OK, Updated and synchronized.
It does not seem that there are differences in practices.

Two short questions:
1) I have not seen any new directory in AppData \ Roaming. The new wallet
still uses the directory SummerCoinV2?
2) Approximately how many confirmations requires a block to become mature for the staking, 11520?

Small oversight aesthetics, in the debug window in the first row shows the message "NavajoCoinV2 Core",
IMHO I think the "V2" is not right.

I was a little behind in reading the posts, I have now given only a quick peek and I did not understand one thing:
the new release of the wallet is a mandatory update that must be done immediately,
or should be considered as an optional update to reflect aesthetically the name change?

TIA

Where can we test the sgminer before launch ?

Many thanks, voted.

Were two other possible names already mentioned above, and not from me.

One was CodeCoin (Code), indicated by BigBlind and GreedyJohn, the other
is N-Code by Borin.

Both can have as an abbreviation for the word CODE, as already used in the source, and maintain in
the name the word "Code", who likes to Cienki7 for the reference to the "code of honor" but also points
out the main feature you choose for this coin, that encodes a transaction.

If you want, you could see in N-Code, as well as the abbreviation of Navajo-Code (or the New-Code,
Next-Code), the sound of ENCODE, two meanings that would immediately pass on a subconscious level,
and it has the advantage of preserving the large N of the logo.

In addition, both do not directly refer to a single nation or ethnic group,
like too many other scam-coin from the small value and short live.

However, as has already been rightly said, a name identifies the product, a small nuance can create different
feelings, IMHO a name should be chosen among many possible candidates after long reflection.

So my request for a "None of the above", just needed to have the opportunity to vote to give everyone more
time to imagine some other name better.

PS:
However, it would not be bad at all "None of the above" or "No Name Coin", as a name for other CryptoCoin, it would be a very
alternative name.
Just a joke.

Sorry to be so annoying, but I would respectfully ask how to vote for "Change, but none of the above"?


I would not annoy you more on why.

Ahh... I see.
That was the reason why I said 33%.

Now is more clear, and i can understand.

So, in this manner you solved a serious potential issue.

Many thanks for the your explain.

ROTFL Great.

Please send me NCC 1701, No bloody A, B, C, or D.  

Sincerely thank you, has been a rough day, I needed a good laugh.


Apart from the joke, as stated before:
"The reason is that is not very politically correct and might offend some people."

IMHO, the simpler solution is change both name and denomination, and eventually
maintain the Navajo Code only for the core technology name.

Thanks for the reply. I hope the getting a different point of view can help you.

I will wait the new sneak peaks.

Regarding the "drastic changes to the appearance of decentralized anonymity" and "100% decentralized",
i'm sorry, don't understand.

Did you have abandoned the idea of "Magic" and the "Star gate" gateway?

In other words, did you redesigned the whitepaper/data flow?

Sorry to ask, without disclose all the detail, can you give us some clue?

WOW... What a wonderful amazing combination....
Now with this change of name is not even the need to fix the source of the wallet.

Apart from the joke, with Navajo Coin, it would still be the problem of "EG I want to buy from you 10 Navajos".

I find it an excellent initiative, both as to the manner in which it is done, ie an open discussion, and the merit itself of the matter and  its motivations.

Obviously I'm in favor of the name change.
In this way at least you will save yours scalp.

Regarding the name, I think BigBlind has the merit of having given an alternative (CodeCoin -> CODE) on this Forum.
This name not being very widespread, would have the advantage that in a Google search produces relatively few results.
So this coin would be easier to find for a person interested or just curious.

Sure, CODE is not really the best abbreviation we can choose, especially in the IT field, but it is still better than CDC.
IMHO, If you could find something else might be better.

A small note, if I'm not mistaken around February had come out a wallet called CodeCoin-QT, but I think it
concerned a coin other with another name.

Watching sneak peek 2 I noticed some things, and since you're in the development stage, I have a couple of suggestions:

1) How GreedyJohn has already noticed in the first preview, but it went unnoticed by everyone else, the references
to the total coin, the balance and unit of coin to spend still refers to the units (CODE), I think it comes from the
previous wallet from which you are making the fork. Obviously it's just an oversight and should be corrected.

