Haha ok, well close minded people are going to be close minded what can I say. Anyone that is reasonable will read this thread and see my intentions.
I think your intentions are good. I really do believe you wanted to create the perfect coin to replace bitcoin, which you think is seriously flawed. I give you credit for that. And I think you have superior coding skills. But I think you need to work on your economics and your communications a bit more.
It seems to me you are just turning solidcoin into a centralized fiat currency where you are the Fed. You may not agree, but a lof of people on this board feel the same way as I. You should ask yourself why. Maybe you are able to convince a hoard of people to follow your lead. I've seen worse things. I mean just look at how many people actually think the Fed is doing a good job.
My advice is if you really wanted to create a bitcoin killer, have an open mind and design your new coin WITH the smart people on this board. Keeping it closed source and a secret is not the way to go.
I also have a suspicion (no more than that) that he may actually be well-intentioned rather than trying to scam - just unfortunate he manages to do everything in a way which screams "scammer!".
There's two big things which turn off a lot of people here:
1. Concealing information (most obviously closed-source).
2. Central control of pregenerated funds.
SC is obviously not the only one guilty of 2 - and, in at least one respect, SC2 is better than Tenebric for that. SC has the OPTION of fully detailing all wallet activity relating to the pregenned coins (and has stated he intends to do so). Tenebrix can never do that with a stated intent of the pregenned wallet being used for laundering purposes: if all transactions are described then laundering can't work, whilst if all aren't detailed then it can never be proven that the pregenned funds haven't been dumped on exchanges.
End of the day it's pretty obvious to everyone that there was no need to generate and funnel funds to defend against 51% attacks. And if a fund was needed for something then it could have just been openly generated up front. All of the obfuscation just LOOKS like an attempt to do it under the radar.
Bottom line (for me) is that "you have to trust me - my intentions are good" has never been a good selling point to me. If someone's intentions are good then I tend to expect them to go out of their way to demonstrate it by removing their own ability to scam the system. Talk of future oversight committees (or whatever they're called) is just that - talk. If I trusted talk then there wouldn't need to be a committee.