I'll take 1 million for 0.00000000001555BTC each 

To be sure that we're "on the same page" (using both meanings of the phrase), you're clicking that link ^^^, going to the FLDC site, and the page never populates after you click on "Show Stats" (not even after 20-60 seconds)?

For the rest of us, it looks like this after clicking:

Perhaps you need a better browser...

Perhaps if Core pulled the cobs out of their collective asses, let uses drive the protocol, stopped playing the centralized Gods of Bitcoin, and modernized Core (in general), then people wouldn't feel the need to "go around" Core? 

Trades are still functional because they don't actually involve a wallet. Exchanges are banks and trades run on debits and credits to a ledger (not actual coins).

Love the professionalism of:

For CURE...
Go to:
https://www.cryptobullionpools.com/index
"Pool Folding@home rate" is the number you put into the calc for "CureCoin Folding Difficulty".


For FLDC...
Go to:
http://foldingcoin.xyz/?token=FLDC&total=6250000&start=2017-06-26&end=2017-06-27
start=yesterday & end=today

Click on "Show Stats"...
"Total New Credits" is the number you put into the calc for "FoldingCoin Difficulty".

Based upon:

• In certain cases, portions of the blockchain are removed and replaced with a "older" and shorter chain.
• The shorter chain doesn't contain spends verified in the longer chain.
• Some transactions on eMark are in multiple orphaned blocks - thus becoming "unconfirmed" multiple times.
• Coins can be "respent" in the new chain with a different transaction (if the 2nd transaction is in the new chain before the 1st transaction).
• It's been done.
• The basic concept of how a double spend works on eMark is also how "Replace-By-Fee" works in Bitcoin (except Bitcoin doesn't orphan 6 blocks at a time and in Bitcoin the "stuck" transaction just hasn't ever been confirmed, rather than orphaned multiply).
• The greater the number of orphaned blocks at a single time is the greater the likelihood is that a double spend can occur.
• Some transactions on eMark are in multiple orphaned blocks multiple times (I've seen specific transactions be orphaned 9 times before the chain actually moved forward the supposedly safe "10 blocks".
• I can read and follow a debug output.

Coinwarz has been stuck on the old Bittrex price since Bittrex shut down their wallet and Coinwarz has, thus far, ignored all notices that the coin is defunct. :/

That delusional belief is why eMark will never be anything more than just another pump/dump shitcoin that goes nowhere. But, hey, I'm happy to have another coin permanently on my dumpcoin list. 
If you ever want to make this a viable coin, just know there are people waiting in the wings willing to help dispel your delusions. 

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1886446.0
It had a lot of "out of the gate hype", but has since dropped to like 17¢ (almost 1/3rd of what it was last week).
 

Perhaps that's because he hasn't time for delusional comments?  
There is no "if" about it in the real world.  

There are 2 near certainties in Bitcoin Core:

• Even if the Core devs were the only people in the world to support segwit, it would still be in every version of Core from now until the end of time (and they will make every effort to activate it).
• Even though BDB 4.8 is antiquated by every standard in the world, it will still be the "compatible" db in every version of Core from now until the end of time (and they will make no effort to remove it).

*life 

Why would I make a new one, when there are so many, like eMark, that are already shit? 

That shows a best share of less than 6.2 million; if you found a block, it wasn't a Bitcoin block (which has a diff of over 711 million). An error in the Antminer firmware, maybe?

@glen
Admittedly, your English is vastly better than my German; however, that only holds true when you're not so emotional. Please calm down, take your feelings out of the conversation, and type in rational, adult sentences...

@glen,
I realize that you're a bit dense, but you are smart enough to know that many places use 6 confirmations as an "industry standard", aren't you?    
Logically, the entire point of 2 minute blocks is a faster usage rate than a more supported coin that has longer block times (such as BTC or ETH). You get that, right?  
If you have to extend the number of confirmations, then you don't actually have a faster usage rate. You get that, right?  
If the time from initiating a transaction to the time the transaction is "safely" validated is longer than a more mainstream coin (such as BTC or ETH), then there is no value in a merchant using eMark. You get that, right?  
Not everyone uses a QT wallet. You get that, right? 

@Glen,

Until you can get off of this "send to an Exchange" obsession of yours (when I'm discussing real-world usages of the coin), you're of no use in this conversation.

I repeat:

I can't help the fact that you can't read a log. I've posted, more than 1 time, the exact issue (using actual logs and actual blocks). Perhaps, you should stay out of this part of the conversation and leave the technical stuff to the technical people...

Glen, it's sad to see how juvenile you are about this. This is another one of those times where you need to stop pretending like you're a dev, take your fanboy attitude out of the conversation, and come back when you've actually followed enough of the chain to render a valid opinion.