[ANN][DASH] Dash (dash.org) | First Self-Funding Self-Governing Crypto Currency

[stilgars]

that usacryptocoins blog is all FUD, it's such a terrible blog with the author posting articles where he doesn't even have all the facts straight.

stop calling FUD people stating the facts
you can circle-jerk all you want about how great is evan, this is again a major failure

There may be a fact or two in the article however the way they are manipulated in the text indicates a sincere effort to spread FUD.  But then again, with all the "circle-jerking" going on, you might not be able to see it.

I'm sure that Bitcointalk has other forums that are "circle-jerk" free.  Maybe you should troll there.

Sorry for being realistic regarding what just happened. If you have basically zero expectation and regard this whole fiasco as normal business, some don't. In most positions, if you botch twice in a row the same thing, you will probably get fired. We can't fire our benevolent dictator, but still raise our concerns and critics on how things are dealt with to prevent this to happen AGAIN AGAIN.

[zombie6]

there are always things you can't account for in a production environment, this seems like a small glitch, well I hope

[GhostPlayer]

So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.

Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time.

ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO.

I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground?
The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks

The fork is failed?  

Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes.

The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks.

The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little mini-harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned, and life back to normal.

 Had DRK a tx time of 10 minutes, nothing like this would have happened.

This is not dangerous at all, but it really really sucks, because miners would loose that reward that got orphaned.
 So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments.

The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink.

It is EXACTLY this type of behaviour that entrusts real investors to a project. Most start-ups start their life at a financial loss. Thats where VC comes in to clean the balance sheet so it survives the "Valley of Death" - often with quirky semi-functional prototypes.

We are way past the "Valley of Death",  just not launched yet. In essence, DRK will only be really launched AFTER being vetted, code reviewed and open-sourced.

[T.Stuart]

So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.

Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time.

ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO.

Estimated time of arrival
He has to leave enough time incase anything else happens. Not saying it will be before then but maybe.

When there is a ETA, the actually release usually takes longer than that.

Not in this latest case it didn't. It was moved forward by one week already.

[stilgars]

So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.

Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time.

ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO.

I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground?
The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks

The fork is failed? 

Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes.

The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks.

The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little min harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned.

This is not dangerous at all, but it really really suck, because miners would loose that reward.
 So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments.

The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink.

Doublespeak at its finest.
The fork has failed since evan made the decision to revert back and cancel the migration for the second time, because of some supposed network instability caused by a bug in the way the consensus is decided. And understating systematically a problem that caused a fall-back procedure and need 2 to 3 weeks of additional testing is not a responsible way of describing things.

[GhostPlayer]

So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.

Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time.

ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO.

I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground?
The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks

The fork is failed?  

Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes.

The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks.

The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little min harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned.

This is not dangerous at all, but it really really suck, because miners would loose that reward.
 So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments.

The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink.

Doublespeak at its finest.
The fork has failed since evan made the decision to revert back and cancel the migration for the second time, because of some supposed network instability caused by a bug in the way the consensus is decided. And understating systematically a problem that caused a fall-back procedure and need 2 to 3 weeks of additional testing is not a responsible way of describing things.

Contrary to what, just let it go and cause mayhem in the mining world? There is no supposed network instability, there WAS network instability. Not a meltdown, just not perfect smooth. That is going to be addressed.

This is not a clone coin my friend. Its real innovation.

[rentahash]

Any software developer knows that iterations and incremental development are necessity!

Please be calm and happy that Evan is being coutios

[atavacron]

that usacryptocoins blog is all FUD, it's such a terrible blog with the author posting articles where he doesn't even have all the facts straight.

stop calling FUD people stating the facts
you can circle-jerk all you want about how great is evan, this is again a major failure

There may be a fact or two in the article however the way they are manipulated in the text indicates a sincere effort to spread FUD.  But then again, with all the "circle-jerking" going on, you might not be able to see it.

