am i the only one seeing the irony here ?
here's a coin whose sole goal was exclusion... exclusion of the pools, exclusion of the exchanges... pretty much total control of every aspect of mining and trading...
and now that some of the exchanges have decided to exclude this coin, suddenly there is bitching and moaning ?
irony

)))))))
Also you need to get your facts straight. At no point have exchanges been excluded. Early on the dev was happy to give source to exchanges willing to add minerals. How do you think the coin was added to C-Cex??
a sweetheart deal is how it was added to c-cex... small exchange, easy to control volume...
like i said, this coin is all about "control"... controlling the participation, controlling the hashrate, and controlling which exchange is allowed to trade this and when, and excluding anyone and everyone that doesn't fit with that model... it was made clear from the beginning, for example, that this coin will not be on bittrex during the pow stage... so they were excluded...
if i ran bittrex, right about now i would be giving a very "cold shoulder" response to this coin in public (which is kind of what they're doing), while in private i would be thinking - go screw yourself...
This coin is about showing how a coin can have
fair distribution if pools are willing to limit mining farms and big hashers. If anything, pools introduce control. why do you think so many coins are threatened by 51% attack. It is because pools, unwilling to limit miners gain 51% of the network. Now isn't 51% a controlling stake in the network?
This coin has really opened my eyes to the greed mentality some pools have. I will be staying well clear of these particular pools in the future.
this has me more confused then anything i have read so far...
if one entity controlling 51 percent of total hash is bad, then how is one entity controlling the entire mining process a "fair distribution" ?