Quote from: zhulick on June 19, 2014, 09:35:41 PM

Quote from: jc12345 on June 19, 2014, 09:24:48 PM

Quote from: zhulick on June 19, 2014, 09:04:56 PM

Quote from: sovie on June 19, 2014, 09:01:56 PM

Quote from: PepiX on June 19, 2014, 08:57:47 PM

Quote from: zhulick on June 19, 2014, 08:52:09 PM

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...

Do you know who did make it clear? If not.. read about first.. and then continue to talk (as it is bullshit atm).

this trollie is talking rubbish do us all a favour and read the thread lad

you're only mqking yourself look like a pratt, everyone on here can read the truth for themselves

i don't know i'm reading the thread, and i do not see anything that will make my points invalid...

bittrex wants an open source wallet hosted on github, it's their policy... if you don't have one, even if only for the POW - you exclude bittrex from trading this coin... fact - check...

after two days of bombardment of their chatroom, coin is still not on that particular exchange... fact - check...

which fact am i missing ?

You are missing this fact:

Mycoin is trading on Bittrex (and Mintpal for that matter). There is also Faircoin that can be placed under this banner. Mycoin and Faircoin were premined and "fairly" distributed. Does anyone really know the detail of those distributions? Was the distribution process not handled by the dev teams? Min also had a fair distribution just with a new and more efficient method. Why should innovation be penalised? There is a risk though to the Min way of fair distribution and that is that if the method catches on, then large pools will lose out on mining by the big whale farms. If limitation of hash rate becomes the norm, in order to give the small miners a chance to get some coins, then the bigger pools will lose money. It is in the interest of the bigger pools to fight the Min way of fair distribution. The 2 coins mentioned above are on the bigger exchanges, so Min should be listed too and not be discriminated against for using a new method of fair distribution.

Fact, check.

i followed both coins very briefly, so i am not sure of all the details.. if i recall correctly, both coins were pure pos... and i do not recall these coins having a pow phase where they flat out said - you can't mine this because you're too big, or a different pool etc... point is, there was no defined exclusion of anyone... that is a fair distribution...

having one entity control the entire mining process, while deciding who can and cannot participate - not really a fair distribution

A fair distribution is not by excluding anyone, just excluding excessive abuse of the system. A miner with a big farm does not have to be excluded. He can mine it with <50Mhs of his farm, but the big farms might choose to move on to rape another coin out of their own choosing. No one excluded those miners, only their excessive hash rates in order for the coins to be more fairly and evenly distributed among all the miners.