Topic: Technology vs. Marketing. Which is more important? - page 5. (Read 6464 times)

Of course not, you are making it obvious to every reader that your job is to spend your time making a fool of yourself by wasting everyone else's time reading about how you hate me. As if that helps anyone here. It is extremely selfish to subject all the readers here to your private vendetta against me.

So after all, we see you were just bullshitting. As usual.

Afraid to put your idea to the test of peer review and scruntiny or don't have an idea just bluffing.

State your idea about DOGE, or it didn't happen. Period.

I concur. I had the same thought actually. Micro-transactions apply when there is no better way to monetize. One example is paying someone to video chat with you and do it decentralized. If it is centralized, then no problem the site can have you load a balance and pay out of that. But then the site has to comply with FinCEN and other regs. Decentralized means you need to pay the other party on the spot. That may not necessary be "micro" value though. And it may not even require instant transaction, but probably will. And "micro" would be better in terms of being able to bill per minute.

So in general, microtransactions apply where the granularity can't be aggregated because decentralization is required. So microtransactions are a generally useful paradigm especially for our crypto aims. But for me the microtransactions as a marketing strategy to launch and do initial distribution with doesn't work due to a chicken & egg dilemma of not enough ecosystems ways to use them. And I realized from my re-familiarization with the theory of why microtransactions are often not economic, that the scenario I was thinking of for a killer ecosystem feature to drive over that chicken & egg hump wasn't going to be compelling for the users. The key challenge facing microtransactions is that no one is going to go out-of-their-way to obtain some 2 cents worth of tokens to go do some ecosystem action (no matter how compelling that ecosystem action is). The point is there isn't enough value in play for each user action. The cognitive and effort load on the user is too high.

This is what I mean by the attrition barrier.

My job is not to educate you TPTB, you can figure out why Dogecoin was a success on your own. You have still yet to come to the correct conclusion. It is not my fault you post in every thread and claim to be a know it all on every subject. I was posting in the altcoin subforum on every thread long before you came along. I was simply pointing out that you are incorrect about why Dogecoin was successful. I have no interest in educating you as to the right answer.

Also, you can stop playing the victim and crying about "ad hominem" bs. I was very civil with you until you started quipping your ad hominems toward me... everyone knows what I'm talking about here because it is the way you speak to everyone as if everyone is inferior. You are the definition of a grumpy old man (I could elaborate but I will try to be nice and stop there.) Furthermore, I am annoyed with you passing off your opinions as factual statements, or basing factual statements on opinions, which amounts to FUD. You attack every cryptocurrency without being able to deliver a solution. Those that can't do spam internet forums. I know that to be true, that is why I am here spamming myself.

This subforum is not called "altcoin technical discussion", it is called "altcoin discussion". Sorry, I do not want to spend 1 week month reading all of your posts, the rantings of a lunatic rather, just so I can figure out what you're talking about. You are angry I'm not explaining my point in this thread to you, but you fail to realize it is the same thing you do when you say "read my thread" as if it isn't a trillion words long.

Instead of playing hide & seek, you could just tell us your opinion. After all, it is only your opinion until you prove or convince. That is why we share here.

One might argue that users of DOGE felt a sense of participation, empowerment, and cooperation, e.g. that some programmers could chip in and create bots for micro-tipping to various social networking. In other words, that it wasn't all controlled by some core developers. Thus a sense of community purpose. Again I think this all derives from the HOPE fundamental.

The cute dog was a symbol of love and the ease of doing good, juxtaposed to the overly serious, corporatism (which is even present in Bitcoin). Again all derives from the core emotion of HOPE.

I think perhaps what you are thinking at is that DOGE was perceived as an undervalued asset relative to Bitcoin. And so you may be viewing from the "mine the speculators" marketing strategy. Again that has proven to be a P&D unsustainable strategy, except perhaps in the case of Litecoin which for various reasons has served as a hedge or alternative to Bitcoin economically (e.g. GPU miners transitioned to Litecoin when Bitcoin got ASICs).


You still apparently haven't understood that the B-lister aspect is stalking me around in every thread so you can try to attack me. It has nothing to do with whether I or you are correct on some issue. We are all free to share and argue our positions here, and in an adult manner devoid of ad hominem noise and focused on eliding the facts from our sharing.

