|
fisheater
|
 |
October 16, 2013, 01:44:32 AM |
|
can you do an unbiased article about IFC. about its launch, devs, community and current situation.
Oh no! I know too well this Hazard... unbias? a joke?  Dont worry babe, I'll be gentle. Lol, babe, you think I care? you think yourself so influential now? Do whatever you like, I don't even care a bit  But for unbias? maybe in your dream. |
|
|
|
|
|
QuantPlus
|
|
October 16, 2013, 01:53:10 AM
Last edit: October 16, 2013, 02:03:55 AM by QuantPlus |
|
Also, this was a community voted and agreed on change.
The community is a bullshit excuse to change rules and you know that. And community or not community, this is not an excuse, if you change rules in the middle of a game like this. It's cheating. I know the crypto-ecosystem is the wild west but it's not a reason to play an unfair game. A coin NEEDS to adapt... So I got no problem with a Dev leading a coin to the Promised Land. But the whole "community voting" thing is total bullshit: (1) Random people are not qualified to make complicated decisions... And a crowd of random people is even less qualified.... Everyone just wants more money yesterday. (2) The Dev will usually quit if the "vote" doesn't go his way. So let's have Wise Benign Coin Lords, but cut the crap with the fake "democracy". How about enough of making up crap you know nothing about? You're not a part of this community to judge it or know how decisions are made. You are not some wise expert either. Which makes your opinion, and that's all it is, an opinion based on ignorance. Thank you for your pointless words without any sort of knowledge though, always appreciate it. If you leave out BTC and LTC... This small player's coins have 1% of total Alt Coin Cap ($200,000 out of $20,000,000). The recent MemoryCoin had a built-in voting system: (1) Every vote was manipulated by the Dev or others. (2) The last vote was whether to give the Dev 20% of the coins... After weeks of confusion and debate... The miners voted against, the Dev quit, MEG was delisted, coin is in limbo. Everybody lost. (3) Long-term strategic decisions involving forks should be made by a trusted Dev... Corporations hire CEOs to make decisions... countries elect leaders to make decisions. Specific policy decisions made by popular vote are notoriously poor... look at bankrupt California. Do you think Bitcoin development decisions should be made by popular vote? |
|
|
|
|
|
r32godzilla
|
|
October 16, 2013, 02:26:03 AM
Last edit: October 16, 2013, 02:52:52 AM by r32godzilla |
|
Also, this was a community voted and agreed on change.
The community is a bullshit excuse to change rules and you know that. And community or not community, this is not an excuse, if you change rules in the middle of a game like this. It's cheating. I know the crypto-ecosystem is the wild west but it's not a reason to play an unfair game. A coin NEEDS to adapt... So I got no problem with a Dev leading a coin to the Promised Land. But the whole "community voting" thing is total bullshit: (1) Random people are not qualified to make complicated decisions... And a crowd of random people is even less qualified.... Everyone just wants more money yesterday. (2) The Dev will usually quit if the "vote" doesn't go his way. So let's have Wise Benign Coin Lords, but cut the crap with the fake "democracy". How about enough of making up crap you know nothing about? You're not a part of this community to judge it or know how decisions are made. You are not some wise expert either. Which makes your opinion, and that's all it is, an opinion based on ignorance. Thank you for your pointless words without any sort of knowledge though, always appreciate it. If you leave out BTC and LTC... This small player's coins have 1% of total Alt Coin Cap ($200,000 out of $20,000,000). The recent MemoryCoin had a built-in voting system: (1) Every vote was manipulated by the Dev or others. (2) The last vote was whether to give the Dev 20% of the coins... After weeks of confusion and debate... The miners voted against, the Dev quit, MEG was delisted, coin is in limbo. Everybody lost. (3) Long-term strategic decisions involving forks should be made by a trusted Dev... Corporations hire CEOs to make decisions... countries elect leaders to make decisions. Specific policy decisions made by popular vote are notoriously poor... look at bankrupt California. Do you think Bitcoin development decisions should be made by popular vote? Lol who are you, Nostradamus or something? Changes were made to react to the current crypto landscape after alot of input and discussion from the dgc community and even outside people. It was certainly not a snap decision without any thought and was done with alot of lead in time so people can update. You don't even know Baritus so who are you to pass judgement on him? Do some research instead of talking rubbish and spreading fud. |
|
|
|
r2vape
Member
 Offline
Activity: 70
Merit: 10
|
|
October 16, 2013, 02:57:03 AM |
|
Your response is hysterical. You are intolerant.
