About 10%, will try to make it clear: You should know, that quality development is always requires a lot of effort and work part-time is unacceptable for any serious project.
And you've all seen how much forks was launched and abandoned later, for various reasons, but mainly because the developing became economically unfeasible.
We have developed this approach (and we believe it is honest and democratic) to declare that we are going to work on this project for a long time.
This is our proof that the project will not be abandoned.
We just want to do things we like to do, and we want to earn some money with it. And we not not ashamed of this.
I think it's an interesting way to implement a way to keep you involved, and you should absolutely not be ashamed. I just hope that you will be willing and ready, when it comes time, to suggest a recommended percentage. It's no small responsibility, asking for taxes. It requires you to be honest with yourself and everyone . . or at least convince them you are.
What I'm saying is that by making the % changeable based on the miner's choice (this is the approach I'm assuming you're taking -- correct me if i'm wrong), you will need to provide them with definitions of what every percentage that isn't 0 or 10% according to what it means to you. I could only see this working if you're capable of asking for 3.56% tax, or 7.692% tax based on definitions we all come to agree on. No taxation without representation is what's coming to mind -- are you capable of defending your right to demand that which we have every right to refuse?
I've seen a similar approach in MemoryCoin 2. Are you familiar with that? The fact that freetrade manipulated votes and pretty much dropped the coin, in addition to it losing a lot of momentum, when he got voted out is what I'm worried about. What types of parallels/differences do you expect with your coin? I'm just curious is all.
Yes, we communicate with them. As long as our project is in active development now, they have not approve it yet, but they are familiar with our concept and address for royalty was generated by them. But, of course, it doesn't mean anything yet. It is up to CryptoNote.
Awesome! I hope they like and are capable of furthering your ideas!
We know what we do with the code. If you take a look, you'll see.
It's tough to track down differences in the original code with the way you brought into your github. As far as I can tell immediately all that was removed was one character, a "-". I see there's more, but it will take time to find the changes.
We've decided to use blockchain as scratchpad (with salt of course) coupled with fast version of cryptonote hash(or not) (reduced scratchpad to 130kb, and with reduced scratchpad we able to reduce iterations count). It is two-phase hashing - in first we make extra-fast hash to discover pseudo-random data addresses (indexes), and in second: we do actually hash with the salt based on first extra-fast hash. Since blockchain is always grows up we belive that it will be almost imposible to make effective ASIC. On the other hand, it will make mining process effective with complete node, so we killing two birds with one stone - make ASIC-resistant hash and gets more full nodes in network (even with pools).
Hope this is clear. If not - fill free to ask.
Sorry, I must have read that wrong the first time. I did not understand before, but it seems to make more sense now. It's still a little unclear, but I can understand better the source when you're ready.
Thanks for the responses, it's nice to see a pre-ann discussion full of more than "looks nice" or "can't wait for this one".
[/quote]
