Red flags here..
Does charity really need to have blockchain tech?
I fully support charity but it is sad to see that only 10% will be donated. Why don't the devs just ask for donations and donate it to orphans?? Because this is a money making scheme for the dev and he is using "charity" as a front. So unethical.
Does charity really need to have blockchain tech?
I fully support charity but it is sad to see that only 10% will be donated. Why don't the devs just ask for donations and donate it to orphans?? Because this is a money making scheme for the dev and he is using "charity" as a front. So unethical.
So explain to us how this is a money making venture for the dev if there is no premine and no ico. Any coins the dev gets he has to buy or mine himself.
So why is the dev working for free then? Why would anyone work for free? Well I guess he is a good christian and he wants to help people like Jesus showed us.
. Im also going to write the pool and run one of the pools for free (on a side note, running a pool will probably cost about $50 a month + code maintenance, because it appears its going to have a lot of chatter between the server and the 250 or so miners).As far as taking the miner out of the wallet, I think its important to compensate the full nodes with the block subsidy and not become the next hardware energy wasting network- its our chance to be more efficient. If each node costs $20 a month in electric, then the subsidies will float around $20 a month in return for running a node (in contrast to paying miners with black boxes who have no intention to run a full node). The full node is important to broadcast blocks and keep the network running. As far as 'its just a matter of time' before someone ports it, I think we do have the capability to restrict the miner to a full node by at the very minimum requiring it to do diskindex lookups on things from the hash function, things that cannot be ascertained by black boxes. Over time this type of network should provide more value to each coin.