Quote from: theghostk=topic=448003.msg6282441#msg6282441 date=1397832901
Quote from: TheMightyX
lots of bla bla bla
Quote from: TheMightyX
Just because someone is not a programmer does NOT mean they don't have ideas or can't be useful in strategizing a profitable plan.
Lets be brutally honest, programmers don't make games, programmers don't design the software and programmers don't make marketing decisions.
Lets be brutally honest, programmers don't make games, programmers don't design the software and programmers don't make marketing decisions.
Oh hai Bill Gates, here TheMightyX is saying that you're not a successful programmer. I think you should give him you dollars and return to your basement to write BASIC programs.
Are you really that ignorant of tech history? Gates bought Q-DOS from another programmer named Tim Paterson for $50,000 and furnished it to IBM after negotiating the rights to license the OS to third party OEMs. IBM agreed to this deal in large part because they saw the rights as worthless. Yet more than anything else, it was that arrangement that allowed Microsoft to prosper into the entity it is now.
If you think what made Gates successful was his programming vision, then what you are in effect saying is that his role in the growth of personal computing was actually interchangeable. After all, there would have been no shortage of people that IBM could have found to develop their BASIC computers and/or DOS PCs. It takes a shrewd entrepreneur to recognize the opportunity Gates did. And that, I believe, is precisely X's point. (Jobs also did something distinctly similar, first with Atari and then Xerox.)
The bottom-line is, Bill Gates WAS a very good programmer, he BECAME and excellent business man and lead an extremely successful business that changed the world; his purchase of DOS is one of the first examples of this. TheMightyX said:
Quote
Lets be brutally honest, programmers don't make games, programmers don't design the software and programmers don't make marketing decisions.
Which is completely false and unfair to all successful programmers that have become entrepreneurs.
Yes there are exceptions to every rule, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of companies that make games or software don't hire programmers as designers. The designers do their job and the programmers do their job. I'm surprised I even had to say that. Using bill gates as an example seems pretty far fetched. That's just not how companies work.
Unfortunately much of what I said could only be taken as offensive and I apologize for that. I even tried to add that I like Dano because I do.
Even more unfortunate is the fact that you cannot tell someone you disagree with how they handled something without insulting them at least in part.
Look, we all saw the multipool issue coming. It's spread across the entire community. There is hardly a coin that isn't affected.
With this in mind changing the algorithm or relaunching seemed like quite the obvious solution and was suggested by myself and many others I believe back when there was still time to salvage things.
I will apologize for trying to place the blame squarely on Dano, which is not what I intended; I will not apologize for being upset. I believe I have every right to be upset as well as many others, you and Dano included.
Expecting the community to rise up and rally together and do this and that is pure fantasy though. You mentioned this shouldn't be treated like a business, well, unfortunately the majority (yes, the majority) of people are investing in these coins. INVESTING is a BUSINESS motive.
Running a successful coin IS running a business. If you want to profit or at least fund development you need to consider income and expenses. You also need to account for apathy and laziness of the community.
Expecting donations on a coin that is rising in value is even wishful thinking, but RELYING on donations on a coin that is falling in price is delusional.
That fact that you would say that this isn't a business shows that you might not be the best person to run this show Sebastien. Even as I type that I wince because that will surely offend and that is not my intention. But I cannot disagree with you more.
You have INVESTORS, plain and simple. People investing in your COMPANY. The COMPANY of the CRYPTOCURRENCY. They want it to succeed so they can profit. If you are not running this like a business you are destined to fail. And lose a lot of other peoples money along with yours.
You cannot rely on DONATIONS, but you can rely on goodwill. You can rely on people being ok with donating 1% or 2% of all mined blocks, should that donation be automatic and out of sight (out of mind). Einsteinium and many other coins do this as a block reward tax.
In this way you could fund development and ensure that you have the funds you need to focus on development and a budget for marketing/etc.
Lastly, to stir up more flames I believe as programmers maybe you think that "merged-mining" is great and interesting and totally amazing.
I got news, and you aint gonna like it:
Nobody gives a flying fuck about merge-mining.
You know what people give fucks about? making money.
The team didn't want to change algo's because you wanted to do this merged mining thing thinking that would bring in so much more mining power and solve your multipool problems?
It doesn't matter what the difficulty is or how many people mine it because when a multipool hits it they are still dwarfing any measely mining power of any single coin (except bitcoin of course). That means regardless of any new fixes to KGW the majority of coins are still going to the big whales who are dumping them.
In my mind switching algos to a multipool-proof algorithm such as adaptive-n or X11 or HEAVY would have been so much more beneficial than merge mining ever will be.
Maybe thats because I'm looking at it from a business angle, and you are looking at it from a programming angle?
Again, different hats for different jobs.
A programmer is not an economist.
Also, someone mentioned having a multipool wouldnt work because this is not a PoS coin. As I mentioned that tactic is not just for PoS coins.
If people mine this coin, they get kitteh coins.
If they mine a kitteh multipool they get kitteh coins through buying them, which in turn increases the value of those kittehcoins.
If they mine ANOTHER coin, we have to rely on them A. not holding the other coin, B. selling the other coin and C. buying kittehcoin.
That is a lot more work and the chances of everyone following through with that are not good.
A multipool does all of this and ensures that people are buying kittehcoin.
-You have many great ideas and I strongly suggest you implement them if you find them to be viable.
-If you believe an altcoin without premine/IPO is a business and not an open-source project, then go ahead and turn it into what you believe it should be like; absolutely no one is stopping you.
-Using Bill Gates as an example was extremely apt, you posted a false statement and I called it out.
-You were being very insulting to Dano and it's simply not acceptable with the blood, sweat and tears that he has put into this project with absolutely no ROI (at a huge loss in fact), if you think it's a business than I would assume that you could show a professional attitude that emanates respect and understanding to someone who volunteers for this fictitious corporation you speak of. You did much more than say "I disagree".
-The biggest BTC pool in existence (Ghash.io) certainly cares about merged-mining, do a little research, but I suppose we can put a hold on it and let the new development team decide whether they want it or not (and then implement it)
-Expecting the community to actively take over this is common sense when there is no profit for the developers, a meme coin necessitates a viral community or it will plainly not survive if there was no premine or IPO. However, if you really think you can make enough money to fund a business by getting 1% of the blocks to your wallet, then I implore you to go ahead and develop that idea and push it to the community.
-If you think the algo is the problem and you want explore a new algo, then I suggest you go ahead and develop that idea and push it to the community. We do not believe this to be viable as for a meme coin, a new also would push people that have never mined before to stay away from trying out mining; remember one of DOGE's forces is that they attracted many brand new miners that never mined before, changing algo will give you an algo that is untested by most and you will not be able to support miners as easily due to different configurations than the standard ones that are publicized for LiteCoin; and it appears that you do not want the hashing power of ASIC's this is only catering to GPU miners and is not forward-thinking, you need to be able to accept the fact that these machines are coming and will be a game-changer.
Either way, you sound like you believe you are a great business man, if that is the case, then I nominate you to be part of the new KittehCoin team, honestly if you do not join them, then I do not see why you would complain about something you are not willing to really do anything about. I wish you the best of luck.
hmmm!