How on earth do you figure it could possibly be an 'attempt at a take over'? I suggested it be done by the SC community in order to address issues concerning both rewarding the development team and ensuring that the project had oversight by an independent expert.

What's being taken over and by whom? How would it be a 'hostile take over' if the proposal is that the community of investors/speculators who are buying this coin, get together to agree on implementing things that serve to resolve critical issues?

Your overtly-negative response is disconcerting.

Reasoned discussion and balanced debate within a Bitcointalk thread? Wonders will never cease.

I'd like to make a suggestion, if I may. Solely with regards to the pre-mine issue.

I absolutely agree that people who are committing their time, energy and skills to developing a coin should be rewarded and, when their project is a success, rewarded handsomely. There is, however, the obvious problem of a large stash of SC that could potentially be dumped on the market or, at the very least, end up being cashed in over an extended period until there is little motivation for the coin developers to continue.

It would make most sense for the control of that pre-mine to be given to an independent Escrow and paid out according at a community-agreed rate for each team member, commensurate with the amount of work in any given time-period.

You, as the SC community of investors/speculators should agree a reasonable rate per hour/day/week that would permit the development team to earn an income corresponding to a FIAT equivalent in order to ensure they can commit as much time as possible and pay their bills and living expenses while they work for the coin project.

This would offer an opportunity for the proposed features to be developed as soon as possible, given the nature of the cryptocurrency world not being willing to wait too long for anything.

Incorporated into the regular pay/reward structure, should be team bonuses for project milestones accomplished.

A final bonus for each declared team member should be awarded for when the project has been fully released AND the price of the coin has maintained a predetermined level for a predetermined time in order to demonstrate that it has not been reached artificially. This final reward, to be honest, should most definitely provide for a significant reward for each team member, based on their workload and time committed to the project.

I would, however, recommend part of the pre-mine be allocated for an independent project-manager from outside of this coin's community, who can quality-check the work being done and manage the rollout stages to ensure successful releases.

Oversight is most definitely needed.

Having this coin's project managed by someone who is a respected IT/Crypto professional, would be worth every SC you pay them.

That is how you recover from the quality issues that were evident from the start of this project.



@Megaman: You may have valid points, you may have valid criticisms. What you do not have, however, is any credibility whatsoever because you attempted to profit from this situation by trying to extort money from the dev team. Any possible claim you might make regarding wanting to alert people to what you see as scam indicators are absolutely overshadowed by your actions. Whichever side of the fence people may be on these issue, both sides now see you as an extortionist. What possessed you to do such a thing is beyond me, but at least do the decent thing and learn from this lesson that which you need to not be so foolish in future. You are now shouting at an empty room, you have no audience.

It is an example of the degree of misunderstanding and misinformation that powers coin markets.

That TOR routing for a wallet has always been possible makes the recent scramble for "THIS COIN HAZ TOR" selling feature pretty ridiculous.

That is a terrible idea.

"I want to be able to purchase something with 'Pink'"
"Pink what?"
"Umm, Pink currency"
"Which Pink currency?"
"Pink"

That's very mature of you to be willing to admit when you were wrong. Nice to see, especially around here.

Whilst the per/Mh income rate has reduced over time, there are still many places to mine offering good returns and, surprisingly, there are still uptrends in the profitability on occasion too.

Because it isn't just a letter of the alphabet. It is a failure by the very team who launched 'Shock and Awe', a marketing strategy, to address something incredibly basic about the initial structure of this project when they decided to use the Blackcoin source code.

It does not represent a letter, it represents a fundamental failure in the quality standards of the project, from the very first days of its existence.

I am not happy with the answers I am being given but, what is worse, and something that should be of great concern to any other person considering this coin, is not that I am not happy with the answer, but that the official Silkcoin rep isn't happy with the question.

We are being asked to believe they can deliver a bold new 'Ecosystem' for a coin project they evidently handled sloppily at the very start.

I'm not asking for the letter 'B' to be changed, I'm asking for them to appreciate the failings that letter now represents in their coin's wallet address format and to assuage our concerns as to the type of poor workmanship and quality standards that mistake is clearly representative of.

What has changed in their team, their methodology and practice since then?

If their response is to ask me to keep quiet, I'm guessing not a lot has changed. That's what I'm trying to establish, whether the same behaviours that brought us 'Shock and Awe' along with shockingly poor oversight, have been addressed at all.

Do you want to know what the official Silkcoin response is to my concerns about the origin of this project, it's errors and omissions, versus the stated aims and bold ambitions?

The official Silkcoin response was to send me a pm and ask that, while they understood my concerns were real and not FUD, would I be so kind as to stop asking these awkward questions! 'Rob' on the 'Silkcoin' account, stated that, due to the current market conditions, it wasn't the 'best conversation' to be having right now.

I disagree, it is *exactly* because of the market conditions that we *should* be having this conversation right now and I don't appreciate being asked to keep quiet solely because the coin devs prefer fanboy coin-praising to hype the market, instead of a mature discussion about reasonable concerns which, were they to be properly addressed, would actually serve to strengthen the market's faith in this coin in the medium and long term, instead of pandering to the whims of the short-term gamblers who have bet their rent money on your promises.

