Wouldn't the price of having a masternode keep going up then?

Mr. Spread, also would we be able to add some coins to our masternode after it has gone live to keep it in the game?

No, it would fluctuate according to what the market dictates.  And the market would take into account countless variables.  As Jesse Livermore stated, a limitation of the Darkcoin masternodes system is the arbitrary 1000 DRK requirement.  Now, that's what most of us Darkcoiners suggested as the amount since we're used to it.  But Mr. Spread, being the genius he is, thought outside the box, and realized it's always best to let the market decide.  

Brilliance.

The current price of this coin (.00043) tells me most people have no idea just how brilliant this is and what it's going to cause.  I suspect as people ponder it and word Spreads, that this will change in the next 48 hours...

I was so tempted to snap up those 25000 coins but I realize I need to let others get a fair share at this level for better distribution.  I'm glad someone got them before I got too tempted.  I can only control myself for so long

The more I think about this, the more excited I'm getting.  Some benefits (please add to the list or disagree with my thoughts):

1.  You don't have to worry about diminishing ROI (Return on Investment) as more masternodes come online as you know the max number of masternodes and as long as you stay active, you get that ROI %.

2.  Most masternode owners won't spend their SPR they earn via their masternodes as that would make them less competitive.

Guys i don't mean to ruin your party but wouldn't NOT setting a limit for SPR to have a masternodes be a detriment to the network?

I mean with DRK coin masternodes are easy, you have 1000 coins and you have a masternode, combined with everyone you have a total of say 1500-2000 masternodes on the whole network. With SPR's solution you may have waaaaay less masternodes say if you require 2500+ SPR to be on the masternode list. So what i'm saying is wouldn't there more likely be less masternodes therefore less decentralisation?

I guess there could be a hard limit on minimum and maximum number of masternodes to avoid this?

Please advise if i am way off.

Thanks for the kind words but 'sno big deal, I'll give you a summary preview: some eye candy, plus a nothing-special, slightly buggy implementation of a primitive IRC terminal that no-one would choose over an actual IRC messaging app.

The fact that the trading tab is limited to Bittrex cuts across the principle of decentralisation and a cool appraisal leads me to conclude that it hardly justifies the effort of including it, (I was really just checking its ease-of-use).

And, as I suspected, the encrypted in-wallet messaging uses the block chain so a hard fork will be required. Is the argument for in-wallet encrypted messaging sufficiently compelling to justify the cost of a hard fork and a permanent inflation of the block chain?

Cheers

Graham

Anything new apart from the no pool?

A truly brilliant dev who has proven his ability by finding multiple bugs/vulnerabilities in Darkcoin code (which Spreadcoin is based upon).  He is now IMPROVING upon the Darkcoin masternode system.

Basically, I'm investing in SPR in part because of the potential that it will be superior to Darkcoin.  And because I am trusting more and more in the brilliance of this developer.  He has coding skills, is ethical, and creative.

From here (https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/715435.msg10076304#msg10076304) to present is pure crypto-gold.

Ofcourse not.

But who knows, maybe Mr. Spread has got some sort of craaaazy new fork system in preparation...  

Not like darkcoin's spork which is the most centralized way of forking thinkable (giving ONE man control over an enforcement mechanism),
imagine what a decentralized forking system would look like. 

My mind is boggling...

All the Decentralization makes my head spin, I need to lie down.