Again I urge you to raise your contribution to the A-lister level and focus on sharing instead of throwing your toys in a temper tantrum because you don't like that I post a lot and defend my logic (until someone convinces me I am incorrect).

Instead of getting to the point, you again have succeeded in filling up another thread with drivel and flaming noise. Make your point. If your point is about me, then there is another thread specifically for that. Don't spam every thread with your off-topic jealousy about me. If you think you can be a better spokesman in the community, then go for it. Prove it. Rather B-listers just complain.

No zero balances, rich list and checking out the coin's own forum (if there are any) usually give a relative good base for a rough but relevant estimation.

Quality comments are not good for this kind of "measurement", as miners and other people who intend to dump and quit are also used to ask meaningful questions, and also used to make quality remarks, however they are not part of the community (or only for a short time).

Hero endorsements are not very accurate in these days .

Come on, a self-proclaimed genius ought to be able to figure this out. You are still wrong about why Dogecoin was successful. Hint: It has nothing to do with micro-tipping.

And enough about this nonsense about me being a B lister. I know that I am a B lister (actually I am probably a C or D lister at best.) It is you that is delusional in thinking that you are an A lister. You tried running with the big dogs as "AnonyMint" in the Bitcoin development subforum, but the true A listers picked your half-baked ideas apart. So, you tucked your tail, changed your name, and retreated into the alternative cryptocurrency subforum far away from the true A listers so that no one would be able to point out how dumb your ideas are.

Thanks. Yeah I had done that research last night too:

http://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/10320/how-useful-is-a-javascript-miner

But I think that only uses part of the CPU and I want to use all the CPU (relative electricity cost is inapplicable in my use case of unprofitable mining). I think that can maybe used in addition to a memory hard algorithm. Does WebGL always use the GPU or is there a way to detect? Any way, I will dig down into those details. I am first revisiting my 2013 work on memory hard PoW algorithms (since I can't get access to AES-NI from within the browser which is what my latter PoW hash was primarily based on and which for example Cryptonote's hash requires which is why it can't run fast in the browser).

If you read the research on why micro-tipping is uneconomic for humans, you will understand that masking HOPE in the delusion of GENEROSITY (and other memes about better society) has the underlying generative essence of HOPE.

Edit: and you are certainly a prime B-lister (all elbows and acrimony) example of being deluded by HOPE and not using sober, detailed analysis.  

Edit#2: so the best marketing strategy would be the one that fostered HOPE, yet was not a delusion and could actually effect world change!

Wrong, try again.

Please read the last linked document in my original quote:


The mass delusion was fueled by that Ponzi scammer Alex Green and his huge tips. But he was using that marketing gimick to take more money from investors in an unsustainable scheme that declared bankruptcy.

Yeah if you give users the impression they can change the world with tipping, then they will adopt it with a passion because people really do want to believe. But the reality was it is economically impossible to change the world with micro-tipping (read the research scientists explanation such as Nick Szabo from 1996) and Alex Green took their money and made huge tips thus furthering the mass mania bubble "we can change the world". But Green was just manipulating the users and investors in an unsustainable, uneconomic delusion.

As for why it continues to have some trade on exchanges, some people still don't understand the above and still have hope that they can change their world. Thus it is reasonably possible someone can do the same scheme again and the deluded users will once again come back for sloppy seconds and hand their money over again to the scammers.

It is conceptually in terms of HOPE, no different than the delusions speculators have with handing their money over to the insiders in all the altcoin projects.

So to be clear the marketing strategy of DOGECOIN was HOPE (and even the so called marketing guru Palmer can't articule it that succinctly). And this a very powerful human emotion and can drive delusion and mass manias.

And now you will understand I am an astute marketer, as well as an out-of-the-box economist, and an expert multi-decades of experience programmer who has coded (all by myself!) and marketed software to adoption by 1% of the internet population. Not very many people have all three of those talents combined. I may not be the absolute best at any one of those, but I am in roughly on the order of the top 10% in each (maybe top 1% in some narrower facets).

What I am really good at intellectually is drilling down to the generative essence of an issue. I can find and state the succinct generative essence.

"and I can't put x86 assembly code in the browser without a browser plugin that n00b users won't install "

you could write a compute-shader in GLSL and deploy using WebGL to HTML5 browsers, GPU accelerated and no browser plugin necessary.

150 IQ, yet you still can't understand why Dogecoin was successful. 

You are a B lister that has convinced himself he is an A lister.

