★★DigiByte|极特币★★[DGB]✔ Core v6.16.5.1 - DigiShield, DigiSpeed, Segwit

[HR]

Okay, pretty much what I thought: those magic knights don't exist, and the level of understanding about the second most important aspect of DigiByte is, in general, close to zero.

Considering just how important it is to have a good understanding of this, would it be too much to ask for an explanation in layman's terms?

As a guide, not that you need it as you clearly answered both with your posting of the respective codes, but in order to help with the framing of that explanation for the average person, I'll remind of the framing of the last questions:

We know that before the most recent hardfork, global network hashrate (that is the combined total of the 5 algos) was key, and that all the algos diffs adjusted in response to changes in aggregate hashrate. The question is how much did that change? To what precise degree are the algos currently independent, and to what degree are they still inter-dependent?

Looks to me like the overall relationship is still very similar, in that all 5 algos have their difficulties to mine calculated from the same base input, but, not being an expert, I don't want to misrepresent the facts and prefer to hear your, expert, explanation for the masses.

More than anything because I could be wrong. As I said, I'm not an expert, and in this matter I consider myself to be a member of the masses.

Very much appreciated!

A great place to begin answering this question is with MentalCollatz's original post on the GitHub repo. And also many, many thanks to MentalCollatz for contributing this code and insight to DigiByte.

https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36

First off, this will fix the safe mode warnings once and for all. But it does so much more than that. Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack.

The new formula was chosen as a function of the difficulties and based on these criteria:
1. It should be a symmetric funtion
2. It should be order 1 homogenous
3. It should be homogenous with respect to each variable

Or in plain English:
1. There should be nothing algorithm-specific (such as per-algorithm weights) nor should it depend on which algorithm actually solved the block.
2. If all difficulties double, the block work should double
3. If one difficulty doubles, the block work should change by some constant factor

There is only one function (save multiplication by a constant factor) satisfying all 3 conditions: the geometric mean. As an added bonus, because of how the difficulty algorithm works the geometric mean can change by at most 3% from block to block (which addresses the safe-mode warning issue).

In order to 51% attack the network, the product of the attacker's hashrates must exceed the product of the network's hashrates. In particular, the attacker must have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms.

So to summarise, there is no longer an individual algorithm weighting (workfactor) but a geometric mean (nthRoot) of all algos. This allows for five birds to be killed with one stone; preventing time warp attacks, eliminating safe mode error, improving difficulty adjustments, making sure each algo is only getting 20% of all the blocks and dramatically increasing the difficulty of a 51% attack. If you look back at the previous several thousand blocks and calculate the average % of each algo you will get the 20% average. Things are working as expected in that regard.

Now as to electrical efficiency of each mining setup. ASIC's are by their very nature designed to be highly efficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-specific_integrated_circuit

The original idea was to allow for people with both used, obsolete ASIC's and GPU's as well as some CPU's to be able to mine. As time has gone on the mining scene has undoubtedly changed and we now have two algos (Sha256 and Scrypt) dominated by ASIC's. As time goes on these two algos miners will get more electrically efficient but still only account 40% of new DGB coming into circulation. The other 60% is up for grabs from GPU's.

As ASIC's get cheaper and more efficient it will be easier to distribute ASIC miners to people such as gamers. Remember the only thing a Sha256 or Scrypt ASIC can be used for is to mine a digital currency.

Does this answer everyones questions? This is a very complex topic so we understand the confusion. We are always open to new ideas and suggestions as technology is rapidly changing.

I'm sorry, but it still doesn't answer my question, and I must assume that is due to my inability to adequately frame the question. I will make another attempt by putting then into in a closed, yes/no, format that could/should be followed by an explanation.

Are the individual difficulties to mine calculated based on total aggregate hashrate (the 5 combined hashrates)?NO

Are the individual difficulties to mine calculated solely based on the hashrate of the individual algo in question?YES

When the diff of one algo rises (or falls), the diff of the other algos rise (or fall) in equal proportion?NO

I have provide my answers to your question above because logic tells me that this must be the case for the 20% per algo distribution to be maintained.

Wisdom from the most unsuspecting of places. I'm astonished.

Now that wasn't really so hard to deal with in a way that everyone can understand and take seriously, was it?

Like pulling teeth . . .

