I love how there are grammatical errors in the first fucking sentence of the white paper. They have had how long to edit and reedit it?
ABSTRACT
This paper examines PaycoinTM, from a technical and practical perspectives as a new cryptocurrency designed to facilitate mass adoption and long-term valuation stability.
There should be no comma or one after perspectives as well. However it's from a technical and a practical perspective(You need to add an "a" before technical and perspective is not plural OR from technical and practical perspectives(Remove the a before technical).
If you can't even get the first sentence right and you make 2 errors, how serious can I take any of it?
Maybe this is the reason that only the first few sentences were read at the investment meeting.
I was very appalled to see that error at first when I read it, but then realized this is actually not grammatically incorrect, though it is certainly awkward.
One could say
one technical and
multiple practical perspectives, but it definitely reads very poorly without that clarification.
That said, there are other points that could easily be made a lot clearer with some grammatical correction, such as the part about the "network utilizes a five-network-confirmation protocol, versus a 51% consensus of the Prime Controllers." After further inspection of the initial launch before Prime controllers are all online, it would be a lot better worded that the "network utilizes a protocol where five network confirmations will be used similarly to current coins, before moving to the the 51% consensus system of the Prime Controllers."
It took me forever to decipher what they meant in that statement, and that was just one sticking point I had in the White Paper's ability to convey a meaning well.
I'm about to leave work, and I'll be dissecting the white paper as fully as I can tonight, and possibly posting on HT as well to see if the Garza or other staff can clarify anything I think is unclear.
To some posters from an earlier conversation, (jimmothy among them I believe) I stated that I did not believe that Hashlets were a security: I retract that previous statement.
After further digging I tend to agree that it is very likely that miner rental payouts are not necessarily paid out entirely from the use of mining hardware rented. If so much as a Satoshi is paid in addition to the revenue from the mining hardware operation itself, which I think must be the case to sustain things like Double Dip and Turbo after crunching a few numbers, along with ensuring that payouts are a Satoshi over maintenance on the scrypt operations, then by the definitions in both acts, a Hashlet is in part being paid out with security profit, and therefore legally must be a security itself.
I stand corrected.
