We announced that the first block was a test run.
My point exactly. Your first block. You have, now, a genesis. Your coin is alive and kicking, please present to us your genesis block so that we may validate it as a legitimate block and, more importantly, so that we might know what the second block might look like. Until you can do this, your chain is "stalled" as they say, no?
Now, what you are saying is ask us to show you the finished product when we JUST did the first test. Our "Coin" has launched, but the "site" has still not.
The crux of the matter. You've launched the product, but have no product. You now have peoples' money, and seemingly no chain to show for it.
You did the "first test" but only you can know it. You can't show the results of that test. You don't have a genesis block, but are claiming you do.
Either start presenting a proof over an actual genesis block (or at least how such a proof will be structured - we'll certainly accept a working wallet with testnet only, heh) or start admitting that Prozcoin is unproven vapor, and that you have no working implementation of something that could rightly be labelled "Proof of Action." :|
I think people are confused that we are "just" an altcoin. The currency of "Prozcoin" will function as the main currency of reward within the Coin Proz infrastructure, as we already have partners/merchants that accept the coin for services/goods, but even further the entire point of this project is "mass adoption of cryptocurrency", not "having Prozcoin replace bitcoin". Our goals are completely different than those of most of the coins on the market, so when you look at "Prozcoin" as an isolated entity, you are missing a much larger part of the point.
The problem is with Prozcoin as an isolated entity. The problem is it is purportedly a cryptocurrency that we now own some of, but it does not apparently function as described. There's no indication given yet that it is even actually a cryptocurrency at all. How are we to know that we didn't just buy some sort of fantasy PPUSD-alike? We bought the thing and you have our money, now we need to know if it actually does what it says on the tin.
As far as you keep asking to verify the "proof", when the website is finished, the "user response" will be the metric for the Proof of Action, and will all be publicly trackable/verifiable. At this point however, the ONLY way to actually be able to prove the validity of users "today" would be to give you their e-mail addresses, and that is not going to happen.
This would further imply that your "first block" is not actually a block at all, will not be a part of our chain, and that no proof is yet structured. This seems problematic.
We have stated multiple times that the test run is absolutely not representative of the final model, and many aspects of our "final model" have not been anywhere near revealed yet.
This is contradictory. You can't claim a "first block" is proven when it is entirely unrelated to your chain or proving things. We need to see a "genesis block for real" revealed before you can legitimately assert that any meaningful test of "PoA" was done.
We have been EXTREMELY careful to not make announcements about anything that has not been finalized, and this first PoA block was "proof of concept", as that is the first time this has been executed.
This "block" did not prove the right right concepts, though. Your concept is still unproven. You have no proof of proof-of-action.
If we had started PoA
You didn't.
and saw little to no response,
We can't know what response you actually saw.
even if the algorithm was sound, the actual "proof" is the "activity" and that would have been a failure. Since we initiated the first PoA block and saw a tremendous response on all social media platforms, we NOW how the proof that our concept works,
Yet you can't seem to share this proof in any significant way. If you hold a proof that only you can verify, does it really stand as a proof? What does it prove, and to whom?
Surely you understand not only the notion of proof, but of peer review. It is time to start giving up your materials for review. Put your money where your mouth is, pun fully well intended.
and further development in that direction is now justified.
Further development is obviously necessary. Can we have some indication of prior development and some details of that further development? Anything related to an actual implementation would be particularly reassuring to your investors, I'm sure.
