My point was, that was not simply "an issue with one", but a issue with the "one and only".

But if you say we soon we will get another (or more, i hope), in this case ok, no problem.

Since when? And nobody said anything?  

I think that  a tool for independent control, such as the block explorer, is not only necessary, but absolutely essential.

It will serve not only as a tool in future stages of beta testing, but also as a impartial witness during our daily transfers from the Exchange.

Do you think that a new exchange seriously would consider a coin that does not have a block explorer running?

You can also call me FUDer if you want, but let me repeat, IMHO, for me one or more block explorer functioning are of the highest priority, compared to anything else, including fix, beta or anon.

I do not know how complicated it is for Pakage, implement a block explorer on the site, but I think it is enough,
and he is already full of work to do, or if it is easier to pay another site to host block chain also NavajoCoin, asap.

Just my two cents opinion.

Bye Bye

The simplest solution  to know the total POW amount, or the actual amount, should be check the
block chain explorer at blk 100.000 or the last block, but i see http://cryptexplorer.com/ is not responding for me.

Someone know why?

There is another block explore currently alive?

Must be a very effective system, a diplomatic tactic that should be used more often,
in this years of regionals crisis, or in event of war.

After all, it is the exact opposite of the slogan of the 70s,
not do the war or you will not make love.  


Oh poor me, poor me ...  

Main news: I hate Qt for Windows, but continue to fighting it.

Home news: My wife is little bit pissed off with me, she made some strange reference to Lysistrata. I don't understand it, but this give me deep chills.

End of today's news. Keep following us for next news.

---

Ok, apart the joke, the communications are not my task, and as you see, nor my best.

Regarding the fix, made some progress, and I received help on this, which I wish to thank.

Continuing to fight and do test as just i can, .... and the tests never end.

What i can personally say is: Now I'm cautiously optimistic. 

This happen rarely, as GreedyJohn can confirm.

Hemmm.... i don't know how to say...

Guys, many thanks for the welcome, but I'm  was ever here. 

But i see, there is a little misunderstanding, I'm just collaborating now on solve the issue.

Some time ago I offered to do it, so i can't refuse me to do it now.

Maybe i can collaborate in future, occasionally on some problem, but I'm
not a official permanent member of the Dev team. 

Any applause must go to Pakage, he has a huge work to do, I think
he will appreciate any help skilled guys can give.

I'm sorry for the misunderstand.

Bye

Well... honestly i don't know what respond.
I don't want lie, I can't put any date, but i think at (multiple) days.

Let me explain _my_ point of view, in the last wallet fix, the issue was not resolved totally,
and then so now we are under accurate observation, because the sync phase is very important
part of the wallet, and imply many security check.

We can not fail on fix this, no more.
So we must be over zealous, before any other release of sync fix, i think we must do any possible test.

IMHO, This check imply at last days, because when the patch is ready, it will be passed to Sum2dev,
so with Soopy can review it, edit, test or throw it away if he find any side effect.

If the patch will pass this phase, then to avoid that for some obscure reason of dependence on OS or compiler,
the patch will work on some system and other not, it must be recompiled and tested independently by different
guys on their own system.

I mean windows 7, XP, Linux, MSVC, Mingw, all in 32 and 64 bit, all.
They must do some sync from zero,  and this take time, and test the wallet completely.

If no one of the guys will have issue, then Soopy can put it on GIT the new commit, made the official
announce here and call POLO with the good news.

I can guess POLO will review again on their own the new source, and if consider it OK, finally will update
their wallet and unfrozen the market.

I hope some guys are able to compile and do test autonomously, this will help.

I want underline, this is just my (very cautious) point of view, not imply in any way
any decision of the dev team will take.

Bye

Well .. I do not know.

Yes, it is done well, but it seems to me a logo a bit indecisive, does not know which way to go. 

I do not have the time to realize it, but I would suggest a different idea, something reminiscent of the theme of the new currency, but showing it as an evolution of the old logo and idea.

For example, you could take the old logo of the leaf (maybe even the very first logo) but simplify it and make it into a transparent material such as glass, with all its points of light and reflections internal and external (with slight nuances of of green) .

Or a coin of glass with incorporated inside a leaf.
 
It would be difficult to achieve, especially to maintain the right level of balance between sophistication and "special effects", but IMHO if done very well could be interesting and representative.

What do you think?

As an idea it might be interesting.

If I understand, the first function should be fairly easy to obtain, personal transaction data should be already registered in the wallet,
or by set up in an appropriate manner the filters that are on the page of transactions..

But if you are talking about, every single address external, then I think it may be more complicated, it becomes a kind of blockexplorer integrated into the wallet.

The first ideas that come to mind to me to get this, they are costly:
1) to get the data without archiving them, you should re-examine all the blockchain to every interrogation, and may be very costly in terms of time.

