Quote from: enlightened on May 16, 2016, 11:11:03 AM

Quote from: ranlo on May 16, 2016, 05:32:41 AM

And with all of that, on to the RAWX topic. @Enlightened, are current FEE holders going to be invited to the closed beta?

Yes, all FEE holders qualify to take part in the closed beta.

Awesome to hear. Looking forward to seeing it in action! Can you also shed some light on how the FEEs will work? Like will it be the same as before, paying the appropriate portion of ALL coins every 6h, or how is it being changed?

Quote from: prospecta on May 17, 2016, 06:37:46 AM

Quote from: enlightened on May 10, 2016, 02:03:21 PM

Quote from: Spoetnik on May 10, 2016, 01:26:44 PM

mcxNOW did not shut down with a good reputation contrary to your claims.
it left a sour taste in many mouths..

Mind to elaborate?

You really don't know? Or are you just pretending not to know?

RS was very rarely present in the final months, when DOGE was due to fork from v1.7 to v1.8 he was warned multiple times of upcoming fork in chat and chose to ignore it. He then went AWOL for 2 weeks.

In this period, DOGE forked, this allowed users to mine the v1.7 at next to no difficulty and transfer them all to mcxNOW to dump on unsuspecting noobs who though it was real DOGE and people with bots running.

Even better, an epic fuck up with the way the fork was done meant you could actually withdraw DOGE on the v1.8, whilst depositing to credit your balance with v1.7's.

It was a spectacular shitstorm and after it unfolded RS threw his toys out of the cot and shut down. Technically mcxNOW was indeed hacked IMO.

How do I know all this...well I mined some v1.7's didn't I.

Do not trust this exchange, stay far far away.

Also I must point out mcxNOW was fast in 2014, but by modern exchange standards it would be nothing special.

To touch on the DOGE situation, I can confirm what you've said is true (at least in terms of the forking happening, and there being ample time prior for it to be updated on his end). "Hacked" isn't the proper word, though... it's more like negligence. And in this case, it was indeed costly. I was lucky in that I wasn't affected by the situation. And I believe this is when he did the haircut, correct? I know a couple users volunteered decent sums to help cover losses, but the entire situation was a pretty dark one (I remember being highly against a haircut, even though it wouldn't affect me, just on the basis of principle).