@VekTorr
Assuming this coin reaches popularity equal to other new successful coins (Vericoin for example) I would probably be able to dump 10-15 BTC worth before the market begins to panic sell.
You don't have to trust anything when you can monitor the blockchain and complain when information isn't posted (about new devs, marketplaces, etc)
You're doing a really good job with this left-hand / right-hand thing. Congratulations. You've got at least three (actually many more) entirely separate sets of "blockchains" involved, and you conveniently talk about one of them without talking about the gap in the middle between the different ones, or how the hashing power we provide gets allocated to the first (the first being whichever blockchain happens to coincide with whatever altcoin is the most profitable as determined by the multipool. Then you've got the blockchain for Bitcoin itself, and finally the blockchain for Axiocoin.
The problem is that you're all-too-conveniently glossing over the portions of these handoffs between the various blockchains that are controlled by servers that we won't have access to and code that has been obfuscated and virtualized, while running a locked-down client that too-conveniently isn't subject to user tuning. So by all means, continue waving the left hand as a distraction from the potential fraud that could be committed by the right hand. The left hand looking clean makes no difference if the right hand is the one doing the dirty work.
There's a reason that cryptocoin clients are generally released as open-source and the control systems are decentralized if you want people to trust them... it's so people can verify that the code isn't doing things they don't expect. You've done exactly the opposite here, which sets your offering apart. You've both hidden the code and centralized everything by requiring that everything is funneled solely through your server, and solely through the obscured client that you'll provide.
The rest of your post is you tearing up anything you can. Much of what you write can be said about any coin ever.
No, not really. Because other coins rarely if ever go to such lengths to ensure that none of the users have any control whatsoever, and instead are forced to rely 100% on trusting that the dev is doing what they say they are doing.
Because of the design choices you've made, you've left plenty of windows within which to commit fraud without the people who choose to mine the coin knowing that you're doing it, and closed down most opportunities for anyone else to check up on that.
I'm writing this at this point not because I expect you to address these points (you've made it clear that you've decided to run away rather than deal with the substance of the real arguments being presented), but in the interests of pointing out some of the glaring holes that those considering mining the coin might not have thought about.
Here are a few obvious ones:
1. The mandatory client with obfuscated and virtualized code, that can't be "tuned" by the user... how does the end user know that the reported hash rate from the client matches the actual hash rate that the server get to use for mining altcoins on a multipool server, and therefore how do they know whether the power and heat their machine is expending is actually being properly credited to them?
2. Since there is one and only one server that is responsible for collecting the combined hashing power from all clients, how does the end user know that the fraction of pool hashing power that is allocated to them is a reasonable number? How do they know that there aren't fake clients being added into the mix to potentially siphon away a share of the proceeds without actually doing the work? On typical coins, if you don't trust a particular pool operator, you have the option of switching pools or solo mining... here, any attempt to leave means you're locked out entirely.
3. Since the single closed-source server is the one responsible for the allocation of overall hashing power, how is an end user to know whether some of the total hashing power is being rerouted to the mining of something else, with payouts pointed to a non-published address? You can't follow the blockchain for an address that you're unaware of, after all, and we have no mechanism to validate how the hashing power is allocated while having no mining alternatives.
4. Once the altcoins generated from the client hashing power are converted to bitcoins and sold who audits the donations to charity?
5. What accounting, if any, is going to be provided for the 50% of the generated real-money funds that are allegedly going to be spent on coin development? What would stop the dev from pocketing any amount up to 100% of that half to spend on whatever they like, while saying it's actually going to "coin development"?
6. We're told that half of the generated funds will go to charity, and that a weekly vote will decide where it gets allocated. One of the options is to point it back into the "coin development". What's to stop the dev from rigging that vote to line their pockets with even more real-world cash at the expense of the actual charities? Is the dev going to actually register as a real charity?
7. The allocation of Axiocoins is dictated solely by what the server says your fraction of the total altcoin mining power was... how is the end user expected to know whether that number is accurate?
These are not problems that are generally applicable to "any coin ever". It's probably more accurate to say that this particular list is more likely to be applicable to NO COIN EVER.
This is a simple solution to wasteful mining.
OK, now that's some quality humor right there... I almost spit my drink all over my monitor laughing. There is nothing even slightly non-wasteful about choosing this particular path to deciding how to initially allocate Axiocoins. Users are forced to use a client that they cannot tune, virtually guaranteeing sub-optimal performance for their rig, and it's all needlessly run through the centralization of your server, guaranteeing that there cannot be any competition to provide better performance if your approach falls short. It's all you, or nothing at all. That's the choice the user is left with.
You have a 100% premined PoS coin that you want to allocate, and you've decided the way to allocate it is to get other people to multi-pool mine on your behalf, without giving them any actual control over the parameters of it and using obfuscated code with no other mining options, and then they'll trust that you'll give them an incremental fraction of the PoS coins based on what you say is their fraction of the total pool of hashing power being donated to you (and you alone). Oh, and to make them feel less "wasteful" about it, you'll donate half of the proceeds to one or more charities based on a vote that you control... and one of those charities happens to be you.
That's really it, in a nutshell. You've put a lot of fancy window dressing around it with hand-waving and distractions, but that's what it boils down to in the end. How you can jump from there to "a simple solution to wasteful mining" is frankly beyond me, unless your personal definition of "wasteful" is "anything I don't have total control over".
If you believe this is a scam or a crap coin then so be it. Maybe if the concern is large enough we'll release bits of the code that can't be exploited.
Yes, because we all know that if someone shows you certain parts of the code and those look legit, that definitely means that the parts they are keeping hidden from you are also completely legit. *eyeroll*
I won't be responding to more argumentative posts from you. You've made your point and successfully communicated it in the thread.
Entirely expected. I'm far less interested in hearing more examples of you deliberately missing the points that are being made and avoiding addressing the actual substance of the arguments being provided. I'm writing for the potential benefit of those who might not have thought through some of the gaping credibility holes you've left through your design choices.
As I said before, I can't see how you can possibly lose no matter what happens, so you're bound to get at least a few suckers no matter how forthright your accounting and allocation actually is. A big chunk of your own personal profit is baked into the design from the beginning. It takes all kinds, I guess.
For others who are interested in a truly non-wasteful way to mine and give to charity, while supporting a PoS coin... you can do precisely that. Multi-pool mine for yourself using a rig you control, with tuning you control on the client of your choice, and spend whatever fraction you personally decide cancels out the "waste" of mining to exactly the charity you think will spend it best, and spent whatever additional fraction you think is best on whatever PoS coin you think has the brightest future.
None of beneficial aspects that Axiocoin alleges to bring actually require Axiocoin or its devs to be in the picture at all. "Theoretical Mining" is not an innovation, it is window dressing. It's you giving hashing power to a dev who is saying "trust me" and expecting some allocation of his 100% pre-mined PoS coin in exchange. If you want a share of a PoS coin, go buy one. There's no need for a centralized implementation to do that, nor is there a need for one in order for you to efficiently allocate your funds to exactly the charity you prefer.
As best I can tell, the only thing that Axiocoin adds to the picture is 100% control by the Axiocoin devs. I'm sure that's a huge benefit to them, but it's nothing remote approaching an innovation in mining from what I can see.
Your mileage may vary, of course. Is it a scam? I frankly have no idea... it just seems rife with major opportunities for scamming almost anywhere I look, and even if the dev is the ultimate saint and pure as the driven snow, has vastly too much perpetual and ongoing personal benefit for the dev baked into the design to convince me that it is a worthwhile coin to point my mining resources at.