I'm sure that Bitcointalk has other forums that are "circle-jerk" free.  Maybe you should troll there.

Sorry for being realistic regarding what just happened. If you have basically zero expectation and regard this whole fiasco as normal business, some don't. In most positions, if you botch twice in a row the same thing, you will probably get fired. We can't fire our benevolent dictator, but still raise our concerns and critics on how things are dealt with to prevent this to happen AGAIN AGAIN.

Don't be sorry little troll.  I have zero expectation that you will understand that this isn't like the Titantic sinking.

I'm curious, to whom would you raise your concerns and critics if you fired our benevolent dictator, as you call him?  The High Troll Counsel?

[stilgars]

So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.

Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time.

ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO.

I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground?
The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks

The fork is failed?  

Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes.

The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks.

The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little min harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned.

This is not dangerous at all, but it really really suck, because miners would loose that reward.
 So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments.

The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink.

Doublespeak at its finest.
The fork has failed since evan made the decision to revert back and cancel the migration for the second time, because of some supposed network instability caused by a bug in the way the consensus is decided. And understating systematically a problem that caused a fall-back procedure and need 2 to 3 weeks of additional testing is not a responsible way of describing things.

Contrary to what, just let it go and cause mayhem in the mining world? There is no supposed network instability, there WAS network instability. Not a meltdown, just not perfect smooth. That is going to be addresses.

This is not a clone coin my friend. Its real innovation

So please don't explain to people it was a remarkable success and the fork did not fail if there was issues and instability, especially since you seem to believe that without this 180 turn, complete mayhem was about to happen. You are completely schizophrenic in the way you describe things.

[stilgars]

that usacryptocoins blog is all FUD, it's such a terrible blog with the author posting articles where he doesn't even have all the facts straight.

stop calling FUD people stating the facts
you can circle-jerk all you want about how great is evan, this is again a major failure

There may be a fact or two in the article however the way they are manipulated in the text indicates a sincere effort to spread FUD.  But then again, with all the "circle-jerking" going on, you might not be able to see it.

I'm sure that Bitcointalk has other forums that are "circle-jerk" free.  Maybe you should troll there.

Sorry for being realistic regarding what just happened. If you have basically zero expectation and regard this whole fiasco as normal business, some don't. In most positions, if you botch twice in a row the same thing, you will probably get fired. We can't fire our benevolent dictator, but still raise our concerns and critics on how things are dealt with to prevent this to happen AGAIN AGAIN.

Don't be sorry little troll.  I have zero expectation that you will understand that this isn't like the Titantic sinking.

I'm curious, to whom would you raise your concerns and critics if you fired our benevolent dictator, as you call him?  The High Troll Counsel?

/ignore

[GhostPlayer]

So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.

Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time.

ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO.

I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground?
The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks

The fork is failed?  

Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes.

The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks.

The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little min harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned.

This is not dangerous at all, but it really really suck, because miners would loose that reward.
 So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments.

The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink.

Doublespeak at its finest.
The fork has failed since evan made the decision to revert back and cancel the migration for the second time, because of some supposed network instability caused by a bug in the way the consensus is decided. And understating systematically a problem that caused a fall-back procedure and need 2 to 3 weeks of additional testing is not a responsible way of describing things.

Contrary to what, just let it go and cause mayhem in the mining world? There is no supposed network instability, there WAS network instability. Not a meltdown, just not perfect smooth. That is going to be addresses.

This is not a clone coin my friend. Its real innovation

So please don't explain to people it was a remarkable success and the fork did not fail if there was issues and instability, especially since you seem to believe that without this 180 turn, complete mayhem was about to happen. You are completely schizophrenic in the way you describe things.

Now you are just being silly and aggressive. Where did I write "remarkable success" ? I just explained exactly what went on.

It was 100% success in proof-of-concept department. Like when you light the first light bulb and say "SUCCESS", but then and unpredicted power-surge blows it out... and no-one even knew about power-surges until that time.