On the one hand you want to overlook and downplay this claimed 'simple' error on the basis that one of your team didn't understand Base58 encoding and, after consulting the Check_encoding page, mistakenly believed '25' would equate to 'S' in the address format specification. Well that would be a reasonable claim to make if it wasn't for something you then went on to confirm, namely, that the source code is from Blackcoin, something we already knew.

You see, the problem I have is that you knew you were using the Blackcoin source code to create this coin, the wallet and plan the 'Ecosystem' you intend to implement, but then you say that one programmer made a mistake when he consulted https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Base58Check_encoding for working out how to format the coin address with a leading 'S'.

Surely, on the basis you were working from the BC source, the conclusion he came to would have resulted in him leaving it as it already was, leading with a 'B' and, therefore, clearly not the correct coding for an 'S'?

Now you can complain again that you'd rather I not ask these awkward questions but, let's not forget, you're the coin development team that started with a bang, something you called 'Shock and Awe' if I recall correctly, promising to rock everybody's world over this coin. But, when asked to explain something rather mundane but also a good indicator of your team's quality standards when it comes to testing and implementation, you either have fanboys hurling abuse and trying to bury the question, or you mistakenly think that a couple of pm's to me asking that I leave the subject alone, for the sake of the coin's value, is the appropriate response.

Where do you think that value comes from? You? Your team? No, the value comes from the very people who buy your coin by the thousand on the basis that you are claiming you are capable of delivering what you promise. Trouble is, when you start asking people to change the subject, instead of actually engaging in the discussion and resolving it through reasoned and open conversation, thereby assuring that it can't be used as FUD by extortionists and market manipulators, it makes you equally as guilty of dishonesty as the extortionists and market manipulators.

You and your team have extremely bold intentions on where you plan to take this coin. You need to be able to demonstrate that the, extremely high level of quality testing and implementation needed for this vision can actually be achieved and maintained throughout.

Something you didn't start off being able to accomplish, it would seem.

Utterly meaningless assertion Dank.

But simply messing with your neurochemistry, apparently, will magically allow you to see things that 'primitive' science cannot?

That's just more asinine nonsense.

Satan? Ah, yes, the mythical character created by the Catholic Church in order to twist the Pagan God 'Pan' into that which must be feared and rejected. You do know that is the origin of the 'Satan' myth, Dank, right? Prior the 'good' people of Christianity, there was no Satan, there also was no 'unlucky' number 13, because prior to it's demonisation by Christianity, it was a Pagan lucky number.

Do you see the connection here Dank? It's cultural sociopsychological manipulation by theism spanning a couple of thousand years in order to squash a people's existing theist belief system and replace it with Christianity. You do it by replacing the existing symbolism with your own, rather than just telling people their theism is wrong, you simply incorporate it and then change it's meaning, exactly as The Church did.

So there is no such thing as 'Satan', outside of myth and fantasy, anyway.

All that you post is symptomatic of serious neurological dysfunction. But you'll ignore this fact and assert that things you decide are real must be real and anything else, no matter how well reasoned to you, should be ignored.

You are unwell Dank. Your parents know this and your doctors know this, but you refuse to accept it.

So nobody checked the code or bothered to run it on a testnet before launch? Whilst it is feasible that a simple error resulted in the wrong address format, the fact that none of you checked it or tested it leads me to highlight that 'simple error' as being potentially indicating a much larger problem, one that absolutely would affect your ability as a team to fulfil the ambitious aims you state.

Engine? I didn't intend to imply it was the engine, my use of describing the 'Ferrari with the Fiat 500 engine' is one of demonstrating how, while your front-end might look pretty and sway many a new user to it, something as simple as the basic principal elements of it's structure being equally as polished and complete, would be high on the list of things to ensure for any new coin project.

You are proposing that those who are buying into your coin put their trust in you and your team to be able to actually create that which you promise. To miss this basic element right at the start of the project does not exactly paint your team as being up to the task.

I don't personally think that would do your cause any good. You are facing a problem with forum members who were exposed as extortionists, which was dealt with, but you are also facing a problem with forum members who appear to be ignorant fanboys seeking to demonstrate that they can and will drown out reasonable discussion that they are uncomfortable with.

You would be better to focus on showing you can expose that which is FUD and, more importantly, that you are still willing and able to engage with people, like myself, who simply seek to clarify issues that honestly do present concerns with regards to how this project has and will be progressed.

Good question. Personally, I'd decline an offer of anything from Zeus. As an Innosilicon A2 owner, I see no use in miners that suck more power from the wall than they earn. Ok, that's a bit of an exaggeration but it's not far off from the truth.

This assertion

Appears to conflict with this one
It is and the fact it was not done is disconcerting.

It is the fact that they created a pretty looking wallet, yet couldn't be arsed to do something as fundamentally simple and required as creating a unique address identifier that worries me.

