am i the only one seeing the irony here ?
here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading...
and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ?
irony
)))))))
here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading...
and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ?
irony
)))))))Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex??
a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume...
like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded...
if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself...
This coin is about showing how a coin can have fair distribution if pools are willing to limit mining farms and big hashers. If anything, pools introduce control. why do you think so many coins are threatened by 51% attack. It is because pools, unwilling to limit miners gain 51% of the network. Now isn't 51% a controlling stake in the network?
This coin has really opened my eyes to the greed mentality some pools have. I will be staying well clear of these particular pools in the future.
this has me more confused then anything i have read so far...
if one entity controlling 51 percent of total hash is bad, then how is one entity controlling the entire mining process a "fair distribution" ?
WOW, Suggest you get your FACTS correct before you make to much more of a fool of yourself... READ then entire thread !! This coin has had the fairest distribution of ANY to date PERIOD!!! Why do you think the powers that be as SO PISSED...
i got my facts from this thread... there is one entity that controls all of the mining pools... so again, if 51 percent attacks are such a big deal, how is 100 percent control of all mining a fair distribution...
please, less accusations, and more actual answers
Lets re-phrase it. Lets assume the definition of fair distribution is to have coins distributed more equally over more miners. Lets now take the following two examples:
A
100 miners of which 5 have 800Mhs farms. No hash limitation. Big 800Mhs farms join the pools and by end of distribution phase you have 5 miners with 80% of the coins and 95 miners with 20% of the coins.
B
100 miners of which 5 have 800MHs farms. Hash limitation. the 800MHs farms get kicked. They get pissed and move on to another coin to rape, pump and dump. By the end of distribution phase 95 miners have 100% of the coins in relation to there much smaller hash rates.
Which of these two options had the fairest distribution?
If all pools would play along and could be trusted, then the source could be given to all pools in faith that the pool will limit hash rates. If one pool goes rogue and drop the limitations the big farms and multipools move in to rape the coin and the whole launch is ruined. The other pools will have to drop limitations as well and the whole thing will move back to square one where the large farms rape the coin. The only way to ensure that no pool breaks rank and drop the limitations is to have a small number of pools under centralised control that can be monitored closely. This was a first experiment down this line. I am sure there could be better ways to do this in future, eg. to have a trusted third party (almost like escrow) providing a pool service where the pool management can be segregated from the dev team but still be run in a centralised fashion. That 3rd party will then have to make sure that no pool under its watch breaks rank.
The Min method of fair distribution might just be the way of the future.
you are a thousand percent correct, but only from a view of a small miner...
yes, for a small miner not dealing with "predators" like farms and multipools is great... but does that make it a fair distribution ?
again, the entire mining process was controlled (i added a d here, so that other guy won't flip out again) by one entity... and that one entity decided who is to be included or excluded from the process...
once you have that, it is no longer a fair distribution...
dude... the big miners could have joined with a 50mhs rig as well... if they wanted a piece of a fair coin... they would have done that
why would they ?
would you ever get involved with a venture that is specifically setup to ostricize you and paint you as evil ?
