A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.
You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.
Vampiris, you say "version 9.2.0 create new fork from block 44227 accidentally 29 June".
And Slimepuppy, you say "We did, however, cause a condition that would have normally created a simple fork for those that continue to run the earlier 9.1.1 code (...) that would have disappeared as the rest of the community moved to the new code - but hozer (...) merged his older fork with our new soft fork. That's the piece that 'vampirus' either doesn't yet understand or is trying to twist. It's really important to note that while the 9.1.1 client will 'technically' join the parallel fork, there is only one entity mining that (hozer) and there are zero CAT transactions there (...)"
----
I'm not knowledgeable about technical stuff but...
There are two 'forks' for whatever reason?
Two groups that each would profit in some way if their 'fork' is the main one?
----
I'll look through this some more when convenient, but here are my observations.
1) The coin has huge potential for several reasons. Excluding the drama it is a strong coin going forward and potentially quite undervalued.
2) This drama, whatever it's root, is destroying the coin and if it is not resolved when cryptos recover the coin may miss the next surge.
3) Though a moderated thread 'controls' the dissent it is probably the worst of many choices.
----
I'm not interested in taking sides but my opinion is that Slimepuppy seems to have 'legitimacy' in directing the coin but if the conversation is being stifled, i.e., by deleting opposing comments, then legitimacy is gone. I know all of the arguments for preventing people from speaking and have no respect for any of those arguments.
It is very hard to trust the conversation on a moderated thread, but do either of you two see a peaceful resolution or is this an ongoing hostile issue?
----
add
Do not worry, now 9.1.1 chain on block 46452 and no more compatible with 9.2.0
Take it somewhere else, Hozer. Maybe here:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=486922.0. Last warning.
edit... nice edit job, Hozer. It's gone and you're done here.
/edit
The deleted post was
---
vampirus
Jr. Member
*
Online Online
Activity: 41
View Profile Personal Message (Online)
Trust: 0: -0 / +0
Ignore
Re: [ANN] Catcoin - 0.9.2.0 - NEW THREAD
Today at 03:35:40 AM
Reply with quote #137
New developers of CAT coin, create version 9.2.0 with some enhancement.
New wallet was compiled 27 June 2015 and used in some pools.
This thread and new version was announced 12 July and they say hardfork begins from block 46331 in about two weeks ahead.
But version 9.2.0 create new fork from block 44227 accidentally 29 June.
All CAT miners, who not switch to new version in first 2 days Smiley after wallet was compiled, continue mining another blockchain, and
now in opinion of SlimePuppy they are "attackers".
All information about this, SlimePuppy deleted from this thread. This reply will be deleted too.
---
There is an example of one problem with 'moderated' threads.