[1715213652]

1715213652

[1715213652]

1715213652

[1715213652]

1715213652

[1715213652]

1715213652

[1715213652]

1715213652

[Jumbley]

Okay, pretty much what I thought: those magic knights don't exist, and the level of understanding about the second most important aspect of DigiByte is, in general, close to zero.

Considering just how important it is to have a good understanding of this, would it be too much to ask for an explanation in layman's terms?

As a guide, not that you need it as you clearly answered both with your posting of the respective codes, but in order to help with the framing of that explanation for the average person, I'll remind of the framing of the last questions:

We know that before the most recent hardfork, global network hashrate (that is the combined total of the 5 algos) was key, and that all the algos diffs adjusted in response to changes in aggregate hashrate. The question is how much did that change? To what precise degree are the algos currently independent, and to what degree are they still inter-dependent?

Looks to me like the overall relationship is still very similar, in that all 5 algos have their difficulties to mine calculated from the same base input, but, not being an expert, I don't want to misrepresent the facts and prefer to hear your, expert, explanation for the masses.

More than anything because I could be wrong. As I said, I'm not an expert, and in this matter I consider myself to be a member of the masses.

Very much appreciated!

A great place to begin answering this question is with MentalCollatz's original post on the GitHub repo. And also many, many thanks to MentalCollatz for contributing this code and insight to DigiByte.

https://github.com/digibyte/digibyte/pull/36

First off, this will fix the safe mode warnings once and for all. But it does so much more than that. Currently, an attacker can 51% attack the network with roughly 60% of SHA256D and nothing else. After this change, an attacker with 90% of the SHA256D hashrate and 33% of each of the other 4 algorithms would have insufficient hashpower to mount a 51% attack.

The new formula was chosen as a function of the difficulties and based on these criteria:
1. It should be a symmetric funtion
2. It should be order 1 homogenous
3. It should be homogenous with respect to each variable

Or in plain English:
1. There should be nothing algorithm-specific (such as per-algorithm weights) nor should it depend on which algorithm actually solved the block.
2. If all difficulties double, the block work should double
3. If one difficulty doubles, the block work should change by some constant factor

There is only one function (save multiplication by a constant factor) satisfying all 3 conditions: the geometric mean. As an added bonus, because of how the difficulty algorithm works the geometric mean can change by at most 3% from block to block (which addresses the safe-mode warning issue).

In order to 51% attack the network, the product of the attacker's hashrates must exceed the product of the network's hashrates. In particular, the attacker must have some hashrate in all 5 algorithms.

So to summarise, there is no longer an individual algorithm weighting (workfactor) but a geometric mean (nthRoot) of all algos. This allows for five birds to be killed with one stone; preventing time warp attacks, eliminating safe mode error, improving difficulty adjustments, making sure each algo is only getting 20% of all the blocks and dramatically increasing the difficulty of a 51% attack. If you look back at the previous several thousand blocks and calculate the average % of each algo you will get the 20% average. Things are working as expected in that regard.

Now as to electrical efficiency of each mining setup. ASIC's are by their very nature designed to be highly efficient: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Application-specific_integrated_circuit

The original idea was to allow for people with both used, obsolete ASIC's and GPU's as well as some CPU's to be able to mine. As time has gone on the mining scene has undoubtedly changed and we now have two algos (Sha256 and Scrypt) dominated by ASIC's. As time goes on these two algos miners will get more electrically efficient but still only account 40% of new DGB coming into circulation. The other 60% is up for grabs from GPU's.

As ASIC's get cheaper and more efficient it will be easier to distribute ASIC miners to people such as gamers. Remember the only thing a Sha256 or Scrypt ASIC can be used for is to mine a digital currency.

Does this answer everyones questions? This is a very complex topic so we understand the confusion. We are always open to new ideas and suggestions as technology is rapidly changing.

I'm sorry, but it still doesn't answer my question, and I must assume that is due to my inability to adequately frame the question. I will make another attempt by putting then into in a closed, yes/no, format that could/should be followed by an explanation.

Are the individual difficulties to mine calculated based on total aggregate hashrate (the 5 combined hashrates)?NO

Are the individual difficulties to mine calculated solely based on the hashrate of the individual algo in question?YES

When the diff of one algo rises (or falls), the diff of the other algos rise (or fall) in equal proportion?NO

I have provide my answers to your question above because logic tells me that this must be the case for the 20% per algo distribution to be maintained.

Wisdom from the most unsuspecting of places. I'm astonished.

Now that wasn't really so hard to deal with in a way that everyone can understand and take seriously, was it?