Lying to myself will lead me to failure. Therefor I am honest about the research documents I quoted which explain why micro-tipping will ALWAYS fail.


You missed the part where that also meant my planned distribution scheme is flawed. And so now I am forced to think of a way around the dilemma:



When will you learn to stop that B-lister crap that makes you look so pathetic? I advised you to lift your game up the A-lister level.

Lol of course TPTB thinks that the greatest marketing strategy (in more recent times... most successful was Litecoin) in the history of altcoins was flawed, and of course he thinks he can do better... so typical.  

Everyone is forgetting a very simple marketing scheme that made arguably the most successful alternative cryptocurrency what it is today. "Litecoin is the silver to Bitcoin's gold"

The marketing for Neucoin was rubbish.  They took a strategy of "plaster every crypto site with a banner or popup ad" and there has been nothing since.  That's not a marketing strategy IMO, they might as well of took the mentality of "build it and they will come" and they did nothing at all to promote to the remaining 99.9% of the worlds population outside of our little crypto sphere.   Nearly ALL marketing efforts for crypto adopt the same approach.

A REAL marketing strategy is long term, over a number of years, and identifies the initial and changing needs of the market over that time.  It knows what the market needs even if the market doesn't know what it needs to start with.  It considers the sentiment of the market at all times and modifies campaigns and strategies to suit this sentiment.  It adopts differing strategies for the different demographics you are targeting.  It details how the marketing will evolve as you garner adoption and looks for ways to incentive those that might not be interested, to try out the product and up sell from there to keep them engaged.  It considers all advertising mediums, not just the internet, and how best to use them together to push adoption.

I could go on and on...

An experienced professional marketing team with a moderate budget could take almost ANY crypto and bring it to mass market, regardless of the tech.

Why has that not happened?  I think for 2 reasons.

1.  No one develops their product using their own money first.  They hold an ICO for an idea and start development.  By the time its ready, theres nothing left for marketing.
2.  No one considers the long game, and instead focuses on short term money making schemes like pump/dumps and partnering with banks/corps.

I'm neither of the above, I've developed using my own funds with assistance from a handful of people, so any fund raisers we hold will be spent mainly on marketing and roll-out.  Secondly I'm here for at least 5 years, as that is the absolute minimum time it will take me to recover my investment as I wont be insta-generating millions of EMU for myself or any other similar shady practices. (which will also be detailed in this manifesto).

Thank you for sharing your assessment. To be brutally frank, it dodges the main question and it's too uninformed an explanation to be useful (I don't consider pundits’ opinions to be authoritative) but thank you for making the effort. It has to be obvious that an “initial boost” cannot be currently sustaining the strong performance two years down the road so we're right back where we started.

But that's just my peccadillo, staying focused on the awkward questions and trying to understand what the answers might mean.

Cheers

Graham

Well look at all the marketing for Neucoin, did it help yes, at the start but I am pretty sure it has devalued gradually since release. So marketing is good, but tech is more important in the long run.

No I wrote that they got the initial boost for being the first to trying micro-tipping, but that micro-tipping is fundamentally flawed as a paradigm, thus as the initial hype fades and everyone who has tried micro-tipping now realizes it is just a one-time delusion that can't be repeated.

I can understand how it might appear so to observers outside the domain.

You're opting for the “coincidence” explanation, then?

Cheers

Graham

Appears that Dogecoin's marketing strategy has no long-term legs. It was just a fad preying on the inexperience and enthusiasm of those who didn't understand the lack of value in micro-tipping, and the idealism was temporarily funneled into some stunt events (Jamaican bobsled team to the Olympics and Nascar) to the profit of Alex Green who was raising funds and using them to do publicity stunts. Ended with delusion and realization that it was just a fad.

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/jackson-palmer-year-dogecoin-jar-nutella-all-i-have-show-1478649
http://www.coindesk.com/dogecoin-founder-bitcoin-toxic/
http://www.dailydot.com/business/moolah-dogecoin-alex-green/

Additionally it is important to understand that microtransactions will never be viable for any activity except where there is no other way to monetize the activity:

http://hackingdistributed.com/2014/12/17/changetip-must-die/
http://www.shirky.com/weblog/2009/02/why-small-payments-wont-save-publishers/

I remember reading some of those articles about problems with microtransactions in the distant past and it is good that I re-familiarized myself with their main point as summarized above.