Topic: [ANN] [ARO] | Arionum | CPU+GPU+Masternode | PHP Based |Decentralized Revolution - page 21. (Read 71563 times)

First of all: i start mining this coin after ~10 minutes they released this coin on bitcointalk, i was with 20 other people mining this coin. So let me make this clear, i am one of the oldest members from Arionum. That i didnt talked here but was just mining dont change anything. You can easy look at the block explorer when i did earn my first transaction, it was at day 1.
It's oke that u can not stop finding a negative thing. Like u can not stop talking about the aro price: 200 sats (while the price is ~400 sats), u can not stop saying that the exchange is for 2 months on maintenance mode (while its 1 month). You are changing the current facts.
Bitcoin is around the 6500 dollar, not 1000 dollar because it was 1000 dollar somewere in the past.
Like me, i saw aro around the 2000 sats also. However i dont care about the octaex price (where it was 2k+ sats).

I really dont understand want you want to say, u are throwing incorrect actual numbers. Yes u feel bad because octaex did bad things to everybody what was using that website, this was totally outside the control what ARO have. This has nothing to do with aro itself.

So when we are done with this, what is your next thing? You keep searching for things what are not actual anymore. Discussions are healthy, everybody on discord are discussion with eachother. But you are just searching for things what are not reall.

Like the coin ETN, i bought them for 1200 sats, the price from that coin is now around the 80 sats. Can happen.. Do i need to shit all over the place there now? What can they do about it? Anyway, outside all this negativity i want to welcome you to the cryptoworld.

 Dude you can't find that price because you haven't followed this coin since inception, you can choose to do a little more research, or ask other members that have been around before you before jumping the gun. At least have the full history of what you defending before you spend your time shilling/posing a defense. As for 200 sat, i have stated several times lower 200sat, so must be a mistake when i stated exactly 200sat, this coin was trading around 235 sat a drop from a stable price of 1000sat (again do your research) before the fork was announced, which bumped the price to upper 300s. Post the fork, the coin has been on maintenance and no one has been able to deposit, even the main dumper who destroyed the price is unable to deposit to sell, so currently the true value of the coin is biased.

 Also if you had more info about the history of the coin then you would know that aro exchange commenced post the btc drop and a baseline was achieved even post serious drop in BTC price. also you would have a clear reason/ backing support to show what destroyed the price. Just do a little more reason to help your shill

I would like to correct a mistake, I thought that OctaEx was paid for with donations when in fact it was not, confusion on my part.

As for condescending replies from members of the team, I cannot comment as I did not see all the conversations you had before your ban. I am unwilling to comment on your ban, as that is something that is between yourselves and the Dev's, I am simply a marketing member looking to help ARO in any way I can. I have however seen some of your conversations, and I understand that this is a passionate issue for you, I understand you lost money, however I cannot accept that the ARO Dev team is responsible for listing on "unreliable" exchanges. At some point all the big exchanges were new and unknown, any one of them could have exit scammed. We simply provided a solution to the community that so badly wanted to be able to trade ARO.

With regards to us knowing about the cloud miners, yes we did know about it, but struggled to come up with a solution that was fair and in the best interests of the community. We believe we did come up with that solution, and yes, we will be criticised for the time taken to implement that solution, but it wasn't something that we came to lightly.

As with Mercatox, we can only go on what information we are given by them. We don't want to give no information at all to the community, so we keep them updated with what we ourselves are told.

Of course, you have a right to defend yourself in situations where you feel you have been ridiculed of had a less than favourable reply. Not knowing exactly what was said however, sometimes angry reactions to something you don't want to hear may not be the best course of action?

Where do you see that 200 sats? U keep talking about 1000-> 200 sats drop. I can not find that price. And if we go further about this price...
The lowest ARO price is still higher then the big BTC dump. Many coins (like 99% from all coins) dropped harder then ARO. The ARO price is around the 400 sats so please stop using the number 200 oké?

The community is now waiting for Mercatox to open the doors (so withdraw/deposit) and watch what the price will do. This is why people are not ''pumping'', they are waiting. They can pump, because u can trade ARO/BTC. But you dont know what happen after thedoors go open. Nobody want to ''pump'' the price to 1k or 2k sats if you dont know what will happen when the doors open. Logical or logical? This is NOT because people are losing the trust (in fact, the community trust is getting more and more).