If you leave out BTC and LTC...
This small player's coins have 1% of total Alt Coin Cap ($200,000 out of $20,000,000).
The recent MemoryCoin had a built-in voting system:
(1) Every vote was manipulated by the Dev or others.
(2) The last vote was whether to give the Dev 20% of the coins...
After weeks of confusion and debate...
The miners voted against, the Dev quit, MEG was delisted, coin is in limbo.
Everybody lost.
(3) Long-term strategic decisions involving forks should be made by a trusted Dev...
Corporations hire CEOs to make decisions... countries elect leaders to make decisions.
Specific policy decisions made by popular vote are notoriously poor... look at bankrupt California.
Do you think Bitcoin development decisions should be made by popular vote?
Good one. I know in the grand arena I am a nobody, but I am part of this community and voted with others on the changes presented by the developer with no pressure what so ever to decide on one fate or another. Back down QuantPlus and pollute somewhere else. |
|
|
|
|
QuantPlus
|
|
October 16, 2013, 03:00:29 AM |
|
Also, this was a community voted and agreed on change.
The community is a bullshit excuse to change rules and you know that. And community or not community, this is not an excuse, if you change rules in the middle of a game like this. It's cheating. I know the crypto-ecosystem is the wild west but it's not a reason to play an unfair game. A coin NEEDS to adapt... So I got no problem with a Dev leading a coin to the Promised Land. But the whole "community voting" thing is total bullshit: (1) Random people are not qualified to make complicated decisions... And a crowd of random people is even less qualified.... Everyone just wants more money yesterday. (2) The Dev will usually quit if the "vote" doesn't go his way. So let's have Wise Benign Coin Lords, but cut the crap with the fake "democracy". How about enough of making up crap you know nothing about? You're not a part of this community to judge it or know how decisions are made. You are not some wise expert either. Which makes your opinion, and that's all it is, an opinion based on ignorance. Thank you for your pointless words without any sort of knowledge though, always appreciate it. If you leave out BTC and LTC... This small player's coins have 1% of total Alt Coin Cap ($200,000 out of $20,000,000). The recent MemoryCoin had a built-in voting system: (1) Every vote was manipulated by the Dev or others. (2) The last vote was whether to give the Dev 20% of the coins... After weeks of confusion and debate... The miners voted against, the Dev quit, MEG was delisted, coin is in limbo. Everybody lost. (3) Long-term strategic decisions involving forks should be made by a trusted Dev... Corporations hire CEOs to make decisions... countries elect leaders to make decisions. Specific policy decisions made by popular vote are notoriously poor... look at bankrupt California. Do you think Bitcoin development decisions should be made by popular vote? Lol who are you, Nostradamus or something? Changes were made to react to the current crypto landscape after alot of input and discussion from the dgc community and even outside people. It was certainly not a snap decision without any thought and was done with alot of lead in time so people can update. You don't even know Baritus so who are you to pass judgement on him? Do some research instead of talking rubbish and spreading fud. There was no DGC vote... Just an informal thread "poll"... with NO RESULTS to the "poll". http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,170.15.htmlBaritus Oct 4th: "I've been testing different possibilities and will settle on the least disturbing solution for the next update." Baritus Oct 4th: "While the decision to take action makes sense to poll, the complexity of the different options and their implications requires much more in depth technical knowledge and testing. Polling for options would not be very useful. Rather, I will select the most effective prototype at accomplishing the goals." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is PRECISELY what I was pointing out (and supporting)... Devs have these mock votes where they apply intense pressure for a specific option... Then guys like Baritus make UNILATERAL decisions due to "complexity" and "implications". Then Baritus comes here... and claims his coin is some kind of democracy... And his Zombie Stooges attack me for pointing out the obvious. |
|
|
|
|
|
r32godzilla
|
|
October 16, 2013, 03:58:17 AM
Last edit: October 16, 2013, 04:08:58 AM by r32godzilla |
|
Also, this was a community voted and agreed on change.
