Quote from: RivAngE on June 04, 2018, 10:44:17 AM

Quote from: teamjk on June 04, 2018, 10:14:55 AM

wouldn't like to be mean, but i have to comment that this show must end one way or another

so many coins changed algo succesfully with minimal issues.
yesterday AEON forked and all went smoothly, at least from what i understand.

can't really think of anything else than a suggestion to ETN team to hire devs to do the job. It is so obvious that there is incompetence in there.
If ETN want to do something more than to have the luck of a failed coin initiative, then they will need to take action now, still it might already too late.

(little hodler of ETN till the death of the coin)

I'd like to share my point of view regarding the comparison with other coins and since you mention the AEON...

AEON has an average of 30,000$ daily volume vs 500,000$ ETN's volume.
AEON has an averege of 0.8 MH/s after their fork vs ETN's 45.5 MH/s.

So from the above two points, we can conclude that these two coins don't have the same strain put on their networks from users. It's easier to upgrade a network that has 10 transactions in the mempool than a network with 10,000.

AEON was released June 06, 2014 vs ETN's October 30, 2017.

So not the same amount of time to stabilize their development.

The ETN changed a part of the code which (as far as I know) no other Cryptonight coin has changed. This led us to uncharted areas and caused some short-term problems with the many pendings transactions which were created before the code change. (More technical details on that can be found on a post few places before that)

[/list][/color]

in any case no offense here and i am doing the critism in good faith.

beyond the problem with the pending transactions , I suppose the difficulty adjustment could be copied from other coin migrations to new algo. It wouldn't hurt.

lept's hope for the best, keep trying to resolve the issues