There are big BTC members involved in ARO, you dont need to worry about the 400 sats (almost the lowest price) what ARO is worth now. Yes on some other markets u see big pumps when a deposit/withdraw is closed. This price will fall to death when the wallets are open. At this point u see that the community is preparing for the doors open on mercatox.

I would like to just clarify some points that have been raised by various members here, not to stir things up or make an already volatile situation more so, but hopefully to try and explain a few things.

For a start, to our knowledge there was no algorithm exploit, simply the fact that someone was using a huge amount of cloud services and as such gained a large amount of the hashrate. We were aware of this kind of thing for a while, yes, but we had to discuss what we thought was better for the community in the way we were going to try and tackle this problem. It was decided that rather than ban ip's that we knew had large amounts of hashing power, we could change the mining algorithm to enable a much more universal way of mining ARO. Although this did alter from the original ethos of ARO being a CPU only coin, we had to do something that kept with decentralisation, so a complete re-write of the code was implemented and worked on for weeks, including testing for weeks. When the hard fork did not go entirely as planned, which we have apologised for, we worked extremely hard to get the issues sorted. We understood that it was frustrating for some members but within approximately 24 hours, most issues were resolved. What we have noticed with the new algorithm is that cloud mining is not as profitable, and the general consensus is that most of the community is happy they can put their GPU's to work on a coin that is worthwhile. We were never going to be able to keep everyone 100% happy with such a change to the original system, but by and large the community has stuck with us and have welcomed the new mining algorithm.

On the subject of exchanges, OctaEx was very unfortunate. We did not rush in to get listed on them, we looked at the site first off, did several weeks of testing withdrawals and deposits, in an effort to make sure it was a reliable and easy to use exchange. Unfortunately a few months after we were listed on OctaEx, they did in fact do an exit scam. This is unfortunate, and I know a lot of people lost money because of this. What is apparent though is that the Dev team cannot be held accountable for this, it is sad to say but it does happen in the crypto scene, as I am sure everyone is aware. It's not something we could have foreseen, and the very fact OctaEx was used was because so many people were asking for an exchange yet we simply did not have the funds to get onto a bigger one. Donations from the community helped to list OctaEx, and by and large, for the time OctaEx was operating people were happy they had somewhere to sell their ARO.

With Mercatox, yes it is not a huge exchange, again, but a solution was required to enable trading to start taking place again. So far they have been very good, until the hard fork. They have had technical issues with their node, something which again was out of our control, and we have been working with them to try and get it sorted. It has not been 2 months that the wallet has been in maintenance, as the hard fork happened only one month ago. The problems with Mercatox have been resolved to our knowledge and hopefully the wallet will be open again in the next few days.

As for a bigger exchange, there is currently a donation process for us to be able to be listed on a bigger, more widely known exchange, so that at the very least ARO can be given some liquidity and start moving again.

I do sympathise with everyone that has either lost money or been caused inconvenience but it is a fact of crypto that these things do happen, and sometimes they are literally out of the control of the Devs. It doesn't matter how much has been invested by the development team, the marketing team, the community, we simply cannot predict these things are going to happen. I know a lot of time is given by the development team, with no income from ARO itself, even if you count transaction fees, as even if I send 1 million ARO, the fee is only ever going to be 10 ARO maximum. I myself give a hell of a lot of time to members, without any earnings myself, but it is what I do, it is my role within the ARO team.

So far the community have been outstanding in their support of ARO, and whilst there have been bumps along the way, the core community have stuck by us and continued being one of the best there is out there.  

Looks like a really interesting business with difficult aims in my opinion. Hope you gonna hold your timlane and can release your Final version allready in Q4. Gonna follow up on your plans.

  Your angle is of no value,  cos they ended up switching the algo,  thus proving they knew and realized that it was been exploited from the beginning when the members brought it to their attention.  If the dev team had personal finances invested into the coin like some of us and it wasnt all gain for them, then they wouldn't have waited months to update that algo.  They wouldn't have sat around and comfortably watch the coin crash from a stable 1000 sat to 200 sat due to the action of one or few individuals. I will reiterate that the work done was a week job on a busy schedule. I have a sister that does this for a living and few friends that can attest to that.