Like pulling teeth . . .

It's been educational for many of our community members, I'm sure but it wasn't the first question you asked or it would have been answered a lot sooner. 

[HR]

^^ It was the ONLY question I've been asking.

Take note that the related "unequal" payout aspect of the issue is now a moot point having this central and key aspect of algo difficulty to mine question finally answered.

Cheers

[Jumbley]

^^ It was the ONLY question I've been asking.

Take note that the related "unequal" payout aspect of the issue is now a moot point having this central and key aspect of algo difficulty to mine question finally answered.

Cheers

Oh, I'm not quite used to people asking questions like you do then but I'm glad you have the information you were seeking.  

Are you going to be a 'magic knight' now? I know I just called them knights before, you called them magic knights but I like it and think they deserve the word magic in their title. You can have the credit for that!  

They are not like fairies you know, they don’t drop dead if someone says they don’t exist.

[Cryptojunkey]

All this talk on mining, i think digibyte needs to worry about more important things like the amount of coins coming into circulation by the day. If they would cap the total amount and quit handing out freebies this coin would go places on the charts and establish a healthier user base.

How are you going to convince any new person into crypto to invest in something thats bringing 3btc worth in circulation daily? Theres alot of people not investing into dgb for this reason, i know cuz ive watched the market for a long time. The rises have been forced by one or just a few people with no real support. And claiming $1 per dgb as a long term goal is ridiculous.  Not with 21billion coins, do the math the market cap would be out of this world.  Its one thing to set goals but its a slap in the face when they are far from realistic.

[Jumbley]

All this talk on mining, i think digibyte needs to worry about more important things like the amount of coins coming into circulation by the day. If they would cap the total amount and quit handing out freebies this coin would go places on the charts and establish a healthier user base.

How are you going to convince any new person into crypto to invest in something thats bringing 3btc worth in circulation daily? Theres alot of people not investing into dgb for this reason, i know cuz ive watched the market for a long time. The rises have been forced by one or just a few people with no real support. And claiming $1 per dgb as a long term goal is ridiculous.  Not with 21billion coins, do the math the market cap would be out of this world.  Its one thing to set goals but its a slap in the face when they are far from realistic.

Mining is very important and lots of it, like there is on bitcoin but better distributed and accessible by many more people because of the multi algo approach. This is what will drive the value of the coin eventually but it always takes time because people will always have coins that they acquired for less than the current market price and will be tempted to sell them but there is only so many so the price should creep upwards as people trade them for more than they paid for them.

The 3 btc is not really relevant, because it is just based on the current market price. The target price of $1 was a comparison to bitcoin at $1000 and because that is the ratio between the supply of the two coins and nothing more, no body has ever said that will happen anytime soon and it wont happen unless we see an awful lot more mining.

[Cryptojunkey]

All this talk on mining, i think digibyte needs to worry about more important things like the amount of coins coming into circulation by the day. If they would cap the total amount and quit handing out freebies this coin would go places on the charts and establish a healthier user base.

How are you going to convince any new person into crypto to invest in something thats bringing 3btc worth in circulation daily? Theres alot of people not investing into dgb for this reason, i know cuz ive watched the market for a long time. The rises have been forced by one or just a few people with no real support. And claiming $1 per dgb as a long term goal is ridiculous.  Not with 21billion coins, do the math the market cap would be out of this world.  Its one thing to set goals but its a slap in the face when they are far from realistic.

Mining is very important and lots of it, like there is on bitcoin but better distributed and accessible by many more people because of the multi algo approach. This is what will drive the value of the coin eventually but it always takes time because people will always have coins that they acquired for less than the current market price and will be tempted to sell them but there is only so many so the price should creep upwards as people trade them for more than they paid for them.

The 3 btc is not really relevant, because it is just based on the current market price. The target price of $1 was a comparison to bitcoin at $1000 and because that is the ratio between the supply of the two coins and nothing more, no body has ever said that will happen anytime soon and it wont happen unless we see an awful lot more mining.

I understand mining is important, ive had experience with it. Got into ltc ming back before ltc went vertical, so ive been in crypto a fair amount of time. Mining does serve its purpose that is not the argument. Its the inflation.

Theres only so many but theres 3btc coming into circulation daily? (at a low price of 50sat) Seems like a contradictory statement. Thats 21btc in a weeks time or half the total buy support on the largest exchange on a GOOD day!  Again, how are you going to convince someone to invest?

