[ANN][MAST] MastCoin | CoinRecycler | Bittrex

[cryptomass]

I talked on irc with dev time ago and i can vouch for them.
that's why i'm still holding too... and thanks to all who have sold me MAST at this low price lately.
look forward to help when august is over.
mass

[1715652613]

1715652613

[1715652613]

1715652613

[1715652613]

1715652613

[tabali tigi]

So I just stumbled upon this:

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/#!/content/1.2724802

"Robert Campbell of Ottawa faces 181 international cyberbullying chargesCharges against Robert Campbell, 42, include identity fraud, libel, criminal harassment"

"Campbell is facing:

27 counts of criminal harassment.
85 counts of defamation libel.
69 counts of identity fraud."

What is currently known as "FUDDING" in the cryptocurrency community is VERY quickly becoming something that could possibly be a punishable offense in some countries.  Now, in the spirit of decentralization, I feel it relevant to request that if a community has a problem with a developer, resorting to panic reactions and instantaneous declaration of possibilities as facts not only represents a chaotic and irresponsible action, but in some cases those responses MAY be considered "illegal" by authorities who have zero interest in seeing cryptocurrency thrive.  I have seen other coins have "proof of developer", and I believe that is something that will become more and more necessary to make sure there are no scam coins.  Now, you also have people who want "Tor network anonymity" built into their wallets, but they also want to know the home address and the blood type of the person building the wallet.  I think it's rational to discuss what could be a good metric to balance the community need to see developer activity, and the developer need to not have people threatening to impose physical harm upon their person because they aren't returning a text message every two hours.

Please, this is the perfect opportunity for people to voice their opinions on how to create a good "Proof of Developer" addition for the future of Mast.

Chris

[seattletu]

that's some next level shit, i have no idea how it works though.

[AltxF4]

You know the more I have been thinking about what happened with Mast, the more I am coming to realize it was pretty much 3 people that worked to destroy this coin.
This was my first coin I got involved in, and if I knew what I now know... I could have worked better to support the Mast team and deflect the fud from that small group. Nobody but that group were fudding Mast in social Media, so overall the coin is still in good standing. I have seen trends from coins that came back from crap like this. I may have said things out of frustration, but my frustration was nothing compared to what I bet the Devs were dealing with.

If Mast Devs continue work, they have my full support. I know we can come back!

[tabali tigi]

You know the more I have been thinking about what happened with Mast, the more I am coming to realize it was pretty much 3 people that worked to destroy this coin.
This was my first coin I got involved in, and if I knew what I now know... I could have worked better to support the Mast team and deflect the fud from that small group. Nobody but that group were fudding Mast in social Media, so overall the coin is still in good standing. I have seen trends from coins that came back from crap like this. I may have said things out of frustration, but my frustration was nothing compared to what I bet the Devs were dealing with.

If Mast Devs continue work, they have my full support. I know we can come back!

Better to go through this sooner than later, as it is an inevitable part of having a decentralized organization.  The community had formed, and the community was given a chance to save the coin by showing support for the developers.  People have spoken up, and the developers had long term projects lined up already, which they had informed the community about.  At this point, I think it's pretty clear that plenty of people support the developers and want to see them do something great. 

To the point I was thinking on the proof of developer could have a counterbalance of proof of development. 

So, for example, if there is a protocol where it goes something like this:

If the Tor wallet integration is the next phase of development, the developers would put in a request to the POD system for X btc worth of project funding.  So, say for example it's 10 bitcoin to be simple.

If it's 10 bitcoin, the developers and community could decide on a number of checkpoints

At every checkpoint of development, the coin that was put into the community reserve to go to the developer could be sent to the dev wallet, and the dev could send proof of development to either a system check or an ombudsperson to keep the developer anonymity and third party check as a "witness" whether human or system based.

That is an easy way to have development transparency, but not have to force the developer to give up anonymity if they don't want to.

Chris

[DogeGotMeIntoCrypto]

You know the more I have been thinking about what happened with Mast, the more I am coming to realize it was pretty much 3 people that worked to destroy this coin.
This was my first coin I got involved in, and if I knew what I now know... I could have worked better to support the Mast team and deflect the fud from that small group. Nobody but that group were fudding Mast in social Media, so overall the coin is still in good standing. I have seen trends from coins that came back from crap like this. I may have said things out of frustration, but my frustration was nothing compared to what I bet the Devs were dealing with.

If Mast Devs continue work, they have my full support. I know we can come back!

Better to go through this sooner than later, as it is an inevitable part of having a decentralized organization.  The community had formed, and the community was given a chance to save the coin by showing support for the developers.  People have spoken up, and the developers had long term projects lined up already, which they had informed the community about.  At this point, I think it's pretty clear that plenty of people support the developers and want to see them do something great. 

To the point I was thinking on the proof of developer could have a counterbalance of proof of development. 

So, for example, if there is a protocol where it goes something like this:

If the Tor wallet integration is the next phase of development, the developers would put in a request to the POD system for X btc worth of project funding.  So, say for example it's 10 bitcoin to be simple.

If it's 10 bitcoin, the developers and community could decide on a number of checkpoints

At every checkpoint of development, the coin that was put into the community reserve to go to the developer could be sent to the dev wallet, and the dev could send proof of development to either a system check or an ombudsperson to keep the developer anonymity and third party check as a "witness" whether human or system based.

That is an easy way to have development transparency, but not have to force the developer to give up anonymity if they don't want to.

