I mined at Rootcoin pool since it opened with constant 1 GH/s just to find only 200 ROOT in my wallet now

What an insane IPO scam by known scammer bitsta, arghhh

funny guy...always have idiot FUDs here.

hi barabbas,

i just want to make something clear.

i ve worked for shogun47 (@XLB) thats right. and i HAVE FULLY FULLFILLED MY contract. I VE MADE WHAT I WAS TOLD TO MAKE.
(added an invalidation block into the sources, swapping all signing pub_keys, etc...)

the failed attempt to get all users on that codebase was not part of the contract and therefor NEITHER MY FAULT NOR MY RESPONSIBILITY!!!



as for PoS transition of NAUT: i won't ever release an unstable and potentially buggy PoS system. there are many reasons for that (reputation, lossrisk for users, etc.).

we are acually working on the PoS for NAUT and adapting the stakemodifier like i stated in my earlier post.


regards,
bitsta

I think Bitsta was involved on several other coins that went to shit. Glad to see someone who isn't afraid to post their real ID.

Well bitsta is launching rootcoin  today 'with bit key' so is he still doing work or not

He got paid to do work on NAUT and that never happened either, they had to hire blocktech in the end. Good luck.

thats totally bullshit and nonsense. i always put my best effort into all projects i am involved in.
and i also stated that i ll stick with my solution! ICG will be rocking once i am done with it.

i won't let others bring me or our plans down.

we all have no node ,but where's syscoin in mintpal  come from?

dev team ,you should explain right now

Cryptonite is highly experimental software and the concepts underpinning it lack extensive testing and analysis. Cryptonite is a fork of the Bitcoin core but the code has been extensively modified and expanded upon. It may look quite similar to Bitcoin on the surface but things work very differently under the hood. As such, you should use Cryptonite with caution and diligence until the code base has been properly reviewed and the robustness of the network has been established. We provide no guarantees or warranty, but in the event where something does go wrong with the network we will do our best to recover the situation and maintain all address balances so that losses are minimized.

If what they say is indeed true then they are in big trouble, first of all they are using an account tree + blockchain which I would guess only inflate the blockchain size in the beginning and only make it smaller as more dust transactions are pruned from the blockchain (effectively breaking it) not the mention all the huge security problems that are bound to occur at one point or another.

Our implementation of the reduced blockchain uses an account tree, a mini-blockchain (which isn't even a blockchain) and a proof chain, the proof chain is the only infinite part of the blockchain but it would  barely increase in size over years of use even at frequent blocks. Not only is our solution, as secure as the original blockchain, decentrallized, doesn't expose additional attack vectors and compresses the blockchain to be smaller than any other blockchain before by orders of magnitute it will be delivered tested and stable.

I can't say anything for sure since I haven't seen their whitepaper but it will certainly be interesting to see how it goes forward.

In any case let the kids be kids and let the scientists do their research in peace.