DGB has great features but whats the project worth if its value is in a downhill slide, speaking just on a developmental aspect? This project should have every reason for someone to invest their hard earned money in DGB. This will keep the user base growing. Crypto is a shady market and people are scared for their financial well being in the first place. Projects shouldnt give them a reason to not do so.

[Jumbley]

All this talk on mining, i think digibyte needs to worry about more important things like the amount of coins coming into circulation by the day. If they would cap the total amount and quit handing out freebies this coin would go places on the charts and establish a healthier user base.

How are you going to convince any new person into crypto to invest in something thats bringing 3btc worth in circulation daily? Theres alot of people not investing into dgb for this reason, i know cuz ive watched the market for a long time. The rises have been forced by one or just a few people with no real support. And claiming $1 per dgb as a long term goal is ridiculous.  Not with 21billion coins, do the math the market cap would be out of this world.  Its one thing to set goals but its a slap in the face when they are far from realistic.

Mining is very important and lots of it, like there is on bitcoin but better distributed and accessible by many more people because of the multi algo approach. This is what will drive the value of the coin eventually but it always takes time because people will always have coins that they acquired for less than the current market price and will be tempted to sell them but there is only so many so the price should creep upwards as people trade them for more than they paid for them.

The 3 btc is not really relevant, because it is just based on the current market price. The target price of $1 was a comparison to bitcoin at $1000 and because that is the ratio between the supply of the two coins and nothing more, no body has ever said that will happen anytime soon and it wont happen unless we see an awful lot more mining.

I understand mining is important, ive had experience with it. Got into ltc ming back before ltc went vertical, so ive been in crypto a fair amount of time. Mining does serve its purpose that is not the argument. Its the inflation.

Theres only so many but theres 3btc coming into circulation daily? (at a low price of 50sat) Seems like a contradictory statement. Thats 21btc in a weeks time or half the total buy support on the largest exchange on a GOOD day!  Again, how are you going to convince someone to invest?

DGB has great features but whats the project worth if its value is in a downhill slide, speaking just on a developmental aspect? This project should have every reason for someone to invest their hard earned money in DGB. This will keep the user base growing. Crypto is a shady market and people are scared for their financial well being in the first place. Projects shouldnt give them a reason to not do so.

I’m certainly not saying that you are not making fair points, it is not easy to bring people into crypto and especially as there have been so many places to lose money hand over fist in the crypto world be it through scams, theft or plain business failure. DigiByte, however is a fantastic example of this technology with an open and honest developer and the community will determine if it ultimately succeeds or fails but nobody should be looking at it like easy money but if you want crypto, then you should want DigiByte and you should buy it for as little as possible off the markets and hold it and preferably mine it too. You should certainly not be buying it during a spike, which unfortunately a lot of people do, as these are generally manipulated and going to leave you burnt, at least in the short term. It is up to us as a community to go on creating good reasons to get involved with DigiByte.

[Jumbley]

I spend so much time on this thread, people sometimes think I’m one of the developers. I’m not, I’m just a massive fan of this particular crypto, it’s the least shady crypto I have ever encountered. I often try to help people because I can, I do communicate with other core members of the community including Jared and other developers, so I’m sometimes in a position to be able to answer some of the questions people ask.  I contribute to some community projects, it’s all completely voluntary and at my own expense, I don’t need to do any of it but I choose to. I mine DigiByte because its an important necessary feature. I keep a core wallet online practically 24/7, it’s called a full node and supports the network. My bags are not so big, that I couldn’t completely walk away from it at a moment’s notice, they are just large enough to be substantial if this project gets anywhere near its potential and it is nowhere near but if on the other hand it did completely go south, I wouldn’t feel like I had to kill myself. There is a handful of others like me and we all want the very best for this project but none of these people are actually doing it just for the money as it is certainly not guaranteed. I live in the UK, many people here have already forgotten what a community is and trying to build something better than that on BCT is an arduous and mainly thankless task. I think the banks screwed us and will continue to keep screwing us and this is one way of actively challenging that situation. I’d much prefer to sit back and read the interesting stuff you lot posted instead! 

[MicrosoftMike]

wha t would be a realistic price for this coin in thr futuer?

[luongdk]

wha t would be a realistic price for this coin in thr futuer?

No one know!!

