Quote from: ShiftConnect on July 18, 2016, 06:52:13 PM

Quote from: cbux on July 18, 2016, 03:31:05 PM

Quote from: psyx80 on July 18, 2016, 05:56:19 AM

Quote from: Atomjuice on July 18, 2016, 04:24:14 AM

dumped your coin...no support...sorry...was a good idea, just undisciplined and losing hashpower and getting delisted at markets...pity...

this is called manipulation of the market, that this was not the community up to the market to participate actively, creating support costs and do not just stand on the price of 1000 Satoshi, but to raise the purchase price and buy out the volume at the keypad, thereby reducing its impact on the market, and distribute it assets, it was impossible to make a big dumping. This should be dealt with, and the development team, which should be a money manager, not just programmers. otherwise, we will always see what one person will always push the market and do not give him to grow up in value.

Isn't the whole point of crypto to be trust less and believe in the math?? What you suggest is no different than the fiat model and the Fed. It's already concerning that the dev team made a significant change, especially without community consent, and we're seeing the consequences. Changing the block reward, which changes the inflation, is exactly what the Fed tries to do by changing interest rates to increase or decrease inflation. In my eyes this move was unforgivable.

In an ideal world it should be, but the reality is different. While you want a natural price discovery, each and every market depends on liquidity providers. This is the case for every trading commodity, whether it is Bitcoin, Dollar, Corn, Gold or SHIFT.

There are two sides to a cryptocurrency: miners and investors. While miners secure the blockchain and process transactions, investors buy, hold and sell. High inflation unfairly rewards miners who create constant sell pressure, high deflation eventually leads to an unsecured network if supply outweighs demand. Neither inflationary nor deflationary currencies are worth striving for, the middle ground is. The decision wasn't easy but in retrospect we have been incredibly rewarding for miners ever since the V1 launch and had to adjust our model to give credit to speculative investors.

If you look at the 600+ currencies listed on Coinmarketcap, you cannot say that even 1 is truly 100% decentralized, not even Bitcoin. Is hosting our downloads on GitHub centralization? Are 5 developers, marketers and designers managing this coin centralization? Is our sole correspondence in a Slack group centralization? The answer to all is yes. But that is a necessity to develop SHIFT and provide the best service to our community that we can.

However, we do not advertise SHIFT as a decentralized currency with only the little most necessary form of governance. Our intention will always be to bring the brightest minds into our team to make the best decisions we agree on to bring to live our flagship product: a decentralized, uncensored, immutable and distributed network to host content for every person on this globe.

And that is a sensitive process which will always need adjustment and interference from the team. But it will always be to the highest and most honorable standards with the pure intention to deliver an unrivaled, groundbreaking product everyone can benefit from, miners as well as speculators as well as users.

Thank you, I always appreciate your input. I understand, even if I don't agree completely. The network hash rate has dropped by more than 60%. Even with fewer miners online, I am only seeing 1/3 of the mining payouts I was previously receiving and am not sure how much longer I can keep my miners running on Shift. (btw, I did figure out my second miner and did get it online.) I guess, in the end, the market forces balance out. There are likely more miners online than there are transactions happening right now, which is why the difficulty rate continues to jump.