 I have no issue with cuby, I think she is great but I don't believe in sugarcoating my opinion to stay positive thru some bullshit.  And what is a normal way to ask a question? All the points i stated that resulted in a ban were clearly facts. I dropped a few fbomb towards slptome a marketing (but not really marketing) guy who replied to my ist statement about issue's related to the coin still in maintenance two months post its due date by stating that "i sound like a broken record"
 
  Respect is earned not given cos you have some bullshit admin tag associated with your name.  I won't be surprised if i personally invested/ promoted the coin more than the aforementioned guy with the marketing tag,  whose only marketing tactic is to get on the board and talk about moon every once in awhile.  So yeah fuck him.

 Like I already stated there are more pressing issues that had yet to be dealt with or dealt with in extreme tardy fashion that speaks on professionalism rather than worrying about an f bomb on a forum. 

 As for the dumper, the coin has stayed in maintenance post the algo update,  so we don't know if his action will be curtailed.  One thing i know is that he was given the time to accumulate a hefty amount of coin and shoot to the top of the leader board even with the extensive dumping.  So,  he can choose to create masternodes and make a killing of that end while still killing the cpu side.  So if anything he is only limited on the gpu side, which is one part of a three sided equation.

Well that's not really how a cryptocoin should work. If somebody find a way to get many hashes (like using Amazon Servers or another cloud service) he can use that. What if i did rent servers for 10k euro's a month, i invest a lot in the coin by mining. I would be pissed of if they block my transactions. It would be funny if people call my investment a botnet without any prove. Renting cloud servers is not a botnet. However, this cloud servers has a much smaller part in the mining system now. So on that way the aro team did there thing.

The fork what Arionum made was not a small one, the total system has changes from a 1 block mining system to a ''3'' block mining system, all together on the same blockchain. This coin started to be a CPU only coin, but if people are using Cloud Services to get a lot CPU power, many coins will be go to this whale(s). That was the reason why they should fix this. However, Arionum has proved themself to do everything good (as far as human people can do) in 1 time. Like this totally new mining system (1 cpu block, 1 gpu block) is a totaly new way of mining and totally regarding the ALGO what Arionum is using.

This shows also the big opportunities what Arionum (and the team behind it) have. They are making major steps, and yes i also told them to place that steps on this forum. This because many positive things are going on but the people on bitcointalk dont know about it. I never saw a strong community like this before on a cryptocoin. On discord everybody is helping when somebody has an issue or want to improve there mining speed. This algo is ''new'' for everybody and everybody is ready to help. Everybody can take part if it, everybody can ask and give help if needed Everybody can make suggestions to the dev team to make more options reality.
When i asked cuby (she is the woman behind the Arionum mobile app, cross platform wallet and the webwallet) to add some options, she add it directly (ofcourse it should have positive effects). In 3 hours i had an mobile wallet update what have positive inpacts to the mining system form the mobile wallet (like the screensaver to prevend burn-in on displays). In the past i tried to help with Ethereum and some other coins, 99% from the time you wont get any answer or they wont do nothing about your message. So yes it's sad when this aro team is doing so much, people still try to burn it down.


And ofcourse, i also started an discussion about this cloud service part with the Aro dev, i also asked why he just dont simply ban this Zean (this zean, i dont know if this a bad person.. His dumps are totally NOT big, in fact, he made also donations to the Aro fund!) and the answer was: we dont gonne regulate the coin and the price. This Zean (nobody know if he used scam accounts on Amazon/cloud) can be a fair person what have big trusts in Arionum, maybe that's why he invested to much in this coin.
After my conversation with the ARODEV i could say one thing: i agree with arodev.


If people have questions, ask them on a normall way and everybody get there answer on a normall way Lets being nice to each other and help eachother when needed (i think this is the strongest part from Arionum, inclusive the good dev team behind it what make many coin options reall what no other coin can ever have).

What I find strange is that after a half-baked hard fork that didn't fix a main issue (botnet), the only exchange that trades ARO has its wallet on maintenance since then.

If that's a sign of an addicted and pro-active team, I can't imagine if they were sloppy.

 

 It was a flaw of the cloud services that was immediately identified by the general members and made visible to the dev team. An immediate update to the algo could have easily prevented the severe dump but they waited for months till the coin fell from a stable 1000 sat to lower 200 sat before implementing any change. To make matters worse, this wasn't a rewrite that needed several months to be implement rather its a week of work with a busy schedule, so it puzzles the shit out of me on why they waited to implement that change.

Can you tell me the exploit you are talking about in more detail? Or are you talking about the AWS / GCP cpu abuse done by zean and others? If it is the second one, I dont think it appropriate to define it as a fundamental flaw of Arionum, but a flaw of the cloud services.