2) If you intend to use another database with all transactions, then you should create two indexes sorted for both recipient and sender, and update them every block incoming or transaction. IMHO, it would be a database, which in turn become costly in terms of cpu usage, ram, and disk space, and then ultimately so would result in excessive energy consumption.
Soon become a wallet that can run only on a few large systems, and very little green.

Do not you think it would be more functional, prepare in wallet an integration with one or more external blockexplorer?
The block explorer would continue to do their heavy work on their side and the wallet would be lighter and greener.

Maybe we'll talk later, after which it will be settled on multiPool and thanks for the updates.

My last stake was 31/08/2014, so the delay seems normal.

Thanks for your reply.

I think I understand now, so it's kind of a test to see if the programmer believes so in his plan to "put his face," and I mean to risk, his personal and professional reputation.

I mistakenly thought that instead was something more "technical" and difficult, a kind of portfolio verifiable with previous collaborations in other projects or personal projects lead to success, something that in fact would guarantee investors that the programmer is a person capable technically, and normally actually realizes what he starts, and it does so in the time periods specified.
In two words that he is both skilled and reliable.

But perhaps this is even more difficult to prove than anything else, due to the difficulty of achieving it evenly, and also because past successes can not guarantee the repetition on the future.

About your caution about disclosure of personal data basically agree with you.

So I'm pretty curious about what you intend to do about the Clear Send, or how you choose to call it.

I think at the moment it's a bit complicated, if we look around we see only the desert.

Several times I have seen mention to this Proof of Development, but never fully
understood the meaning.

On the practical side what it is, what it refers to?

I can understand your point of view with regard to inflation, but what should be the spring that should push
an investor to buy now the ECC and to raise the price?

In general, the % yield of an investment should be proportionate to the risk, and excluding the
commendable personal commitment of those present, here at the moment I do not see any security,
indeed.

With a 2.5% interest rate, it would be even more convenient 'invest under the mattress', if you'll
pardon the exaggeration.

At least the mattress does not need to keep your computer turned on and the wallet ready for staking,
which is still a real cost to consider.

I realize that there are two complementary types of vicious circles:
    1) too much, which leads to inflation and investors flee
    2) too little, in which investors do not even care about.

So instead of a drastic cut right now, do not you think it would be better to find a way softer, I mean
gradually reduce the rate as the state of health of the currency improves?

This is just my opinion at the moment, not a final judgment negative.

PS:
There are also coins with rates much higher and they are still there after many months.

I take this answer as a official "not go". Ok, I remain on standby.

But please, this time you think well about how to solve the problem with the update,
do it definitive, do it well, do it safe.

Wrong forum ?

Anyway, coin has been launched months ago, now it is in POS only.

If there is still the need of a blockchain in zip is evident that the last update has not adjusted much.

In fact, by compiling the last wallet in linux, and making it start from 0 in a natural way (without
downloading the blockchain in zip), the wallet still considers orphans all the blocks over the
number 11491, the first block POS.

Very embarrassing situation, and from what I understand, with regard to this problem, there are
no corrections to the horizon.

Do you have any objection, if I try to make a patch to the code of wallet?

Of course, if I will succeed, then serve the approval of Soopy, if he deems the patch, correct
and functioning on all systems.

If you give me the OK, tomorrow I might give it a look.

Chapeau!  A honest reasoning.

And I've never even attempted to do so.
(Are you sure you reply the right person?)

I'm not the one who brought a final proof in support of their ideas.

When someone does, IMHO implicitly accepts the risk that it should be discussed and / or refuted, and then can turn against their thesis.

For this reason it would be a good thing at least see if it is actually a good proof or not, acceptable even beyond their own convictions.

So the validity of a proof is no longer just a personal opinion, but something that must withstand the light of reason.

Regarding a personal struggle on the basis of beliefs as well, no thanks are not very interested there are already too many in the world unfortunately.

I know, the real fanatics do not need proof, and the proof for the skeptics are never enough, but there are other categories of people,
reasonable people who openly assess the facts one by one.

When you are in a group of reasonable people and you manage to keep an open mind sometimes certain exchanges of ideas
can be very interesting and lead to a common growth.
It is this hope that we continue to communicate, or not?

So my hope that we can go beyond being radically skeptical or fanatics, and with an open mind and respectful of others,
be communicative and rational, able to grow, to be better than that.

But your proof is really conclusive?
Check your photos with the one shown weeks ago by the author of the site.

http://snag.gy/g3VCN.jpg
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=679791.msg7828376#msg7828376

The only difference I can see is the "ABOUT", just that.

I'm not saying that the devs are not working on it, but only that the "proof" shown is insufficient.


That for which I complain (yet) is that the OP has not yet been updated, and to do this it does not
take weeks or elaborate strategic choices.
(The two lines on the blockchain downloads that refers even to another message, do not even want to consider as an update.)

One other thing but just a personal observation, I find it funny that everyone in this forum asking all the time for deployment
of anonymity, and then when someone semi-anonymous expresses his doubts, it is regularly attacked because it is a new one unknown guy.