Community - if you still care about this project, speak up. Not just in the form of the amazing PMs I've received (thank you!) but here on the forum. Thanks in advance.
Andy
I care about the Catcoin project, and have observed that under the current style of management, the coin has lost 99% of its market value. I observe that at any given time, there is someone in the process of getting kicked out with accusation of subversion, terrorism, etc. I observe that the coin has suffered erratic block adjustment behaviors for most of its life, and my numerous contributions of ideas have been dismissed out of hand with what appears to be illogical arguments. The management of the coin currently resembles a dictatorship with lack of transparency with respect to power structure, decision-making process, etc. The coin appears to be treated as if it were the private personal property of a couple of buddies. I believe in the coin and believe it deserves better than that.
Thank you,
Etblvu1
Thanks for writing Eric. This is NOT the opening of a debate but I will respond.
First, you and I have conflicting view of just about everything we've discussed over the past year. In addition, you and Hozer have been in lock-step for the past year as well. Therefore, I'm not at all surprised that the only remotely positive part of your message is that you believe in the coin and she deserves better than she's had.
Market value: We didn't have any 'market value' when launched, and we've had plenty of challenges to overcome (dropped almost immediately by the original dev team, severe difficulty problems from the first hours after launch, then the expiration of the original dev teams's seed nodes and other infrastructure, then the Oprah scam). Those didn't destroy any market value, but they certainly killed our multiple attempts to grow. I've been watching the crypto world for a couple of years now and have yet to see a coin grow in strength. Most are just holding on. Hit any alt coin on Cryptsy - the launch hype pushes prices up, then over the course of the year the chart settles down toward zero. Hype and intense effort can temporarily elevate the prices on exchanges but once the emotion settles the prices settle as well. Cat's been no different. This is actually a place that makes me more hopeful about Cat's long-term viability - we've been through hell and we're still here. We all watched the hype around DOGE - ginormous following, plenty of buzz, sponsoring a race car and an Olympic team - and where are they today? Merge-mining with litecoin so they can maintain some hash rate and less valuable than CAT. No - I disagree with your "99%" assertion out of hand as being false and unsupportable. You're more than welcome to believe what you will, this isn't personal - but the numbers are available for all to see and they do not support your belief.
As to your management suggestion: You've loved to hate me from the beginning, and have made plenty of hay out of blaming me for anything that bothers you. Keep in mind - you were already seen as a problem child in the CAT ecosystem before I ever joined the dev team. Also keep in mind that the current dev team picked up the pieces of Cat after the initial 'pump and dump' hysteria was already fading. There's no reasonable way that anyone can suggest that either this team or their 'management style' have harmed this project. On the contrary, we're still alive today - not dead like a number of coins that launched with Cat - because this group jumped in to pick up the pieces and have been fighting to keep this project alive ever since. We finally got rights to the -dev channel LAST WEEK. We finally got access to update the project's main website LAST WEEK as well. There's no sprint here - we've been struggling to keep this project moving since the very beginning.
Kicked out/subversion/terrorism. You say you perceive that this is 'always happening'. I'm not surprised that this is your perception. Truth be told (and this is well documented in the coin's threads) there have been exactly two people that have been seen as disruptive influences in this project. That disruptive influence label did not come from any member of the dev team - it was coined and applied by a member of the community - and it was directed at you. To my knowledge, there has been one person tagged as being an active attacker and 'terrorist' - in that they were coding and politically posturing to gain control of the project - and that's Hozer. I called him on his attacks before I joined the dev team. There have been exactly two people that demanded that their voices be heard, their political debates tolerated, their repeated attempts to reform the coin in their images. There have been two people that refused to hear from the community, the original dev team, or the current team, that certain parts of this project are NOT up for debate - and those include the block time, the adherence to the Bitcoin standard for miner reward, and the scrypt algo. Though you have not been part of the dev team, you were kicked (temporarily both times!) from the dev channel on IRC ONLY because we were working our asses off to push a new wallet and you were STILL wasting our time wanting to debate politics. Hozer's active attack on the network a few months back was a much less subtle effort that started just after the coin launched and hasn't stopped as of yesterday. That's two. The only two people that have worked hard to take this project in a direction that NOBODY but you two want have been kicked. And since that happened, the peace and progress have been absolutely delightful!
Erratic block timing, etc. Absolutely. In hindsight, the initial decision to launch a coin with the original bitcoin diff adjust algo in an environment with relatively massive amounts of hash available was poor. This team was not part of that decision. We also didn't have the luxury of time to analyze the ecosystem, devise and test a process that worked perfectly, and then field that solution. We picked up a failing and stuck coin during a hash hurricane, with no control or awareness of the existing infrastructure or team capabilities, and do the emergency work to keep things moving until we had time to do the 100% solution. None of the forks to date have had that 100% solution. We hoped the last one would be fairly close - it performed very well on testnet - but it was released in conjunction with the fallout from the Oprah scam and at a time when our network hash rate fell to almost nothing. What worked on testnet and has proven to work with 60+ MH/s on the mainnet failed with very low hash rates. Keep something in mind: During the work on the current algo, we evaluated a number of possibilities - and we were the first people to identify the exploitability of the KGW algo. We did NOT jump on that bandwagon like so many other coins and thus did not have to perform another emergency fork to fix that problem. That's why this next release will be so important - this is the very first time we've had the opportunity to analyze, test, and deploy without being in a crisis. And we are doing that.
You're welcome to see the team any way you wish. It's difficult to make things any more transparent, however. The team - most with real names - are listed in the thread. Folks that have wanted to talk with us have done so - in IRC, here in PM, via email, and even teamspeak. Anyone that thinks this is a closed process isn't trying very hard to open the many available doors. considering your past efforts to dominate the processes, however, I don't expect your position to change. And that's ok. It's no longer negatively affecting progress so I think it's best left as it is.
Suggestions, logical or not... I'll agree that a number of suggestions have been discarded out of hand. Those have been limited to suggestions that change the core of this coin. We're staying with scrypt. We're staying with 10 minute blocks. We're staying with the standard mining reward system. And this line in the sand - made well before I was involved in the project - has driven you and hozer nuts from the start and has occupied waaaay too much of our time debating and ultimately ignoring. Staying with the standard mining reward system means that we will not entertain ANY suggestion that includes censoring blocks, changing time stamps, setting minimum block time requirements, or any process whereby some miners are rewarded differently than others. That's not 'illogical' or 'political' or even a 'cat fight' worth expanding to make more 'entertaining' - that's a hard-drawn line in the sand that WILL NOT BE CROSSED. You and hozer have had some excellent ideas. Why in the WORLD don't you two start your own coin and reward miners the way you want? Why in the WORLD are either of you still here? I believe there's only one reason - because you think this project is weak enough for a hostile takeover. Sorry - ain't gonna happen.
Nothing I've written above is new. As the history is well documented in the Cat threads, I'll leave this line of discussion as is and ask that any further need for debate be channeled into reading the threads.
Thanks again for your comments.
Andy