Greetings Miners!

We're happy to inform you that development is finalizing and we are on track for shipment in July. We will soon receive our chips at which time we will have finished up on development and can begin assembling the devices.

Therefore, it is now time to collect the remainder of the funds for your order(s).

The invoice for your order(s) have been sent via email to your registered email address. You will be able to pay the invoice by logging in to "My Account" on our website where you will find a "pending" order for the amount due.  A new order number has been created for the final payment. However, this number does not relate to your place in the queue; shipping is still based on your earliest order number.

I doubt he's just making this up.

Alas, none of the bugs or short comings were fixed in doing that— and it doesn't appear that any of the people involved in it have the background for the low level work. So you might have just written out the only active developers of the software, may not bode well for continued development.

The fork also can't claim to be roses and sunshine wrt fairness: As someone very interested in privacy technology and as someone who is usually near the hub of technical discussion in the Bitcoin system, I'd never heard of that fork until just recently— nearly a month after it's start.  And… has a very fast coin distribution, and was started with a difficulty much lower than the network could support. A lot could have been done to improve fairness (e.g. fixing the subsidy to a low level at least until the difficulty crossed the level where the prior system was, or setting the minimum difficulty to a good fraction of the achieved rate), promoting it outside of pools of altcoin speculators (e.g. why do I hear about zerocash 100,000 times for every time I hear about this stuff?), etc.   Not that I think that any of the altcoin stuff is advisable, but if you're going to make a fork on the virtue of fairness wouldn't it behoove you to actually be fair?

And, of course, the fork has now also been forked. That one at least tames the insanely fast distribution somewhat... but it too doesn't fix any of the worse parts... I can only imagine that we're going to continue to see once a month forks of that stuff— suits me fine, while the technology is interesting and useful, the speculative churn is not.

Those were either very low end computers or you got screwed by polls not working very well (I tried to warn everyone), using an unoptimized miner, or just getting unlucky. A single 4770 class machine (very roughly 100 h/s IIRC) should make about a coin and a half per day at 100M difficulty (and it wasn't that high until the past few days). That's roughly 100 times what you got. Not right.

If you want to get rid of Botnets, you need ASICs - if thats better in the End is very questionable.

You're wrong about this. I have a screen shot that was PMed to me by someone who paid a lot of money for a lot of servers to mine this coin. He won't be outed by me ever but he does in fact exist. Truth.

There is little to no evidence of any massive botnet involvement with this coin. If and when it does happen, you will see malware detectors (false positive) flagging the miners, because the miners get incorporated into malware. If you knew as much as you claim to know about botnet mining, you would know this.

FUD bombing or trolling, which is it?

you will see malware detectors (false positive) flagging the miners

Last I checked, discrete GPUs are an expensive technology largely confined to rich white Western males. Let's not pretend it's 'fair'. Just like everyone else, they're an interest group trying to serve themselves. It's actually a rather tiny community in the grand scheme (the world is pretty big), but they have a disproportionate presence on this forum.

Far more likely that the majority of the hashrate comes from people around the world renting VM instances mining MRO and paying for it.  

Nobody uses botnets to mine coins, a constantly pegged CPU is very noticeable to just about anyone with a pulse.

Scalable I guess not in an abstract sense, I would have to agree. I was only really disagreeing that it is an urgent problem. At anything close to 8x the transaction size of BTC, I don't see a crisis.

BitBet.us opens it up, though, to larger bets in the pool instead of it being a person-to-person deal...let's see what our dear friend "darkota" says and we can figure out if this is going to play out or go nowhere:)

I'm not sure about this one. It has been five years since bitcoin launched. That's roughly 3 doubles in Moore's law terms. I don't think typical MRO transactions are a lot more than 8 times larger than typical BTC transactions. Pruning will eventually become an issue, but again looking to the BTC example, in five years exactly zero has been done about pruning in BTC (though SPV clients have become common). Something will need done, but it is not urgent. I don't hold up BTC as a role model in terms of development, but it does show that these sorts of problems can exist and not cause crippling failure for several years.

There is certainly a cost to the way the anonymity features, but it isn't as if the cost doesn't come with an huge offsetting value proposition. It does.

In any case I definitely agree with your other points, about user-friendliness and "getting it out there." There is much work to do.

In the current design there is no obvious relationship between block time and transaction fees, because there is no fixed maximum block size, so no scarcity of block space ever. Even relay time doesn't necessarily matter, because there are (complex, but tractable) technical solutions like starting to relay a block while you are still receiving it, or relaying blocks incrementally (bittorrent style), etc.

There are secondary effects, such as limiting orphans that do matter, which is why 1 minute is patently absurd, and even Satoshi's 10 minutes might well be right.

It is also possible the current dynamic block size design might not work, but I think we need to see it start to fail (or at least compelling simulations) before reaching that conclusion. It seems pretty well designed.

Block time should be increased but block reward also need to be increased proportionally to keep the amount of to-be-mined coins unchanged. We need to stick with original emission graph, otherwise many late miners and fudsters would come up and scream "instamine" all over the board.