They're clearly unhappy but I think in general we should aim to be neutral (or reconcile) with CryptoNote devs
...
CryptoNote won't be able to ignore MRO.
...
CryptoNote won't be able to ignore MRO.
Yes, I agree with you. To not even make an attempt at uniting would be a massive error. This also means that their concerns should be addressed correctly and directly:
Quote from: CryptoNote
1) If CryptoNote supports new technologies and the advent of new technological era, what is the contribution of this coin? How does it make CryptoNote technology prosper? What is that you have created?
I see a valid point raised here that I can, in the least, share my thoughts on. First, we have decided to take an open and transparent approach to introducing CryptoNote built on direct and constant communication. Though there may have been both direct and constant communication shared by alternatives, it was not open nor transparent. In fact it was the complete opposite, as we were told to be silent -- a statement that has not been vouched for on the main page despite many members leaving the community.
With the intent of mass adoption -- openness is the major first step. We were placed in a situation where this can only be achieved with a fork in the first place, publicly available and ready to be shared by as representative of a majority as possible. Sitting around and listening to the Rocky theme song all day just doesn't cut it when you're trying to spread the word about something that should otherwise be shifting a paradigm.
Second, CryptoNote technology prospers by putting more minds on it. The more liberal spread of information, despite the threat of impending surveillance, between people fosters an environment that is conducive to building a proper foundation for this technology. Very soon, there will be a functional GUI environment to further the "seep into the mass" as I've read it sickeningly called.
It's not very easy to come up with many ways CryptoNote can directly prosper, because there does not seem to be an environment present that can assist in defining exactly what that philosophy is. Answers can't come days in-between, because MRO is here now and is dynamic -- something I find lacking in this philosophy I'd like further defined.
Lastly, what we have provided is a vessel by which the technology can reach the masses -- something that has been made to appear as both impossible and unwanted by the current standing of the first realization of your philosophy. This vessel will be accompanied by tools which the masses are concerned with -- optimizations, GUI environments, possible GPU adaption in the short term. I am sure beyond doubt there will be others -- but generally utilizing the mass has and will provide innovations on levels that could never be considered or thought of in closed communities.
But, as none of these really exist yet, I feel they are correct in waiting to accept the coin.
Quote from: CryptoNote
2) Why does this coin have 2 websites, 2 official threads, 2 announcements, 2 reps? Was it worthwhile after all to use someone else's work and try to take over the control afterwards and split the community?
This, I feel should be addressed by Tacotime. The short answer is that, in a coin that favors the mass, the mass speaks for the coin. Not one guy who wants to merge mine it with everything and certainly not one person with personal aspirations or greed. If everyone wanted merge mining, there would be one coin rather than two -- an interesting result of development in a dynamic environment rather than a static one.
Quote from: CryptoNote
We do wish to see more CryptoNote-based coins, but hope that their creators would be more in line with our vision and keep their personal ambitions and greed low
I would love this to be explained, because I do not understand what is being said. The comment is rather vague and can be applied to any situation.
Do I call the dog greedy for wanting the food? To what extent do personal ambitions cross over into existential ambitions? The comment spurs many more questions than it needed to -- which means it needs to be further defined before I can take any meaning from it (Will prevent myself from entertaining the statement in my mind until it's explained).
