Quote from: enkayz on July 08, 2017, 11:54:10 AM

Quote from: aliashraf on July 08, 2017, 10:12:51 AM

Glad seeing you so patient and honest

I do believe in you as a honest guy and I understand you have improved through last few years both technically and mentally, but I see you just have not graduated yet as your arguments above are based on your immature idea about this coin being 'your company'. It is not yours dude, a crypto-coin ecosystem does not 'belong' to its devs, it is why Satoshi just disappeared, bitcoin wasn't and is not his asset, and yet he is Satoshi the inventor and the implementor of bitcoin!

Anyway, I'm looking for a solution and a compromise to save your project, why?

1- Scam coins will hurt the whole thing and make it very hard if not impossible for true new projects and ideas to emerge.

2- I appreciate your motivations and hard work.

3- I think modifying bitcoin's core protocol (name it Satoshi core) is a very good and necessary job, considering the current situation of the original version and its blockchain( hashing algorithm literally being 'cracked' by ASIC, scaling problem that needs forking, ... )

4- ...

Now that you do not agree with my proposal about redoing premined stuff, just divide your (10%) coins and put them on a handful of contracts, which are designed to release them in a very safe manner, say 5% being never released, and the remaining takes say 10 years to release as below

1- keep 1% in your wallet.

2- release 2% after 1 year

3- release 1% in year #2

4- release 0.5% in year #3

and so on ...

See? I'm just translating your promise about not dumping into smart contracts language. Do it and wash your hands forever. Wink

P.S. Another important weakness is the obvious lack of a white paper (or I just overlooked something?). It is very crucial to convince people about not only this or that new feature, but the absolute necessity of introducing a new coin, IMO.

I wouldn't classify this as 'scam coin'. If your definition of a 'scam coin' is just a coin with a pre-mine, then some of the biggest coins on the market are way scammier than DNR. There are even coins that have some % of block rewards being given to a devs directly, is that a scam coin too? To me, a scam coin is one where they have a roadmap and a whitepaper but nothing real to show for it. People buy into the coins because they have a professional looking presentation, and then BAM the market gets dumped on and all the value is gone, then the devs make a run for it. I have seen more than a few of these projects lately. The whitepapers are barely original, the presentation is marketing 101 and the dev project on github has a single commit from a new user. THOSE are the scam coins IMHO.

1- I didn;t classify 'this coin' as a scam. I'm just giving my advise to prevent a catastrophic resonance which can transform it into a scam.

2- Ethereum had many factors when it was first started like a revolutionary and ambitious idea and a corporate like investment and establishment,
Zcash was pioneer in anonymity and it has not finished his mission and is not likely to do that and more importantly things have changed radically
in the last couple of years and while premined coins have always been a very bad idea, these days they can lead projects to the hell very easily.
3- A whitepaper is worth investment and it is not a scam to run a crowd funding event for an idea ... to which century do you belong? It is 21st.

Quote

In regard to the premine, maybe read the OP clearer, the 10% premine is 5% for dev funds and 5% for bounty/marketing. If you check the block explorer you can see that over 30% of the premine has been bountied out (325k coins into the market). Currently the dev wallet holds 60% of the coins but it's only been a week, next week there will be less than 50% of the coins in the dev wallet. Carsen has paid out pretty decent bounties and continues to give the funds to other people.

check your math 100 -30 = 70 what happened to other 10? Bountied or not it has gone now and has dropped the price up to 40% and it will continue to do so and once people get sick they will abandon the coin, trade volume and mining rate will decrease and the resonance will do the rest with the help of the Damocles sword of the coins owned by a dev who has plans to compensate his work and has hired himself as a full time CEO of an imaginary corporate which is going to sink deep!

The only chance, a little but a real one, is to assure miners and traders that there will be no more dumping out there and they can build their own coin together without the fair of the sword and the risk that Carsen may or may not ruin everything they have made by devoting their resources to this project.

Quote

I agree that it may be useful to some to see the dev funds (5% of the supply) released to the market on a schedule. The platform does not contain smart contracts, this is not Ethereum, it is a Bitcoin Core base and that means it's simple and effective. Satoshi himself could come back tomorrow and dump his supply and even this far into the project it would be an issue. Essentially you have to consider that as a developer, you don't want to kill the goose that lays the golden egg (to borrow a phrase) because I believe like any responsible developer, Carsen understands that you can make a lot more money if you liquidate your asset slowly rather than selling out the entire book and end up selling your coins for less than you could have done so slowly.

It is not about Carsen being smart or not, it is about how much he can take the responsibility of the ship he has announced himself as its captain? Is it so difficult to understand or you are just arguing to fulfill your interests?

oh ... you are wrong the protocol can definitively support contracts (not necessarily smart) and my proposal about blocking the coins is practical and once Carsen accepted the basic idea I'm here to show how Wink