[Jonesd]

I spend so much time on this thread, people sometimes think I’m one of the developers. I’m not, I’m just a massive fan of this particular crypto, it’s the least shady crypto I have ever encountered. I often try to help people because I can, I do communicate with other core members of the community including Jared and other developers, so I’m sometimes in a position to be able to answer some of the questions people ask.  I contribute to some community projects, it’s all completely voluntary and at my own expense, I don’t need to do any of it but I choose to. I mine DigiByte because its an important necessary feature. I keep a core wallet online practically 24/7, it’s called a full node and supports the network. My bags are not so big, that I couldn’t completely walk away from it at a moment’s notice, they are just large enough to be substantial if this project gets anywhere near its potential and it is nowhere near but if on the other hand it did completely go south, I wouldn’t feel like I had to kill myself. There is a handful of others like me and we all want the very best for this project but none of these people are actually doing it just for the money as it is certainly not guaranteed. I live in the UK, many people here have already forgotten what a community is and trying to build something better than that on BCT is an arduous and mainly thankless task. I think the banks screwed us and will continue to keep screwing us and this is one way of actively challenging that situation. I’d much prefer to sit back and read the interesting stuff you lot posted instead! 

You, sir, I like you

Funny that you call it the "least shady coin". Perhaps they should use that as their slogan!

Personally I have been following DGB for a while now and it is one of my top 5 coins. The main two reasons are the innovation of the development team and the community that has people like you on it. If you look at the bitcointalk forum levels of the people in this thread, you can see it is mostly people that have been in crypto for a long while.

One thing that bothers me is the people constantly asking for a prediction of a value for this coin. As many long-term holders know, the short term will be between 20 and 500 sat. The long-term value depends fully on the way mainstream are adopting crypto and how bitcoin will fare. To new users, I can only recommend, try selling some when people are pumping the coin and buy them back at a low price. Never sell all your DGB, because you never know where it will level out.

[bobthenager]

Jumbley - Props to you sir for dealing with this like an adult.

[feendog]

Hi everyone wondered if anybody could help me im trying to get my digibyte wallet to sync and it wont, its now 5 weeks behind any help would be highly appreciated, cheers guys!

[HR]

How are you going to convince any new person into crypto to invest in something thats bringing 3btc worth in circulation daily?

Mining is very important ... This is what will drive the value ... because people will always have coins that they acquired for less ... but there is only so many so the price should creep upwards ...

Do you think you've addressed the question adequately?

The 3 btc is not really relevant ...

Is that an slight of hand disqualification?

Mining does serve its purpose that is not the argument. Its the inflation.

... you should ... you should ... you should ...

After 4-5 lines, again, without addressing the issue, you end with a succession of "you shoulds".

Is it really that difficult to treat things seriously, and people with respect? In this case you might have begun by recognizing that the issue is of long standing concern, and then cite the reasons why the pros have won out over the cons, for example, perhaps by even posting links to those previous conversations. You could also make some of those old comparisons like that with DOGE to underscore the uncertainty regarding whether a cut in total coin supply would really help or not. You could also mention long term M2 money supply comparisons that have been made and are there for the reading . . . In short, the question could be dealt with in a serious and respectful manner.

I understand the need to feel like we have things under control, but life isn't always so kind. Glib and frivolous responses may give a momentary sensation of perfect normality, but long term the result is the opposite. People with serious questions who seek open dabate and interchange of ideas with others are driven away when that discourse is stifled.

Why is so difficult to have real open honest, and, yes, even serious and intelligent discussions on this thread? And you know by now Jumbley, that this question is not limited to you as my "journeys" of the last few weeks have clearly shown that this issue goes right to the top.

Why is it so difficult to stand back and let others engage in conversations instead of always jumping in "to give a final solution" precisely where final solutions often don't exist? And where they do exist, is it so difficult to discuss and give them in an understadable and serious way? From the most highly technical, to the promotional, to the most basic of user usabilty?

Since I have also discovered that things need to be dealt with clearly and one at a time, please treat all my rhetorical questions and examples as something used to support the need to formulate this main question: The idea behind a community bulletin board like this is to promote interaction in a professional and serious manner that inspires confidence, and not cut it off with frivolousness (magic knights might be a good way to explain things to young children, but it doesn't have the same effect with adults), to engage people, and not to alienate, don't you agree?

BTW, that's a yes/no question too.

Like I've said, very few will insist like I have - most will immediately desist.

[ghostycc]

You are painful.
Both of you. And this community doesn't need a drama.
You're both not professional. Explain yourself in private.
No one really care anymore about your debate.

[luongdk]

There is no longer any debate ghostycc, I will no longer reply to any of his communication.

So I won't ignore you again

[24hralttrade]

How are you going to convince any new person into crypto to invest in something thats bringing 3btc worth in circulation daily?

Mining is very important ... This is what will drive the value ... because people will always have coins that they acquired for less ... but there is only so many so the price should creep upwards ...

Do you think you've addressed the question adequately?

The 3 btc is not really relevant ...

Is that an slight of hand disqualification?

Mining does serve its purpose that is not the argument. Its the inflation.

... you should ... you should ... you should ...

After 4-5 lines, again, without addressing the issue, you end with a succession of "you shoulds".

Is it really that difficult to treat things seriously, and people with respect? In this case you might have begun by recognizing that the issue is of long standing concern, and then cite the reasons why the pros have won out over the cons, for example, perhaps by even posting links to those previous conversations. You could also make some of those old comparisons like that with DOGE to underscore the uncertainty regarding whether a cut in total coin supply would really help or not. You could also mention long term M2 money supply comparisons that have been made and are there for the reading . . . In short, the question could be dealt with in a serious and respectful manner.

I understand the need to feel like we have things under control, but life isn't always so kind. Glib and frivolous responses may give a momentary sensation of perfect normality, but long term the result is the opposite. People with serious questions who seek open dabate and interchange of ideas with others are driven away when that discourse is stifled.

Why is so difficult to have real open honest, and, yes, even serious and intelligent discussions on this thread? And you know by now Jumbley, that this question is not limited to you as my "journeys" of the last few weeks have clearly shown that this issue goes right to the top.

Why is it so difficult to stand back and let others engage in conversations instead of always jumping in "to give a final solution" precisely where final solutions often don't exist? And where they do exist, is it so difficult to discuss and give them in an understadable and serious way? From the most highly technical, to the promotional, to the most basic of user usabilty?

Since I have also discovered that things need to be dealt with clearly and one at a time, please treat all my rhetorical questions and examples as something used to support the need to formulate this main question: The idea behind a community bulletin board like this is to promote interaction in a professional and serious manner that inspires confidence, and not cut it off with frivolousness (magic knights might be a good way to explain things to young children, but it doesn't have the same effect with adults), to engage people, and not to alienate, don't you agree?

BTW, that's a yes/no question too.

Like I've said, very few will insist like I have - most will immediately desist.

1#
"3BTC" worth of Digibyte is getting mined per day, hard to say how much is put on the market on a daily basis but with an average of 60 btc per day across all exchanges i think Digibyte can handle this for now.( my gues is that something like 50% is kept in wallets by supporters.)

2#
It really is not, Explained above

3#
We do not agree with you on everything, Everybody haves his own vision,Thougts and ways of doing things, Cant you accept that?

Why does jumbley need to stand back? Who is giving you the right to say so? You are the same as me,Jumbley,EPLDCC or anyone else in this community and this is not giving you any rights to tell people to GTFO.
We are here to help jared and The digibyte team to make a better future of Digibyte and everyone can do this how he or she wants, Maybe some points are incorrect and needs to be changed, Maybe some points do not fully agree on your hard data. Or maybe your hard data is not 100% correct?

Again, im not talking about who wrong or who is right. I just want to be clear that everybody is welcome in this community, even If he or she agrees with you/me/others or not.
And no, im not picking sides like you said i do in private before, I just want everybody to go along with eachother and have healthy/normal discussions on the forums AND in private.

You have been very hard to all of us in private chats, And yes, maybe You are right on some points but do we all need to fully agree on everything? Dont we have anything to say or think? Or do you want us all to go your way of thinking,working or anything else you dont like?

I'm getting sick of this bitchfight, Getting sick of reading 7 pm's per day about you making your point and really kicking Jumbley, and EPLDCC in the nuts for having theire own thoughts and vision and way of doing things.

Does it really needs to go this way? Really?

Because why do you bother so hard if you already stated to us you want to leave?

[bitkapp]

You are painful.
Both of you. And this community doesn't need a drama.
You're both not professional. Explain yourself in private.
No one really care anymore about your debate.

Lol I know, its getting so old...

[HR]

Instead of wasting time with excuses and looking for someone else to blame, why not just quit your whining, grow up, and get on with doing a better job of creating community?

Or does that sound too negative for you?

Edit: A little honesty might not do you any harm either.