All that matters is a good strong solid anon coin. For me the price isnt important to watch until that is established. In the end people will go where the quality is.
+1.
Personally, it think it will be drk. I think it will be worth the wait and trouble. As I see it, there are two situations that could be going on.
1. Evan is screwing us over.
2. Evan is keeping it closed source and not talking much, because he is producing a product (Hate that word, but can't think of anything better) that is much, much better then the competition.
I'm (Personally) sure that it's #2.
#1 - no way
#2 - yes, he's reviewing all ideas to see if there is a better way to do this that won't cause forking.
I made a suggestion, but InternetApe said it was centralization, however, I think he is wrong. But I'll put it out here and see what you all think?
I realized that the reason we don't pay masternodes a share of each 20% block reward is because there are so many masternodes, and to do hundreds or thousands of transactions for each block would obviously bulk up the block chain, not something anyone would want.
But what if an account that is not accessible to anyone keeps track of each available masternode, for each block, awarding them a share if they were available, and then also collects the 20% mining rewards. Then once a day, this account pays all the masternodes at once, with one transaction, a percentage of the purse depending on how many shares each masternode submits, kind of like a pool.
Once the payment is made, the account is cleared, all the tallying for the day is deleted and the system starts afresh. Every wallet would process this information, keeping a copy of it, like the blockchain, except that it is volatile information, and it goes away once the payout is made.
Do you all think this is centralized? I think it's no centralized than any single transaction, unless I'm missing something?
Its a good point. I was thinking about that today.
I thought that master nodes could get paid in the same way as pools. all at once. if they are around they get a share, if not, the share gets divided up equally amongst all online. I'm sure there is a problem with that idea too, but it seemed to be easier to implement.