.
If for some idiotic "reason" you actually imagine it is worth your while to set up merged mining for this "moon" piece of crap, by all means go ahead and implement merged mining in it, then maybe at least a few lone miners might add it to their merge. Stranger things have happened.
-MarkM-
The number two hashrate scrypt coin is still DOGE I think and even it is pathetic compared to litecoin and the nearest contenders even more pathetic than DOGE are way the heck lower still so even just the tiny few miners mining DOGE could PWN any other scrypt coin except litecoin.
Basically all the scrypt coins except litecoin are total garbage, most having less than half the pathetic hashrate that DOGE has, which in turn is way less than half what litecoin has. While even litecoin is still pathetically vulnerable itself until scrypt ASICs become widely available and widely deployed.
If it is a SHA256 coin then even if it is merged mined it likely has only an insanely pathetically low hashrate but at least with merged mining you can mine it almost for free while still mining all the serious coins that actually have not so insanely pathetic hashrates.
If for some idiotic "reason" you actually imagine it is worth your while to set up merged mining for this "moon" piece of crap, by all means go ahead and implement merged mining in it, then maybe at least a few lone miners might add it to their merge. Stranger things have happened.
-MarkM-
At current levels it is a good investment to buy. Check it this morning, when mining this with 3000Kh/s you will earn less then 1LTC!!! so it is stupid to mine it, you can better buy it. So i'm mining KDC that will hit the exchange soon, but it seems that nobody cares 
crap coin dump it for litecoin as fast as you can.
pretty much.i never even bothered to get a wallet for mooncoin.
Good, cos initially it had a dogeface on it
Essentially nothing. The coin was dead soon after launch, and it got dumped as soon as it ended up on coinedup.
I didn't say that i'll pump it, in fact on coinedup you cannot pump anything so... if you buy for 1BTC then you're already 500% higher. Moon first need to hit cryptsy before you can work with it.
That is the point, my friend. NXT is shit too, and look how big they are... $60M for shit.... All marketing/promoting/pumps and dumps...
so you're saying you want to market/promote, pump and dump mooncoin? or that mooncoin's $40,000usd market cap is not shit somehow?i haven't seen much going for this coin since i initial mined. let me know when you're pumping, i'll know when to get my mooncoins in a wallet.
sorry i need to disagree. Look at COL!!! Plenty of coins there too, and it was moving a lot of cryptsy, and what about ADT is also a coin with a lot of coins. I didn't mine MOON, but i'm thinking of buying it. I believe 0.00000008LTC would be a nice price. A coin can be worth $1,000,000 and moon can be worth $1,000,000 too. No other then Klondikecoin that is now started to become a huge hype. No exchange and 300Mh/s mining, that means something!!!!
any coin could be worth $1000000, theres no good reason for mooncoin to be. and COL is pure shit too.
That is the point, my friend. NXT is shit too, and look how big they are... $60M for shit.... All marketing/promoting/pumps and dumps...
Jump to: