- What do you expect?
- What do you need?
- What you experience, and what's your relationship with myrdiacoin?
- What are the risks when it comes to the same hard fork and changing the code base for ltc
To be fair to Ahmed, answers to all these questions are readily available (I know, because I have availed myself of them).
Here I am waiting to speak gjhiggins, a person deemed to be involved in the very recent advances q2c.
I have already made a recommendation that Qubitcoin users/miners accept Ahmed's offer (the alternative is to drum up enough resources to commission him to implement it at some later date). My assessment was based on the economic and technical pressures on Qubitcoin. They haven't changed, nor has the recommendation.
Apologies for not responding to your PM. At the moment, I am necessarily totally focused on revenue and the unfortunate fact is that a single day's pay for contract work, if exchanged for Qubitcoin, would catapult me to the upper ranks of the rich list. The inescapable fact is that I simply can no longer afford to devote significant amounts of time to developing Qubitcoin.
But this is to Qubitcoin's ultimate benefit, it's a p2p network and that's how it was designed to work, not merely be a charitable hobby project for some fortunately well-resourced individual.
I stepped into what I consider to be a temporary breach; a krecu returning with hair-raising tales of everyday life in a war zone would be welcomed with open arms. Go on, tell me I'm wrong, I dare ya --- see, there
is a genuine sense of community but it needs nurturing.
The
real onus is on the Quibitcoin-owning community to operate as a thriving p2p network. I have made a number of contributions in an attempt to sustain interest in the interim and they have indeed apparently been well-received. Qubitcoin does still seem to have some potential but the community is undecided on how to proceed.
I originally misperceived this inertia as a simple variant of “bystander apathy” but after looking more closely I now realise it is more deep-seated and pragmatic in its origins and I suspect it's shared by nearly all similar altcoins.
(This isn't the appropriate forum for a detailed explanation of the social psychology of online groups of investors and providing a trivial description of the issues would necessarily oversimplify things and would risk triggering profoundly damaging misperceptions.)I strongly suggested that someone, anyone, organise a vote. Nothing happened. We Brits have a saying: “You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink” and it is very pertinent in this case.
Stability deriving from inaction-by-default is a feature that's explicitly wired in to the fundamentals of the bitcoin protocol. It is how it is supposed to work. Granted, it may not necessarily be working to Qubitcoin users'/miners' long-term interests in this particular case but that's just my opinion and ... as I have noted previously ... I have no skin in the game and thus not in a position to gainsay the opinions of those who do.
tl;dr bearing in mind that advice is worth what you pay for it: either take Ahmed's offer or get yourselves sorted out for ponying up enough $$ (
not Q2C) to support the hash rate later if that turns out to be an issue. It's all about gaining personal advantage from incisive and accurate risk assessment --- that's what brings y'all here, right?
Cheers
Graham