The community is a bullshit excuse to change rules and you know that. And community or not community, this is not an excuse, if you change rules in the middle of a game like this. It's cheating. I know the crypto-ecosystem is the wild west but it's not a reason to play an unfair game. A coin NEEDS to adapt... So I got no problem with a Dev leading a coin to the Promised Land. But the whole "community voting" thing is total bullshit: (1) Random people are not qualified to make complicated decisions... And a crowd of random people is even less qualified.... Everyone just wants more money yesterday. (2) The Dev will usually quit if the "vote" doesn't go his way. So let's have Wise Benign Coin Lords, but cut the crap with the fake "democracy". How about enough of making up crap you know nothing about? You're not a part of this community to judge it or know how decisions are made. You are not some wise expert either. Which makes your opinion, and that's all it is, an opinion based on ignorance. Thank you for your pointless words without any sort of knowledge though, always appreciate it. If you leave out BTC and LTC... This small player's coins have 1% of total Alt Coin Cap ($200,000 out of $20,000,000). The recent MemoryCoin had a built-in voting system: (1) Every vote was manipulated by the Dev or others. (2) The last vote was whether to give the Dev 20% of the coins... After weeks of confusion and debate... The miners voted against, the Dev quit, MEG was delisted, coin is in limbo. Everybody lost. (3) Long-term strategic decisions involving forks should be made by a trusted Dev... Corporations hire CEOs to make decisions... countries elect leaders to make decisions. Specific policy decisions made by popular vote are notoriously poor... look at bankrupt California. Do you think Bitcoin development decisions should be made by popular vote? Lol who are you, Nostradamus or something? Changes were made to react to the current crypto landscape after alot of input and discussion from the dgc community and even outside people. It was certainly not a snap decision without any thought and was done with alot of lead in time so people can update. You don't even know Baritus so who are you to pass judgement on him? Do some research instead of talking rubbish and spreading fud. There was no DGC vote... Just an informal thread "poll"... with NO RESULTS to the "poll". http://digitalcoin.co/forums/index.php/topic,170.15.htmlBaritus Oct 4th: "I've been testing different possibilities and will settle on the least disturbing solution for the next update." Baritus Oct 4th: "While the decision to take action makes sense to poll, the complexity of the different options and their implications requires much more in depth technical knowledge and testing. Polling for options would not be very useful. Rather, I will select the most effective prototype at accomplishing the goals." --------------------------------------------------------------------------- This is PRECISELY what I was pointing out (and supporting)... Devs have these mock votes where they apply intense pressure for a specific option... Then guys like Baritus make UNILATERAL decisions due to "complexity" and "implications". Then Baritus comes here... and claims his coin is some kind of democracy... And his Zombie Stooges attack me for pointing out the obvious. So you think the forum was the only place discussions took place?? The decisions taken were not based solely on a voting system. All input was taken on board and given careful consideration over time. You are commenting on something you know little about and trying to relate it to actions taken by other coin devs and communities. Baritus works hard behind the scenes and is talking to the community almost every day getting input and opinions to help assist in the direction dgc takes. Changes need to be made to react to an ever changing crypto landscape. What would you prefer, a dev that does fkall and leaves a coin to die?? What is your point other than to try and spread fud and attack a dev who you don't even know? Sounds to me like your holding some other coin and trying to peddle an agenda maybe? As I said before go and do some research before you start talking absolute nonsense. The only zombie I can see here is the one spreading fud and can't accept that the dgc dev actually gives a shit about his coin and is trying to do a good job on behalf of the dgc community and improve it in a fair manner. |
|
|
|
|
Loki8
|
|
October 16, 2013, 04:42:39 AM
Last edit: October 16, 2013, 05:03:05 AM by Loki8 |
|
A coin NEEDS to adapt...
So I got no problem with a Dev leading a coin to the Promised Land.
A coin needs to adapt about security, new GUI, new features etc. but that's all! The block reward has to be stable to remain credible like Bitcoin does. Cryptos are completely free-market currencies that are immune to manipulation by governments and banks and you would like devs to do the same thing than them. Just doing exactly what cryptos were supposed to not do... So you think the forum was the only place discussions took place?? The decisions taken were not based solely on a voting system.
Voting system or not, community or not, you can't change the rules in the middle of the game each time you don't get your way! |
|
|
|
|
tokyoghetto
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1232
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 16, 2013, 05:07:26 AM |
|
A coin NEEDS to adapt...
So I got no problem with a Dev leading a coin to the Promised Land.
A coin needs to adapt about security, new GUI, new features etc. but that's all! The block reward has to be stable to remain credible like Bitcoin does. Cryptos are completely free-market currencies that are immune to manipulation by governments and banks and you would like devs to do the same thing than them. Just doing exactly what cryptos were supposed to not do... So you think the forum was the only place discussions took place?? The decisions taken were not based solely on a voting system.
