Just to made it clear - they never stated that they talked with Bittrex. They only said they e-mailed them. There was no communication between both sides unless this changed recently, but it seemed they just e-mailed them and didn't put any more effort into listing and were ignored (in comprison, other devs are active on Bittrex Slack, trying to prove that the project is worth listing.

I am really mad now. I consider my money lost, but I can put a bit more effort into giving those guys what they deserve. Warning people from fintech in Finland could be a good idea. I will be posting here whom from their startup scene I will contact. You can join me and e-mail those people too. Those HEAT guys will be persona non grata like dev of Cryptsy or owner of Mr GOX. I will be doing this weekly and posting updates until I get full refund.

To me, it seems that the journalist could have done his job better. There is no other way I could explain why the almost finished and already working XEL is ignored while for example "iex.ce" is thoroughly elaborated on.

Byteballs definitely seems to contain some of the most prominent features of the HEAT offering, such as E2EE messenger and A2A trading. They even call BB the 3rd gen crypto, which HEAT kind of coined and followers are catching up. However many features and especially the HEAT core structural mechanisms - scalability based on replicating setup, blockchain slicing and POP reward scheme are gonna remain unique for a good while even if competitors deploy the higher level features nearly at the same time as we do. It'll sure be an interesting 2017

I'm trying to get Dennis in the mood for the short xmas tech update. I know what that is but lack the vocabularity for the technical formulation. It's of not much use to tell that we've completed most core transactions and scalability testing, and are now deploying Asset exchange procedures on the testnet. Blockchain explorer draft at https://alpha.heatledger.com/#/explorer displays some of these (only accessible after logging in) but just the headers so not much content to see there.

Spreadsheet will be appropriate to monitor our stakes
Thanks

What about this "Mainnet Release Plan"?

Disclaimer: I am just a coder so I am not launching anything. I am just coding an open source product  as best as my knowledge allows me to. So I will not be launching anything. So this is what I thought.

Step 1:
The Mainnet is locked and offline. In order to launch it, 25% of all tokens must be redeemed. This essentially means that the users (to recall, I code this for you guys) decide thenselves when to launch or not to launch. If the whales think the code sucks, they just delay!

Step 2:
We have a 5 stage launch. This means, that the first version, let's say 1.0, will only run from Block 1 to Block 5000 and then stop.
Then, version 1.1 will rum from Block 5001-10000, and so on. So we have five "hard forks" basically between blocks 1 and 25000 in which we can embed potential fixes or changes to the protocol without crippling the network, since old clients will just stop syncing at block X.
Since the bounds are known, I don't see a problem here.

We explicitly say that the blockchain may be reverted partially or totally during this time span.

Step 3:
After some more excessive testing we roll out 1.5 which begins at block 25001 (so basically after 17,5 days approx.) and goes on forever ;-)



I think this would give us some real field testing and not just on the test net, and give us five chances to fix any future bugs.


What do you think about this? Do you have any suggestions?
Of course, we have to make the GPU miner happen first, and rethink the missing parts about the ElasticPL language.