I'll admit - that is a mind blowing concept to me.
I always thought that the price is determined by things like supply and demand, product value(real/perceived) and the market purchasing power.

Extending that theory - the only thing preventing EAC to hit 10 satoshi is what.... 4-5 BTC of BUY offers.

Now we've all seen how sustainable was 300+ price.
If EAC ever hit 800 satoshi, that would last something like 1.0E-10 s, and in that time Cryptsy would either burn down along with the Internet,
or if it was able to process sale offers it would become self-aware and lead us to intergalactic conquest.

Thats how 800+ price is sustainable... IMHO

I get what you are saying.
But EAC is not 100% manipulations-prone low-volume market and 0% SUPPLY & DEMAND market.
I'd say there is quite a bit free trade going on.

For example, there is 14M coins created every day and someone will want their BTC in exchange. But BTC is short in supply. It feeds every single alt-coin.
And that is the main reason why every alt-coin hits bottom as soon as it hits big exchange - almost EVERYONE wants their BTC cake.

If EAC manipulation was that easy, what's preventing OP, ie. EarthCoin to invest couple of BTC and walk away straight to the bank.

So yeah, I get what you are saying, if you are talking about short bursts. And Long term... it has to be sustainable by definition.

If I may, don't do the x2 x5 payout day.

the biggest problem is spread.

the most damage by immediately selling EAC is not done because it decreases price, but because it decreases proliferation.
the less people holding EAC, the lower the price.

people who think they need to get rid of it for any reason also decrease the amount of people who have EAC...

this can quickly change, of course, especially at such low prices. but that is the main problem.

should EAC rise, of course, the lower the number of people who own it is, the higher the price increase.
so the opposite effect will happen, basically.

in that way, it is a accelerator, and not really a problem long term.

The project of mining for food is moving forward - see this forum over at EarthCoinTalk - http://earthcointalk.org/groups/mining-for-food/ - please reply to this forum with any questions, comments or advice.

I know many people here are bewildered and dismayed that EarthCoin has/is becoming a charity/green movement... from where I stand as a farmer... this is the best and really the only way that I can build the value of EAC. We are not a non-profit organisation... we have 5 full-time employees and 3 part-time staff that are paid well-above minimum wage... while we do enjoy what we do... well... some days... we are not doing this for love... we are in it to make a profit and a decent living... and while I am going to be delivering crates of veggies to the various soup kitchens around Sydney, I would just as soon be delivering crates of veggies to cafes and residents for EAC.

If I was a handyman, woodworker, plumber, baker, tailor, etc and etc... I would be offering to take EAC as well.

Any alternate currency... gold, silver, eggs, BTC, EAC, whatever... is always going to be linked in an exchange to the local currency... so the value of EAC is always going to be EAC/BTC, EAC/USD, EAC/AUD, etc... so the only way to increase the value of EAC is link it to a material value... anything else is just speculation.

And just to clarify... I am an EAC miner, I do sell EAC on the open market to cover costs, I do have a very nice nest egg of EAC, and I do speculative trading of EAC to increase my EAC holdings... so I guess I kinda do it all... so understand that each has a role to play in ensuring the longevity and worth of EAC.

What do you mean "something similar"?  Don't you think that's a bit lacking in originality?  If you're planning on inventing a coin, don't you want to attract people based on the merits of the coin and avoid wanting to be a copy of everything else?  Just saying, coins that are clones of everyone else live a very short life and end up not lasting.

I don't know where you got your information, but this is absolutely untrue.  With enough volume in the market and regular appreciation, holding generates a similar (if not more) profit over time than attempted market manipulation, as one stands to lose a considerable bit should they attempt to ride the wave and it reacts differently than expected.  Your statement only holds true in the event where you never experience loss, and I find that highly unlikely.  Even trader bots are often not quick enough to catch a market turn and tradeoff fast enough to prevent loss, otherwise everyone would use them, they're not a perfect system.

Market manipulation is a form of gambling, make no mistake about it.  It may be fun to partake in an attempt to increase your holdings, but unless you're an absolute wizard with Lady Luck eternally by your side, you're eventually going to lose something.

what a bunch of bullshit

you have either not read or not understood any of my or other people's posts regarding immediate selling or "gambling"

how about looking up http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler%27s_ruin

since by definition you have less money than other players because you do NOT HOLD ANY, you will lose eventually

seriously. I have posted this link and explained it a dozen times and no one gets it.

and yes. the only problem is people.

people like you

Nope, I didn't read anything, I wish I was still that young to have the time to stay on forums and have fun playing and flaming with you guys