Voting system or not, community or not, you can't change the rules in the middle of the game each time you don't get your way! these scam "block reward change" angers me. GLD did it, WDC did it and now DGC did it. PURE SCAM. these scum devs are no better than governments who raise debt ceilings and just print money freely. Here is the blue print to running a successful scam coin. 0. claim you are a "dev" 1.clone scrypt coin, use a 500 block reward or something higher 2.instamine/premine coin 3.dump once it hits cryptsy. 4. let coin die for a bit, mine as much as you can on low diff. buy back at a lower price as many coins as you can. hoard all your coins. 5. change block reward to something lower, for example from 500 to 10. claim some obvious scam reason like "sustainability" 6. watch sheeple pump your coin 7. ? 8. profit. perhaps IFC should just abandon the planned block halving that is coded into the coin and reduce block reward from 65,000 to 15. we overnight crypto millionaires now. |
|
|
|
|
|
Loki8
|
|
October 16, 2013, 05:32:35 AM
Last edit: October 16, 2013, 05:43:35 AM by Loki8 |
|
A coin NEEDS to adapt...
So I got no problem with a Dev leading a coin to the Promised Land.
A coin needs to adapt about security, new GUI, new features etc. but that's all! The block reward has to be stable to remain credible like Bitcoin does. Cryptos are completely free-market currencies that are immune to manipulation by governments and banks and you would like devs to do the same thing than them. Just doing exactly what cryptos were supposed to not do... So you think the forum was the only place discussions took place?? The decisions taken were not based solely on a voting system.
Voting system or not, community or not, you can't change the rules in the middle of the game each time you don't get your way! these scam "block reward change" angers me. GLD did it, WDC did it and now DGC did it. PURE SCAM. these scum devs are no better than governments who raise debt ceilings and just print money freely. Here is the blue print to running a successful scam coin. 0. claim you are a "dev" 1.clone scrypt coin, use a 500 block reward or something higher 2.instamine/premine coin 3.dump once it hits cryptsy. 4. let coin die for a bit, mine as much as you can on low diff. buy back at a lower price as many coins as you can. hoard all your coins. 5. change block reward to something lower, for example from 500 to 10. claim some obvious scam reason like "sustainability" 6. watch sheeple pump your coin 7. ? 8. profit. perhaps IFC should just abandon the planned block halving that is coded into the coin and reduce block reward from 65,000 to 15. we overnight crypto millionaires now. Your description is right and, unfortunately, sad because I fear that a world without government and rules would be absolute chaos with all these scammers and greedy people... |
|
|
|
|
baritus
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 966
Merit: 1052
|
|
October 16, 2013, 01:48:44 PM |
|
@Loki8
@tokyoghetto
DGC price is at an all time low. That means both of you and everyone else can get DGC cheaper than I and all the other early investors did. Do you understand economics?
So we are making a change that benefits the current stakeholders.
The same change benefits people entering now(after the early investors) even more than the early investors.
The new investors will have a currency that's not facing unsustainable deflationary pressures.
Logic was the main reason behind the proposed changes and they were backed by those involved because they are positive for everyone.
|
Digitalcoin - Sha256, Scrypt, x11 Mining - Multi-algorithm & One Click Masternodes - Founded in 2013
|
|
|
Hazard (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
|
|
October 29, 2013, 03:01:29 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hazard (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 12, 2013, 03:41:41 PM |
|
My feelings  |
|
|
|
Hazard (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 20, 2013, 02:35:56 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
digitalindustry
|
|
November 21, 2013, 09:04:27 AM |
|
Oh wait , or is it ......?
|
- Twitter @Kolin_Quark
|
|
|
Hazard (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 24, 2013, 10:12:46 PM |
|
Oh wait , or is it ......?
It's a coin toss  |
|
|
|
Hazard (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 25, 2013, 02:05:00 PM |
|
Advertising costs reduced again in accordance with BTC's rise.
|
|
|
|
Hazard (OP)
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1000
|
|
November 26, 2013, 09:01:04 PM |
|
|
|
|
|
|
stas
|
|
November 26, 2013, 09:44:10 PM |
|
I am with you on this one + good article |
|
|
|
defaced
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 2184
Merit: 1011
Franko is Freedom
|
|
November 26, 2013, 10:54:30 PM |
|
Looks good brother.
|
|
|
|
|
