The thing is, that some community members disagreed on a light wallet prior to the final launch. Maybe we could use the same mechanism we know from the Bitcoin BIP softfork voting. We could roll out a lite wallet that is not functioning until at least 75% of the network (of course weighted by the amount of XEL they own) broadcasts a "agree with launch" transaction. That could be one fair way to do it democratically.

Other than that, from what I see the donation campaign ends in around ~35-40 days. If we roll out something before the donation campaign ends, we will have to have multiple genesis blocks, which succesively injects donations which were made after a rollout into the software. This may become pretty comples. We could also just wait, and then skip the complex "multiple genesis blocks" stuff and roll out a light (but armed) wallet working in light mode until the alert public key broadcasts the "GO!".

What do you think about this scheme:
- In 35-40 days, when the genesis block is fixed, a alpha version of the wallet goes online.
- On the main net everything else but the basic functions (send, receive, sign, messaging) is disabled
- The testnet has all the stuff enabled.
- From that time on, XEL can be moved around and people can try to collect the bug bounties on the testnet
- The wallet will be designed in a way that, if critical bugs are found they will require an update of the client.
- Yet, not everyone needs to update, only those on the testnet
- As someone wrote in the time sheet (seriously, it was not me but I try to stick to it) we then have to wait for a 3 week period in which no new bugs are found.
- When the whole thing is ready to launch, the alert pubkey broadcasts a "GO" and there will be a (24 hour??) countdown where users have time to update to the latest version visible in the UI.
- Then the whole thing is live

I am not the one to decide anything, I am just coding, but I would strongly suggest to stick to the 3 week bug-free period requirement.
We have seen what may happen if people rush and want to be "the first on the market" at any price.

I don't think I could have made a better job getting his point across in a more polite manner. What he said is true. If you approach the coin from the point of view of a trader rather than an investor (and the terms couldn't be more different), it has little to offer.

I would also not equate seriousness with either marketing or even success. As far as seriousness goes, and as far as I am concerned the devs have already proven themselves with their behavior and results. it is too early for marketing and there are never guarantees about success anyway, not to mention a definition that we could all agree on. A series of Pumps and dumps could make it a huge success for traders but a failure for investors.

I cannot provide arguments for long term investment on this or any other coin. I believe and hope it will keep on being developed to the point it can be marketed properly (yes there is a place for marketing) and eventually be adopted and have decent share in the crypto pie. But in the end, it's all a gamble.

Once the swap is done i am sure we will see more development which will help it get added.

NOW everything is OK.
Had another hospital stay, this time it ended in a surgery.
Recovery process is going well, and almost back "normal" health.

So i am very happy to finally be able to announce who we are collaborating with, and the roadmap for our projects.
XQN is no longer a one man show, it never actually been even if seemed so.

IW

srsly, you can't compare exchange-staking with a thievery. 
nothing wrong with my logic. you are screwing something up here.

you decided to use that exchange.
you decided to let the coins remain on exchange.
you decided that you don't want to stake the coins on your own.

there is no thief who found a purse. You gave the purse directly and on purpose to that "thief". (with "you" I mean the owner of the coins)
 
the exchange delivers something to the whole community.
It provides nodes, and generates blocks for the chain. The wallets used for staking are runned by exchange, therefore the exchange pays computational power and electricity.

The owner of the coin-amounts doesn't get harmed directly. Yeah, the overall supply will increase, but that would also happen if exchange wouldn't stake.
It would be less new coins in circulation, but also with weaker network propagation of the chain.
If you don't want your coins to get devaluated over time, you have to stake them. If you decide no to stake, it's was your decision.
If exchange does not stake, others will. Will result in the same outcome.

I think that's mostly a security consideration and not because of staking or not-staking the coins.
Yeah, you can now blame the exchange about the possible security risk with this behavior. But that's a complete other thing and has nothing to do with the staking-topic.

I fully agree with this statement.

On one side the coin get devalueated, but on the other side, the actual owner of the coins could have withdrawn them and do staking on themself, but they didn't.
Last but no least, they still helping maintain the network with the staking. Which is a good thing.

I think the only one to blame is the user/owner of the coin who let them on the exchange. Not the exchange itself.

The system antho has setup checks your balance every 8hrs to determine how many coins you have and if you are still eligible to be a shareholder. You can register to be a shareholder at anytime, or choose to increase your holdings at anytime. This coin will stay on the market. Becoming a shareholder now, before dividends start paying out, will be significantly cheaper. Once payments start processing, and people see it's legit, it'll skyrocket in price. It's already a low supply coin with high demand. It'll go up. The value wont be in the coin's price increasing though. Just wait for payments and you'll see .

did you use the syscoin.conf file with nodes provided? You using the latest wallet from May 8? It shouldn't give you the best block error unless your using the one from May 1.

Hmm,

Option 1:
A chain swap would decrease the start up time to very little, and that would also decrease ram usage,
however to keep it from being an issue again in a year or so means the block speed has to be changed.
Changing the block speed from 20 seconds to 2 minutes would take 10 times as long to use as many resources.
(Colossus coin did a manual chain swap, others pay an exchange to host the chain swap.)

Option 2:
Copy BTC headers sync feature, this would allow incredibly fast syncing .
Pandacoin is the only PoS coin that tried headers sync, and it never really worked well for them, (Very Buggy).
Use an electrum server to host Android wallets so the blockchain is never downloaded.

 

Uhm I don't get it, what is supposed to be forged if XEL is going to have a fixed coin supply?