Debate, dont be aggressive. Write something useful.

[vertoe]

This is the biggest open beta of a peer 2 peer software i've ever seen. :-)

[atavacron]

So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.

Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time.

ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO.

I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground?
The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks

The fork is failed? 

Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes.

The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks.

The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little min harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned.

This is not dangerous at all, but it really really suck, because miners would loose that reward.
 So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments.

The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink.

Doublespeak at its finest.
The fork has failed since evan made the decision to revert back and cancel the migration for the second time, because of some supposed network instability caused by a bug in the way the consensus is decided. And understating systematically a problem that caused a fall-back procedure and need 2 to 3 weeks of additional testing is not a responsible way of describing things.

Interesting choice of words my precious little troll.  I realize that, with a forked tongue, it is hard for you to speak coherently.

I do agree with you that 2 to 3 weeks is a very long time in troll years.

[atavacron]

that usacryptocoins blog is all FUD, it's such a terrible blog with the author posting articles where he doesn't even have all the facts straight.

stop calling FUD people stating the facts
you can circle-jerk all you want about how great is evan, this is again a major failure

There may be a fact or two in the article however the way they are manipulated in the text indicates a sincere effort to spread FUD.  But then again, with all the "circle-jerking" going on, you might not be able to see it.

I'm sure that Bitcointalk has other forums that are "circle-jerk" free.  Maybe you should troll there.

Sorry for being realistic regarding what just happened. If you have basically zero expectation and regard this whole fiasco as normal business, some don't. In most positions, if you botch twice in a row the same thing, you will probably get fired. We can't fire our benevolent dictator, but still raise our concerns and critics on how things are dealt with to prevent this to happen AGAIN AGAIN.

Don't be sorry little troll.  I have zero expectation that you will understand that this isn't like the Titantic sinking.

I'm curious, to whom would you raise your concerns and critics if you fired our benevolent dictator, as you call him?  The High Troll Counsel?

/ignore

Oh no.  Now who will join the other trolls in "circle-jerk" of FUD.  I know he's rather fond of them but don't tell him I said so.

So sad, I will miss him 

[splawik21]

So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.

Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time.

ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO.

Estimated time of arrival
He has to leave enough time incase anything else happens. Not saying it will be before then but maybe.

When there is a ETA, the actually release usually takes longer than that.

Not in this latest case it didn't. It was moved forward by one week already.

Wanted to quote it too but you were faster
So RC3 should be 27th. firstly and dont stop to think in other way. Since 27th meaby evan will need 1-2 weeks...sounds better now right?

Guys answer one question for yourselves: if there is quite high possibility that you can retire earlier than the system says, is it worth to invest couple months of earnings to give yourself the opportunity to acchieve it???

[stilgars]

So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.

Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time.

ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO.

I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground?
The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks

The fork is failed?  

Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes.

The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks.

The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little min harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned.

This is not dangerous at all, but it really really suck, because miners would loose that reward.
 So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments.

The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink.

Doublespeak at its finest.
The fork has failed since evan made the decision to revert back and cancel the migration for the second time, because of some supposed network instability caused by a bug in the way the consensus is decided. And understating systematically a problem that caused a fall-back procedure and need 2 to 3 weeks of additional testing is not a responsible way of describing things.

Contrary to what, just let it go and cause mayhem in the mining world? There is no supposed network instability, there WAS network instability. Not a meltdown, just not perfect smooth. That is going to be addresses.

This is not a clone coin my friend. Its real innovation

So please don't explain to people it was a remarkable success and the fork did not fail if there was issues and instability, especially since you seem to believe that without this 180 turn, complete mayhem was about to happen. You are completely schizophrenic in the way you describe things.

Now you are just being silly and aggressive.

