Quote from: Nullu on January 06, 2014, 02:44:13 AM

I don't see how this could have been avoided. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but the coin was suffering a slow death due to a ridiculous difficulty wall that we would have never climbed had the fork not taken place. The coin was already at 0.0005 just before the fork. Now it's at 0.00033. It was bound to drop due to the next dump.

we should have taken a week to talk about it, and had plans in place to keep all of the pools in step. 2 days, as Janos0666 pointed out, was not long enough time to address some major concerns about the fork.

even i'm now agreeing the fork was ultimately necessary. what i am disagreeing with is how quickly it occurred. No foresight was needed for this observation of unease from a silent majority. if we had even taken 5 days to discuss options and make plans we'd have been better off. we lost a few very loyal supporters simply becuase we moved fast for no obvious benefit.

Quote from: Nullu on January 06, 2014, 02:44:13 AM

Catcoin's in a harsh environment indeed.

In such a harsh environment, catcoin can't make missteps. This is why many of us suggested putting the brakes on before the fork, to talk about everything. you claim everything comes in hindsight, but no hindsight is needed to anticipate the organisation needed to make the first fork run smoothly.

e.g.

Quote from: etblvu1 on January 02, 2014, 10:21:10 PM

Quote from: vondi1122 on January 02, 2014, 10:10:04 PM

Ok, we also need protection against gigahash pools jumping in at low difficulties, how can this be done?

We need to put major hashing power into the Catcoin network, right before the difficulty adjustment takes place. I don't know the technical details, but I imagine if we purchase hashing power an estimated 24 hours before the change in difficulty is to occur, it should moderate the adjustment downward, and prevent it from going into miner-dumper bait territory. Also, making the next difficulty adjustment modest, should in turn cause the difficulty adjustment after that to be modest, too, and we may go a long way towards stabilizing the coin, at least until the value goes up significantly.

Anyone have more technical information on at what time interval the measurement is taken, that the difficulty adjustment is based on? And good resources to buy temporary raw hashing power?

you yourself asked before the fork about mitigation strategies for the difficulty change, and etblvu1 responded with a proactive solution.

little hindsight is needed when you stated the problem, and someone provided the solution. unfortunately, there was noone to corral the pools, the difficulty slammed down, and the fork was split becuase of a 51% winner-fucks-all inter-hashpool competition.

this was just one aspect of the fork that we thought through ahead of time. we should have been marching in step.

Quote from: Nullu on January 06, 2014, 02:44:13 AM

The news just broke today that the coingen site that allows you to make altcoins easily was made by a bitcoin developer.

that's hardly news at all. And i provided the guys name the same day coingen was released, right in this thread. (it was the URL).

Additionally, the researchers most able to write the software for coingen would probably be someone from the crypto community. no surprise there either.

I have absolutely no care to have an us vs. them, bitcoin vs. altcoin rivalry. I own both, but i could give a shit if a single altcoin, or all altcoin fail because someone decided to write some software. the code has always been open, and this requires little foresight or imagination what it would eventually lead to.

just like the auto-switching pools, the coingen site is merely moving the natural process of cryptocurrency along a little faster, nothing more. this too shall pass, but a bitter fait awaits the person who decides to fight the incoming tide.