It's like going to a Ferrari dealer, seeing this beautifully designed car and popping the bonnet, only to find a Fiat 500 engine inside.

FWIW, frozen LTC balance is still frozen.

The whole 'top-down-bottom-up' payout was bollocks from the start. It allowed him to ensure those with the biggest balances could get out, meaning he'd be less likely to face the wrath of people with power, and a multitude of dust accounts could get their fractions out, ensuring that he could then claim X thousand of accounts being paid back.

The rest of us with reasonably small amount of holdings are the ones being screwed in this situation.

At least Busoni spread the loss across the board with Poloniex and each user could choose whether or not to dismiss the debt.

Ok that is true, but then that makes the situation look worse because, if they used another coin's source code while planning to create this 'ground-breaking' ecosystem, something as simple, yet crucially important in cryptocurrency-land, as specifying an address format that could be recognised easily as their own, seems one hell of an omission.

Seriously, anyone with any IT background would recognise that there are ways in which you progress projects and something as fundamentally basic as establishing a unique format for your 'new' coin address is something that you don't just forget to do.

There is still the nagging concern regarding the fact that, if they couldn't be bothered to change the address format from the Blackcoin code they copied, why on earth would they suddenly be looking at creating this epic ecosystem that is described in the whitepaper?

I don't think copying a coin's source code is necessarily a problem, Object-Oriented programming, especially in open-source, is all about being able to incorporate existing code into your own project but something as simple as specifying an address format that would at least represent the name of your own coin in some way, is one of the fundamentals of coin design.

Anon should be an option, to save people having to use other coins on the occasions they might wish to be discrete, but it is the adoption by non-tech users that will drive the price of this coin. There is also the stigma of going too far 'Anon' and being accused of encouraging illicit use which, again, will drive away those potential users who can actually bring value to the coin.

There already exists too many coins scrabbling for the 'dark' side of crypto, Pink can do really well, in my opinion, by ensuring their tech is solid and their ability to style the coin's features with flair and panache.

Broaden the user-base, don't narrow it down to the type of people who already are balls-deep in Alt-coins.

No, the target market for leading-edge coins are those people and businesses currently nervous about stepping into cryptocurrency and who are looking for reassuring cues as to the level of marketing and design being presented to them. Along with them are going to be the investor-class speculators wanting to see a Blackcoin-like degree of style and presentation alongside innovation.

That's where many technically versatile coins struggle to gain market acceptance now because the market is becoming less and less about the techie basement dwellers and about people who actually have high-earning jobs and collateral. They need gloss and they need shine in order to feel that there is substance supporting a coin, not a handful of geeks with social communication issues.

You are employing fallacious reasoning Dank.

While, certainly, by it's very nature, 'non-existence' does not 'exist' because it is merely a word we use to describe the absence of existence, that is not to say that we do not 'cease to exist'. All evidence suggests that we cease to exist and it is extremely wishful thinking, along with the employment of intellectual dishonesty, that has us believing otherwise.

You assertion is baseless.

Ah, yes, the ol', utterly fallacious, use of energy transference as attempt to 'prove' that, because we are based on electrochemical energy, the transformation of our physical form from 'alive' to 'dead', magically implies that our electrochemical energy will, erm, go somewhere, or do something, or become quantum, or something. In any event the idea that our 'mind' continues to exist after the brain has ceased to function is, again, wishful thinking by those who are conditioned to believe in dualism.

The point being, energy may well transfer to other forms as a result of particular interactions, but it doesn't follow that our minds are then capable of the same. Our mind is a filter of the inputs received by our senses and neurochemical action/reaction, if the brain is no longer providing the electrochemical energy to power that filter, do we then exist in the form of the dissipated heat energy that it gives off in its fading functioning? No. Otherwise we would exist in the heat energy it already generates. Energy is continually transferring all the while our brain is functioning, why should it magically make something else happen as it fades into the state of ceasing to function?

That's pretty meaningless in the context of this discussion.

Then, surely, we wouldn't be we because we simply wouldn't be.

You know how you didn't exist before you came into existence as a complex organism? Yeah, there's no reason to believe that ceasing to exist is going to be any different.

But, you know what, we get to know that we will always have existed, at some point in space and time. That will never change, we, will always have existed, even if but for a fraction of a macrosecond in the truly enormous cosmological scale of things.

It is in being conditioned to believe in dualism, in something we call a 'spirit' or a 'soul', that we waste vast amount of time and energy not living but merely existing under the foolish impression that something better will be handed to us afterwards.

Intellectual honesty. It is a truly wonderful thing.

NXTChg is handling the withdrawals manually. So there will be delays while he sleeps. Or gestates.

Ok, now your responses are getting weird. You say we are on the same team and when I point out the disparity between your behaviour and mine and that, therefore, we are not on the same team, you then reply, "Obviously"?

This thread is weird.

Yeah, see the thing is, and you should definitely be paying attention to this, I haven't spread FUD, I've expressed valid concern over facts that are supported by evidence and you most definitely attempted to manipulate the market by posting a lie.

So, no, we are not on the same team.