It was 100% success in proof-of-concept department. Like when you light the first light bulb and say "SUCCESS", but then and unpredicted power-surge blows it out... and no-one even knew about power-surges until that time.

Debate, dont be aggressive. Write something useful.

I am debatting, not being agressive, and I respect your opinions - but you ARE schizophrenic.
We are not writing scientific papers and debating of the white paper merits here, we need proper execution and implementation.
And the fact that two attempts backfired, and the testnet supposedly intensive testing does not seem able to iron out bugs that manifest themselves within 20 minutes after production launch does concern me.

[CHAOSiTEC]

So the fork failed? No wonder that the price went down. I wasn't there.

Wasn't nearly as bad as last time. Essentially all was working but to get the expected mini-forks pruned more promptly a link between votes and block hashes is needed. They're on the case right now - Evan's ETA 2 to 3 weeks, although it wouldn't surprise me if we see this put in place in a week's time.

ETA 2 - 3 weeks? That's way too long IMO.

I concur - and if we find again some issue at release since testnest looks pretty useless, we should wait again during the next 2-3 weeks and see DRK to the ground?
The rate of adoption of the new RC3 promises to be lower, ppl are tired of mandatory updates every two weeks

The fork is failed?  

Not failed. The problems were very minor, but Evan, being the responsible dev that he is, thought it best to revert back so that there is ZERO issues. Masternodes got payed, just very fluke incident where two block were solved at the exact same time, producing the same hash but with different votes.

The network "forked" ... which is not the real name for it, but lack of a better one.... until the network found consensus and rejected one of them. The netweork then readjusts itelf automatically, creating no real issues, no real side-forks.

The problem is that the consensus took longer than 1 tx time, so in pure mathematical theory, there could be a time where this could happen a few times in a row, and the network have multiple little min harmless forks going on, until the entire network finds consensus again, and "many" blocks get orphaned.

This is not dangerous at all, but it really really suck, because miners would loose that reward.
 So in essence, Evan is taking care of EVERYONE in the network, not only the Masternode payments.

The hard-fork most certainly worked, but since this coin is going to be the gold standard of privacy and anonymity, he pulled back to iron out this kink.

Doublespeak at its finest.
The fork has failed since evan made the decision to revert back and cancel the migration for the second time, because of some supposed network instability caused by a bug in the way the consensus is decided. And understating systematically a problem that caused a fall-back procedure and need 2 to 3 weeks of additional testing is not a responsible way of describing things.

Contrary to what, just let it go and cause mayhem in the mining world? There is no supposed network instability, there WAS network instability. Not a meltdown, just not perfect smooth. That is going to be addresses.

This is not a clone coin my friend. Its real innovation

So please don't explain to people it was a remarkable success and the fork did not fail if there was issues and instability, especially since you seem to believe that without this 180 turn, complete mayhem was about to happen. You are completely schizophrenic in the way you describe things.

Now you are just being silly and aggressive.

It was 100% success in proof-of-concept department. Like when you light the first light bulb and say "SUCCESS", but then and unpredicted power-surge blows it out... and no-one even knew about power-surges until that time.

Debate, dont be aggressive. Write something useful.

I am debatting, not being agressive, and I respect your opinions - but you ARE schizophrenic.
We are not writing scientific papers and debating of the white paper merits here, we need proper execution and implementation.
And the fact that two attempts backfired, and the testnet supposedly intensive testing does not seem able to iron out bugs that manifest themselves within 20 minutes after production launch does concern me.

there is limits to what you can test in testnet, since you do not have access to the large amount of hashing power, and number of clients in a test net scenario. it might have taken months, if not years to see a collision in testnet, while with the hashing power and number of masternodes in main net it only took minutes..

[coinzcoinzcoinz]

My patience is being tested here, but I have full confidence in Evan and his team. It's a road full of hurdles, but in the end Darkcoin will be worth over >$50. I've been holding my 56k DRK since February and I will keep holding no matter what. Go Evan!

