The reason of our misunderstanding: "You are repeating the same thins over and over again".
I am trying to build dialogue -- find different sides of your point of view and is the same time I am trying to give you as much information as I can about my side.
Take a look at how many questions I am asking you (because this is the way to see eye to eye with you), but it is all in vain, it will all come to nothing
So could you ask me some more questions under from your side to find a common language?
And I would be pleased to hear answers on my questions. Hope you do not take offense that I am so meticulous
I am trying to build dialogue -- find different sides of your point of view and is the same time I am trying to give you as much information as I can about my side.
Take a look at how many questions I am asking you (because this is the way to see eye to eye with you), but it is all in vain, it will all come to nothing
So could you ask me some more questions under from your side to find a common language?
And I would be pleased to hear answers on my questions. Hope you do not take offense that I am so meticulous
The reason I said "The size of the pool is completely unrelated to the sufficient conditions." is because you are wrong in what you have said and I assumed you thought that was the reason you could ignore the BTC requirement.
If you have some other reason, just take it as: no you're wrong.
I do realise that all you are doing is trying to get posts on your pool, but me repeating over and over again, the fact that your pool will go broke and thus no one should mine on it, is bad for you, not good.
Change the payout scheme or close the pool.
They are the only 2 options with what you have stated about the design of the BTC part of your scam-coin pool.
See, if you end up $127,000 in debt on the very first BTC block you find, everyone mining on your pool will have lost no matter what scam-coin they are mining.