2) I saw that the field used to select the node on which route the Navajo transition, appears to be a simple Text Area.
IMHO, it could be much more user friendly to use a Drop-down List filled automatically with the Navajo active nodes,
or (a little more complex) a list of selectable nodes from which the wallet might choose randomly.
On my proposal maybe there are downsides that I am not able to consider, as I have not much information on the function
of these nodes, for example, on what basis should we choose one or another.
So you consider whether it is right to change the TextArea into a Drop-down List or not.

3) I noticed that in the picture there is no field for the "Transaction Comment."
This feature was not present in the original SUM wallet, but as you know has been included in V. 1.0.7.
In the current version of the SUM2 wallet this function is newly gone, I guess to avoid confusion during
the operation of SWAP.
Now the swap is terminated, and personally I think it is a useful feature, re-include it would be a sign of constant evolution,
and it would now be usable by users as a simple reminder to the transaction, and in the future it may also lead to the
development of other functions, such as the integration with external applications.
The lack of Transaction Comment in the new wallet, it's just an oversight or is a precise design choice?


PS:
If I have correctly understood the info-graphics/dataflow, the system will be decentralized to 33%, and 66% monopolized.
But I may have misunderstood.

Very good point.

Some type of coin have checkpoint generated every 5 block, this will really help.

I'm sorry for my request so late, and the noob question:
1) What is a "signing node"?
2) Why does he need to merge the coin control? It is not already present in the wallet?
3) The community has already some website, the servers that manage the sites and the site of BlockExplorer, they can act as "active node" 24/7?

Maybe if the dev has to do less work his initial pay may lower.

Last, with regard to the continued funding of the monthly cost,
can be implemented a mandatory version of "Stake for Charity",
as in Hobonickel, sending the share to a public address of the
community and with those funds to pay the Dev, and servers ?

In this way, IMHO, there would be an automatic steady stream of
funds, at least as long as the network remains operating and running.

IMHO, a better approach would be:
We need to evaluate every critics and move on.

But it's just the way I see it.

Of course, not all ideas and critics are reasonable or practicable,
but if we limit ourselves to ignore and forget all the critics, I think,
we could fall into mistakes that others have seen, or make our project
very mediocre.
(Besides creating disaffection in the group)

I repeat, this is' just the way I see things, and applicable in any field.


Apart from that, about the main point of the question that I had done, it
seems that there has been no response. So it must be a No.

I think it's a pity, if it was handled really well from the beginning, it could
become an opportunity.

In any case, a man warned is half saved...
and his scalp too.  

LOL No, thank you.
It would be like shooting to the Red Cross. 

The fact that I referred to is that most of the examples cited is referring to things and activities
in other fields, while in the case of NAV is practically the same field.

But as I said this was just a minor point, the least important.

(Sorry for the late response)

Given that the situation is already quite "embarrassing" and that until recently were in progress the exchange operations,
I avoided to ask any questions so as not to create more confusion, but there is one which I must ask to you before it is too later.

The Navajo name, is not a fantasy name, but it belongs to an entire people, and the Navajo Code Talker are part of their history
pages more honored.

So the question is:
have you contacted any representative of the Navajo Nation Government and obtained a formal authorization to use their name
for this coin, stating that it will be used to identify and make possible "turbid" transactions?

Another point, secondary, as many know NAV in the financial field stands for Net Asset Value.
IMHO use NAV to identify this coin, I think it can be a suicide, would create confusion.

I begin to hate that animation, seen too many times, and sometimes unfairly.

IMHO, In any case, give it some time.

We already knew that the distribution would take several days.

 

I had not realized that you had no wallet ready, but that I would be released to you
only after the payment of IPO. 

The developer will have secured his assistance during the first weeks of the start of the network?

Glad to hear it.

I get the impression that you expect a lot of work in verification phase.

I do not envy you.