Quote from: zerodrama on February 04, 2014, 01:17:56 AM

Quote from: SlimePuppy on February 04, 2014, 12:11:47 AM

I promise you, kuroman, that I understand and agree with you 100% that the end result must be code -- but we also feel very strongly that this process should not be limited to only the few here that are fluent in C - everyone should have a voice if they want one.

I can not force anyone to participate in this community or the dev process, but I also cannot and will not accept an environment where anyone that wants to participate is excluded. That doesn't mean we won't again arrive at a time when we have to close the door and start coding - but until that point all comers are welcome.

Quote from: SlimePuppy on February 04, 2014, 12:11:47 AM

I promise you, kuroman, that I understand and agree with you 100% that the end result must be code -- but we also feel very strongly that this process should not be limited to only the few here that are fluent in C - everyone should have a voice if they want one.

I can not force anyone to participate in this community or the dev process, but I also cannot and will not accept an environment where anyone that wants to participate is excluded. That doesn't mean we won't again arrive at a time when we have to close the door and start coding - but until that point all comers are welcome.

Quote from: SlimePuppy on February 04, 2014, 12:11:47 AM

I promise you, kuroman, that I understand and agree with you 100% that the end result must be code -- but we also feel very strongly that this process should not be limited to only the few here that are fluent in C - everyone should have a voice if they want one.

I can not force anyone to participate in this community or the dev process, but I also cannot and will not accept an environment where anyone that wants to participate is excluded. That doesn't mean we won't again arrive at a time when we have to close the door and start coding - but until that point all comers are welcome.

Quote from: SlimePuppy on February 04, 2014, 12:11:47 AM

I promise you, kuroman, that I understand and agree with you 100% that the end result must be code -- but we also feel very strongly that this process should not be limited to only the few here that are fluent in C - everyone should have a voice if they want one.

I can not force anyone to participate in this community or the dev process, but I also cannot and will not accept an environment where anyone that wants to participate is excluded. That doesn't mean we won't again arrive at a time when we have to close the door and start coding - but until that point all comers are welcome.

Quote from: SlimePuppy on February 04, 2014, 12:11:47 AM

I promise you, kuroman, that I understand and agree with you 100% that the end result must be code -- but we also feel very strongly that this process should not be limited to only the few here that are fluent in C - everyone should have a voice if they want one.

I can not force anyone to participate in this community or the dev process, but I also cannot and will not accept an environment where anyone that wants to participate is excluded. That doesn't mean we won't again arrive at a time when we have to close the door and start coding - but until that point all comers are welcome.

Quote from: SlimePuppy on February 04, 2014, 12:11:47 AM

I promise you, kuroman, that I understand and agree with you 100% that the end result must be code -- but we also feel very strongly that this process should not be limited to only the few here that are fluent in C - everyone should have a voice if they want one.

I can not force anyone to participate in this community or the dev process, but I also cannot and will not accept an environment where anyone that wants to participate is excluded. That doesn't mean we won't again arrive at a time when we have to close the door and start coding - but until that point all comers are welcome.

So Zerodrama you are quoting that message because you relate to it right? so you don't understand C or the code behind KGW, you don't understand the math behind it, then why the hell are you complaining about it and how complex it is if you don't know the basics that will allow you to judge it? I remind that in my previous comments i had simple explainations, simple graphs, analysing data, and giving my opinion in simple terms without even using math, I'm not even pushing for the solution I proposed (I proposed 2 in my previous posts if you bothered to read them and I explained why they might work and fix the current issue but they need alot of testing and might introduce problems on their own...ect) and this is the exact reason why I'm rooting for a solution that is proven to work, with the code available and so far you didn't a bring a single argument against it.

Quote from: SlimePuppy on February 04, 2014, 12:11:47 AM

Quote from: kuroman on February 03, 2014, 10:29:17 PM

Quote from: SlimePuppy on February 03, 2014, 08:50:37 PM

Kuroman, I like the analysis you've provided in the past. I understand what you're saying about our cycles here and think I can help build a bridge between you and Mav. It's important, first, to remember that this fork was not intended to be a 100% solution. It could have been with a bit more time (or less wasted time dealing with trolls) but we didn't have the time available. This is designed to get us moving and to make sure we never got stuck too high or too low again. As Mav has said multiple times in various venues, this is at best an 80% solution. We CAN stay here for months and ride the waves - we'll be alive, we'll be attracting enough miners, and end-users can actually start using the coin. This gives us a working platform the PR team can work from - and they're kicking ass!