Chris

I guess it's about time to ask people what they think about the idea of a side-mine?  1% goes to Devs for developing as payment to be payed out every block mined, and maybe 1% to another address for bounties to incentivise others to develop the community/ecosystem as well.  Dev's would be encouraged to keep prices up with future developments because then their 1% side-mine is worth more BTC.  I like this idea for one and would love to see it integrated if possible.  Everyone wins system.

[seattletu]

i'm okay with a new mine phase as long as they are from the stake allocated coins. diluting is irresponsible and sends the wrong message IMO

[DogeGotMeIntoCrypto]

i'm okay with a new mine phase as long as they are from the stake allocated coins. diluting is irresponsible and sends the wrong message IMO

I'm not saying a new POW phase, just incorporate it into the POS system

[AltxF4]

I like that POD idea. that way developers know that their work will be rewarded, and a scam dev can't just run off with the community support funds.

[DogeGotMeIntoCrypto]

I like that POD idea. that way developers know that their work will be rewarded, and a scam dev can't just run off with the community support funds.

Also encourages them to drive for an increase in price 

[Enthef420]

I like that POD idea. that way developers know that their work will be rewarded, and a scam dev can't just run off with the community support funds.

Also encourages them to drive for an increase in price 

Better than the POF (Proof of Failure). Which is currently where this coin is operating at. 

[tabali tigi]

I like that POD idea. that way developers know that their work will be rewarded, and a scam dev can't just run off with the community support funds.

Also encourages them to drive for an increase in price 

Better than the POF (Proof of Failure). Which is currently where this coin is operating at. 

If you took all of the energy you put into besmirching the devs and promoted the coin...

[Enthef420]

I like that POD idea. that way developers know that their work will be rewarded, and a scam dev can't just run off with the community support funds.

Also encourages them to drive for an increase in price 

Better than the POF (Proof of Failure). Which is currently where this coin is operating at. 

If you took all of the energy you put into besmirching the devs and promoted the coin...

I'm an investor not a promoter.

[tabali tigi]

I like that POD idea. that way developers know that their work will be rewarded, and a scam dev can't just run off with the community support funds.

Also encourages them to drive for an increase in price  

Better than the POF (Proof of Failure). Which is currently where this coin is operating at.  

If you took all of the energy you put into besmirching the devs and promoted the coin...

I'm an investor not a promoter.

I normally don't invest in things I have only negative feelings about.  I am wondering why so many people "invest" in something and then do nothing but say negative things about it.  


And last time I checked, "investors" usually tried to convince other people to invest if they thought "investing" was a good idea in the first place.  I am not sure everyone has disambiguated the difference between "investing" and "gambling".

Chris

[TheICE007]

well more than likely when the coin first came out, they were positive, and now they are negative since the coin looks dead.

[tabali tigi]

well more than likely when the coin first came out, they were positive, and now they are negative since the coin looks dead.

Does the "coin" look dead, or are people staring at Poloniex all day?  I have been making contact with the developer over the past few days, and as I have stated before, they are still around and working on the next phase of execution.  I am not sure how someone can see what the developers are doing based on the exchange.


Chris

[Jnz]

well more than likely when the coin first came out, they were positive, and now they are negative since the coin looks dead.

Does the "coin" look dead, or are people staring at Poloniex all day?  I have been making contact with the developer over the past few days, and as I have stated before, they are still around and working on the next phase of execution.  I am not sure how someone can see what the developers are doing based on the exchange.


Chris

Well if they can at least come on and say that they are really doing what your saying, because since july 20 they didn't connect, so I don't totally trust what your saying if I don't see the prove. Sorry, mate, but I don't see it as a buy opportunity at this moment.

[tabali tigi]

well more than likely when the coin first came out, they were positive, and now they are negative since the coin looks dead.

Does the "coin" look dead, or are people staring at Poloniex all day?  I have been making contact with the developer over the past few days, and as I have stated before, they are still around and working on the next phase of execution.  I am not sure how someone can see what the developers are doing based on the exchange.


Chris

Well if they can at least come on and say that they are really doing what your saying, because since july 20 they didn't connect, so I don't totally trust what your saying if I don't see the prove. Sorry, mate, but I don't see it as a buy opportunity at this moment.

The whole reason that "I" am coming on to represent them is because there seem to be people coming into the Mastcoin community to disrupt it.  The developers have better things to do than to keep giving people daily updates.  That has been the point of "me" giving people updates.  If you don't "trust" the developers, I have no idea what anyone is doing posting in this thread then.  If you are here to do nothing but talk bad about the developers, then you shouldn't consider yourself an "investor", but should consider yourself a "gambler".  

People who "invest" in something don't turn around and start belittling their investment a month later.

As well, if you thought Mastcoin was a great buy opportunity at "ANY" point, to say it's not a good buy opportunity "now" is just being disingenuous. 

The price is low, the developers are working on the next phase of software, and clearly there are people in the community.  If you can't tell people that "Mastcoin" is a good buy NOW, then you never should have invested in the first place, as NOW is probably one of the best times to support them. 



Chris

[tabali tigi]

This thread was started less than 3 months ago.  Yet some "investors" are prepared to call the entire coin dead. 


I am pretty sure those are called "gamblers", and not "investors".


Chris

[jcarl987]

People who "invest" in something don't turn around and start belittling their investment a month later.

I have no idea why people do this!