We're lucky that all the other anon coins are not thought through (not naming any names).

[GhostPlayer]

I am debatting, not being agressive, and I respect your opinions - but you ARE schizophrenic.
We are not writing scientific papers and debating of the white paper merits here, we need proper execution and implementation.
And the fact that two attempts backfired, and the testnet supposedly intensive testing does not seem able to iron out bugs that manifest themselves within 20 minutes after production launch does concern me.

 Your not being aggressive, yet calling me names. Schizophrenic means, "mind divided" in layman's terms.
 I have my mind in the right place, and have no doubts. You are the one who has doubts. If in doubt, sell your DRKs and move on.

 You're bringing zero productive talk, just liquid verborrea.

 And this is the last troll-cookie I'm throwing at 'ya.

[AlexGR]

The primary buyers / whales of DRK and the largest holders have a different worldview of things compared to the "oh I have 20 DRKs and I call myself an investor" attention-deficit-disorder people.

They have more realistic expectations and are not behaving like ...well.... "stupid people". For the most part, at least those who understand cryptocurrencies, understand that a development plan needs time, effort and even trial & error to get it right. The patience level varies between them as there is no uniformity of what they are willing to accept in terms of delays, but most are quite mature in their approach. Besides, even with the delay, the bump from 10% to 20% ensures that they'll get more than they bargained for.

If you have a testnet and dont get it right the second time, there is no excuse. There were lots of people working hard preparing and deploying masternodes. Its just disappointing. I thougt the Nxt AE would be a tricky one to implement, but they did there homework and it runs smooth. This is getting a million dollar grave.

I don't think anybody is looking for excuses here. Masternode payments are a serious hack to the bitcoin protocol because they add further layers of consensus to the network. We could fork another 2 times and still not get it right - until we actually do. The only people "disappointed" are those who do not realize the size of the task, thinking it's something minor. Newsflash: It's isn't. Calibrate your expectations accordingly.

Prior to the May 25th fork I wrote:

For the bet: I'm not a betting guy anymore.

LOL. If you really believed what you were saying, you would have immediately his DRK under 6$ within 3 weeks' bet.

Darkcoin is not Bitcoin. It's in active development. Its code is changing every day and there have been two hard forks in like 10 days. Something can go wrong with a bug, people can flash-crash it in an instant and a candle might appear at 6$. Why bet* on something like that? The masternode hack in particular can be tricky for it requires changes in stratum + p2pools. It got delayed 2 weeks and it'll still have bugs I believe, that might require extra hard fork.

Prior to yesterday's fork I wrote:

Anyone knows what Evan has been up to lately? If not, my guess is that he is preparing a sick announcement for RC4 tomorrow after hard fork.

Given the path that we followed from alpha-beta etc, usually stuff related to DarkSend were first tested on testnet to check them out for problems... I doubt RC4 will go online straight away as without testing it might break existing functionality. It's a 50mn coin right now, you can't just put large updates without test. But even when it was 1-2mn coin, we still went the testnet route first. So probably we'll first see a call for testing RC4 features, when some of these are ready, and then => RC4 announcement.

As for price, I recommend keeping some cash in reserve to chew panic sellers if something goes wrong. No matter how well tested it is, masternode payments are a big hack to the protocol and they may still present problems. This is not FUD, it's just the way it is regarding such fundamental changes. Let's say the right attitude this time round is "cautiously optimistic".

Am I prophet for writing the above? I just understand what the task is and what to realistically expect.

Anyone thinking that success is 100% guaranteed, is deluded. Even Bitcoin can crash in an instant due to some bug or even fork - without even applying dramatic/fundamental changes. You try your best and hope for the best. If it isn't enough, you try again and again until you succeed. There is no other way. All others are shitting on DRK and then they'll use the same masternode protocol for their own payments, when it's ready. Even Bitcoin might apply something similar to give incentives to node operators as that aspect is not very future-proof.