Yes - we can and will do better! And now, because of this fork, we have plenty of time to create a 100% solution without having a gun to our heads.

A quick additional comment - we know from our testnet work that this algo WILL converge and stabilize. We didn't have that before. Wink

Also - keep in mind that in conjunction with this fork we also got a significant endorsement from the Oprah Winfrey empire - I'll guarantee you that we didn't see that coming. Cheesy

I hope you and envy will continue to work towards the long-term goal of getting CAT to Mars. Cool

Andy

Andy thank you for your comment, the fact is the 12% limite is supposed to make the diff converge indeed, but that is under some strict conditions such as, fix hashrate jumps, the jump of hash rate is made when the block time is 600s ....ect which is definitly not the case not to mention that the SMA36 makes everything goes beserk and due to other variables it is countering the convergence from the 12% limite.

I agree with you - and I think you can see from Maverick's post that he does as well. That is why we are beginning another phase of improvement - and we are very thankful that we have the time available to us - time we would not have without this fork. This is a real-world reminder that the outside world does not always mirror a simulation. Wink

Quote from: kuroman on February 03, 2014, 10:29:17 PM

NB: this is why I didn't want to join the catcoin-dev channel discussion despite being present and folowing what happening there, people are blankly dismissing other people ideas, I saw some heated discussions, where no one want to make compromises. Also calling people math geek/nerds and discrediting them on that same channel doesn't help really because and let me remind you however you break the discussion the basic level of all this will be math and code.

I'll answer this directly as I'm a person identified in the earlier thread for stopping some of the later term 'debate'. I hope I can do it in a way that eliminates any communication barriers due to language differences. The dev team was working on saving the coin since before I arrived. One thing that is clear from the last thread is that at least Maverick and Hozer were calling for, begging for, and even threatening for help FROM THE COMMUNITY. That was the point where we needed more input from everyone - when we had time to put more options on the table, debate them, test them, and choose the best.

I did some research and put an option on the table. Others put options on the table as well. When my option was found to be not up to the task, I dropped it and worked with the group to hunt for a better option. Others, however, could not let go of their pet hypothesis and instead of working together were intent on splitting the dev team on IRC and the community in this forum. Neither of those behavior choices was useful. We simply did not have the luxury of the six months it would have taken for a 'corporate-style' centrally-controlled process that would have make one potential contributor happy at the expense of everyone else on the team. At some point in a process, we have to make a choice, test it more fully, and deploy it. And yes - I stood up to support the people working FOR the community and for fixing the problems - and I will do it again in future if necessary.

Unfortunately, it appears you arrived late in the process - when we had to code, not debate. We are not in this same position today - we have the luxury of time now. We have the luxury of calling for everyone in the community to step forward and put ideas on the table. I promise you, kuroman, that I understand and agree with you 100% that the end result must be code -- but we also feel very strongly that this process should not be limited to only the few here that are fluent in C - everyone should have a voice if they want one.

I can not force anyone to participate in this community or the dev process, but I also cannot and will not accept an environment where anyone that wants to participate is excluded. That doesn't mean we won't again arrive at a time when we have to close the door and start coding - but until that point all comers are welcome.

Andy, I invite you to check the original thread, I was with catcoin before it was launched, during the first fork (with suggestions), I've been susggesting and debating about the second fork (and if we needed a second fork) before even it was decided to be so, and there were unilateral opinions from people that were involved in other project and just joined catcoin after their own thing failed a few days before fork but this is not the point anyway. As for code, please read the second part of my answer to Zerodrama. Our goal is the success of catcoin and on this we all agree, heck I own almost nothing compared to others but being involved since the begining being part of this community it is what makes me analyse and work out models and spend hours for this coin, but what I don't understand is the Ego of some and the entitlement of others, and this isclearly not towards you or Marverick and if i was against you I would state it directly and from the begining, some discussions are like deaf yelling at each other