That logo is shit.

That is what you want to represent your brand?

Tells us how serious you are about this project.

Buckle up for another stackcoin, boys!

I've been told that a dozen times already... Fine, I'll cave.

DGng8mMUvC5JqwZtakQbFaU9dZkFvJWcig

You'd think after coinye people would learn not to infringe on copyrights...

Fascinating.

Sounds like you got scammed by the guy going around pretending to be a coinmarket.io representative.

Might want to investigate before you believe random PMs you get sent.

The nodes the client attempts to connect to are hardcoded into the client. You'd have to recompile to change them, which if you're paying for something like this, you probably can't do. This leaves only one options for new users to connect to the network: addnodes through the conf file. Less than ideal, and aside from being unprofessional and unintuitive, will likely cause many issues over the long term.

If you need this type of work done properly, feel free to PM me

Let's put it this way... You get what you pay for.

Since these coins are being forked from bitcoin 0.8.6, which has no built in method of peer matching, as soon as the one month daemon hosting period this guy gives you expires, nobody will able to connect to the network. The coin is as good as dead at that point.

This isn't how merged mining works. Coins need to patched (and therefore hardforked) for them to be merge mineable.

Namecoin example: https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin/blob/namecoinq/src/auxpow.cpp

Whatever is going on here, it certainly isn't merged mining.

21 million

There is no such thing as "random" in bitcoin. The network must agree on all variables.

It's not a vulnerability. It's by design.

"Random" rewards are literally the worst idea integrated into cryptocurrency.

He paid me BTC out of his own pocket before the IPO got underway. So no, I did not benefit from this IPO at all.

This incompetent twit has no intention of returning anyone's money, I can tell you that. He originally hired me to create the first iteration of GPUCoin (which was scrypt based), and then 12 hours before launch hired me again to change it into scrypt-n, based off a Vertcoin base. Due to the tight timeframe, I didn't have time to set up a proper dns seed, so to make the launch time I just put in a hardcoded node, which he was in control of. At launch time, he failed to have this node running, and the blockchain started forking. This wasn't a huge issue, and would have been pretty easy to fix. All he needed to do was get his node up running properly, or hell, even telling all the pools add each others as nodes. This would have fixed the issues, and the first launch would have fine. But instead of asking me, his developer, what to do about the issues, he decides on his own to abort the first launch. That was his first mistake. His second mistake was hiring some random newbie with 20 posts to do the second launch, which ended up being a 1:1 copy of pandacoin. Pitiful.

This guy has no idea what the hell he is doing, not even the slightest bit. I've reached out to him, asking him to temporarily give control of his bitcointalk account to me so that I could do PROPER launch. He hasn't responded. I'm sorry for all you guys who invested money into this trash. Best of luck with the legal proceedings.

As a large holder of TAG who's net worth has taken a sharp hit these past 2 weeks, allow me to chime in. I've been following this coin since day 1 as it is, to my knowledge, the only coin with a real, legitimate company backing it. This sets it apart from the rest of the rubbish released by children on this forum.

From a technical perspective, I see nothing wrong with this coin at this point. There is no "orphan issue" as you guys keep harking on about. Proof of stake coins naturally have a higher orphan rate. Considering the 4 min target block time, an orphan rate of about 10-15% is to be expected. Going by the past month's worth of blocks at hashfaster, that's exactly where it's at - 12%. Go read some of Balthazar's old posts regarding this if you're interested. Orphans are unavoidable in a proof of stake system.

As for the "negative retargets" thing, if this was an issue, the blockchain would be completely stalled. By nature, this issue can only possibly affect blockchains that have extremely fast block times and extremely low difficulty, such as orbitcoin for example. TAG has neither of those qualities. Did you know that neither PPCoin or Novacoin (the 2 biggest PoS coins) have a "fix" for negative retargets? Because it's a non-issue.

Regarding the "old versions", this isn't an issue either. Do you honestly think the bitcoin network can be attacked by clients running older versions? Here's what happens: Old client sends new client a block. New client checks the block. Block is found to be invalid. New client then blacklists old client for sending invalid blocks. So as far as blacklisting old clients goes, the client already does this by default.

All I see in this thread is a bunch of people with no technical expertise throwing out their crazy theories on what they think happened, or what they think a fix is... You guys don't know what the hell you're talking about, to be quite frank. But that's pretty typical for this forum. In my opinion, the biggest issue TAG faces is that of communication. Though, having to deal with people like you all day, I wouldn't want to post here either. Briefly looking through this thread, Mark gets torn apart no matter what he posts. So I am not at all surprised that he's just given up at this point. As far as I can tell, there are no technical issues with this coin, but the community still seems to think there is. That lapse in communication is very problematic, and perhaps something Mark should work on.

There are some interesting parallels between artos/sbc and mark/tag, but not the ones mentioned in this thread. Conspiracy theories aside, both coins seemed to be focused on the "longer" game, as opposed to the typical pump/dumps that are pervasive on this forum. In both cases, you have a demanding community who isn't satisfied with the current rate of growth, and continually hounds the developer until he gets burnt out and vanishes. If you read through artos' posts from the very beginning, you'll see the story of a man who started out as enthusiastic, slowly coming to hate what he is doing because of how the community acted. I fear the same may happen to TAG if something doesn't change here.

Let me remind you that in the real world, a yearly ROI of 10% is considered amazing. In this internet funny money business, gains like that are expected daily. It's unrealistic. If you're not satisfied with the current rate of growth, then sell your coins and get involved with some awful pump and dump coin like maxcoin. One of the reasons I like this coin is because Mark isn't on here all day pumping his coin, like every other shitcoin developer out there. He appears to be focused on growing the business rather than artificially inflating the value of the coin, and there's nothing wrong with that. The value of the coin will follow upwards if he is successful. To see a coin that strives for organic growth is a fresh of breath air in this environment.

TLDR: Community, stop being so demanding, and stop commentating on things you don't understand. Mark, work on your communication. If you ever need any development work done, shoot me a line.

When you peddle rubbish, expect to be called out on it.

They often have something to hide.