|
This used to be so promising
|
|
|
|
|
Worth a try, think i still hold some.
|
|
|
|
Good, it's still going !  |
|
|
|
|
Is this project still alive ?
|
|
|
|
|
I just setup my witness node, please vote for me and i will vote in return.
|
|
|
|
|
Was this the last scrypt-jane coin ?
|
|
|
|
|
Any updates on Cryptsy situation ?
|
|
|
|
|
It is money, neither bad nor good, its the user that matters
|
|
|
|
|
The massive amounts of code the dev has submitted says otherwise, have a couple unread notifications from slack. Looks like the dev did indeed submit code to the NRS git , looks like one massive submission with no follow ups, so he could be barzwizi, or he could have been hired. I'm aware that he sometimes gets requests to assist other projects.
I think you can request a loan already, though you'll need someone willing to lend you. I'll have to test that too though.
I'll give bitcreditscc the benefit of the doubt for now, based off the work he is clearly doing. I could be wrong...
|
|
|
|
I think we have to cancel the auction. The results are ridiculous so far.
It had too less exposure, we have to fix that and start again!
I agree, cancel it. You can either return the funds, or if users agree, hold them in advance of the re-do. |
|
|
|
Insert FUD here
I hope the dev doesn't waste his time responding to you again. This was all discussed in slack and at least three people did the math for you and showed that you had gained more value per unit. This worthless showmanship will only work on those who did not read the conversations. |
|
|
|
Ok since you decided to move to a new slack out of nowhere. etc. Let's continue here.
Where or who is going to hold these new funds from blockshares and the upcoming crowdfund?
It should be released via vote by the share holders. You might be the pope but we're in this context of anonimity, investors need asurance.... the less trust needed, the healthier for everyone. Submit a budget and let the community decide if you get the funds or not.
I find it strange that you want to *continue* here. Last i checked we were discussing the rules for the voting system. I think the simplest and fairest rule to ensure that a majority is what has voted, not a highly organized minority is to require a 60% voter turn out . Your suggestion to keep the vote between yes/no makes the assumption that there will only ever be two options, which i think will not be the case. So now with 60% of eligible voters having cast votes, i think that we can then use a simple tally. We can of course go a little further and attempt to apply something like STV or an alternative vote system, depending on user response to this post. The voting dynamic can be worked out etc. The issue at hand is the BTC you will receive for further funding. You were given 21 BTC for the premine plus 3 BTC from bidders recently. There is no precedence for transparency or accountability. Not to mention the BCR that bidders paid for and were awarded to you instead, effectively funding you twice there. It always should have been transparent and 100% accountable more so now with the new round of funding you're seeking. When do you want to work these dynamics out ? From my understanding the dev has made a proposal, why are you brushing it aside ?The time is now to work out the dynamics before launch. Your statements are half truths and you are leaving stuff out. Let's look at what really happened, firstly the dev came up with a number, he said he needed 21 BTC for him to push development up to p2p lending. Only after the number was agreed he sold the premine, empasis on SOLD, those were not donations, everyone who bought was compensated in BCR. He gave a quick accounting of what he did on slack and it was in line with what he had requested before. What is recent about the 3 BTC of bids, is it not spread over almost 9 months that is 1 BTC, every 3 months? You seem to be very bitter at the dev for some unknown reason. Or perhaps you are trying to drive away new users? I remember you were heavily against the move to uniqredit, so is this your way of opposing since you lost in the slack thread? The dev asked you who decides the "basis" on what is done and you said users, I think voting should be used in cases that actually require a vote. As far as I am concerned I am happy with leaving all things development in his hands, he clearly has a plan and he has stuck to it. True to his word he has produced a working product. What the dev decides to develop next is up to him since he designs and codes it. Remember the last vote ? what was the result ? I remember there being a point he initially wanted to scrap the old version of bids, users voted to keep it, and guess what, you are back to complain to him. I actually have some knowledge of code so i will tell you, everything he said was true. He wanted to drop it, perios, we cannot hold him responsible for something he told us had problems and we still opted to keep. I think it's that attitude that actually pushed him to finally veto it's existence. By the way, isn't the reason you are now posting in this thread because you stubbornly refuse to move to the uniqredit slack channel? Thie project is now called uniqredit, it only makes sense that the slack channel should match. |
|
|
|
Ok since you decided to move to a new slack out of nowhere. etc. Let's continue here.
Where or who is going to hold these new funds from blockshares and the upcoming crowdfund?
It should be released via vote by the share holders. You might be the pope but we're in this context of anonimity, investors need asurance.... the less trust needed, the healthier for everyone. Submit a budget and let the community decide if you get the funds or not.
I find it strange that you want to *continue* here. Last i checked we were discussing the rules for the voting system. I think the simplest and fairest rule to ensure that a majority is what has voted, not a highly organized minority is to require a 60% voter turn out . Your suggestion to keep the vote between yes/no makes the assumption that there will only ever be two options, which i think will not be the case. So now with 60% of eligible voters having cast votes, i think that we can then use a simple tally. We can of course go a little further and attempt to apply something like STV or an alternative vote system, depending on user response to this post. So if only ChainIDs can vote, the voter pool is smaller eh ? |
|
|
|
|
I like this blockshares idea, far more reliable.
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
